Comparing the language style of heads of state in the US, UK, Germany and Switzerland during COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic was a historically and uniquely challenging time in several ways. Not only did the pandemic pose a threat to our physical health, but also to our social life, sense of security, and mental health¹. Political leaders were tasked with safely guiding people through a worldwide crisis. The decisions of political leaders affected the public in more direct and measurable ways than usual: health measures and restrictions (e.g., lockdowns, social distancing) disrupted people’s daily lives in ways that many had never before experienced. Moreover, such measures were implemented in a “top-down” fashion, with little consensus-building or advance notice, which is particularly uncommon in democratic societies. Especially during the beginning of the pandemic, when uncertainty was at its highest, political leaders had to communicate drastic public health measures while also trying to convey some sense of safety and optimism.

Public speeches and press conferences are the most direct way for political leaders to connect with the public at large. The public gravitated towards these events and thedirect contact and guidance from their leaders: For example, the first televised address made by Angela Merkel at the beginning of the pandemic on March 18, 2020, was watched by over 25 million Germans—almost one-third of the German population². Merkel’s speech was delivered shortly before Germany introduced its first lockdown measures. Nations around the world had similar moments, where heads of state introduced measures that impacted people’s daily lives in unprecedented ways. The global pandemic constitutes a historically outstanding moment during which people around the world paid particular attention to their leaders.

The aim of this research is to describe and compare the language style of these political leaders, in order to investigate this behavioral measure of leadership and communication in times of crisis. This research is embedded in current views on the social psychology of language use^3,4,5. The social psychology of leader statements during the initial phase of the pandemic opens a unique window for researching the diverse response styles of leaders during a similar situation of crisis. How did different political leaders communicate and what kind of leadership did they provide?

There is a long-standing tradition of understanding society-level processes through the language of political leadership^6,7,8. Early language analysis methods were demonstrated to be a valuable tool for unveiling and investigating political leaders’ motivations and success^9,10. With recent technological progress, researchers can apply automated text analysis methodsto investigate long-term developments of political leader language at scale³. Particularly in times of crisis, leadership language, by its very nature, provides insight into relevant motivational, emotional, and ideological facets^11,12. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a moment of crisis wherein the words used by heads of state and public institutions affected the daily life of populations^13,14.

While heads of state across multiple nations often issued similar measures, and thus communicated comparable content to their citizens, they did so in remarkably different ways. Previous studies have shown that stylistic aspects of political leaders’ language influence citizens’ collective responses¹⁵. The current research investigates the language styles of the heads of state of four different nations during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we focus on the USA, UK, Germany, and Switzerland to describe and compare the language styles of Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel, and the Swiss Federal Council (FC) between February and August 2020. A comparison of these 4 nations is empirically worthwhile as they share many similarities at the level of the nation whereas, at the level of their political leadership, their heads of state during the pandemic differed substantially in their leadership styles and political orientations. At the nation level, all of them can be considered WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) cultures with federalist political systems and comparable cultural values (e.g., relatively low values in power distance, high levels in individualism, and masculinity; https://www.hofstede-insights.com/). The heads of state (during the pandemic), however, differed in both their political views¹⁶ and communication styles^17,18,19,20. Trump, for example, is known for his authentic, grandiose language^21,22, while Angela Merkel is known for her focus on the community¹⁹.

The COVID-19 pandemic further provides a situational similarity in terms of what the nations were going through. All 4 nations reported their first case between January and February 2020. All nations introduced similar health measures, finally initiating a lockdown in March 2020. Additionally, each nation began relaxing measures in the Spring of 2020, and the case numbers also showed similar increases during the first few months and then decreased after the lockdowns. The cases decreased less in the USA and increased again later around June 2020, while the cases in the other nations remained relatively low. All in all, the situations were relatively similar in the nations during this period, with the pandemic spreading in these nations for the first time and all initiating similar measures.

When giving a speech, political leaders convey more than just the content they are communicating—the style of a speaker’s language, as reflected by their use of function words (e.g., articles, pronouns, conjunctions, etc.) have been shown to be powerful markers of both discourse and psychological processes. State-of-the-art automated language analysis tools allow us to analyze political speeches and characterize them along psychologically meaningful dimension^4,23. Through the words they use, political leaders unveil a wealth of information about themselves, ranging from insights into their personality and thinking styles to how authentic they are⁴. To assess dimensions of interest in a psychometrically sound way, the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) approach has a demonstrated reliability and validity in this research domain. For example, research shows that individuals who use higher rates of articles and prepositions tend to engage in more complex and abstract thinking²³. As another example, using more first person plural pronoun “we” reflects an individual’s communal orientation and bonding²⁴.

Here, we briefly introduce the language markers of LIWC included in this study, providing an overview of why these measures are important in the context of early pandemic communication by political leaders. To date, first-person plural pronouns (we-talk), positive and negative emotional tone, analytical speech, and authenticity have been identified as meaningful dimensions of political leader language; they have been identified to reflect communal orientation, the emotional tone and cognitive complexity of the message conveyed, and how authentically the person is speaking^3,4,22,25. In the following, we will shortly introduce these dimensions and corresponding relevant studies.

We-talk

A higher use of first personal plural pronouns (e.g., we, us, our) by political leaders communicates a focus on communal processes and solidarity^11,26. Both political leaders¹¹ and individuals²⁷ have been shown to use more we-words during times of crisis, thus indicating a shift in mindset from the individual to the collective. We-talk by political leaders during the pandemic has also been associated with less anxiety and sadness as well as more positive responses from the general public²⁸.

Emotional language

Emotion words convey a speaker’s focus on either positive or negative emotions, as well as more general emotional processes²⁹, conveying a sense of optimism or pessimism regarding a situation. Emotional language is often part of a politician’s strategy in campaigning, for example, by leveraging positive emotion language to appeal to the public (e.g., use enthusiasm to attract or percuade voters;³⁰, and populist leaders in particular often try to evoke especially strong emotions in the population³¹. During the pandemic, political leaders might have tried to convey a positive attitude in the hopes of up-regulating the public mood through processes of emotional contagion³². In previous studies, negative emotions expressed by political leaders during the pandemic were linked to citizens’ more communal focus on a collective level²⁸.

Analytical thinking

In addition to investigating we-talk and emotional tone, we can gain insight into the ways people think by analyzing other stylistic aspects of the language, such as articles and prepositions. People who portray a more narrative and intuitive way of thinking tend to use more pronouns, adverbs, and auxiliary verbs, while more analytical, logical thinkers tend to use more articles and prepositions in their speech²³. Analytical thinking, measured in language, has been shown to correspond to greater academic performance and cognitive elaboration^23,33,34. In a political context, analytical speech has been found associated with electoral success in US-American presidential elections in 2003–2004³⁵ and 2020 US Congress elections³⁶, suggesting that analytical speech conveys more competence. Since then, there have also been studies showing a decrease in analytical language in US political leaders over time³. In previous studies, we have found that analytical speech of political leaders during the pandemic to be associated with more positive emotions as well as communal focus in the collective public²⁸.

Authenticity

Lastly, past research demonstrates that a speaker’s authenticity is reflected in specific patterns of language use. Section “Authenticity” refers to the degree to which a person is communicating in a relatively spontaneous, unfiltered manner⁵, and is reflected in greater use of self-referential, more complex language (i.e., language focusing more on evaluation and judgments than simple, concrete language) and less distancing²⁵. Importantly, authenticity is distinct from honesty. People can communicate authentically but not tell the truth⁵. Authentic language can be described as a free and natural expression of one’s ideas³⁷. Less authentic language would make a political leader seem more deceptive, evasive, or distant²². Authenticity could be particularly important during a pandemic for people to feel more connected and closer to their political leader.

This paper aims to describe and directly compare these specific linguistic features of Trump, Johnson, Merkel, and the Swiss FC during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. First, we quantify the words most used by these representatives of executive power. Then, we investigate whether and how Trump, Johnson, Merkel, and the Swiss FC differ in their communication style in terms of analytical speech, authenticity, emotional tone, and communal orientation, given their relevance to understanding political discourse⁴. We expect different approaches, strategies, and attitudes toward the pandemic to be reflected in linguistic features, providing exemplars at relevant time points.