The Centrality of Political

Personality to Political

Suitability, a matter

of Charisma?

La centralidad de la

personalidad política en

la idoneidad política:

¿Un asunto de Carisma?

Philippe De Vries

University of Antwerp

philippe.devries@ua.ac.be

Christ’l De Landtsheer

University of Ghent

christl.delandtsheer@ua.ac.be

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 4 Vol 4 · Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2011  Págs. 64 a 79

adResearch_4_lib.indb 64 02/06/11 12:16

The Centrality of Political

Personality to Political

Suitability, a matter

of Charisma?

La centralidad de la

personalidad política en

la idoneidad política:

¿Un asunto de Carisma?

This article investigates the role of personality perception by voters in their impression of political suitability.

What are the personality traits of political leaders whose perception contributes most to the electorate’s

impression of their political suitability? This study relies upon the central political psychology axiom that

political structures are shaped and channeled by people’s personalities (Winter, 2003). This axiom implies

that personality factors both at the elite (leaders) and the mass level (the electorate) are believed to inuen-

ce the arousal and weighting of the leaders’ goals and preferences. It also follows from this axiom that the

personality of the political candidate is considerably aecting how the candidate (at elite level) and how the

citizens-electors (at mass level) respond or resist to cues, symbols and signs. Besides, studies on leadership

from organizational research and management understated the role played by the personality in “charisma”

ever since Weber (1922, 1968) launched the concept (“charismatic authority”). This “charisma” of the political

leader would nevertheless only be activated in relation to the audience (e.g. Homan, 2009, p.232-233).

This article focuses on the assumption that the voter- audience is considered to be inuenced, even stee-

red by central-so-called politically relevant- personality impressions about the candidate. The article rstly

presents a theory review on the role of personality in political success. Secondly, a method is presented that

allows assessing personality as a success factor, and which is entitled “the political personality index” (e.g.

De Landtsheer, Thijssen & Immelman, 2004; De Vries, 2007). A third, empirical part of the article summarizes

the results of the application of the “the political personality index” on a sample with 1171 individuals. From

the results can be concluded that a substantial part of the impression of political suitability is based on the

perception of the candidate’s personal “charisma”. The interpretation of the presumed politically relevant per-

sonality patterns as furthered by this political psychology approach further indicates that contextual factors

deserve more attention.

Este artículo investiga el papel de la percepción de la personalidad por parte de los votantes en su impresión

acerca de la idoneidad política de los candidatos. ¿Cuáles son los puntos en la personalidad de los líderes polí-

ticos cuya percepción contribuye en mayor medida a la impresión del electorado sobre su idoneidad política?

Este estudio se basa en el axioma de la psicología política central que deende que las estructuras políticas

toman forma y se canalizan por medio de la personalidad de cada individuo (Winter, 2003). Dicho axioma

implica la creencia de que los factores de personalidad tanto en la élite (los líderes) como a nivel de la masa

(el electorado) inuencian la manera en la que surgen y toman importancia los objetivos y preferencias de los

líderes. Además, partiendo de este axioma se deduce que la personalidad del candidato político afecta con-

siderablemente a la manera en que el candidato (a nivel de élite) y los ciudadanos-electores (a nivel de masa)

responden o se resisten a estímulos, símbolos y signos. Estudios en liderazgo realizados como parte de la in-

vestigación organizacional y de gestión subestiman también el papel que juega la personalidad en el “carisma”

a partir del momento en que Weber (1922, 1968) lanzó el concepto (“autoridad carismática”). Este “carisma” del

líder político sin embargo sería únicamente activado en relación con la audiencia (ej. Homan, 2009, p.232-233).

Este artículo se centra en la suposición de que se considera que el votante-la audiencia están inuencia-

dos, incluso dirigidos por impresiones acerca de la personalidad del candidato supuestamente centrales y

políticamente relevantes. El artículo presenta en primer lugar un resumen de la teoría sobre el papel de la

personalidad en el éxito político. En segundo lugar, se presenta un método que permite evaluar la personali-

dad como un factor de éxito y que se denomina “índice de personalidad política” (ej. De Landtsheer, Thijssen

& Immelman, 2004; De Vries, 2007). En tercer lugar, la parte empírica del artículo que resume los resultados

de la aplicación del “índice de personalidad política” en una muestra formada por 1171 individuos. De los

resultados podemos concluir que una parte sustancial de la impresión de idoneidad política se basa en la

percepción del “carisma” personal del candidato. La interpretación de los que se supone son patrones de per-

sonalidad políticamente relevantes, tal y como se promueve en este enfoque de la psicología política, añade

más información que indica que los factores contextuales merecen un estudio más detallado.s.

ABSTRACT

RESUMEN

Clasicación JEL:

M37, M38

Palabras clave:

Personalidad política,

idoneidad política,

liderazgo político,

carisma político

JEL Classication:

M37, M38

Key words:

Political personality,

political suitability,

political leadership,

political charisma

Nº 4 Vol 4 · Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2011  Págs. 64 a 79

adResearch_4_lib.indb 65 02/06/11 12:16

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 4 Vol 4 · Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2011 (Pág. 64 a 79)

Introduction

Charisma may be the dream of political candi-

dates, and the selling of it the ultimate goal of

any political spin doctor, charisma nevertheless

stays at all times a highly unpractical romantic

scientiﬁc concept. Charismatic leadership con-

stitutes a type of political domination whereby

individuals are made to believe that their leader

possesses special legitimizing, divine powers

(e.g. Hoffmann, 2009). For the ordinary political

candidate besides, charisma is out of reach be-

cause it resembles magic and it cannot be learned

or achieved by hard labor. It is a mistake to as-

sume that the consequences for society of char-

ismatic leadership tend to be favorable. Charis-

matic leaders may, depending upon their

personality, be able to inspire the masses to al-

truism, but they can as well push them in the

direction of massacres. Charismatic personalities

far too often become authoritarian politicians or

the leaders of an authoritarian state. This article

does not intend to unravel the impression com-

ponents of the magic or divine leader (Castro,

Martin Luther King, Hitler, Stalin, J.F.K., Chavez)

but it contents it at examining voters’ perception

of personality characteristics that, in a demo-

cratic system, contribute to the perception of

political suitability. While “personality” is seen as

crucial to charismatic leadership (Hoffmann,

2009) it may be at least as important for the

“usual” political candidates for public ofﬁce. The

modernization of the political media landscape

has made personalization of politics the central

issue in political campaigning. It is therefore

more than time to test the central role of (par-

ticular) personality characteristics” in voters’

perception of political suitability.

This article will ﬁrstly present a theory frame

for the study of personality perception in politics

(“the centrality of political personality”). After

that, a second section will detail the research

methodology to investigate personality in rela-

tion to political suitability (“the political person-

ality index”). The third section (“the winning

candidate personality”) ﬁnally, will describe the

results of the empirical study and will come to a

conclusion.

The centrality of political personality

The prominent political psychologist Winter

(2003, p. 110) wrote: “One of the central axioms

of political psychology is that political structures

are shaped and channeled by peoples’ personali-

ties, that is by their individually patterned inte-

gration of processes of perception, memory,

judgment, goal-seeking, and emotional expres-

sions and regulations.” A clear and univocal

deﬁnition of what political personality encom-

passes is nonetheless still missing. In their at-

tempt to map the different scientiﬁc approaches

Allport and Odbert (1936) listed no less than

ﬁfty different types of deﬁnitions. The deﬁni-

tions of personality differ considerably accord-

ing to the scientiﬁc disciplines examined. Psy-

chology and political science –for example– are

endorsing divergent concepts of personality.

Even though some personalities had enormous

inﬂuences on world politics over the past de-

cades, personality studies are –understandably–

extremely difﬁcult and limited seen the inacces-

sibility of the political leaders. It is impossible to

imagine that the most powerful and inﬂuential

political leaders in the world would let their per-

sonalities be unraveled by scientists. Therefore,

some researchers have avoided this problem by

designing objective methods to retrieve political

personality. These methods enable researchers to

retrieve the political personalities as perceived

adResearch_4_lib.indb 66 02/06/11 12:16

The centrality of political personality to political suitability, a matter of charisma? (Pág. 64 a 79)

by the electorate. Although aspects of private

personality are contributing to the general and

publicly perceived personality, the political per-

sonality that lives amongst the voter citizens is

the most signiﬁcant personality factor in voter

decision-making (Winter, 2003).

Political personality has been studied in nu-

merous studies by applying different methods.

Nonetheless, personality research has been

dominated by the Five Factor Model of personal-

ity structure since the early eighties (Costa &

McCrae, 1992). This model is a political variant

of the popular Big Five Structure (Goldenberg,

1983). Despite its popularity and simplicity, the

ﬁve dimensional framework has been contested

by various authors for various reasons (Caprara

& Perugini, 1994; Caprara & Barbaranelli,

1999; Ashton & Lee, 2005). Based on American

and Italian research it has established that voters

tend to simplify personality judgments of politi-

cal candidates in ongoing election campaigns by

reducing the usual ﬁve factors to a combination

of only two or maximum three factors. Caprara,

Calo, and Barbaranelli (1997) argued that the

ﬁve-dimensional structure of personality traits

does not correspond to the actual voter apprais-

als, while Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Zimbardo

(2002) demonstrated how the popular ﬁve-fac-

tor description is collapsing when it is used to

evaluate and map political candidate personality.

According to the authors, these retrieved de-

termining attributions –used to describe politi-

cians’ personality– may be explained as a direct

consequence of the use of simpliﬁed heuristics

and schematic information processing by the

voting public. Such simpliﬁcation may even be

considered unique to the political arena. Indi-

viduals are faced with a great amount of com-

plex information reaching them in the form of

party propaganda, advertisement, candidates’

statements, endorsements, and especially media

characterizations. According to Caprara et al.

(2002) the underlying process may be that vot-

ers are holding different personality schemata

for different coalitions or parties, thereby focus-

ing on different attributes. The authors reasoned

that these key trait markers could be used as

activation terms in –for example– political ads.

Moreover, these trait markers could be judi-

ciously included in the candidates’ speeches.

Campaign managers and political consultants

might therefore be selectively using particular

trait markers in characterizing a political candi-

date versus the opposing candidate. In other

words such simpliﬁed personality impressions

of political candidates may follow from the so-

called cognitively efﬁcient strategy, adopted by

voters in order to cope with the mass of com-

plex information reaching them daily (Caprara

et al. 2002).

As indicated above, the major part of politi-

cal personality research has been conducted in

the United States of America. Especially the per-

sonality of individual political leaders has kept

numerous American scientists fascinated

throughout the previous decades. Prominent

political psychologists have set up, studied, and

analyzed personality proﬁles of several Ameri-

can presidents. The importance of personality

and performance assessments for evaluating po-

litical candidates has been most prominently

described and studied by Kinder and his col-

leagues. In most general terms Kinder, Abelson,

and Fiske (1979) assembled recent ﬁndings in

social and cognitive psychology aiming to de-

termine political candidate evaluation. The au-

thors argued that citizens have meta-theories or

prototypes about what good and effective lead-

adResearch_4_lib.indb 67 02/06/11 12:16

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 4 Vol 4 · Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2011 (Pág. 64 a 79)

ership should be. These prototypes should be

considered as evaluative rulers against which

political candidates are measured. Kinder and

Abelson (1979) are proposing that these proto-

types include traits (personality characteristics

ascribed to leaders), affective reactions (patterns

of emotional responses elicited by leaders), be-

havioral expectations (understandings of what

actions leaders take), and ideal types (beliefs

about what the president should be and do).

These aspects of political personality can –nev-

ertheless– be reduced to politically relevant per-

sonality impressions formed and stored by indi-

vidual voters when confronted with political

candidates.

Most research on speciﬁc candidate traits

concludes that the electorate is considering

leadership (dominance) and extraversion (cha-

risma) to be the most important personality

traits for political candidates, irrespective of the

level of political sophistication (Pierce, 1993).

Besides of leadership abilities, the perceived

quality of “competence” or “intelligence” seems

equally relevant (e.g. Rahn, Aldrich, Borgida,

and Sullivan, 1990; Caprara, Barbaranelli &

Zimbardo, 2002). These two qualities were

found to be of major importance in an “impres-

sion” index that positively correlated with the

perception, for males and females, of political

suitability (2004). Research by Immelman sup-

ports these ﬁndings by concluding that political

candidates perceived as extravert and outgoing,

and equally as dominant and ambitious, gener-

ally bring home the victory while the hard-

working, conscientious introvert has to give in

(Immelman, 1998, 1999, 2002, and 2003).

These conclusions are - furthermore - in agree-

ment with the distinction made by Newman

(1999a) in political marketing between Teﬂon-

personalities to which nothing sticks, and Velcro-

personalities to which almost everything sticks.

Teﬂon-personalities are perceived as extravert

and outgoing, characteristics that appeal to vot-

ers and are logically linked to leadership suit-

ability. These perceived personality traits are

believed to evoke certain emotional connec-

tions and reactions that attract voters (Aldrich

et al., 1999; Van Zoonen & Holz Bacha, 2000;

Winter, 2003).

Conclusions from political psychology litera-

ture on the political relevance of (particular) per-

sonality characteristics generally spur with ﬁnd-

ings from organizational and management

studies that focus upon “charisma”. Kassimeris

and Philaretou (2010) in their Cypriot case

study describe the charismatic Archbishop Ma-

karios III as a socialized charismatic leader, with

a sensitive and empathic personality, which they

put into contrast with the “personalized” charis-

matic leader, possessing a narcissistic personality

disorder (Popper, 2000). Both this Cypriot case

and a study of Castro by Hoffman (2009, p.232-

233) understate the role played by both person-

ality and contextual factors in the formation of

charismatic leadership.

The paragraphs above compiled relevant ap-

proaches regarding the study of political person-

ality. The method forming the backbone of this

article is the Political Personality Index. This

method by the authors that draws upon the po-

litical personality scaling theories designed by

Immelman (1998, 1999, 2002, and 2004) will

be detailed in the next section. In the following,

empirical section the attribution of political per-

sonality and political suitability scores by re-

spondents will allow us to distinguish politically

relevant personality characteristics.

adResearch_4_lib.indb 68 02/06/11 12:16

The centrality of political personality to political suitability, a matter of charisma? (Pág. 64 a 79)

The Political Personality index

Deduced from the theoretical introduction, this

research is advancing that impressions of politi-

cal suitability are steered by a set of central and

politically relevant personality impressions. The

retrieved politically suitable personality patterns

are anticipated to be corresponding to the con-

clusions by Immelman, meaning that more out-

going and extravert personalities will be most

desirable within the political context (2004).

Voters are believed to form an impression –a po-

litically relevant impression– when perceiving a

political candidate as outgoing, while the more

retiring pattern is considered unfavorable (Im-

melman, 1999, 2004; Pancer, Brown, & Barr,

1999). Perceived introversion is often interpret-

ed as indifference and as a lack of empathy. Poli-

ticians are presumed to be pursuing an extravert

personality. Extraversion is expected to be trans-

lating into politically suitable personality patterns.

The personality research reported in this ar-

ticle is based on the MIDC method by Immel-

man that relies upon the Millon model. After

having summarized the MICD method, this sec-

tion introduces the “Political Personality Index”

conceived by the authors as a method for assess-

ing personality in relation to political suitability.

In order to unravel the psychologically relevant

personality patterns, inﬂuencing and steering

the impression of politically suitability, respon-

dents are confronted with potential political can-

didates and asked to rate the politicians based

on the ﬁve personality scales brieﬂy discussed

below. The respondents were also asked to eval-

uate the presented potential political candidates

on the impression of political suitability, result-

ing in a Political Suitability Score ﬂuctuating be-

tween the values of one and ﬁve as well. These

Political Suitability Scores will later be contrast-

ed with the Political Personality Indexes in order

to unravel the personality characteristics linked

to the impression of political suitability. By statis-

tically investigating the respondent’s preferences

and interferences the relationship between as-

pects of political personality and political suit-

ability can be unveiled.

The MIDC method

Immelman converged Millons’ personality re-

search into a model enabling researchers to de-

termine perceived political personality. His

psycho-diagnostically founded method is en-

abling the scaling of political personality based

on the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria

(Immelman & Steinberg, 1999). With the MIDC

method the political personality can be deter-

mined and conceptualized in order to categorize

political personality types while predicting po-

litical behavior. Millons’ work is providing a

solid foundation for conceptualizing political

personality, classifying political personality

types, and predicting political behavior (Millon,

1990, 1986a, 1986b, 1991, 1994a, 1994b, 1996,

2003; Millon & Davis, 1998, 2000; Millon, Davis

& Millon, 1996; Millon & Everly, 1985). The

integrative capacity of Millons’ model is render-

ing it sufﬁciently comprehensive to accommo-

date the major principles of psychodynamic,

behavioral, humanistic, interpersonal, cognitive,

biogenic, and trait approaches to the study of

personality (Immelman, 2003).

In essence, the MIDC model is interpreting

personality disorders as essentially exaggerated

and pathologically distorted deviations ema-

nating from a normal and healthy distribution

of traits (Millon & Everly, 1985). Millon

(1994b) regards pathology as resulting from

the same forces involved in the development of

adResearch_4_lib.indb 69 02/06/11 12:16

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 4 Vol 4 · Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2011 (Pág. 64 a 79)

normal functioning: the character, timing, and

intensity of these factors. Criteria for normality

are including: “The capacity to function auton-

omously and competently, a tendency to adjust

to one’s environment effectively and efﬁciently,

a subjective sense of contentment and satisfac-

tion, and the ability to actualize or to fulﬁll

one’s potentials.” (Immelman, 2003: p. 2)

Moreover, the presence of psychopathology is

established by the degree to which a person is

deﬁcient, imbalanced, or conﬂicted in these ar-

eas (Millon, 2003). An accurate personality

proﬁle is permitting to infer the likely nature

and direction of personality under conditions

of crisis or catastrophic personality breakdown.

(Immelman, 2003). According to Immelman,

“No present conceptual system in the ﬁeld of

political personality rivals Millons’ model in

compatibility with conventional psychodiag-

nostic methods and standard clinical practice

in personality assessment. Moreover, no cur-

rent system matches the elegance with which

Millons’ evolutionary model synthesizes nor-

mality and psychopathology. In short, Millon

offers a theoretically coherent alternative to ex-

isting conceptual frameworks and assessment

methodologies for the psychological examina-

tion of political leaders or historical ﬁgures”

(Immelman, 2003, p. 2).

In order to apply the Immelman political per-

sonality scaling method the original scaling

model is converted into ﬁve scales including ten

opposing personality patterns (e.g. De Landt-

sheer, Thijssen, and Immelman, 2004). The fol-

lowing sections will be introducing the “Political

Personality Index” as a research instrument for

assessing political suitability of political candi-

dates, as well as the employed incentive materi-

al, and the respondents.

Research Instrument: The political personality

index

The ten most important scales of Immelmans’

model for political personality research can be

reduced to ﬁve scales with opposing personality

characteristics (De Landtsheer, Thijssen & Im-

melman, 2004). At the ends of each ten point

scale the equivalent of two personality patterns

are placed, which must be considered opposites.

The ﬁrst scale is including the outgoing and re-

tiring personality pattern. The second scale is

containing the aggrieved and the dominant pat-

tern, while the third scale is including the reti-

cent pattern and the ambitious pattern. In the

fourth scale the accommodating pattern is op-

posing the contentious pattern. Finally the ﬁfth

scale is consisting of the conscientious and the

dauntless personality pattern. These ﬁve scales

will be emanating into a Political Personality In-

dex calculated for each potential political candi-

date introduced in this research.

The more a candidates’ score is situated near

the midpoint of the polarity scale, the less out-

spoken the perceived political personality of that

particular political candidate must be consid-

ered. When the score is moving towards one of

the tail ends of the scale more outspokenly, the

more pronounced one of the contrasting person-

ality types can be assumed present. In the fol-

lowing section, the speciﬁcs of the Political Per-

sonality Index will be calculated. (Ver tabla 1,

pág. 73).

In order to make the ﬁndings more compre-

hensive and comparable, the ten point scales are

reduced into ﬁve broader categories. As depicted

in the table above, each evaluation is translating

into a score ranging from one to ﬁve. Each Po-

litical Personality Index is thereby consisting of

the average value of the ﬁve scales and it ranges

adResearch_4_lib.indb 70 02/06/11 12:16

The centrality of political personality to political suitability, a matter of charisma? (Pág. 64 a 79)

from one to ﬁve. Once the index is dropping be-

low the 2,5 the portrayed candidate is distribut-

ing a rather negative political personality image,

while scores higher than 2,5 are indicating a fa-

vorable political personality. A Political Personal-

ity Index of 5 must be considered a most prefer-

able political personality.

More speciﬁcally, the two ends of the scale -

‘deﬁnitely x’ and ‘deﬁnitely y’–can be regarded as

politically unsuitable. According to Immelman

(2007), a rather outgoing, dominant, ambitious,

accommodating, and dauntless personality pat-

tern is most politically suitable, thereby relying

on the reasoning established over the following

paragraphs. Regarding the ﬁrst scale, the outgo-

ing personality pattern is enabling political

candidates to connect with the audience. None-

theless, a too elevated level of the outgoing per-

sonality pattern is leading towards impressions

of impulsiveness and histrionic behavior. The

dominant personality pattern –included in the

second scale– is driving voter and citizen im-

pressions on strong and efﬁcient leadership, an

indispensable characteristic for distributing the

image of political suitability. Noteworthy how-

ever, is the fact that if the dominant pattern is too

elevated, the candidate may come across as be-

ing overly aggressive, a characteristic that gener-

ally doesn’t play well with voters. The third scale

which places the ambitious personality pat-

tern on the positive side is providing the impres-

sion of self-conﬁdence, once again if not too el-

evated. Immelman continues by arguing that a

combination of the outgoing and the ambitious

pattern ensures a candidates’ charismatic quality.

The tendency towards a rather accommodating

personality pattern –referred to in the fourth

scale –must be considered as an asset in the po-

litical arena. This accommodating characteristic

is driving the impressions of friendliness and di-

plomacy. Nevertheless, once again a highly ele-

vated level of the accommodating pattern is

leading towards impressions of weakness and

submissiveness. And ﬁnally, the ﬁfth scale is in-

cluding the dauntless personality pattern in-

dicating –when present in a modest amount–

the adventurousness, and the willingness to take

risks; characteristics believed highly attractive to

potential voters. An extreme elevated level of the

dauntless personality pattern– on the other hand

–is feeding the politically negative impressions

of sensation seeking, rule braking, bully behavior.

Opposing Political Personality Patterns

Politically Suitable Patterns Versus Politically Unsuitable Patterns

Denitely (5-6) Rather (1-2) Neither (3-4) Rather (7-8) Denitely (9-10)

Score: 3 Score:5 Score: 4 Score: 2 Score: 1

Outgoing Retiring

Dominant Aggrieved

Ambitious Reticent

Accommodating Contentious

Dauntless Conscientious

Table 1. The Political Personality Index

adResearch_4_lib.indb 71 02/06/11 12:16

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 4 Vol 4 · Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2011 (Pág. 64 a 79)

with the politically suitable patterns placed on

the left side of the political personality spectrum

as presented above.

As can be deduced from the reasoning above,

the Political Personality Index is encompassing

the discussed positive and negative consequenc-

es inherent to the attribution of the personality

patterns included in Immelmans’ model. The at-

tribution of outspoken, yet positively assumed

political personality patterns is thereby granted

three points, while the politically most prefera-

ble personality patterns are awarded ﬁve points.

These ideal patterns are represented in the sec-

ond column. Stable and balanced personalities

are attributed four points. The mildly presence

of the less politically preferable personality pat-

terns accounts for two points, and ﬁnally the

outspoken manifestation of the negative person-

ality pattern is awarded only one point. When

the ﬁve scales are brought together and reduced

to one mean value, the Political Personality In-

dex arises.

Incentive Material

Each respondent is confronted with a set of

printed pictures presenting ten possible male or

female political candidates and asked to place

the portrayed political candidate on each of the

ﬁve scales, based on the opposing personality

patterns. As can be deduced from the above ta-

ble, each scale is consisting of ten gradations,

from ‘deﬁnitely x’ over ‘rather x’ and ‘rather y’ to

‘deﬁnitely y’ (x and y are thereby representing

the opposing personality patterns). Afterwards,

the respondent was asked to scale the displayed

political candidate on a scale from one to ten for

the characteristic of political suitability. More

precisely the respondent answered the following

On the other side of the personality spectrum

the politically unsuitable patterns arise. The out-

spoken retiring personality pattern is indicat-

ing the tendencies towards solitary and aloof

personality impressions, while the aggrieved

personality pattern is reinforcing self-denying

and self-defeating impressions. The reticent per-

sonality pattern on the other hand is indicating

withdrawn and inhibited personality characteris-

tics. The contentious personality pattern is

translating into a negativistic and oppositional

image, while the conscientious personality pat-

tern is enhancing impressions of compulsiveness

and obsessive dutifulness. The outspoken per-

sonality patterns of the retiring, aggrieved, reti-

cent, contentious, and conscientious personality

pattern can therefore be labeled as politically un-

suitable personality traits.

Nonetheless, the mildly variant of these nega-

tively perceived political personality patterns can

have a positive inﬂuence on the impression of

political suitability. The mildly retiring person-

ality pattern is pointing at a reserved and re-

spectful aspect of the political personality, while

the lowest aggrieved pattern denotes the unpre-

suming personality characteristics. A mildly reti-

cent personality pattern is indicating the char-

acteristic of circumspect or precaution. A mild

indication of the contentious personality pat-

tern can be translated into the impression of a

resolute and determined personality. While the

moderate presence of the last personality pattern

–the conscientious personality pattern– is

feeding impressions of respect and passion.

Nonetheless, it is important to state that even

though the described variants of these personal-

ity patterns may have a positive inﬂuence on the

impression of the politically suitable personality

they should under no circumstances be equated

adResearch_4_lib.indb 72 02/06/11 12:16

The centrality of political personality to political suitability, a matter of charisma? (Pág. 64 a 79)

question: “Do you consider this candidate suit-

able to represent you in the House of Parliament?”

Overall sixty photographs of potential politi-

cal candidates are employed in this research,

thirty male and thirty female politicians. These

candidates are representing as many different

physical characteristics as possible, meaning that

male and female political candidates from differ-

ent age categories were included in the incentive

material. Furthermore, both candidates coming

across as casual and formal were admitted. By

introducing these different types of individuals

the connectedness between the personality pat-

terns assumed to be politically relevant and the

political suitability of the political candidate

could be unveiled.

A wide variety of different physical character-

istics was included in the different sets of photo-

graphs applied as incentive material. The por-

trayed candidates were - furthermore - unknown

individuals to the respondents. The pictures

originated from foreign European internet sites

(German, Spanish, French, and Portuguese).

Respondents

Overall, 590 male and 581 female respondents

took part in the study, resulting into 1171 indi-

viduals. Respondents were interviewed from

door to door, on the street, and in the train. The

respondents were selected based on gender, age,

level of education, and political afﬁliation.

Identical to the studies discussed above it was

aspired to include an equal amount of male and

female respondents. Moreover, an equal division

of the respondents across three age categories

was strived for: young adults (between the age of

18 and 35), adults (between the age of 35 and

65), and elderly (older than 65). The participat-

ing respondents can be divided across the three

broader age categories, more precisely: 396 indi-

viduals belonged to the ﬁrst age category, rang-

ing from the eighteen to thirty ﬁve. The second

age category - ranging from thirty six to sixty ﬁve

- consisted of an equal number of respondents,

while the third category consisted of 379 re-

spondents. These three age categories represent-

ed young adults (18-35), adults (36-65), and

elderly (60+).

A third demographic variable is the level of

education. Four levels of education were noted:

university degree, degree of higher education,

high school degree, no high school degree.

Based on this division, higher and lower edu-

cated respondents could be separated. Overall,

114 respondents merely ﬁnished elementary

school, 475 respondents held a high school de-

gree, 385 respondents possessed a higher educa-

tional degree, and ﬁnally 197 individuals at-

tained an academic degree.

A fourth and ﬁnal variable which included in

the analyses is monitoring the respondents’ po-

litical afﬁliation. Respondents were divided over

seven categories. Overall 201 respondents afﬁli-

ated themselves with the liberal democrat party

VLD and 253 considered themselves members

of the Christian democrat party. Furthermore,

92 respondents described themselves as mem-

bers of the green party Groen!, 180 respondents

were afﬁliated with the social democrat party

and ﬁnally 115 individuals noted their extreme

right (Vlaams Belang) afﬁliation.

The winning candidate personality

Over the following sections the results retrieved

from the respondents’ judgment on the per-

ceived political personality will be discussed.

The ﬁrst section will be presenting the highest

and lowest Political Suitability Scores deduced

adResearch_4_lib.indb 73 02/06/11 12:16

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 4 Vol 4 · Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2011 (Pág. 64 a 79)

from the respondent evaluations. Afterwards,

the interactions between the Political Personal-

ity Index and the demographic characteristics of

the participating respondents will be investi-

gated. Moreover -–and more importantly– the

relationship between the Political Personality

Index, the components compounding the in-

dex, and the Political Suitability Scores will be

intensively examined.

Political Suitability Scores

The average Political Suitability Score attained

by the male political candidates is 2,45. At ﬁrst

sight this score is relatively low, meaning that the

majority of the attributed evaluations on the im-

pression of politically suitability are negative. An

ANOVA calculation is demonstrating that the

differences between the means are signiﬁcant

with an F value of 17,042 (the signiﬁcance of F

is .000). A genuinely signiﬁcant overall differ-

ence between the presented Political Suitability

Scores can be concluded. The Political Suitabili-

ty Scores obtained by the ﬁve highest scoring

male political candidates are thereby signiﬁcant-

ly differing from the ﬁve lowest scoring male

candidates.

In analogy to the conclusions based on the

evaluations of the potential male political candi-

dates, the average Political Suitability Score

seems to be signiﬁcantly low as well. The aver-

age Political Suitability Score achieved by the

female politicians is 2,48 and slightly higher

than the average male Political Suitability Score.

The differences between the means are signiﬁ-

cant with an F value of 19,437 (the signiﬁcance

of F is .000). Similar to the male ﬁndings, sig-

niﬁcant overall difference between the Political

Suitability Scores can be concluded.

The Political Personality Index

In this section, the calculated Personality Index-

es will be scrutinized. Overall, the average Politi-

cal Personality Index attributed by the respon-

dents is 2,99. The average Political Personality

Index for the female political candidates is 2,98.

In analogy to the results presented above the ex-

planatory power of the Political Personality In-

dex should be demonstrating the ﬁtness or un-

suitableness of the political psychology emphasis

on certain aspects of political personality. The

following sections will be uncovering the statisti-

cally signiﬁcant interplay and interaction of the

different demographic variables –explained in

the operationalization and applied in the above

discussed studies– included in this research.

Subsequently, the relationship between the Po-

litical Personality Index and the Political Suit-

ability Score will be discussed.

Interactions with Demographic Variables

In this section the gender, age, level of education,

and political afﬁliation of the respondents are in-

cluded into the analyses. Each demographic vari-

able will be discussed separately over the follow-

ing paragraphs. The interactions are calculated in

SPSS. Chi-square tests and spearman coefﬁcients

are calculated to determine the signiﬁcance and

the impact of the retrieved interactions.

The ﬁrst demographic variable included in

the analyses is the gender variable. No signiﬁ-

cant interactions can be unveiled between the

gender of the respondent and the Political Per-

sonality Index (Chi²=33,643; p=0,786). When

the demographic variable representing the three

age categories is taken into consideration some

signiﬁcant and interesting interactions surface

(rho=-0,046; df=8; p<.000). Respondents be-

longing to the adult age category are accounting

adResearch_4_lib.indb 74 02/06/11 12:16

The centrality of political personality to political suitability, a matter of charisma? (Pág. 64 a 79)

for 64,3% of the highest Political Personality In-

dexes with an average Political Personality Index

of 2,42. Merely 7,1% of these highest evalua-

tions can be brought back to the young adult age

category (18-35) with an average Political Per-

sonality Index of 2,3 and 28,6% to the category

elderly (65+) with an average Political Personal-

ity Index of 2,56. It can therefore be concluded

that in general, the adults and the elderly are ac-

countable for the highest Political Personality

Indexes attributed, especially in contrast to the

youngest respondents.

When the gender of the respondent is taken

into consideration, similar conclusions can be

drawn. The respondents in the highest age cate-

gory are responsible for the highest Indexes re-

gardless their own gender and the gender of the

portrayed politician. A third demographic vari-

able is representing the respondents’ level of ed-

ucation. The cross tabulation operation did not

reveal any signiﬁcant interactions between the

Political Personality Index and the respondents’

level of education (rho=0,003; p=0,762).

A ﬁnal variable brought in relation with the

Personality Index is the respondents’ political af-

ﬁliation. Even though the relationship between

the respondents’ political afﬁliation and the Po-

litical Personality Index is signiﬁcant (Chi²=

44,117; df=24, p<.05) no remarkable conclu-

sions can be recovered. The respondents afﬁli-

ated with the Christian democratic party or the

liberal democratic party seem to be accountable

for the more elevated indexes than could be ex-

pected. The green party and the social demo-

cratic party afﬁliates on the other hand seem to

be less willing to attribute high indexes.

Personality Index versus Political Suitability

Score

In order to determine the ﬁtness and explana-

tory power of the Political Personality Index,

the interplay between the index and the Politi-

cal Suitability Score (PS Score) must be investi-

gated. In a ﬁrst paragraph the overall correla-

tions between the speciﬁc components of the

Personality Index and the PS Score will be dis-

cussed. Afterwards, a multiple regression analy-

ses will be revealing the overall explanatory

power of the Personality Index and its distinct

components.

Overall, the spearman correlation between

the Political Suitability Score and the Political

Personality Index is indicating a positive and sig-

niﬁcant relationship (rho=0,154; df=410; p<.001).

Nonetheless the connection between these two

variables must be designated as weak. The table

below is containing the correlations calculated

between the opposing personality scales and the

impression of political suitability, in other words

the Political Suitability Score.

Spearman Correlations with PS Score (N=1171)

Political Suitability Score

Outgoing - Retiring Personality Scale 0,363(*)

Dominant - Aggrieved Personality Scale - 0,122(*)

Ambitious - Reticent Personality Scale - 0,214(*)

Accommodating - Contentious Personality Scale 0,204(*)

Dauntless - Conscientious Personality Scale 0,05(*)

* p< 0,001

adResearch_4_lib.indb 75 02/06/11 12:16

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 4 Vol 4 · Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2011 (Pág. 64 a 79)

Based on the table presented above some in-

teresting conclusions can be drawn regarding

the interaction between the opposing personali-

ty scales and the impression of political suitabil-

ity. Firstly, the direction of the correlations is

demonstrating that only three out of the ﬁve per-

sonality scales are positively correlating with the

index calculation. The dominant-aggrieved scale

and the ambitious-reticent scale have a negative

effect on the Political Personality Index, meaning

that the aggrieved and the reticent personality

pattern must be considered as more politically

suitable than the dominant and the ambitious

personality pattern. The other three personality

patterns are - nonetheless - signiﬁcantly correlat-

ing with the impression of political suitability.

Secondly, the retrieved spearman correlations

enable this research to interpret the strength of

the relationships. As can be deduced from the

correlations presented above, the outgoing-retir-

ing scale is accounting for the strongest correla-

tion (rho=0,363; p<.001), followed by the ac-

commodating-contentious personality scales

(rho=0,204; p<.001). The ambitious-reticent

personality scale (rho=-0,214; p<.001) and the

dominant-aggrieved personality scale (rho=-

0,122; p<.001) are accounting for a signiﬁcant

yet negative impact. Finally, the dauntless-con-

scientious scale is accounting for the weakest

and almost negligible correlation (rho=0,05,

p<.001). The calculated spearman correlations

are indicating that not all the opposing personal-

ity scales are contributing positively and/or

strongly to the Political Suitability Score.

A multiple regression analysis is executed in

order to determine the inﬂuences of the ﬁve op-

posing personality scales on the impression of

political suitability more profoundly. The table

–presented below– is clarifying the impact, di-

rection, and power of the ﬁve personality scales

composing the Personality Index.

The adjusted R Square is indicating that over-

all 17,4% of the variance –or the Political Suit-

ability Score –is explained by the model intro-

ducing the ﬁve scales from the Personality Index.

Furthermore, the contribution of the dauntless-

conscientious personality scale is not signiﬁcant,

meaning that the dauntless-conscientious scale

is not contributing to the variance all.

The highest standardized beta coefﬁcient –in-

dicating the contribution of each variable to the

explanatory model– is demonstrating the signiﬁ-

cant effect of the outgoing-retiring personality

scale on the Political Suitability Score. The out-

going-retiring personality scale is explaining the

Political Suitability Score best (Standardized

Multiple Regression Analysis Explaining the Political Suitability Score (R=,418; R²=,174; Adjusted R²=,174)

Variable Stand. Beta Sig t Tolerance

Outgoing-Retiring 0,338 ,000 38,990 0,958

Ambitious-Reticent -0,186 ,002 -16,026 0,532

Accommodating-Contentious 0,035 ,000 3,163 0,579

Dominant-Aggrieved 0,072 ,000 6,650 0,605

Dauntless-Conscientious -0,007 ,433 -0,785 0,837

adResearch_4_lib.indb 76 02/06/11 12:16

The centrality of political personality to political suitability, a matter of charisma? (Pág. 64 a 79)

Beta=0,338). The ambitious-reticent personality

scale must be considered the second best predic-

tor (Standardized Beta=-0,183) even though the

effect of the scale is running in the opposite di-

rection. The accommodating-contentious scale

is resulting into the third highest beta coefﬁcient

(Standardized Beta=0,072). And ﬁnally the

dominant-aggrieved personality scale is ac-

counting for the lowest standardized beta coef-

ﬁcient (Standardized Beta=0,035).

Conclusions

The introduction of ﬁve scales with opposing

personality patterns –resulting into the Political

Personality Index –aimed to conﬁrm the explan-

atory power of the presumed politically suitable

personality patterns deduced from the MIDC

model designed by Immelman. In conclusion of

this research one may state that these aspirations

are not completely fulﬁlled. Although the Politi-

cal Personality Index was found to be positively

linked to the Political Suitability Score - meaning

that high Indexes translated into high PS Scores

and vice versa - some of the designed opposing

personality patterns turned out to have a reverse

effect. In other words, voters did not conﬁrm all

preconceived hypotheses.

First of all, the dauntless-conscientious per-

sonality scale did not contribute to the explana-

tion of the impression of political suitability.

Furthermore, the ambitious-reticent personality

pattern had an opposite effect on the Political

Suitability Score, meaning that a high score re-

sulted into a low Political Suitability Score and

vice versa. More speciﬁcally, the potential voters

did not support the assumption deduced from

political psychology theory arguing that political

candidates should disseminate a more ambitious

personality instead of a more reticent personali-

ty. In addition to that, the dauntless-conscien-

tious personality pattern - although it was found

irrelevant to the Political Suitability Score - cor-

related negatively with the impression of politi-

cal suitability as well, indicating that a political

candidate should rather be displaying a consci-

entious personality pattern instead of a daunt-

less one.

Despite the shortcomings discussed above,

the most powerful personality predictor result-

ing into a politician being perceived as politi-

cally suitable was the outgoing-retiring person-

ality pattern. The more outgoing a politician is

perceived, the more politically suitable he or she

comes across. Overall, the components of the

Political Personality Index accounted for 17% of

the Political Suitability Score. These conclusions

might be indicating that the interpretation of the

presumed politically relevant personality pat-

terns as furthered by this political psychology

interpretation should be reconsidered. None-

theless, the Political Personality Index is account-

ing for a signiﬁcant part of the impression of

political suitability. Especially the personality

pattern of outgoingness (personal charisma) seems

to be translating into impressions of political

suitability.

adResearch_4_lib.indb 77 02/06/11 12:16

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 4 Vol 4 · Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2011 (Pág. 64 a 79)

Bibliography

Aldrich, J., Gronke, P., & Grynaviski, J. (1999). Policy, per-

sonality and Presidential Performance. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Associa-

tion, Chicago, April 15-18, 1999.

Allport, G., & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait-names: A Psycho-

Lexical Study, Psychological Monographs, 47, 211.

Caprara, G., & Perugini, M. (1994). Personality Described

by Adjectives: Generalizability of the Big Five the Italian

Lexical context, European Journal of Personality, 8, 357-369.

Caprara, G., Calo, G., & Barbaranelli, C. (1997). Le Deter-

minanti dell’intenzione di votto : Un contributo empirico

[The Determiants of voter intentions : An empirical Contri-

bution], Micro e Macro Marketing, 6, 273-301.

Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1999). Perso-

nality Proﬁles and Political Parties, Political Psychology, 20,

175-196.

Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., & Zimbardo, P. (2002). When

Parsimony Subdues Distinctiveness: Simpliﬁed Public Per-

ceptions of Politician’s Personalities, Political Psychology,

23/1, 77-95.

Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The Neo Personality Inven-

tory Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa,

FL.

De Landtsheer, C. (2004). Politiek impressiemanagement in

Vlaanderen en Nederland [Political Impression Management

in Flanders and the Netherlands]. Leuven: Acco.

De Landtsheer, C., Thijssen, P., & Immelman, A. (2004). De

Persoonlijkheid van de politieke overwinnaar [The perso-

nality of the winning politician]. In C. De Landtsheer (Ed.),

Politiek impressiemanagement in Vlaanderen en Nederland

[Political Impression Management in Flanders and the Ne-

therlands]. Leuven: Acco, 151-167.

De Vries, P. (2007). Candidate Image in Belgian Politics.

Doctoral Thesis, University of Antwerp.

Hoffman, B. (2009). Charismatic Authority and Leadership

Change: Lessons from Cuba’s Post Fidel Succession. Inter-

national Political Science Review, 30/3, 229-248.

Immelman, A. (1998). The political personalities of 1996

U.S. presidential candidates Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, Lea-

dership Quarterly, 9, 335-366.

Immelman, A. (1999). Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria

manual (2nd ed.). Collegeville, MN: St. John’s University.

Immelman, A. (2002). The political personality of U.S. pre-

sidential candidate George W. Bush. In O. Feldman &

L. O. Valenty (Eds.), Political leadership for the new century:

Personality and behavior among American leaders. Westport,

CT: Greenwood Press.

Immelman, A. (2003). Personality in Political Psychology.

In T. Millon & M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology,

New York: Wiley, 599-625.

Immelman, A. & Beatty, A. (2004). The political personality

of U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry. Paper presented at the

28th Annual Scientiﬁc Meeting of The International Society

of Political Psychology, Toronto Canada.

Kassimeris, Christos & Philaretou (2010). Andreas G. Pla-

ying Politics with Charisma: Archbishop Makarios III and the

Cyprus Issue. Politics, Culture and Socialization, 1/4: 41-62.

Kinder, D.R., Abelson, R, & Fiske, S.T. (1979). Developmen-

tal Research on Candidate Instrumentation. Results and Recom-

mendations. Report submitted to the NES board of over-

seers. Ann Arbor: NI, Center for Political Studies,

University of Michigan.

Millon, T. (1969). Modern psychopathology: A biosocial appro-

ach to maladaptive learning and functioning. Philadelphia:

W.B. Saunders.

Millon, T., & Everly, G.S. (1985). Personality and its Disor-

ders: A biosocial learning approach. New York: Wiley.

Millon, T. (1986). Personality Prototypes and their Diagnos-

tic Criteria. In T. Millon, & G.L. Klerman (Eds.), Contempo-

rary directions in psychopathology: Towards the DSM-IV, New

York: Guilford, 671-712.

Millon, T. (1990). Toward a new Personlogy: An Evolutionary

Model. New York: Wiley.

Millon, T., Weiss, L.G., Millon, C.M., & Davis, R.D. (1994).

Millon Index of Personality Styles Manual. San Antonio, TX:

Psychological Corporation.

Millon, T., & Davis, R.D. (1996). Disorders of Personality :

DSM-IV and beyond. New York: Wiley.

Millon, T., & Davis, R.D. (2000). Personality Disorders in

Modern life. New York: Wiley.

adResearch_4_lib.indb 78 02/06/11 12:16

The centrality of political personality to political suitability, a matter of charisma? (Pág. 64 a 79)

Newman, L.S., & Uleman, J.S. (1989). Spontaneous trait

inference. In J.S. Umleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended

thought, New York: Guilford, 155-188.

Newman, B (1994). The Marketing of the President: Political

Marketing as Campaign Strategy. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pu-

blications.

Popper, M. (2002). Narcissism and Attachment Patterns of

Personalized and Socialized Charismatic Leaders. In Journal

of Social & Personal Relationships, 19, pp. 797-809.

Pierce, P.A. (1993). Political sophistication and the use of

candidate traits in candidate evaluation, Political Psychology,

14, 21-35.

Rahn, W.M., Aldrich, J.H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J.L.

(1990). A social cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In

J.A. Ferejohn & J.H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and de-

mocratic processes, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press,

136-159.

Van Zoonen, L., & Holz-Bacha (2000). Personalisation in

Dutch and German Politics: The Case of Talk Show, The

Public, 7/2, 45-56.

Winter, D.G. (2003). Assessing Leaders’ Personalities: A

Historical Survey of Academic Research Studies. In J. Post

(Ed.), The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders, Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 11-38.

Winter, D.G. (2004). Personality And Political Behavior. In D.

Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Politi-

cal Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 110-145.

adResearch_4_lib.indb 79 02/06/11 12:16