This thesis analyzes the kinds of verbal and nonverbal signals elites manifest to show leadership qualities. Launching from Max Weber’s conceptual framework of charisma as a power term and Harold Lasswell’s study of propaganda, this study takes a multidisciplinary approach to studying political leadership with elements of communication methodology and an ontological basis in evolutionary psychology. The study’s goal is to offer a framework for defining and evaluating the diverse signal patterns employed by political elites in three real-life situations. These are the Malta Summit, the 1992 Virginia Presidential Debate, and the 2012 South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary. The cases were chosen because they display a diverse set of signal variations during different types of interactions. The three case studies are evaluated by measuring frequency and patterns of occurrence of the five different interaction constructs (indicator of interest, indicator of disinterest, demonstration of high value, demonstration of low value, and compliance testing) to explain different interaction patterns. A simple frequency distribution of the different signals during a given interaction is used to display the empirical findings and to compare patterns across the case studies. This study reveals that the presence of DLV (demonstration of low value) signals weaken an elite’s position in relation to other elites and the public while the presence of DHV (demonstration of high value) signals strengthen an elite’s position. It is largely the presence, absence, and frequency of these two signals that determines who conveys leadership qualities effectively regardless of leadership style. Studying the signaling patterns of political elites would allow scholars to understand better the kinds of signal patterns and signal frequencies that are used in different types of leadership styles and norm ranges for signals including for political elites belonging to different cultures and subcultures

La littérature en science politique sur les changements climatiques identifie les clivages au sein de l’opinion publique comme contribuant à l’inaction des politiques sur la question climatique. Comprendre l’ampleur de cette polarisation et les axes sur lesquels elle se décline est une première étape essentielle pour adresser cette polarisation. Ce mémoire cherche à décrire comment se décline l’évolution de la polarisation de l’opinion publique au Canada autour des changements climatiques et comment elle a évolué pendant la dernière décennie. La revue de littérature identifie trois principaux axes de polarisation autour de la question climatique au Canada : le soutien pour un parti politique, l’idéologie politique et la région. Les données utilisées sont tirées d’une série de sondages menés tous les ans entre 2011 et 2021 à travers le Canada par le professeur Erick Lachapelle. Trois mesures de l’opinion sur la question climatique sont utilisées pour observer la polarisation : la croyance aux changements climatiques et en ses causes anthropogéniques, la perception d’une menace et le soutien pour une taxe carbone. L’analyse des résultats combine des analyses descriptives et des régressions linéaires multivariées. Ces analyses montrent une polarisation principalement partisane et idéologique, mais également régionale, qui oppose les provinces pétrolières au reste du Canada. L’opinion publique s’est de plus en plus polarisée pendant la dernière décennie, mais principalement autour du débat sur la taxe carbone. De plus, la polarisation partisane était particulièrement marquée lorsque les changements climatiques étaient saillants dans les débats politiques lors des élections fédérales de 2015 et 2019. / The political science literature on climate change identifies public opinion polarisation as significantly contributing to policy inaction on the climate issue. Understanding the extent of this polarization and the axes along which it occurs is an essential first step in addressing it. This paper seeks to describe how the polarization of public opinion in Canada around climate change has evolved over the past decade. The literature review identifies three main axes of polarization on the climate issue in Canada: support for a political party, political ideology and region. The data used is drawn from a series of surveys conducted annually between 2011 and 2021 across Canada by Professor Erick Lachapelle. Three measures of opinion on the climate issue are used to observe polarization: belief in climate change and its anthropogenic causes, threat perception and support for a carbon tax. The analysis of the results combines descriptive analyses and multivariate linear regressions. These analyses show a mainly partisan and ideological polarization, but also a regional polarization, which pits the oil-producing provinces against the rest of Canada. Public opinion has become increasingly polarized over the past decade, but mainly around the carbon tax debate. Moreover, partisan polarization was particularly pronounced when climate change is salient in the political debate during the 2015 and 2019 federal elections.