The Psychological Assessment of Political LeadersAfter all, as the public has become more concerned with the personal
qualities of its leaders, they in turn have become increasingly sophis-
ticated in presenting themselves as they would prefer to be seen
rather than as they are.
Any answer to the question of what personal qualities are impor-
tant in a president necessarily directs to psychology to help answer
the question. However, as Greenstein (1969) pointed out some years
ago in his seminal consideration of the dilemmas that political sci-
entists face in turning to psychology, they more often find rival the-
ories and unanswered questions than easily borrowed solutions.
Moreover, deciding which psychological theory or theories to use
does not fully resolve all the issues involved in such an effort. One
needs not only a theory of psychology but a theory of leadership per-
formance with which to link it.
Presidential Performance: Which Psychology?
Let us begin with trait psychology. Americans have, for many years,
routinely evaluated leaders on their personal and political traits, for
example, integrity, leadership, and even intelligence (cf. Krosnick
and Kinder 1990). The use of traits to evaluate presidential candi-
dates has much to recommend it. Traits seem distinct and specific
and, from the standpoint of assessment, amenable to measurement at
a distance. We can generally tell if a candidate appears well
informed, at ease under pressure, or charismatic.
Moreover, in some instances, the relationship between a trait and
a desirable political capacity seems self-evident. It is easy, for exam-
ple, to see why a candidate's honesty is important when citizens are
often asked to accept a president's statements about policy actions
and the reasons for it. So, too, a concern with a candidate's intelli-
gence would seem to be related, if not always directly, to an ability
to grasp and perhaps resolve complex public problems.
As intuitively appealing as trait evaluations might be, however,
there are a number of substantial problems in using isolated traits as
the primary tool of candidate assessment. For example, a singular
focus on intelligence as IQ may obscure other personal or cognitive
skills that might inform skillful presidential decision making or
judgment. Moreover, a focus on intelligence as an isolated trait