The Psychological Assessment of Political Leadersbiographies (with names of persons and other identifying details
concealed). In examining a series of foreign policy disagreements
between 1898 and 1968, Etheredge found that those leaders judged
to be high in dominance argued in favor of using force (threats, ulti-
mata, military intervention, and war) and opposed arbitration and
disarmament. Leaders judged to be high in extraversion supported
cooperation with the Soviet Union, while more introverted leaders
argued against cooperation.
Hermann's (1984a) interpersonal style variable of task versus inter-
personal emphasis, derived from Bales's (1958) description of two
kinds of group leaders, may involve a variety of traits such as extra-
version, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. As might be expected,
task-oriented leaders tend to be active in foreign policy, but Her-
mann's results further suggest that this activity can be directed into
either an expansionist or merely a self-reliant foreign policy, depend-
ing on the influence of other variables (discussed later).
Weintraub (1981) developed content analysis measures of several
traits (including anger, anxiety, depression, and emotional expres-
siveness), as well as several different kinds of decision-making styles
(e.g., decisive, dogmatic, impulsive, paranoid, and obsessive). He
later applied these measures to the analysis of press conference
responses of U.S. presidents Eisenhower through Reagan (Wein-
traub 1989).
Summary of Single-Variable Research Findings
What do we know about the effect of particular personality variables
on foreign policy? Table 2.2 suggests some conclusions that can be
drawn from the research literature cited in this chapter. To facilitate
comparison and integration of results, foreign policy behaviors are
loosely grouped into two broad categories: (i) war disposition (actual
war, advocacy of force, hostility, perceiving enemy as a threat, and
"independent" foreign policy orientation) and (2) peace disposition
(cooperation, positive affect, arms limitation, and "interdependent"
foreign policy orientation).
From the table, it seems clear that having power goals and a dom-
inant behavioral style, along with simplistic cognitive structures
that involve nationalistic beliefs and distrust, is associated with a war
disposition in foreign policy. Peace dispositions, in contrast, result