Measuring and Comparing Psychological Traits of the Candidates: Status Quo vs. Change in 2008 (article)

Sometimes a “measuring stick” is a very helpful tool. Think of the times you have received directions like, “Go a ways down this road and turn right.” What does “a ways” mean? Some kind of a measurement would be helpful indeed. This may be the case when we discuss presidential candidates also; we often hear pundits toss around unsubstantiated assertions about candidates’ personalities. Wouldn’t it be helpful if we had reliable measure-

Page 41

ments to give us meaningful insights into the psychology of the candidates? Thankfully, modem methods in political psychology provide such “measuring sticks.”

These modem methods combine the science of speech communication with psychology. We can tell much about a person by systematically studying what s/he says; think of the old adage that an optimist says the glass is half full, while the pessimist says…. Over the last forty years, scholars have developed a number of different psychological measures based upon speech patterns. Key to these measures has been specification of coding rules that allow for replication and validation. Today’s technology has moved this research to computers, where the rules are uniformly and efficiently applied to verbal material. Much as a “meter” is a standard unit of measurement anywhere, so are the methods we now use for psychological assessment at-a-distance.

Here we provide measurements on seven different traits for the four top-polling, announced candidates in each party at the time the research was conducted: Democrats Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson; Republicans Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney. Studies show these methods work best when the individual is speaking spontaneously under moderate stress levels. Campaign debates are ideal, so we used candidates’ verbal material from every debate held through September 5.

The traits measured here come from the research program of Margaret Hermann. (See Margaret G. Hermann, “Assessing Leadership Style: Trait Analysis,” in Jerrold M. Post, ed., The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders, 2003.) Following is a brief description of each trait. Need for Power deals with one’s desire to influence and have an impact. Distrust of Others is an indicator of general suspiciousness. Task Orientation indicates a focus on problem solving. Self-confidence demonstrates one’s belief in one’s ability to effectively handle situations.

Page 42

Conceptual Complexity measures whether one sees the world in simple terms or in complex terms. Ingroup Bias indicates centrality of one’s identity based groups, similar to nationalism and partisanship. Control measures one’s belief in one’s ability to control people and situations.

Each of these traits is measured by looking for certain patterns or markers in the subject’s verbal material. For example, Conceptual Complexity is a ratio of high complexity words signifying differentiation or gradation (such as approximately, possibly, perhaps, and maybe) to low complexity words marked by absolutes and either-ors (such as certainly, without a doubt, absolutely, and impossible). A specialized software program called Profiler Plus counts all of the high complexity words and all of the low complexity words in the rhetoric, and creates a ratio based upon those counts. A higher score indicates the leader sees more differentiation—a more complex world—than a leader whose score is low. Each of the seven traits is computed similarly, with extensive “dictionaries” of words and phrases that mark or represent the trait. For readers interested in more detail, see Hermann’s work cited above.

On the next page is a table that shows how each of the eight candidates scores on these traits.

Now we will highlight some of the standouts and draw some general conclusions based upon previous research. Only Hillary Clinton scores high on Power, though Barack Obama’s and Bill Richardson’s scores come close. Scoring high on this variable indicates leaders who are very effective at working the political system and making major accomplishments. High Power scores correlate with historians’ ratings of great presidents. However, they also correlate with war. In Clinton’s case, this is mitigated by her score on two other traits: on Distrust and Ingroup Bias, traits which indicate higher conflict propensities, Clinton’s scores are just below average. On Self-confidence, a trait for which low scores indicate conflict behavior, Clinton’s score is above average. Together, these four scores show that Clinton is not predisposed toward seeing enemies and going to war, but if war is deemed necessary, she is unlikely to shy away from it and is likely to be effective at leading it. Her above average Control and Task scores mean she is likely to be somewhat controlling and focused while en route to leaving a major historical mark on public policy. Undoubtedly this combination will be seen by some as abrasive.

Barack Obama is Self-confident and Task-oriented, and scores second highest in the sample on Power. These indicate someone who is likely to make progress and move policy forward with some effectiveness. A leader who scores higher on Self-confidence than on Complexity, as Obama does, tends to be closed to incoming information. Combining this with his above average Control score leads us to be concerned about potential closed-mindedness and directiveness in his decision-making. We would be more concerned about this if his Complexity score was below average or if his Control score was much higher. If Obama is elected, his profile indicates he would likely be effective though perhaps not rising to the level of greatness associated with Clinton’s higher Power score.

John Edwards’s profile is mixed. He scores low on Control and high on Self-confidence. The former indicates he will not likely dominate the decision-making process in debilitating ways, while the latter indicates he believes in his ability to manage

Page 43

People and situations. His low Power score suggests he will not be effective at working the Washington system and making major accomplishments. Finally, his Complexity score is the lowest among all eight candidates, indicating he sees the world in simpler terms.

Bill Richardson has a high Control score, which often correlates with dominance and poor decision-making structures. However, he has the lowest scores in the sample on both Distrust and Ingroup Bias, meaning he is likely to see more good than bad in others.

Two of the Republican candidates have profiles that are prone to conflict: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Giuliani has an exceptionally high level of Distrust and a high score on Ingroup Bias. These indicate that he sees a world full of threats and dangers, even when those might not be present. McCain also has high Ingroup Bias, though his level of Distrust is average. Of major concern for McCain is his combination on two other traits: he scores very low on Self-confidence and below average on Complexity. As noted, low Self-confidence can correlate with aggressive behavior, while low Complexity indicates the person is less open to incoming information. Together these result in a profile where countervailing information is not sought, few questions are asked, and hostile action can be quickly taken. George W. Bush is an example of a president who scores low on both of these traits.

Mike Huckabee has the highest level of Complexity in the pool, meaning he is effective at seeing multiple dimensions of a problem or issue and is likely to be an information seeker. He scores lower than anyone else on Self-confidence, which correlates with conflict behavior. However, his average Distrust and Ingroup Bias scores means he is not predisposed to seeing hostility in others and thus may not rush to war. He also has the lowest Task orientation in the sample, meaning his decision-making process may not be efficient.

Mitt Romney is the only candidate in the pool

Page 44

who does not score significantly high or low on any of the traits. His orientation toward others is mixed: he scores below average on Distrust but above average on Ingroup Bias. He is below average on Self-confidence and above average on Control. His most notable score is on Power, where he is below average, almost significantly so. The combination is not promising: he is not likely to be effective in moving policy forward, and he may be too controlling in the decision-making process.

We also computed averages for each party and found interesting trends. Republicans are more Distrusting and have more Ingroup Bias than the Democrats, tendencies which mirror the partisan sides of the national debate on war and terrorism. Democrats score higher on Power, Task, and Self-confidence, meaning they would be more focused on getting things done. The Republicans, on the other hand, score higher on Complexity, seeing the world in more nuanced terms than the Democrats.

Who would be the best president? The data suggest that Clinton’s profile is most likely to lead to greatness, though she will be seen as abrasive along the way. Obama has a similar profile, but a lower Need for Power. He would be less likely to achieve greatness, though his profile suggests he would be quite effective. Two Republicans, McCain and Giuliani, come closest to matching the profile of President George W. Bush, particularly in terms of conflict indicators. Based upon the data here, it is possible to generalize your feelings about Bush, good or bad, to McCain and Giuliani. Indeed, both have more clearly tied themselves to Bush’s war policies than any of the other candidates.

Which party would be better in control? While an individual, not a party, occupies the White House, the comparisons across parties are interesting. The Republicans, while higher on Complexity, stand out more because of their high Distrust and Ingroup Bias scores: their focus remains on the world as a dangerous place. The Democrats, on the other hand, score higher on Power, Self-confidence, and Task. This shows more focus on accomplishment and moving forward, which is not a surprise given that polls show Americans are impatient with the war in Iraq and its lack of resolution.

The presidential and party races are shaping up as a battle of status quo vs. change.

Page 45