Types of Charisma

Think of the last time someone walked into a room and the room rearranged itself around them. Maybe it was a teacher who never raised her voice. A coworker who remembered your daughter’s name and the surgery she’d had in March. A speaker at a conference who said nothing particularly new but made two hundred strangers sit up straighter. You couldn’t have drawn a diagram of what they did. You just noticed your shoulders loosening, or your attention narrowing, or a sudden private wish to be part of whatever they were building.

That pull is what people call charisma, and it comes in more than one flavor. The warm listener who makes you feel like the only person in the room has almost nothing in common with the commanding executive who silences a meeting by entering it, yet both get called “charismatic.” Lumping them together hides the interesting part: the types of charisma are different skills, rooted in different behaviors, with different strengths and different risks.

Some are learnable. Some are overrated. One or two can be dangerous, and it pays to know which is which before you start admiring, or imitating, anyone.

This guide sets out the main types of charisma, from the classic sociological categories to the modern four-style model, explains what research says about where charisma comes from, and helps you work out which type you already have.

It also takes a hard look at the dark side, because charm is not the same thing as character, and the research is clearer on that than the self-help shelf usually admits.

What is charisma, and is it a trait or a skill?

Charisma is the ability to attract, influence and inspire others through personal presence, communication and emotional impact. Researchers disagree about how much of it is inborn, but the weight of evidence leans toward a skill set that can be learned, with some people starting with a head start.

The word has an interesting history. It comes from a Greek term for a gift of grace, and the sociologist Max Weber brought it into the social sciences in the early twentieth century to describe a quality of certain individuals by which they are set apart from ordinary people and treated as having exceptional powers or qualities. In his account, followers do the recognizing: charisma exists in the perception of the audience as much as in the person. That is a useful idea to hold on to. A leader who is magnetic to one group can leave another cold.

Modern psychology has largely turned charisma from a mysterious aura into a set of observable behaviors. People rated as charismatic tend to display expressive voices, animated faces, vivid language, confident posture, close attention to others and a sense of purpose. Those behaviors can be measured, and, as discussed below, they can be taught.

Two misconceptions are worth clearing away early. First, charisma is not the same as extraversion. Quiet, introverted people can be deeply charismatic in one-on-one settings, through focused attention and sincerity. Second, charisma is not the same as competence or goodness. Being magnetic tells you nothing about whether someone is right, honest or wise, which is why charisma has been used both by great reformers and by con artists.

Imagine Samira, 31, a software engineer who thinks she is “not charismatic” because she dislikes parties. Colleagues routinely seek her out for advice, because she listens without checking her phone, asks one more question than anyone else, and remembers what you told her last month. Her charisma has no stage; it has a chair pulled up close.

So the useful question isn’t “Do I have charisma?” but “Which kind do I have, and in what settings does it work?”

What are Weber’s three types of authority, and where does charisma fit?

Max Weber‘s classic typology isn’t about personality types so much as sources of legitimacy: why people accept someone’s right to lead. He proposed three ideal types of authority: traditional authority, based on the sanctity of custom and inherited position (a monarch, a clan elder); legal-rational authority, based on impersonal rules and formal offices (a judge, a manager, a civil servant); and charismatic authority, based on devotion to an individual regarded as extraordinary.

These are “ideal types,” analytical tools, and real institutions blend them. A modern president holds legal-rational authority by virtue of an office, may gain traditional authority from an inherited political culture and may add charismatic authority through personal appeal. Weber saw charismatic authority as the most revolutionary of the three, because it breaks rules and habits in the name of a mission. Prophets, reformers, movement founders and war leaders fit the pattern.

It is also the most unstable. Weber described the routinization of charisma: since personal magnetism cannot be passed on easily, a movement must either fade when its founder dies or transform into one of the other two forms. It can become traditional, through hereditary succession or ritual, or legal-rational, through formal offices, rules and procedures. This explains why founder-led companies and movements struggle at the point of succession, and why religions, parties and start-ups develop manuals after their prophets leave.

Weber’s work was historical and sociological, and it has limits for psychology. His charismatic leader is often an exceptional figure in a time of crisis, and the concept leans on followers’ belief in extraordinary or even supernatural gifts. Everyday charisma in a workplace or friendship is a much milder phenomenon. Modern researchers have therefore built more behavioral models, which the following sections cover.

Still, the Weberian lens gives you a first, useful type distinction: institutional authority (rules and roles) versus personal charisma (the individual). A boss may have the first without the second, and a volunteer may have the second without the first. Teams run best when they notice which is doing the work.

Think of Marek, 52, a school principal with legal-rational authority by title and a quiet charismatic pull by habit. When he retires, the school will have to decide which parts of his influence were the office and which were him. The second kind is harder to hand over.

Which of the three describes the authority you respond to most readily in your own life?

What are the four types of charisma in the modern model?

The most popular modern classification comes from leadership coach Olivia Fox Cabane, who proposed in her 2012 book The Charisma Myth that charisma is made of three components, presence, power and warmth, and that different mixes produce four styles: focus, visionary, kindness and authority charisma.

Cabane defines presence as being fully in the moment with someone, power as being perceived as able to affect the world around you (through influence, expertise, status or other resources) and warmth as goodwill, the sense that you will use your power for others’ benefit. In her framework, warmth is read mostly through body language and behavior, and presence is the foundation, since power without presence feels distant and warmth without power can look weak.

A caution is due. Cabane’s model comes from coaching practice and popular science writing. It is a helpful way of sorting behaviors, but the four-style framework itself hasn’t been tested in the way academic scales have, and the sources she draws on vary in strength. Treat the types as a map, not a measurement.

Notice what the model implies: charisma is not one dial. Each style trades something for something else. Authority charisma gains obedience and may lose warmth. Kindness charisma gains trust and can seem soft in a crisis. Visionary charisma gains followers and may neglect details. Focus charisma deepens one relationship at a time and doesn’t scale to a stadium.

Cabane suggests that most people lean toward one style and can add others deliberately. The practical lesson is to match style to situation, and not to try to be all four at once.

Picture a hospital on a bad night. The attending physician who calmly directs the team is using authority. The nurse who sits with a frightened patient is using kindness. The chief of medicine, in the next staff meeting, will use vision. Same building, three kinds of magnetism, none interchangeable.

Why do warmth and power keep showing up in every model of charisma?

Because they appear to be the two main dimensions on which humans judge each other. Psychologist Susan T. Fiske and colleagues argued in a 2007 review that people routinely evaluate others along warmth (is this person’s intent good or bad?) and competence (can they act on their intent?). Those two dimensions, they proposed, account for most of the variance in how we perceive individuals and groups across cultures.

The mapping onto charisma is straightforward. Olivia Fox Cabane‘s “warmth” corresponds to Fiske’s warmth, and her “power” to something like competence plus status. A person who seems both warm and capable draws admiration; one who seems capable but cold draws respect mixed with wariness; one who seems warm but incompetent draws pity or affection. The four charisma types are, in a way, four strategies for managing those two perceptions.

The warmth-competence research is well replicated for social perception generally, though the application to charisma is an interpretation, not a direct test. Fiske’s work wasn’t designed to define charisma, and some of its findings (for example, how particular stereotypes map onto warmth and competence) have been debated.

The model also explains a familiar trap. People who feel anxious about being liked often over-signal warmth and under-signal competence; people who worry about being taken seriously often do the reverse. In both cases the audience reads an imbalance. Charismatic people tend to send both signals at once, which is hard because the two can pull in opposite directions in the moment: showing competence can look cold, and showing warmth can seem soft.

There’s also the question of timing. Research on first impressions suggests that people typically judge warmth first, quickly and with strong weight. If you want to be seen as charismatic, signaling goodwill early (eye contact, a genuine smile, attention to the other person) gives your competence a more receptive audience.

Take Li, 44, a new team leader who opens her first meeting with a long list of her qualifications. People nod politely and feel little. At the next meeting she starts by asking each person what they need from her, then outlines a plan. The qualifications haven’t changed. The order has, and so has the room.

A question to carry: when you want to influence someone, which signal do you lead with, and which do you forget?

What do focus charisma and kindness charisma look like?

They are the warm, relational types, built on attention and care rather than command. People with these styles tend to be described as “easy to talk to” or “someone you trust immediately,” and their influence is quiet.

Focus charisma leads with presence. People who have it make you feel that you are the most important person in the room because they give you undivided attention. They listen without rehearsing a reply, hold eye contact comfortably, ask follow-up questions and remember details. The skill is less about speaking than about attending, which makes it accessible to introverts. It is common among excellent interviewers, coaches, physicians and negotiators. Its weakness is scale: it works best with one person or a small group, and it can be exhausting for the person giving it.

Kindness charisma leads with warmth. People with this style radiate goodwill, acceptance and generosity, and others feel safe around them. It tends to come through in soft body language, a calm voice, unhurried movement and a visible lack of judgment. It builds trust quickly, which is why it appears among teachers, nurses, community leaders and good friends. Its risk is being underestimated or taken advantage of. Without some firmness, kindness charisma can drift into people-pleasing, where being liked takes priority over saying difficult things.

Several practical features separate these from mere politeness. The warmth is consistent across status levels (the same courtesy for the intern and the CEO). The attention is real, not performed: people tend to detect distracted listening within seconds, and the glance at a phone breaks the spell. And the empathy comes with some boundary-setting, otherwise the style depletes the person using it.

Both styles benefit from a context of psychological safety. They flourish in settings where people need to talk honestly: therapy-like conversations, mentoring, family life, caregiving and conflict resolution. They are less suited to situations that demand fast, firm decisions under pressure.

Imagine Tomás, 38, a bus driver who greets every passenger by name and notices when someone is absent for a week. He has no title, no podium and a route that loops the same ten streets. Yet people on that bus describe him as the best part of their day. His charisma is a nod and a remembered name.

If your charisma lives in conversation and not in speeches, these may be your styles. They aren’t lesser versions of the louder types, only different ones.

What do visionary charisma and authority charisma look like?

They are the power-led types, and they work by giving people direction and certainty. In large groups and high-stakes situations, they are the ones most often labeled charismatic in the popular sense.

Visionary charisma leads with conviction. Visionaries paint a picture of a future that people want to inhabit and communicate it with energy, confidence and belief. They connect daily work to a larger purpose, which can make ordinary tasks feel meaningful. Founders, reformers, activists and inspiring teachers often use this style. The risks are familiar: a vision without a plan, an unwillingness to hear bad news and followers who mistake certainty for correctness. Visionaries tend to need partners who handle details and push back.

Authority charisma leads with power. People using it project competence, calm and command through posture, economy of words, steady voice and a sense of status. They reassure others that someone is in charge, which is valuable in a crisis, an emergency room, a cockpit or a courtroom. Its weakness is distance. Without warmth, authority can feel cold or intimidating, and people may comply without caring. In calm conditions it may also stifle disagreement.

The earlier academic work on charismatic leadership gives these styles more backing. Jay A. Conger and Rabindra N. Kanungo proposed in 1987 a behavioral theory in which followers attribute charisma to leaders based on observable behaviors. The leader articulates a strategic vision that differs from the status quo, is sensitive to the environment and to followers’ needs, takes personal risks, and acts in unconventional ways to achieve the vision. In this account, charisma is a perception that arises from what leaders do and how they frame their mission, not a mystical property.

Conger and Kanungo’s theory was influential and generated many studies, though like most leadership theories it rests largely on questionnaires and case descriptions, and cause and effect are hard to separate from success. A leader who succeeds is likely to be seen as charismatic afterward.

In practice these two types are often combined. A military commander can show authority in battle and vision in peacetime. An entrepreneur may start as a visionary and need to switch to authority when a company is in trouble. Skilled leaders move between styles as conditions change.

Consider Nadia, 49, who ran a hospital’s emergency department during a major incident. Her voice never rose, her instructions were short, and every person on shift knew exactly what to do. At the debrief she shifted tone, talked about what the team had built, and thanked each person by name. Authority first, vision after, and she knew when to change.

Can charisma be taught? What do the “charismatic leadership tactics” show?

Yes, at least in part. The strongest evidence comes from Swiss research on charismatic leadership tactics (CLTs). John Antonakis, Marika Fenley and Sue Liechti trained managers and MBA students in a set of 12 verbal and nonverbal behaviors and reported in 2011 that trained participants were rated as more charismatic by observers than untrained comparison groups. They ran a field study with managers and a laboratory study with students, with similar interventions and different designs, and found consistent effects.

The tactics fall into two groups. The nine verbal tactics are metaphors, similes and analogies; stories and anecdotes; contrasts; rhetorical questions; three-part lists; expressions of moral conviction; reflections of the group’s sentiments; setting high goals; and conveying confidence that the goals can be reached. The three nonverbal tactics are an animated voice, expressive facial movements and gestures.

The reasoning behind each is practical. Metaphors simplify messages and stir emotion. Stories make ideas memorable. Contrasts frame a message sharply (“not this, but that”). Lists suggest completeness and are easy to remember. Rhetorical questions create anticipation. Moral conviction and group sentiment signal shared values. High goals with confidence in people’s ability to reach them make followers feel capable. Voice, face and gestures carry emotion.

The tactics that follow are the most accessible places to start:

• Tell one short story that illustrates your point instead of listing facts.
• Use a contrast: “We’re not here to survive the year; we’re here to change how the work is done.”
• Ask a rhetorical question and pause before answering it.
• Vary your voice in pace, volume and pitch, so it doesn’t flatten into a monotone.
• Express confidence in the audience: “I know this team can do it, because you’ve done harder things.”

Caveats are worth keeping in view. The studies measured perceived charisma and certain leader outcomes in specific groups, mainly managers and students, and the effects of short training on long-term real-world performance are less clear. Charisma that is perceived to be a technique, rather than an expression of authentic belief, can backfire. And tactics work best when content is sound: a well-delivered bad idea is still a bad idea.

Imagine Gabriel, 42, a project manager who dreads presentations. After a short workshop, he replaces a slide of bullet points with a story about a failed launch, adds one contrast and asks one rhetorical question. Nothing about his personality changes. The room does lean forward.

The encouraging reading of this research is that charisma has a learnable, rehearsable component. The sober reading is that learning it is a matter of practice, preparation and sincerity, not tricks.

Is there a natural, expressive type of charisma?

Yes. Some people seem to convey emotion through face, voice and body so effortlessly that others catch their mood, and this nonverbal expressiveness is a well-studied ingredient of charisma. Psychologist Howard S. Friedman and colleagues developed the Affective Communication Test in 1980, a self-report measure of the ability to transmit emotions to others through nonverbal channels such as gesture, facial expression and voice. They found that people scoring high tended to be more expressive and to affect the moods of those around them, an “emotional contagion” effect.

Social psychologist Ronald E. Riggio built on this research with a broader framework of social skills, measured with his Social Skills Inventory, that distinguishes between emotional and social skills in sending, receiving and controlling information. The inventory covers emotional expressivity, emotional sensitivity and emotional control, as well as social expressivity, sensitivity and control. Riggio and others have used the framework to study charisma, proposing that charismatic people combine high expressivity (they transmit emotion) with strong sensitivity (they read others) and good control (they regulate their own displays).

This yields a type that sits alongside the four-style model: emotionally expressive charisma. These people light up a room, tell stories with their hands, laugh easily and pass their enthusiasm on. They are often described as “magnetic” or “warm” even when they hold no particular power. In groups, they can set the emotional tone, for better or worse.

Two points deserve emphasis. First, expressiveness without sensitivity can be overwhelming. Someone who broadcasts constantly and does not notice listeners’ reactions may be seen as self-absorbed, and the charisma curdles. Second, control matters. Charismatic people can modulate their expression, being animated when the moment calls for energy and quiet when it calls for care.

These measures are self-reports, and self-reports of social skills can differ from how others actually experience a person. The relationship between expressiveness and perceived charisma is moderate and context-dependent. Cultural norms also shape what counts as appealing expressiveness: what reads as warmth in one setting can read as excessive in another.

Take Amara, 27, a primary-school teacher whose expressive face makes a group of seven-year-olds follow her instructions without a raised voice. The same animation at a funeral would be jarring, and she knows it. The gift is the range.

If this is your style, the development task isn’t to add more energy but to calibrate it: read the room, then choose your volume.

What is dark charisma, and why can charm be dangerous?

Dark charisma is magnetism used for selfish or harmful ends, and it is one of the most important types to recognize. Charisma is a tool for influence, and it works equally well for people who want to help others and those who want to exploit them. Manipulators, cult leaders, fraudsters and abusive partners often have it in abundance.

Research on narcissism offers one window. Social psychologist Amy B. Brunell and colleagues published a 2008 study of leader emergence in groups with no appointed leader. They found that people higher in narcissism were more likely to emerge as leaders, partly because they saw themselves as leaders and acted accordingly. The more striking finding was that narcissistic leaders did not improve group performance. Their emergence reflected self-promotion and confident display, not better results. The study used student groups in a laboratory, so generalizations to corporations or politics should be careful, but it matches a pattern that organizational researchers have noticed: confidence and charm are rewarded before competence is tested.

Dark charisma tends to share a few features. Warmth shows up as intense attention at first, followed by a drop when the target stops being useful. The vision is grand but the accountability is thin. Followers are asked for loyalty above facts. Critics are portrayed as enemies. And, over time, the charismatic person tends to demand more than they give.

Some warning signs deserve attention:

• Flattery that escalates quickly, followed by pressure or demands.
• Intolerance of questions, with doubt treated as disloyalty.
• Isolation from other relationships and sources of information.
• Charm that vanishes when the person is criticized or thwarted.

None of these means that a charismatic person is dangerous. Most are not. The point is that magnetism is a poor proxy for trustworthiness, and it is worth testing impressions against behavior over time. How does the person treat people who cannot help them? Do they keep promises? Can they say “I was wrong”?

If you feel pulled into a relationship, group or organization where questioning feels unsafe, talk with someone outside it, such as a friend, family member or therapist. Coercive groups and abusive relationships can harm mental health, and getting perspective early matters.

Picture Dara, 23, newly arrived in a city, who is swept into a “mentor’s” circle. The attention is thrilling. When she asks about money, the warmth cools. She notices it, leaves and tells a friend. The charm was real. So was the pattern.

How do you find your type of charisma and develop it?

Start by observing what already works for you in different settings, then practice one or two specific behaviors on purpose. You don’t need to become someone else. You need to know your natural strengths and deploy them deliberately.

1. Notice when people lean in. Over two weeks, jot down moments when someone opened up, agreed or followed your suggestion. What were you doing: listening, telling a story, explaining a plan, staying calm?
2. Ask three people. Choose colleagues or friends who see you in different contexts and ask, “When do I seem most engaging, and when least?” Their answers often differ from your self-image.
3. Match the style to the setting. Use focus or kindness in one-on-one and care contexts, vision when rallying people, and authority when others need direction under pressure.
4. Practice presence. In your next three conversations, put the phone away, stay with the other person’s words rather than composing your reply, and ask one follow-up question.
5. Add one tactic at a time. Pick a single behavior from the charismatic leadership list, such as a short story or a contrast, and use it in the next meeting. Record yourself if possible and watch the playback.
6. Check your warmth and your power. If people find you cold, add warmth cues (smile, name use, genuine curiosity). If they find you soft, add clarity (a firm recommendation, a decision, a steady voice).

Expect awkwardness. New behaviors feel forced at first, and early attempts often seem exaggerated to you but barely noticeable to others. Give each tactic several tries before judging it.

Anxiety can block charisma. People who are preoccupied with how they appear tend to be less present, which reduces the very quality they seek. Practices that reduce self-focus, such as paying attention to the other person, preparing well and using slow breathing before high-stakes moments, tend to help. If social anxiety is intense or long-standing, a therapist can help; cognitive behavioral therapy is well supported for it.

Remember also that charisma is partly in the eye of the audience. Different groups value different styles, and a style that works in one culture or industry may misfire in another. Adjusting to your audience is a form of respect, not inauthenticity.

Think of Yusuf, 36, a quiet accountant who assumed he had no charisma. After the exercise he realized that clients asked for him by name because he explained things calmly and never hurried them. He kept the style, added a story to his annual presentation, and found that confidence grew with practice.

Charisma, at its best, is attention made visible. Where do you naturally put yours?

FAQs about Types of Charisma

What are the main types of charisma?

The most widely used modern model describes four types: focus charisma, which leads with presence and attention; visionary charisma, which leads with conviction and a compelling picture of the future; kindness charisma, which leads with warmth and acceptance; and authority charisma, which leads with power and status. This framework comes from Olivia Fox Cabane’s book The Charisma Myth and is based on coaching practice rather than academic testing. In sociology, Max Weber distinguished charismatic authority from traditional and legal-rational authority. Researchers have also studied expressive charisma and charismatic leadership tactics.

Is charisma natural or can it be learned?

Both play a part. Some people start with advantages such as expressive faces, comfortable voices and social confidence, but research suggests that many charismatic behaviors can be learned. A 2011 study by John Antonakis and colleagues trained managers and students in verbal and nonverbal tactics, such as stories, metaphors, contrasts and an animated voice, and observers rated the trained participants as more charismatic. The studies involved specific groups and short-term measures, so results should not be overstated. Practice, preparation and sincerity matter, and authentic belief in your message makes the tactics work better.

Can introverts be charismatic?

Yes. Charisma is not the same as extraversion. Introverts often excel at focus charisma, which relies on listening, attention and thoughtful questions, and at kindness charisma, which depends on warmth and calm. They may find large-group performance more draining, but one-on-one settings and small groups can play to their strengths. Visionary and authority styles are also possible for introverts, who may use preparation, clear writing and steady presence instead of high energy. The key is to find which style fits your temperament and which settings suit it.

What is the difference between charisma and charm?

Charm usually refers to a pleasant, engaging manner that makes interactions smooth, while charisma implies a stronger pull that inspires devotion, influence or a sense of purpose. Charm can be superficial; charisma involves conviction, presence and the ability to move people. They overlap, and many people use the words loosely. Neither says anything about honesty or character. Research on narcissism shows that confident, charming people are often chosen as leaders without being better at leading, which is why it helps to judge people by consistent behavior and not first impressions.

What is Weber’s charismatic authority?

It is one of three types of authority described by the German sociologist Max Weber, the others being traditional authority, based on custom and inherited position, and legal-rational authority, based on rules and formal offices. Charismatic authority rests on followers’ devotion to a person they regard as extraordinary, often in connection with a mission. Weber argued that it is unstable, because it depends on the individual, and that after the leader’s death or decline it must be routinized into traditional or legal-rational forms. Examples include founders of movements, prophets and reformers.

Can charisma be dangerous?

Yes, because charisma is a tool for influence that can be used for good or harm. Manipulative leaders, cult figures, fraudsters and abusive partners often use charm and conviction to gain trust. Research on leader emergence found that narcissistic individuals were more likely to emerge as leaders in groups, without improving group performance. Warning signs include escalating flattery, intolerance of questions, isolation from other relationships and charm that vanishes under criticism. Judging people over time by how they treat those who cannot help them is more reliable than judging by magnetism.

How do I know which type of charisma I have?

Observe when people respond best to you. If they open up when you listen, you may lean toward focus or kindness charisma. If they follow when you describe a future, visionary charisma may be your strength. If they relax when you take charge in a difficult moment, you may use authority charisma. Ask a few colleagues or friends for honest feedback, and notice how you differ across settings. Most people are a blend. The aim is not to find a label but to understand your natural strengths and use them deliberately.

How long does it take to become more charismatic?

Small changes can show up within days, for example when you practice full attention in conversations or add a story to a presentation. More stable change usually takes weeks to months of repeated practice, preferably with feedback from others or from video recordings of yourself. Habits such as listening, vocal variety and clear framing improve with repetition. Progress is uneven, and early attempts can feel awkward. If anxiety about how you come across is getting in the way, working with a coach or therapist can speed progress.

Bibliography

• Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2011). Can charisma be taught? Tests of two interventions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 374-396.
• Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1663-1676.
• Cabane, O. F. (2012). The charisma myth: How anyone can master the art and science of personal magnetism. Portfolio/Penguin.
• Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647.
• Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.
• Friedman, H. S., Prince, L. M., Riggio, R. E., & DiMatteo, M. R. (1980). Understanding and assessing nonverbal expressiveness: The Affective Communication Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 333-351.
• Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 649-660.
• Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1922)