1

Great expectations: the experienced credibility of cabinet ministers and

parliamentary party leaders

Sabine van Zuydam

s.vanzuydam@uvt.nl

Concept, please do not cite

Paper prepared for the NIG PUPOL international conference 2016, session 4: Session 4: The Political Life

and Death of Leaders

2

In the relationship between politics and citizens, political leaders are essential. While parties and issues

have not become superfluous, leaders are required to win support of citizens for their views and plans,

both in elections and while in office. To be successful in this respect, credibility is a crucial asset. Research

has shown that credible leaders are thought to be competent, trustworthy, and caring. What requires more

attention is the meaning of competent, caring, and trustworthy leaders in the eyes of citizens. In this paper

the question is needed to be credible according to citizens in different leadership positions, e.g. cabinet

ministers and parliamentary party leaders. To answer this question, it was studied what is expected of

leaders in terms of competence, trustworthiness, and caring by conducting an extensive qualitative

analysis of Tweets and newspaper articles between August 2013 and June 2014. In this analysis, four Dutch

leadership cases with a contrasting credibility rating were compared: two cabinet ministers (Frans

Timmermans and Mark Rutte) and two parliamentary party leaders (Emile Roemer and Diederik Samsom).

This analysis demonstrates that competence relates to knowledgeability, decisiveness and bravery,

performance, and political strategy. Trustworthiness includes keeping promises, consistency in views and

actions, honesty and sincerity, and dependability. Caring means having an eye for citizens’ needs and

concern, morality, constructive attitude, and no self-enrichment. While these sets of expectations refer to

both cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders, they manifest themselves differently in a real-life

context, as well as that their relative importance differs.

Credible political leadership in context

Political leaders have an important role in our democracies. Whether we like it or not, and how great

organizational and situational pressures might be, ‘at the end of the day it is down to individuals and

groups’ (’t Hart & Uhr, 2008: 3) to provide direction and to get things done. Especially in the relationship

between politics and citizens, political leaders are essential. Developments like partisan dealignment

(Dunleavy, 2005; Mughan, 2009) and the mediated nature of political communication (Hajer, 2009;

Strömbäck, 2008) have not rendered parties and issues obsolete, but they do require leaders to take an

active role in acquiring support from citizens for their views and plans, both during elections and while in

office (Campus, 2010; Langer, 2007, 2010; McAllister, 2007).

To acquire support from citizens, leaders’ credibility is a pivotal asset. As Kouzes and Posner stated: ‘If

people don’t believe in the messenger, they won’t believe the message. If people don’t believe in you,

they won’t believe in what you say’ (2003: XV). Since the 1950s research has found that being credible

relates to convincing citizens that a leader is competent, trustworthy, and caring (Berlo, Lemert, & Mertz,

1969; Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; McCroskey & Teven, 1999). Aside from general definitions, what it

means to be competent, trustworthy, and caring in specific settings and situations, as well as what citizens

seem to expect in this respect, is open to debate.

This issue is further complicated by the fact that political leaders come in all shapes and sizes. Individual

office-holders differ, but also democracies – whether presidential or parliamentary systems – include

various leadership positions that each have a distinct role and function in governing (Bennister, ‘t Hart, &

Worthy, 2014; Hajer, 2009). In parliamentary systems, for example, cabinet ministers are responsible for

formulating, implementing, and defending policy on the domain of their portfolio, in conjunction with

other cabinet ministers (Andeweg & Irwin, 2005; Andeweg, 2000). Parliamentary party leaders, especially

3

those of opposition parties, need to lead their parliamentary group, and are also at the forefront of

scrutinizing cabinet and its decisions (Andeweg & Irwin, 2005; Uhr, 2008).

While most studies into (political) leadership are leader-centered, institutional approaches show that

structures – like the office a leader is holding – might be just as important as the agent – in this case the

political leader (Dowding, 2008; Hajer, 2009; Andrew King, 1987). From this ‘contingency approach’ (Grint,

2000) that combines the individual and the context it follows that each of the offices within democracy

comes with a specific set of formal and informal rules (Hargrove & Owens, 2002; Hargrove, 2002). To

perform effectively in these various leadership positions might therefore require different qualities. In

turn, citizens interpret and give meaning to leaders’ performance and credibility (Hajer, 2009; Peck &

Dickinson, 2009). In this respect, the meaning and expectations of citizens with regard to different

leadership offices matters for leaders’ credibility. What makes cabinet ministers credible in the eyes of

citizens might very well differ from what is expected from parliamentary party leaders.

In this research project it is therefore studied what citizens and other actors expect of cabinet ministers

and parliamentary party leaders in order to be attributed credibility. Hence, this paper explores what

meaning is attached to the three credibility dimensions - competence, trustworthiness, and caring - and

how these compare for two different leadership positions. To answer this question, four Dutch leadership

cases – two cabinet ministers (Social Democrat Frans Timmermans and Liberal prime minister Mark Rutte)

and two parliamentary party leaders (Socialist Emile Roemer and Social Democrat Diederik Samsom) – are

analyzed, who in a survey were found to contrast most in their credibility rating (see below in the methods

section). These leaders were studied in the period between August 2013 and June 2014 by means of an

extensive qualitative analysis of Tweets and newspaper articles. This provides a way to learn about the

public perception of political leaders and how their performance is discussed among citizens, journalists,

and other politicians in a real-life media debate.

The contribution of this paper to the debate on political leadership and the demands of citizens is

threefold. First, different offices are distinguished to better understand what constitutes credible political

leadership in different institutional contexts. Therefore, empirically also different leadership positions are

compared, including parliamentary party leaders and cabinet ministers that have gained less attention

than presidents and prime ministers (Helms, 2012; Uhr, 2008). The second contribution of this study lies

in unfolding what it means for political leaders to be considered credible. From previous research it is

known that credible leaders are competent, trustworthy, and caring (McCroskey & Teven, 1999; O’Keefe,

1990). While general definitions of these credibility dimensions are available, this study adds what

expectations citizens hold in this respect of leaders in different offices. What qualities make citizens

conclude that leaders are competent, for example, and how does that differ for cabinet ministers and

parliamentary party leaders? In relation to the second contribution, the third contribution is the inclusion

of Twitter and newspaper data in the analysis. These type of data are needed in order to better

understand how citizens, journalists, and other politicians, experience their leaders. The qualities of

successful leaders tend to be assessed based on psychological accounts‘ (e.g. Greenstein, 2000), but in

this article it is inductively studied how citizens, journalists and other politicians evaluate leaders’

credibility (and thus what expectations they hold of effective leaders in different offices). Combined,

Tweets and newspaper articles provide a highly detailed account of how leaders are perceived in a real-

life context.

4

In the remaining part of this paper, first the concept credibility is further explored. Next, the research

design and methods underlying this study are explained, where after the empirical analysis is presented.

The paper concludes with discussing the implications of the findings and their contribution to the

literature on political leadership and credibility. It was found that both types of leaders need to meet a

range of qualities. While some of these qualities are the same for both parliamentary party leaders and

cabinet ministers, their empirical manifestation can differ, as well as their priority. This suggests that there

is not a one-size fits all recipe for political leaders to gain (or lose) credibility.

Credibility and expectations of cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders

Credibility has been a topic of interest in a number of academic disciplines, including law (Ellison, 2005),

organizational studies (Ohanian, 1990), and science and technology studies (Gieryn, 1999). The domain of

communication studies and related fields like (political) marketing have, however, paid most attention to

this concept under the heading of ‘source credibility’. Here ‘source’ does not refer to the origins of

credibility, but to the source of communication. As such, it is about the credibility of a speaker, for example

a political leader.

As a concept, the term (source) credibility ‘refers to the judgments made by a perceiver (e.g. a message

recipient) concerning the believability of a communicator’ (O’Keefe, 1990, pp. 130–131). From this

definition it follows that credibility is a relational construct. It is not something inherent to political

leaders’ personality, but it is something that needs to be awarded to them and it is only in the eye of the

beholder that credibility can emerge. Credibility therefore needs to be performed – in case of political

leaders often in media-presentations (Metze 2010; Hajer 2009; Strömbäck 2008) – and it are citizens and

others in the media debate who in ‘interactions’ determine whether a leader is credible. In addition, the

relational nature of credibility implies that it is dynamic. In the interaction between political leaders and

citizens, the perhaps once won credibility needs to be confirmed time and again (Brissett & Edgley, 1975;

Hajer, 2009; Metze, 2010). This means that leaders’ credibility can wax and wane. The highly appreciated

Dutch mayor Job Cohen, for example, suffered a substantial decline in credibility once he transferred to

national politics, while the current Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte gained credibility in the same period

(Van Zuydam & Hendriks, 2015).

As credibility is attributed in interactions and audiences and leaders jointly construct what credibility

means, this raises questions about what constitutes credibility and what citizens and others are looking

for. Since the 1950s research – in which mostly a factor-analytic approach was taken – has found that

credible speakers are perceived as being competent, trustworthy, and caring (Berlo et al., 1969; Hovland

et al., 1953; McCroskey & Teven, 1999; O’Keefe, 1990; Perloff, 2010). Again, while these dimensions of

credibility might suggest a certain stability, it is not about how competent, trustworthy, and caring leaders

‘really’ are, but about the extent to which they are perceived as such and how that develops over time. In

table 1 these three dimensions and the most prominently mentioned qualities associated with them in

the literature are summarized.

5

Table 1: Credibility dimensions and associated qualities

Competence (Campbell & Cowley, 2013; Cronin, 2008; Garzia, 2011; Greenstein, 2000; Anthony King, 2002; O’Keefe, 1990; Perloff, 2010)

Inspiring

Decisive / tough

Policy views that inspire (coherent) action

Communicative performance

Good judgment / information processing skill

Intelligence

Experience

Knowledge

Trustworthiness (Cronin, 2008; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Garzia, 2011; Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Marietta, 2009; Miller, Wattenberg, & Malanchuk, 1986; O’Keefe, 1990; Renshon, 2000)

Honesty

Sincerity

Integrity

Authenticity

No misleading

Stability / no flip flopping

Caring (Cronin, 2008; McCroskey & Teven, 1999; Perloff, 2010; Shogan, 2009; Teven, 2008)

Empathy

Having citizens' interests at heart

Give feeling of being 'one of them'

Moral guidance

Take citizens seriously

Competence refers to skills, knowledge, and experience of a speaker (O’Keefe, 1990; Perloff, 2010). In this

respect not just any skills, knowledge or experience will do, but the qualities of a speaker need to be fitting

to his position, as well as that they should match with the statements he makes. In the case of a political

leader, for example, the question is whether his claims are appropriate in terms of what he could know

or do, as well as whether in itself his qualities are good enough for the position at hand. In literature on

successful (mostly American) presidents and prime ministers a range of competence-related qualities are

described, including (but not limited to) having vision to inspire people, an effective communicative

performance, having policy views that inspire action, being decisive, and having a good judgment and skill

to process large amounts of complex information (Campbell & Cowley, 2013; Cronin, 2008; Garzia, 2011;

Greenstein, 2000; Anthony King, 2002).

Trustworthiness, secondly, refers to the extent to which an audience perceives a communicator to be

honest and not deceitful (O’Keefe, 1990). On the one hand trustworthiness thus refers to considerations

of citizens about the validity of leaders’ statements: are they speaking the truth or are they lying? On the

other hand, the reliability component questions whether they would so to speak buy a second-hand car

from the evaluated leaders and whether citizens are convinced of their sincerity. Of importance in this

respect is the extent to which leaders ‘walk the talk’ (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Kouzes & Posner, 2003).

George Bush sr.’s statement “read my lips: no new taxes” in his speech upon accepting the Republican

nomination for presidential candidate in 1988, might not have helped his trustworthiness when as

president he had to implement both tax increases and a new tax on recording devices and media

(Marietta, 2009). Besides honesty and reliability, also a number of other qualities related to

6

trustworthiness are mentioned in literature on political leadership and electoral success of candidates. In

this respect it is among others about integrity, stability of views (no flip-flopping), and authenticity

(Cronin, 2008; Garzia, 2011; Miller et al., 1986; Renshon, 2000).

Caring entails that the public needs to be convinced that the speaker is listening to them, that he has their

interests at heart, and that he is – in the case of political leaders – not in politics to fill his pockets

(McCroskey & Teven, 1999; Perloff, 2010). As such, caring relates to the warmth and empathy of leaders

(Teven, 2008), and of the three credibility dimensions it is most closely associated with leaders’ intent

towards citizens. When given the choice, this means that we tend to prefer leaders who give the

impression they are not only in politics to promote their own position and who do not want to stay in

power at all costs. Rather, we want them to understand our problems and concerns. One way for leaders

to convince citizens of this is to present themselves as being ‘one of them’ and by taking citizens and their

concerns seriously (Cronin, 2008). Although he certainly also experienced low points, former president

Bill Clinton was for example especially known for his ability to make people feel that he perfectly

understood what they were going through (Shogan, 2009). A final aspect of caring in the literature that is

worth mentioning here is that citizens also look to their leaders for moral guidance. As Cronin states: ‘We

want leaders who, for example, remind us of our natural obligations, shared beliefs, and the ties,

traditions and trust that bind us together’ (2008: 462). In a way, this provides leaders with an additional

means to show that they care.

Research design and methods

To study what the general public expects of cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders in terms of

the three credibility dimensions a mixed-methods approach was used. First the credibility of all Dutch

cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders was measured in a survey, based on criteria of

credibility derived from theory. The survey was administered to 3.295 Dutch citizens in the LISS panel of

CenterData in August 2013, January 2014, and June 2014.

Respondents were presented six six-point Likert items (and in addition a “don’t know” option) after having

indicated that they were familiar with the leader in question. The content of these six items – two items

for each credibility dimension – were derived from literature on credibility (Berlo et al., 1969; McCroskey

& Teven, 1999; Ohanian, 1990; Wisse, 2014; Yang, Kang, & Johnson, 2010). The scores on each of the six

items per leader were added to compose a single credibility index for each of the evaluated leaders

(Chronbach’s α ranged between .910 and .950). In addition, sub-indices of the individual dimensions

competence, trustworthiness, and caring were composed for all leaders (Chronbach’s α ranged between

.699 and .939).

Based on this data it was possible to compute the average credibility rating of all cabinet ministers and

parliamentary party leaders in each individual wave, as well as an overall score. As can be seen in figure

1, Frans Timmermans was attributed the highest credibility rating of all cabinet ministers, while Mark

Rutte was among the lowest scoring cabinet ministers, only preceding the hardly known cabinet minister

for Housing and the Central Government Sector Stef Blok. Among parliamentary party leaders, Emile

Roemer of the Socialist Party was attributed most credibility and Diederik Samsom of the Social

Democratic party obtained a relatively low credibility rating that was only lower for populist Geert

7

Wilders. As such, both high credibility and low credibility leaders were included in the case selection. Rutte

and Samsom were favored over the leaders with the absolute lowest scores, because they are the two

architects of the current Dutch cabinet.

Figure 1: The average credibility attributed to cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders based on survey wave 1, 2 and

3.

Second, a qualitative media analysis of Tweets and newspaper articles was conducted to better

understand why citizens, journalists, and other politicians, understand leaders to be competent,

trustworthy, and caring. The contrasting cases (refs) from the two offices under study were selected based

on the findings of the survey: the leadership cases of cabinet ministers Frans Timmermans (Social

Democrat) and Mark Rutte (also prime minister, Liberal) were thus analyzed, as well as the leadership

cases of parliamentary party leaders Emile Roemer (Socialist) and Diederik Samsom (Social Democrat) in

the period between August 2013 and June 2014.

The advantage of including Tweets and newspaper articles as data sources is that it includes

spontaneously provided information that is still accessible years later in the same way it was originally

published. Moreover, it provides a means to learn about how leaders are perceived – whether positively

or negatively – and why. As a consequence, the tweets and newspaper articles included in this study are

tweets of others and newspaper articles about these four leaders. To collect the necessary tweets the

database of the Dutch social media company Coosto was searched with the keywords “rutte”,

“timmermans”, “roemer”, and “samsom” in the months August 2013, January 2014, and June 2014 to

match the months in which the survey was conducted. This initial search resulted in a total of 123.067

tweets for the four leaders combined. Next, the collected tweets were pre-screened and the dataset was

cleaned from irrelevant tweets applying to other persons or organizations than the four leaders. In

Timmermans’ case, for example, tweets referring to soccer player Theo Timmermans were removed. In

addition, the retweets were removed to prevent double qualitative analysis of the same tweet. This

resulted in a dataset with respectively 10.755, 39.635, 2.737, and 11.943 tweets on Timmermans, Rutte,

Roemer, and Samsom. To keep the amount of data manageable for qualitative analysis, the data was

468

1012141618202224262830323436

8

further reduced by selecting a random sample of 1.000 tweets for each leader in each of the studied

months. This means that in total 11.737 tweets were analyzed, 3.000 for each leader with the exception

of Roemer for whom in June 2014 only 370 tweets were available.

The way in which the newspaper articles were collected is similar to the collection of tweets. In searching

the parliamentary monitor of the Montesquieu Institute in the Netherlands, which contains a databank

of all national newspapers since 2002, the names of the leaders – “timmermans”, “rutte”, “roemer”, and

“samsom” – were used as keywords to find newspaper articles about them in August 2013, January 2014

and June 2014. This initial search resulted in 5.018 newspaper articles for the four leaders in the three

months combined. After removing the irrelevant results, for example because they related to a different

person or organization than the leaders of interest, the dataset included 541 articles on Timmermans,

1014 articles on Rutte, 76 articles on Roemer, and 356 articles on Samsom.

In the subsequent analysis, the tweets and newspaper articles were thematically coded. The tweets and

newspaper articles were coded in AmCat (Amsterdam Content Analysis Toolkit) and Nvivo, which are both

programs for conducting manual content analysis. First, they were coded on the topic central in the tweet

and newspaper articles to learn what major issues were relevant at the time and in reference to which

events the four leaders were discussed. Tweets and newspaper articles for example related to the

upcoming Winter Olympic Games in Russia, a possible poison gas attack in Syria, the state of the Dutch

economy, or gas drilling related earth shocks in the Northern part of the Netherlands.

In addition, the tweets and the fragments related to the four leaders in the newspaper articles were coded

on their tone to find out whether the references to the leaders were positive, negative, or neutral. Interest

in this paper lies with what is expected of leaders in terms of their credibility. These expectations can

follow either from positive assessments of leaders or from negative evaluations of leaders. To know

whether something promotes or harms credibility, it is essential to know if qualifications attributed to

leaders are thought to be positive or negative. The coding of a tweet or newspaper article fragment as

positive or negative was exclusively based on the qualification of the leader. Newspaper articles and

tweets about the war in Syria were thus not necessarily negative, while a tweet like the following was

coded as such: “Juncker relentlessly exposes Rutte’s two-faced nature | http://t.co/Pk33nsDNr3:

http://t.co/RVCXrZiVsL” (@SallandTV , June 27 2014).1

Next, the positive and negative coded tweets and newspaper article fragments were re-examined to code

inductively what quality of the leader was mentioned as well as to which of the three credibility

dimensions this quality related. To give an example, the following fragment was coded as “understanding

what people go through” as part of “caring”:

‘…And still I hope that for example a Jetta Klijnsma or a Diederik Samsom dares to do this. People

who like to state that they want to build a more just Netherlands. I hope that above all, these

1 Original text: “Juncker legt Januskop van [Rutte] genadeloos bloot | http://t.co/Pk33nsDNr3: http://t.co/RVCXrZiVsL”

9

people rise to the challenge to come down from their thrones to see how all these unemployed

wretches are faring, who are now merely statistics and numbers’ (Metro, 6 January 2014).2

Triangulating the results of this qualitative thematic content analysis of the tweets and newspaper articles

on the four leaders, it was possible to derive clues on what expectations leaders are required to meet to

be considered credible, what it means to be competent, trustworthy, and caring, as well as how that

compares for cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders.

Cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders in the Netherlands

The Netherlands is a parliamentary democracy that is traditionally characterized as consensual (Lijphart,

1999). Governments in the Netherlands tend to consist of coalitions, and it is virtually impossible for

parties to gain an absolute majority in parliament. As a consequence, cooperation between parties and

political leaders is essential and differences need to be overcome. The Netherlands is therefore not

commonly associated with strong individual political leadership. After Election Day winners and losers

need to work together (Andeweg & Irwin, 2005; Hendriks & Karsten, 2014). Nevertheless, also in this

system the credibility of individual political leaders matters for gaining support and to get things done.

Cabinet ministers perform an important role within democracies. As the heads of their departments, they

are the bridgeheads between politics and the implementation of policy by the departmental bureaucracy

(Andeweg, 2000). Compared to prime ministers in Westminster systems, Dutch prime ministers have

relatively few powers. The appointment of cabinet ministers, for example, is part of the coalition

negotiations and each party in the coalition puts forward their own names (even though they need to be

acceptable to the other parties). Moreover, the prime minister is not in the position to reshuffle Cabinet

to assign different ministers to the portfolios nor can he oust a cabinet minister (Andeweg & Irwin, 2005).

Rather, Dutch prime ministers are primus inter pares and as the first among equal he leads the

department of General Affairs.

While the Liberal Mark Rutte is the prime minister of the Netherlands, he is thus also a cabinet minister

(albeit a special one). In the time period studied in this paper, Rutte was leading his second cabinet – a

coalition between the Liberal Party and the Social Democrats. This cabinet started its term following the

general elections on November 5 2012. A major challenge in 2013 and 2014 for this cabinet, and Rutte in

particular, was to deal with the consequences of the economic crisis that had hit the Netherlands after

2008. Citizens seemed to have mixed feelings about his performance in this respect, as Rutte was among

the lowest rated cabinet ministers in terms of credibility (see figure 1 and 2). The Social Democrat Frans

Timmermans, on the other hand, was the cabinet minister of Foreign Affairs and was awarded the most

credibility of all cabinet ministers during the period studied in this paper (see figure 2). As a cabinet

minister, Timmermans became well-known for his pro-European stance as well as for his Facebook page

on which he posted not only work-related comments, but on which he also shows something of his

2 Original text: “En toch hoop ik dat bijvoorbeeld een Jetta Klijnsma of een Diederik Samsom dit aandurft. Mensen die graag verkondigen een rechtvaardiger Nederland te willen bouwen. Ik hoop dat juist deze mensen de uitdaging aangaan om eens van het pluche te komen en eens te kijken hoe het al die werkloze stakkers vergaat, die nu slechts statistieken en cijfertjes zijn”.

10

professional and personal life ‘behind the scenes’.3 In October 2014 he resigned as cabinet minister of

Foreign Affairs to become the European Commissioner for better regulation and the first vice-president

of the European Commission.

Figure 2: The average credibility rating on each dimension of Timmermans, Rutte, Roemer, and Samsom for all three waves

combined.

Constitutionally speaking, the position of parliamentary party leader is hardly regulated, just as

parliamentary parties know little formal regulation. Parliamentary parties are merely ‘all members

declared elected on the same electoral list’ (Andeweg & Irwin, 2005: 135). The chairmen of these

parliamentary parties receive a higher salary, but other than that little has been arranged. Despite this

lack of formal recognition, parliamentary party leaders have an important role. First of all, they are leading

the parliamentary party ensuring cohesion among its members (Andeweg & Thomassen, 2011). In

addition, all parliamentarians – led by their leaders – have a role in holding Cabinet accountable, as well

as to pass new legislation (Andeweg & Irwin, 2005). As such, parliamentary party leaders have to keep

cabinet in check.

Nevertheless, not all parliamentary party leaders are alike. An important difference exists between the

leaders of governing parties and of opposition parties. More than the leaders of governing parties, leaders

of opposition parties have the additional role to represent their parties outside of parliament. They have

to raise the profile of their party to gain support for their views and plans, and to perhaps win in the next

general elections. Moreover, especially in non-Westminster settings like the Netherlands, opposition

leaders also tend to collaborate on policy initiatives with the government, to realize their ambitions as

much as possible without being part of the cabinet (Uhr, 2008). In this study, parliamentary party leaders

from opposition and governing parties are included. The highly credible Emile Roemer (see figure 2),

leader of the Socialist Party, leads an opposition party. Diederik Samsom, on the other hand, leads the

Social Democrats and was among the lowest rated parliamentary leaders in terms of credibility (see figure

2). Not only is Samsom leading one of the governing parties, he is also one of the architects of cabinet

3 His Facebook page can be accessed through: https://www.facebook.com/frans.timmermans.

9,38

7,958,68 8,688,97

7,14

9,02

6,89

8,32

6,53

8,63

6,40

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

11,00

12,00

Timmermans Rutte Roemer Samsom

Competence

Trustworthiness

Caring

11

Rutte II. In the Netherlands it is customary that party leaders take a position in cabinet, but Samsom opted

to stay in parliament.

Being credible as a cabinet minister or a parliamentary party leader

Before discussing the results concerning the three credibility dimensions and the expectations citizens

hold regarding cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders’ competence, trustworthiness, and

caring, two general observations concerning the sentiment of Tweets and newspaper articles, and what

it is of leaders that attracts attention in the media debate warrant attention. The majority of tweets and

statements made about the four studied leaders in newspaper articles were neutral, but if an evaluation

was provided, this was mostly a negative one. In regard to Rutte and Samsom – the leaders with a low

credibility rating - about a third of the newspaper articles (Rutte=28% and Samsom=37%) and half of the

tweets (Rutte=51% and Samsom=46%) were negative. In Timmermans and Roemer’s case respectively

13% and 22% of the statements in newspaper articles, and 30% and 26% of the tweets were negative.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that there are substantially more positive statements in newspaper

articles and tweets. Rather, the high credible leaders receive more neutral attention. While this

predominance of negativity is not entirely unexpected – as it has been described in literature on social

media and mediatization (Jungherr, 2014; Patterson, 2000; Vliegenthart, Boomgaarden, & Boumans,

2011) – the lack of positive tweets and newspaper article references on the most credible cabinet minister

and parliamentary party leader Timmermans and Roemer is striking.

Next, the type of events that draw attention on Twitter and in newspapers in a governing period tend to

be ‘real-life’ events. Cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leader themselves, for example their

television presentations, do not account for peaks in attention in tweets and newspaper articles. With the

exception perhaps of the divorce of Diederik Samsom, it are real world events that matter. These include

among others the unrest in Egypt, the poison gas attack in Syria, the rising inflation, the Dutch economic

recession, and the upcoming Olympic Winter Games in Russia. The tweets and newspaper articles in which

the four leaders are mentioned are therefore tweets and articles on how they responded to these events

or how they should have responded. In the remaining part of this section it is discussed for each credibility

dimension what expectations of cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders are put forward in the

debate on Twitter and in newspaper articles.

Competence expectations

In the newspaper articles and tweets, four sets of competence-related qualities were found. While some

qualities seem to matter for all leaders, there is a difference in the type of qualities that are emphasized,

as well as that the exact meaning of each quality differs for cabinet ministers as compared to

parliamentary party leaders. The four sets of competence-related qualities that were derived from the

tweets and newspaper articles include knowledgeability, decisiveness and bravery, accomplishments and

performance, and political strategic qualities.

12

Figure 3: Competence-related expectations illustrated in newspaper articles and tweets

The knowledgeability of cabinet ministers are emphasized most often. In this respect it is about whether

they can read a situation, whether they correctly assess the nature of problems, as well as whether they

adequate handle those problems and have a clear idea of the consequences of their policy. In contrast,

cabinet ministers should not be naïve or gullible, for example what Dutch Jihadists do while in Syria and

what they might do when they return. The second aspect of this knowledgeability refers to whether they

know their business and whether they have enough knowledge, both factual and of their portfolio. There

is one notable difference in the expectations of Rutte and Timmermans. The necessity of having a clear

and coherent vision, is mentioned a substantial number of times in reference to Rutte, but not in reference

to Timmermans. Considering that Rutte is also the prime minister, in charge of the entire cabinet, the

importance of vision is however understandable. In Timmermans case, his knowledge attracts more

attention than for Rutte. Timmermans speaks seven languages which is admired, even for a cabinet

minister of Foreign Affairs.

Similar to the importance of knowledgeability for the competence of cabinet ministers, knowledgeability

is also the most often mentioned competence-related qualities related to parliamentary party leaders.

Again, this relates to the extent to which parliamentary party leaders are able to assess the nature of

problems and know what needs to be done. Important in this respect is also whether they know what

issues need prioritizing. The second aspect of this knowledgeability entails again a knowledge dimension,

and in particular knowledge pertaining the economy. Interestingly, qualities like vision and adequately

addressing problems are also mentioned in regard to Samsom, but not in reference to Roemer. That

Samsom was one of the architects of the current cabinet might be a way to understand this. After all, by

13

initiating and negotiating the outline of this cabinet, he also shares a responsibility for what cabinet is

doing.

The second set of qualities important for the competence of cabinet ministers relates to their decisiveness

and bravery. On the domain of their portfolio and the issues that pertain to their responsibilities, cabinet

ministers are expected to take a firm stance, to be clear about their views, and to put their foot down. In

the case of the prime minister and cabinet minister of Foreign affairs, for example international and

European matters – especially when human rights are violated or Dutch interests are at stake – call for

action. In any case, leaders should take position. In doing so, cabinet ministers however need to be

realistic about their possibilities. In international and European contexts, The Netherlands is only a modest

country and there is only so much leaders can achieve. Decisiveness and bravery also implies that cabinet

ministers need to think and act independently. They need to make up their own mind and to take position

themselves, and not – for example – blindly follow the US or the dictate of ‘Brussels’.

Decisiveness and bravery are also mentioned in regard to parliamentary party leaders, but compared to

cabinet ministers this type of quality is substantially less prominently present in the analyzed tweets and

newspaper articles. If it is mentioned, it mostly relates to independent thinking and acting: independent

from cabinet as well as not blindly saying what they think citizens want to hear. In this respect is referred

to populism, which is not meant as a compliment. In addition, parliamentary party leaders are urged to

not only utter criticism, but also to do something about it.

Cabinet ministers’ performance and achievements are the third set of competence-related qualities. This

set of qualities relate to what cabinet ministers actually get done and what the effects of their policy and

actions are. If their actions have reverse effects or even worsen a situation, it provides evidence that they

cannot handle those problems and that they are lacking the skills and knowledge to adequately address

them. During the election campaign of 2012, Rutte gained support for his recipe to counter the

(consequences of the) economic crisis: implementing budget cuts to get the state’s finances back in check.

As it turned out, however, the Dutch economy in 2013 and 2014 was not performing well. While other

European countries were improving, the Netherlands was lagging behind. In addition, the Liberal Rutte

had to consent to painful tax increases. Combined, this led to doubts about Rutte’s competence.

Performance and accomplishments of parliamentary party leaders are understood in terms of election

results and forecasts of election results if parliamentary elections were to be held today. In addition to

the forecasts of national parliamentary elections, also municipal elections are considered to be a measure

for how well citizens think parliamentary party leaders are doing. Poor election results are even expected

to put the leadership position of parliamentary party leaders under pressure, whereas winning elections

and also taking governmental responsibility at the municipal level is thought of as a personal

accomplishment of the parliamentary party leader in question.

Political strategy and their effectiveness in playing the game of politics can be considered the final set of

competence-related qualities. On the one hand this refers to cabinet ministers’ debating and presentation

skills. This means that cabinet ministers should be able to defend themselves against criticism as well as

that eloquence is valued. On the other hand it relates to cabinet ministers’ actions to build support for

their plans. Of Timmermans it is for example appreciated that he gives diplomats the freedom to go out

14

in the world and show others what they are doing. As such, he is building the confidence of his civil

servants. Moreover, collaborating well with others is considered an asset, including involving others in

their plans.

Political strategic qualities are however more important for parliamentary party leaders. Like for cabinet

ministers, they include among others debating and presentation skills, but their meaning is slightly

different. In media presentations parliamentary party leaders need to make their presence known and in

debates parliamentary party leaders should fight. This means that they should not be too nice to their

opponents and that they should not be easily confused. Moreover, also other aspects of playing the game

of politics matter: they need to build bridges and show a constructive attitude. If parliamentary party

leaders want to get things done, especially in the opposition, they cannot afford to always oppose

government’s actions. Parliamentary party leaders need to convince citizens that they have what it takes

to perhaps one day bear governmental responsibility.

Finally, a major difference compared to political strategic skills of cabinet ministers, is the emphasis placed

on the leadership qualities of parliamentary party leaders. Besides being the face of their party in

parliament and in the media, parliamentary party leaders also lead their parliamentary faction. As such,

it is also important to build support from other parliamentarians. While appearing united is important in

politics, fellow parliamentarians want to feel welcome and useful, and they want their input to be valued.

As such, a dictatorial leadership style, taping parliamentary party group meetings, and not involving others

in major decisions – like Samsom did – is not valued. To the world outside, these kinds of troubles convey

the image of a leader not being in control of his party, and if already leading a parliamentary party group

is too much, how can he be expected to lead an entire country?

Trustworthiness expectations

The analysis of tweets and newspaper articles suggests that there are four common sets of

trustworthiness-related expectations for cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders. The first

aspect of trustworthiness relates to the extent to which cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders

keep their promises. Keeping promises comes down to leaders doing what they said they would do. In the

parliamentary elections of 2012, Rutte promised €1000 tax reductions for employees, but in the eyes of

the public he failed to deliver on this promise. Even in June 2014, remarks about this promise are still

made. Moreover, people do not only have a long memory, also new policy initiatives – especially popular

ones – are met with skepticism. The line of reasoning is that if he did not keep his previous promise, why

would he keep this one?

15

Figure 4: Trustworthiness-related expectations illustrated in newspaper articles and tweets.

Besides keeping promises, cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders are also expected to be

consistent in their policy views and subsequent acting. It is not valued if seemingly only for opportunistic

reasons, leaders are in favor of something at one moment, and against it in the other. Again, especially

when it concerns controversial policy issues, people’s memory is long. As a member of parliament, for

example, Timmermans was opposed to the Netherlands participating in the Joint Strike Fighter project –

the jet fighter that is supposed to modernize the current fleet of jet fighters – but as a cabinet minister of

Foreign Affairs, he is ‘suddenly’ in favor of the project. In addition, being consistent also extends to

evaluating and acting the same in equivalent situations. Why being outraged of discriminatory remarks of

the future Ombudsman, while in the past that leader (in this case Samsom) has said similar things?

Moreover, the deterioration of gay and human rights in Russia, for example, is thought to be just as bad

as anywhere else in the world.

The third set of trustworthiness-related qualities that are expected of cabinet ministers and parliamentary

party leader include honesty and sincerity. These qualities refer to whether leaders speak the truth and

whether they mean what they say. Lies during a regular governing period are associated with exaggerating

the consequences of governmental policy or interpreting the actions of cabinet ministers differently.

Roemer, for example, raised the alarm about the consequences of limiting the old age pension of people

who are living with others to share costs. Some argued that Roemer was lying and that that he was only

causing panic. Sincerity refers to the intentions of political leaders with regard to their statements. Rutte

was forced by parliament to speak with Putin on gay rights in Russia when visiting the Olympic Games in

Sotchi. He responded that he would try to do so, but that he was dependent upon Putin to make it work.

16

On Twitter people suspected that while he complied with parliaments’ request, he never intended to

address the issue and afterwards he would just say that he did not have the opportunity to talk with Putin

about it.

Visibility, finally, comprises the fourth set of trustworthiness-related qualities mentioned with regard to

both cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders, and is needed to convince citizens that leaders

are dependable: leaders should not only show themselves when they are looking to be (re-)elected, but

also afterwards to show what they are doing with citizens’ vote. In addition, as in a marriage, people want

their leaders to be there both in good times and in bad. It is easy to lead when things go well, but leaders’

true colors show when things go wrong, is the assumption.

Interestingly, the quality of being dependable is most prominently mentioned with regard to Rutte and

Samsom, the two architects of cabinet Rutte II. Perhaps more than others, these two leaders are primarily

responsible for the existence of this cabinet and as such they are required to take responsibility for it. In

this light it is no surprise that Rutte was criticized for not responding to bad news about the Dutch

economy (which was thought to be the result of Rutte’s harsh budget cuts), while he immediately

responded to the death of Prince Friso. Here his response to the death of a prince is not the problem, but

that he apparently abandoned citizens was. In the same light, finally, especially Rutte and Samsom seem

to be required to not beat around the bush and call problems like they are. As such, being straightforward

is valued.

Caring expectations

The third aspect of credibility consists of the caring-related qualities of cabinet ministers and

parliamentary party leaders. On the most general level, again there seems to be a shared set of

expectations, but a closer look reveals some substantial differences in the expectations associated with

cabinet ministers as compared to parliamentary party leaders.

On the one hand, for cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders to convince others that they care,

they need to show empathy, and propose plans that have been formulated with the interests and

concerns of citizens in mind. As such, leaders are required to take an interest in citizens. This means all

citizens: leaders should not only keep an eye on the happy few who can make it on their own anyway, but

they have to show compassion with people who are facing difficulties or who are vulnerable to setbacks.

To be able to do this, leaders need to know what the lives of ordinary citizens look like and what problems

they run into. In addition, sometimes leaders have the opportunity to show their empathy directly, for

example when talking to citizens on the street. However, the opposite effect can also easily occur. At one

point, Samsom was photographed with a crying woman and the story was that it was Samsom who made

her cry because he refused to talk to her. Consequently, the idea emerged that he does not care about

the consequences of the policy he supported for the daily lives of vulnerable citizens.

On the other hand, showing a concern for what is going on in society and what ordinary citizens go through

also means that leaders who are experienced as only acting on their own behalf are not valued. Leaders’

actions should not be (exclusively) informed by the desire to stay in power or to improve their own

position. Trips abroad, for example, should be necessary for policy or politics, not because leaders feel

like having a vacation. In this respect, Rutte attending the opening ceremony of the 2014 Olympic Winter

Games, as well as Timmermans’ visit to Cuba is frowned upon – especially because he does not talk to

17

human right activists, but only to the communist regime. In addition, leaders should not be arrogant or

self-absorbed, but should take citizens views and opinions seriously. After all, this makes them forget

about what their true function in a democracy is, namely to represent the interests of citizens.

Figure 5: Caring-related expectations illustrated in newspaper articles and tweets.

Besides these similarities in caring-related expectations of cabinet ministers and parliamentary party

leaders, there are also some substantial differences. One such difference relates to the kind of self-

promotion that leaders are accused of being engaged in. Improving their own position means in the case

of cabinet ministers that they are already looking for their next easy paying job, preferably in Europe. As

such, their actions are thought to be informed by pleasing others in the European Union to secure their

next position. In the case of parliamentary party leaders, self-promotion entails trying to win voters over.

Their real interest is not with citizens, but getting their vote is their primary concern. Samsoms’ sudden

interest in the province Groningen and the harm gas drilling is causing there is for example understood in

this fashion. While compensation for the damage was never an option, now everything seemed to be

possible.

In addition, in terms of caring cabinet ministers are expected to take more interests into account than

only economic interests, and money should not prevail above all. Next to money, human rights are an

important factor and cabinet ministers – perhaps especially the prime minister and cabinet minister of

foreign affairs – should show a concern with the wellbeing of the disadvantaged in the world. As such,

cabinet ministers are urged to be ‘pastors’ as well as ‘merchants’. Parliamentary party leaders, in turn,

need to convince citizens that when elected in government, they will not only represent the interests of

18

a select group but of all Dutch citizens. This future-orientation is remarkable because parliamentary party

leaders have a clear incentive to promote the interests of their voters. Indeed, a complete discard for the

party’s principles and values is considered a sin. Roemer – being the Socialist parliamentary party leader

– for example is not in politics to improve the living conditions of the prototypical Liberal Party voters.

Yet, some kind of constructive attitude towards others in society seems to be desired.

Conclusion and discussion

Political leaders need to earn support from citizens for their views and plans. To acquire this support,

credibility is a crucial asset. Credible leaders are leaders who are considered competent, trustworthy, and

caring by citizens, but what it exactly means to be considered as such warrants additional attention.

Moreover, within parliamentary democracies cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders each

have a different role within democracy. Where cabinet ministers are responsible for formulating,

implementing and defending policy on the domain of their portfolio as well as cabinet policy as a whole,

parliamentary party leaders – especially of opposition parties – scrutinize the actions of cabinet and lead

their party faction within parliament. This different role implies that to effectively perform different

qualities might be required. Consequently, what is expected of them in terms of competence,

trustworthiness, and caring might also differ. In this paper it was therefore studied what is expected of

cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders for them to be worthy of being attributed credibility by

citizens. To this end, the leadership cases of two Dutch cabinet ministers (Mark Rutte and Frans

Timmermans) and two parliamentary party leaders (Diederik Samsom and Emile Roemer) were compared

by analyzing tweets and newspaper articles.

Regarding the competence of cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders the analysis suggests that

four sets of competence-related qualities can be discerned for both types of leaders. It differs however,

how much these sets are emphasized. For both cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders

knowledgeability is given most attention. The major difference between the two studied types of leaders

lies in the prominence of decisiveness and bravery on the one hand, and political strategic qualities on the

other hand. For cabinet ministers it is considered important to take a firm stance, ant to be able to put

their foot down. Political strategic qualities – effectiveness in playing the political game – receive

substantially more attention for parliamentary party leaders than for cabinet ministers.

Cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders have in common what is expected of them in terms of

trustworthiness. On the one hand it is emphasized that leaders should keep their promises, that they

should be consistent in their policy views (no flip flopping), and that they need to act the same in

equivalent situations. On the other hand, trustworthiness also refers to honesty and sincerity. Moreover,

the quality of being dependable was prominently discernable for Rutte and Samsom. As such, this quality

transcends the divide between cabinet ministers and parliamentary party leaders. Rather, it is associated

with the two people responsible for initiating the studied cabinet. Being dependable in this respect refers

to being visible as a leader both in good and in bad times.

Caring referred to empathy, being concerned with citizens’ daily lives, as well as acting in their interest.

Likewise, it implies an allergy to leaders being (exclusively) motivated by their desire to stay in and extend

their power. For cabinet ministers this relates to securing a well-paying job for after leaving Dutch national

politics, while for parliamentary party leaders it entails only being interested in citizens when their vote is

at stake. Finally, with regard to caring cabinet ministers should in addition promote other values than

19

purely economic ones, and parliamentary party leaders need to show – besides staying true to the party’s

values – that they are able and willing to act in the interest of all Dutch citizens.

These results suggest that there is not a one-size fits all recipe for political leaders to gain (or lose)

credibility, but cabinet ministers need to meet different expectations in order to be considered as such as

compared to parliamentary party leaders. Consequently, it is no guarantee that a credible leader in one

office will also be credible leading from another office. After all, different expectations need to be met

and it might very well be that leaders’ dispositions that have developed over many years do not fit well in

the new context (Hajer, 2009; Andrew King, 1987). This implies that research findings on political leaders

should be contextualized, as well as that one should be cautious to what type of political leaders the

results apply.

The found expectations do not contradict the qualities already mentioned in the literature. Rather, they

complement and refine existing literature in that these findings have been derived from the evaluation of

leaders in newspaper articles and tweets. Many studies in political leadership on this topic are based on

survey analysis – sometimes including open-ended questions (Miller et al., 1986), but mostly consisting of

close-ended response categories (Garzia, 2011; O’Keefe, 1990; Pancer, Brown, & Barr, 1999) – or

psychological assessments of leaders’ publicly expressed profile (Renshon, 2000; Wisse, 2014). This study,

however, focuses on spontaneously uttered evaluations of political leaders by citizens, journalists, and

others in a real-life context. This helps to understand what is meant when leaders’ competence,

trustworthiness, and caring is evaluated.

In terms of the three credibility dimensions the findings reveal that while competence, trustworthiness,

and caring all three matter to be considered credible, substantially more attention is paid to competence

than to trustworthiness and caring in the media debate (both in Tweets and newspaper articles). It seems,

based on the research findings, that leaders are initially given the benefit of the doubt, and are considered

trustworthy and caring until proven otherwise. Trustworthiness and caring are hardly discussed if

everything goes well, but flaws and mistakes are quickly noticed. Competence tests, in contrast, occur

more frequently and it is up to leaders to actively demonstrate their knowledge and skills. They have to

convincingly show that they are up to the task in terms of meeting the set expectations.

In addition, the findings of this study contribute to literature on political leadership in that they add

knowledge on less often studied types of leadership offices like cabinet ministers and parliamentary party

leaders. The focus on presidents and prime ministers is understandable – they are prime leadership figures

in democracies (Poguntke & Webb, 2005) – but leadership extends beyond them. Political leadership is

dispersed and also other offices than the prime minister matter for policy outcomes and have an impact

on government (Uhr, 2008). This paper shows what credibility entails for leaders functioning in these less

often researched offices, but much remains to be studied.

The leadership cases central in this paper have been derived from a consensual-style parliamentary

democracy. These type of parliamentary democracies differ quite substantially from Westminster-style

parliamentary democracies, for example in terms of government-opposition relations (Lijphart, 1999),

which raises the question of how the findings of this study apply in those contexts. Moreover, learning

what citizens expect of different political leaders is one thing, but how leaders perform that they are able

20

to build an image of a competent, trustworthy, and caring leader is a different, but equally important

question. Some leaders seem to have more success than others, but understanding how the great

expectations are met requires further study.

References

’t Hart, P., & Uhr, J. (2008). Public Leadership. (P. ’t Hart & J. Uhr, Eds.). Canberra: ANU E Press.

Andeweg, R. (2000). Ministers as double agents? The delegation process between cabinet and ministers. European Journal of Political Research, 37, 377–395.

Andeweg, R., & Irwin, G. (2005). Governance and politics of the Netherlands. (R. B. Andeweg & G. A. Irwin, Eds.). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Andeweg, R., & Thomassen, J. (2011). Pathways to party unity: Sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of labour in the Dutch parliament. Party Politics, 17(5), 655–672.

Bennister, M., ‘t Hart, P., & Worthy, B. (2014). Assessing the Authority of Political Office-Holders: The Leadership Capital Index. West European Politics, 38(3), 417–440.

Berlo, D., Lemert, J., & Mertz, R. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(4), 563–576.

Brissett, D., & Edgley, C. (1975). Life as theater. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Campbell, R., & Cowley, P. (2013). What voters want: Reactions to candidate characteristics in a survey experiment. Political Studies.

Campus, D. (2010). Mediatization and Personalization of Politics in Italy and France: The Cases of Berlusconi and Sarkozy. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(2), 219–235.

Cronin, T. E. (2008). “All the world’s a stage…” acting and the art of political leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(4), 459–468.

Dowding, K. (2008). Perceptions of leadership. In P. ’t Hart & J. Uhr (Eds.), Public Leadership (pp. 93–102). Canberra: ANUE Press.

Dunleavy, P. (2005). Facing up to multi-party politics: How partisan dealignment and PR voting have fundamentally changed Britain’s party systems. Parliamentary Affairs, 58(3), 503–532.

Ellison, L. (2005). Closing the credibility gap: The prosecutorial use of expert witness testimony in sexual assault cases. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 9(4), 239–268.

Gardner, W., & Avolio, B. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 32–58.

Garzia, D. (2011). The personalization of politics in Western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader–follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 697–709.

Gieryn, T. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Greenstein, F. I. (2000). The Qualities of Effective Presidents: An Overview from FDR to Bill Clinton. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 30(1), 178–185.

21

Grint, K. (2000). The arts of leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hajer, M. (2009). Authoritative governance: Policy making in the age of mediatization. Authoritative governance: policy-making in the age of mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hargrove, E. C. (2002). Presidential Leadership: Skill in Context. Politics & Policy, 30(2), 211–235.

Hargrove, E. C., & Owens, J. E. (2002). Leadership in Context. Politics & Policy, 30(2), 199–207.

Helms, L. (2012). Comparative political leadeship. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Hendriks, F., & Karsten, N. (2014). Theory of democractic leadership in action. In Oxford handbook of political leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jungherr, A. (2014). Twitter in Politics: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2402443

King, A. (1987). Power & communication. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press Inc.

King, A. (2002). Leaders’ personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections. (A. King, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Langer, A. (2007). A historical exploration of the personalisation of politics in the print media: The British prime ministers (1945-1999). Parliamentary Affairs, 60(3), 371–387.

Langer, A. (2010). The politicization of private persona: Exceptional leaders or the New Rule? The case of the United Kingdom and the Blair effect. International Journal of Press/politics, 15(1), 60–76.

Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Marietta, M. (2009). The absolutist advantage: sacred rhetoric in contemporary presidential debate. Political Communication, 26(4), 388–411.

McAllister, I. (2007). The personalization of politics. In R. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 571–588). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCroskey, J., & Teven, J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103.

Metze, T. (2010). Innovation ltd.: Boundary work in deliberative governance in land use planning. Eburon, Delft.

Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessment of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 521–540.

Mughan, A. (2009). Partisan dealignment, party attachments and leader effects. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 19(4), 413–431.

O’Keefe, D. (1990). Source factors. In O’Keefe (Ed.), Persuasion: Theory and Research (pp. 130–157).

22

London: Sage Publications.

Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.

Pancer, S. M., Brown, S. D., & Barr, C. W. (1999). Forming Impressions of Political Leaders: A Cross-National Comparison. Political Psychology, 20(2), 345–368.

Patterson, T. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy - And what news outlets can do about it. Boston, MA.

Peck, E., & Dickinson, H. (2009). Performing leadership. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Perloff, R. (2010). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (4th editio). New York: Routledge.

Poguntke, T., & Webb, P. (2005). The presidentialization of politics: A comparative study of modern democracies. (T. Poguntke & P. Webb, Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Renshon, S. (2000). Political leadership as social capital: Governing in a divided national culture. Political Psychology, 21(1), 199–226.

Shogan, C. J. (2009). The Political Utility of Empathy in Presidential Leadership. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39(4), 859–877.

Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246.

Teven, J. (2008). An examination of perceived credibility of the 2008 presidential candidates: Relationships with believability, likeability, and deceptiveness. Human Communication, 11(4), 383–400.

Uhr, J. (2008). Parliamentary oppositional leadership. In P. ’t Hart & J. Uhr (Eds.), Public Leadership (pp. 59–81). Canberra: ANUE Press.

Van Zuydam, S., & Hendriks, F. (2015). Credibility Enacted: Understanding the Meaning of Credible Political Leadership in the Dutch Parliamentary Election Campaign of 2010. Journal of Political Marketing, (July), 1–24.

Vliegenthart, R., Boomgaarden, H., & Boumans, J. (2011). Changes in political news coverage: Personalization, conflict and negativity in British and Dutch newspapers. In K. Brants & K. Voltmer (Eds.), Political Communication in Postmodern Democracy (pp. 92–110). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Wisse, E. (2014). Public credibility: A study of the preferred personal qualities of cabinet ministers in the Netherlands. Tilburg University.

Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., & Johnson, P. (2010). Effects of narratives, openness to dialogic communication, and credibility on engagement in crisis communication through organizational blogs. Communication Research, 37(4), 473–497.