Current Events and the Psychology of Politics
Loading

Featured Posts        



categories        



Links        



archives        



meta        




Feb 19th, 2017



Jan 31st, 2017

The Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy & Civic Engagement is hosting a panel discussion on “Donald Trump: What Will Happen in the Next Four Years” on Tuesday, January 31 at 5:15 p.m.

Trump_McCarthy-Center

Recent reports by the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics related to the discussion topic:

The Political Personality of 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee Donald J. Trump » http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/103/

The Leadership Style of U.S. President Donald J. Trump » http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/107/



More than a decade after the study was conducted, the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics has publicly released its personality profile of U.S. Supreme Court associate justice Clarence Thomas. The report was prepared for the Washington Post’s Kevin Merida as part of the background research for his book, with Michael Fletcher, Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas (2007).

Clarence-Thomas_Supreme-Discomfort Immelman-quote_Clarence-Thomas_Supreme-Discomfort_p-5

The Personality of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Research report, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict, July 2004. Abstract and link for full-text (22 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/108/

Justice Clarence Thomas’s primary personality patterns were found to be Contentious/oppositional and Reticent/inhibited, with secondary features of the Conscientious/respectful pattern.

The amalgam of Contentious and Reticent patterns in Justice Thomas’s profile suggests the presence of an adaptive, nonpathological variant of Millon’s conflicted avoidant syndrome. People with this personality composite seek social acceptance while simultaneously anticipating rejection and disillusionment. They have a disproportionate fear of failure and humiliation, but see little alternative but to depend on supporting persons and institutions, which kindles resentment. To protect themselves from the feelings of anger and anxiety prompted by this inner conflict, they tend to withdraw from social interaction or public view.

The major implication of the study is that it offers an empirically based personological framework for understanding the enigmatic Justice Clarence Thomas, who claims to be untroubled by the harsh judgment of his critics while simultaneously casting himself as a besieged victim. In truth, he is hypersensitive to rejection and deeply resentful of his detractors, yet his strong need for acceptance and respect make it difficult for him to confront his critics directly, which carries the risk of further alienation.


Jan 23rd, 2017

What Kind of President? Trump, ‘High-Dominance Charismatic’

Trump-Pence_inauguration
President-elect Donald Trump leans over to talk with Vice President-elect Mike Pence during the 58th Presidential Inauguration at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Friday, Jan. 20, 2017. (Photo: Andrew Harnik / AP via St. Cloud Times)

By Aubrey Immelman
St. Cloud Times
January 20, 2017

On Friday, Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States in what, for some, was not so much an occasion for celebration as one of trepidation. In fact, no less than his predecessor painted Trump during the election campaign as “not qualified to be president.”

That raises the question: Does Trump have what it takes, in his words, to “Make America Great Again?” With no political track record in elected office, it’s difficult indeed to anticipate how Trump will lead.

Window to the future

Political psychology offers a window to the future. That’s because personality — a person’s ingrained behavior patterns — dictates how that individual will act over time in a broad variety of situations. In short, accurate personality assessment allows us to anticipate leadership behavior.

As previously reported (“Trump’s personality raises red flags,” Nov. 26, 2016), a psychological study of Trump conducted at the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics revealed that Trump’s predominant personality patterns are outgoing/impulsive and ambitious/exploitative (a measure of narcissism), infused with secondary features of the dominant/controlling pattern and low conscientiousness — a personality composite characterized as a “high-dominance charismatic.”

Because presidential behavior is dictated as much by circumstances and structural constraints on the power of the presidency as by personality — frequently more so — personality analysis can go only so far, painting presidential prospects in broad strokes rather than minute detail. In short, personality can point only to the general tenor of a prospective presidency.

Trump’s likely leadership style

As a “high-dominance charismatic” Trump assumes the mantle of leadership with a Clintonian combination of extraversion and self-confidence, buttressed by a level of dominance not seen since Lyndon B. Johnson. In addition, he is practically devoid of his predecessor’s accommodating disposition (“Obama is a ‘confident conciliator,’ ” Sept. 8, 2012) or George H.W. Bush’s prudent conscientiousness.

Trump’s psychological profile raises the following generalized expectancies regarding his leadership style as president:

  • Leadership motivation: power, self-validation, pragmatism. As an extraordinarily confident individual with an unshakable belief in his own talents, leadership ability, and potential for success, a quest for power will be the prime motivator for Trump’s leadership behavior, punctuated by a need to control situations and dominate adversaries. Furthermore, Trump’s outgoing nature suggests concern with popular approval and a striving for self-validation to affirm his inflated self-esteem. In addition, he will likely be more pragmatic than ideological to consummate his political objectives.
  • Leadership orientation: goal directed, loyalty expected. Given his supreme self-confidence and high dominance, Trump will likely be more goal directed than relationship oriented. As a task-oriented leader, Trump will not permit the maintenance of good relations to stand in the way of goal achievement. This orientation will be offset to some extent by Trump’s outgoing tendencies which, in addition, will also prime him to place a high premium on loyalty among his advisors and members of his administration.
  • Job performance: energy dynamo. Big egos have a strong drive to prove themselves. Thus, Trump can be expected to be tireless in the amount of effort invested in carrying out the duties of his office. This tendency will be reinforced by strong power motivation stemming from high dominance and boundless energy derived from his extraverted, outgoing personality.
  • Managerial style: advocate, not consensus builder. In organizing and managing the decision-making process, Trump will be heavy on self-promotion and persuasion, making him more of an advocate for his policy agenda than a consensus builder or an arbitrator.
  • Dealing with Congress: competitive, controlling. In dealing with Congress, Trump will most likely act in a competitive and controlling manner — though he certainly is capable of behaving in a cooperative, harmonious fashion if he believes it will further his own self-interest.
  • The people and the press: active, uncooperative. In relating to the public, outgoing, confident leaders such as Trump typically are active and engaged, articulating and defending their policies in person rather than relying on surrogates and proxies. This tendency will be reinforced by Trump’s dominant, strong-willed, outspoken personality and fueled by his extraversion, which will feed his preference for direct engagement with the public. As for media relations, Trump will maintain a measure of harmony with the press, to the extent he feels he can call the shots. However, the likelihood of a highly critical press, in conjunction with Trump’s sensitivity to personal slights, portends a relatively closed relationship with the media characterized by a lack of cooperation that could quickly escalate to outright hostility.

Rash words may be par for the course in the heat of political campaigns and calling Trump unqualified may be best consigned to that particular chapter in the annals of presidential history. What cannot be denied is that President Trump counts among the least experienced incumbents in recent memory. Time will tell if Trump is equal to the daunting task he now faces in this new chapter of his illustrious, if checkered, career — and whether personality will be destiny.

This is the opinion of Aubrey Immelman, associate professor of psychology at the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University, where he directs a faculty-student collaborative research program in political psychology, the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics. Immelman specializes in the psychological assessment of presidential candidates and world leaders.

 


 

Related reports

The Leadership Style of U.S. President Donald J. Trump. Working paper, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict, January 2017. Abstract and link for full-text (14 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/107/

The Political Personality of 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee Donald J. Trump. Working paper, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict, October 2016. Abstract and link for full-text (31 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/103/

 


 

Related reports on this site

The Personality Profile of 2016 Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump (Aug. 9, 2015)

Trump poster (2016)
Click on image for larger view

A Question of Temperament: Donald Trump’s Fitness to Lead (Dec. 4, 2016)

immelman_trump-1_jasonwachter-stcloudtimes_2016-11-16
College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University professor Aubrey Immelman, who predicted Donald Trump would win over Hillary Clinton based on their personality profiles, shown Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2016. Immelman has predicted presidential winners correctly for the past 20 years. (Photo: Jason Wachter / St. Cloud Times)



U.S. Military Deaths in Operation Freedom’s Sentinel
(Afghanistan)

As of Saturday, December 31, 2016, at least 2,392 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan as a result of the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to iCasualties.org.

Since the start of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, 17,674 U.S. service members have been wounded as of Sept. 30, 2012, the latest number reported by iCasualties.org.


Army Green Beret Staff Sgt. Matthew Q. McClintock, Albuquerque, New Mexico, died Jan. 5, 2016 in Marjah District, Afghanistan, from wounds suffered when the enemy attacked his unit with small-arms fire. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Washington National Guard, Buckley, Washington.


Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Andrew J. Clement, 38, Massachusetts, died June 21, 2016 of a noncombat-related injury while deployed to Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti. He was a mobilized Navy reservist assigned to the Navy Reserve Unit Tactical Air Control Squadron 22, Navy Operational Support Center (NOSC), Quincy, Massachusetts, forward deployed to Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti.


Army Staff Sgt. Christopher A. Wilbur, 36, Granite City, Illinois, died Aug. 12, 2016 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, from a noncombat-related injury. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, in Fort Carson, Colorado.


Army Green Beret Staff Sgt. Matthew V. Thompson, 28, Irvine, California, died Aug. 23, 2016 in Lashkar Gah, Helmand Province, Afghanistan, of injuries caused by an improvised explosive device that detonated near his patrol while conducting dismounted operations. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne), Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.


Army Green Beret Staff Sgt. Adam S. Thomas, 31, Tacoma Park, Maryland, died Oct. 4, 2016 in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan, from injuries caused by an improvised explosive device that exploded during dismounted operations. He was assigned to B Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Carson, Colorado.


Army Sgt. Douglas Riney, 26, Fairview, Illinois, died Oct. 19, 2016 in a shooting attack at Camp Morehead, Afghanistan, an ammunition supply point outside Kabul. He was assigned to the Support Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment, at Fort Hood, Texas. The shooter was reportedly wearing an Afghan army uniform.


Army civilian Michael Sauro, 40, McAlester, Oklahoma, died Oct. 19, 2016 in a shooting attack at Camp Morehead, Afghanistan, an ammunition supply point outside Kabul. He was assigned to the Defense Ammunition Center, McAlester Army Ammunition Point. The shooter was reportedly wearing an Afghan army uniform.


Army Green Beret Capt. Andrew D. Byers, 30, Rolesville, North Carolina, died Nov. 3, 2016 in Kunduz, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained while engaging enemy forces. He was assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Carson, Colorado.


Army Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Ryan A. Gloyer, 34, Greenville, Pennsylvania, died Nov. 3, 2016 in Kunduz, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained while engaging enemy forces. He was assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Carson, Colorado.


Army Pfc. Tyler R. Iubelt, 20, Tamaroa, Illinois, died Nov. 12, 2016 in Bagram, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained from an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Special Troops Battalion, 1st Sustainment Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.


Army Sgt. John W. Perry, 30, Stockton, California, died Nov. 12, 2016 in Bagram, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained from an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Special Troops Battalion, 1st Sustainment Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.


Army Sgt. 1st Class Allan E. Brown, 46, Takoma Park, Maryland, died Dec. 6, 2016 at Walter Reed National Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, of injuries sustained from an improvised explosive device in Bagram, Afghanistan, that occurred on Nov. 12. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Special Troops Battalion, 1st Sustainment Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

DOD

U.S. Military Deaths in Operation Inherent Resolve
(ISIS/ISIL in Syria and Iraq)

As of Saturday, December 31, 2016, at least 4,512 members of the U.S. military had died in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, according to according to iCasualties.org.

Since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq, 32,223 U.S. service members have been wounded as of Nov. 30, 2011, the latest number reported by iCasualties.org.

Major John David Gerrie, USAF
Air Force Maj. John D. Gerrie, 42, Nickerson, Kansas, died Jan. 16, 2016 in Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, from a noncombat-related incident. He was assigned to 453rd Electronic Warfare Squadron, Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas.


Navy civilian Blane D. Bussell, 60, Virginia, died Jan. 26, 2016 in Manama, Bahrain, of noncombat-related causes. He was assigned to Forward Deployed Regional Maintenance Center Detachment Bahrain at Naval Support Activity Bahrain.


Marine Staff Sgt. Louis F. Cardin, Temecula, California, died March 19, 2016 in northern Iraq, from wounds suffered when the enemy attacked his unit with rocket fire. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.


Air Force Airman 1st Class Nathaniel H. McDavitt, 22, Glen Burnie, Maryland, died April 15, 2016 in Southwest Asia as a result of injuries sustained after extreme winds caused structural damage to the building in which he was working. He was assigned to the 52nd Equipment Maintenance Squadron at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany.


Navy civilian Marcus D. Prince, 22, Norfolk, Virginia died April 26, 2016 in Juffir, Bahrain, of noncombat-related causes. He was assigned to USNS Pecos (T-AO 197).


Navy civilian Michael M. Baptiste, 60, Brooklyn, New York, died April 28, 2016 in Juffir, Bahrain, of noncombat-related causes. He was assigned to Forward Deployed Regional Maintenance Center Detachment Bahrain at Naval Support Activity Bahrain.


Navy Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Charles H. Keating IV, 31, San Diego, California, died May 3, 2016 in Tall Usquf, Iraq, of combat-related causes after Islamic State militants penetrated Kurdish defensive lines. He was assigned to a West Coast-based Navy SEAL Team. Keating’s was the third American combat death in Iraq since the U.S. military deployed advisers and other personnel there in 2014 to support the war against the Islamic State.


Army National Guard 1st Lt. David A. Bauders, Seattle, Wash., died May 6, 2016 on Al Asad Air Base, Iraq, in a noncombat-related incident. He was assigned to the Washington National Guard’s 176th Engineer Company, Snohomish, Wash.


Navy Gunner’s Mate Seaman Connor Alan McQuagge, 19, from Utah, died May 26, 2016 of a noncombat-related injury while underway in the Red Sea. He was assigned to USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49), forward deployed in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations.


Air Force 1st Lt. Anais A. Tobar, 25, Miami, Florida, died July 18, 2016 in Southwest Asia from a noncombat-related injury. She was assigned to the 4th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina.


Air Force Lt. Col. Flando E. Jackson, 45, Lansing, Michigan, died Aug. 4, 2016 in Southwest Asia from a noncombat-related injury. He was assigned to the 194th Wing, Camp Murray, Washington National Guard, Washington.


Army 1st Lt. Jeffrey D. Cooper, 25, Mill Creek, Washington, died Sept. 10, 2016 in Kuwait, from a noncombat-related injury. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Campbell, KY.


Army Warrant Officer Travis R. Tamayo, 32, Brownsville, Texas, died Sept. 16, 2016 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, in a noncombat-related incident. He was assigned to the 202nd Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Gordon, Georgia.


Navy Chief Petty Officer Jason C. Finan, 34, Anaheim, California, died Oct. 20, 2016 in northern Iraq, of wounds sustained in an improvised explosive device blast. He was assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Three.


Army Green Beret Staff Sgt. Matthew C. Lewellen, 27, Lawrence, Kan., died Nov. 4, 2016 in Jafr, Jordan, of wounds sustained when his convoy came under fire entering a Jordanian military base. He was assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Campbell, Kentucky.


Army Green Beret Staff Sgt. Kevin J. McEnroe, 30, Tucson, Ariz., died Nov. 4, 2016 in Jafr, Jordan, of wounds sustained when his convoy came under fire entering a Jordanian military base. He was assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Campbell, Kentucky.


Army Green Beret Staff Sgt. James F. Moriarty, 27, Kerrville, Texas, died Nov. 4, 2016 in Jafr, Jordan, of wounds sustained when his convoy came under fire entering a Jordanian military base. He was assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Campbell, Kentucky.


Army Spc. Ronald L. Murray Jr., Bowie, Maryland, died Nov. 10, 2016 in Kuwait in a noncombat-related incident. He was assigned to 4th Battalion, 1st Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas.


Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer Scott C. Dayton, 42, Woodbridge, Virginia, died Nov. 24, 2016 in northern Syria, of wounds sustained in an improvised explosive device blast. He was assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Two, based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

DOD

U.S. Military Deaths in Operation Odyssey Lightning
(ISIS/ISIL in Libya)


Navy Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Fuels) Airman Devon M. Faulkner, 24, North Carolina, died Sept. 20, 2016 of a noncombat-related injury while underway. He was assigned to USS Wasp (LHD 1), forward deployed in the central Mediterranean Sea.


2017 UPDATES: Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (Afghanistan)

None


2017 UPDATES: Operation Inherent Resolve (ISIS/ISIL in Syria-Iraq)


Army Spc. Isiah L. Booker, of Cibolo, Texas, died Jan. 7, 2017 in Jordan, in a noncombat related-incident. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.


Army Spc. John P. Rodriguez, Hemet, Calif., died Jan.12, 2017 in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility in a noncombat-related incident. He was assigned to 2nd Engineer Battalion, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss,Texas.


Navy Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens, 36, Peoria, Illinois, died Jan. 28, 2017 in the Arabian Peninsula of Yemen, of wounds sustained in a raid against al-Qaida in support of U.S. Central Command Operations. He was assigned to an East Coast-based Special Warfare unit.


Casualties At a Glance: Deaths by Conflict

Operation Odyssey Lightning: 1

Operation Inherent Resolve: 19

Operation Freedom’s Sentinel: 24

Operation Enduring Freedom: 2346

Operation New Dawn: 67

Operation Iraqi Freedom: 4410

Source: Military Times database

Remember Their Sacrifice

Remember Their Sacrifice

Related links

Iraq Casualties

Afghanistan Casualties

Honor the Fallen

Click to visit the Military Times Hall of Valor

Visit Military Times — The top source for military news

Faces of the Dead
An interactive look at each U.S. service member who died in Afghanistan or Iraq



President Barack Obama, in a Dec. 26 interview with David Axelrod for his “Axe Files” podcast produced by CNN and the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, suggested that, had he been able to run, he could have won a third term in the White House.

“I am confident that … if I had run again … I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people.”


David Axelrod interviews President Barack Obama on “The Axe Files” from CNN and the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, Dec. 26, 2016. (Photo: Gabriella Demczuk / CNN)

Fox News reports that President-elect Donald Trump fired back in a tweet: “President Obama said that he thinks he would have won against me. He should say that but I say NO WAY!”

trump_tweet_12-26-2016

The Presidential Electability Index (PEI) developed at the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics (USPP), which has accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1996, suggests that Donald Trump would beat Barack Obama in a hypothetical presidential election matchup.

Research on the psychology of politics conducted at the USPP reveals that voters respond favorably to candidates who are outgoing (extraverted), self-confident (productively narcissistic), and dominant; and negatively to candidates who are introverted and overly conscientious. Based on those criteria, Trump has the edge over Obama, as shown by the PEI political impact scores below:

Donald Trump: PEI = 65

Scale:   1A    1B    2    3    4    5A    5B    6    7    8
Score:  17      9   24  24  0      0      4      0   0    0

Scale: 1A = 17; 2 = 24; 3 = 24; 6 = 0; 8 = 0

[Extraversion (scale 3) = 24] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 24] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 17] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (2 – 2) = 0] = 65 – 0 = 65

Donald Trump: PEI = 45 (dysfunctionality adjusted)

Scale:   1A    1B    2    3    4    5A    5B    6    7    8
Score:  15     11  15  15    1      0      6      2    1    0

Scale: 1A = 15; 2 = 15; 3 = 15; 6 = 2; 8 = 0

[Extraversion (scale 3) = 15] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 15] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 15] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (2 – 2) = 0] = 45 – 0 = 45

Barack Obama: PEI = 28

Scale:   1A  1B   2   3   4   5A  5B   6   7   8   9   0
Score:  10    6   11  9   7     1     2    5   4   1   0   4

Obama: [Extraversion (scale 3) = 9] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 11] + [Dominance (scale 1) = 10] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 1] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (5 - 4)] = 28

—————————————————————————————————————————

PEI Scores for Democratic and Republican Nominees, 1996-2016

For historical context, here are the personality-based electability scores for all major-party nominees since 1996, published before Super Tuesday in presidential election years, with the successful candidate listed first:

 


 

Related reports on this site

Projecting the Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election: The Presidential Electability Index (Feb. 29, 2016)

Donald-Trump_Hillary-Clinton_Getty-Images
Getty Images

Clinton vs. Trump: Predicting the 2016 Presidential Election Results (Nov. 8, 2016)

clinton-trump_ap
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (Photo credit: AP)

Presidential Electability Index Predicted Donald Trump Win (Dec. 19, 2016)

sctimes_trump-win-prediction_featured-image

The Personality Profile of 2016 Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump (Aug. 9, 2015)

Trump poster (2016)
Click on image for larger view

More » The Political Personality of 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee Donald J. Trump. Working paper, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict, October 2016. Abstract and link for full-text (31 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/103/

The Personality Profile of 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama (Nov. 2, 2008)

Poster_Obama
Click on image for larger view

More » The Political Personality of U.S. President Barack Obama. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, San Francisco, CA, July 7–10, 2010. Abstract and link for full-text (31 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/25/


Dec 24th, 2016

2016-12-24_elizabeth-tim-patrick-matt
Elizabeth, Tim, Patrick, and Matt Immelman on Christmas Eve 2016.
(Click on image for full-size view)

Official NORAD Santa Tracker

http://media.al.com/news_impact/photo/NORAD%20Santa%20tracker%20logo.JPG

Google Santa Tracker

https://storage.googleapis.com/mapsdevsite/santa-2015/santa-tracker-village-with-santa.png

10 Magical places in Minnesota that look like the North Pole


Brian Peterson / Star Tribune

The magical Stevie Nicks — ‘Silent Night’



sctimes_trump-win-prediction

Minnesota Professor Predicted Trump’s Win

immelman_trump-1_jasonwachter-stcloudtimes_2016-11-16
College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University professor Aubrey Immelman, who predicted Donald Trump would win over Hillary Clinton based on their personality profiles, shown Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2016. Immelman has predicted presidential winners correctly for the past 20 years. (Photo: Jason Wachter / St. Cloud Times)

By Kirsti Marohn
St. Cloud Times
November 19, 2016

Pollsters almost universally were wrong about the outcome of the 2016 election, but one local political psychology professor accurately predicted as early as March that Donald Trump would win the presidency.

Aubrey Immelman, who directs the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics at the College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University, developed a model that uses a candidate’s personality traits to determine how electable they are. Immelman’s model has accurately predicted the winner of the last six presidential elections.

What’s surprising is that Immelman picked Trump last spring as the only candidate from the crowded field of Republican contenders who could beat Hillary Clinton. The St. Cloud Times published a story in March about Immelman’s findings, which even he wasn’t sure he believed.

“Considering what the polls were saying and just looking at how volatile, even unpredictable Trump was, I thought, ‘Well, maybe this time I’ll be wrong,’ ” Immelman said.

When Immelman and his research students first met in June 2015 to decide which candidates to profile, they picked five Republicans they thought were the most viable, including Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. On a whim, Immelman suggested including the New York real estate mogul whose presidential bid seemed like a long shot.

“I said, ‘Hey, why don’t we do Trump?’ ” Immelman recalled. “We all laughed. I laughed the hardest.”

Immelman’s model uses candidates’ personality traits to predict which contender will resonate most favorably with independent voters, who make up roughly one-third of the electorate and frequently base their choice primarily on a candidate’s personal qualities rather than party allegiance.

The model looks at some key personality traits that voters respond positively to during campaigns, including whether a candidate is introverted or extraverted and how narcissistic, dominant and conscientious they are.

Trump and Clinton scored equally high on narcissism, while Clinton scored slightly higher on dominance than Trump, Immelman said.

However, while Trump scored very high as an extravert, Clinton is far more introverted, Immelman said. Introverted candidates — past examples include Al Gore and Jeb Bush — have more difficulty interacting with people on the campaign trail.

And Clinton is highly conscientious, but Trump scored close to zero, Immelman said. While conscientiousness might be an admirable trait in a president, it’s not always an attractive feature in a candidate.

“She’s very prepared and programmed, and very prudent and cautious,” he said.

immelman_trump-3_jasonwachter-stcloudtimes_2016-11-16
College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University professor Aubrey Immelman describes his personality profile of Donald Trump Wednesday, Nov. 16, at CSB. (Photo: Jason Wachter / St. Cloud Times)

Immelman wasn’t sure about his findings. His model assumes that all the candidates are vetted politicians who have served in Congress or as governor. He wondered how it might be affected by Trump’s unconventional background.

“It turned out it was pretty robust, which makes it a pretty powerful predictor, I think,” he said.

Although most major polls inaccurately predicted a Clinton win, Immelman notes that he wasn’t the only academic who used social science models to get it right. He points to Allan Lichtman, a political historian at American University, and Helmut Norpoth, political science professor at Stony Brook University, who both projected a Trump victory.

Immelman calls his model simplistic, and said he’s never even considered it scientifically significant enough to have it reviewed by peers. He acknowledges that many factors, not just personality, played a role in Trump’s win.

“It’s not the only factor that played a role,” Immelman said. “But I think it played a stronger than normal role, and there’s no way that the polls can account for personality variables.”

Immelman notes that his model only predicts the ability of a candidate to get elected, not how well they will do in office.

“When it comes to governing, actually, I don’t think it predicts success,” he said.

 


Related interest

2016 Election Oracles: These People Predicted Trump Would Win

By Jessica McBride
Heavy
November 12, 2016

Meet the election oracles … they predicted Donald Trump’s rise. They’re mostly professors, although two pollsters also got it right, and one media personality (Michael Moore). Some are economics researchers.

The lofty, slick, and respected forecasting sites – The New York Times’ Upshot, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight – got it wrong, overwhelmingly prognosticating that Hillary Clinton would win the election (although Silver was closer than others). The Upshot thought Clinton had an 85% chance, and most of the pundits and pollsters generally agreed. …

However, not everyone got it wrong. Some professors and pollsters proved to be election day oracles. Many of them report being ridiculed, insulted, and labeled as crazy – until the actual results came in, that is. …

Read the full report

 


Related reports on this site

Projecting the Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election: The Personal Electability Index (Feb. 29, 2016)

Donald-Trump_Hillary-Clinton_Getty-Images
Getty Images

Clinton vs. Trump: Predicting the 2016 Presidential Election Results (Nov. 8, 2016)

clinton-trump_ap
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (Photo credit: AP)

The Personality Profile of 2016 Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump (Aug. 9, 2015)

Trump poster (2016)
Click on image for larger view

More » The Political Personality of 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee Donald J. Trump. Working paper, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict, October 2016. Abstract and link for full-text (31 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/103/

The Personality Profile of 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton (July 27, 2016)

Hillary-Clinton_poster_July-2016
Click on image for larger view

More » The Political Personality of 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton. Working paper, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict, October 2016. Abstract and link for full-text (34 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/102/



sctimes_trump-temperament_full-page

Trump’s Personality Raises Red Flags

immelman_trump-1_jasonwachter-stcloudtimes_2016-11-16
College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University professor Aubrey Immelman, who predicted Donald Trump would win over Hillary Clinton based on their personality profiles, shown Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2016. Immelman has predicted presidential winners correctly for the past 20 years. (Photo: Jason Wachter / St. Cloud Times)

By Aubrey Immelman
St. Cloud Times
November 26, 2016

Donald Trump may be the most unideological president of our time. A Democrat from 2001 to 2009 and a Republican before that and after, he has been a major donor to both political parties. What that means as a practical matter is that it’s a crapshoot to handicap the general tenor and specific policy proposals of the looming Trump presidency along predictable party-political lines.

There’s an old saw that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. True, Trump sometimes does as he says – for example, he has already set the wheels in motion to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership as he said he would on the campaign trail.

On the other hand, Trump seems just as likely, if not more so, to reverse course and go back on his word.

Case in point: his decision this week not to push for further probes of Hillary Clinton’s private email server or the Clinton Foundation – a major breach of his campaign promise that, if he won the election, he would seek a special prosecutor to pursue the matter.

Back to square one in “What Will Trump Do?” prognostication.

Turning to temperament

To anticipate presidential leadership style, a promising course of action is to approach the problem from the vantage point of temperament – the typical character and intensity of a person’s emotional expression.

Temperament has a strong inborn component, emerging very early in life and remaining relatively stable throughout the life course and consistent across a broad range of situations. As such, the construct offers a stable platform from which to predict presidential outcomes.

In practical terms, temperament shares much in common with the notion of “emotional intelligence” – the ability to recognize and understand one’s own emotions and those of others, and to manage one’s own emotions and influence those of others. In short, this capacity for emotional awareness, empathy, and skillful interpersonal relationships is a critical ingredient of leadership effectiveness.

In practical terms, temperament shares much in common with the notion of “emotional intelligence” – the ability to recognize and understand one’s own emotions and those of others, and to manage one’s own emotions and influence those of others. In short, this capacity for emotional awareness, empathy, and skillful interpersonal relationships is a critical ingredient of leadership effectiveness.

Trump’s temperament emerged as a major issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. A Fox News poll conducted after the first presidential debate in September found that just 37 percent of respondents felt Trump possessed the temperament to serve effectively as president, compared with 67 percent for Clinton.

And a New York Times/CBS News poll, also  conducted in September, revealed that most voters considered Trump “a risky choice” for president because he lacked “the right temperament and values.”

Trump personality organization

A psychological study of Trump conducted at the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics from June 2015 to August 2016 using an “at-a-distance” research methodology revealed that Trump’s predominant personality patterns are outgoing/impulsive and ambitious/exploitative (a measure of narcissism), infused with secondary features of the dominant/controlling pattern combined with low conscientiousness.

Following is a rundown of stable temperamental features of the key personality patterns driving Trump’s political behavior, based on the model of distinguished psychologist Theodore Millon:

  • Outgoing (histrionic) pattern: Poor impulse control. Outgoing individuals are emotionally expressive; they are animated, uninhibited, and emotionally responsive. Their moods are subject to rapid fluctuation, with occasional displays of short‑lived and superficial moods. Regarding political leadership, the attendant risk is a predisposition to impulsive acts; they may be over-excitable, exhibit a pervasive tendency to be easily enthused and as easily bored or angered, make thoughtless, imprudent judgments, and embark on rash or reckless courses of action.
  • Ambitious (narcissistic) pattern: Knee-jerk response to criticism. Narcissistic individuals are socially poised; at their best they are self-confident, optimistic, and cool and levelheaded under pressure and in the face of adversity. Though appearing carefree, nonchalant, and suave, their Achilles’ heel is responding reflexively and petulantly to personal criticism.
  • Dominant (aggressive) pattern: A volatile temper. Dominant individuals present themselves as strong leaders but tend to lack empathy and are prone to irritability; they have a volatile temper they may at times find difficult to control, flaring readily into petty or contentious argument.

immelman_trump-3_jasonwachter-stcloudtimes_2016-11-16
College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University professor Aubrey Immelman describes his personality profile of Donald Trump Wednesday, Nov. 16, at CSB. (Photo: Jason Wachter / St. Cloud Times)

Presidential red flags

Regarding the relationship between temperament and presidential leadership, the two personality traits of greatest concern in the case of Trump are these: first, the perilous combination of sparse political experience and a level of impulsiveness sufficiently unrestrained to have nearly torpedoed his presidential campaign on more than one occasion; and second, responding reflexively to personal slights with a combative temper.

As for Trump’s fitness to lead, the silver lining is that he has shown a willingness to surround himself with levelheaded, competent advisers capable of smoothing the rougher edges of his prickly personality – foremost among them campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and White House Chief of Staff designate Reince Priebus.

Imminently, the next big test for Trump will be whether he can resist the impulse to appoint top campaign surrogate and loyalist Rudy Giuliani – hamstrung by many of the same character flaws as Trump – to the key cabinet post of secretary of state, fourth in the presidential line of succession.

Trump would be well advised to give the nod to his harshest critic in the Republican establishment, Mitt Romney. The very temperamental blandness that made Romney a weak presidential candidate makes him an exceptional choice for the top cabinet post in the Trump administration.

That would be a true test of presidential character.

This is the opinion of Aubrey Immelman, associate professor of psychology at the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University, where he directs a faculty-student collaborative research program in political psychology, the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics. Immelman specializes in the psychological assessment of presidential candidates and world leaders.

 


Related reports on this site

temperament_fox-news-poll_9-29-2016

Donald Trump’s Temperament: Trump’s Fitness to be President (Oct. 5, 2016)

The Personality Profile of 2016 Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump (Aug. 9, 2015)

Mitt Romney for Secretary of State? (Nov. 19, 2016)

Mitt Romney’s Personality Profile (June 2, 2011)

Mitt Romney’s Leadership Style (Sept. 3, 2012)

Rudy Giuliani’s Personality Profile (Nov. 25, 2016)

What Role for Rudy Giuliani in Trump Administration, If Not Secretary of State? (Nov. 20, 2016)

 


More » The Political Personality of 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee Donald J. Trump. Working paper, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict, October 2016. Abstract and link for full-text (31 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/103/

For additional information, please consult the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics Media Tipsheet at http://personality-politics.org/2016-election-media-tipsheet/



Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, a contender for the Republican nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, has been floated as a prospect for nomination as U.S. Secretary of State in the Trump administration — and Giuliani has expressed strong interest in this key cabinet post.

giuliani-poster
Click on image for larger view

Psychological analysis of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani — a 2000 candidate for U.S. Senate and a 2008 contender for the Republican nomination for president — conducted in 1999-2000 and 2007-2008 by Joshua Jipson, Will Piatt, Catherine London, Julie Seifert, and Aubrey Immelman, Ph.D., at the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics revealed that Giuliani’s primary personality pattern is Dominant/aggressive, with secondary features of the Conscientious/dutiful and Ambitious/confident patterns. The combination of highly dominant and conscientious patterns in Giuliani’s profile suggests an aggressive enforcer personality composite.

Leaders with that particular personality profile are characteristically tough and uncompromising, with a forceful style that permits them to take charge in times of crisis; however, they are not known for being very diplomatic.

Giuliani’s major personality strength in a high-level leadership role is a forceful, commanding personality style that permits him to take charge in times of crisis and inspire public confidence. His major personality-based limitation is a controlling, occasionally punitive, tendency to control (which may foster divisiveness and animosity).

Based on his psychological profile, Mayor Giuliani would be a riskier choice for Secretary of State than Gov. Mitt Romney, despite the fact that Giuliani is close to Donald Trump and played a pivotal role as a key surrogate in the president-elect’s successful election campaign.

Considering his personality profile and leadership experience in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack and its aftermath, Giuliani would be better suited as Secretary of Homeland Security or Director of National Intelligence.

More » The Political Personalities of 2008 Republican Presidential Contenders John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Portland, OR, July 4–7, 2007. Abstract and link for full-text (30 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/28/

—————————

Related report

The Political Personality of 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Chicago, July 6–9, 2012. Abstract and link for full-text (35 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/98/

 


Related reports on Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani’s Past is Glimpse of Future

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Rumsfeld_and_Giuliani_at_Ground_Zero_cropped.jpg
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (right) at Ground Zero following the 9/11 attacks, with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Nov. 14, 2001. (Photo: Robert D. Ward / Office of the Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs)

By Catherine London (with Aubrey Immelman)
St. Cloud Times
November 29, 2007 (p. 8B)

Excerpts

In the wake of 9/11, Giuliani’s dominant personality pattern allowed him to capture the public imagination, demonstrating strength in the face of adversity. Yet before the terrorist attacks, the name Rudy Giuliani often conjured images of an unyielding, contentious, prickly mayor nastily denouncing his critics and spitefully retaliating against reporters who dared to pose “moronic” questions to the hardheaded, outspoken “Emperor of the City.”

Giuliani’s forceful, uncompromising manner, though in many ways an asset in his quest to wrest control of the mean streets of New York City from lawless elements, served as a double-edged sword as the public witnessed a voracious appetite for belittling opponents with derisive social commentary. Despite his successes as mayor, Giuliani had developed a reputation for his overbearing and abrasive style, occupying the role of theatrical antagonist on the public stage as New Yorkers watched his fiery outbursts play out against the backdrop of the city.

Giuliani’s forceful rhetoric and oversized personality once again took center stage in the aftermath of 9/11, but this time for the public good. His commanding, authoritative presence, which had sparked so much controversy during his mayoralty, now served him well as he rallied America from his perch atop the rubble of ground zero. …

Throughout Giuliani’s years in the public spotlight, he consistently demonstrated strength of leadership and a commanding presence, which allowed him confidently to take the helm in times of crisis. These qualities are rooted in a personal dynamic best described as an “aggressive enforcer” — a personality composite given substance by a sometimes volatile combination of aggressive dominance verging on hostility and an almost obsessively conscientious tendency that shades into self-righteous rigidity. …

Full report

—————————————————

Is ‘New Rudy’ the Real Rudy?

Rudolph Giuliani is seen while Mayor of New York City holding a news conference at City Hall - New York, NY - Apr 27, 2000
New York major Rudolph Giuliani holding a news conference at City Hall, April 27, 2000.

By Aubrey Immelman
St. Cloud Times
June 4, 2000 (p. 9B)

Excerpts

Claims of a new Rudy notwithstanding, logic dictates that Giuliani remains the dominant, controlling, aggressive personality whose combative orientation was as instrumental to his successful track record as a prosecutor as it has been in his crusade to clean up the streets of New York City.

But personality style can be a double-edged sword. During his tenure in the mayor’s office, Giuliani has shown a potential for self-defeating rigidity and an unwillingness to compromise, with a penchant for berating his critics and assailing subordinates not acting fully in accordance with his wishes.

While those qualities may be effective in getting the job done in New York City, such fiery zeal may not be the right stuff for success in the U.S. Senate, revered by some as “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

Giuliani may be better suited for an executive position such as mayor or governor, but the venerable legislative body that is the U.S. Senate is no place for a bellicose brawler in which to advance his political ambitions. …

Full report

——————————————————————

Senate Would Test Giuliani’s Resolve

Photo of New York mayor Rudy Giuliani
New York mayor Rudy Giuliani

By Joshua Jipson and Will Piatt (with Aubrey Immelman)
St. Cloud Times
December 12, 1999 (p. 9B)

Excerpts

The dominant feature of Rudy Giuliani’s personality is a controlling, aggressive tendency, which is an attribute instrumental in his past political successes. …

Our main concern with Giuliani is his larger personality configuration. When a prominent aggressive tendency combines with moral certitude, the resulting personality prototype is the “hostile enforcer.” …

It’s no secret that Giuliani has harbored long-standing presidential ambitions. … But as president, his hostility would have global implications. Diplomacy, a vital tool in foreign policy, is not a prevalent trait in personalities such as Giuliani’s. …

Recently, the New York Observer asked, “Can Rudy Giuliani tame the beast within?” Let’s hope he can, for should he fail, the fire he spouts may scorch not only Washington, but instigate a larger conflagration. …

Full report


Related reports on this site

Mitt Romney for Secretary of State? (Nov, 19, 2016)


Click on image for larger view

Why Mitt Romney Won’t Win (May 12, 2011)

Mitt Romney’s Leadership Style (Sept. 3, 2012)

Why Mitt Romney Won’t Be President — In Theory (Oct. 29, 2012)

What Role for Rudy Giuliani in Trump Administration, If Not Secretary of State? (Nov. 20, 2016)