The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaderslimits for integrating these methods. Future efforts by academics and
practitioners are likely to yield several kinds of responses to the chal-
lenge of bridging parts and wholes.
One response is a triangulation strategy. The same leader is likely to
be the subject of more than one approach that predicts a common
feature of a leader's behavior, for example, bargaining style or risk-
taking propensity. The applications of each approach will determine
the degree to which the predictions are the same. Comparisons of the
predictions by each approach with the subsequent: behavior of the
leader will assess the degrees of fit between the prediction and the
outcome. Where the results overlap, that is, triangulate, confidence
in the prediction of future cases is likely to increase. This solution
has already surfaced elsewhere in profiles of George H. W. Bush and
Mikhail Gorbachev by some of the contributors to this volume (see
Winter et al. 1991a, 1991b).
A second response is an integration strategy to fit the components of
each approach along the contours provided by an overarching "map"
of personality and political behavior (Smith 1968). This kind of
strategy appears in varying degrees in the comprehensive contribu-
tions to this volume by Post and Renshon, which suggest a spatial
and temporal hierarchy among the elements of a leader's personality.
Post and Renshon stress that the range of cognitive states is con-
strained by a leader's constellation of personality or characterological
traits. In turn, these features of the core personality are generated by
formative experiences in the individual's life history.
A third response is a comparative leader strategy that identifies scope
conditions under which different features of the leader's personality
are likely to be politically relevant. This approach is represented
especially in the contributions by Hermann and Weintraub, who
emphasize the need to compare a leader with a norming group in
order to assess when a leader's standardized score is above or below
average for a particular personality trait. Deviations from the norm
indicate an increased likelihood of potential impact on a leader's
political behavior. A longitudinal extension of this strategy in Win-
ter's contribution to this volume is to compare scores for the same
leader over time against a norming group in an effort to anticipate
changes in his behavior as different traits are aroused by changes in
the leader's context for action.