The Psychological Assessment of Political LeadersThe review of academic research in chapter 2 shows that scholars
outside the government tended historically to focus on only some
aspects of each individual, such as key beliefs or prominent personal-
ity traits. This focus on a few important characteristics rather than
on the whole person is often accompanied by attempts to observe
trait manifestations with quantitative methods. This methodologi-
cal strategy has led to the standardization of measurement tech-
niques and the possibility of controlled experimental or statistical
comparisons of several individuals. Predictions of likely behavior
under different contingencies are based on comparisons of several
individuals who share these characteristics in different degrees and
whose behavior varies accordingly in response to the same stimu-
lus—often in laboratory rather than real-world settings.
The majority of these scholars have studied different dimensions of
cognition, ignoring for the most part the domain of affect and drives.
If the terrain of political cognition has been thoroughly explored, and
the terrain of affect has had some preliminary forays, the conjoint ter-
rain of cognition and affect is for the most part terra incognita. A
small number of intrepid explorers, represented in this volume, have
ventured into this perilous territory. David D. Winter has explored
the relationship between cognition and motives, exploring particu-
larly the need for power, the need for achievement, and the need for
affiliation, as well as the ratio among these needs. In addition to sys-
tematically measuring the needs for power, achievement, and affilia-
tion, Margaret G. Hermann has also studied the traits of ethnocen-
tricity, suspiciousness, self-confidence, and cognitive complexity. By
studying the relationships among these needs and traits, she has been
able to elaborate six foreign policy orientations, which in effect repre-
sent a typology of political personalities. These personality types rep-
resent patterns she has identified in the political world but are not
related to traditional clinical personality types. Stephen G. Walker's
work has also been concerned with the relationship between motiva-
tions and beliefs, as exemplified by his work on the motivational
foundations of a typology of political belief systems. George Marcus
has made major contributions in explicating the relationship between
affect and political leadership as well, emphasizing the role of affect
and its impact on political judgment and decision making (Marcus,
Neuman, and MacKuen 2000).