Handbook of Psychology, Volume 5, Personality and Social Psychology

Conceptual Problems in the Study of Personality in Politics 607

contemporary personality assessment (Jervis, 1989, p. 482;

Simonton, 1990, p. 671), preoccupation with personality

dynamics can be expected to wane, while psychogenesis

already occupies a peripheral role in political personality, of

primary interest to psychohistorians.

Millon’s (1990) evolutionary model refines Greenstein’s

three operational levels of analysis (phenomenology, dynam-

ics, and genesis) by redefining genesis as a conceptual

construct, relabeling dynamics as the intrapsychiclevel of

analysis, disaggregating phenomenology into phenomeno-

logicaland behavioraldata levels, and adding a fourth,

biophysical,data level.

The critical operational constructs are the clinical domains

(or personality attributes), which provide an explicit basis for

personality assessment. Millon’s (1990) evolutionary model

specifies fourstructural domains (object representations,

self-image, morphologic organization, and mood or tempera-

ment) and fourfunctionaldomains (expressive behavior,

interpersonal conduct, cognitive style, and regulatory mecha-

nisms) encompassing four data levels:behavioral(expressive

behavior, interpersonal conduct);phenomenological(cogni-

tive style, object representations, self-image);intrapsychic

(regulatory mechanisms, morphological organization); and

biophysical(mood or temperament).

Scope of Inquiry

Beyond simply refining Greenstein’s (1969) specification of

operational levels for personality-in-politics inquiry, the

scope of this endeavor must be elucidated if political person-

ality is to extricate itself from the “tangled underbrush.” The

requisite scope of inquiry is implied in the organizational

framework of a representative undergraduate personality text

(Pervin & John, 2001), which presents theory and research in

terms of structure, process, development, psychopathology,

and change—a formulation consistent with the organizing

framework of structure, dynamics, development, assessment,

and change that Gordon Allport employed in his seminal text,

Personality: A Psychological Interpretation(1937). Millon’s

(1990, 1996) contemporary clinical model of personality fol-

lows this time-honored tradition by construing personality in

terms of its structural and functional domains, normal and

pathological variants, developmental background (including

hypothesized biogenic factors and characteristic develop-

mental history), homeostatic (self-perpetuation) processes,

and domain-based modification strategies and tactics.

Theoretical Orientation

In an important recapitulation nearly a quarter-century after

his landmark work in Personality and Politics (1969),

Greenstein (1992) resolved, “The study of personality and

politics is possible and desirable, but systematic intellectual

progress is possible only if there is careful attention to prob-

lems of evidence, inference, and conceptualization” (p. 105).

He went on to assert, however, that “it is not appropriate to

recommend a particular personality theory,” suggesting that

the theories of “Freud, Jung, Allport, Murray, and... many

others” (p. 117) are all potentially useful. Although there is

merit in Greenstein’s (1973) counsel to “let many flowers

bloom” (p. 469), professional psychodiagnosticians—who

tend not to treat the classic schools of personality theory as

templates for tailoring their assessment tools—might find

this assertion quite striking. Burgeoning scientific and tech-

nological progress in clinical science over the past half-

century practically dictates that assimilating contemporary

approaches to psychodiagnostics and personality assessment

provides a less obstacle strewn passage for personality-in-

politics practitioners than steering a course illuminated solely

by the radiance of the great pioneers of personality theory.

Despite major advances in behavioral neuroscience, evolu-

tionary ecology, and personality research in the past two

decades (see chapter by Millon in this volume), personality-

in-politics inquiry arguably has become insular and stagnant,

with few fresh ideas and—with the exception of cognitive

science—little indication of meaningful cross-pollination of

ideas from adjacent disciplines.

Necessary Conditions for Operationalizing

Research Designs

In the original Handbook of Political Psychology(1973),

Knutson implored that, to be feasible for studying personality

in politics, conceptual models should fulfill three critical re-

quirements for operationalizing research designs in political

personality: Clearly conceptualize the meaning of the term

personality;delineate attributes of personality that can be

quantified or objectively assessed, thereby rendering them

amenable to scientific study; and specify how the personality

attributes subjected to scientific inquiry relate to the per-

sonality construct (pp. 34–35). As shown next, Millon’s

(1990, 1996) evolutionary model of personality satisfies all

three of Knutson’s criteria, making it eminently useful for

studying personality in politics.

Defining Personality

From Millon’s evolutionary-ecological perspective, person-

ality constitutes ontogenetic, manifest, adaptive styles of

thinking, feeling, acting, and relating to others, shaped by

interaction of latent, phylogenetic, biologic endowment and

mill_ch24.qxd 9/25/02 11:36 AM Page 607