POLI SCI 215

INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY:

A POLITICAL LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVE

Professor Donald Searing Office Hours: T: 1.00-2.00

319 Hamilton Hall Spring 2019 Wed: 1.00- 2.00 and by appt

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who
possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the
society, and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them
virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust

James Madison

The virtues about which James Madison speaks are character traits he believed desirable
for political leaders. They are motivations and skills that contribute to good government
by helping to preserve and promote liberal democratic regimes. Their opposites are civic
vices. And all these character traits are either psychological or psychologically driven.
They thereby provide a pathway to introducing the interdisciplinary subject of political
psychology, which uses concepts, theories and findings from the science of psychology to
help us understand and explain political life.

The principal goal of this course is both normative and empirical. We will draw upon
political theory and social and cognitive psychology to: (a) identify key character traits
by which politicians ought reasonably to be judged, (b) investigate their psychological
structure and dynamics, (c) explore their origins in pre-career and institutional learning,
and (d) examine their consequences for the functions we expect liberal democratic
leaders to perform: regime building, governing, accountability and representation. In
particular, the course will analyze ambition and power, integrity and public duty, political
judgment, skills and handicaps, and the learning of character traits. Note that this is a
course in political science, i.e., our goal is not primarily to address theories in psychology
but rather to use theories and concepts from psychology to help explain political thinking
and behavior.

09 January
Orientation

[Choose Book Chapter]

[Begin Reading Archer]

16 January
Character Traits, Skills and Roles in Studies of American Presidents
We will explore how the concept of “character trait” has been used in political science
and how it might best be operationalized for analyses in political psychology. Note that
the character traits we propose to study are usually embedded in institutional contexts and
activated by situations. To illustrate the application of the trait approach, we will examine
several studies of American Presidents.

[Assign Book Chapters]

Northouse on the trait approach in leadership studies

Winter on personality and trait psychology
McCrae and Costa on the Five Factor Theory of Personality

Readings:
McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Costa Jr. 2010. “The Five Factor Theory of Personaity.”
In Oliver P. John and Richard W. Robins (eds). Handbook of Personality (Guilford) 159-
79. [Sakai]
McAdams, Dan P. 2011. George W. Bush and the Redemptive Dream (Oxford) [Intro,
Chap 1]
Simonton, Dean Keith. 2006. “Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance….”
Political Psychology, 71 [511-26] [UNC Libraries Search]
Lilienfeld and Watts. 2013. Narcissism and Presidents. Psychological Science 24 2379-89
[Sakai]
Northouse, Peter G. 2004. Leadership Theory and Practice (Sage) Chaps [2,3] [Sakai]
Barber, James David. 1992. The Presidential Character (Longman) Chaps [1, 5] [Sakai]

AMBITION AND NEEDS FOR POWER, STATUS, ACHIEVEMENT

23 January
The Desire for Office: To Be or To Do?
Ambition’s core is the desire for high office. Its admirable dimension desires the office
primarily to benefit citizens through policies and institutional reforms. This is associated
with needs for achievement. Ambition’s undesirable dimension is seeking high office
primarily to benefit oneself. This is associated with needs for power and status.
Ambition may be rooted in personality dispositions, but it can be modified by the
structures of opportunity that politicians encounter in their careers. What types of
ambition are evident in the characters in Archer’s novel? And how are these modified by
their experiences in their careers? And what role does ambition play among the vivid
character traits on display in the DVD case study?

2
Introduction to Ambition
Schlesinger on Structures of Opportunity
Defining and Measuring Ambition

Readings:
Meserve, Pemstein and Bernhard. 2009. “Political Ambition and Legislative Behavior in
the European Parliament.” Journal of Politics, 71 [1015-32] [UNC Libraries Search]
Archer, Jeffrey 1984. First Among Equals (Free Press) [All]
Jalalzal, Farida, “A Comparative Assessment of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential
Race.” Socius, 4, 1-11 [UNC Libraries Search].

DVD:
Frost/Nixon (2 hrs)

30 January
Ambition, Narcissism, and Hubris
Narcissism is a character trait often associated with the ambition “To Be.” Hubris is a
pathological modification to ambition that develops as a consequence of ego-inflating
career experiences. Theories of hubris are associated with the idea that “power corrupts.”
What sort of narcissism and hubris do you see in the DVD of Richard III? Does he
become increasingly corrupt as his institutional power grows? In what ways does power
corrupt? What are the psychological and behavioral outcomes? And what are the
learning mechanisms?

The best-known theory about the motivations that drive political ambition explains this
striving as a compensation for damaged self-esteem. This is the core of the famous
psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson by George and George. Do you see any signs of
this compensatory striving in the DVD of Richard III?

Lasswell on Richard III

David Owen on Hubris
Narcissistic Leadership
Dobel on How Power Corrupts

Readings:
George and George. 1964. Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Study.
(Dover) Chaps [1, 3] [Sakai]
George and George. 1964. Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Study.
(Dover) Chaps 7, 14&15 [Sakai]
Dobel, J. Patrick 1999. Public Integrity (Johns Hopkins) Chap [2].
Rosenthal and Pittinsky. 2006. “Narcissistic Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 17,
617-33 [UNC Libraries Search]

3
McAdams, Dan P. 2016. “The Mind of Donald Trump.” The Atlantic Monthly, June [1-
21] [UNC Libraries Search] [Google]

DVD:
Richard III (1 hr 44 min)

06 February
Power, Authority and Career Politicians
The desire for office (political ambition’s core) may be malleable in reaction to the
politician’s changing positions in the structure of opportunities. But the motives that are
associated with this ambition may be comparatively steadfast and, to some degree,
grounded in genes and biology. Authority is more common than power in the political
world, and its exercise and grip are more subtle.

The Milgram Experiments

Readings:
Madsen, Douglas 1986. “A Biochemical Property Relating to Power Seeking in
Humans.” American Political Science Review 79: 448-557. [UNC Libraries Search];
Madsen, Douglas 1986. “Power Seekers are different: Further Biochemical Evidence.”
American Political Science Review 80: 261-69 [UNC Libraries Search].

King, Anthony. 1981. “The Rise of the Career Politician and its Consequences.” British
Journal of Political Science, 11, 249-85 [UNC Libraries Search]
Searing, Donald D., Nicholas Allen and Gabriele Magni. 2017. “What is a Career
Politician? Theories, Concepts and Measures.” [Sakai]
Mason and Stewart. 30 June 2016. “Gove’s Thunderbolt and Boris’s Breaking Point: A
shocking Tory Morning.” The Guardian [Google]
Cohen, Nick. 26 March 2016. Boris Johnson: Liar, Con Man – and Prime Minister.” The
Guardian [Google]
McGillis, Alec. 19 February 2016. “Why is Mitch McConnell Picking this Fight?” New
York Times [Google]

Barber, James David 1992. The Presidential Character (Longman) Chap [3] [Sakai]
Searing, Donald D. 1995. The Psychology of Political Authority: A Causal
Mechanism of Political Learning Through Persuasion and Manipulation. Political
Psychology, 16: [477-96]. [UNC Libraries Search]

DVD
The Milgram Experiments Re-created (35 min.)

POLITICAL INTEGRITY AND PUBLIC DUTY

4
13 February
Integrity and the Problem of Dirty Hands
Are the ethics of good government different from the ethics of everyday life? Machiavelli
famously said “yes” and Thomas Jefferson “no.” The range of appropriate conduct for
integrity is difficult to see because nearly all the time, and at different levels of
awareness, political leaders work with “dirty hands.” Integrity has been related to the
“Big Five” personality traits of conscientiousness and emotional stability. And
Machiavellianism has been measured and studied in both the laboratory and the field.

Introduction to Integrity
Defining and Measuring Integrity
Jeremy Corbin: Walzer’s “Errant Saint?”

Readings:
Michael Walzer 1973. Political Action: the Problem of Dirty Hands. Philosophy and
Public Affairs 2: [160-80]. [UNC Libraries Search]
Mendus, Susan 2009. Politics and Morality (Polity), Chaps: Intro, [1,2,3], 5
Palanski, Michael E. and Francis J. Yammarino. 2007. “Integrity and Leadership:
Clearing the Conceptual Confusion.” European Management Journal 25, 171-84 [UNC
Libraries Search]
Cohen, Nick. 25 June 2016. “There are Liars and then There’s Boris Johnson and Michael
Gove.” The Guardian [Google]

20 February
Integrity: Psychological Regulators and Role Expectations
In the DVD case study, how does Robert McNamara answer the question, “Are the ethics
of good government different from the ethics of everyday life? Is Pinker’s “Moral
Instinct” an effective regulator? How can role expectations overcome moral instincts? Is
the social psychology of the process the same for financial corruption?

Pinker’s Moral Instinct

Airely on Rationalizations and Reference Groups

Readings:
Dobel, J. Patrick 1999. Public Integrity (Johns Hopkins) [Chaps 1&3].

DVD:
The Fog of War (1hr 47 min)

27 February
Public Integrity

MIDTERM EXAMINATION

5
Readings:
Dobel, J. Patrick 1999. Public Integrity (Johns Hopkins) Chap 5&6, 7, [9].

POLITICAL JUDGMENT: THE DANGERS OF DISTORTIONS

06 March
Good Political Judgment: Facets and Foundations
Aristotle defined good political judgment (“practical wisdom”) as a capability for
comprehending and constructing the well being of the political community, the common
good. It involves thinking contextually about policies and institutions that will serve the
general interest. He further described this type of judgment as knowing the right thing to
do without arriving at it by a process of deliberative analysis – a wisdom based on
expertise acquired through experience which does not require the formulation of general
principles, a mode of thinking that is firmly aimed at taking action. Good judgment has
been investigated by cognitive and social psychologists like Philip Tetlock. One of its
most common distortions occurs through analogical reasoning.

Introduction to Good Political Judgment

Defining and Measuring Good Political Judgment

Readings:
Tetlock, Philip. 1992. Good Judgment in International Politics: Three Psychological
Perspectives. Political Psychology 13: [517-39]. [UNC Libraries Search]
Khong, Yuen 1992. Analogies at War (Princeton) Chaps [1], [2], 5, 7, [8].

DVD
Tetlock on Tetlock (1 hour)

(SPRING BREAK: FRI 08 MARCH – MON 18 MARCH)

20 March
Judgment’s Pathologies: Groupthink and Others
The general interest, which trumps the interests of interest groups, social classes, and
even constituents, differs in different times and places depending on the wants and needs
of the citizenry and considerations of fairness and legitimacy. It addresses the well-being
of all citizens and may most easily be discerned in highly-focused foreign policy
decisions. And yet this arena of decision-making can be particularly susceptible to the
distortions of groupthink. The DVD case study informs us about what groupthink is by
showing us what it is not. Forget the bombs and bullets. Pay careful attention instead to

6
how the decision-making groups are being constituted, to how the expression of diverse
views is encouraged and closure discouraged, and to who is influencing whom.

Janis on Groupthink

Readings:
Janis, Irving L. (1992). (2nd ed) Groupthink (Houghton Mifflin) Chaps [1, 10, 11] 2, 4, 6
King, Anthony and Ivor Crewe. 2013. The Blunders of Our Governments. (Oneworld)
[Chaps 1-4, 14]

DVD:
Thirteen Days (2hrs 27 min)

27 March

(TERM PAPER DUE – PENALITIES FOR LATENESS)

High Quality Decision Making

The general interest and the most effective strategies for reaching it are difficult to see
because, as Harold Lasswell observed, politicians are often disposed to “displace their
private motives on public objects and rationalize their behavior in terms of the public
good.” It is also difficult to see through the psychological refractions created by
analogical reasoning, by risk-averse and risk-acceptant dispositions (prospect theory),
and through various cognitive and motivated biases (eg, motivated reasoning).
Nevertheless, high quality decision making can be accomplished as illustrated in Barber’s
analyses of FDR’s performance and in King and Crewe’s chapters.

Readings:
Barber, James David 1992. The Presidential Character. 4th ed (Prentice Hall) Chap [9].
King, Anthony and Ivor Crewe. 2013. The Blunders of Our Governments. (Oneworld)
Chaps [16-19], 22&23, 25&26.

DVD:
Yes Minister (30-60 min)

POLITICAL SKILLS AND POLITICAL HANDICAPS

03 April
Regime Building and Deconstruction: Rhetoric, Charisma, Demagogues, and
Illiberal Democracies

7
Protection and promotion of a country’s liberal democratic values is the most important
leadership duty. When the attitudes and actions of politicians undermine their democratic
regime’s fundamental principles they are doing the greatest damage they can do.
Charisma and rhetoric can serve the public good but they also have a dark side where
they serve primarily the politician or groups with which the politician is associated.
Effective charisma and rhetoric are highly context dependent: interactive performances
that “connect” with publics in some times and places fall flat in others. This is illustrated
by our DVD case study of Huey Long. Pay special attention to his relationships with his
close aides and with the general public. How do they regard him? What do they think he
can do for them? Why are they willing to follow his lead? Both charisma and rhetoric
communicate visions to the public and win its support, but in doing so the civic virtue
relies more on political education and treats citizens with respect, while the vice favors
manipulation and regards citizens as objects.

Weber on Charisma
Bellig on Rhetoric
Propaganda
Liberalism and Liberal Democracy
Demagogues and Illiberal Democracies

DVD
Huey Long (1hr 28 min)

Readings:
Billig, Michael. 2003. “Political Rhetoric,” In Sears, Huddy and Jervis, Oxford
Handbook of Political Psychology. (Oxford) [Chap 7] [Sakai]
Pratkanis, Anthony R. and Elliot Aronson. 2001. The Age of Propaganda. (Holt) Preface
and Chap1. [Sakai]
Stanley, Jason. 2015. How Propaganda Works. (Princeton) Chap 2. [Sakai]
Simons, Herbert W. 2000. “A Dilemma-Centered Analysis of Clinton’s August 17th
Apologia: Implications for Theory and Method” Quarterly Journal of Speech 86, 438-53
[UNC Libraries Search]
Neumann, Sigmund. 1938. “The Rule of the Demagogue” American Sociological Review
3 [487-498] [UNC Libraries Search]
Stanley, Jason. 2018. How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Chap 1.[Sakai]
Levitsky, Steven and Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. “This is How Democracies Die.” The
Guardian 21 January 2018. [Google]
Frum, David. 2018. “America’s Slide Toward Autocracy.” The Atlantic (October 2018)
[UNC Libraries Search] [Google]
Zalan, Eszter. 11 January 2016. “How to Build and Illiberal Democracy in the EU.” EU
Observer [Google]
deBellaigue, Christopher. 30 August 2016. “Welcome to Demokrasi: How Erdogan got
More Popular than Ever.” The Guardian [Google]
Snyder, Timothy. 18 August 2017. “The Test of Nazism That Trump Failed.” New York
Times [Google]

8
10 April
Skills and Job Performance
J.S. Mill believed it essential that liberal democratic leaders seek out, listen to, and
consider seriously diverse opinions about policy issues. The social psychologist Milton
Rokeach was one of the first to clarify and measure open-mindedness. He constructed
scales for its vice: dogmatic and rigid thinking. More recently, Kuglanski has shown that
people who score high on need for closure systematically ignore important diagnostic and
relevant evidence. Langer and Winter explore motivational bases of willingness to
compromise. And in Barber’s study of American Presidents we find many examples of
closed-mindedness and its consequences in decision-making. The McAdam’s reading
provides a preface to next week’s topic of learning character traits and ideologies.

Rokeach on Open-Mindedness
Kuglanski on Closed-Mindedness
Barber’s Examples of Closed-Mindedness Chaps 2-5
Rules of the Game (March and Olsen)

Readings:
Kruglanski et al. 2005. “Motivated Closed-Mindedness and creativity in Small Groups.”
Small Group Research 36 [59-85] [UNC Libraries Search]
Langer and Winter. 2001. “The Motivational Basis of Concessions and Compromise:
Archival and Laboratory Studies.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 711-
27 [UNC Libraries Search]
McAdams, Dan P. 2011. George W. Bush and the Redemptive Dream (Oxford) [Chap 2;
Chap 4]

LEARNING IDEOLOGIES, CHARACTER TRAITS, AND SKILLS

17 April
Private Experiences, Career Experiences, and Ideology

What is a Political Ideology?

A Theory of Politicians’ Socialization
Political Learning and Political Careers
Leadership Virtues and Vices Revisited

Readings:
Freeden, Michael. 1996. Ideologies and Political Theory. (Oxford) [Chap 2] [Sakai]
Caprara, Gian Vittorio et al. 2010. “Personality Foundations of Ideological Divide: A
Comparison of Women Members of Parliament and Women Voters in Italy.” Political
Psychology 31, 739-62 [UNC Libraries Search]

9
Searing, Donald D. “A Theory of Politicians’ Socialization.” British Journal of Political
Science 16, [341-76] [UNC Libraries Searh]
Searing, Jacoby and Tyner. 2016. “The Political Values of Politicians: A Panel Study Over
Four Decades.” [Sakai]
Brown, Archie. 2014. The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in Modern
Politics. (Basic Books) [Chap 8] [Sakai]

24 April (Study for Final Exam)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR LEADING CLASS DISCUSSIONS OF BOOK

CHAPTERS AND ARTICLES

These exercises are definitely not “book reports.” You should assume that we have all
read your chapter or article, i.e., you should definitely not summarize it. Instead, the task
is to bring to class approximately eight questions that you think capture the main points
the author is trying to make, questions that also capture how the author’s points (or your
own) fit into the themes of our course. These eight questions should be printed out on
sheets of paper to be distributed to the class at the beginning of your discussion. Note
that the point is to create a lively and informative 15-20 minute discussion, which is
not so easy to do, but we will all help out.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

IN GENERAL. Each student will: (a) Lead at least one class discussion of assigned
articles or book chapters; (b) Complete the midterm and final examinations; (c) Complete
the term paper. Please note that this discussion course is “unplugged,” i.e., turn off all
computers, PDAs, phones, pagers, or other electronic devices during class meetings. If
you need to use a computer because of a disability issue, please ask at the beginning of
the semester.

To avoid partisan overtones and undertones in this class, I would much prefer to analyze
only non-American politicians. Unfortunately, most of the work in political psychology
focuses on American politicians, often Presidents. When we discuss these politicians,
therefore, we are going to park our political party preferences outside the classroom door
and focus on all politicians as individual human beings, as psychological actors, not as
Republicans, Democrats or anything else connected with partisanship.

10
CLASS PARTICIPATION. Since this is a discussion class, where we will learn about our
subject through discussion, attendance and participation are required. If, for any reason,
a student misses three or more classes he or she will be unable to pass the course.
Moreover, class participation includes performance in leading the class discussions,
which, along with general class participation will, together, count as 10% of the final
grade.

READINGS. We won’t have time to review all the readings from which I would like you
to learn about important concepts and theories. You are therefore urged to take careful
notes on the major points in all the assigned readings and be prepared for questions on
them on the mid- term and final examinations. This is an important part of the course
because learning to learn on your own is a very important part of a university education.

TERM PAPER. This 10 page essay (Due 27 March - penalties for lateness) will count as
20% of the final grade. Topic: Use our class readings on political ambition to analyze the
political career of the English politician Boris Johnson. Focus on the distinction between
seeking power primarily “To Do” and seeking power primarily “To Be.”

MID TERM EXAMINATION. The mid-term examination (27 Feb. in class) will consist
of essays on topics and readings that we have discussed in class and short answer
questions on readings we haven’t. It will count as 35% of the final grade.

FINAL EXAMINATION. The final examination (Tuesday May 7 at 8am) will consist of
short answer questions on topics and readings that we have discussed in class, and short
answer questions on readings we haven’t, covering our work after the mid-term. It will
count as 35% of the final grade.

UNC HONOR CODE. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has had a
student-administered honor system and judicial system for over 100 years. If you have
questions about your responsibility under the honor code, please bring them to your
instructor or consult with the office of the Dean of Students or the Instrument of Student
Judicial Governance. This document, adopted by the Chancellor, the Faculty Council, and
the Student Congress, contains all policies and procedures pertaining to the student honor
system. Your full participation and observance of the honor code is expected. The
“Instrument” defines plagiarism as “deliberate or reckless representation of another’s
words, thoughts, or ideas as one’s own without attribution in connection with submission
of academic work, whether graded or otherwise.”

Last day to add: January 15

Last day to drop: January 23

11