the International Society of Political Psychology held in San Francisco. The project was begun while ... administration biography concern (a) family background characteris- tics such as birth order, ..... John Quincy Adams. At a broader level of ...
PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Presidential Style: Personality, Biography, and Performance Dean Keith Simonton University of California, Davis Past research on the personality basis of leadership has led several investigators to study the characteristics of American presidents using content-analytical and biographical measures. In this article, biographical information on 39 U.S. chief executives provided the basis for assessments by seven raters on 82 items concerning presidential style. The presidents could be reliably discriminated on 49 items, which a factor analysis reduced to five dimensions: the interpersonal, charismatic, deliberative, creative, and neurotic styles. These styles were shown to be related to broader personality traits, biographical experiences, and both objective and subjective indicators of leader performance.
A persistent question in personality and social psychology is the comparative impact of individual and situational variables on leadership; Is leadership a matter of being the right person, or is it due more to being at the right place at the right time? Although much of the research addressing this issue concerns more everyday forms of leadership, a number of investigators have exploited historiometric methods to study eminent leaders (Simonton, 1984a). Archival studies have examined the determinants of the success of distinguished monarchs (Simonton, 1983,1984b), notable politicians and revolutionaries (Suedfeld & Rank, 1976), and major military figures (Simonton, 1980; Suedfeld, Corteen, & McCormick, 1986). Yet presidents of the United States have probably received more attention than any other type of outstanding leadership. Some researchers have applied content analyses to speeches in order to score the presidents on cognitive style, value, or motivational disposition (e.g., Miller & Stiles, 1986;Tetlock, 1981; Wendt& Light, 1976; Winter, 1973, 1987; Winter & Stewart, 1977). Less often, investigators have exploited published biographical information, converting personality sketches into usable quantitative data (e.g., Etheredge, 1978; Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative [HFAC], 1977). For example, Simonton (I986c) has indicated how the Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) might
be applied to personality descriptions culled from biographical sources. Still, it is not easy to identify the individual traits that contribute to presidential success (Simonton, 1987b). First, because presidential performance can be assessed by more than one criterion, the relevance of a given personality trait depends on the specific criterion examined. For instance, even though intelligence correlates positively with a president's ultimate standing with posterity, intelligence correlates negatively with the magnitude of victory in the electoral college (Simonton, 1986c; cf. Simonton, 1985a). Second, situational factors often override individual factors in determining the effectiveness of American presidents. Thus, accidental presidents tend to have poorer relations with Congress because of their having entered office without an electoral mandate, a deficit that disappears when the incumbent is duly elected (Simonton, 1985b). Third, Individual X Situational interaction effects complicate things further. For example, the positive relation between a president's inflexibility and the frequency with which his vetoes are overturned becomes more pronounced when the Congress is organized by the opposition party (Simonton, 1987a), However, these previous studies assessed presidents on rather general personality dimensions. Perhaps the individual difference variables most pertinent to understanding presidential leadership are far less generalized and more elaborate than, say, power motivation, inflexibility, or intelligence. Students of the presidency have often referred to complex stylistic types rather than to more simple personality traits. Barber (1977) proposed that the presidents may be placed along two rich dimensions, the active versus passive and the positive versus negative. Burns (1978) has classified political leaders into two broad types: the transactional type, who bargains and negotiates for votes, and the transformational type, who raises others to "higher levels of motivation and morality" (p. 20). If presidents were discriminated on styles as broad as these one might explain more variance in presidential leadership. In this article, I examine broader types using the presidential style items devised by the Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative at the Institute for
This article is based in part on a paper presented at the meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology held in San Francisco. The project was begun while the author was Visiting Research Psychologist at the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research, University of California, Berkeley. I thank the director, Kenneth Craik, for providing me with the items gauging presidential style. I also thank the following research assistants who made this investigation possible: Kimiko Burton, Alfonso Ford, Cynthia Horn, Elizabeth King, Alan Morris, Susan Slager, William Sparr, and Cindy Stein. The computer analysis was made feasible by a Faculty Grant from the University of California. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dean Keith Simonton, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, California 95616.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988, Vol. 55, No. 6,928-936 Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3J 14/88/S00.75
928
PRESIDENTIAL STYLE Personality Assessment and Research (University of California, Berkeley; cf. HFAC, 1977). Given the 82 items of this instrument (see Table 1), one can ask several questions: On which attributes can the presidents be accurately differentiated using biographical descriptors? Can the reliable items be collapsed into a small set of general stylistic factors? How do the resulting dimensions of presidential style correlate with personality traits, biographical experiences, and performance indicators?
Method The 39 presidents of the United States were assessed on hundreds of variables, most drawn from earlier investigations, except the current assessments of presidential style.
Measures From Previous Studies Personality traits. The presidents were gauged on 110 Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) adjectives, which were then consolidated into 14 personality factors: moderation, friendliness, intellectual brilliance, Machiavellianism, poise and polish, achievement drive, forcefulness, wit, physical attractiveness, pettiness, tidiness, conservatism, inflexibility, and pacifism (Simonton, 1986c). Also used were ratings of dominance and extroversion (Etheredge, 197 8), and measures of power, achievement, and affiliation motives (e.g., Wendt & Light, 1976; Winter, 1987; Winter& Stewart, 1977).' Biographical experiences. Variables taken from each president's preadministration biography concern (a) family background characteristics such as birth order, orphanhood, family size, and sodoeconomic class; (b) formal education, including level attained and scholastic honors; (c) personal characteristics, such as height and age when occupying various positions; (d) occupational experiences, especially those military, legal, and academic; and (e) political accomplishments at local, state, and national levels (see Simonton, 1981,1986b). Performance criteria. Objective measures included tabulations of diverse legislative, appointive, military, and other administrative events that relate in some way to executive performance (e.g., the number of bills passed, vetoes exercised, vetoes overridden), as well as indicators of how the president entered the presidency (e.g., vice-presidential succession, landslide victory), how well he did his firet term (e.g., legislation), and how he left the office (e.g., defeated for reelection, denied renomination, assassination) (Simonton, 1981,1986b). Subjective ratings of presidential performance included the various assessments by historians (e.g., Kynerd, 1971; Maranell, 1970; Murray & Blessing, 1983).
New Measures: Presidential Style The same descriptions used in the ACL investigation were exploited in this study (Simonton, 1986c). All personality sketches were abstracted verbatim from several standard biographical sources that dealt with all past presidents in as objective a manner as possible. Biographies of specific executives were not used in order to have a homogeneous perspective on all presidents rather than potentially idiosyncratic and thus biased perspectives on each. No editing of the information was done other than removing all identifying matter. After placing the descriptions in a random sequence, seven undergraduate psychology majors independently rated each president on the 82 items, using a scale ranging from 1 (extremely atypical) to 7 (extremely typical), where 4 marked the midpoint (for those for whom the item can be said to be neither typical nor atypical).2 Because the raters could not identify the presidents described, their ratings were based solely on the abstracts; hence, the raters' personal political prejudices (or even vague misperceptions left over from secondary school) exerted minimal influence on their judgments. The internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha)
929
was calculated for each item across the seven ratings (see Table 1). Only those 49 items that featured alpha coefficients greater than or equal to .60 were deemed sufficiently reliable to be retained for further analyses. Associations between the style items and comparable ACL adjectives further confirm the former's reliability (correlations in parentheses; all ps < .05): "cautious, conservative in action" with cautious (.59) and conservative (.53); "dynamo of energy and determination" with active (.80, energetic (.80), assertive (.72), and determined (.63); "is flexible" negatively with hard-headed (-.79), rigid (-.77), stubborn (-.75), and intolerant (-.74); "exhibits artistry in manipulation" with sly (.74), deceitful (.74), evasive (.66), and unscrupulous (.63); "shy, awkward in public" positively with silent (.75), shy (.72), and withdrawn (.67), and negatively with outgoing (-.69); "maintains close relationships with wide circle of associates" positively with good-natured (.77), cheerful (.76), friendly (.74), sociable (.72), pleasant (.70), and easy going (.70), but negatively with unfriendly (—.74) and cold (—.73); and "indulges in emotional outbursts" with temperamental (.75), argumentative (.74), impulsive (.72), bossy (.72), outspoken (.70), aggressive (.70), blustery (.69), excitable (.69), and hasty (.69).
Results and Discussion Unless specifically contradicted, all reported Pearson product-moment coefficients are significant at the .05 level or better (two-tailed test).
Factor and Cluster Analyses A principal-components analysis reduced the 49 reliable ratings to a more manageable set of stylistic dimensions. Although seven components had eigenvalues exceeding one, the last two components were dropped because they were trivial factors with but a single salient loading for each. The five retained components were then rotated via a varimax procedure. Nevertheless, oblique rotations (and common factor extractions) were also tested, but the results differed only minimally. Concentrating on the sorted loadings, which group variables with that factor with which the loadings are largest, the following five presidential styles are obtained (loadings, or item-factor correlation coefficients, in parentheses): 1. The interpersonal president characteristically
"allows
Cabinet members considerable independence.. . ." (.92), "encourages the exercise of independent judgment by aides" (.90), "gives credit to others for work done" (.88), "endears himself to staff through his courtesy and consideration" (.87), "is flexible" (.85), "emphasizes teamwork" (.84), "is frequently in contact with his advisers and Cabinet" (.83), "maintains close relationships with wide circle of associates" (.82), is "willing to make compromises" (.80), "relies on working in a staff system, deciding among options formulated by advisers" (.78), "keeps mem-
1 Although the content-analytical measures evaluate the same dimensions, their intercorrelations are not always high; hence, it was thought best to incorporate them all into the current study. For instance, Winter's earlier (Winter & Stewart, 1977) and later (Winter, 1987) measures of power, achievement, and affiliation correlate .39, .52, and .88, respectively. 2 Although the style items were originally designed for the Q-sort technique, I decided here to use rating scales instead, because of the number of presidents that had to be evaluated. The order of the items in Table 1 was that of their presentation to the raters, but otherwise there was apparently no explicit rationale for the item order.
930
DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
Table 1 Presidential Style Items Coefficient
Coefficient
Style item
Style item
1. Characterized by others as a world figure. (N. B. Placed low indicates subject is seen as the courthouse politician type.) 2. Cautious, conservative in action. 3. Uncompromising on matters of personal principle. 4. Operates in secrecy; prefers undisclosed dealings; "virtuoso cloakroom wirepuller." 5. Tends to force decisions to be made prematurely. 6. Supports constitutional government. (N. B. Placed low indicates a personal power orientation.) 7. Needed by organization men. (N. B. Placed low indicates subject requires political machines' support for political survival.) 8. Hesitates, has misgivings in decision making. 9. Courts big business luminaries. 10. Dynamo of energy and determination. 11. Concerned with maintaining national unity. 12. Disperses authority. 13. Fosters competition among subordinates. 14. Plays one faction off another skillfully. 15. Is a middle-of-the-roader. 16. Conduct dictated by political exigencies. 17. Has direct, uncomplicated approach. 18. Rarely permits himself to be outflanked. 19. Accepts recommendations of others only under protest. 20. Able to visualize alternatives and weigh longterm consequences. 21. Has misgivings over whether he can fulfill expectations. 22. Builds reputation for overall competency. (N. B. Placed low indicates reputation acquired in single area of competency, such as economics or foreign affairs.) 23. Skilled and self-confident negotiator. 24. Finds dealing with the press challenging and enjoyable. 25. Carefully considers opinions before making them public. 26. Understands implications of his decisions; exhibits depth of comprehension. 27. Suspicious of reformers. 28. Bases decisions on willfulness, nervousness, and egotism. 29. Selects advisors for their professional competency and knowledge. 30. Capable of rapidly resolving factors related to the problem at hand. 31. Values personal loyalty. 32. Views the presidency as a vehicle for selfexpression. 33. Places his personalintegrity over popularity. 34. Places political success over effective policy. 35. Expert at timing. 36. Willing to make compromises. 37. Is methodical, prefers orderly operations. 38. Keeps himself thoroughly informed; reads briefings, background reports. 39. Is emphatic in asserting his judgments. (N. B. Placed low implies is deferential, modest about the viability and validity of own views.) 40. Is flexible. 41. Tends to wash his hands of all responsibility when something goes wrong.
42. Impatient, abrupt in conference. 43. Endears himself to staff through his courtesy and consideration. 44. Keeps members of his staff informed on matters concerning other departments. 45. Keeps in contact with the American public and its moods. 46. Exhibits artistry in manipulation. 47. Emphasizes teamwork. 48. Attempts to ingratiate himself with individual congressmen. 49. Has ability to maintain popularity. 50. Supplies sense of coherence and direction. 51. Assumes varying roles within the structure as a tactical measure. 52. Is idealistic. 53. Is repeatedly guided by the need for approval and respect in his public actions. 54. Concentrates on single issues to the exclusion of other relevant concerns. 55. Gives credit to others for work done. 56. Able to separate public from private life. 57. Has reputation for consistant success. 58. Allows Cabinet members considerable independence. (N. B. Placed low indicates their use merely as subordinate consultants.) 59. Is frequently in contact with his advisers and Cabinet. 60. Suffers health problems that tend to parallel difficult and critical periods in office. 61. Relies more heavily on informal advisers than formal consultants. 62. Believes he knows what is best for the people. (N. B. Placed low indicates he considers himself a servant of the public.) 63. Has a flair for the dramatic. 64. Is charismatic. 65. Consciously refines his own public image. 66. Uses rhetoric effectively. 67. Conveys clear-cut, highly visible personality. 68. Has a knack for recruiting talented staff. 69. Is shy, awkward in public. 70. Views presidential duties as a burden. 71. Enjoys the ceremonial aspects of the office. 72. Is innovative in his role as an executive. 73. Initiates new legislation and programs. 74. Maintains close relationships with wide circle of associates. 75. Displays a leadership style characterized by endurance and steadiness. 76. Enjoys dealing with the details of problems as opposed to supplying only general directives. 77. Knows his limitations. 78. Relies on working in a staff system, deciding among options formulated by advisers. 79. Evaluates his performance in terms of "history's judgment" and other remote perspectives. 80. Does not specialize in particular aspects of the role demands; gives balanced attention to the full range of his duties. 81. Encourages the exercise of independent judgment by aides. 82. Indulges in emotional outbursts.
.721 .744 .404 .563 .733
.824
.172 .272 .353 .825 .554 .164 .515 .528 .673 .346 .625 .615 .731 .638 .369
.546 .638 .717 .672 .740 .643 .632 .636 .566 .552 .754 .554 .605 .491 .771 .554 .700
.652 .654 .525
.822 .786 .620 .725 .670 .741 .526 .753 .330 .184 .505 .599 .344 .754 .432 .506
.672 .694 .620 .275
.760 .742 .768 .608 .734 .710 .581 .771 .448 .725 .618 .676 .700 .508 .399 .729 .783 .247
.322 .655 .886
PRESIDENTIAL STYLE
931
bers of his staff informed on matters concerning other depart-
tor score is preferable, the linear composites were defined both
ments" (.72), "knows his limitations" (.57), and "supports constitutional government. . . ." (.57), but seldom "accepts
ways, their reliabilities estimated, and the correlations calculated both within and between each set of factor scores. Table 2
recommendations of others only under protest" (-.82), "be-
shows the outcome.
lieves he knows what is best for the people" (-.77), "is emphatic in asserting his judgments.. . ."(—.75), is "suspicious of reformers" (—.74), is "impatient, abrupt in conference" (—.69), "bases decisions on willfulness, nervousness, and egotism"
Qearly, the exclusive and inclusive scores for each of the five factors correlate very highly, with an average of .93, suggesting that the scores should yield very similar results. Furthermore, all reliability coefficients are respectable, with the possible ex-
(—.65), "tends to force decisions to be made prematurely"
ception of those for the neurotic style. However, the exclusive
(—.61), and "rarely permits himself to be outflanked" (—.54).
indicators do produce a more orthogonal outcome than do the inclusive indicators. In the exclusive case, the interpersonal style
There are additional salient positive loadings with Items 49 (.56), 45 (.48), 15 (.47), 2 (.44), and 25 (.42), and negative loadings with Items 32 (-.51), 82 (-.44), 46 (-.38), and 23 (-.31). 2. The charismatic president typically "finds dealing with the press challenging and enjoyable" (.93), "enjoys the ceremonial aspects of the office" (.91), "is charismatic" (.82), "consciously refines his own public image" (.81), "has a flair for the dramatic" (.81), "conveys clear-cut, highly visible personality" (.80), is a "skilled and self-confident negotiator" (.76), "uses rhetoric effectively" (.69), is a "dynamo of energy and determination" (.69), is "characterized by others as a world figure. . . ."(.61), "keeps in contact with the American public and its moods" (.60), "has ability to maintain popularity" (.60), "exhibits artistry in manipulation" (.60), and "views the presidency as a vehicle for self-expression" (.54), but rarely "is shy, awkward in public" (—.87). There are additional salient positive loadings with Items 18 (.52), 72 (.51), and 73 (.40), and negative loadings with Items 2 (-.43) and 60 (-.38). 3. The deliberative president commonly "understands implications of his decisions; exhibits depth of comprehension" (.93), is "able to visualize alternatives and weigh long term consequences" (.80), "keeps himself thoroughly informed; reads briefings, background reports" (.76), and is "cautious, conservative in action" (.46), but infrequently "indulges in emotional outbursts" (-.49). Additional salient positive loadings exist for Items 77 (.56), 6 (.46), 23 (.32), and 1 (.32), and negative loadings with Items 5 (-.58), 34 (-.52), 28 (-.47), 42 (-.40), and 32 (-.32).
correlates positively only with the deliberative style and negatively only with the creative style, and the creative style correlates highly only with the charismatic style. Given the superior independence of the exclusive factor scores, all statistics reported in this article from this point on are based on these scores alone. Nonetheless, only findings that hold for both inclusive and exclusive measures are presented. The standardized scores for the 39 presidents are given in Table 3 (where each stylistic dimension was given a mean of zero and standard deviation of unity). Although some presidents are characterized by a single style, many are prominent on more than one dimension. For instance, Lyndon Johnson's positive score on charisma, which may appear somewhat surprising (particularly relative to Kennedy), is partly undermined by the fact that his score on neuroticism is the highest of all 20th-century presidents (whereas Kennedy's charisma is probably enhanced by his prominence on the deliberative and especially the creative styles). Of course, given that a few of the dimensions are moderately correlated, one would expect some presidents to be found in more than one stylistic category. For example, because the charismatic and creative styles display the highest correlation (see Table 2), it comes as no surprise that Franklin Roosevelt and Jackson emerge at the top of both lists. Nevertheless, even in this case the representatives of each style are not always the same, nor will they always appear in the same rank-
4. The creative president frequently "initiates new legislation and programs" (.76) and "is innovative in his role as an execu-
ing when they are the same. Hence, Jefferson is high on creativity but not on charisma, whereas Theodore Roosevelt is high on charisma but not on creativity. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that some presidents fail to be outstandingly high or low on any
tive" (.75), but rarely "is a middle-of-the-roader" (-.50). More
of the five styles—the stylistically nondescript (cf. Simonton,
salient positive loadings were found with Items 10 (.57), 82
1986c).
(.48), 44 (.46), 1 (.46), 39 (.43), 20 (.37), 42 (.34), 38 (.31), and 32 (.30), and negative loadings with Items 2 (-.41), 78 (-.41),
A cluster analysis clarifies how the 39 presidents compare in style. After rescaling the standardized scores in Table 3 by mul-
and 77 (-.32). 5. The neurotic president most often "places political success over effective policy" (.62) and "suffers health problems
tiplying each column by the corresponding reliability coeffi-
which tend to parallel difficult and critical periods in office" (.52), but almost never "has direct, uncomplicated approach"
clidean distances between the stylistic profiles, using SPSS-X (SPSS Inc., 1986, chap. 40). The resulting dendrogram is de-
(-.89). This factor has additional salient positive loadings with
picted in Figure 1 (cf. Simonton, 1986c, Fig. 1).
Items 46 (.45) and 65 (.32), and negative loadings with Items 6
cient for the dimension (in Table 2), an average-linkage (between-groups) agglomeration procedure was applied to the Eu-
Grant's style (low deliberativeness, low charisma, low creativ-
These factor loadings can be used to construct composite
ity, and high neuroticism) sets him apart from all the rest of the American chief executives. Fillmore too shows a disinclination
scores in two ways. First, one can simply sum the raw scores on all items having a loading of .30 or greater on a given factor
toward a style comparable with his presidential colleagues: high in both interpersonal and deliberative dispositions but low in
(assigning those items with negative loadings a negative weight), yielding inclusive factor scores. Second, one can assign an item
both creativity and neuroticism. In contrast to these two presidential misfits, other chief executives are paired together early in the clustering algorithm. Such kindred spirits include, in or-
(-.36) and 67 (-.35).
solely to that factor with which it features the highest loading, regardless of how highly it correlates with another factor, producing exclusive factor scores. To determine which type of fac-
der of cluster distance, Andrew Johnson and Truman, Hoover and Carter, Buchanan and Arthur, Pierce and Eisenhower, Lin-
932
DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
Table 2 Correlations and Alpha Reliabilities for Exclusive and Inclusive Measures No. of
Style
1
1. Interpersonal 2. Charismatic 3. Deliberative 4. Creative 5. Neurotic Alpha No. of items
.99"* -.33'
-.20
.76*** -.69*** -.60*** .96 30
-.21
2
3
.55***
.99*** .78*** .40*
.92 20
-.15
.95*** -.44** -.53*** .91 16
4
5
-.48*** .62***
-.23
-.17
-.19
.90*** .47*
.90 15
.02 .03 .84*** .73 8
Alpha
items
.97 .90 .85 .82 .61
21 15 7 3 3
Note. Correlations, reliabilities, and number of items for exclusive measures are above the diagonal, those for inclusive measures are below the diagonal, whereas on the diagonal are given the correlations between the exclusive and inclusive measures. *p
