The Values and Integrative Complexity of McCain and Obama

An earlier study (Clio’s Psyche, December 2007) provided psychological portraits of six early leading candidates for the 2008 U.S. presidential election, with a focus on the variables integrative complexity and central values. The former refers to the complexity with which people think about a given topic, more specifically, the extent to which individuals are able to identify different perspectives or dimensions on a given issue (differentiation), as well as the extent to which they are able to recognize interconnections between these perspectives or dimensions (integration; see Peter Suedfeld, K. Guttieri, and P.E. Tetlock, “Assessing Integrative Complexity at a Distance: Archival Analyses of Thinking and Decision Making,” in Jerrold M. Post, ed., The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders, 2003, ( pp. 246-272). Integrative complexity is scored on a 1 (no differentiation) to 7 (high-level integration) scale. Central values refer to the eleven categories of values identified in an important series of studies by Shalom Schwartz and his colleagues to apply to most cultures around the world (See Shalom H. Schwartz, “Basic Human Values,” 2006, http://www.fmag.unict.it/Allegati/convegno%207-8-10-05/Schwartzpaper.pdf). The eleven value categories subsume seventy-five specific values, and include the following: Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-Direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Tradition, Conformity, Security, and Spirituality.

Earlier study

Coding the early campaign speeches (up until March 2007) of three leading candidates from each party (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards for the Democrats and Giuliani, Romney, and McCain for the Republicans), the results showed no significant differences between the candidates in integrative complexity. However, significant differences emerged in the amount of importance they placed on several values. For instance, Edwards valued Power (in the specific form of preserving one’s public image) more than did Giuliani, and Universalism (which embodies the concept of inclusiveness and the perception of a common bond among all mankind) more than did Obama, while Clinton appeared to value Conformity (in the specific form of respect for parents and elders) slightly more than did the remaining candidates. Finally, Obama and Edwards both appeared to value Benevolence (the internalized motivational basis for cooperative and supportive social behaviors) slightly more than any of the remaining candidates. Overall, Democrats as a whole tended to value Universalism, Benevolence, and Security more highly than did Republicans.

Follow-up Study

At the present time, it appears that Barack Obama and John McCain will be the nominees of their parties. As a result, it was thought that coding their speeches upon having gotten enough dele-

Page 61

gates to subsequently secure the nomination at their conventions would provide a useful insight into any changes in their integrative complexity or value hierarchies following this success. Accordingly, as in the earlier study, the speeches of John McCain in Dallas, Texas, on March 4, 2008 and Barack Obama in St. Paul, Minnesota, on June 3, 2008 were scored in their entirety for integrative complexity and values.

Interestingly, while McCain and Obama were once again statistically inseparable in their integrative complexity, both showed significant increases in integrative complexity from the early part of their campaigns (2.12 vs. 2.92 for McCain; 2.02 vs. 2.58 for Obama). This is consistent with the results of earlier studies of revolutionary leaders and U.S. presidents, which have both shown that successful political leaders (whether defined through longevity in office or successful reelection) tend to show significant increases in complexity following a political victory.

In terms of their value hierarchies, McCain now appears to value Benevolence at a level even higher than does Obama (previously the candidate scoring highest on this value). There were no other significant differences between the candidates’ value hierarchies after having secured enough delegates for the nomination. Several interesting changes in the candidates’ value hierarchies have taken place across time, however. While Obama has increased his emphasis on the importance of Power and Conformity, both candidates have begun to stress the importance of Achievement and Universalism to a much greater extent than earlier in the campaign. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, both candidates now stress the importance of Security to a far greater extent than before (twice as much in the case of McCain and three times as much in the case of Obama).

Overall, it is striking how few differences exist in the public statements of the two presumptive nominees. With his new emphasis on Universalism, Benevolence, and Security, McCain’s value hierarchy now closely resembles that of the three democratic candidates from earlier in the campaign. This may be indicative of his need to appeal to voters who traditionally classify themselves as Democrats. The increased emphasis in Security (in all of its forms including national security, patriotism, social order, and family security) among both candidates is also unsurprising, given that this is a domain in which McCain continues to stress his superior qualifications and Obama continues to argue for his capability.

Yet another indication of the similarity between the two rivals comes from the coding of the speeches of both candidates for motive imagery (power, affiliation, and achievement motivation; see David G. Winter, Manual for Scoring Motive Imagery in Running Text [3rd ed.], 1991), which was also performed for the present study. On these variables as well, no differences were found either between the candidates, or for either candidate across time. In short, as in the polls, according to at least three measures of these candidates’ personalities, McCain and Obama appear to be running neck and neck.

Page 62