Does the use of pronouns such as “I” and “we” in political speeches affect the success of politicians? Drawing on new research, Robin Bachmann shows that political leaders in the German parliament have not only used “we” more frequently in recent decades but that this usage is linked to higher chances of re-election.
In politics, language is a powerful tool, but it is not always the big words and narratives that make the difference. Sometimes, it is the little words that can have a big impact. James W. Pennebaker’s book, The Secret Life of Pronouns, shows how the use of pronouns like “we” and “I” can reveal a lot about group dynamics, leadership and power.
For social identity researchers, the word “we” is particularly interesting because it reflects a shared social identity and can indicate successful political leadership. For example, previous research has found that in over 100 years of Australian presidential elections, the winning candidate almost always used the word “we” more in their campaign speeches than their opponent. This highlights the subtle yet powerful role of “we” in politics.
Pronouns in the German parliament
In a recent study, I (along with my co-author Ilka H. Gleibs) have analysed 350,000 speeches by around 3,600 members of the German federal parliament, spanning over 70 years from 1949 to 2021. We found that in the 1950s, “I” was used far more frequently than “we”, with both pronouns declining and then rising in parallel until the 1970s.
Since the 1990s, however, “I” has declined while “we” has steadily increased. In recent terms, “we” has even surpassed “I” in frequency in parliamentary speeches. This shift suggests that the use of “we” is not merely the hallmark of a few successful leaders but is gaining momentum within a broader political context in Germany.
The use of “we” predicts re-election success
One of our most important findings was that, just like with top-level leaders and presidential elections, the use of “we” also predicted re-election success for a broad range of leaders in the parliament. The more parliamentarians used “we” in their speeches, the higher their chances of being re-elected and having a long career in parliament.
This effect held true even after accounting for factors like prior terms in parliament, whether the speaker’s party was in government or opposition, the number of seats their party held and the party’s ideology, as well as the speaker’s age, gender and academic title. The use of “we” was more predictive for frontbench leaders with more speech time, but it still had an impact on backbenchers with very little speech time.
Nuances in the use of “we”
Our large dataset allowed us to explore some interesting nuances in language use. While previous studies often grouped the pronouns “we” and “our” together, we found that “we” was a stronger indicator of success. This implies that fostering a collective identity (“we”) might be more impactful than claiming collective ownership (“our”).
Interestingly, clarifying who “we” refers to (such as “we as a party” or “we as a nation”) actually diminished the effect. This finding challenges the common advice in identity leadership research to explicitly define group identity, suggesting that an implicit “we” may have greater power.
Implications for political leaders
A clear implication of our study is that language, and even small words like “we”, can have a significant impact in politics. Politicians might benefit from analysing their pronoun choices to enhance their rhetorical and leadership effectiveness. Political analysts can also use pronoun analysis to evaluate how well leaders align with their groups and political agendas.
Leaders are encouraged to foster a sense of collective identity rather than asserting collective ownership, and they might find that an implicit collective “we” resonates more than a clear-cut reference group. Notably, identity leadership can be beneficial for a wide range of political figures, from frontbenchers to backbenchers, and is effective across diverse social backgrounds.
In times of social and political division, our research offers insights into what a broad range of leaders can do to enhance their political success and electoral prospects. It also provides a glimmer of hope that language and leadership focused on fostering unity can resonate more deeply and be more successful, contributing to a more inclusive and cohesive political environment.
For more information, see the author’s accompanying paper (co-authored with Ilka H. Gleibs) in Zeitschrift für Psychologie.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Juergen Nowak / Shutterstock.com
Discussion about this post