The Psychological Assessment of Political Leadersmaking—and (2) a tendency to infer too much from too little data
and a tendency to rely on psychological theory that is not well devel-
oped or explicated in the study.
Even among those united by their use of psychoanalytically
framed theory and biographical history to analyze the performance of
presidents there is disagreement about whether prediction is possi-
ble. In his study of then president Richard Nixon, Mazlish (1972,
162) gives an example of true prediction: "If, as in the natural sci-
ences, the psychohistorian could predict with utter certainty that
Nixon's personality would compel him to keep Agnew as his Vice-
President in 1972, that would be a 'true prediction.'" "Utter cer-
tainty" is a high standard. Not surprisingly, Mazlish concludes
(1972, 162, 165) that such a prediction is not possible and that the
fusion of psychology and contemporary historical analysis "cannot
give us the sort of certainty involved in true prediction. Above all it
cannot predict a specific act, such as visiting Peking.... psychohis-
tory is basically a retrospective enterprise."
Barber ({1972} 1992), on the other hand, subtitles his book "Pre-
dicting Performance in the White House." His view, not a particu-
larly radical one, is that if we can trace the pattern of a person's life
before he enters the oval office, we are better able to estimate his
likely patterns once in it (2). He acknowledges, rightly, that such
predictions are "not easy" and will require "some sharp tools and
close attention to their use" (3, 4). Yet, he thinks them worth the
risk both because the questions they address (the quality of those in
our highest office) are critical and because the theories that attempt
to answer them can best be refined through practice. But to estimate
a likely pattern or tendency is much softer than hard prediction.
The fundamental basis of psychological prediction is the consis-
tency of behavior. A prediction is a test of our understanding of three
areas: the psychology that underlies a person's behavior, the circum-
stances that will affect it, and the relationship between them.
Unlike a person's attitudes or personality traits, character reflects
a person's basic and habitual ways of relating to circumstance. So, to
the extent that a person's character has become psychologically con-
solidated, we can expect significant consistency in his or her behav-
ior. It is this consistency that provides the basis for any confidence in
our expectations about how someone will act.^6