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 performance, 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.

This article describes the use of objective psychological instruments, including the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), to assess the personalities of all 41 U.S. presidents to date. We briefly report our findings pertaining to the average profile of chief executives on the NEO PI-R and summarize data on two of our most illustrious presidents, Washington and Lincoln. We review a typology of presidents based on our data. Finally, we summarize the results of our investigation of the Big Five personality dimensions and facets that are related to presidential success (i.e., historical greatness). The project and findings are discussed in terms of the use of the NEO PI-R in psychohistorical research and assessment.

No abstract

Recent research and theorizing suggest that narcissism may predict both positive and negative leadership behaviors. We tested this hypothesis with data on the 42 U.S. presidents up to and including George W. Bush, using (a) expert-derived narcissism estimates, (b) independent historical surveys of presidential performance, and (c) largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance. Grandiose, but not vulnerable, narcissism was associated with superior overall greatness in an aggregate poll; it was also positively associated with public persuasiveness, crisis management, agenda setting, and allied behaviors, and with several objective indicators of performance, such as winning the popular vote and initiating legislation. Nevertheless, grandiose narcissism was also associated with several negative outcomes, including congressional impeachment resolutions and unethical behaviors. We found that presidents exhibit elevated levels of grandiose narcissism compared with the general population, and that presidents' grandiose narcissism has been rising over time. Our findings suggest that grandiose narcissism may be a double-edged sword in the leadership domain.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may form the basis for disability or worker's compensation claims or a personal injury lawsuit. While now achieving widespread acceptance among treating professionals and the public, PTSD is the subject of several controversies and the possibility of faking in a compensation context. There appears to be a dramatic split among mental health professionals who write primarily from a treatment or plaintiff perspective and those who take a more skeptical approach. This article reviews recent developments in the assessment of malingering, including symptom validity measures, and applies them to the assessment of PTSD. Recommendations for current practice are provided.