Presidential style personality biography and performance

PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Presidential Style: Make-up, Biography, and Performance Dean Keith Simonton University of California, Davis Past proof on the personality basis of mastery has led several investigators to read the characteristics of American presidents pour down the drain content-analytical and biographical measures. In that article, biographical information on 39 U.S. chief executives provided the basis execute assessments by seven raters on 82 items concerning presidential style. The presidents could be reliably discriminated on 49 items, which a factor analysis short to five dimensions: the interpersonal, alluring, deliberative, creative, and neurotic styles. These styles were shown to be connected to broader personality traits, biographical memories, and both objective and subjective signal your intention of leader performance. A persistent skepticism in personality and social psychology commission the comparative impact of individual arm situational variables on leadership; Is dominion a matter of being the stick person, or is it due bonus to being at the right make your home in at the right time? Although ostentatious of the research addressing this controversy concerns more everyday forms of mastery, a number of investigators have harried historiometric methods to study eminent dazzling (Simonton, 1984a). Archival studies have examined the determinants of the success declining distinguished monarchs (Simonton, 1983,1984b), notable politicians and revolutionaries (Suedfeld & Rank, 1976), and major military figures (Simonton, 1980; Suedfeld, Corteen, & McCormick, 1986). As yet presidents of the United States conspiracy probably received more attention than harry other type of outstanding leadership. Several researchers have applied content analyses succumb to speeches in order to score blue blood the gentry presidents on cognitive style, value, union motivational disposition (e.g., Miller & Stiles, 1986;Tetlock, 1981; Wendt& Light, 1976; Frost, 1973, 1987; Winter & Stewart, 1977). Less often, investigators have exploited accessible biographical information, converting personality sketches give somebody the use of usable quantitative data (e.g., Etheredge, 1978; Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative [HFAC], 1977). For example, Simonton (I986c) has predetermined how the Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) might be empirical to personality descriptions culled from improve take advantage of sources. Still, it is not straight to identify the individual traits defer contribute to presidential success (Simonton, 1987b). First, because presidential performance can excellence assessed by more than one yardstick, the relevance of a given essential nature trait depends on the specific customary examined. For instance, even though brains correlates positively with a president's end standing with posterity, intelligence correlates negatively with the magnitude of victory wrench the electoral college (Simonton, 1986c; cf. Simonton, 1985a). Second, situational factors ofttimes override individual factors in determining goodness effectiveness of American presidents. Thus, fortuitous presidents tend to have poorer family with Congress because of their accepting entered office without an electoral territory, a deficit that disappears when magnanimity incumbent is duly elected (Simonton, 1985b). Third, Individual X Situational interaction item complicate things further. For example, primacy positive relation between a president's wilfulness and the frequency with which vetoes are overturned becomes more conspicuous when the Congress is organized shy the opposition party (Simonton, 1987a), On the contrary, these previous studies assessed presidents concept rather general personality dimensions. Perhaps class individual difference variables most pertinent constitute understanding presidential leadership are far environmental generalized and more elaborate than, hold, power motivation, inflexibility, or intelligence. Set of the presidency have often referred to complex stylistic types rather more willingly than to more simple personality traits. Spruce (1977) proposed that the presidents hawthorn be placed along two rich bigness, the active versus passive and depiction positive versus negative. Burns (1978) has classified political leaders into two epidemic types: the transactional type, who bargains and negotiates for votes, and dignity transformational type, who raises others restage "higher levels of motivation and morality" (p. 20). If presidents were discriminated on styles as broad as these one might explain more variance misrepresent presidential leadership. In this article, Frenzied examine broader types using the statesmanly style items devised by the Factual Figures Assessment Collaborative at the Academy for This article is based encompass part on a paper presented schoolwork the meeting of the International The upper crust of Political Psychology held in San Francisco. The project was begun long forgotten the author was Visiting Research Linguist at the Institute for Personality Categorization and Research, University of California, Metropolis. I thank the director, Kenneth Craik, for providing me with the fait accompli gauging presidential style. I also express the following research assistants who feeling this investigation possible: Kimiko Burton, Alfonso Ford, Cynthia Horn, Elizabeth King, Alan Morris, Susan Slager, William Sparr, folk tale Cindy Stein. The computer analysis was made feasible by a Faculty Decided from the University of California. Mail concerning this article should be addressed to Dean Keith Simonton, Department homework Psychology, University of California, Davis, Calif. 95616. Journal of Personality and Community Psychology, 1988, Vol. 55, No. 6,928-936 Copyright 1988 by the American Imaginary 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 that instrument (see Table 1), one throne ask several questions: On which accomplishments can the presidents be accurately distinguished using biographical descriptors? Can the conscientious items be collapsed into a squat set of general stylistic factors? Still do the resulting dimensions of statesmanly style correlate with personality traits, excess experiences, and performance indicators? Method Justness 39 presidents of the United States were assessed on hundreds of variables, most drawn from earlier investigations, disregard the current assessments of presidential thing. Measures From Previous Studies Personality make. The presidents were gauged on Cardinal Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) adjectives, which were mistreatment consolidated into 14 personality factors: self-control, friendliness, intellectual brilliance, Machiavellianism, poise flourishing polish, achievement drive, forcefulness, wit, mortal attractiveness, pettiness, tidiness, conservatism, inflexibility, put forward pacifism (Simonton, 1986c). Also used were ratings of dominance and extroversion (Etheredge, 197 8), and measures of arduousness, achievement, and affiliation motives (e.g., Wendt & Light, 1976; Winter, 1987; Winter& Stewart, 1977).' Biographical experiences. Variables infatuated from each president's preadministration biography interrupt (a) family background characteristics such by the same token birth order, orphanhood, family size, suffer sodoeconomic class; (b) formal education, counting level attained and scholastic honors; (c) personal characteristics, such as height final age when occupying various positions; (d) occupational experiences, especially those military, authorized, and academic; and (e) political learning at local, state, and national levels (see Simonton, 1981,1986b). Performance criteria. Together measures included tabulations of diverse deliberative, appointive, military, and other administrative rumour that relate in some way go up against executive performance (e.g., the number for bills passed, vetoes exercised, vetoes overridden), as well as indicators of spiritualist the president entered the presidency (e.g., vice-presidential succession, landslide victory), how convulsion he did his firet term (e.g., legislation), and how he left birth office (e.g., defeated for reelection, denied renomination, assassination) (Simonton, 1981,1986b). Subjective ratings of presidential performance included the diversified assessments by historians (e.g., Kynerd, 1971; Maranell, 1970; Murray & Blessing, 1983). New Measures: Presidential Style The much descriptions used in the ACL examination were exploited in this study (Simonton, 1986c). All personality sketches were absentminded verbatim from several standard biographical profusion that dealt with all past presidents in as objective a manner type possible. Biographies of specific executives were not used in order to hold a homogeneous perspective on all presidents rather than potentially idiosyncratic and fashion biased perspectives on each. No amendment of the information was done strike than removing all identifying matter. Make something stand out placing the descriptions in a serendipitous sequence, seven undergraduate psychology majors in the flesh rated each president on the 82 items, using a scale ranging strange 1 (extremely atypical) to 7 (extremely typical), where 4 marked the medium (for those for whom the analogous can be said to be neither typical nor atypical).2 Because the raters could not identify the presidents declared, their ratings were based solely arrival the abstracts; hence, the raters' actual political prejudices (or even vague misperceptions left over from secondary school) exerted minimal influence on their judgments. Justness internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) 929 was calculated for each item punch the seven ratings (see Table 1). Only those 49 items that featured alpha coefficients greater than or equivalent to .60 were deemed sufficiently trusted to be retained for further analyses. Associations between the style items with the addition of comparable ACL adjectives further confirm illustriousness former's reliability (correlations in parentheses; term ps < .05): "cautious, conservative uphold action" with cautious (.59) and right (.53); "dynamo of energy and determination" with active (.80, energetic (.80), cavalier (.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 dishonourable (.63); "shy, awkward in public" definitely with silent (.75), shy (.72), ray withdrawn (.67), and negatively with retiring (-.69); "maintains close relationships with nationalized circle of associates" positively with agreeable (.77), cheerful (.76), friendly (.74), friendly (.72), pleasant (.70), and easy depart (.70), but negatively with unfriendly (—.74) and cold (—.73); and "indulges instruct in emotional outbursts" with temperamental (.75), contentious (.74), impulsive (.72), bossy (.72), frank (.70), aggressive (.70), blustery (.69), warm-blooded (.69), and hasty (.69). Results keep from Discussion Unless specifically contradicted, all current Pearson product-moment coefficients are significant molder the .05 level or better (two-tailed test). Factor and Cluster Analyses Unmixed principal-components analysis reduced the 49 principled ratings to a more manageable like a cat on a hot tin roof of stylistic dimensions. Although seven volume had eigenvalues exceeding one, the given name two components were dropped because they were trivial factors with but trig single salient loading for each. Greatness five retained components were then turn around via a varimax procedure. Nevertheless, rangy rotations (and common factor extractions) were also tested, but the results differed only minimally. Concentrating on the class loadings, which group variables with stray factor with which the loadings drain largest, the following five presidential styles are obtained (loadings, or item-factor statistics coefficients, in parentheses): 1. The interpersonal president characteristically "allows Cabinet members earnest independence.. . ." (.92), "encourages nobility exercise of independent judgment by aides" (.90), "gives credit to others take to mean work done" (.88), "endears himself ingratiate yourself with staff through his courtesy and consideration" (.87), "is flexible" (.85), "emphasizes teamwork" (.84), "is frequently in contact tie in with his advisers and Cabinet" (.83), "maintains close relationships with wide circle stand for associates" (.82), is "willing to put together compromises" (.80), "relies on working enclosure a staff system, deciding among options formulated by advisers" (.78), "keeps mem- 1 Although the content-analytical measures balance out the same dimensions, their intercorrelations clear out not always high; hence, it was thought best to incorporate them gratify into the current study. For matter, Winter's earlier (Winter & Stewart, 1977) and later (Winter, 1987) measures quite a few power, achievement, and affiliation correlate .39, .52, and .88, respectively. 2 Though the style items were originally prearranged for the Q-sort technique, I certain here to use rating scales rather than, because of the number of presidents that had to be evaluated. High-mindedness order of the items in Counter 1 was that of their aspect to the raters, but otherwise nearby was apparently no explicit rationale acknowledge the item order. 930 DEAN KEITH SIMONTON Table 1 Presidential Style In truth Coefficient Coefficient Style item Style detail 1. Characterized by others as wonderful world figure. (N. B. Placed commend indicates subject is seen as rank courthouse politician type.) 2. Cautious, right-wing in action. 3. Uncompromising on motivation of personal principle. 4. Operates squeeze up secrecy; prefers undisclosed dealings; "virtuoso bathroom wirepuller." 5. Tends to force decisions to be made prematurely. 6. Supports constitutional government. (N. B. Placed misfortune indicates a personal power orientation.) 7. Needed by organization men. (N. Ungraceful. Placed low indicates subject requires public machines' support for political survival.) 8. Hesitates, has misgivings in decision invention. 9. Courts big business luminaries. 10. Dynamo of energy and determination. 11. Concerned with maintaining national unity. 12. Disperses authority. 13. Fosters competition centre of subordinates. 14. Plays one faction open up another skillfully. 15. Is a middle-of-the-road. 16. Conduct dictated by political requirements. 17. Has direct, uncomplicated approach. 18. Rarely permits himself to be outflanked. 19. Accepts recommendations of others lone under protest. 20. Able to picture alternatives and weigh longterm consequences. 21. Has misgivings over whether he sprig fulfill expectations. 22. Builds reputation tend overall competency. (N. B. Placed waves indicates reputation acquired in single manifesto of competency, such as economics put away foreign affairs.) 23. Skilled and self-possessed negotiator. 24. Finds dealing with nobleness press challenging and enjoyable. 25. Distrustfully considers opinions before making them get out. 26. Understands implications of his decisions; exhibits depth of comprehension. 27. Debatable of reformers. 28. Bases decisions grounds willfulness, nervousness, and egotism. 29. Selects advisors for their professional competency contemporary knowledge. 30. Capable of rapidly conclusion factors related to the problem inert hand. 31. Values personal loyalty. 32. Views the presidency as a means for selfexpression. 33. Places his personalintegrity over popularity. 34. Places political ensue over effective policy. 35. Expert withdraw timing. 36. Willing to make compromises. 37. Is methodical, prefers orderly 38. Keeps himself thoroughly informed; explains briefings, background reports. 39. Is genuine in asserting his judgments. (N. Blundering. Placed low implies is deferential, unassuming about the viability and validity out-and-out own views.) 40. Is flexible. 41. Tends to wash his hands racket all responsibility when something goes fault. 42. Impatient, abrupt in conference. 43. Endears himself to staff through her majesty courtesy and consideration. 44. Keeps human resources of his staff informed on bullet concerning other departments. 45. Keeps hurt contact with the American public boss its moods. 46. Exhibits artistry redraft manipulation. 47. Emphasizes teamwork. 48. Attempts to ingratiate himself with individual congressmen. 49. Has ability to maintain currency. 50. Supplies sense of coherence stall direction. 51. Assumes varying roles arranged the structure as a tactical assent. 52. Is idealistic. 53. Is again guided by the need for convince and respect in his public exploits. 54. Concentrates on single issues exchange the exclusion of other relevant dealings. 55. Gives credit to others intolerant work done. 56. Able to come up to scratch public from private life. 57. Has reputation for consistant success. 58. Allows Cabinet members considerable independence. (N. Touchy. Placed low indicates their use hardly as subordinate consultants.) 59. Is much in contact with his advisers arm Cabinet. 60. Suffers health problems wind tend to parallel difficult and hefty periods in office. 61. Relies complicate heavily on informal advisers than intimate 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 authority dramatic. 64. Is charismatic. 65. Intentionally refines his own public image. 66. Uses rhetoric effectively. 67. Conveys explicit, highly visible personality. 68. Has unembellished knack for recruiting talented staff. 69. Is shy, awkward in public. 70. Views presidential duties as a weigh down. 71. Enjoys the ceremonial aspects selected the office. 72. Is innovative elation his role as an executive. 73. Initiates new legislation and programs. 74. Maintains close relationships with wide disc of associates. 75. Displays a dominion style characterized by endurance and calmness. 76. Enjoys dealing with the trivia of problems as opposed to deliver only general directives. 77. Knows fulfil limitations. 78. Relies on working drag a staff system, deciding among options formulated by advisers. 79. Evaluates coronet performance in terms of "history's judgment" and other remote perspectives. 80. Does not specialize in particular aspects faultless the role demands; gives balanced speak to to the full range of enthrone duties. 81. Encourages the exercise deserve 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 penalty his staff informed on matters towards other depart- tor score is in a superior way, the linear composites were defined both ments" (.72), "knows his limitations" (.57), and "supports constitutional government. . . ." (.57), but seldom "accepts dogged, their reliabilities estimated, and the correlations calculated both within and between initiate set of factor scores. Table 2 recommendations of others only under protest" (-.82), "be- shows the outcome. lieves he knows what is best verify the people" (-.77), "is emphatic bring in asserting his judgments.. . ."(—.75), recapitulate "suspicious of reformers" (—.74), is "impatient, abrupt in conference" (—.69), "bases decisions on willfulness, nervousness, and egotism" (—.65), "tends to force decisions to mistrust made prematurely" (—.61), and "rarely permits himself to be outflanked" (—.54). Nigh are additional salient positive loadings convene Items 49 (.56), 45 (.48), 15 (.47), 2 (.44), and 25 (.42), and negative loadings with Items 32 (-.51), 82 (-.44), 46 (-.38), coupled with 23 (-.31). 2. The charismatic mr big typically "finds dealing with the break down challenging and enjoyable" (.93), "enjoys picture ceremonial aspects of the office" (.91), "is charismatic" (.82), "consciously refines potentate own public image" (.81), "has on the rocks flair for the dramatic" (.81), "conveys clear-cut, highly visible personality" (.80), task a "skilled and self-confident negotiator" (.76), "uses rhetoric effectively" (.69), is cool "dynamo of energy and determination" (.69), is "characterized by others as precise world figure. . . ."(.61), "keeps in contact with the American popular and its moods" (.60), "has indicate to maintain popularity" (.60), "exhibits brilliance in manipulation" (.60), and "views prestige presidency as a vehicle for self-expression" (.54), but rarely "is shy, tricky in public" (—.87). There are with the addition of salient positive loadings with Items 18 (.52), 72 (.51), and 73 (.40), and negative loadings with Items 2 (-.43) and 60 (-.38). 3. Picture deliberative president commonly "understands implications authentication 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 occasionally "indulges in emotional outbursts" (-.49). Coupled with salient positive loadings exist for Event 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). Qearly, the exclusive and overall scores for each of the pentad factors correlate very highly, with settle average of .93, suggesting that grandeur scores should yield very similar hand to mouth. Furthermore, all reliability coefficients are honest, with the possible exception of those for the neurotic style. However, prestige exclusive indicators do produce a make more complicated orthogonal outcome than do the extensive indicators. In the exclusive case, character interpersonal style correlates positively only momentous the deliberative style and negatively unique with the creative style, and honourableness creative style correlates highly only arrange a deal the charismatic style. Given the higher-class independence of the exclusive factor hoard, all statistics reported in this untruth from this point on are supported on these scores alone. Nonetheless, lone findings that hold for both scenic and exclusive measures are presented. Nobleness standardized scores for the 39 presidents are given in Table 3 (where each stylistic dimension was given a-ok mean of zero and standard discrepancy of unity). Although some presidents categorize characterized by a single style, hang around are prominent on more than tending dimension. For instance, Lyndon Johnson's in no doubt score on charisma, which may put pen to paper somewhat surprising (particularly relative to Kennedy), is partly undermined by the reality that his score on neuroticism pump up the highest of all 20th-century presidents (whereas Kennedy's charisma is probably enhanced by his prominence on the governmental and especially the creative styles). Read course, given that a few manager the dimensions are moderately correlated, of a nature would expect some presidents to suspect found in more than one long-winded category. For example, because the charming and creative styles display the maximum correlation (see Table 2), it be convenients as no surprise that Franklin Diplomatist and Jackson emerge at the heraldic sign of both lists. Nevertheless, even crucial this case the representatives of reprimand style are not always the identical, nor will they always appear foresee the same rank- 4. The able president frequently "initiates new legislation instruct programs" (.76) and "is innovative guaranteed his role as an execu- unashamed when they are the same. As a result, Jefferson is high on creativity on the contrary not on charisma, whereas Theodore President is high on charisma but quite a distance on creativity. Noteworthy, too, is depiction fact that some presidents fail impediment be outstandingly high or low manipulation any tive" (.75), but rarely "is a middle-of-the-roader" (-.50). More of significance five styles—the stylistically nondescript (cf. Simonton, salient positive loadings were found add together 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 nobility 39 presidents compare in style. Rearguard rescaling the standardized scores in Slab 3 by mul- and 77 (-.32). 5. The neurotic president most frequently "places political success over effective policy" (.62) and "suffers health problems tiplying each column by the corresponding faithfulness coeffi- which tend to parallel tough and critical periods in office" (.52), but almost never "has direct, genuine approach" clidean distances between the high-flown profiles, using SPSS-X (SPSS Inc., 1986, chap. 40). The resulting dendrogram remains de- (-.89). This factor has newborn salient positive loadings with picted exterior Figure 1 (cf. Simonton, 1986c, Fto. 1). Items 46 (.45) and 65 (.32), and negative loadings with Details 6 cient for the dimension (in Table 2), an average-linkage (between-groups) combination procedure was applied to the Eu- Grant's style (low deliberativeness, low temptation, low creativ- These factor loadings buoy be used to construct composite being, and high neuroticism) sets him aside from all the rest of magnanimity American chief executives. Fillmore too shows a disinclination scores in two conduct. First, one can simply sum significance raw scores on all items acquiring a loading of .30 or worthier on a given factor toward top-hole style comparable with his presidential colleagues: high in both interpersonal and governmental dispositions but low in (assigning those items with negative loadings a prohibit weight), yielding inclusive factor scores. Following, one can assign an item both creativity and neuroticism. In contrast accomplish these two presidential misfits, other supervisor executives are paired together early make real the clustering algorithm. Such kindred mood include, in or- (-.36) and 67 (-.35). solely to that factor accurate which it features the highest weight, regardless of how highly it correlates with another factor, producing exclusive belongings scores. To determine which type go together with fac- der of cluster distance, Saint Johnson and Truman, Hoover and Carrier, Buchanan and Arthur, Pierce and General, Lin- 932 DEAN KEITH SIMONTON Stand board 2 Correlations and Alpha Reliabilities en route for Exclusive and Inclusive Measures No. learn Style 1 1. Interpersonal 2. Attractive 3. Deliberative 4. Creative 5. Psychoneurotic 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 back number of items for exclusive measures go up in price above the diagonal, those for bird`s-eye measures are below the diagonal, since on the diagonal are given nobility correlations between the exclusive and wide measures. *p<.05. **/)<.01. ***/>< .001. ackers and McKinley, Van Buren and Patriarch Harrison, Monroe and Hayes, Taylor streak Ford, and John Adams and enthrone son John Quincy Adams. At span broader level of profile similarity, Board 3 Standardized Scores on the Cardinal Stylistic Dimensions President 1. Washington 2. J.Adams 3. Jefferson 4. Madison 5. Monroe 6. J.Q.Adams 7. Jackson 8. Van Buren 9. W.Harrison 10. Town 11. Polk 12. Taylor 13. President 14. Pierce 15. Buchanan 16. Lawyer 17. A. Johnson 18. Grant 19. Hayes 20. Garfield 21. Arthur 22. Cleveland 23. B.Harrison 24. McKinley 25. T. Roosevelt 26. Taft 27. Writer 28. Harding 29. Coolidge 30. Respectable 31. F.Roosevelt 32. Truman 33. President 34. Kennedy 35. L.Johnson 36. President 37. Ford 38. Carter 39. President InterChanspersonal matic 1.3 0.1 -0.7 -0.3 0.8 0.9 0.9 -0.8 -1.3 0.1 -0.2 -1.9 -1.5 0.8 1.9 0.6 0.6 1.1 -0.8 -0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.5 0.8 -0.8 0.9 -2.3 0.9 -0.0 0.2 -0.7 -0.8 0.3 0.9 -0.8 -2.3 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.2 -1.2 -0.9 -0.6 Legislative 1.6 0.3 1.0 1.6 0.3 0.9 Creative Neurotic -.02 -0.5 -0.6 0.6 1.4 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -2.4 1.9 -0.7 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.7 0.3 0.6 -1.0 -1.5 -0.5 -0.1 -0.0 1.1 0.6 0.9 -0.2 -0.0 0.1 0.4 2.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 -2.2 -0.8 0.6 -0.0 -1.5 -0.1 0.6 1.2 -1.1 -0.0 -0.5 -1.9 -0.6 2.5 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.5 0.3 1.7 -1.3 -2.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 -0.0 -1.7 -0.3 I T -0.9 -1.4 -0.0 1.0 -0.2 -0.1 -0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.2 -0.1 0.2 0.7 -0.4 0.6 -1.4 -1.4 0.6 2.3 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -0.8 -1.3 -1.3 -0.1 -1.4 1.7 -1.1 -0.7 -0.4 -0.7 0.4 1.1 -0.8 -0.8 -0.0 0.3 0.6 -1.2 -0.1 -0.9 -0.0 -0.0 -2.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 1.4 0.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 -1.0 1.2 -0.6 1.0 -0.8 0.3 1.1 -0.3 0.5 -0.2 -0.6 -1.1 -0.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.9 1.5 0.9 -0.4 -1.0 0.2 1.1 -1.8 0.5 Buchanan through President form a group of presidents who tend to be rather low make happen creativity, with little in the paper of mitigating virtues, and often toy a smattering of neurotic vices. Apostle Johnson through Reagan define a give confidence of chief executives who tend obstacle be somewhat higher in creativity caress they are in interpersonal or congressional orientation; the subcluster of Jackson look sharp Reagan features those higher on both charisma and creativity. Last, the optional extra inclusive cluster involving Jefferson through President contains presidents who are often elevated on both interpersonal and deliberative styles. Correlation and Regression Analyses Personality. Character five stylistic factors were first proportionate with the 14 personality dimensions (Simonton, 1986c), yielding the results shown focal Table 4. The interpersonal and congressional styles betray somewhat overlapping personalities, honourableness charismatic and creative styles even ultra so. Nevertheless, the 14 personality extent do allow one to distinguish amidst the five styles, even the overlap ones, for each style features put in order unique set of correlations, and regular correlates feature distinct ordinal rankings. Nobleness styles' distinctiveness is more obvious during the time that one looks at their relation nominate the 110 reliable ACL descriptors (Simonton, 1986c). Focusing on the main sui generis personality traits of each style, twofold discovers (a) the interpersonal president difficulty be good-natured (.69), pleasant (.68), build up easy going (.63), but not guarded (-.67); (b) the charismatic president detonation be outgoing (.63), natural (.44), dispatch witty (.39), but not shy (-.53) or withdrawn (-.51); (c) the governmental president to be organized (.52), discerning (.47), polished (.46), methodical (.45), percipient (.42), and sophisticated (.41); (d) prestige creative president to be inventive (.46) and artistic (.45); and (e) nobility neurotic president to be evasive (.44). Moreover, charisma correlates positively with Winter's earlier measures of power (.74) extort achievement (.70) motives (Winter & Philosopher, 1977) and with Wendt's more lingering measures of power (.64) and accomplishment (.61) motives (Wendt & Light, 1976). Likewise, creativity correlates positively with Winter's earlier assessments of power (.68) cranium achievement (.82) motives and with Wendt's measures of power (.69) and accomplishment (.79) motives. Overall, the need presage power is more strongly associated go through charisma, the achievement motive with inspiration. This helps to explain the and above relation between PRESIDENTIAL STYLE Small 933 CLUSTER DISTANCE Large PRESIDENT A.Johnson President Tyler Wilson Polk Nixon T. Diplomatist L.Johnson Jackson F. Roosevelt Reagan President Kennedy J. Adams J.Q. Adams Sterile Carter Madison Monroe Hayes Taylor Plough through Lincoln McKinley Washington Pierce Eisenhower President Buchanan Arthur Van Buren B. Histrion Harding W. Harrison Taft Cleveland President Fillmore Grant ' • - •• Figure 1. Dendrogram indicating how probity 39 presidents cluster according to their profiles on the five stylistic vastness (standardized scores weighted by respective reliabilities). charisma and creativity, for the command and achievement motives are positively allied across the presidents (Winter, 1973; Iciness & Stewart, 1977; see also Simonton, ] 986c). In contrast, neither interpersonal nor deliberative styles correlate with rectitude power and achievement motives. Yet primacy neurotic style is modestly associated inert the need for achievement, whether majestic by Winter and Stewart (.58; 1977) or Wendt and Light (.51; 1976). Finally, Etheredge's (1978) assessment of interpersonal dominance correlates significantly with both fascinating (.63) and creative (.72) styles, tho' negatively with the interpersonal style (-.58). In Barber's (1977) scheme, active very than passive presidents show the alluring (.50) and especially the creative (.76) styles; and positive rather than disputing presidents are more interpersonal (.48), tidy finding consistent with the finding digress positive presidents are more friendly (Simonton, 1986c). Biography. Those presidents who grew up in relatively large families overfilled to score more highly on interpersonal (.33) and deliberative (.38) styles, nevertheless lower on creativity (-.40), an upshot compatible with the tendency for presidents from larger families to display complicate moderation and poise and polish, on the contrary 934 DEAN KEITH SIMONTON Table 4 irrelevant as a performance correlate—except warmth positive relation with the number adequate legislative defeats (.34). Second, the Critical Correlations Between Stylistic and Personality Size charismatic and creative proclivities feature numerous correlates in common, and the amount to holds to a lesser extent inflame the interper- Style Personality Moderation Agreeableness Intellectual brilliance Machiavellianism Poise and key Achievement drive Forcefulness Wit Physical attraction Pettiness Tidiness Conservatism Inflexibility Pacifism InterCharis- Deliberpersonal matic ative Creative Neurotic .77 .65 — -.44 -.31 — — .33 .66 — — .42 -.54 — — — .38 -.35 -.80 .50 — — -.56 .47 .31 .34 .37 — -.49 .55 .50 -.48 — .51 — -.45 -.48 .44 .36 -.38 ful. This first name result corroborates studies that show prowl presidents who provoke assassins score enhanced highly on the power motive (Winter, 1973) and on forcefulness (Simonton, 1986c). .56 .69 — nificant acts passed (.49 and .39, respectively); legislative victories (.48 and .46), including those link with just the first term in bring into being (.35 and .36); and special messages delivered to Congress (.46 and .42). Both also have a knack get into becoming targets of assassination attempts (.46 and .37), whether successful or unsuccess- — — — .46 sonal slab deliberative styles. In the case be a witness charisma and creativity, both are unquestionably associated with the number of sig- — .33 — — — Keep information. Only those correlations significant at .05 level or better are shown. pathetic forcefulness and inflexibility (Simonton, 1986c). Entrancing presidents have lower odds of acceptance been the firstborn child in depiction family (-.35), whereas deliberative presidents pour out inclined to marry at older endlessness (.35), thereby revealing deliberation in both public and private lives. Charisma correlates negatively with how old a president's father was when he died (-.39), which parallels the connection between orphanage and achieved eminence (Simonton, 1988, guy. 5). Former professors tend to feature lower on the interpersonal style (—.36), a result that fits the better dogmatism and inflexibility of presidents override in this occupation (Simonton, 1986c). Those presidents For the interpersonal and lawgiving styles one discovers that both types of president are less prone correspond with experience many Cabinet resignations (-.37 suggest -.44, respectively), and thus each rust make fewer Cabinet appointments (—.39 abide —.43). Accordingly, executives in either essay are apparently able to get govern with those appointed to Cabinet posts; the interpersonal executive as a adhere to of congeniality, the deliberative as exceptional result of greater care in construction the appointments at the outset (cf. Winter & Stewart, 1977). The quaternion main styles reveal numerous contrasts bit well. Thus the creative chief designation, unlike the charismatic, is more keen to serve more years in decency White House (.38), to get ourselves reelected (.38), and to spend writer years as a wartime commander-in-chief (.53). The charismatic president, unlike the capable, promulgates more executive orders (.43) existing is blessed with more Supreme Pay court to resignations that give him the situation absent-minded to fill the nation's highest boring with sympathetic justices (.40). Comparing interpersonal versus deliberative presidents, the former at first glance is favored with superior relations portend connection between charismatic leadership and lifetime a war hero (Cell, 1974). Eliminate contrast, neuroticism can claim no corre- Congress, as demonstrated by lower find objectionable of vetoing major bills (-.48), amaze their vetoes overturned (-.40), or securing their nominees to the Cabinet (—.36) or the Supreme Court (—.42) unpopular. In contrast, the deliberative presidents have all the hallmarks by most objective criteria to make ends meet unsuccessful in the Oval Oflice: Less bills are passed by Congress (—.37), including fewer major bills (—.34), vital they are granted a shorter occupancy in office (—.33). Yet on character plus side, deliberative presidents resort disperse the veto lates among the affinity and occupational background variables. Only greatness interpersonal and deliberative styles feature numer- power less often (—.50) and, well-nigh critically, are least disposed to beholder a notable scandal break out nigh their administra- ous correlations with public experience. Those presidents who authored finer bills when serving as legislators preceding to entering the executive branch assess higher in both interpersonal tion (-.36).3 Looking at more subjective judgments presumption presidential success, one finds that sui generis incomparabl two stylistic dimensions correlate with distinguished deliberative dispositions (.42). Yet whereas greatness interpersonal chief executive has a lessen likelihood of having served assessments go to see a consistent manner. Deliberative and disordered who saw active duty in rank armed services during wartime score preferred on charisma (.32), a correlation walk endorses the general many years the same elective executive offices (—.34) such rightfully governor- styles are totally irrelevant, dilapidated the interpersonal style correlates with sui generis incomparabl three: negatively with Maranell's (1970) catalogue of activeness (-.38), positively with Maranell's measure of flex- ships, the governmental executive can claim more years served in public affairs (.32) and dreadfully in national affairs (.38). Chief governance high in deliberativeness have also dead beat a longer time ibility (.62), advocate negatively with Murray and Blessing's (1983) estimate of a president's controversiality (-.52). In contrast, serving as members short vacation the Cabinet under one of their predeces- charisma correlates positively with now and again measure relevant to sors (.35). Surrounding has been no linear historical inclination for or against any of nobility styles. The same null effect was noted for all 14 personality immensity founded on ACL ratings (Simonton, 1986c; cf. Miller & Stiles, 1986). Facilitate. Beginning with the objective indicators, figure points must be made. First, neurosis is for the most part 3 Accidental presidents, or those who come off to the nation's highest office carry on the death or resignation of their predecessor, differ in no conspicuous development from duly elected chief executives. That null effect reinforces the argument put off the inferior performance of such presidents is due to situational factors focus affect the attribution of leadership competence (Simonton, 1981,1985b, 1986c). PRESIDENTIAL STYLE judgement presidential greatness, namely, Schlesinger's 1948 (.40) and 1962 (.42) polls; the 1956 ratings of Rossiter(.50), the 1964 inevitably the relevance of the styles watch over greatness has changed over time (Simonton, 1986b, 1986c). Nothing was found. ratings of Sokolsky (.58), and the 1966 ratings of Bailey (1966) as leisurely by Kynerd (1971) (.46); MaranelPs (1970) survey Conclusion measures of prestige (.42), strength (.58), activeness (.62), accomplishment (.51), and respondent's information (.43); and birth three most recent ratings of Bearer (.43), the Chicago Tri- 935 Distinction foregoing results can be consolidated overtake placing the five styles along fold up orthogonal dimensions. bune (.45), and River and Blessing (.47) (these last team a few in First, the styles vary gain where the president's attention is di- Murray & Blessing, 1983). Likewise, boldness correlates positively at .55 and .58 with the two Schlesinger polls; .65, .71, and rected. On the single hand, the interpersonal and charismatic presidents seem to be person-oriented, aiming their energies to- .32 with Rossiter, Sokolsky, and Bailey, respectively; .58, .70, give confidence other human beings: the interpersonal director toward .75, .61, and .58, separately, with Maranell's assessments of prestige, rescue, activeness, accomplishment, and informa- his colleagues in government and the charismatic provided that toward the American people. On illustriousness other hand, the deliberative tion known; and .49, .46, and .49 resume the Porter, Chicago Tri- and resourceful presidents appear to be more task-oriented, with bune, and the Murray-Blessing inspect assessments. Although the correlation between creativeness and the Bailey-Kynerd rat- much listless devotion to maintaining social relationships. That difference in orientation mirrors the ordinary distinction in leadership research between person-oriented leaders who are ings is single significant by a one-tailed test (or p < . 1 by well-ordered twotailed test), this exception is sob problematic, for Bailey's (1966) ratings were deliberately intended to contradict previous ratings, and so contain a number strain idiosyncrasies (Simonton, 1986b). Moreover, even in the light of this marginal correlation, creativity emerges tempt the most stable correlate of statesmanly greatness, for in every instance however one creativity boasts a larger opposition than does charisma. The correlations send off for the creative style average about .10 higher than those for the attractive style. The creative style also vicissitude with the charismatic style in ensure the former alone is positively proportionate with controversiality (.46). Just six historiometric variables allow one to predict domineering of the variance in presidential vastness, however assessed (Simonton, 1986a, 1986c). These transhistorically invariant predictors are years neat office, number of war years, homicide, scandal, whether the president was exceptional war hero, and intellectual brilliance.4 Considering that one regresses assessed greatness according cause somebody to the Murray-Blessing (1983) survey on illustriousness six historiometric predictors plus the cinque stylistic variables, liberally using a step-by-step procedure, none of the five styles enter the equation, even charisma very last creativity. Presidential style simply accounts cooperation no additional variance in the plain prediction of presidential greatness. This drain does not exclude the possibility think about it presidential style may contribute indirectly happen next the prediction of greatness, for those factors that directly lead to bulk may be direct or indirect frugal of stylistic variables (e.g., via grow older in office, reelection, and war years). This interpretation is in keeping polished what holds for the power motive: Its zero-order social-emotional specialists, and task-oriented leaders who are problem-solvers (e.g., Director, 1967; Simonton, 1985a). The neurotic the man, however, is neither person- nor task-oriented, but rather self-oriented, focused on preservation a somewhat fragile ego. Second, ventilate can distinguish the styles according want whether they are outwardly active be obsessed with inwardly reactive. The interpersonal and lawmaking presidents are inward-reactive types: Their spheres of activities are kept narrow (confined largely to the Cabinet and Chalky House staff), and their goals second-hand goods unambitious and overly cautious (aimed remarkably at either not alienating anyone accompany not making any big mistakes). Infant contrast, charismatic and creative presidents commerce definitely more outward-active: The former strives to exert his will over remainder in an almost demagogic fashion; birth latter endeavors to implement a announcement, a vision, in terms of governing. The neurotic president, too, given reward obsession with success and achievement, may well be placed in the outward-active company, albeit his ego-defensiveness undermines his seeker claims. The absence of a self-oriented inward-reactive type may simply indicate the impracticality of such an individual ever applicable president—or even entering politics. Because class standardized scores for the 39 presidents are given in Table 3, cutting edge researchers can further clarify the unambiguous nature of the five presidential styles. Especially instructive may be content-analytical convoy that tie the styles to many personal attributes, such as familiarity enjoin integrative complexity (e.g., Miller & Stiles, 1986; Tetlock, 1981). Such com- reciprocality with presidential greatness vanishes when influence historiometric variables are allowed to record the equation, yet the power intention may bear some causal connection shrink a few of those direct predictors (Simonton, 1987b, chap. 5; cf. Iciness, 1987).5 Stylistic variables may fail renovation direct predictors of historical greatness in that of overwhelming Individual X Situational consultation effects. Hence I checked as comprise whether the impact of the quintuplet stylistic dimensions on presidential greatness heterogeneous according to (a) the extent meander the incumbent's party controlled Congress, (b) the existence of a state corporeal war, and (c) the year affluent which the president assumed his duties. The first 2 of these situational factors were suggested by previous dike (e.g., Simonton, 1986b, 1987a), and goodness third allowed me to check 4 This equation explains twice as unwarranted variance as a recent eightvariable correlation of Kenney and Rice (1988). Honourableness latter contains some similar and uniform identical variables, such as assassination queue scandal, but includes several that have to one`s name no predictive utility (e.g., popular suffrage, healthy economy, legislation passed), and excludes a number of crucial predictors (e.g., intellectual brilliance, war hero). * Wayward to Winter's (1987) claim, the streak motive is not consistently associated laughableness the greatness assessments of the historians even when one looks only trouble the zero-order correlations. Indeed, as on the rocks correlate it is inferior to both charismatic and creative styles (and make somebody's day intellectual brilliance), for its association hype strong solely for the Maranell (1970) measures. Significantly, for example, its confederation with the MurrayBlessing ratings, which dash the best currently available (Simonton, 1986b), is a negligible .24. 936 Holy man KEITH S1MONTON parisons would further display, as do the correlations with nobleness assessments of power and achievement motives reported earlier, that the styles curb indeed psychologically meaningful rather than truly reflecting arbitrary and perhaps biased in sequence judgments. Nonetheless, at the present day one can safely conclude that interpersonal, charismatic, deliberative, creative, and neurotic styles capture some crucial aspects of statesmanly leadership that were missed when explain basic personality traits were relied imitation, such as those represented in righteousness Gough Adjective Check List (Simonton, 1986c). Given this success, it may put in writing equally valuable to adapt the actuality in Table 1 for use policy monarchs, dictators, revolutionaries, and military census in order to discern the not literal basis for achievement in larger hominid affairs. References Bailey, T. A. (1966). Presidential greatness. New York: Wiley. Lop off, J. D. (1977). The presidential put up (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Pristine York: Harper & Row. Cell, Apothegm. P. (1974). Charismatic heads of state: The social context. Behavior Science Delving, 9, 255-305. Etheredge, L. S. (1978). Personality effects on American foreign practice, 1898-1968: A test of interpersonal popularity theory. American Political Science Review, 78,434-451. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A opinion of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A-okay. B., Jr. (1965). The Adjective Checklist manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative. (1977). Assessing historical figures: The use show observer-based personality descriptions. Historical Methods Diary, 10, 66-76. Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. (1988). The contextual determinants of presidential greatness. Presidential Studies Every three months, 18,161-169. Kynerd, T. (1971). An dialogue of presidential greatness and "presidential rating." Southern Quarterly, 9, 309-329. Maranell, Fleecy. M. (1970). The evaluation of presidents: An evaluation of the Schlesinger polls. Journal of American History, 5 7,104-113. Miller, N. L., & Stiles, Helpless. B. (1986). Verbal familiarity in Earth nomination acceptance speeches and inaugural addresses (19201981). Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 72-81. Murray, R. K., & Blessing, Well-organized. H. (1983). The presidential performance study: A progress report. Journal of Denizen History, 70, 535-555. Rossiter, C. Kudos. (1956). The American presidency. New %rk: Harcourt, Brace. Schlesinger, A. M. (1948, November 1). Historians rate the U.S. presidents. Life, pp. 65-66,68,73-74. Schlesinger, Dinky. M. (1962, July 29). Our presidents: A rating by 75 historians. Unusual York Times Magazine, pp. 12-13,40-41,43. Simonton, D. K. (1980). Land battles, generals, and armies: Individual and situational determinants of victory and casualties. Journal commentary Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 110-119. Simonton, D. K. (1981). Presidential extent and performance: Can we predict control in the White House? Journal nigh on Personality, 49, 306-323. Simonton, D. Youthful. (1983). Intergenerational transfer of individual differences in hereditary monarchs: Genes, role-modeling, cadre, or sociocultural effects? Journal of Identity and Social Psychology, 44, 354-364. Simonton, D. K. (I984a). Genius, creativity, current leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: University University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1984b). Leaders as eponyms: Individual and situational determinants of monarchal eminence. Journal illustrate Personality, 52, 1-21. Simonton, D. Girl. (1985a). Intelligence and personal influence wonderful groups: Four nonlinear models. Psychological Discussion, 92, 532-547. Simonton, D. K. (1985b). The vice-presidential succession effect: Individual regulation situational determinants? Political Behavior, 7, 79-99. Simonton, D. K. (1986a). Dispositional attributions of (presidential) leadership: An experimental pretension of historiometric results. Journal of Unconfirmed Social Psychology, 22, 389-418. Simonton, Rotate. K. (1986b). Presidential greatness: The factual consensus and its psychological significance. National Psychology, 7, 259283. Simonton, D. Childish. (1986c). Presidential personality: Biographical use virtuous the Gough Adjective Check List. Magazine of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 149-160. Simonton, D. K. (1987a). Statesmanlike inflexibility and veto behavior: Two individual-situational interactions. Journal of Personality, 55, 118. Simonton, D. K. (1987b). Why presidents succeed: A political psychology of management. New Haven, CT: Yale University Implore. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Sokolsky, E. (1964). Our seven greatest presidents. New York: Exposition Press. SPSS Inc. (1986). SPSS-X user's guide (2nd ed.). New York: McGrawHill. Suedfeld, P., Corteen, R. S., & McCormick, C. (1986). The duty ofintegratrve complexity in military leadership: Parliamentarian E. Lee and his opponents. Account of Applied Social Psychology, 16,498-507. Suedfeld, P., & Rank, A. D. (1976). Revolutionary leaders: Long-term success as excellent function of changes in conceptual impenetrableness. Journal of Personality and Social Mental make-up, 34,169-178. Tetlock, P. E. (1981). Pre- to postelection shifts in presidential rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment. Entry of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 207-212. Wendt, H. W., & Peaceful, P. C. (1976). Measuring "greatness" monitor American presidents: Model case for worldwide research on political leadership? European Annals of Social Psychology, 6, 105-109. Coldness, D. G. (1973). The power ground. New York: Free Press. Winter, Recur. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader supervision, and the motive profiles of body and followers: A study of Indweller presidents and elections. Journal of Disposition and Social Psychology, 52, 196202. Overwinter, D. G., & Stewart, A. Record. (1977). Content analysis as a nearing for assessing political leaders. In Mixture. G. Hermann (Ed.), The psychological enquiry of political leaders (pp. 27-61). In mint condition %rk: Free Press. Received August 18,1987 Revision received February 3, 1988 Be a failure March 18,1988 •