Chapter 2

P ersonality and P olitics

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

cept in psychology. For this reason, personality is placed at the bottom
of the Political Being’s brain, representing its roots, and therefore the
most fundamental element. Personality does not just affect how people
think and behave in the political arena; it is also affected by their life
experiences. 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 development of a person’s personality to understand his
or her political inclinations (to the unconscious or more surface, conscious
traits, and motivations)? What personality characteristics are most politic­
ally relevant? Are people completely unique, or do they share personality
traits in various combinations, making individuals more or less similar in
their political behavior? How should we study personality when we cannot
very well put political figures on the couch and ask them questions?
The study of personality and politics is the oldest tradition in polit­
ical psychology (Adorno et al., 1950; Lasswell, 1948a, 1960; Leites, 1951).
Personality as a concept is 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,
with 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 developed con­
jointly in political psychology. As a result, separating political personality
from political leadership research in any textbook on political psychology
is problematic.
In this chapter, we discuss some of the broader theoretical arguments
about personality and its effect on political behavior. We begin with some
of the central questions about the role of personality in political behavior
before turning to the study of personality in psychology and looking at some
of the major scholars and approaches from the psychological perspective.

DOI: 10.4324/9780429244643-2
 Personality and Politics 17

Next we present an overview of some of the ways in which personality in

politics, and particularly personality factors relevant to political leadership,
are studied. The portion of the Political Being emphasized in this chapter
is, of course, the personality circle. There are also links between personality
and cognition, and 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
psychic regularities, and refers to an inferred entity rather than to a dir­
ectly observable phenomenon. In other words, personality refers to a con­
struct that is introduced to account for the regularities in an individual’s
behavior as he or she responds to diverse stimuli (Hermann, Preston, &
Young, 1996). Or, as Ewen notes, personality in the psychological litera­
ture refers to “important and relatively stable aspects of a person’s behavior
that account for consistent patterns of behavior,” 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, there is tremendous
disagreement within the field between social psychologists and personality
theorists regarding exactly what should be incorporated into such a com­
prehensive definition. Personality theorists include cognition, affect, motiv­
ation, identification, and processes of ego-defense in their conceptions of
personality, while social psychologists usually seek to limit personality to a
residual category, absent of emotion, cognition, or motivation (see George
& George, 1998; Greenstein, 1969). There are many different theories of per­
sonality in psychology. Schultz (1981), for example, reviewed 20 personality
theories organized into nine categories: psychoanalytic, neopsychoanalytic,
interpersonal, trait, developmental, 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 person­
ality. Instead, the focus is on how particular aspects of personality translate
into political behavior. Indeed, the study of personality in political psych­
ology is best characterized as the study of individual differences. Rather
than seek the whole, researchers selectively focus on any number of indi­
vidual aspects of a person’s makeup (i.e., cognition, motivation, affect, ego,
attitudes) to explain behavior. Obviously, this is a much narrower and more
restrictive view of personality than that taken by most psychologists (espe­
cially the personality theorists). As a result, in our view it is unproductive
to attempt to provide a commonly agreed-upon definition of personality for
this textbook—there isn’t one (Ewen, 1998; Maddi, 1996; Magnavita, 2002).
18 Personality and Politics

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

Instead, since our focus is on political psychology rather than psychology,
we limit our discussion to those theories most used in political psychology:
psychoanalytic, trait, and motivation. Furthermore, we address research in
this field that centers upon various kinds of individual differences to explain
leadership, leadership style, and political behavior.

W HEN D O PERSONALITIES MATTER IN

POLITICS?
Of course, just because personalities may sometimes matter with regard 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 person­
ality in predicting behavior across a variety of situations. He found that
people behave far less consistently across situations than previously
thought. Instead, it appears that the situation exerts powerful effects on
behavior. Indeed, scholars who work in the fields of personality or lead­
ership generally accept that context (or situation) matters more (George,
1980; Greenstein, 1969; Hermann, 1987, 2000; Preston, 2001; Preston &
’t Hart, 1999). The situational context is 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 while personality is often
unimportant in terms of either political behavior or policy outcomes, the
likelihood of personal impact: (1) increases to the degree that the envir­
onment requires restructuring; (2) varies with the political actor’s loca­
tion in the environment; and (3) varies with the personal 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 situ­
ation 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 situation 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 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, with Congress, the
courts, interest groups, and many other actors playing substantial roles in
determining policy outcomes (see Burke, 1992; Cronin, 1980; Light, 1982;
Neustadt, 1990).
 Personality and Politics 19

THEORIES A N D APPROACHES TO STU DYIN G

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

Psychoanalytic Approaches
Among the oldest traditions in personality in psychology are psychoana­
lytic or psychodynamic theories. Psychoanalytic theories highlight the
role of the unconscious in human behavior, and the motives and drives that
underlie behavior. The father of psychoanalytic theory is Sigmund Freud
(1932,1950, 1962). Freud introduced the idea that the mind is like an ice­
berg. Only a small part of the iceberg is visible floating above the water.
Around 90% is under water and unobservable. Similarly, people are con­
scious of only a small part of the mind. The majority of the mind’s oper­
ation is like the portion of the iceberg underwater. It is unconscious. Freud
viewed the personality as an energy system driven by aggressive and sexual
drives. People are motivated to satisfy those drives, a force Freud called the
pleasure principle. Behavior is a product of these drives and the uncon­
scious efforts by individuals to suppress and channel the desire to act out in
search of satisfaction. 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
elements: the id, the ego, and the superego. The id, which is inherited,
includes instincts and responses to bodily 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 follows 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 per­
sonality (Hall & Lindzey, 1970). Thus, if you interact with an individual who
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
Personality and Politics

fear of being punished for doing something the id wants to do. Another type
of anxiety is moral anxiety, which occurs when there is a conflict between
the id and the superego. Defense mechanisms are also used to defend the
ego. Defense mechanisms are unconscious techniques used to distort reality
and prevent people from feeling anxiety. They include repression, wherein
someone involuntarily eliminates an unpleasant memory. Projection is
another defense mechanism, and it involves attributing one’s own objec­
tionable 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 that the country is going to war despite the mobil­
ization 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. He argued that change in human
society produced freedom from certain restraints such as serfdom and
slavery, 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 authori­
tarian political and social systems. Eric Erikson (1950,1958,1969) was also
a depth psychologist trained as a Freudian who made many contributions
to psychoanalysis. He too maintained an interest in politics and political
leaders. Erikson is best known for his work on individual stages of person­
ality 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
Martin Luther (Erickson, 1958).
Psychoanalysts employed several techniques that served the roles of data
collection, broadly defined, and therapy. Freud and other psychoanalysts
believed much of the unconscious was 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 is
dream analysis. Freud believed dreams were symbolic representations of
thoughts—desires, fears, things that happened. Freud's research was based
upon notes taken after therapeutic sessions with patients took place.
Clearly the couch and dream analysis are not options in political psy­
chological research that uses psychoanalytical theories. Access problems,
particularly to political leaders, prevent direct person-to-person psycho­
analysis. Therefore, many scholars who adopt a psychoanalytic approach
to the analysis of political figures use the psychobiographical method.
Psychobiographies involve an examination of the life history of an indi­
vidual. It is important to note that not all psychobiographies are psychoana­
lytic.1 Some focus upon Freudian analysis or notions of ego-defense (e.g.,
Glad, 1980; Hargrove, 1988; Link & Glad, 1994; Renshon, 1996), whereas
 Personality and Politics 21

others concentrate upon specific kinds of personality disorders, ranging

from narcissism to paranoid personality disorders (e.g., Birt, 1993; Post,
1991; Volkan, 1980; Volkan et al., 1999). Usually, psychobiographies take
the form of quite detailed, in-depth case studies of individual leaders, tra­
cing their personal, social, and political development from early childhood
onwards through young adulthood. Since it is assumed that leaders’ per­
sonalities or political styles are shaped by their early childhood socializa­
tion experiences, psychobiographies generally seek to identify consistent
patterns of behavior across time that can be explained using psychoanalytic
analysis (see Renshon, 2012; Schultz, 2005).2
One of the most important examples of high-quality psychobiography is
the study of Woodrow Wilson by Alexander and Juliette George (1964). In
their classic book Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House, they use a psycho­
analytic approach to explain Wilson’s highly moralistic, rigid and uncom­
promising political style while in the White House. They argue that it was
a result of a strict Calvinist childhood, 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 pol­
itical personality in which he sought to accomplish great moral deeds to
compensate for his own feelings of low self-esteem. Given his difficult rela­
tionship with his stern, disciplinarian father, Wilson bridled at authority
figures and internalized their criticism as personally directed at him. As
well as seeing the world in absolute terms, Wilson felt that compromise
on moral issues was immoral. The Georges argue that these very patterns,
developed throughout his childhood and young adult life, followed him into
the White House. Indeed, Wilson’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, authoritarian figure—his father. The Georges
saw 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 reasons for his political defeat over the League of Nations.
As mentioned, another focus of psychoanalytic studies of personality and
politics is on psychopathology, or psychological disorders. The examination
of political leaders’ behavior as a possible product of psychopathologies
began with Harold Lasswell’s Psychopathology and Politics (1960), in which
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 were
analyzed based upon the identification of psychopathologies. For example,
McCrae and Costa (1997) examined neuroticism, a personality disorder
they argue is characterized in individuals by anxiety, self-conscious­
ness, vulnerability, hostility, depression, and impulsiveness. In his study
of narcissism, Volkan (1980) argued that narcissistic people seek leader­
ship 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 Stalin found descriptions of
Personality and Politics

his personality fit the pattern associated with paranoia. Paranoid personal­
ities are quite complex. Birt argued 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 aggressor. Narcissism ranges from feelings
of inferiority to superiority. Paranoid people swing from one end of each
continuum to the other. Birt argued Stalin’s paranoia not only affected the
international policies of the Soviet Union, but also his career: Stalin “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 institutions of the Soviet Union into extensions of
his inner personality disorders” (Birt, 1993, p. 611). Birt’s analysis of a par­
ticular time period in Soviet foreign policy, the blitzkrieg attack by Germany
during World War II, demonstrated 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. Insecurity 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 examining personality disorders in leaders will
usually employ the widely accepted American Psychiatric Association’s
diagnostic criteria to guide and structure their analysis of leader personality
and behavior.
Freud and psychoanalysis in general received numerous criticisms.
Indeed, the criticisms of Freud were so extensive that “no other psycho­
logical theory has been subjected to such searching and often bitter criti­
cism than has psychoanalysis. Freud and his theory have been attacked,
reviled, ridiculed, and slandered” (Hall & Lindzey, 1970, p. 68). Among the
more legitimate criticisms are the empirical problems that arose because
Freud’s research was not controlled, and he 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 because he relied on
his own recollection of discussions. His method for reaching conclusions
was not revealed, and there was “no systematic presentation, either quan-
• titative or qualitative, of his empirical 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 pardy because
much of Freud’s theory about personality is based upon unobservable
abstract ideas, and pardy because there are so many theoretically possible
behaviors that are manifestations of psychoanalytic issues. 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 discussion of different perspectives on how important the
unconscious is, a number of additional personality theories emerged in
psychology, to which we now turn.
 Personality and Politics 23

TRAITS, MOTIVES, A N D IN D IV ID U A L
DIFFERENCES
A wealth of personality theories and research exist that look at individual
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 personality
characteristics that are stable over time and in different situations (Pervin
& John, 1997). Traits produce predispositions to think, feel, or act in a par­
ticular 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 disagreed
with Freud’s contention that personality dynamics were governed by the
unconscious. He also believed childhood experiences were less important
in the adult’s personality than Freud maintained. Allport regarded person­
ality traits as 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 these were rare and most people had 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 understanding motiv­
ation as a driving force in human behavior. For Allport, motivation was not
hidden in the unconscious or derived from childhood experience, but con­
sciously considered through cognitive processes.
Another trait theorist whose work influenced political psychology 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 neuroticism trait
to how emotionally stable a person is, and the psychoticism trait to how
isolated and insensitive to others a person is. Eysenk used questionnaires to
gather data on personality traits and employed a statistical 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 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,
Personality and Politics

they developed five central personality traits. The Big Five personality
dimensions or traits have received considerable attention over the last two
decades (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Dietrich et al., 2012; Hofstede & McCrae,
2004; Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004). These traits are neuroticism, extra-
version, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness.
Each trait is arranged on a continuum. For example, those high in neur­
oticism 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 extraversión are sociable, optimistic, fun loving, and
affectionate, while those low in extraversión are quiet, reserved, and aloof. A
person high in openness is curious, creative, and has many interests, while
someone 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
uncooperative. 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 that women scored
higher than men on the warmth and positive emotion aspects of extraver­
sión, but lower on the assertiveness aspect of extraversión. Other studies
looked at a variety of behavioral patterns associated with the Big Five per­
sonality traits. Olson and Evans (1999) examined the relationship between
the “Big Five” personality dimensions or traits and social comparisons. The
authors used a new technique (the Rochester Social Comparison Record,
or RSCR), wherein experimental subjects keep a diary recording their
social comparisons, measuring who they compare themselves with. The
researchers also examined how people feel about those comparisons. They
found people high in neuroticism felt more positive when they compared
themselves “downward”—that is, with others of less stature or status. People
high in extraversión compared downward more than people low in extraver­
sión, in part because they had stable positive moods. In addition, the authors
argued that, “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 studies
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 tend to see
themselves as superior to others, and therefore compare downward more
than those high in agreeableness. Finally, people high in openness com­
pare themselves to superior groups more than those low in openness, and
tend not to experience a diminution of positive affect in the process. Still,
Judge, Bono, Hies, and Gerhard (2002) found leadership effectiveness and
emergence was significantly related to the traits of extraversión, conscien­
tiousness, and openness to experience, with agreeableness related to leader
effectiveness. For U.S. presidents, Gallagher and Allen (2014) found those
high in excitement-seeking were more likely to use force to carry out their
foreign policy objectives, while openness to action led to greater variation
 Personality and Politics 25

in their decision-making. This builds upon previous work that found leader
risk propensities in decision-making correlated with four Big Five measures:
excitement-seeking, openness to action, deliberation, and altruism (Kowert
& Hermann, 1997; Nicholson, Soane, Fenton-O’Creevy, & William, 2005;
Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004). There is also a body of literature on
personality trait affect that explores the question of whether traits have
particular associated affects. Schimmack, Oishi, Diener, and Suh (2000)
argue that extroversion 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 manifestation.
Openness to experience, for example, appears as cognitive complexity, interest
in politics, integrative complexity, and other traits named and described in
political form. Traits commonly used in political psychology and their meas­
urement 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, situations, or contexts more
than others (Fleeson, 2004; Kernis, 2003; Roberts & Donahue, 1994), so
it remains important to view traits as not simply static or driven purely by
situational factors (Mischel, 1968), but rather as more nuanced and dynamic
(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 pol­
itical personality. The MBTI assumes individual personality is revealed 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 excep­
tion of neuroticism, which is not included. As illustrated in Figure 2.1, the
MBTI comprises four scales of preferences allowing for a total of 16 poten­
tial 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)
argued that Clinton fell squarely into the Extroversion, Intuitiveness,
Feeling, and Perceiving categories (an ENFP type). Given the predictions
of the MBTI for the ENFP personality type, Lyons suggested Clinton would
be expected to seek close attachments to other people; be very adept at
establishing such attachments; seek out "people-to-people work” profes­
sionally; be optimistic, warmly enthusiastic, high spirited, and charismatic;
be brilliantly perceptive about other people; draw followers, and be an excel­
lent politician; appear insincere sometimes because of a tendency to adapt
to other people in the way he presents his objective; be innovative, yet undis­
ciplined, disorganized, and indecisive; hate rules and find it difficult to work
within the constraints of institutions; thrive on constant 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 success; and exhibit a highly
empathetic world view, yet focus on data that confirm his biases, leading
to a propensity to make poor choices and make serious errors of judgment
(Lyons, 1997, p. 802).
Personality and Politics

In tro v e rs io n VS. E x tr o v e r s io n

(In tro s p e c tiv e , R e serv ed , (E x p re ssiv e n e ss a n d

S e e k in g S o litu d e ) G re g a rio u sn e s s)

S e n s in g VS. In tu itio n

(F a v o rin g L ite ra l, E m p iric a l (F a v o rin g A b s tra c t, F ig u ra tiv e

P e rc e p tio n ) P e rc e p tio n )

T h in k in g VS. F e e lin g

(F a v o rin g O b je c tiv e , D e ta c h e d , (F a v o rin g S u b jectiv e, V a lu e - o r

L og ic al D e c is io n M a k in g ) E m o tio n -b a s e d D e c is io n M a k in g

J u d g in g V S. P e r c e iv in g

(S e ek in g R e s o lu tio n a n d O rd e r) (C u rio u s, S p o n ta n e o u s , T o le r a n t o f
D iso rd e r)

Figure 2.1 MBTI Personality Types

Source: From Lyons (1997, p. 794).

Though the Myers-Brigg typology and test were 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 (Grant, 2013; McCrae & Costa, 2006; Paul, 2004;
Pittenger, 1993). Numerous studies suggest that little empirical support
exists for the view that the MBTI actually measures truly dichotomous
preferences or qualitatively distinct types, although four of the MBTI
indices were shown to measure aspects of four of the five major Big Five
dimensions (McCrae & Costa, 2006). In fact, Gardner and Martinko (1996)
found few consistent relationships between MBTI type and managerial
effectiveness; others found a 50% chance of test takers being in an entirely
different category when retaking the exam five weeks later (Krznaric,
2013). So, while the use of the MBTI remains highly popular because of
familiarity and marketing, many scholars argue that it merely picks up
on Big Five factors, lacks empirical support for some of its dimensions
(the thinking-feeling dichotomy in particular), and does not merit the
continued reliance of business upon it for assessment purposes (Grant,
2013; Paul, 2004).

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
40 years ago, Madsen (1961) considered the works of 20 different motive
theorists. Interest in motivation has come and gone and come around again
in personality theory in psychology. Motives are those aspects of person­
ality concerned with goals and goal-directed actions. Motives “energize,
direct, and select behavior” (Emmons, 1997, p. 486). The motives receiving
the most attention are regarded as the Big Three in both psychology and
political psychology. These are the need for power (i.e., concern for impact
 Personality and Politics 27

and prestige), need for affiliation-intimacy (i.e., concern for close relations
with others), and need for achievement (i.e., concern with excellence and
task accomplishment) (McClelland, 1975; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982;
Winter, 1973, 1987; Winter, Hermann, Weintraub, & Walker, 1991; Winter
& Carlson, 1988; Winter & Stewart, 1977). For example, Winter and Stewart
(1977) argue 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 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 (McClelland, 1985; Winter, 1973,
1987). Motivation and leadership receives attention in Winter’s (1987) study
of the appeal of U.S. presidents. He argues that a leader’s popular appeal
(measured by electoral success) is a function of the fit between his or her
motives and those of society.
In psychology, a method for assessing motives used by clinical
psychologists is the Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT. This method
involves giving participants a picture, having them write imaginative stories
about it, then doing a content analysis of the stories. The stories reveal
underlying personality characteristics. This method was 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
were developed using content analysis of texts, in particular the inaugural
speeches of U.S. presidents.3

W hat is Content Analysis?

Content analysis is a research method used frequently by political
psychologists taking a wide variety of analytical approaches, including
those discussed in this chapter and Chapter 3. Because in political
psychology we often lack direct access to policy-makers, we look at their
statements and infer from those statements some aspects of their polit­
ical psychological make-up. This is content analysis. To conduct a sys­
tematic content analysis, a researcher must: (1) decide what materials
he or she will use in the study—for example, only statements written
by the official you are examining, public statements written by others,
interviews, and so on; and (2) establish 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 we can explore. The first area is evolutionary psychology,
which we mentioned in the first chapter. As applied to personality, evo­
lutionary psychologists take the position that certain traits or patterns of
behavior have persisted and strengthened because they possess high sur­
vival value. In other words, certain patterns of behavior help a species to
survive because they are adaptive. Evolutionary psychologists studied
such behavioral patterns as aggression (e.g., Lorenz, 1966), altruism (e.g.,
28 Personality and Politics

Dawkins, 1976), and self-esteem (e.g., Leary, 1999). For example, altruism is
said to have survival value because we are more likely to help out members
of our own species, thereby ensuring its survival.
Related to evolutionary psychology is behavioral genetics, which
explains how individual traits and patterns of behavior get passed down
from parents to children, and how those traits are shared between siblings.
Basically, it asks whether there is a family resemblance with regard to per­
sonality. In this section of the chapter, we 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
psychology, 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 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 Project, which
mapped about 25,000 genes. For our purposes, it is important to understand
behavioral genetics is concerned with the degree of variation in a phenotype
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 relevant 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, were already discussed. 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
behavior (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 that many of our political
beliefs have a strong genetic component. In a large-scale study of about 8000
twins, Funk et al., (2013) studied a number of political traits and measured
the variability in those traits that was likely due to genetics, and to the envir­
onment. With regard to political attitudes, they found attitudes of political
ideology and egalitarianism had strong genetic components, with about
58% of the variability in political ideology, and 50% of the variability in egali­
tarianism attributable to genes.
 Personality and Politics 29

Recall the prior section on the Big Five personality traits. There is
strong evidence to suggest many of those traits are heritable. Funk et al.
(2013) found one of the reasons we are the way we are is because of gen­
etics. For example, consider the trait of extroversion. Funk et al. found
about 70% of the variability of that trait is due to genetic factors. 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 important trait for political psychology studied
by the authors was authoritarianism. The twins in the study were asked
for responses to statements such as “Our country needs a powerful leader,
in order to destroy the radical and immoral currents prevailing 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.
Another approach to the examination of biological differences among
liberals and conservatives uses fMRI studies to examine brain activity. FMRI
stands for functional magnetic resonance imaging. Subjects are placed in a
MRI machine and their brains are scanned looking for changes in electrical
activity. In studies by John Hibbing (2019) and others, the psychological and
physiological differences between liberals and conservatives were examined
as they were exposed to images of positive and negative events, including
threatening, negative, positive, or disgusting images. Hibbing found that,
in general, conservatives were more sensitive to threat than liberals. They
spotted threat more readily, categorized it more easily, and remembered it
better than liberals. Hibbing’s studies also examined the adamant supporters
of Donald Trump, and those findings are discussed in Chapter 6.

SO M E FRAM EW O RK S FRO M POLITICAL

PSYCH O LO G Y
In the following sections, 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
personality theories by political psychology is eclectic. The frameworks
presented below draw liberally from a variety of psychological theories.
Most importantly, they tried to adapt those theories and concepts to pol­
itical contexts. For example, personality traits and motivations discussed
in psychology may be used directly in political analyses, or they may be
presented in a political manifestation. The need for power is directly applic­
able to politics. Ethnocentrism has been determined to be an important
politically relevant trait, but is not considered to be a central personality
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
30 Personality and Politics

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 pol­
itical principles, led 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 Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, &
Sanford, 1950), which was based on psychoanalytic arguments. The authors
argued that authoritarian personalities were the product of authoritarian
patterns of childhood upbringing and a resultant weak ego. The parents of
authoritarians were insensitive to the difficulties experienced by children
as they try to learn how to control id-derived impulses relating to sexual
desires, bodily functions, and aggression. Instead of helping their children
develop, these parents were demanding, controlling, and used severe dis­
ciplinary 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 sexual and aggressive
impulses, yet feared those impulses. They developed iron-tight defensive
techniques that would prevent them from confronting those impulses. They
regarded their parents, and subsequent authority figures in their lives, with
a mixture of resentment and dependence.
Adorno et al. (1950) saw the authoritarian personality as composed of
several central personality traits, including conventionalism (rigid adher­
ence to conventional values), submission to authority figures, authoritarian
aggression (aggressive impulses towards those who are not conventional),
anti-intraception (rejection of tenderness, imagination, subjectivity), super­
stition and stereotype (fatalistic belief in mystical determinants of the future
and rigid thinking), high value placed on power and toughness, destruc­
tiveness and cynicism, projectivity (the projection outward of unacceptable
impulses), and an excessive concern with the sexual activity of others. Given
the era in which the study was conducted, there was a natural interest in the
extent to which authoritarian personalities would be susceptible 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 used a wide variety 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 elements of authoritarian
political attitudes. Scales combined several items from a questionnaire on
the same topic, enabling the researcher to get a broader range of scores for
a single person. This increased the reliability of the score. The Fascism scale,
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 Patriotism (P)
subscales, and the Politico-Economic Conservatism (PEC) scale. Each scale
was designed to assess different elements of political authoritarianism.
Adorno et al. (1950) argued that their empirical evidence demonstrated this
syndrome was closely associated with anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism, and
in turn with political conservatism. But criticisms quickly emerged on con­
ceptual and methodological grounds. One of the more important criticisms
 Personality and Politics 31

was presented by Edward Shils (1954), who noted that communists who also
held authoritarian political values scored low on the Adorno et al. measure­
ment scale, the F scale. Therefore, he argued, they apparently tested only for
right-wing authoritarianism and not left-wing authoritarianism. Therefore,
their F scale was not a true measure of authoritarianism. Other criticisms
noted that Adorno and his colleagues did not control for education and
income, and 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 criticism was
methodological and related to the question of whether the F scale actually
tapped true authoritarianism, and whether it actually established a relation­
ship between those nine authoritarian personality traits and fascistic polit­
ical principles.
Additional criticisms were made of the work of Adorno and his colleagues.
For example, John Levi Martin (2001) argued that there was a fundamental
flaw in the theoretical construct because it assumed that those who were
high in authoritarianism had certain syndromes, and those who were low
did not. Instead, he suggested the whole issue should be approached as a
question, and the difference between low and high should be studied on
a continuum. What, for example, were those in the middle like? Second,
Martin noted that the Adorno group was willing to distort or dismiss data
showing non-authoritarian tendencies among the highs and authoritarian
tendencies among the lows. This reached its acme in a differential interpret­
ation 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 used three of the nine personality traits identified by Adorno et al. (1950):
authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism.
He regarded these 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 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, a communist system as in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), or
a democratic system as in the United States. Hence, right-wing authoritar­
ianism can occur in any political system. Altemeyer developed a Right-Wing
Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. The scale includes statements with which
the respondent must agree or disagree, such as “life imprisonment is justi­
fied for certain crimes” and "women should have to promise to obey their
husbands when they get married” (1996, p. 13).
Personality and Politics

In Altemeyer’s view, right-wing authoritarianism is a product of social

learning, a combination of personality predispositions and life events.
Altemeyer argued that those high in right-wing authoritarianism have
greater difficulty than low scorers in engaging in critical thinking. They are
more likely to agree with a statement of a fact without examining it critic­
ally (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 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
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
predisposed to reject than to disprove ideas they are predisposed to accept.
Finally, he suggests that high authoritarians are particularly susceptible to
the fundamental attribution error, wherein people attribute the behavior
of others to internal dispositions and their own behavior to external forces
(discussed further in Chapter 3).
Further research into the authoritarian personality is ongoing. In
Chapter 8, we also discuss some research regarding race-related attitudes
and right-wing authoritarianism. Lambert, Burroughs, and Nguyen (1999)
used Altemeyer’s RWA scale to examine the relationship between authori­
tarianism, belief in a just world, and perceptions of risk. They found that
high authoritarians perceived risk to be lower if people believed in a just
world (i.e., good things come to good people). Low authoritarians did not
have the same perception. Tam, Leung, and Chiu (2008) found that when
people high in authoritarianism are more “mindful” or attentive to infor­
mation, they become more punitive in their reactions to criminal behavior,
contrary to the general assumption that individuals become less puni­
tive when more attentive to information. The opposite was the case for
authoritarians.
While Altemeyer (1996) argues that several political attitudes, such
as anti-Semitism and hostility toward foreigners, correlated with his
three central authoritarian attitude clusters, others such as Raden (1999)
suggest that the clustering of such attitudes is influenced by political and
social change. Raden found anti-Semitism was decreasingly likely to cor­
relate with authoritarian personality characteristics as the twentieth cen­
tury progressed. Martin (2001) weighed in on Altemeyer’s work, arguing
that although he avoided the methodological problems of Adorno’s F scale,
he still failed to see authoritarianism as a continuum, and did not compare
the behavior of lows and highs, sticking to the examination of the behavior
of highs. Furthermore, Altemeyer did not adequately explain why conven­
tionalism is a manifestation of authoritarianism, and he used evidence of
 Personality and Politics 33

differences in degree (that is, some lows agreeing with highs and some highs
agreeing with lows in some question items) as evidence of a clear-cut, mutu­
ally distinct typological difference.
As 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 too. As
a result, scholars built some frameworks used to analyze political leaders
(although many could also be used to examine the average citizen). Below
we provide an overview of some of those frameworks with some examples of
their applications to political leaders. Political leaders are discussed in much
greater depth in Chapter 5.
In their analysis of authoritarianism in the United States and the Trump
administration, Dean and Altemeyer (2020) pulled together many advances
that have occurred in the study of authoritarianism since the 1990s. They
distinguished between authoritarian followers, social dominators, and
“double highs,” who are high in both authoritarianism and social domin­
ance. The description of authoritarian followers is consistent with the dis­
cussion above but adds some interesting examples and additional ideas.
One example used of the authoritarian followers’ submission to authority
concerns COVID-19:

Nothing demonstrates right-wing authoritarians’ submission to

their leaders as clearly as Trump’s supporters’ acceptance of his
pronouncements and guidance regarding COVID-19. Polls show they
believed Trump’s dismissal of the threat during January and February
and up to March 11, 2020. Accordingly, they would have been more
likely to ignore the advice coming from medical experts to socially
distance themselves from others. Considerable numbers of them
likely became infected and proceeded to infect others, including their
loved ones.
Dean & Altmeyer (2020, p. 125)

The dominant characteristics Dean and Altemeyer identified in those high

in RWA involve highly compartmentalized thinking, enabling them to hold
contradictory ideas; double standards (for example, advocating extreme
punishment for those they dislike and little or no punishment for those
they like - for example, Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump); conflicting and
contradictory ideas; difficulty judging evidence; high ethnocentrism; high
levels of prejudice; and dogmatism (resulting from memorizing instead of
thinking about and understanding why they believe what they believe).
Earlier studies of authoritarians note that they can be submissive to
authority and aggressive toward those who do not conform. As work
progressed, greater scrutiny was devoted to those who aggressed against
others. A new scale was developed (discussed at greater length in Chapter
7) called the Social Dominance Scale (SDO). This measured the extent
to which people believe in social hierarchies and established inequalities
between groups, and will act to maintain that social order. This scale enables
scholars to distinguish better between submissive authoritarians and those
who will act more aggressively against outsiders and norm violators. As
Dean and Altemeyer explain, social dominators become submissive:
34 Personality and Politics

Mostly because they got beat. A persona driven to control others will
eventually lose to someone in his [they are usually male] world, unless
he is fierce enough, endowed enough, and lucky enough to become
Number One. When social dominators meet their match, they can
quit the game. But it is much more rewarding to claim a place in the
hierarchy.
Dean & Altmeyer (2020, p. I l l )

Finally, Dean and Altemeyer discuss “double highs,” people who score high
in both right-wing authoritarianism and SDO. They note that previous
studies found few double highs, but state that they do exist, and tend to have
the worst characteristics of both the RWA and SDO highs:

Take dogmatism, which RWAs have by the bucketful, which High

SDOs can carry theirs in a cup because they do not care about creeds
and philosophies enough to be dogmatic about them. But Double
Highs need a bucket. High RWAs, in turn, are not power-mad or
amoral deceitful manipulators, but high SDOs are and so are Double
Highs. High SDOs do not effervesce with religious fundamentalism
and religious ethnocentrism, but Double Highs tend to, like High
RWAs. So, like an unfortunate child who has his father’s alligator skin
and bowlegs plus his mother's bad hearing and poor digestion, Double
Highs generally carry with them the worst features of high SDOs and
high RWAs. You can say about high RWAs, for example, they may be
dogmatic, but at least they are not power-mad. But Double Highs tend
to be both. And this spells real trouble.
Dean & Altmeyer (2020, p. 196)

Leader Analysis Frameworks

There is an extensive literature in political psychology on the leadership or
management styles of political leaders using many different frameworks.
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 is a broad, methodologically diverse,
interdisciplinary body of literature on the topic 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, authoritarian measures,
personal traits like need for power, self-confidence, distrust of others, and
so on) are routinely combined with non-personality-based variables, such
as an individual’s first political success, their socialization experiences, 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, and so on), it
 Personality and Politics 35

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 them 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. Some personality-
based studies are applied to both leaders and the average person, such as
authoritarian personality studies. Below we will provide an overview of sev­
eral theories and frameworks that focus on individual characteristics, 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 char­
acter of modern presidents. Avoiding the psychoanalytic focus on Freudian
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 such as
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 the
three political roles (rhetoric, personal relations, and homework), whereas
world view consists of the leader's primary politically relevant beliefs
regarding such things as social causality, human nature, and the central
moral conflicts of the time (pp. 7-8). Lasdy, character is seen as the way in
which a president orients himself or herself towards life and his or her own
merits - that is, a sense of self-esteem and the criteria by which the presi­
dent judges who he or she is, such as by achievement or affection (p. 8). 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 [sic.]
takes toward his Presidential experience,” finds itself reflected in two basic
dimensions: (1) the energy and effort he puts into the job (active or passive)-,

/
36 Personality and Politics

Table 2.1 Barber Typology of Presidential Character

Personal satisfaction with presidential duties

Energy pu t into Positive Negative
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,
George W. Bush) Eisenhower)

and (2) the personal satisfaction he derives from his presidential duties
(positive or negative) (Barber, 1972, p. 6). The resulting typology is presented
in Table 2.1, along with Barber’s examples of U.S. presidents who fit within
each of the cells.
Applied to both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Barber’s (1972) typ­
ology leads to a very generalized prediction of behavior and style in office.
In Clinton’s case, he fits into the active-positive category of Barber’s typ­
ology. Indeed, few presidents in American history were 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 much of their energy
towards achievement, tend to be self-respecting and happy, open to new
ideas, flexible and able to learn from mistakes, and tend to show great cap­
acity for growth in office. While one might quibble with some of the prob­
lematic predictions in light of Clinton’s White House behaviors regarding
interns and the ability to learn from mistakes, the general predictions
regarding his emphasis on results and achievement, his generally happy
demeanor, and his widely reported openness 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 remained
engaged, open to new ideas, flexible regarding policy, and focused on results
and achievement, while enjoying being president.
In contrast, George W. Bush would likely be classified as a passive-posi­
tive 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, pre­
ferring instead to delegate these tasks to subordinates, but who nevertheless
 Personality and Politics 37

greatly enjoyed being president (Dowd, 2001; Khan, 2000; Milbank, 2001).
In terms of predicted behaviors arising from this style type, Barber describes
passive-positives as primarily being after affirmation, support, or love from
followers, while showing a tendency for policy drift—especially during
times of crisis, where confusion, delay, and impulsiveness are expected.
There certainly were numerous examples of confusion, delay, and impulsive­
ness with regard to Bush’s policies in the Middle East (especially the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict and Iraq), in his reaction toward U.S. participation in
many international treaties (ABM and Kyoto being only the most notable),
and in his enunciation of an “axis of evil.” Moreover, 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 is intensely sub­
jective. Clearly, one could take issue with either the accuracy or useful­
ness 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 category,
while Ronald Reagan, Warren Harding, and William Taft join George W.
Bush as passive-positives. Given such minimal differentiation among such
varied presidents, many leadership analysts argued for a more nuanced
approach (Hermann & Preston, 1994, 1998; Preston, 2001; Winter et al.,
1991). Indeed, while Barber’s later book achieved the most notoriety, many
see his book The Lawmakers (1965), which explored the motivations for
Connecticut legislators running for office in the first place (i.e., making
laws, doing their public service, 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 and political behavior were found in a study of
Middle Eastern revolutionaries (Winter, 2011).
Looking at other traits, in a study of twentieth-century U.S. presidents
and foreign policy advisers, Etheredge (1978) notes the importance of
traits such as dominance, interpersonal trust, self-esteem, and introver­
sion-extroversion in shaping policy-maker views and policy preferences.
American leaders scoring high on measures of dominance tended to favor
using force to settle disputes with the Soviet Union over the use of arbi­
tration or disarmament. Moreover, leaders scoring high on introversion
tended to oppose cooperation, while extroverted ones generally supported
cooperation and negotiation with the Soviets. These results built upon
earlier studies reported by Etheredge of over 200 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 applying traits to political leaders was done by
Weintraub (1981,1986,1989) in his studies of U.S. presidential press confer­
ence responses, and by Hermann (1984,1987,1988) in studies of the foreign
policy orientations of world leaders.
Personality and Politics

Leaders' Characteristics: Motives and Traits

A wealth of research also exists on the impact various individual
characteristics of leaders have on their styles of decision-making, interper­
sonal interactions, information processing, or management behaviors in
office (cf., Hermann, 1980a, 1980b, 1983,1984, 1987; Hermann & Preston,
1994, 1998; Mitchell, 2005; Preston, 2001, 2011; Preston & ’t Hart, 1999;
Stogdill & Bass, 1981; Vertzberger, 1990; Winter et al., 1991). Ample
illustrations of leader characteristics and decision-making patterns are
presented in Chapter 5. 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) 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 exten­
sively studied and linked to specific types of behavior and interactional
styles with others (Browning & Jacob, 1964; Hermann, 1987; House, 1990;
McClelland, 1975; Winter, 1973,1987; Winter & Stewart, 1977). Specifically,
leaders with progressively higher psychological needs for power are

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 on
emphasis getting the task done versus focusing on feelings
and needs of others.
 Personality and Politics 39

increasingly dominant and assertive in their leadership styles in office, and

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 are more associated with the suppression of open decision-making
and discussion within groups than low power leaders. Similarly, a number
of studies found high power leaders require a far greater degree of personal
control than low power leaders over the policy process and the actions of
subordinates (Etheredge, 1978; Winter, 1973, 1987). In terms of interper­
sonal relationships, studies also found that leaders high in the need for power
exhibit more controlling, domineering behavior towards subordinates
than low power leaders (Browning & Jacob, 1964; Fodor & Farrow, 1979;
McClelland, 1985; Winter & Stewart, 1977).
The cognitive complexity of decision-makers is another individual char­
acteristic with a significant impact on the nature of decision-making, style
of leadership, assessment of risk, and character of general information­
processing within decision groups (Driver, 1977; Hermann, 1980b, 1987;
Preston, 2001; Stewart, Hermann, & Hermann, 1989; Tetlock, 1985;
Wallace & Suedfeld, 1988; Vertzberger, 1990). For example, Vertzberger
(1990), among others, notes that as the cognitive complexity of individual
decision-makers increases, they become more capable of dealing with com­
plex decision environments and information. When making decisions,
complex individuals tend to have greater cognitive need for information,
are more attentive to incoming information, prefer systematic over heur­
istic processing, and deal with any overload of information better than their
less complex counterparts (Nydegger, 1975; Schroder, Driver, & Streufert,
1967). In terms of interactions with advisers and the acceptance of critical
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)
and Glad (1983) both note that low complexity individuals tend to show
symptoms of dogmatism, view and judge issues in black-and-white terms,
ignore information that threatens their existing closed belief systems, and
have limited ability to adjust their beliefs to new information.
Complexity is also linked to how attentive or sensitive leaders are to
information from (or to nuances from within) their surrounding political
or policy environments (Hermann, 1984; Preston, 1997, 2001). In fact,
Hermann (1984) notes that the more sensitive the individual is to infor­
mation from the decision environment, the more receptive the leader is to
information regarding views of colleagues, constituents, and outside actors,
and the value of alternative viewpoints and discrepant information. In con­
trast, leaders with a low sensitivity to contextual information are less recep­
tive to information from the outside environment, operate from a previously
established and strongly held set of beliefs, selectively perceive and process
incoming information to support or bolster this prior framework, and are
unreceptive or close-minded towards alternative viewpoints and discrepant
information. This is closely correlated with the degree to which individuals
are high versus low self-monitors—that is, 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” (Day
Personality and Politics

et al., 2002; Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Snyder, 1987). Self-monitoring is

having one’s antennae up to pick up on and be responsive to social situ­
ations, and is related to being high in complexity (Preston, 2001, 2011).
The integrative complexity literature differs slightly from the cog­
nitive complexity literature discussed above in that it focuses on both
differentiation (which involves evaluatively distinct dimensions of a
problem taken into account by decision-makers) and integration (which
involves the connections made by decision-makers among differentiated
characteristics), whereas the general complexity literature focuses princi­
pally on differentiation alone (Tetlock, 1983). For example, according to
Tetlock and Tyler (1996), integrative complexity presupposes a dialectical
point-counterpoint style of thinking in which the speaker recognizes the
legitimacy of contradictory points of view, then integrates those evaluatively
differentiated cognitions into a higher-order synthesis. The concept of cog­
nitive complexity, by contrast, only requires one to have many distinct ideas
or thoughts on a subject, not that those cognitions be in tension with each
other or that they are 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.
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
found it difficult to govern after their successful revolutions since governing
required more “graduated, flexible, and integrated” views of the world
(Suedfeld & Rank, 1976, p. 169). Indeed, it was only those revolutionary
leaders who later showed a significant increase in their integrative com­
plexity who found success in governing. Other studies looked at the com­
plexity of U.S. presidents (Thoemmes & Conway, 2007), the U.S. Supreme
Court (Gruenfeld, 1995), and communications regarding the “war on terror”
(Suedfeld & Leighton, 2002).
Finally, the prior policy experience or expertise of leaders signifi­
cantly impacts presidential style, the nature of advisory group interactions,
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 which actions will be effective or ineffective
in specific policy situations, as well as which cues from the environment
should be attended to and which are irrelevant (Hermann, 1986). Prior
experience 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 on personal
involvement or control over policy-making than 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 stereo­
types 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-making process than their less
experienced counterparts. Similarly, leaders lacking experience or expertise
 Personality and Politics 41

find themselves far more dependent upon expert advisers and more likely
to utilize 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 particular leader’s information-management and information­
processing styles. This individual characteristic is similar to George’s (1980)
sense o f efficacy.
A major pioneer of modern leadership studies, Hermann (1983, 1984,
1986,1999a, 2001) led the way forward with a rigorous leader assessment-at-
a-distance technique, and a body of path-breaking research exploring many
facets of how leaders shape and affect foreign policy. Not only has Hermann’s
Leader Trait Assessment (LTA) content-analytic technique become the
most widely utilized and empirically rich of the existing approaches to lead­
ership analysis, but Hermann’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’s ability to code millions of words of text systematic­
ally with ease created massive databases of world leaders. The program runs
comparisons across leaders, their characteristics, and a wide range of other
leadership dimensions.
The LTA approach uses the spontaneous interview responses of leaders
to code for seven specific individual characteristics: need for power, con­
ceptual complexity, task-interpersonal emphasis, self-confidence, locus of
control, distrust of others, and ethnocentrism (Hermann, 1999b). All avail­
able materials from interviews, press conference Q&As across every issue
area and across time are coded by Profiler-Plus, generating overall scores for
each leader broken down by characteristic, audience, topic, and time period.
This system not only has 100% intercoder reliability, and removes the sub­
jectivity 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, empirical research provides support for the behavioral
correlates linked by Hermann to leader scores. For example, Preston (2001)
and Dyson and Preston (2006) profiled modern U.S. presidents and British
prime ministers respectively, 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, struc-
turing/use of advisory systems). Similarly, in a study of sub-Saharan African
leaders, Hermann (1987) found that—unlike the styles of Western political
leaders, who generally tended to emphasize task completion in office—
African leaders emphasized constituent morale over task accomplishment.
At the same time, Hermann’s study also found substantial variability across
the individual characteristics scores of these African leaders, meaning there
was no single style type for sub-Saharan African leaders, illustrating the
need to study each in depth and in context to predict foreign policy behavior.
Interestingly, across this broad leadership literature, Hermann and Preston
(1994, p. 81) note five main types of leadership variables routinely identified
42 Personality and Politics

as impacting 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.
Other studies applying the LTA approach looked at UN Secretaries
General (Kille, 2006), Iranian leaders (Taysi & Preston, 2001), European prime
ministers (Kaarbo & Hermann, 1998); 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
Clinton (Hermann, 2006); the impact of leader characteristics upon bur­
eaucratic and group dynamics (Preston & 't Hart, 1999; Stewart et al., 1989);
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 (Boin et
al., 2010; Preston, 2008). Across all these studies, the differences in leader
characteristics and styles had substantial foreign policy impacts.

Operational Code
A final approach to studying characteristics of political leaders to be
presented in this chapter is studies of operational codes, a concept ori­
ginally 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
represent the answers to ten questions about 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).

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
and political conflict, and the goals for political action
image of the opponent How such goals and objectives can
The general prospects for be pursued most effectively
achieving one’s fundamental The best approach to calculation,
political 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

Source: George (1979, p. 100).

 Personality and Politics 43

Operational codes are constructs representing the overall belief systems

of leaders about the world—that is, how it works, what it is like, what kinds
of actions are most likely to be successful) (George, 1969, 1979; Holsti,
1977; Malici & Malici, 2005; Walker, 1983; Walker & Schafer, 2007; Walker,
Schafer, & Young, 1998). Why is the discussion of the operational code
in a chapter on personality, and not in the next chapter where beliefs are
discussed? 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.
As George (1979) observed, operational code beliefs, unlike attitudes,
represent central beliefs, which “are concerned with fundamental, unchan­
ging issues of politics and political action” (p. 99). By understanding the
operational codes of leaders, scholars employing this technique argue, we
gain a better understanding of their likely decision-making styles and pol­
itical behavior. Operational codes are constructed either quantitatively
or qualitatively through an examination of decision-makers’ speeches,
interviews, writings, and other verbal or written materials. This technique
has a long history of use in political science and is 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, resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of operational
code to assess the world. While at times lacking the qualitative richness of
traditional Georgian op-code case study analysis, the VICS op-codes substi­
tute quantitative rigor and the ability to code massive amounts of material
across leaders with relative ease. Included within this operational code lit­
erature are studies of a wide range of political leaders, including John Foster
Dulles (Holsti, 1970; Stuart & Starr, 1981), John F. Kennedy (Marfleet, 2000;
Stuart & Starr, 1981), Henry Kissinger (Stuart & Starr, 1981; Walker, 1977),
Woodrow Wilson (Walker, 1995), Jimmy Carter (Walker et al., 1998), U.S.
Presidents and Secretaries of State (Walker & Falkowski, 1984), Vladimir
Putin (Dyson, 2001), a large cross-section of world leaders (Shafer & Walker,
2006), Ayman al-Zawahiri (Jacquier, 2014), and leaders in a cross-cultural
context (Dirlien-Gumas, 2017).
For example, in the case of President Vladimir Putin of Russia, an oper­
ational code analysis suggested that because of his 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 incremental, step-by-step approach; and (5) view chance as something
to be avoided as much as possible through good organization and organ­
izational planning. In terms of his instrumental beliefs, Putin believes that:
(1) the goals and objectives set for political action should be both achiev­
able and measurable; (2) the best strategy for pursuing goals is to engage in
Personality and Politics

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
operational code suggests a leader who is incremental by nature, judges the
acceptability of actions by their chances of success, sees adherence to norms
as essential, and views those who step outside of such norms as requiring
reciprocal or violent treatment (Dyson, 2001, p. 343).
The value of such operational codes in predicting the likely pattern of
leader behavior given the answers to these basic philosophical and instru­
mental questions is potentially quite high and of great value to policy­
makers. For example, in summarizing the findings about Putin, Dyson
(2001) makes a number of observations regarding the predictability of cer­
tain patterns of behavior:

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 “back­
ward-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 envir­
onment. 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 certain 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 policymaker 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.
(Dyson, 2001, p. 344)

C O N C L U S IO N
This chapter reviewed some of the major theoretical approaches to the study
of personality in psychology, but only those used in political psychology.
 Personality and Politics 45

There are many additional psychological theories of personality not

mentioned in this chapter. In addition, the chapter presented a review of
some of the frameworks in political psychology used to analyze personality
and leadership in politics. In this chapter, we 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. However, the concepts and theories used are those
found in the next chapter, where we address cognition and attitudes.

Topics, Theories/Explanations, and Concepts in Chapter 2

Topics Theories/Explanations Concepts
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 Big Five personality Neuroticism,
traits extraversión,
agreeableness,
openness to
experience,
conscientiousness
Motivations Power, affiliation,
achievement
Behavioral genetics
Authoritarian
personality
Leadership Barber’s (1972) Active/negative;
frameworks typology of passive/positive
presidential
character
Operational code Philosophical/
instrumental beliefs
Hermann’s Leader
Trait Assessment
(LTA)
Leader traits Need for power,
locus of control,
ethnocentrism,
need for affiliation,
conceptual
complexity, distrust,
self confidence
 ■MB— «S— ¡

Personality and Politics

Key Terms
agreeableness neurotic anxiety
authoritarian personality neuroticism
behavioral genetics openness
Big Five operational codes
cognitive complexity paranoia
conscientiousness pleasure principle
defense mechanisms projection
denial psychoanalytic or psychodynamic
ego theories
ethnocentrism rationalization
extroversion reality principle
id repression
locus of control right-wing 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
University Press.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: APA.
Dean, J. W. & Altemeyer, R. (2020). Authoritarian nightmare: Trump and his
followers. New York: Melville House.
Ewen, R. (1998). An introduction to theories of personality (5th ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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, Ml: 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.
 Personality and Politics 47

Notes
1. For a critique of psychobiographical method and a discussion of
challenges 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
psychobiography 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 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
psychobiographies focus upon Freudian notions of ego-defense (e.g.,
Glad, 1980; Link & Glad, 1994; Hargrove, 1988; Renshon, 1996), whereas
others concentrate upon specific kinds of personality disorders in these
leaders, ranging from narcissism to paranoid personality disorders (e.g.,
Birt, 1993; Post, 1991,1993b; Volkan, 1980).
3. Examples of leader studies using Winter's motive scoring technique
(which looks at power, achievement and affiliation) include; Richard
Nixon (W inters Carlson, 1988), U.S. presidents (Winter, 1987); African pol­
itical 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:
Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis, published by Cambridge
University Press.
4. Am ong 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 (Etheredge, 1978;
Hermann, 1984, 1987; House, 1990; McClelland, 1975; Winter, 1973,
1987); personal needs for affiliation (Browning & Jacob, 1964; McClelland
& Boyatzis, 1982; Winter, 1987; Winter & Stewart, 1977); conceptual
complexity (Driver, 1977; Hermann, 1984,1987; Suedfeld & Rank, 1976;
Suedfeld &Tetlock, 1977;Tetlock, 1985); locus of control (Davis & Phares,
1967; Hermann, 1984,1987; Rotter, 1966); achievement or task/lnterper-
sonal emphasis (Bales, 1951; Byars, 1972,1973; Hermann, 1987; Rowe &
Mason, 1987; Winter & Stewart, 1977); ethnocentrism (Glad, 1983; Levine
& Campbell, 1972); and self-confidence (Hermann, 1987; House, 1990;
Winter et al., 1991). For a more detailed discussion of these traits, see
Hermann (1999a) and Smith, Atkinson, McClelland, and Veroff (1992).