Annotated Bibliography And Outline For PhD Doctorate

PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Fearless Dominance and the U.S. Presidency: Implications of Psychopathic Personality Traits for Successful and Unsuccessful Political Leadership

Scott O. Lilienfeld, Irwin D. Waldman, and Kristin Landfield

Emory University

Ashley L. Watts University of Georgia

Steven Rubenzer Houston, Texas

Thomas R. Faschingbauer Foundation for the Study of Personality in History, Houston,

Texas

Although psychopathic personality (psychopathy) is marked largely by maladaptive traits (e.g., poor impulse control, lack of guilt), some authors have conjectured that some features of this condition (e.g., fearlessness, interpersonal dominance) are adaptive in certain occupations, including leadership positions. We tested this hypothesis in the 42 U.S. presidents up to and including George W. Bush using (a) psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president, (b) independent historical surveys of presidential leadership, and (c) largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance. Fearless Dominance, which reflects the boldness associated with psychopathy, was associated with better rated presidential performance, leadership, persuasiveness, crisis management, Congressional relations, and allied variables; it was also associated with several largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential perfor- mance, such as initiating new projects and being viewed as a world figure. Most of these associations survived statistical control for covariates, including intellectual brilliance, five factor model personality traits, and need for power. In contrast, Impulsive Antisociality and related traits of psychopathy were generally unassociated with rated presidential performance, although they were linked to some largely or entirely objective indicators of negative job performance, including Congressional impeachment resolutions, tolerating unethical behavior in subordinates, and negative character. These findings indicate that the boldness associated with psychopathy is an important but heretofore neglected predictor of presidential performance, and suggest that certain features of psychopathy are tied to successful interpersonal behavior.

Keywords: psychopathy, antisocial behavior, leadership, politics, personality

Psychopathic personality (psychopathy) is a constellation of personality traits encompassing superficial charm, egocentricity, dishonesty, guiltlessness, callousness, risk taking, poor impulse

control (Cleckley, 1941/1988; Hare, 2003), and, according to many authors (Fowles & Dindo, 2009; Lykken, 1995; Patrick, 2006), fearlessness, social dominance, and immunity to anxiety. In contrast to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor- ders, fourth edition, text revision (DSM–IV–TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which is primarily a behavioral condition that emphasizes a long-standing history of antisocial and criminal behavior, psychopa- thy is primarily a dispositional condition that emphasizes personality traits. Nevertheless, measures of these two conditions tend to be at least moderately correlated (Lilienfeld, 1994).

Factor analyses of the most extensively validated measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), have often revealed two broad and moderately correlated dimensions. The first dimension (Factor 1) assesses the core in- terpersonal and affective features of psychopathy (e.g., guiltless- ness, narcissism, glibness), whereas the second dimension (Factor 2) assesses an impulsive and antisocial lifestyle that is closely associated with ASPD (Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989; but see Cooke & Michie, 2001, and Hare, 2003, for alternative factor

This article was published Online First July 23, 2012. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Irwin D. Waldman, and Kristin Landfield, Depart-

ment of Psychology, Emory University; Ashley L. Watts, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia; Steven Rubenzer, Houston, Texas; Thomas R. Faschingbauer, Foundation for the Study of Personality in History, Houston, Texas.

We thank Joanna Berg, Rachel Ammirati, David Molho, Gabriella Rich, Zack Babin, Marie King, and Barbara Greenspan for their helpful com- ments on previous drafts of this manuscript; Joshua Miller for his statistical assistance; Alan Abramowitz for his helpful advice; and Caroline Hennigar and Alyssa Redmon for their valuable assistance with data entry and library research.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott O. Lilienfeld, Room 473, Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences Building, Emory University, 36 Eagle Row, Atlanta, GA 30322. E-mail: slilien@emory.edu

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2012, Vol. 103, No. 3, 489–505 © 2012 American Psychological Association 0022-3514/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029392

489

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

 

 

solutions). Although the PCL-R is a semistructured interview that incorporates file information, its two major dimensions can be closely approximated by scores on normal range personality di- mensions, such as those derived from the five-factor model (FFM) of personality. PCL-R Factor 1 is associated primarily with low scores on FFM Agreeableness, whereas PCL-R Factor 2 is asso- ciated primarily with low scores on both FFM Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001). Most research demonstrates that psychopathy and its constituent traits are underpinned by dimensions rather than taxa (natural categories; see Edens, Marcus, Lilienfeld, & Poythress, 2006), offering empirical support for recent efforts to conceptualize and assess this condition within a general dimensional model of per- sonality structure.