Chapter 2

PERSONALITY AND POLITICS

As we mentioned in the previous chapter, personality is a central concept in

psychology. For this reason, personality is placed at the bottom of the Polit-
ical Being’s brain, representing its roots and, therefore, the most fundamen-
tal element. Personality not only affects how people think and behave in the
political arena; it is also affected by the life experiences of individuals. In this
chapter, we consider some central questions about personality addressed
in political psychology, including questions such as: How does personality
affect political behavior? How deep must we go in understanding the devel-
opment of a person’s personality in order to understand his or her politi-
cal inclinations (to the unconscious or more surface, conscious traits and
motivations)? What personality characteristics are most politically relevant?
Are people completely unique, or do they share personality traits in vari-
ous combinations, making individuals more or less similar in their political
behavior? How should we study personality when we can’t very well put a
political figure on the couch and ask him or her questions?
The study of personality and politics is the oldest tradition in political
psychology (Lasswell, 1930/1960, 1948a; Adorno et al., 1950; Leites, 1951).
Personality as a concept has been used to evaluate a wide variety of political
behaviors, from the psychology of political leaders to psychopathologies of
people who have committed politically motivated atrocities (such as Hitler
and the Holocaust) to the average citizen and the role personality factors
play in attitudes toward race and ethnicity, interest in politics, and willing-
ness to obey authority. However, most studies employing personality-based
frameworks focus on the impact of the characteristics of leaders on major
decisions and policy-making issues such as leader-adviser relations. In fact,
the studies of political personality and political leadership have developed
conjointly in political psychology. As a result, it is problematic to seek to
separate political personality from political leadership research in any text-
book on political psychology.
In this chapter, we will discuss some of the broader theoretical argu-
ments about personality and its effect on political behavior. We will begin
with some of the central questions about the role of personality in polit-
ical behavior. Then we will turn to the study of personality in psychology
and look at some of the major scholars and approaches to personality from
the psychological perspective. Next we will present an overview of some
16 Personality and Politics

of the ways in which personality in politics, and particularly personality

factors relevant to political leadership, have been studied. The portion of
the Political Being emphasized in this chapter is, of course, the personality
circle. But you will see also the links between personality and cognition, as
well as the impact of personality on interactions with people in the political
environment—shown as US and THEM in the Political Being diagram in
Figure 1.1.
Despite the central role personality plays in psychology, political science,
and political psychology, coming to an acceptable definition of personality
is problematic, with research in psychology and political science tending to
focus (and define) the concept quite differently. As Robert Ewen (1998, p. 3)
points out, within the discipline of psychology “there is no one universally
accepted definition of ‘personality,’ ” nor is there any one recognized “theory
of personality.” Greenstein (1969, pp. 3–4) observed that the psychologist’s
usage of the term personality is comprehensive, subsumes all important psy-
chic regularities, and refers to an inferred entity rather than to a directly
observable phenomenon. In other words, personality refers to a construct
that is introduced to account for the regularities in an individual’s behav-
ior as he or she responds to diverse stimuli (Hermann, Preston, & Young,
1996). Or, as Ewen notes, personality in the psychological literature refers to
“important and relatively stable aspects of a person’s behavior that account
for consistent patterns of behavior,” aspects of which “may be observable
or unobservable, and conscious or unconscious” (1998, pp. 3–4). Gordon
DiRenzo offers a related definition: personality is “one’s acquired, relatively
enduring, yet dynamic, unique, system of predispositions to psychological
and social behavior” (1974, p. 16). At the same time, however, there is tre-
mendous disagreement within the field between social psychologists and
personality theorists regarding exactly what should be incorporated into
such a comprehensive definition. Personality theorists would include cog-
nition, affect, motivation, identification, and processes of ego-defense in
their conceptions of personality; social psychologists usually seek to limit
personality to a residual category that does not include emotion, cognition,
or motivation (see Greenstein, 1969; George & George, 1998). There are
many different theories of personality in psychology. Schultz (1981), for
example, reviewed twenty personality theories organized into nine catego-
ries: psychoanalytic, neopsychoanalytic, interpersonal, trait, developmen-
tal, humanistic, cognitive, behavioristic, and limited domain.
In the political psychology literature, in contrast, analysts typically do
not worry about arriving at a specific, comprehensive definition of personal-
ity. Instead, the focus is upon how particular aspects of personality translate
into political behavior. Indeed, the study of personality in political psychol-
ogy is best characterized as the study of individual differences. Rather than
seek the whole, researchers selectively focus upon any number of individual
aspects of a person’s makeup (i.e., cognition, motivation, affect, ego, atti-
tudes, etc.) to explain behavior. Obviously, this is a much narrower, more
restrictive view of personality than that taken by most psychologists (espe-
cially the personality theorists). As a result, it is in our view unproductive
to attempt to provide a commonly agreed-upon definition of personality for
this textbook—there isn’t one (Maddi, 1996; Ewen, 1998; Magnavita, 2002).
 Personality and Politics 17

Further, we clearly cannot explore all theories of personality in this chapter.

Instead, since our focus is upon political psychology, not psychology, we
will limit ourselves to those theories most commonly used in political psy-
chology: psychoanalytic, trait, and motivation. Furthermore, we will address
research in this field that centers upon various kinds of individual differ-
ences to explain leadership, leadership style, and political behavior.

WHEN DO PERSONALITIES
MATTER IN POLITICS?
Of course, just because personalities may sometimes matter with regards
to policy outcomes, it would be a mistake to argue that they always matter.
In fact, during the 1930s and 1940s, Kurt Lewin argued that to understand
behavior, it is necessary to understand both a person’s personality and the
context in which the behavior is observed. Lewin (1935) emphasized that
the interaction between the person and the situation was most important
to understanding behavior. Similarly, Mischel (1973) focused attention on
the degree to which situational factors govern behavior. In the early 1970s,
Mischel (1973) reviewed research on the importance of personality in pre-
dicting behavior across a variety of situations. He found that people behave
far less consistently across situations than had previously been thought.
Instead, it appears that the situation exerts powerful effects on behavior.
Indeed, it is generally accepted among scholars who work in the fields of per-
sonality or leadership that context (or situation) matters more (Greenstein,
1969; George, 1980; Hermann, 1987; Preston & ’t Hart, 1999; Hermann,
2000; Preston, 2001). It is the situational context that provides the stage
upon which the person will interact with his or her environment, providing
both opportunities for action and constraints upon it. For example, in his
classic book, Personality and Politics, Fred Greenstein (1969) observed that
while personality is often unimportant in terms of either political behav-
ior or policy outcomes, the likelihood of personal impact: (1) increases to
the degree that the environment admits of restructuring; (2) varies with the
political actor’s location in the environment; and (3) varies with the per-
sonal strengths and weaknesses of the actor (1969, p. 42). In other words,
when individuals have the personal power resources due to their position in
the political system (i.e., as president, prime minister, general, mayor, etc.)
and the situation allows them to exert this power to influence the policy
process, what these people are like (i.e., strengths/weaknesses, personality,
experience) will have an impact on policy. For Abraham Lincoln, this situa-
tion allowed him to educate his cabinet on the importance of the individual
leader when, after a particularly contentious vote, he observed: “Gentlemen,
the vote is 11 to 1 and the 1 has it.” For Saddam Hussein, it meant that Iraq
invaded Kuwait. On the other hand, in contrast to foreign policy, where
there is more freedom of action, American presidents are well acquainted
with their far weaker influence upon domestic policy, where Congress,
the courts, interest groups, and many other actors play substantial roles
in determining policy outcomes (see Neustadt, 1960/1990; Cronin, 1980;
Light, 1982; Burke, 1992).
18 Personality and Politics

THEORIES AND APPROACHES TO

STUDYING PERSONALITY
There are many different approaches or theories regarding personality,
only some of which have been used in the study of personalities of political
actors. Among the most important are psychoanalytic, trait-based theories,
and motive-based theories. More recently, the genetic approach to per-
sonality, as it applies to political psychology, has gained enough traction to
warrant mention. We will explain that approach as well. As was mentioned
above, many of the frameworks in political psychology go beyond a single
theoretical orientation. Below, we review some personality theories from
psychology and then explore their use in political psychology. With each
theoretical approach, we discuss some of the research methods typically
used to study political actors.

Psychoanalytic Approaches
One of the oldest traditions in personality in psychology are psychoanalytic
or psychodynamic theories. Psychoanalytic theories highlight the role of
the unconscious in human behavior and the motives and drives that under-
lie behavior. The father of psychoanalytic theory is Sigmund Freud (1932,
1950, 1962). Freud introduced the idea that the mind is like an iceberg. Only
a small part of the iceberg is visible floating above the water. Around ninety
percent is under water and unobservable. Similarly, people are conscious of
only a small part of the mind. The majority of the mind’s operation is like
the portion of the iceberg under water. It is unconscious. Freud viewed the
personality as an energy system driven by aggressive and sexual drives. Peo-
ple are motivated to satisfy those drives, a force Freud called the pleasure
principle. Behavior is a product of these drives and the unconscious efforts
by individuals to suppress and channel the desire to act out in search of sat-
isfaction. Living in society, from Freud’s perspective, requires people to deny
the pleasure principle. The consequence, in Freud’s view, is pathologies such
as anxiety, obsessions, and defense mechanisms.
Freud argued that the structure of personality is based upon three ele-
ments. The id, which is inherited, includes instincts and responses to bod-
ily functions (e.g., hunger). The id follows the pleasure principle. The ego
is the part of the personality that moderates between the id and its desire
for pleasure and the realities of the social world. The ego, therefore, fol-
lows the reality principle. According to the reality principle, the demands
of the id will be blocked or channeled in accordance with reality, but also in
accordance with the final element of the personality, the superego. This is
the moral arm or conscience of the personality (Hall & Lindzey, 1970). Thus,
if you interact with an individual whom you do not like at all, the id may
inspire you to lash out angrily at that person, but the ego keeps you from
doing it because it is socially inappropriate, and the superego tells you to
be kind to all people and forgive them for their obnoxious behavior. When
the ego is threatened, people feel anxiety. The anxiety can be realistic, or
it may be neurotic. Neurotic anxiety is a person’s fear of being punished
for doing something the id wants to do. Another type of anxiety is moral
 Personality and Politics 19

anxiety, which occurs when there is a conflict between the id and the super-
ego. Defense mechanisms are also used to defend the ego. Defense mecha-
nisms are unconscious techniques used to distort reality and prevent people
from feeling anxiety. They include repression, wherein someone invol-
untarily eliminates an unpleasant memory. Projection is another defense
mechanism, and it involves attributing one’s own objectionable impulses to
another person, projecting them onto another. Rationalization is a third
defense mechanism. When people rationalize, they reinterpret their own
objectionable behavior to make it seem less objectionable. A fourth defense
mechanism is denial, wherein people may deny reality (e.g., denying the
country is going to war despite the mobilization of troops) or they may deny
an impulse (e.g., proclaiming that they are not angry when they really are).
Freud’s ideas were evident in the theories of many psychologists who
succeeded him. Eric Fromm (1941, 1955, 1964), for example, explored the
interactions between people and society and argued that change in human
society produced freedom from certain restraints such as serfdom and slav-
ery, but in the process people experienced an increase in alienation and
insecurity. To ameliorate this, they could pursue the positive freedom of a
humanistic society in which people treat one another with respect and love,
or they could renounce freedom and accept totalitarian and authoritarian
political and social systems. Eric Erikson (1950, 1958, 1969) was also a depth
psychologist trained as a Freudian who made many contributions to psy-
choanalysis. He too maintained an interest in politics and political leaders.
Erikson is most well-known for his work on individual stages of personality
development and identity. He maintained that the ego continues to grow
after childhood and that society has an impact on personality. Among his
important works are studies of Mahatma Gandhi (Erickson, 1969) and Mar-
tin Luther (Erickson, 1958).
Psychoanalysts employed a number of techniques that served the roles
of data collection, broadly defined, and therapy. Freud and other psychoan-
alysts believed that much of the unconscious is repressed to avoid painful
recollections, and one important component of therapy was to try to bring
those repressed ideas and memories to the conscious level. One Freudian
approach to therapy is known as free association. This involves having the
patient lay on a couch, thinking of things in the past (free association), and
saying everything that comes to mind. A second therapeutic technique was
dream analysis. Freud believed that dreams are symbolic representations of
thoughts—desires, fears, things that happened. Freud’s research was based
upon notes taken after therapeutic sessions with patients took place.
Psychobiographies: Clearly the couch and dream analysis are not
options in political psychological research that uses psychoanalytical the-
ories. Access problems, particularly to political leaders, prevent direct
person-to-person psychoanalysis. Therefore, many scholars who adopt a
psychoanalytic approach to the analysis of political figures use the psycho-
biographical method. Psychobiographies involve an examination of the life
history of an individual. It is important to note that not all psychobiog-
raphies are psychoanalytic.1 Some of these psychobiographies focus upon
Freudian analysis or notions of ego-defense (e.g., Glad, 1980; Link & Glad,
1994; Hargrove, 1988; Renshon, 1996), whereas others concentrate upon
specific kinds of personality disorders, ranging from narcissism to paranoid
20 Personality and Politics

personality disorders (e.g., Volkan, 1980; Post, 1991; Birt, 1993; Volkan
et al., 1999). Usually, psychobiographies take the form of quite detailed,
in-depth case studies of individual leaders tracing their personal, social,
and political development from early childhood onwards through young
adulthood. Since it is assumed that leaders’ personalities or political styles
are shaped by their early childhood socialization experiences, psychobi-
ographies generally seek to identify consistent patterns of behavior across
time that can be explained using psychoanalytic analysis (see Schultz, 2005;
Renshon, 2012).2
One of the most important examples of high quality psychobiography is
the study of Woodrow Wilson written by Alexander and Juliette George. In
their classic book Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (1964), Alexander
and Juliette George use a psychoanalytic approach to explain Wilson’s highly
moralistic, rigid and uncompromising political style while in the White
House. They argue that it was a result of a childhood in a strict Calvinist
household, where morality and distinctions between good and evil were
emphasized above all else, and where Wilson’s minister father constantly
belittled and severely punished him for any perceived transgressions. As a
result, Wilson developed a rigid, driven political personality in which he
sought to accomplish great moral deeds to compensate for his own feel-
ings of low self-esteem. Given his difficult relationship with his stern, dis-
ciplinarian father, Wilson bridled at authority figures and internalized their
criticism as personally directed at him. Not only did he see the world in
absolute terms, Wilson felt that compromise on moral issues was immoral.
The Georges argue that these very patterns, developed throughout his child-
hood and young adult life, followed him into the White House. Indeed, Wil-
son’s efforts to create the League of Nations took on the form of a great
moral crusade. His conflict with Senate Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge
(who ultimately defeated Wilson’s efforts to bring the United States into the
organization) took the form of a renewed conflict with another rigid, author-
itarian figure: his father. The Georges see Wilson’s political personality and
his inability to compromise (not only on what he saw as a moral issue, but
also in his conflict with Lodge) as the ultimate reason for his political defeat
over the League of Nations.
As mentioned, another focus of psychoanalytical studies of personal-
ity and politics has been on psychopathology, or psychological disorders.
The examination of political leaders’ behavior as a possible product of psy-
chopathologies began with Harold Lasswell’s Psychopathology and Politics
(1930/1960), wherein he maintained that the behavior of some people in
political roles is affected by their psychopathologies. Lasswell attributed
modern understanding of psychopathology to Freud’s innovative ideas.
Many political figures have also been analyzed based upon the identifica-
tion of psychopathologies. For example, McCrae and Costa (1997) exam-
ined neuroticism, a personality disorder they argue is characterized in
individuals by anxiety, self-consciousness, vulnerability, hostility, depres-
sion, and impulsiveness. In his study of narcissism, Volkan (1980) argues
that narcissistic people seek leadership roles in a relentless search for power
and use others in their climb to power. Further, such individuals often seem
charismatic and rise to power in times of crisis when followers are searching
for strong leaders who will improve things. Birt’s (1993) analysis of Joseph
 Personality and Politics 21

Stalin found that descriptions of his personality fit the pattern associated
with paranoia. Paranoid personalities are quite complex. Birt argues that
they function along two continua, aggression and narcissism. Aggression
can be manifested at one extreme as a victim and at the other as an aggres-
sor. Narcissism ranges from feelings of inferiority to superiority. Paranoid
people swing from one end of each continua to the other. Birt argues that
Stalin’s paranoia not only affected the international policies of the Soviet
Union, but Stalin’s career as well. Stalin, he argues, “is the classical example
of a paranoid individual whose paranoia helped him rise to the top of a highly
centralized political structure and, once there, turn the bureaucratic institu-
tions of the Soviet Union into extensions of his inner personality disorders”
(1993, p. 611). Birt’s analysis of one time period in Soviet foreign policy, the
blitzkrieg attack by Germany during the Second World War, demonstrates
that before the attack Stalin was in an aggressor/superior phase and did not
believe Hitler would attack. After the attack, Stalin “assumed the position
of victim/superior. He deserved better from Hitler. He was slighted. Inse-
curity set in. To Stalin, he, not the Soviet Union, was under attack” (1993,
p. 619). As time progressed, he moved into the aggressor/inferior and then
the victim/inferior modes; he then climbed out of his depression back to the
aggressor/superior mode, where he was ready for action. The rest of the war
was fought with Stalin in that mode.
Political psychologists seeking to examine personality disorders in lead-
ers will usually employ the widely accepted American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation’s diagnostic criteria to guide and structure their analysis of leader
personality and behavior.
Freud and psychoanalysis in general have received numerous criticisms.
Indeed, the criticisms of Freud have been so extensive, Hall and Lindzey
argue that “no other psychological theory has been subjected to such
searching and often bitter criticism than has psychoanalysis. Freud and his
theory have been attacked, reviled, ridiculed, and slandered” (1970, p. 68).
Among the more legitimate criticisms are those that point to the empirical
problems arising from the fact that Freud’s research was not controlled, and
it relied upon his recollections of therapy sessions with patients, which he
recorded after the fact. He presented his findings as personal conclusions,
without the original data, and those conclusions may have been subject to
biases as a result of the fact that he relied on his own recollection of discus-
sions. His method for reaching conclusions was not revealed, and there was
“no systematic presentation, either quantitative or qualitative, of his empir-
ical findings” (Hall & Lindzey, 1970, p. 69). A second criticism often made
of Freud’s theory and psychoanalysis in general is that it is not amenable
to empirical testing. This is partly because much of Freud’s theory about
personality is based upon unobservable abstract ideas and partly because
there are so many theoretically possible behaviors that are manifestations
of psychoanalytic issues a person may have. For example, recall the study
of Stalin’s paranoia. If diametrically opposite patterns of behavior can result
from the same psychoanalytic condition, it is difficult to develop testable
and therefore falsifiable hypotheses. Because of these criticisms and discus-
sion of different perspectives on how important the unconscious is, a num-
ber of additional personality theories have emerged in psychology, to which
we now turn.
22 Personality and Politics

Traits, Motives, and Individual Differences

There is a wealth of personality theories and research that looks at individ-
ual characteristics (or traits), motivations, and cognitive style variables and
how these shape styles of decision making, interpersonal interaction, infor-
mation processing, and management in office.
Trait Theories: If you were asked to describe your mother you might say
she is smart, funny, loving, tidy, and humble. These are personality traits,
which we all use to characterize other people and ourselves. Traits are per-
sonality characteristics that are stable over time and in different situations
(Pervin & John, 1997). Traits produce predispositions to think, feel, or act
in a particular pattern toward people, events, and situations. Trait theorists
also regard traits to be hierarchically organized. Trait theories in psychology
began with the work of Gordon Allport (1937, 1961, 1968). Allport disa-
greed with Freud’s contention that personality dynamics are governed by the
unconscious. He also believed that childhood experiences are less important
in the adult’s personality than Freud maintained. Allport regarded personal-
ity traits to be central in determining how people respond to their environ-
ments. He distinguished among cardinal traits, central traits, and secondary
traits. Cardinal traits are critically important and dominate a person’s life.
An example would be authoritarianism, which is discussed below. Allport
believed that these are rare and that most people have few cardinal traits, or
none at all. A second type of trait is the central trait, which affects people
regularly, but not in every situation. An example would be honesty. Finally,
there are secondary traits, which are least important and most irregular in
affecting behavior. Allport also emphasized the importance of understand-
ing motivation as a driving force in human behavior. For Allport, motivation
was not hidden in the unconscious or derived from childhood experience,
but consciously considered through cognitive processes.
Another trait theorist whose work has influenced political psychol-
ogy is Hans Eysenck (1975, 1979). He identified three personality trait
dimensions: introversion-extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism.
The introvert-extrovert trait refers to how outgoing a person is, the neu-
roticism trait to how emotionally stable a person is, and the psychoticism
trait refers to how isolated and insensitive to others a person is. Eysenk used
questionnaires to gather data on personality traits and employed a statisti-
cal technique called factor analysis to identify which traits cluster together.
Other important early trait theorists include Raymond Cattell (1964, 1965;
Cattell & Child, 1975) and David McClelland (1975), both of whom wrote
extensively about motivation, a trait factor we consider below.
In recent years, psychologists have sought to develop a taxonomy of per-
sonality traits that constitute the basic units of personality. Using several
different research techniques, including factor analyses of trait terms com-
monly used in everyday language and the analysis of trait questionnaires,
they developed five central personality traits. The Big Five personality
dimensions or traits have received considerable attention in the last two
decades (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Rubenzer &
Faschingbauer, 2004; Dietrich et al., 2012). These traits are neuroticism,
extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness.
 Personality and Politics 23

Each trait is arranged on a continuum. For example, those high in neu-

roticism are characterized as people who worry and are nervous and inse-
cure, whereas those low in neuroticism are calm, secure, and unemotional.
People who are high in extraversion are sociable, optimistic, fun loving, and
affectionate, while those low in extroversion are quiet, reserved, and aloof.
A person high in openness is curious, creative, and has many interests, while
one low in openness is conventional and has narrow interests. People high
in agreeableness are trusting, good natured, helpful, and soft-hearted, while
a person low in agreeableness tends to be cynical, rude, irritable, and unco-
operative. Finally, a person high in conscientiousness is organized, hard-
working and reliable, while a person low in conscientiousness is aimless,
unreliable, negligent, and hedonistic (Pervin & John, 1997).
The Big Five traits are viewed as superordinate and universal (Marsella
et al., 2000), though some Big Five researchers have found some gender
and cultural differences in these traits in studies across several countries
(Costa et al., 2001). Indeed, Eagly and Carli (2007) found women scored
higher than men on the warmth and positive emotion aspects of extraver-
sion, but lower on the assertiveness aspect of extraversion. Other studies
have looked at a variety of behavioral patterns associated with the Big Five
personality traits. Olson and Evans (1999) have examined the relationship
between the “big five” personality dimensions or traits and social compar-
isons. The authors used a new technique (the Rochester Social Compari-
son Record [RSCR]) wherein experimental subjects keep a diary recording
their social comparisons, measuring to whom they compare themselves.
The researchers also examined how people feel about those comparisons.
They found that people high in Neuroticism felt more positive when they
compared themselves “downward,” that is, to others of less stature or status.
People high in extraversion compared downward more than people low in
extraversion, in part because they had stable positive moods. In addition,
the authors argue “along with their greater tendency to experience positive
affect, extraverts also might compare downward because of their tendency
to be dominant, masterful, and assertive, attributes that are reflected in stud-
ies showing them to have a high degree of leadership ability” (1999, p. 1506).
We shall see this illustrated later in this chapter and in Chapter 5, where
we consider leadership in detail. People low in agreeableness tended to see
themselves as superior to others and therefore compared downward more
than those high in agreeableness. Finally, people high in openness compared
themselves to superior groups more than those low in openness and tended
not to experience a diminution of positive affect in the process. Still, Judge
et al. (2002) found leadership effectiveness and emergence was significantly
related to the traits of extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to
experience, with agreeableness also being related to leader effectiveness.
For U.S. presidents, Gallagher and Allen (2014) found those high in excite-
ment seeking were more likely to use force to carry out their foreign policy
objectives than their opposites, while openness to action led to greater var-
iation in their decision making. This builds upon previous work that has
found leader risk propensities in decision making correlated to four Big Five
measures—excitement seeking, openness to action, deliberation, and altru-
ism (Kowert & Hermann, 1997; Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004; Nicholson
et al., 2005). There is also a body of literature on personality trait affect that
24 Personality and Politics

explores the question of whether traits have particular affects associated

with them. Schimmack, Oishi, Diener, and Suh (2000) argue that extrover-
sion includes pleasant affects and neuroticism has unpleasant affects.
The traits used in political psychology are related to traits described in the
psychological literature, but they are presented in their political manifesta-
tion. Openness to experience, for example, appears as cognitive complexity,
interest in politics, integrative complexity, and other traits that are named
and described in political form. Traits commonly used in political psychol-
ogy and their measurement are discussed later in our section on profiling
leader characteristics. But again, recent personality research in psychology
emphasizes that some people vary in their trait expression over time, situ-
ations, or contexts more than do others (Fleeson, 2004; Kernis, 2003; Rob-
erts & Donahue, 1994), so it remains important to view traits as not simply
static or driven purely by situational factors (Mischel, 1968), but as more
nuanced and dynamic—often variable across individuals and shaped by var-
ious contexts (Hermann, 1999a; La Guardia & Ryan, 2007; Marcus, 2013).
Somewhat similar to the Big Five is the application of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) personality assessment measure to the study of
political personality. The MBTI assumes that individual personality reveals
itself in the form of specific preferences for certain kinds of environments,
tasks, and cognitive patterns (Lyons, 1997, p. 793). Compared with the Big
Five personality traits, the MBTI scales mirror similar factors, with the
exception of neuroticism, which is not included in the MBTI system. As
illustrated in Figure 2.1, the MBTI is composed of four scales of preferences
that allow, across the various possible combinations, a total of 16 potential
MBTI personality types (Lyons, 1997, p. 794).
For example, applying these measures to former President Bill Clinton’s
life prior to his arrival in the White House, Michael Lyons (1997, p. 801)

Introversion vs. Extroversion

(Introspective, Reserved, (Expressiveness and
Seeking Solitude) Gregariousness)
Sensing vs. Intuition
(Favoring Literal, Empirical (Favoring Abstract, Figurative
Perception) Perception)
Thinking vs. Feeling
(Favoring Objective, Detached, (Favoring Subjective, Value- or
Logical Decision Making) Emotion-Based Decision Making
Judging vs. Perceiving
(Seeking Resolution and Order) (Curious, Spontaneous, Tolerant of
Disorder)

Figure 2.1 MBTI Personality Types

Note: From Lyons, M. (1997). Presidential character revisited. Political Psychol-
ogy, 18, 794.
 Personality and Politics 25

argues that Clinton falls squarely into the Extroversion, Intuitiveness, Feel-
ing, and Perceiving categories (an ENFP type) of the MBTI. Given the pre-
dictions of the MBTI for the ENFP personality type, Lyons suggests that
Clinton would be expected to seek close attachments to other people; be
very adept at establishing such attachments; seek out “people to people
work” professionally; be optimistic, warmly enthusiastic, high spirited, and
charismatic; be brilliantly perceptive about other people, draw followers,
and be an excellent politician; appear insincere sometimes because of a
tendency to adapt to other people in the way he presents his objective; be
innovative, yet undisciplined, disorganized, and indecisive; hate rules and
find it difficult to work within the constraints of institutions; thrive on con-
stant change and begin more projects than he can reasonably complete; find
difficulty relaxing and commonly work himself into exhaustion; have his
energies divided between competing interests and personal relationships;
be ingenious and adaptable in a way that allows him to often improvise suc-
cess; exhibit a highly empathetic world view, yet focus on data that confirms
his biases, leading to a propensity to make poor choices and make serious
mistakes of judgment (Lyons, 1997, p. 802).
Though the Myers-Brigg typology and test have been widely popular
for decades as a means of assessing job candidates in business and advising
people on careers, they are not without their problems—especially from a
scientific point of view (Pittenger, 1993; Paul, 2004; McCrae & Costa, 2006;
Grant, 2013). Numerous studies have suggested that there is little empirical
support for the view that the MBTI actually measures truly dichotomous
preferences or qualitatively distinct types, though four of the MBTI indices
were shown to measure aspects of four of the five major Big Five dimen-
sions (McCrae & Costa, 2006). In fact, Gardner and Martinko (1996) found
few consistent relationships between MBTI type and managerial effective-
ness; others have found a fifty percent chance of test takers finding them-
selves in an entirely different category only five weeks later upon retaking
the exam (Krznaric, 2013). So while the use of the MBTI remains highly
popular because of familiarity and marketing, many scholars argue it merely
picks up on Big Five factors, lacks empirical support for some of its dimen-
sions (the thinking-feeling dichotomy in particular), and does not merit the
continued reliance of business upon it for assessment purposes (Paul, 2004;
Grant, 2013).

Motive Theories
Some researchers look at the motives of individuals. There are many motive
theories in psychology and many definitions of the term. In a study done
over forty years ago, in 1961, for example, Madsen considered the works of
twenty different motive theorists. Interest in motivation has come and gone
and come around again in personality theory in psychology. Motives are
those aspects of personality concerned with goals and goal-directed actions.
Motives “energize, direct, and select behavior” (Emmons, 1997, p. 486).
The motives that have received the most attention and are regarded as the
Big Three in both psychology and political psychology are the need for
power (i.e., concern for impact and prestige), need for affiliation-intimacy
26 Personality and Politics

(i.e., concern for close relations with others), and need for achievement (i.e.,
concern with excellence and task accomplishment) (Winter, 1973; McClel-
land, 1975; Winter & Stewart, 1977; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; Winter,
1987; Winter & Carlson, 1988; Winter, Hermann, Weintraub, & Walker,
1991). For example, Winter and Stewart (1977) argued that those high in
power and low in affiliation make better presidents. Those high in power
also require a far greater degree of personal control over the policy process
and the actions of subordinates than do low power personalities. In terms of
interpersonal relationships, people high in the need for power exhibit more
controlling, domineering behavior towards subordinates than low power
people (Winter, 1973, 1987; McClelland, 1985). Motivation and leadership
have received attention in Winter’s (1987) study of the appeal of American
presidents. He argued that a leader’s popular appeal (measured by electoral
success) is a function of the fit between his motives and those of society.
In psychology, a method for assessing motives used by clinical psycholo-
gists is the Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT. This method involves giv-
ing participants a picture, having them write imaginative stories about it,
and then doing a content analysis of the stories. The stories reveal under-
lying personality characteristics. This method has been criticized as unre-
liable; regardless of its reliability, it is not available for the assessment of
political leaders, so techniques for measuring motives from a distance have
been developed using content analysis of texts, in particular the inaugural
speeches of American presidents.3

What Is Content Analysis?

Content analysis is a research method used frequently by political psy-
chologists using a wide variety of analytical approaches, including those
discussed in this chapter and Chapter 3. Because in political psychol-
ogy we often lack direct access to policy makers, we look at their state-
ments and infer from those statements some aspects of their political
psychological make-up. This is content analysis. To conduct a system-
atic content analysis, a researcher must 1) decide what materials he or
she will use in the study (e.g., only statements written by the official you
are examining, public statements written by others, interviews, etc.) and
2) how the material will be analyzed (or coded)—that is, how inferences
will be drawn and recorded.

Genetic Theories
When thinking about genetic influences on personality, there are two related
areas that we can explore. The first area is evolutionary psychology, which
we mentioned in the first chapter. As applied to personality, evolutionary
psychologists take the position that certain traits or patterns of behavior
persisted and strengthened because they possessed high survival value. In
other words, certain patterns of behavior helped a species to survive because
they were adaptive. Evolutionary psychologists have studied such behavioral
patterns as aggression (e.g., Lorenz, 1966), altruism (e.g., Dawkins, 1976),
and self-esteem (e.g., Leary, 1999). For example, the altruism is said to have
 Personality and Politics 27

survival value because we are more likely to help out members of our own
species, thereby ensuring the survival of that species.
Related to evolutionary psychology is behavioral genetics, which
explains how individual traits and patterns of behavior get passed down
from parents to children, as well as how those traits are shared between
siblings. It basically asks the question of whether or not there is a family
resemblance with regard to personality. In this section of the chapter, we
will focus more on behavioral genetics because there is research to suggest
a genetic component to personality.
First, to understand the research on behavioral genetics in political psy-
chology, it might be helpful to review the basic aim of behavioral genetic
research. You may recall from a biology or genetics class that a phenotype
refers to the observable traits that a person possesses, while a genotype
refers to the underlying genetic structure. Of course, the picture is quite a
bit more complicated than that, as evidenced by the Human Genome Pro-
ject, which mapped about 25,000 genes. For our purposes, it is important
to understand that behavioral genetics concerns itself with the degree of
variation in a phenotype that is attributable to the genotype. One way to
answer that question is to engage in research on twins. Here again, it is wise
to recall some information from your biology classes—monozygotic twins
come from one egg, while dizygotic twins come from two eggs. Therefore,
monozygotic twins are genetically identical.
Why is it important that monozygotic twins are identical? As you can
imagine, there are many factors that can influence our personality. Some of
these, such as motives and the unconscious, have been discussed already. But
there may be other influences on our personality, such as social situations
or the environment. Behavioral geneticists do not discount or ignore those
influences, but instead, try to measure how much of our personality is attrib-
utable to genes and how much is attributable to environmental factors. This
is where studies of twins are highly valuable. If a trait or a behavioral pattern
is influenced by genes, then the trait or behavioral scores of monozygotic
twins should be more highly correlated than they are for dizygotic twins or
siblings. And of course, close relatives should have more highly correlated
scores on traits or behavioral patterns than more distant relatives. So, how
highly correlated are the traits of monozygotic twins? It turns out to be about
.60 for monozygotic and .40 for dizygotic (Borkenau et al., 2001), suggesting
that genes matter. Also, it appears that growing up in the same household
does not lead to similar personalities. Adoptive siblings raised in the same
household have a correlation of about .05 on personality traits (Funder, 2010).
There is increasing evidence for a genetic component to political behav-
ior (Funk, 2013). More of this will be explored in later chapters, but for now,
we will focus on the role of genetics in personality as it relates to political
behavior. Specifically, there is evidence to suggest that many of our politi-
cal beliefs have a strong genetic component. In a large-scale study of about
8,000 twins, Funk et al., (2013) studied a number of political traits and was
able to measure the variability in those traits that were likely due to genetics
and as well as to the environment. With regard to political attitudes, they
found that such attitudes as political ideology and egalitarianism had strong
genetic components, with about 58% of the variability in political ideology
and 50% of the variability in egalitarianism attributable to genes.
28 Personality and Politics

You might recall the prior section on The Big Five personality traits.
There is strong evidence to suggest that many of those traits are heritable.
Funk et al. (2013) found that one of the reasons that we are the way we are
is because of genetics. For example, consider the trait of extroversion. Funk
et al. found that about 70% of the variability of that trait is due to genetic fac-
tors. And the other four traits in The Big Five were also shown to have high
heritability scores, with agreeableness at 38%, conscientiousness at 42%,
neuroticism at 42%, and openness at 43%. One trait that Funk et al. studied
that is of particular importance in political psychology is authoritarianism.
The twins in the study were asked such questions as, “Our country needs a
powerful leader, in order to destroy the radical and immoral currents pre-
vailing in society today,” and “Our country needs free thinkers, who will have
the courage to stand up against traditional ways, even if this upsets many
people.” Their results showed that about 48% of the variability in responses
to these questions was attributable to genes.

SOME FRAMEWORKS FROM

POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY
In the sections that follow, we introduce readers to political psychological
frameworks that employ various combinations of personality psychology
discussed above. As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, the use of per-
sonality theories by political psychology has been eclectic. The frameworks
presented below have drawn liberally from a variety of psychological theo-
ries. Most importantly, they have tried to adapt those theories and concepts
to political contexts. Hence, for example, personality traits and motivations
discussed in psychology may be directly used in political analyses, or they
may be presented in a political manifestation. The need for power is directly
applicable to politics. Ethnocentrism has been determined to be an impor-
tant politically relevant trait, but is not considered to be a central personal-
ity trait in the personality literature.

The Authoritarian Personality

Although research into the authoritarian personality has a long history,
interest in exploring authoritarian personality characteristics increased
as a result of World War II and the Nazi regime in Germany. The rabid
anti-Semitism of that regime along with its extreme right wing, fascist
political principles lead researchers to explore the question of whether
this political authoritarianism could be traced to a personality syndrome.
The post–World War II study of an authoritarian personality type began
with the work of T. Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. Levinson, and R. San-
ford. The Authoritarian Personality (1950) was based on psychoanalytic
arguments. Authoritarian personalities were, they argued, the product of
authoritarian patterns of childhood upbringing and a resultant weak ego.
The parents of authoritarians were insensitive to the difficulties children
experience as they try to learn how to control id-derived impulses relat-
ing to sexual desires, bodily functions, and aggression. Instead of helping
their children develop, these parents were demanding, controlling, and
 Personality and Politics 29

used severe disciplinary techniques. The parents were also described as

being determined to raise their children to be highly conventional. As a
result, the children did not develop effective ways of controlling their sex-
ual and aggressive impulses, yet they feared those impulses. They devel-
oped iron-tight defensive techniques that would prevent them from having
to confront those impulses. They regarded their parents, and subsequent
authority in their lives, with a mixture of resentment and dependence.
Adorno et al. saw the authoritarian personality as composed of several
central personality traits, including conventionalism (rigid adherence to
conventional values); submission to authority figures; authoritarian aggres-
sion (that is, aggressive impulses towards those who are not conventional);
anti-intraception (that is, rejection of tenderness, imagination, subjectiv-
ity); superstition and stereotype (fatalistic belief in mystical determinants of
the future and rigid thinking); high value placed on power and toughness;
destructiveness and cynicism; projectivity (that is, the projection outward
of unacceptable impulses); and an excessive concern with the sexual activity
of others. Given the era in which the study was done, there was a natural
interest in the extent to which authoritarian personalities would be suscep-
tible to fascism of the Nazi Germany variety—anti-democratic and right
wing in political ideology, anti-Semitic, ethnocentric, and hostile toward
racial and other minorities.
The Authoritarian Personality study was done using a wide vari-
ety of research tools including questionnaires (with factual questions,
opinion-attitude scales, and open answer questions) and clinical measures
(interviews and TAT). The authors developed scales to measure several ele-
ments of authoritarian political attitudes. Scales combine several items from
a questionnaire on the same topic, enabling the researcher to get a broader
range of scores for a single person. This increases the reliability of the score.
The fascism, or F scale, was developed to test for a person’s propensity
toward fascism. The other scales were the anti-Semitism (A-S) scale; the
ethnocentrism (E) scale, which included Negro (N), minority (M), and pat-
riotism (P) subscales; and the Politico-Economic Conservatism (PEC) scale.
Each scale was designed to assess different elements of political authoritari-
anism. Adorno et al. argued that their empirical evidence demonstrated that
this syndrome was closely associated with anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism,
and, in turn, with political conservatism. But criticisms quickly emerged on
conceptual and methodological grounds. One of the more important crit-
icisms was presented by Edward Shils (1954) who noted that communists,
who also held authoritarian political values, scored low in the Adorno et al.
measurement scale, the F scale. Therefore, he argued, they apparently tested
only for right wing authoritarianism and not left wing authoritarianism and
therefore their F scale was not a true measure of authoritarianism. Other
criticisms noted that Adorno and his colleagues did not control for educa-
tion and income, and that the F scale question wording provoked a tendency
to agree (acquiesce), thereby producing false positives (Bass, 1955; Gage,
Leavitt, & Stone, 1957; Jackson & Messick, 1957). In short, much of the crit-
icism was methodological and revolved around the question of whether the
F scale actually tapped true authoritarianism and whether it actually estab-
lished a relationship between those nine authoritarian personality traits and
fascistic political principles.
30 Personality and Politics

More recently, additional criticisms have been made about the work of
Adorno and his colleagues. For example, John Levi Martin (2001) argues that
there is a fundamental flaw in the theoretical construct in that it is assumed
that those high in authoritarianism have certain syndromes, and those low do
not. Instead, he argues the whole issue should be approached as a question,
and the difference between low and high should be studied as a continuum.
What, for example, are those in the middle like? Second, Martin notes that the
Adorno group was willing to distort or dismiss data that showed nonauthor-
itarian tendencies among the highs and authoritarian tendencies among the
lows. This reached its acme in a differential interpretation strategy by which
anything good said by a High (but not a Low) was evidence of the suppression
of its opposite, and anything bad said by a Low (but not by a High) was taken as
evidence of a healthy acceptance of one’s shortcomings (Martin, 2001, p. 10).
The Authoritarian Personality debate, and renewed interest in the per-
sonality syndrome, was revitalized by the work of Robert Altemeyer (1981,
1988, 1996). Altemeyer’s approach is trait based rather than psychoanalytic.
He uses three of the nine personality traits identified by Adorno et al.: author-
itarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. These he
regards as central attitudinal clusters—orientations to respond in the same
general way toward certain classes of stimuli (Altemeyer, 1996, p. 6) in right
wing authoritarianism. Altemeyer did not include the more psychoanalytical
traits because he was not convinced by the original psychoanalytic argument,
noting that there was little inter-item consistency among the F scale questions
that attempted to trace those traits. Instead, he conceptualized right wing
authoritarianism psychologically rather than politically (that is, one ideology
versus another). Psychologically, right wing authoritarianism is submission
to perceived authorities, particularly those in the establishment or established
system of governance (1996, p. 10). That system could be a repressive right
wing system, as in Apartheid South Africa, or a communist system as in the
People’s Republic of China, or a democratic system as in the United States.
Hence, right wing authoritarianism can occur in any political system. Alte-
meyer has developed a Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) too. The
scale includes statements with which the respondent must agree or disagree
such as “life imprisonment is justified for certain crimes” and “women should
have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married” (1996, p. 13).
In Altemeyer’s view, right wing authoritarianism is a product of social
learning, a combination of personality predispositions, and life events. Alte-
meyer argues that those high in right wing authoritarianism have greater
difficultly than low scorers in engaging in critical thinking. They are more
likely to agree with a statement of a fact without examining it critically (1996,
p. 95). This is a consequence of having truths dictated to them by those in
authority and being prohibited from challenging that authority. Therefore,
when a scapegoat is selected upon whom a country’s problems are placed,
people high in right wing authoritarianism are more likely to uncritically
believe that the scapegoat is responsible. It follows, then, that a second
pattern of thinking among those high in right wing authoritarianism is the
acceptance of contradictory ideas and an ability to compartmentalize them,
thereby ignoring the contradictions. Any idea that comes from an authority
figure is accepted as correct, even if it is in direct contradiction to another
idea. Third, Altemeyer argues that those high in right wing authoritarianism
 Personality and Politics 31

see the world as a very dangerous place. Their parents taught them this, and
the resulting fear drives a lot of their aggression; this makes them vulnerable
to precisely the kind of overstated, emotional, and dangerous assertions a
demagogue would make (1996, pp. 100–101). Fourth, high authoritarians are
much more careful in looking for evidence to disprove ideas they are predis-
posed to reject than to disprove ideas they are predisposed to accept. Finally,
Altemeyer argues that high authoritarians are particularly susceptible to the
fundamental attribution error, wherein people attribute the behavior of oth-
ers to internal dispositions and their own behavior to external forces (dis-
cussed more in Chapter 3).
Further research into the authoritarian personality is ongoing. Lambert,
Burroughs and Nguyen (1999) used Altemeyer’s right wing authoritarian-
ism scale to examine the relationship between authoritarianism, belief in a
just world, and perceptions of risk. They found that high authoritarians per-
ceived risk to be lower if people believed in a just world (i.e., that good things
come to good people). Low authoritarians did not have the same perception.
In Chapter 8 we discuss some research regarding race-related attitudes and
right wing authoritarianism. Tam, Leung and Chiu (2008) found that when
people high in authoritarianism are more “mindful” or attentive to informa-
tion, they become more punitive in their reactions to criminal behavior, con-
trary to the general assumption that individuals become less punitive when
more attentive to information. The opposite was the case for authoritarians.
While Altemeyer argues that several political attitudes, such as anti-
Semitism and hostility toward foreigners, correlate with his three central
authoritarian attitude clusters, others such as Raden (1999) argue that the
clustering of such attitudes is influenced by political and social change.
Raden found that anti-Semitism was decreasingly likely to correlate with
authoritarian personality characteristics as the twentieth century pro-
gressed. Martin (2001) has weighed in on Altemeyer’s work as well, arguing
that although he avoids the methodological problems of the Adorno et al.
F scale, Altemeyer still failed to see authoritarianism as a continuum and
does not compare the behavior of lows and highs, sticking to the examina-
tion of the behavior of highs. Furthermore, Altemeyer does not adequately
explain why conventionalism is a manifestation of authoritarianism, and
he uses evidence of differences in degree (that is, some lows agreeing with
highs and some highs agreeing with lows in some question items) as evi-
dence of a clear cut, mutually distinct, typological difference.
As was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, studies of personality
and leadership in political psychology are rather eclectic in that they draw
not only from psychological personality concepts but other areas as well.
As a result, scholars have built some frameworks that are used to analyze
political leaders (but many could be used to examine the average citizen
too). Below we provide an overview of some of those frameworks with some
examples of their applications to political leaders. Political leaders are dis-
cussed in much greater depth in Chapter 5.

Leader Analysis Frameworks

There is an extensive literature in political psychology on the leadership or
management styles of political leaders using many different frameworks.
32 Personality and Politics

Below we introduce several frameworks used to study political leaders, the

presidential character framework developed by James David Barber, several
trait assessment approaches, and the Operational Code. There also is no
common, agreed-upon empirical approach to the study of political leaders
in political psychology. Instead, there has developed a broad, methodologi-
cally diverse, interdisciplinary literature on the topic that has been tolerant
of hybrid research approaches that borrow individual concepts or variables
from a variety of sources. As a result, variables that psychologists would be
quick to describe as personality-based (whether Freudian concepts, authori-
tarian measures, personal traits like need for power, self-confidence, distrust
of others, etc.) are routinely combined with clearly nonpersonality-based
variables (like an individual’s first political success, their socialization expe-
riences, their prior policy experience, or operational code belief systems) in
the same analysis. Since the literature in political psychology addressing the
impact of personal variables upon political leader behavior developed over
a long process of selective borrowing by political scientists from a broad
range of psychological literatures (on personality, cognition, groups, etc.), it
is practically impossible to draw crisp, clear delineations between person-
ality and political leadership in political psychology. Like the problem often
facing surgeons in separating infants born conjoined, these two research
traditions in political psychology share too many common elements to
easily separate into two distinct bodies. This reality will become more
apparent as many of the approaches to the study of personality and politics
as well as political leadership are viewed in this chapter. There are some
personality-based studies that are applied to both leaders and the average
person, such as authoritarian personality studies. Below we will provide an
overview of several theories and frameworks that focus on individual char-
acteristics and their impact on political behavior.

Trait-Based Studies
Presidential Character
James David Barber’s well-known book, The Presidential Character (1972),
employs psychobiography to explain the personalities, styles, and charac-
ter of modern presidents. Avoiding the psychoanalytic focus upon Freud-
ian concepts (the id, ego, and superego), Barber’s psychobiographies seek
patterns in the early lives or political careers of leaders that create, through
a process of socialization, the subsequent patterns of personality, style,
and leadership one sees in office. Moreover, Barber argues that personality
should not be studied as a set of idiosyncratic traits unique to individual
presidents, where some presidents have a trait that others do not. Instead,
he argues that personality is a “matter of tendencies,” in which traits like
aggressiveness, detachment, or compliancy are possessed by all presidents,
but in differing amounts and combinations (1972, p. 7). As a result, the
components of presidential personality (character, world view, and style) are
patterned, fitting together in a “dynamic package understandable in psycho-
logical terms” (p. 6). Style reflects the habitual way a president performs his
three political roles (rhetoric, personal relations, and homework), whereas
 Personality and Politics 33

world view consists of the leader’s primary politically relevant beliefs regard-
ing such things as social causality, human nature, and the central moral con-
flicts of the time (pp. 7–8). Lastly, character is seen as the way in which a
president orients himself towards life and his own merits (i.e., his sense of
self-esteem and the criteria by which he judges himself, such as by achieve-
ment or affection, p. 8). In order to put these pieces together, Barber employs
a psychobiographical approach to trace the sociological development within
presidents of the three patterns comprising personality (character, world
view, and style) from their early lives on through to their critically important
first independent political successes. It is that first political success that sets
the pattern that follows, giving the leader a template for successful action
and positive feedback that they emulate and seek to copy throughout their
subsequent careers.
Perhaps one of the most famous typologies in political science, Barber’s
seeks to capture how presidential character, or “the basic stance a man takes
toward his Presidential experience,” finds itself reflected in two basic dimen-
sions: (1) the energy and effort he puts into the job (active or passive); and
(2) the personal satisfaction he derives from his presidential duties (pos-
itive or negative) (Barber, 1972, p. 6). The resulting typology is presented
in Table 2.1, along with Barber’s examples of American presidents who fit
within each of the cells.
Applied to both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Barber’s (1972) typol-
ogy leads to a very generalized prediction of behavior and style in office.
In Clinton’s case, it is clear that he fits into the active-positive category of
Barber’s typology. Indeed, few presidents in American history have been so
actively engaged personally in the details of policy making on a day to day
basis, or enjoyed their presidential duties and responsibilities as much as
Bill Clinton did in office (Preston, 2001). Barber’s predictions for this type
of personality are that such individuals want to achieve results and direct

Table 2.1 Barber Typology of Presidential Character

Personal Satisfaction With Presidential Duties

Energy Put Positive Negative
Into the Job
Active Derives great personal Derives little personal
satisfaction and is highly satisfaction yet is
engaged (examples: highly engaged
Jefferson, Roosevelt, (examples: Adams,
Truman, Kennedy, Ford, Wilson, Hoover,
Carter, Bush, Clinton) Johnson, Nixon)
Passive Enjoys great personal Derives little personal
satisfaction from the job, satisfaction and
but puts little energy into puts little energy
it (examples: Madison, into it (examples:
Taft, Harding, Reagan, Washington, Coolidge,
G. W. Bush) Eisenhower)
34 Personality and Politics

much of their energy towards achievement, tend to be self-respecting and

happy, are open to new ideas, are flexible and able to learn from mistakes,
and tend to show great capacity for growth in office. While one might quib-
ble with some of the predictions that seem to have problems in light of Clin-
ton’s White House behaviors regarding interns and the ability to learn from
mistakes, the general predictions regarding his emphasis upon results and
achievement, his generally happy demeanor, and his widely reported open-
ness to new ideas and policy flexibility are strongly supported by his record
in office. Similarly, Barack Obama would also be seen as active-positive, and
despite obstructionism by Congressional Republicans throughout his two
terms in office, he remains engaged, open to new ideas, flexible regarding
policy, and focused upon results and achievement while enjoying being
president.
In contrast, George W. Bush would likely be classified as a passive-positive
according to Barber’s typology. The early evidence of Bush’s style in office
supports this designation. He is an individual who tends to be less per-
sonally engaged or involved in the formulation and making of policy,
preferring instead to delegate these tasks to subordinates, but who never-
theless greatly enjoys being president (Milbank, 2001; Kahn, 2000; Dowd,
2001). In terms of predicted behaviors arising from this style type, Barber
describes passive-positives as primarily being after affirmation, support or
love from their followers, while at the same time showing a tendency for
policy drift, especially during times of crisis, in which you would expect
to see confusion, delay, and impulsiveness on their parts. There certainly
have been numerous examples of confusion, delay, and impulsiveness with
regards to Bush’s policies in the Middle East (especially with regards to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and towards Iraq), in his reactions towards
U.S. participation in many international treaties (ABM and Kyoto being
only the most notable), and in his enunciation of an “axis of evil.” More-
over, the Iraq War and U.S. actions in Afghanistan were, throughout Bush’s
presidency, characterized by considerable policy drift and inconsistencies
(Preston, 2011).
Obviously, the typology is exceedingly general in nature, examines only
two possible dimensions relating to presidential style, and has an intensely
subjective element. Clearly, one could take issue with either the accuracy
or usefulness of the Barber model, especially given that it basically places
Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Gerald Ford, Jimmy
Carter, George Bush Sr., Clinton, and Obama all in the active-positive cate-
gory, while Ronald Reagan, Warren Harding, and William Taft join George
W. Bush as passive-positives. Given such minimal differentiation among
such varied presidents, it was apparent to many leadership analysts that a
more involved, nuanced approach was required if political psychological
techniques were to provide a more nuanced portrait of leaders (Winter
et al., 1991; Hermann & Preston, 1994, 1998; Preston, 2001). Indeed, while
Barber’s later book achieved the most notoriety, many see his book The Law-
makers (1965), which explored the motivations for Connecticut legislators
running for office in the first place (i.e., making laws, doing their public ser-
vice, etc.) and how these shaped their legislative behaviors and styles once
in office, as being a superior approach to looking at leaders than his later
typology. In fact, similar relationships between motivation for leadership
 Personality and Politics 35

and political behavior have also been found in a study of Middle Eastern
revolutionaries (Winter, 2011).
Looking at other traits, Etheredge (1978), in a study of twentieth-
century U.S. presidents and foreign policy advisers, noted the impor-
tance of traits such as dominance, interpersonal trust, self-esteem, and
introversion-extroversion in shaping policy maker views and policy pref-
erences. American leaders scoring high on measures of dominance tended
to favor using force to settle disputes with the Soviet Union over the use
of arbitration or disarmament. Moreover, leaders scoring high on introver-
sion tended to oppose cooperation, while extroverted ones generally sup-
ported cooperation and negotiation with the Soviets. These results built
upon earlier studies reported by Etheredge of over two hundred male U.S.
foreign service officers, military officers, and domestic affairs specialists,
where those who scored high on traits of dominance and competitiveness
were more likely to advocate the use of force and to see the Soviet Union as
threatening, while those high on interpersonal trust and self-esteem tended
to hold a more benign view of the Soviets and to oppose the use of force
(Winter, 2003). Other significant work in applying traits to political leaders
has been done by Weintraub (1981, 1986, 1989), in his studies of U.S. presi-
dential press conference responses, and by M. Hermann (1984, 1987, 1988)
in her studies of the foreign policy orientations of world leaders.

Leaders’ Characteristics: Motives and Traits

A wealth of research also exists surrounding the impact that various indi-
vidual characteristics of leaders have upon their styles of decision making,
interpersonal interactions, information processing, or management behav-
iors in office (cf., Stogdill & Bass, 1981; Hermann, 1980a, 1980b, 1983,
1984, 1987; Vertzberger, 1990; Winter et al., 1991; Hermann & Preston,
1994, 1998; Preston & ’t Hart, 1999; Mitchell, 2005; Preston, 2001, 2011). In
Chapter 5, ample illustrations of leader characteristics and decision-making
patterns will be presented. Table 2.2 provides basic descriptions of several
of the most important leader characteristics, along with the measurement
techniques discussed.4
A few brief illustrations of several of these individual characteristics
(power, complexity, expertise) should provide the reader with a clearer
understanding of how these measures tend to be thought of in the literature.
The need for power (or dominance) is a personality characteristic which
has been extensively studied and linked to specific types of behavior and
interactional styles with others (Browning & Jacob, 1964; Winter, 1973, 1987;
Winter & Stewart, 1977; Hermann, 1987; McClelland, 1975; House, 1990).
Specifically, one would expect leaders with progressively higher psychologi-
cal needs for power to be increasingly dominant and assertive in their lead-
ership styles in office and to assert greater control over subordinates and
policy decisions. For example, Fodor and Smith (1982, pp. 178–185) found
that leaders high in need for power were more associated with the suppres-
sion of open decision making and discussion within groups than were low
power leaders. Similarly, a number of studies have found high power lead-
ers requiring a far greater degree of personal control than do low power
leaders over the policy process and the actions of subordinates (Winter,
36 Personality and Politics

Table 2.2 Descriptions of Selected Individual Characteristics

Need for Power Concern with establishing, maintaining, or

restoring one’s power (i.e., one’s impact,
control, or influence over others).
Locus of Control View of the world in which an individual does or
does not perceive some degree of control over
situations he/she is involved in and whether
government can influence what happens in or
to the nation.
Ethnocentrism View of the world in which one’s own nation holds
center stage; strong emotional ties to one’s
own nation; emphasis on national honor and
identity.
Need for Affiliation Concern with establishing, maintaining, or
restoring warm and friendly relationships with
other persons or groups.
Cognitive Ability to differentiate the environment: Degree of
Complexity differentiation person shows in describing or
discussing other people, places, policies, ideas,
or things.
Distrust of Others General feeling of doubt, uneasiness, and
misgiving about others; inclination to suspect
and doubt others’ motives and actions.
Self-Confidence Person’s sense of self-importance or image of his/
her ability to cope with the environment.
Task-Interpersonal Relative emphasis in interactions with others
Emphasis on getting the task done versus focusing on
feelings and needs of others.

1973, 1987; Etheredge, 1978). In terms of interpersonal relationships, stud-

ies have also found that leaders high in the need for power exhibit more
controlling, domineering behavior towards subordinates than low power
leaders (Browning & Jacob, 1964; Winter & Stewart, 1977; Fodor & Farrow,
1979; McClelland, 1985).
The cognitive complexity of decision makers is another individual char-
acteristic that has long been argued to have a significant impact upon the
nature of decision making, style of leadership, assessment of risk, and char-
acter of general information processing within decision groups (Driver,
1977; Stewart, Hermann, & Hermann, 1989; Tetlock, 1985; Wallace & Sued-
feld, 1988; Hermann, 1980b, 1987; Vertzberger, 1990; Preston, 2001). For
example, Vertzberger (1990, p. 134), among others, has noted that as the
cognitive complexity of individual decision makers increases, they become
more capable of dealing with complex decision environments and infor-
mation that demand new or subtle distinctions. When making decisions,
complex individuals tend to have greater cognitive need for information,
are more attentive to incoming information, prefer systematic over heuris-
tic processing, and deal with any overload of information better than their
less complex counterparts (Schroder, Driver, & Streufert, 1967; Nydegger,
 Personality and Politics 37

1975). In terms of interactions with advisers and the acceptance of criti-

cal feedback, several studies have shown that complex individuals are far
more interested in receiving negative feedback from others—and are more
likely to incorporate it into their own decision making—than are those who
are less complex (Nydegger, 1975; Ziller et al., 1977). Indeed, Vertzberger
(1990, p. 173) and Glad (1983, p. 38) have both noted that low complexity
individuals tend to show symptoms of dogmatism, view and judge issues
in black-and-white terms, ignore information threatening their existing
closed belief systems, and have limited ability to adjust their beliefs to new
information.
Complexity has also been linked to how attentive or sensitive leaders are
to information from (or to nuances from within) their surrounding politi-
cal or policy environments (Hermann, 1984; Preston, 1997, 2001). In fact,
Hermann (1984, pp. 54–64) notes that the more sensitive the individual
is to information from the decision environment, the more receptive the
leader is to information regarding the views of colleagues or constituents,
the views of outside actors, and the value of alternative viewpoints and
discrepant information. In contrast, leaders with a low sensitivity to con-
textual information will be less receptive to information from the outside
environment, will operate from a previously established and strongly held
set of beliefs, will selectively perceive and process incoming information in
order to support or bolster this prior framework, and will be unreceptive or
close-minded towards alternative viewpoints and discrepant information.
This is closely correlated with the degree to which individuals are high ver-
sus low self-monitors—i.e., those focusing upon and taking cues from their
external environment when interacting with others as opposed to those who
ignore such cues in order to “be who they are” (Snyder, 1987; Gangestad &
Snyder, 2000; Day et al., 2002). Self-monitoring involves having one’s anten-
nae up to pick up on and be responsive to social situations, and it has been
found to be related to being high in complexity (Preston, 2001, 2011).
In contrast, the integrative complexity literature differs slightly from the
cognitive complexity literature discussed above in that it focuses upon both
differentiation (which involves evaluatively distinct dimensions of a prob-
lem taken into account by decision makers) and integration (which involves
the connections made by decision makers among differentiated character-
istics), whereas the general complexity literature focuses principally upon
differentiation alone (Tetlock, 1983). For example, according to Tetlock and
Tyler (1996), integrative complexity presupposes a dialectical point-counter
point style of thinking in which the speaker recognizes the legitimacy of
contradictory points of view and then integrates those evaluatively differ-
entiated cognitions into a higher-order synthesis. The concept of cognitive
complexity, by contrast, requires merely that one have many distinct ideas
or thoughts on a subject, not that those cognitions be in tension with each
other or be organized into higher-order schemata or knowledge structures.
For example, one could be cognitively complex by generating lots of reasons
why one is right and one’s adversaries are wrong, but still be integratively
simple (p. 166).
In terms of impact on leaders, Suedfeld and Rank (1976) observed that
successful revolutionary leaders needed the low complexity associated with
single-mindedness to be successful, but those with this characteristic later
38 Personality and Politics

found it difficult to govern after their successful revolutions since governing

requires more “graduated, flexible, and integrated” views of the world (Sued-
feld & Rank, 1976, p. 169). Indeed, it was only the revolutionary leaders who
later showed a significant increase in their integrative complexity who found
success in governing.
Finally, the prior policy experience or expertise of leaders has a sig-
nificant impact upon presidential style, the nature of advisory group inter-
actions, and how forcefully leaders assert their own positions on policy
issues (cf., Barber, 1972; George, 1980; Hermann, 1986; House, 1990). Past
experience provides leaders with a sense of what actions will be effective or
ineffective in specific policy situations, as well as, which cues from the envi-
ronment should be attended to and which are irrelevant (Hermann, 1986,
p. 178). It influences how much learning must be accomplished on the job,
the inventory of behaviors (standard operating procedures) possessed, and
how confident the leader will be in interactions with experts. Leaders with a
high degree of prior policy experience are more likely to insist upon personal
involvement or control over policy making than are those low in prior policy
experience, who will tend to be more dependent upon the views of expert
advisers. Indeed, experienced leaders who have expertise in a policy area
are far less likely to rely upon the views of advisers or utilize simplistic ste-
reotypes or analogies to understand policy situations. Such leaders are more
interested in gathering detailed information from the policy environment,
and they employ a more deliberate decision process than their less experi-
enced counterparts. Similarly, leaders lacking experience or expertise find
themselves far more dependent upon expert advisers and more likely to uti-
lize simplistic stereotypes and analogies when making decisions (see Khong,
1992; Levy, 1994; Preston, 2001). Knowing whether a leader is approaching
foreign or domestic policy as a relative expert or novice provides insight into
predicting how damaging such reliance upon analogy might be to a particu-
lar leader’s information-management and information-processing styles.
This individual characteristic is similar to George’s (1980) sense of efficacy.
A major pioneer of modern leadership studies, Margaret G. Hermann
(1983, 1984, 1986, 1999a, 2001) has led the way forward through her devel-
opment of a rigorous leader assessment-at-a-distance technique and a huge
body of path-breaking research that has explored many facets of how lead-
ers shape and affect foreign policy. Not only has her Leader Trait Assess-
ment (LTA) content-analytic technique become the most widely utilized
and empirically rich of the existing approaches to leadership analysis, Her-
mann’s work spawned the original development of the computer-based,
expert system, Profiler-Plus, developed by Social Science Automation, a
company co-founded by Hermann and Michael Young. Profiler-Plus’ abil-
ity to code millions of words of text systematically with ease, create mas-
sive data bases of world leaders, and run comparisons across leaders, their
characteristics, and a wide-range of other leadership dimensions has led to
Hermann’s work resulting not only a large academic literature, but to being
widely used throughout the U.S. government by the practitioner community.
The LTA approach uses the spontaneous interview responses of leaders
to code for seven specific individual characteristics: need for power, con-
ceptual complexity, task versus interpersonal focus, self-confidence, locus
of control, distrust of others, and ethnocentrism (Hermann 1999b). All
 Personality and Politics 39

available materials from interviews, press conference Q&A’s across every

issue area and across time are coded by Profiler-Plus, generating over-
all scores for each leader broken down by characteristic, audience, topic,
and time period. This system not only has 100% intercoder reliability and
removes the subjectivity so often associated with profiling techniques coded
by hand, it also allows for the comparison of leader scores against a norming
population of over 250 other world leaders. These comparisons can also be
made within groups of leaders within a country or across a given region.
Moreover, there has been a great deal of empirical research that has actu-
ally provided support for the behavioral correlates that are linked by Her-
mann’s approach to given leader scores. For example, Preston (2001) and
Dyson and Preston (2006) profiled modern U.S. Presidents and British Prime
Ministers respectively, and then compared the theoretical expectations for
given LTA scores (given the psychological literatures) with the leaders’ actual
behavior across foreign policy cases using archival materials (i.e., their need
for personal involvement/control, need for information, structuring/use of
advisory systems, etc.). Similarly, in her study of sub-Saharan African lead-
ers, Hermann (1987) found that unlike the styles of Western political lead-
ers, who generally tend to emphasize task completion in office, her profiled
African leaders emphasized constituent morale over task accomplishment.
At the same time, however, Hermann’s study also found substantial varia-
bility across the individual characteristics scores of these African leaders,
meaning there was no single style type for sub-Saharan African leaders and
illustrating the need to study each in depth and in context in order to pre-
dict their foreign policy behavior. Interestingly, across this broad leadership
literature, Hermann and Preston (1994, p. 81) note that there are five main
types of leadership variables that appear to be routinely identified as having
an impact upon the style of leaders and their subsequent structuring and
use of advisory systems: 1) leader involvement in the policy-making process;
2) leader willingness to tolerate conflict; 3) leader’s motivation or reason
for leading; 4) leader’s preferred strategies for managing information; and
5) leader’s preferred strategies for resolving conflict. Across Hermann and
her colleagues’ work, these variables have increasingly been the focus of
their research.
Other studies applying Hermann’s LTA approach have looked at U.N.
Secretaries General (Kille, 2006), Iranian leaders (Taysi & Preston, 2001),
European prime ministers (Karrbo & Hermann, 1998), sub-Saharan Afri-
can leaders (Hermann, 1987), President Assad of Syria (Hermann, 1988);
Soviet leaders (Winter et al., 1991), Irish nationalist leaders (Mastors, 2000),
Indian prime ministers (Mitchell, 2007), Saddam Hussein and Bill Clin-
ton (Hermann, 2006); the impact of leader characteristics upon bureau-
cratic and group dynamics (Stewart et al., 1989; Preston & ’t Hart, 1999),
leader selection and socialization dynamics (Hermann, 1979), democratic
peace theory (Hermann & Kegley, 1995), use of analogy in decision making
(Dyson & Preston, 2006), and leader management of crisis contexts (Pres-
ton, 2008; Boin et al., 2010). Across all of these studies, the differences in
leader characteristics and styles have been shown to have substantial foreign
policy impacts. Thus, while there are many fine assessment-at-a-distance
techniques available (i.e., Winter’s motive assessment, Suedfeld’s integra-
tive complexity, George and Walker’s operational code, etc.), LTA is still
40 Personality and Politics

the most rigorous and well-tested of current profiling techniques (due to its
decades long track record of research, meticulous empirical work validating
its links to actual behavior, and the sophisticated nature of its automation
into the Profiler-Plus expert system).

Operational Code
A final approach to studying characteristics of political leaders to be pre-
sented in this chapter are studies of operational codes, a concept originally
introduced by Leites (1951, 1953) in his study of the ideology and belief
structures of the Soviet Bolsheviks. His work was later modified and
stripped of its psychoanalytic elements by Alexander George (1969), who
reconceptualized the operational code (as illustrated in Table 2.3) to repre-
sent the answers to ten questions centering around a leader’s philosophical
beliefs (what the nature of the political universe is) and instrumental beliefs
(what are believed to be the best strategies and tactics for achieving goals).
Operational codes are constructs representing the overall belief systems of
leaders about the world (i.e., how it works, what it is like, what kinds of
actions are most likely to be successful, etc.) (George, 1969, 1979; Holsti,
1977; Walker, 1983; Walker, Schafer, & Young, 1998; Malici & Malici, 2005;
Walker & Schafer, 2007). Why is the discussion of the operational code in
a chapter on personality and not in the next chapter where beliefs are dis-
cussed? The explanation is simply that the operational code is unique to
the personality of the person under examination and, more importantly,
because the operational code links motivation (a personality factor) with
beliefs. Scholars who use the framework argue that the beliefs it depicts are
motivating forces as well as information processing filters.

Table 2.3 Operational Code: Philosophical and Instrumental Beliefs of

Leaders

Philosophical Beliefs Instrumental Beliefs

The fundamental nature of politics The best approach for selecting goals
and political conflict, and the for political action;
image of the opponent; How such goals and objectives can be
The general prospects for achieving pursued most effectively;
one’s fundamental political The best approach to calculation,
values; control, and acceptance of the
The extent to which political risks of political action;
outcomes are predictable; The matter of “timing” of action;
The extent to which political The utility and role of different
leaders can influence historical means for advancing one’s
developments and control interests.
outcomes;
The role of chance.
Note: From George, A. L. (1979). The causal nexus between cognitive beliefs and
decision making behavior. In L. Falkowski (Ed.), Psychological models in interna-
tional politics (p. 100). Boulder, CO: Westview.
 Personality and Politics 41

As George (1979, p. 99) observed, operational code beliefs, unlike atti-

tudes, represent central beliefs which “are concerned with fundamental,
unchanging issues of politics and political action.” By understanding the
operational codes of leaders, scholars employing this technique argue that
a better understanding of their likely decision-making styles and political
behavior is gained. Operational codes are constructed either quantitatively
or qualitatively through an examination of decision makers’ speeches, inter-
views, writings, and other verbal or written materials. This technique has
a long history of use in political science and been used to examine a wide
range of political leaders. Moreover, an automated coding scheme for the
operational code, Verbs in Context (or VICS), employing the Profiler-Plus
computer program, has resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of opera-
tional code to assess the world. Though at times lacking the qualitative rich-
ness of traditional Georgian op-code case study analysis, the VICs op-codes
substitute quantitative rigor and the ability to code massive amounts of
material across leaders with relative ease. Included within this operational
code literature are studies of a wide range of political leaders, including John
Foster Dulles (Holsti, 1970; Stuart & Starr, 1981), John F. Kennedy (Stu-
art & Starr, 1981; Marfleet, 2000), Henry Kissinger (Walker, 1977; Stuart &
Starr, 1981), Woodrow Wilson (Walker, 1995), Jimmy Carter (Walker et al.,
1998), U.S. Presidents and Secretaries of State (Walker & Falkowski, 1984),
Vladimir Putin (Dyson, 2001), and a large cross-section of world leaders
(Shafer & Walker, 2006).
For example, in the case of President Vladimir Putin of Russia, an opera-
tional code analysis conducted by Stephen Dyson (2001, pp. 334–339) sug-
gests that with regard to the five basic questions surrounding philosophical
beliefs, Putin would: (1) view political life as harmonious to the extent that it
was governed and regulated by laws, rules, and norms; (2) believe that one can
be optimistic about making progress towards one’s goals as long as the rule
of law is enforced, but that anarchy and corruption will reign in its absence;
(3) believe that the political future is predictable to the extent that one can
rely upon the existence of enforced rules and norms; (4) believe that it is
possible to achieve very little direct control over history, but that one’s own
environment and circumstances can be affected by engaging in an incremen-
tal, step-by-step approach; and (5) view chance as something to be avoided
as much as possible through good organization and organizational planning.
In terms of his five basic instrumental beliefs, Putin is argued to believe that:
(1) the goals and objectives set for political action should be both achieva-
ble and measurable; (2) the best strategy for pursuing goals is to engage in
an incremental, backward-mapping approach, planned step-by-step to stay
within the norms of expected behavior; (3) political risk can be controlled by
keeping a low political profile on his part while working behind-the-scenes;
(4) the best timing of political action is one that preempts major difficulties,
but does not occur so early as to cause difficulties itself; and (5) the prime
tools of political interest advancement are incremental backward-mapping
and flexibility on the leader’s part (Dyson, 2001, pp. 339–343). Thus, Putin’s
op code suggest a leader who is incremental by nature, who judges the
acceptability of actions by their chances of success, who sees adherence to
norms as essential, and who views those who step outside of such norms as
requiring reciprocal or violent treatment (Dyson, 2001, p. 343).
42 Personality and Politics

The value of such op codes in predicting the likely pattern of leader

behavior given the answers to these basic philosophical and instrumental
questions is potentially quite high and of great value to policy makers. For
example, in summarizing the findings of the Putin op code, Dyson (2001)
makes a number of potentially important observations regarding the pre-
dictability of certain patterns of behavior on the Russian leader’s part:

Putin’s central belief in the harmony of political life when governed by

rules and norms suggests a reciprocal, quid pro quo approach. Putin
is unlikely to be impressed by unexpectedly bold or unconventional
initiatives. His belief in the necessity of selecting goals which are
both achievable and measurable, along with his personal propensity
to “backward-map” a “step-by-step” approach towards an objective,
suggests that agreements of an incremental design appeal to him . . .
Putin’s Operational Code suggests he will, chameleon-like, imitate
his environment. One could not expect Putin to act in a norm-bound
manner when those with which he is engaged do not. Putin is unlikely
to “stick to the rules” in the face of deviation by another . . . instead,
departure from agreed norms of behavior will in all probability entail
a decisive break—an “all bets are off ” attitude from Putin . . . [his]
beliefs about political life . . . disposes him to prefer to retain a cer-
tain flexibility and freedom to maneuver. A recommendation would
therefore be to design agreements and the like with clearly set out
rules and schedules, but many “points of exit” for either side . . . [He] is
unlikely to want to be tied to great statements of intent. Platitudes and
vagaries can be expected from him, he will attempt to maintain a low
profile until a clear “success” compels him to take political credit . . .
Overall, the policymaker can feel confident that carefully constructed
initiatives will not be dismissed out of hand, and that Putin is unlikely
to make rash, impulsive or emotional gestures . . . However, the pol-
icymaker can feel warned that Putin will reciprocate “bad” as well as
“good” behavior, and that a break down in co-operation will likely be
quite bitter and long-lived.
(p. 344)

CONCLUSION
This chapter has reviewed some of the major theoretical approaches to the
study of personality in psychology, but only those that have been used in
political psychology. There are many additional psychological theories of
personality that have not been mentioned in this chapter. In addition, the
chapter presented a review of some of the frameworks in political psychol-
ogy that have been used to analyze personality and leadership in politics.
In this chapter we have said little about the average person, as opposed to
political leaders, because most of the personality-based studies in political
psychology are of political leaders. Analyses of the political psychology of
the average person are important and will be explored in Chapter 6 in this
book. However, the concepts and theories used are those to be found in the
next chapter, where we look at cognition and attitudes.
 Personality and Politics 43

Topics, Theories/Explanations, and Concepts in Chapter 2

Topics Theories/ Concepts
Explanations and
Frameworks
Personality Individual Differences Context
Greenstein’s (1969) Psychoanalytic Id, ego, superego
three factors approaches
determining
whether
personality is
important or not
Disorders Narcissism
Neuroticism
Psychobiographies
Traits Big Five Personality Neuroticism, extraversion,
Traits agreeableness,
openness to experience,
conscientiousness
Motivations Power, affiliation,
achievement
Behavioral genetics
Authoritarian
personality
Leadership Barber’s (1972) Active/negative;
Frameworks typology passive/positive
of presidential
character
Operational code Philosophical/
Instrumental beliefs
Hermann’s Leader
Assessment at a
Distance
Leader Traits Need for power, locus of
control, ethnocentrism,
need for affiliation,
conceptual complexity,
distrust, self confidence

Key Terms
achievement motive neurotic anxiety
affiliation-intimacy motive neuroticism
agreeableness openness
authoritarian personality operational codes
behavioral genetics paranoia
Big Five pleasure principle
cognitive complexity power motive
conscientiousness projection
44 Personality and Politics

defense mechanisms psychoanalytic or

denial psychodynamic theories
ego rationalization
ethnocentrism reality principle
extroversion repression
id right wing
locus of control authoritarianism
motives superego
need for achievement task-interpersonal emphasis
need for affiliation-intimacy traits
need for power unconscious

Suggestions for Further Reading

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: Author.
Ewen, R. (1998). An introduction to theories of personality (5th ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Feldman, O., & Valenty, L. (Eds.). (2001). Profiling political leaders: Cross-cultural
studies of personality and behavior. Westport, CT: Praeger.
George, A. L., & George, J. L. (1964). Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House:
A personality study. New York: Dover.
George, A. L., & George, J. L. (1998). Presidential personality and performance.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Greenstein, F. I. (1969). Personality and politics: Problems of evidence, infer-
ence, and conceptualization. Chicago, IL: Markham.
Maddi, S. R. (1996). Personality theories: A comparative analysis (6th ed.).
Washington: Brooks/Cole.
Magnavita, J. (2002). Theories of personality: Contemporary approaches to the
science of personality. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Post, J. M. (Ed.). (2003). The psychological assessment of political leaders. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Robins, R. S., & Post, J. (1997). Political paranoia: The psychopolitics of hatred.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Smith, C., Atkinson, J., McClelland, D., & Veroff, J. (Eds.). (1992). Motivation
and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Notes
1. For a critique of psychobiographical method and a discussion of chal-
lenges faced by researchers who employ this methodology, see George
and George (1998) and Greenstein (1969).
2. Other well-known studies of political leaders relying upon psychobi-
ography with some elements of psychoanalytic analysis include those
exploring the personalities of former U.S. Secretary of Defense James
Forrestal (Rogow, 1963); Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Mahatma
 Personality and Politics 45

Gandhi (Wolfenstein, 1971); John F. Kennedy (Mongar, 1974); former U.S.

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (Isaak, 1975); Richard Nixon (Brodie,
1981); Jimmy Carter (Glad, 1980; Hargrove, 1988); Ronald Reagan (Glad,
1989); Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (Post, 1991, 1993a); Josef Stalin
(Birt, 1993); and Bill Clinton (Renshon, 1996). Some of these psychobi-
ographies focus upon Freudian notions of ego-defense (e.g., Glad, 1980;
Link & Glad, 1994; Hargrove, 1988; Renshon, 1996), whereas others con-
centrate upon specific kinds of personality disorders in these leaders,
ranging from narcissism to paranoid personality disorders (e.g., Volkan,
1980; Post, 1991, 1993b; Birt, 1993).
3. Examples of leader studies using Winter’s motive scoring technique
(which looks at power, achievement and affiliation) includes: Richard
Nixon (Winter & Carlson, 1988), U.S. Presidents (Winter, 1987); African
political leaders (Winter, 1980), and Mikhail Gorbachev (Winter, Hermann,
Weintraub, & Walker, 1991). For a more detailed discussion of motives
and various coding techniques surrounding them, see Smith, Atkinson,
McClelland, and Veroff’s (1992) volume, Motivation and Personality: Hand-
book of Thematic Content Analysis, published by Cambridge University
Press.
4. Among the political psychology or psychological studies that have
focused upon either the traits themselves or how they relate to leaders
have been ones examining personal needs for power (Winter, 1973, 1987;
McClelland, 1975; Etheredge, 1978; Hermann, 1984, 1987; House, 1990),
personal needs for affiliation (Browning & Jacob, 1964; Winter & Stewart,
1977; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; Winter, 1987), conceptual complex-
ity (Suedfeld & Rank, 1976; Suedfeld & Tetlock, 1977; Driver, 1977; Tet-
lock, 1985; Hermann, 1984, 1987), locus of control (Rotter, 1966; Davis &
Phares, 1967; Hermann, 1984, 1987), achievement or task/interpersonal
emphasis (Bales, 1951; Bass, 1981; Byars, 1972, 1973; Winter & Stewart,
1977; Rowe & Mason, 1987; Hermann, 1987; Nutt, 1990), ethnocentrism
(Levin & Campbell, 1972; Glad, 1983), and self-confidence (Hermann,
1987; House, 1990; Winter et al., 1991). For a more detailed discussion of
these traits, see M. G. Hermann (1999) and Smith, Atkinson, McClelland,
and Veroff (1992).