Awamleh & Gardner, 1999



Participants were shown 2 speakers using different affiliative mannerisms, and then rated their leadership charisma and effectiveness.

Participants had greater perceived leadership charisma and effectiveness when the speaker had a strong affiliative delivery style, including eye contact, vocal fluency, facial expressions and dynamic gesticulation.

Bernstein, 2000



Participants rated competence of a male or female candidate speaker, with the message varying by explicitness and theme.

Message theme was found to be important for perceived competence in both female and male speakers, but message explicitness was more important for female speakers only.

Aguinis & Henle, 2001



Participants viewed female actors displaying different non-verbal behaviour (facial expression, visual behaviour, and body posture) on perceptions of power bases (reward, coercion, legitimacy, referent, expertise and credibility).

Direct eye contact increased perceptions of coercive power, and a relaxed facial expression decreased perceptions of all power bases (coercive, referent, reward, legitimacy, expertise and credibility) ratings of a female speaker.

Cherulnik et al., 2001



Participants were displayed videotapes of charismatic speakers (characterized by non-verbal expressiveness and immediacy), or non-charismatic speakers. Participants emotional contagion in terms of non-verbal mimicry was assessed.

Charismatic speakers with more smiles and greater visual attention to the audience induced greater non-verbal mimicry persuasion in Participants.

Cesario & Higgins, 2008



Participants were surveyed on a focus questionnaire, and their positive attitudes of speakers displaying an eager or a vigilant non-verbal behavioural style was measured.

Participants who scored highly for a ‘promotion’ focus were more easily persuaded and had greater positive attitudes of speakers using an eager non-verbal style. For Participants who had a ‘prevention’ focus, speakers who had a vigilant non-verbal behavioural style were more persuasive and viewed with greater positive attitude.

Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, 2010



Participants posed in high-power or low-power non-verbal displays, testosterone, cortisol, feelings of power and tolerance to risk were measured.

High-power poses experience increases in testosterone, decreased cortisol, and increased feelings of power and tolerance to risk. Low-power poses displayed the converse.

Neff et al., 2010



Participants rated extraversion of an actor displaying various rates of gesture movements and movement type.

Increased rate of gesture led to perception of increased extraversion.

Olivola & Todorov, 2010



Literature review. The effect of political candidate appearance upon voting behaviour.

Facial competence strongly predicts political preferences.

Weaver, 2012



Participants presented with fictitious political candidates differing by race (skin colour), and then rated the likelihood of voting for the candidates.

The importance of race upon candidate evaluation depends largely upon skin colour, but effects are not consistent with other factors (notably gender) interacting. For women and liberal Participants, black candidates were evaluated more positively and had greater voting support, while conservative Participants showed lower voting support for black candidates.

Kenton, 1989



Literature review

Participants evaluate the same speech differently according to gender, male sources have greater persuasive effect than female sources. Women speakers are rated better for goodwill and fairness, while men are ranked higher for expertise, prestige and self-presentation.