Political partisans delight in labeling opposition leaders
as malign or even psychopathic — but it turns out that U.S. presidents with
high levels of certain psychopathic traits may actually do better on the job,
no matter what their party affiliation, according to new research.
The study, which was based on presidential performance
ratings and personality assessments by hundreds of historians and biographers
in several different surveys, found that one psychopathic characteristic in
particular was linked to success in presidency: fearless dominance.

“An easy way to think about it is as a combination of
physical and social fearlessness,” says Scott Lilienfeld, lead author of the
study and professor of psychology at Emory University. “People high in boldness
don’t have a lot of apprehension about either physical or social things that
would scare the rest of us.”
He adds, “It’s often a kind of resilience because you don’t
show lot of anxiety or frustration in the face of everyday life challenges.”
While that sounds like a necessity for dealing with the daily crises that face
the White House, from hurricanes to threats from rogue nuclear nations, the
same trait in psychopaths is also associated with callousness, indifference to
negative consequences and impulsive antisocial behavior.
It’s not to say that American presidents are full-blown
psychopaths — they didn’t rate high in all categories of psychopathic traits.
Overall, the study found, presidents tended to be more like psychopaths than
the general population in their level of fearless dominance, but they didn’t
show a psychopathic excess of impulsive antisocial behavior. Although “some
might think presidents are extremely psychopathic,” Lilienfeld says, the
combination of traits that make them successful can’t all be characterized as
such. “They need to be bold and self confident to be willing to run, but they
also have to have an amazing capacity to delay gratification and a lot of
impulse control, at least in some domains.”
All U.S. presidents from George Washington to George W.
Bush were included in the research (there was not yet enough data for
President Obama). Researchers had 121 experts use standardized psychological
assessment methods to rate the presidents’ personalities, based on their
biographical information before they were elected. These evaluations were then
compared with ratings of job performance compiled in two surveys of
presidential historians: a 2009 C-Span poll of 62 presidential historians and a
2010 Siena College survey of 238 historians.
Topping the chart in fearless dominance were Teddy Roosevelt
and John F. Kennedy, with FDR, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton not
far behind. George W. Bush came in 10th on this measure — Rutherford Hayes,
Zachary Taylor, Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson were also in the top 10 —
illustrating that fearless dominance isn’t always associated with positive
decision-making, or success.
Indeed, it’s a double-edged sword: if your boldness allows
you to ignore both your own fears and the concerns of others, it can be easy to
veer off into recklessness, dismissing important problems that should rightly
grab your attention. A recent New York Times op-ed on George W.
Bush’s refusal to heed early warnings from the CIA about Osama bin Laden’s
planned attacks on America suggests as much.
Of course, circumstance and luck can also play a large role
in whether a decision is later seen as courageous or psychopathic — and in
whether a presidency is considered a success or a failure. “Probably the
biggest determinant of presidential success is luck,” says Lilienfeld.
Interestingly, however, at least one of the surveys included in the study
suggests that fearless types can influence their own luck: ratings of
presidential luck were also linked with individuals’ degree of fearless
Lilienfeld cautions that his study can’t determine when a
president’s fearless dominance crosses the line from confident courage to
recklessness: there wasn’t enough data to determine whether extremely high
levels of fearless dominance may be counterproductive, though it seems intuitively
likely. He also notes that the overall effect of such boldness on performance
was small: there are numerous factors that go into the making of a president,
and this was only one.
Moreover, bold leadership isn’t just a quality found in
psychopaths — or presidents. Everyone falls somewhere along the scale, from
timid to bold, from follower to leader. And psychopathic traits like fearless
dominance — or others like impulsivity, callousness and dishonesty — also
appear in varying degrees in the general population. “I think the evidence
increasingly points in the direction that these traits are on a continuum like
height and weight: they are things all of us have to some degree. It’s probably
not all or none,” Lilienfeld says.  Shadings of potential pathology are
found in everyone.
For those who rate high in both the psychopathic traits of
boldness and impulsive, antisocial behavior, however, it’s likely that the
balance between these two qualities could make the difference between whether
they become a violent criminal or a (shady but) wealthy business leader.
“My mentor, David Lykken, argued that psychopaths and heroes
are ‘twigs off of the same branch.’ It may be that the fearless dominance or
boldness that sometimes gives rise to psychopathy might also sometimes give
rise to heroism,” says Lilienfeld.
The research was published in the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
Source: TIMES


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here