Henry Kissinger's implicit theory of personality:A quantitative case study

Southworth Wells Swede and Philip E Tettock, University ofCalifornia, Berkley

Abstract

Rosenberg and Jones' (1972) methodology for extrachng personality descrip-tions from archival matenals was adapted to study Henry Kissinger's percep-bons of pohbcal leaders Content analysis of Kissinger's White House Yearsyielded 3,759 trait descnptions of 38 salient leaders To discover how Kissmgerorganized his trait descnptions, the co-occurrences among the 106 most fre-quently used trait categones were analyzed by (1) pnncipal components analy-sis of tetrachonc correlahons, (2) cluster analysis of Euclidean distances, and (3)nonmetnc multidimensional scalmg of profile distances Across all three meas-ures of association and groupmg algorithms, five consistent personality themesemerged—"professional anguish," "ambitious patnobsm," "revolubonary great-ness," "intellectual sophisbcabon," and "reahsbc friendship " Scales consbnictedfbr the five sets of traits had adequate alpha reliabihbes The profiles ofthe fivescales for each leader revealed systematic individual di£Ferences m leaders' per-ceived personalities Cluster analysis of these individual di£Ferences identifiednme leader types Kissmger, Chou En-Iai and Georges Pompidou were suflB-ciently distinctive to define separate leader types Other types included theRevolutionary, the Patriot, the Personal Fnend, the Professional Fnend, theAhle Adversary and the Professional Competitor Imphcabons for theory and fu-ture research were discussed

Impliat personality tlreory refers to an individual's everyday behefeabout personality (Rosenberg, 1977, Rosenberg & Sedlak, 1972) Thisbehef system mcludes the traits or attnbutes that the individual per-ceives as chfu-actenstic of both selfand others, as well as the behefs thatthe individual holds about the interrelations among these traits (Bniner

For their suggesbons, help and encouragement, we wish to thank Michael Borello,Kenneth Cnulc, Wilham Meredith, Crsug Peerenboom, Chnsta Peters, Beth Prather,Rit Stewart, Barbara Lester Swede, Howard Terry, and John Tisak ofthe Departmentof PsycluAjgy, and Richard Mclntosh and Brad Palmquist of the Computer-assistedSurvey Mett»d$ Program at the University of California, Bericeley Requests ios re-pints shmild be sent to Dr Phihp E Tetlock, Institute of Personahty Assessment andResearch, 3657 Tdman Halt, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

Journal (f Personality 54 4, December 1986 Copyright © 1986 by Duke UmversityPress«X3 0^2-3506/86/$! 50

618 Swede and Tetiock

& Tagiuri, 1954, Cronbach, 1955, Schneider, Hastorf, & Ellsworth,1979)

Controversy surrounds many aspects of the study of implicit person-ality tlffiory Disagreement exists not only over the number of basic di-mensions underlying individuals' trait perceptions (Goldberg, 1982), butalso over the appropnateness of seeking dimensional representations ofimplicit theories ofpersonality (Cantor & Mischel, 1979, Rosenberg,1977, Tversky, 1977) Disagreement ako exists over the appropnatenessof relymg on group or aggregate data for constructing valid psychologicalmodels of person perception Substantial evidence indicates that psycho-logical models that fit group data well may receive httle support at theindividual level (Kim & Rosenberg, 1980) Idiographic analyses of indi-vidual respondents are needed m order to lay a sound basis for inductivegeneralizations conceming implicit theones of personahty

The current study investigates the lmpbcit theory ofpersonality of amajor contemporary pohbcal figure former Assistant to tbe President forNational Secunty and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger Previous casestudies of Kissinger's behef system lead us to expect him to possess un-usually complex and multifaceted impressions of others (cf Walker,1977) Systematic analysis of Kissmger's lmpbcit theory of personalitythus provides an opportunity for an especially stnngent test ofthe appli-cabihty of existing psycbological models to an individual case Kissin-ger's implicit personality theory is, moreover, of great intrinsic mterestHis memoirs (1979, 1982) abound witb detailed descnptions of keydecision-makers m the foreign policy establishments of a wide range ofnations Understanding Kissin^r's implicit tbeory of personahty may ul-timately contnbute to a fuDer understandii^ of tbe policies be helped tofeshion between 1969 and 1976

Metbodologically, tbe present investigation follows tbe lead of Rosen-berg and Jones (1972), wbo demonstrated tbe feasibility of extractingpersonality descnptions from archivd matenals and statistically model-ing these descnptions In an ingenious study, tbese investigates per-formed a content analysis of Theodore Dreiser's "fictionalized" depic-tions of individuals m The Gallery af Women Measures of tbe frequencyof co-occurrence of trait terms were subjected to multidimensicmal scal-n ^ and cluster analysis in order to discover Dreiser's underlying percep-tual stnrcture

We bave adapted tbe Rosenberg and Jcmes metbocklogy to tbe analy-sis of descnptions of wwld leaders contamed in Kissinger's (1979) WhiteHouse %crs We were particularly interested in ejq[>loring tbree possibleways m whicb Kissinger migbt bave organized bis trait <fescnptions (1)His descnptions may bave been structured around a number of rela-tively lndepemient hipdsr trait dimensicms of judgment (Scott, Osgood,

Kissinger's implicit personality theory 619

& Peterson, 1979), (2) bis descriptions may bave been structured bymembersbip in bierarcbical, nonoverlapping trait clusters (Tversky,1977), and (3) bis descnptions may bave been structured by groups oftraits wbicb bad greater or lesser degrees of similarity witb eacb otber(Romney, Sbepard, & Nerlove, 1972, Sbepard, Romney, & Nerlove,1972) Eacb of tbese conceptual models requires a different statisticalestimation procedure (1) principal components analysis of tetracbonccorrelations (Harman, 1976, Mulaik, 1972), (2) cluster analysis of Eucbd-ean distances (Sneatb & Sokal, 1973), and (3) nonmetnc multidimen-sional scaling of profile distances (Kruskal & Wisb, 1978, Romney et al ,1972, Sbepard, Romney, & Nerlove, 1972)

Eacb metbod makes different assumptions conceming tbe nature oftbe data being analyzed and uses different statistical algontbms for iden-tifying tbe underlying structure in tbe data Our working assumption intbis study IS tbat no compeUmg logical or empincal grounds exist for pre-femng one estimation procedure to anotber We do believe, bowever,tbat reliance on different measures of association and multivanategrouping algontbms provides a more solid basis for identifying tbe un-derlying structure in Kissmger's perceptions tban would reliance on anyone measure or metbod Confidence m our conclusions sbould be en-banced to tbe degree tbat tbose conclusions bold up across very differentanalytic procedures

In addition to explonng altemabve structural models of tbe lnten-ela-tions among trait descnptions, it is tbeoretically and bistoncally inter-esting to discover tbe ways m wbicb Kissinger used tbese trait descnp-tions to differentiate among leaders Profiles of leaders' scores onpersonality tbemes identified m Kissinger's lmphcit tbeory can be usedto identify perceived similanties and differences among individual lead-ers Cluster analysis of dissimilanty scores computed from leader per-sonality profiles can be used to discover tbe implicit categones or typesinto wiach Kissmger grouped world leaders

In summary, tbis study bas several goals to identify tbe sabent leadersin Kissmger's White House Years, to identify bis trait descnptions oftbese leaders, to discover bis lmpbcit organization of trait descnptions,to discover bow be used sets of related traits to differentiate among par-bcular world leaders, and to discover bis lmpbcit leader types Eacb oftbese analyses explores disbnct but interrelated components of Kissin-ger's implicit personabty tbeory of pobbcal leaders

Method

Idertt^catwn of Most Sahent Leaders

TTie first step m tks amtent analysis of WhOe House Years was to lctenbfyevery {mragrai^ in which Kissmger described a personal charactensbc of a

620 Swede and Tetlock

world leader There were personal descnpbons of 229 leaders from 34 countnesLeaders from the United States were the largest national group (107), followedby the Soviet Union (21), People's Republic of Chma (12), France (10), UnitedKmgdom (9), South Vietnam (7), North Viebiam (6), and Italy (6)

The 229 leaders represented approximately 72 different public roles Themost frequent roles were ambassador (31), president (16), general (13), pnmemmister (12), cabinet secretary (12), adviser (includmg aide, attache, charge,confidante) (10), foreign mmister (8), Nabonal Secunty Council stafiFmember (8),joumahst (7), party leader (7), senator (6), assistant to the president (5), and cab-met undersecretary (5)

TTie great majonty of the 229 leaders were only bnefiy descnbed by Kissin-ger After lnspecbng the descnpbons of each of the leaders, we decided thatfifteen paragraphs of descnpbon were necessary to provide enough personahtymformabon to form an individual portrait of a leader Thirty-eight leaders weredescnbed in fifteen or more paragraphs and were selected for further codingThese leaders represented 16 6% of all the leaders, but the 4,302 descnpbveparagraphs about these leaders represented 874% of all the descnpbve para-graphs on leaders Table 1 reports the name, country, formal role, and numberof paragraphs of descnpbon for each ofthe salient leaders

Identtficatton qf Trait Descrtpttons

Traits were defined as endunng, mtemal personal charactensbcs A set ofrules was devised for the ldentificabon and coding of trait descnptuHis Theserules were based on Rosenberg and Jones' (1972) rules, but were expanded andrevised m several significant respects ' In bnef, the coding rules were (1) onlyKissinger's trait descnpbrais ofthe 38 salient leaders were coded, (2) raily directand specific references to leaders were coded, but not references to leaders' pos-sessions or products, hypothebcal descnpbons, or ambiguous referents, (3) allpersonal descnpbve nouns, adjecbves, adverbs, verbs, and idioms were codedvi th clanfymg modifiers, and (4) all informal (but not formal) role descnptxmswereajded

Based on this set of rules, four trained judges coded White House Years, iden-tifying every trait descnpbon of the 38 leaders Inteijudge reliability estimateswere made for 50 pages of text TTiere was, on average, 76 3% agreement be-tween judges m the ldentificabon of trait descnptums There were 3,759 sepa-rate trait descnpbons for the 38 leaders Table 1 reports the number of trait de-scnpbons ascnbed to each ofthe sahent leaders

Grouping Descrtpttons into Categories

A "ckscnpbve category" was defined as a set of cfescnpticms using the samekey-word and with the same semantic meaning, but possibly with different pre-fiixes, su£Bxes, and/or modifiers Posibve and negabve descnpbcms were cate-gon^d separately For mstanoe, the posibve trait category for "able" was based

1 Fbr a mare detailed report ofthe methods and results of this study, see our tech-mcal rep<Mts (Swede & Tetlock, 1985a, 1985b)

Kissinger's implicit personality theory 621

on the key-word "-ab-", and included the following trait descnptions "abilibes,""abihty," "able," "abler," "ablest," and "ably" The negabve trait category basedon "-ab-" mcluded "unable," "inability," and "disability"

Different descnptions with the same key-word, meaning, and evaluabve di-recbon were grouped together in frequency counts ofthe key-word's associatedcategory Kissinger used 106 trait categones more than seven bmes (Table 2),accounting for 43 0% of all trait descnptions of all salient leaders Further anal-yses focused on these 106 trait categones

Dichotomous Measures of Trait Categories

Trait descnpbons were ascnbed to leaders with different frequencies Thesefrequencies refiected at least two infiuences—the number of paragraphs Kissm-ger used to descnbe a leader, and the extent to which Kissmger perceived thata trait descnbed a leader To mmimize the mfiuence ofthe length of descnptionof a leader on the descnpbon ofthe personality of a leader, we used a dichoto-mous measure of traits For mstance, if the trait "able" was ascnbed five bmesto one leader and once to another leader, both leaders were assigned a score of1 If the trait "able" was never ascnbed to a leader, the leader was assigned ascore of 0 Dichotomous scores were constructed for each of the 106 most fre-quently ascnbed trait categones for each of the 38 most frequently descnbedleaders

Indices qf Trait Assoctatum

To discover the underlying structure of Kissinger's trait descnpbons, threeindices of associabon were used with three common groupmg algonthms Thetetrachonc correlation coefficient (Elderton, 1953, Glass & Stanley, 1970) wasused m {Hincipal components analysis The average squared Euclidean distance(Sneath &c Sokal, 1973) was used m cluster analysis And the profile distance(Rosenberg & Jones, 1972) was used in nonmetnc multidimensional scalingEach mdex makes different assumptions about the dichotomous data To the ex-tent that the different mdices (and the different grouping algonthms) lead tosimilar conclusions about the underlying structure of the data, the more confi-dence we can have m those conclusions

Results

Pnnapal Components Analysts of Tetrachonc Correlations

Pnncipal components analysis was perftMined on tbe tetracbonc cor-relations among 106 trait categones After vanmax rotabon, eacb of tbefirst five components bad at least eigbt traits loading more bigbly on ittban on any otber component A sixtb component bad only two sucbtraits and was dropped from our analysis TTie five-component solubonMxxwnted £or 70% of tbe total vanance m tbe 106 trait categones, andeacb of tbe camp(ments accounted for more tban 9% of tbe total van-ance Sixty-eigbt of tbe traits could be unambiguously assigned to one of

•IJO

-I

6

>.

rmar

O

>,a)

O 3 "

cd

= 1- Frai

OC

3

a cc

— 33

c

CD

I

Io

JOT SOTJ— — \ n — %

0 . OT

CO E E E, ^ -Q €0 fxi CO

OT OT | 5 W OT I I IIO OT Z Z

3S

"Si

CO

o a £ S Et r OT OT OT OT

624 Swede and Tetlock

Table 2 Most frequent 106 trait categones used by Kissinger to descnbe38 salient leaders

Trait category

politicalunderstandingfnendlydistrusting, decisiveknowledgeablepowerful, personalhopeful, expenencedpublic, committedskilled, secretivestronghad convictioncourageousablerepetitiousskepticalprofessional, Instinctualsenior, intelligent, ambivalentrespectful, dedicatedsuspicious, subtle, patient, liking.

indirect, extraordinarytough, psychokigical, humorous,

aloof, unease, informal, dignified.confident, close

withdrawn, wary, frustrated.dependent, lonely, had grasp

responsible, self-confident.mastery, hated, obsessive.military, interested, complex,solitary

tradttional, ambiguous, strength.insecure, pained, charactenstic.loyal, fearful, moderate, tense

proud, had vision, unsentimental.restless, honorable, profound.patriotic, leamed, ieadership,without liiusions, warm, detailed

wilipower, tormented, dominant.principal, overwhelming, private,incapable, unime^native,determined

Frequency ofdescnptions

52433834333230272624232221201918171615

14

13

12

11

10

09

Cumui numberof categories

123568

10121415161718192022252733

42

48

57

67

79

88

Cumul percentof total no of

trait descnptions

1 42 53 55 36 27 99 5

11 012313013614214 715315816318118921 3

24 7

268

296

332

36 6

388

Kissingo-'s implicit po-sonality theory 625

Table 2 Contmued

Cumul percentFrequency of Cumul number of total no of

Trait category descriptions of categones trait descnptions

weak, revolutionary, unspecific, 08 106 43 0self-assured, ruthiess, strained,unforgetting, maddening,isolated, heroic, ungenerous,great, ungracious, ambitious,needing, had faith, emotional,hard

the five components The rotated component structure is presented inTable 3

The first component included traits that descnbed the emotionalstrain on, and the political toughness of, senior pohcymakers We namedthis component "professional anguish " It combined traits that are notsemantically similar, yet were strongly associated m Kissmger's trait lex-icon This component mcluded 25 high-loading traits and accounted for31% ofthe total common vanance ofthe five components

The second component included traits that descnbed a blend of sus-picion, ambition, and patnotism that Kissinger felt charactenzed manynational leaders We named this component "ambitious patnotism " Itincluded 12 high-loading traits and accounted for 22% ofthe total com-mon vanance

The third component included traits that descnbed the ruthless, vi-sionary, and often chansmatic charactenstics of revolutionary leadersWe named this component "revolutionary greatness " It included nmehigh-loading traits and accounted for 17% ofthe total common vanance

The fourth component included traits that referred to the cognitiveand social sophistication of highly skilled pohtical professionals Wenamed this component "intellectual sophistication " It included 14 high-loading traits and accounted for 17% ofthe total common vanance

The fifth component included traits that descnbed the capacity forclose friendship as well as unsentimental skepticism We named thiscompraient "realistic friendship " It included eight high-loading traitsand accounted for 14% ofthe total common vanance

The semantic complexity of these components could reflect Kissin-ger's comfdex, idiosyncratic style of processing social and pohtical lnfor-matirai, w it could reflect metlnKl artifects ansing from the use of tetra-chonc oMTektionsOT pnncipal components analysis Before interpreting

626 SM^de and Tetlock

Table 3 Component structure for pnncipal components analysis withvanmax rotation for the 106 most frequent trait categones used by Kis-singer to descnbe the 38 most salient leaders

Assignedcompno

1111111111111111111111111

222222222222

33

Traitcategory

insecure*strained*

lonely*unease*

tough*seniorpublic*proud*

obsessive*instinctual*respectful*

solitary*pained*

unspecific*maddening*

unforgetting*frustrated*

hard*tense*

pnvate*hopeful*

weak*honorable

unimaginativepolitical*

patnotic*suspicious*

hated*dependentambitious*incapable*

restless -tsoiated*

fearfuileadership -

ungenerous*military

great*psychok>gicar

Comp1

85858279787878777776767474737270706969686665585451

330817221416192723074428

0206

Comp2

01123902121003

- 07270140314230363619271834383405

- 0901

908583837773717067676562

0215

Comp3

171114210201041108071420

- 04490312150328080339

- 0312

- 05

- 10- 03

3608

- 09- 07

201339351909

8783

Comp4

031315240617

- 09- 05

4701180919194144013038464110180726

284115030204

- 031103

- 00- 04- 01

0221

Comp5

38360619

- 0427

- 0130032126251610091021213010

- 18021608

- 04

0624

- 11- 18

101014354201JZ400

- .0637

Kissinger's implicit personality theory 627

Table 3 Continued

Assignedconr^ no

3333333

44444444444444

55555555

???

7

?

??

Traitcategory

had faith*revolutionary*self-assured*

had vision*ruthiess*detailed

had grasp

humorous*knowledgeable*

skiliedexperienced*

repetitious*ambiguous*

subtie*aioof

dignified*inteiiigent*

professionalhad conviction*self-confident*

mastery

ambivaient*decisive*fnendiy*

skepttcai*close*

dominantunsentimental

confident

emotionaliiking

informaldetermined

principalsecretive

distrustingresponsibie

strengttiV^mOUt iliUSKXI

Comp1

00040310002613

153619253946

- 0924

- 062439382900

4630254447060821

75717067656459595951

Comp2

33010907442544

- 11- 10- 01- 01

0700182136330002

- 0703

- 02151028180035

- 01

25265346035525382209

Comp3

82757168666261

10170439293048360605

- 213433

- 16

412618

- 10- 07

0531

- 18

08- 01

000202

- 0207265730

Comp4

312841

- 33152114

8281807471666565625855534634

2932151002

- 051719

25361947064502

- 13

0348

Comp5

06- 16- 26

03202832

2008013203141113032330

- 050516

7069686664484440

5049

- 04- 31

54

- 154347

2139

Table 3 continues next page

628

Table 3 C

Assignedcompno

7

?7

?7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

?7

7

?7

?7

7

?7

7

?

lontmited

Traitcategory

moderateleamedstrong

indirectungraciouswithdrawn

courageousneeding

wilipowertormentedinterestedpersonai

warmheroic

committedoverwheiming

patientpowerfui

warycharactensticextraordinary

understandingableioyai

dedicatedprofoundcomplex

traditional

Component vanance% Common vanance

% Total vanance

Comp1

47464208551620452816295146031533124432460924352417162437

23 431.421 9

Comp2

12- 19

3168646362605852450206570148

- 10- 01

04433422342230645753

160215150

Comp3

15010655025844185250266864616159504709372534

- 26- 25

24160003

12516811 7

Swede and Tetlock

Comp4

14352334

- 23- 11

15- 04- 03

051220113922

- 20492266614444423533

- 052719

12516811 7

Comp5

- 392323130115

- 47291744223643

- 145806

- 03- 21

64- 06- 15- 15

41- 16- 18

685955

1011369 4

Note —tt8mswittiastsnskswefegroupedfe>getherinboththisanalysisandinac:lustBranalysisct Euclidean distances

these dimensions further, we osplored two additional methods for dis-covenng structure cluster analysis and multidimensionai scaling

WartTs Cluster Analysis cf Euclidean Distances

Ward's (1963) hierarchical, nonoverlapping cluster analysis was per-formed (m tl» average squared Euclidean distances among the 106 trut

Kissinger's implicit personality theory 629

categories After inspecting the ways m which traits were grouped at dif-ferent steps of the cluster analysis, we chose a ten-cluster solution—mpart because of its similarity to the five-component solution descnbedabove We considered a component as similar to a cluster if the traitsloading highly on a component had greater than chance likelihood (10%)of being grouped together in a cluster

The ten clusters could be unambiguously associated with particularcomponents Traits from the first component composed 100% ofthe firstcluster, 50% ofthe second cluster, 43% ofthe third cluster, and 79% ofthe seventh cluster Traits from the second component composed 92% ofthe sixth cluster Traits from the third component composed 65% ofthetenth cluster Traits from the fourth component composed 75% of theeighth cluster and 92% ofthe ninth cluster And traits from the fifth com-ponent composed 67% ofthe fourth cluster and 44% ofthe fifth cluster

The ten-cluster solubon suggests that some ofthe sets of traits discov-ered in the component analysis could be further differentiated into sub-sets, whereas other sets of traits could not be further differentiatedContinuing to explore the ways m which the traits were organized, wetumed to nonmetnc multidimensional scaling

Nonmetrtc Multtdtmermonal Scaltng of Profile Dtstances

ALSCAL-4 (Young & Lewyckyj, 1981) was used to perform nonmetncmultidimensional scaling of profile distances among the 106 trait cate-gones For one-, two-, three-, and four-dimensional solutions, Kruskal(1964) stress values were 38, 21, 12, and 08 By the fourth dimension,not only was the stress value low, but also the proportion of trait vananceaccounted for was very high (95%)

Figures 1 and 2 present the first- and second-dimensional, and thefirst- and third-dimensional representations ofthe four-dimensional pro-file distance solution The five sets of traits that were grouped togetherm both the PCA and the CA solutions were identified by componentnumber in these spatial representations

Each ofthe five sets of traits occupied a different "neighborhood" or"region" ofthe multidimensional space (Kruskal & Wish, 1978) Theseparation among sets can be seen most easily for the first three sets inthe first three dimensions lliese sets have been cu-cled in Figures 1 and2 In Figure 1, the sets of traits are adjacent regions across the plane—on the far left are the professional anguish traits, then the realisticfriendship traits, the intellectual sophisticatiOTi traits, the ambitious pa-tnotism traits, and, on the &r nght ofthe plane, the revolutionary great-ness traits In Figure 2, the sets of traits are further separated Theprofossicmal smguish traits, the reahstic friendship traits, and the revo-

632 Swede and Tetbck

lutionary greatness traits occupy the middle region ofthe space, the in-tellectual sophistication traits occupy the upper region, and the ambi-tious patriotism traits occupy the lower regions Further separationamong the five sets of traits took place m the fourth dimension

Summary of Trait Themes

Regardless of whether Kissinger's organization of traits is conceptual-ized in terms of "dimensions," "clusters," or "regions" (or estimated byPCA of tetrachonc correlations, CA of Euclidean distances, or MDS ofprofile distances), five sets of traits are consistently grouped togetherThis consistency across methods and measures suggests that we haveidentified a coherent pattem or structure underlying Kissinger's trait at-tnbutions

Construction of Five Trait Scales

Scales were constructed to represent leaders' relative positions oneach of the trait themes A trait category was assigned to a scale if thetrait loaded substantially higher on a particular component than on anyother component, and was also grouped with other traits of that compo-nent m the cluster analysis Traits assigned to scales are plotted as pointsm the MDS configurations (Figures 1 and 2) Twenty-one traits were as-signed to "professional anguish," seven traits to "ambitious patnotism,"seven traits to "revolutionary greatness," ten traits to "intellectual so-phistication," and five traits to "realistic fnendship "

An average raw score was calculated for each leader for each ofthe fivethemes by summing up the presences (+ 1) of each trait in a scale, andthen dividing by the number of traits assigned to the scale Each leader'sscore could range from 0 (none ofthe traits in the scale was ascnbed tothe leader) to + 1 (all of the traits m the scale were ascnbed to theleader) Scale reliabilibes were assessed by Cronbach's (1970) coefficientalpha, an estimate of the intemal consistency of a scale Alj^s for thefive scales were 92 for professional anguish, 83 for ambitious patnot-ism, 78 for revolutionary greatness, 79 for intellectual sophistication,and 82 for realistic fnendship

To control partly for the differences m lengths of descnptions of thedifferent leaders, within-Ieader deviation scores were constructed bysubtracting each leader's average score across the five scales icam theleader's five raw scores Every leader now had the same average scoreacross scales (0 0) Every leader was assumed to have a similar "amountofpersonality" and differences among leaders were assumed to be dueto differences m the distnbution of this similar "amount of persraiahty"The intercorrelations among the deviation-score scales ranged from

Kissinger's implicit personality theory 633

— 43 between ambitious patnotism and realistic fnendship, to -i- 01between ambitious patnotism and professional anguish

Devtatton-Score Personaltty Profiles

To explore the ways m which Kissmger differentiated among leaders,we focused on profiles of deviation scores on the five personahty scalesfor each of the 38 leaders (Cronbach & Cleser, 1953, Nunnally, 1962,1967, Skmner, 1978) These deviation-score profiles (Table 4) allowedsystematic univanate and mulbvanate compansons between leaders onthe personality scales In this secbon we focus on compansons betweenleaders on each ofthe five personality scales taken separately In the nextsection we focus on compansons between leaders on their overall per-sonahty profiles (across all five scales)

Kissinger believed that he, William Rogers, Melvin Laird, and IndiraCandhi were especially likely to expenence professional angutsh, andthat Chou En-lai, Edward Heath, Xuan Thuy, and Alexei Kosygm wereespecially unlikely to experience professional anguish The followingquotations illustrate this &cet of Kissinger's self-perception

I did my best, if with mcreasmgly frayed nerves I had been mmobon for over two weeks rarely getbng more than four hoursof sleep and nding an emobonal roller coaster from hope to fhistra-tiCHi, from elabon to despair (p 1395) October 26 was a day of highemotion and comphcated maneuver My overwhelming anxiety wasto hold the agreement together (p 1400) I was m the eye of a hur-ncane whose elemental force denved not only from the hatreds oftwo Vietnamese [nabons] and the hystena of domestic cntics butalso from the pamfid nft between Nixon and me (p 1455)

In Kissinger's view, Nguyen Van Thieu, Ellsworth Bunker, NorodomSihanouk, and Richard Nixon were especially high on ambtttous patrt-ottsm, and Kissinger himself, Chou En- lai. Nelson Rockefeller, and Leo-nid Brezhnev were especially low on this charactenstic Consider, formstance, this personahty sketch of President Thieu of South Vietnam

[Thieu] was unquestionably the most formidable ofthe militaryleaders of South Vietnam, probably the ablest of all pohbcal person-ahties Like most men who reach high office, he representedan amalgam of personal ambibon and high mobve a man ofpnnciple deeply religious and patnobc I [Kissinger] payThieu this tnbute, which is his due, notwithstanding his venomoushatred fia-the manner in which I iKgobated (pp 1033-1034)

Kissing^ perceived Mao Tse-tung, Leraud Brezhnev, Chou En-lai,and Anvt^r Sadat as especially high on revduttonary greatness, and saw

T3

-2

in

I

I(U

«

1s <»II

(d S

it

I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I I II

O O O O C O i - T J - i - i - O O - r - O O O O - ^ O

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I

CO

if f I" -5 w „m

-O 8)§ g;'"! >is c- d$ i s

<Smoffimuu-Soooxxx X X

1e

P

£

a COc cc

9 2

II

iCO

If

h o m m o)' - - t O >- •<-

I I I

I I I I

I I I I I I I Io o o o o

I I I I

OU)CT<D0000t^CT000)CNJCT(0a > 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' . - - r - O C T C M O

I I I I I I I I I I

00 00 CT O> t— *~» - O O CT CNI CT

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I

636 Swede and Tetlock

himself, Georges Pompidou, Richard Nixon, and Norodom Sihanouk asespecially low on this charactenstic For instance, Kissinger descnbedGhainnan Mao m the following manner

that colossal figure, who challenged the gods in the scope of hisaspirabons (p 1064), the titanic figure who made the Chinese Rev-olution He was the maker who destroyed one revolubonarywave after another that great, demonic, prescient, overwhelm-ing personality (p 1065), the crusader for world revolution (p 1089)

Kissinger perceived Xuan Thuy, Le Due Tho, Chou En-lai, and JohnConnally as especially high on intellectual sophistication, and saw Ed-ward Heath, Mao Tse-tung, Nelson Rockefeller, and Leonid Brezhnevas especially low on this characteristic For instance, Kissinger de-scnbed Le Due Tho as

grey-haired, dignified always composed, his mannerswere impeccable He always knew what he was about and servedhis cause with dedication and skill He laughed at my jokes,sometimes uproanously, sometimes with the impatience of onewho knew what he wanted He cut to the heart of the dilemmaof Vietnamization All too acutely, he pomted out our strategy (p441-444)

Finally, Kissinger perceived himself. Nelson Rockefeller, EdwardHeath, and Chou En- lai as especially high on realtsttc fnendshtp andsaw Nguyen Van Thieu, Le Due Tho, Andrei Gromyko, and MelvinLaird as especially low on this charactenstic For instance, Kissinger de-scnbed Edward Heath m the following way

Of all Bntish political leaders. Heath was the one I [Kissinger] knewbest and hked most when I came to oflBce We have remained goodfriends, despite some diflFerences of opinion when we were both mgovernment He was a warm and gentle person w^o anticipatedrejection and fended it off with a formal politeness And of allthe Bntish leaders Heath was probably also the least committedemotionally to the United States It is not that he was anti-Amen-can Rather, he was immune to the sentimental elements of that at-tachment forged in two wars The United States was a friendlyfweign country (p 933)

Implictt Leader Tifpes

Tb mdentify Kissii^r's im|dicit leader types, we perfisnned a Ward's(1963) cluster analysis on the dissimiknties of deviatum soH'e pcoSles

Kissinger's implicit personality theory 637

The measure of association was the "profile distance squared" (Rosen-berg & Sedlak, 1972) For any two leaders, the formula was

where x(t,k) and x{ j,k) were the deviation scores for leaders i and j onscale k

Figure 3 presents the average profiles for nme clusters at the ten-clus-ter level The top three profile types in Figure 3 are individual profilesof Kissinger, Georges Pompidou, and Chou En-lai All three leaderswere very high on intellectual sophistication and realistic friendshipKissinger and Chou En-lai were both very low m ambitious patnotism,and Kissinger and Pompidou were both low m revolutionary greatnessAlthough Kissinger saw similanties between himself and Chou En-laiand Pompidou, he also saw distinct differences, and each individual de-fined a separate type

Kissinger saw himself as an able and trustworthy statesman who ex-penenced a great deal of anguish but few conflicting motives

Kissinger saw Pompidou as an able and trustworthy head of state, whoexpenenced some anguish and conflicting motives

Kissinger saw Chou En-lai as an able and trustworthy revolutionarywho expenenced neither anguish nor conflicting motives

In sharp contrast to Kissinger, Chou En-lai, and Pompidou, two leadertypes emerged that were low m both intellectual sophistication and re-alistic friendship One type included Leonid Brezhnev ?nd Mao Tse-tung, who were very high on revolutionary greatness and very low onambitious patnotism This type was called the Revoluttoncry A secondtype included Nixon, Nguyen Van Thieu, Pnnce Sihanouk, and AlexeiKosygin, who were high on ambitious patnotism and low on revolution-ary greatness This type was called the Patriot

Two further types could be charactenzed a& fnends Nelson Rockefel-ler and Edward Heath were very high on redistic friendship and verylow on professional anguish and intellectual sophistication Heath wasKissinger's "good friend" and Rockefeller was both Kissinger's friend andpolitical mentor But neither Rockefeller nor Heath was centrally in-volved m the difficult problems descnbed m White House Years Thistype was called the Personal Fnend Another type, mcluding WinstonLord, Joseph Sisco, Reza Pahlavi, Yahya Khan, and Charles de Gaulle,was also considered fhendly, but embodied more ofthe ingredients ofprofessional activity (jffofessional anguish and lnteUectual sophistu^tion)than did Rockefeller or Heath This type was called the ProfessionalFnend

Lit

pl

l!11

' l i

1 l oI 8 81

III' 3 "5

t I I I I I

11

I I II

~g .. «t S E

^:3 « « «

? E Itl II II

f - (M CO

. 1 1 . 1 . . . . . .

Kissinger's implicrt personality theory 639

"Rvo other types could be characterized as opponents Le Due Thoand Xuan Thuy were very high on intellectual sophistication and low onrealistic fnendship, ambitious patriotism, and professional anguishThroughout most oi White House Years, Kissinger battles with theseNorth Vietnamese negotiators over a peace settlement This type wascalled the Able Adversary Another type, including Melvin Laird,Thomas Moorer, John Connally, Andrei Gromyko, and King Hussein,was as unfriendly as the Able Adversary, but expenenced more profes-sional anguish and was less intellectually sophisticated This type wascalled the Prcfesswnal Competitor

The remainmg fifteen leaders formed a "residual" type These leaderswere not especially high or low on any ofthe scales

Discussion

Implicit Personahty Themes

Personahty psychologists (cf Cattell, 1957, Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981, Wiggins, 1973) have traditionally used fector analysis andcluster analysis to discover the fundamental dimensions of personahtySocial psychologists have relied heavily on multidimensional scaling todiscover the structure underlying the implicit theories of personalitythat guide people's perceptions of others (cf Forgas, 1980, Rosenberg &Jones, 1972, Rosenberg & Sedlak, 1972, Shibar, 1974) In analyzing Kis-singer's trait perceptions of world leaders, we adopted a multimethodapproach Instead of focusing on personahty "components," "clusters,"OT "regions," we employed the nobon of "personality themes," which canbe discovered by identifying sets of traits that are consistently groupedtogether across different measures of association and methods of orga-nization Invanance across measures and methods assures considerablecontrol over mathematical artifacts, and highlights the most cohesiveand stable aspects of how a person perceptually organizes the interper-sonal world

ITie most distinctive result of our analysis is the consistent emergenceof five major organizing tlremes m Kissmger's perceptions of world lead-ers professicmal angwsh, ambitious patnotism, revolutionary greatness,intellectual s(^dustiattion, and realistic friendship These themes pro-vide a pc^Bntial Iwy for understandmg how Kissinger structured the ex-traordmanly complex political environment that he faced m the firstNuam administraticm

Impitdt Personality Types

Res^ax:h cm imjdicit pa-s<Miality theory has typically focused on thestructural representatum of trait perceptions (cf Rosenberg, 1977) and

640 Swede and Tettock

felled to explore how perceivers use traits both to diflFerenbate amongpersons and to organize persons mto lmphcit personahty types By con-strucbng scales for each of Kissinger's personahty themes and develop-ing personality profiles for each salient leader, we demonstrated thatKissinger implicitly used his personahty themes to descnbe mdividualleaders (e g , Thieu was high on ambibous patnobsm and intellectualsophisbcabon, moderate on professional anguish, and low on realisbcfi-iendship and revolubonary greatness), to diflFerenbate among individ-ual leaders (e g , Kissinger and Chou En-lai were similar on threethemes, but differed on professional anguish and revolutionary great-ness), and to organize leaders mto personality types (e g , the Revolu-bonary, the Patnot, the Personal Fnend, the Able Adversary)

Theoretical Implications

Research on lmphcit personality theory is often based on group or ag-gregate data and fixed format rabng scales This research suggests thatperceivers use rather limited trait vocabularies organized in simpleways, and that most perceivers are similar in their trait usage and orga-nizabon Too often m the search for general laws, we slight the complex-ity and uniqueness ofthe individual case (cf AUport, 1937) In this re-gard, we see four aspects of Kissinger's lmphcit personality theory asdeserving special note the salience of particular traits in Kissmger's per-cepbons of others, the complex structure of Kissinger's percepbons, thesemanticaUy disparate traits that go together withm that structure, andthe ldiosyncrabc nature ofthe stmcture

Kisstriger's Tratt Vocabulary

Kissmger's choice of traits probably reflects an mteracbon betweenhis own cognitive stnKture/style and the personal/polibcal charactens-bcs ofthe world leaders (cf Endler & Magnusson, 1976) UnfiMtunately,Kissinger did not offer detailed charactenzabons of persons outside t l^polibcal arena, so we were not able to assess the dbmam-specificity ofthe lmphcit theory revealed by our analysis We can, hovwever, comparethe traits that Kissmger used in descnbmg leaders with t l^ traits that(ffdinary peo|de use m a vanety of self- and person-perception tasks Forinstance, only 14% of Kissinger's 106 most salient traits were also in-cluded m the 99 most sahent traits m Dreiser's descnptions of women(Rosenberg & Jones, 1972), only 33% of Kissinger's sahent traits wereincluded in Cough and Heilbmn's (1983) list of 300 traits used as "defi-ners ofthe ctanplete perstmahty sphere", and only 5% of Kissing^'s sa-hent traits were included m Nwman's (1963) and Goldberg's (1982) setof traits used to assess the "universal lexicon of trait attnbutes " The

Kissir^er's inplicit personality theory 641

traits that were important in Kissinger's percepbons were clearly not thesame traits thought important by Dreiser (1929), Cough and Heilbmn(1983), or Norman (1963) and Coldberg (1982)

Complexity (rfKxsstnger's Tratt Structure

The complexity of Kissinger's worldview is revealed by both the num-ber of major perceptual dimensions he uses to descnbe people and bythe discnmmatmg manner in which he apphes these dimensions to in-dividual leaders (reflected m the existence of at least nme lmphcit leadertypes) Our analysis, moreover, underestimates the subtle, highly dif-ferentiated quality of Kissinger's perceptions of others There weremany unique descnpbons For instance, Kissinger descnbed himself as"the plumber m Kafka's novel The Castle\ he descnbed de CauUe ashaving the "natural haughtiness ofa snow-capped Alpine peak", and hedescribed Lyndon Johnson as a "caged eagle " Our analysis capturesonly the major (frequently recumng) themes running through Kissin-ger's personality descnpbons Nevertheless, the structure that emergesfrom our analyses is substanbaUy more complex than the two- or three-dimensional models that are frequently cited m the "mainstream" hter-ature on lmphcit personahty theory (e g , Rosenberg, 1977, Rosenberg& Sedlak, 1972, Schneider, Hastorf, & EUsworth, 1979)

The complexity of Kissmger's cognibve style is also evident when oneclosely examines the impressions he forms of specific world leadersThese impressions tend to be highly lntegrabvely complex—a style ofreasoning that is relabvely rare among both the general pubhc and poht-lcal elites (cf Schroder, Dnver & Sb-eufert, 1967, Tetlock, 1984) Kissin-ger regularly differentiates the personahbes of leaders mto several—often evaluabvely inconsistent—components and then goes on to specifyhow these components mteract to shape individual behavior m specificpohbcal situations In JCissmger's worldview, it is not unusual for mdi-viduals to embody such superficiaUy contradictory charactensbcs as in-secunty and arrogance, opbmism and pessimism, caubon and impul-siveness, altnusm and cynicism, and intelhgence and lack of foresightKissinger is, m this respect, a compeUmg example ofa "dialecbcal" in-formabon processor—one who sees human personahty as a dynamic sys-tem that IS often propelled by the tensions between opposing personaland situational forces (cf Baseeches, 1980, Riegel, 1973) * Kissmger's

2 We perfcn-med mtegrabve complexity coding of passages from Kissinger's mem-oirs that offered detailed descnpticms (400 words or more) ofthe t«i most salient lead-ers m our sample (cf Schroder et al , 1967, Tetlock, 1984) Tbs 7-point coding systemdefines lntegrative comiJexity in terms of two cognitive structural vanaUes—di£fer-

t (e g , use of evaluabvely distinct dimensions of judgment in forming inqires-

642 Swede and Tetlock

implicit theory of personality may bear as httle resemblance to simplestmctural models denved from aggregate data as the chess-playmg strat-egies of grandmasters bear to those of mexpenenced amateurs Thepresent case study serves as a reminder ofthe need for theones of socialperception that explicitly acknowledge the possibility of large individualdifferences m the complexity of the cognibve strategies people use formaking sense of others

The Meamng Of Tratt Co-Occurrences

The complex amalgams of semanbcaUy disparate traits that appear inKissinger's descnpbons strongly suggest that Kissmger's lmphcit theoryof personality is not reducible to the mere "conceptual similanty" ofthemeanings of trait terms Traits that go together m Kissinger's wnbngs donot typically go together in aggregate data or m conceptual similantyjudgment tasks (Cara & Rosenberg, 1981, Shweder, 1975, Shweder &D'Andrade, 1979) Lmguisbc artifacts thus do not provide a plausible ex-planation for the current findings

We do see, however, at least two viable altemabve explanabons thatfuture research may be able to disbnguish One interpretation—the re-ahsm hypothesis—views Kissinger's implicit personality theory as a val-uable source of mformabon on the actual behavior pattems and person-ahty charactensbcs ofthe world leaders with wlrom he dealt Kissmger,by many accounts a highly successfiil intemabonal ne^tiator, may alsohave been a highly astute observer ofthe personalities of pohtical ehtes

A seccmd mterpretabon—a modified version of Shweder and D'An-drade's (1979) systematic distortion hypothesis—takes a much moreskepbcal stand on the empincal reality of Kissinger's lmphcit theory ofpersonahty Kissinger's theory may reflect his highly ldiosyncrabc be-hefs about the social world, the disbncbve types of social-polibcal be-havior that he tended to ehcit from particular others, and his pnvate egodefensive or public self-presentational motives (e.g , the desire to deflectblame or claim credit for particular events)

sions of others) and integration (e g , recognition of how differentiated comp<»ients in-teract with each other or contextual vanables to shape behavior) Hie mean integrativecomjdexity of Kissinger's personality descnptions was 4 4 This is an unusually highscore even when compared to the results of prevKus studies of elite pditical ©roupssuch as United States presidents, senators, and Supreme court justices and Bntish par-hamentarians (Tetlock, 1981a, 1981b, 1983, 1984, Tetlock, Bemzweig, & Gallant,1985) It IS also worth ixrttng that Kissinger tended to make quite mtegratively com^expolicy statements dunng his traiure as National Secunty Adviser and as Secretary ofState The Nixon-Kissinger years represent the most sustained penod (rf'uitegrativelycom{dex communicatKHi with the Soviet Uhicm in the post-WcH-Jd War II era (ifetiock,^5)

Kissir^er's in^icit pei^onality theory 643

To be sure, these two interpretations are not mutually exclusive Eachmay possess elements of tmth One way of assessmg the relabve mentsof tibese two lnterpretabons is to look for pattems of convergence or di-vergence in dtfferent observers' assessments of the same pohbcal fig-ures To the degree that several observers (e g , Kissinger, Ciscardd'Estamg, Willy Brandt, Edward Heath) agree in their charactenza-bons ofa parbcular figure (e g , Pompidou, Nixon, Brezhnev), one candiscount the importance of idiosyncratic observer biases in shapingthose charactenzabons

Untqueness qf Tratt Structure

The apparent uniqueness of Kissinger's lmphcit theory of personalityIS most clearly revealed by companng the content themes that emerge mhis theory with those revealed by previous studies of lmphcit personahtytheory Kissmger's theory cannot be reduced, without senous distorbon,to the trait dimensions revealed m these studres Compare, for examine,the personahty themes that emerge from Kissu^er's descnpbons withRosenberg's two-dimensional "intellectual good-bad" and "social good-bad" model Intellectual quahbes appear m several personahty themesrevolutionary greatness (e g , psychological, had vision, detailed), intel-lectual so[dusbcab(Hi (e g , knowledgeable, skilled, lntelhgent), and re-ahsbc friendship (e g , decisive, skepbcal) Quahbes of interpersonal orsocial behavior are even more dispersed across personality themesprofessional anguish (e g , insecure, strained), ambitious patriotism(e g , restless, leadership, hated), revolubonary greatness (e g , mth-less), mteUectual sophisbcabon (e g , humorous, dignified), andreahsbcfriendship (e g , close, unsentimental) It is equally difficult to translateKissinger's imphcit theory mto other widely accepted dimensicmal rep-resentabons, such as Osgood's evaluabve-potency-acbvity model (Os-good, May & Mu-on, 1975) or Nwman's "Big Five" model (Cddberg,1982)

In closing, it IS worthw^ule to explore how future research might ad-dress issues unresolved here One promismg lme of work would be tofocus on the hnks between Kissinger's percepbons and his pohbcal ac-bons ITie central goal otpsychchiogra^icd and histoncal research is tockivel(^ detailed explanabcms for why parbcular individuals have actedas they did m particular situations (cf Tetlock, Crosby, & Crosby, 1981)To this end, psychobiograjAers and historians ofthe Nuron admmistra-bon m i ^ t well want to exj^(»re hnks between Kissmger's lmpressirais ofspecific wwld leaders and his actual behavior toward them It is cer-tainly reasonable to hyprthesize that Kissmger's images of leaders both

were shaped by his lnteracbcms v«th these individuals

644 Swede and Tetlock

Another direcbon for future work would be to extend the methods ofanalysis applied to Kissinger's writings to the writings of other majorworld leaders Here, however, the goal would be less to ennch our un-derstandmg of specific persons or events than it would be to explore in-dividual differences m the content and stmcture of implicit personahtytheones and to assess the relabonships between these individual dififer-ences and conduct m office Cood reason exists, as Trzebinski (1985) co-gently argues, for expecbng powerful linkages between implicit theonesof personality and social behavior Perhaps political leaders with differ-ent implicit theones of personahty also pursue different foreign policiesFor example, are advocates of "hardhne" deterrence policies especiaUylikely to impute aggressive, cynical, and manipulabve mobves to others?Are advocates of conflict spiral (tension reducbon) pohcies especiaUylikely to hold benign views ofthe motives of others^ It may be useful tothink of foreign policy behef systems as extensions or elaborabons ofthecategonzabon schemes that people have developed for encoding and m-terprebng everyday interpersonal events

Finally, it is mterestmg to speculate on what causal or conceptual con-necbons might exist between Kissii^er's implicit theory of personahtyand his overall foreign policy strategy Kissmger is widely regarded asthe architect of the pohcy of detente—the mixed compebbve-collabo-rabve r^bonship between the United States and the Soviet Union thathe tned (unsuccessfully) to msbtubonahze in the early and mid-1970sDetente was an mtnnsicaUy complex approach to managmg Amencan-Soviet relabons It was built on superfiaaUy contradictory premises—the existence of both conflicts and convergences of superpower inter-ests—and involved a delicate balancing and (nchestrabng of "carrots-and-sbcks" to ehcit desired Soviet responses There is an mtnguir^ cor-respondence between the conceptual comjdexity and subtlety of Kissm-ger's social-pohtical percepbons and the complexity aikl subtlety oftheactual pohcies that he pursued m office

Retsrences

Allport, C W (1937) Personality A psychohgtcal interpretatum NY H<dtBaseeches, M (1980) Dialectical schemata A framework fat empincal study of the

development of dialectical thinking Human Development, 23,400-421Bruner, J S , & Tagiun, R (1954) ll ie perceptHm of pe<^e In C Lindzey (Ed ),

Handbook qf social psychobgy (Vol 2, pp 634-654) Beading, MA Addison-Wss-ley

Cantor, N , tx. Mischel, W (1979) Prototypes m p«-son peiceptum In L Berkowitz(Ed ), Advances tn expenmental soctal psychology (pp 4-52) NY AcademicPress

Cattdl, R B (1957) Personality and motivation structure and tneasurement Ytm-k H d , NY World Bodes

Kissinger's implicit personality theory 645

Cronbach, L J (1955) Processes affecting scores on 'understanding others' and as-sumed simihrity" Psychologtcal Bulletm, 52, 177-193

Cronbach, L J (1970) Essentials qf psychobgical testtngi^rd ed , pp 160-161) NYHarper & Row

Cronbach, L J , & Cleser G C (1953) Assessing similarity between profiles Psu-chobgtcal Bulletin, 50, 456-473

Digman, J M , & Takemoto-Chock, N K (1981) Factors in the natural language ofpersonality Reanalysis, comparison and interpretations of six major studies Mul-ttvanate Behavtoral Research, 16, 149-170

Dreiser, T (1929) A gallery of women New York Boni & LiverightElderton, W P (1953) Frequency curves and correlation (pp 168-171) Cambndge

Cambridge University PressEndler, N S , & Magnusson, D (1976) Toward an interactional psychology of person-

ality Psychobgtcal Bulletin, 83, 956-974Forgas, J P (1980) Implicit representation of political leaders A multidimensional

analysis Joumal ofApplted Soctal Psychology, 10(4), 295-310Glass, G V, & Stanley, J C (1970) Stattsttcal methods tn education and psychobgy

(pp 165-167) Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-HallGara, M A , & Rosenberg S (1981) Linguistic factors in implicit personality theory

Journal of Personaltty and Soctal Psychobgy, 41(3), 450-457Goldberg, L R (1982) Language and individual differences The search for univer-

sal in personality lexicons In L Wheeler (Ed ), Bevtew of personahty and soctalpsychobgy (Vol 2, pp 141-165) Beverly Hills, CA Sage Publications

Gough, H G , & Heilbrun, A B (1983) The adjecttve check hst manual Palo Alto,CA Consulting Psychologist Press

Harman, H H (1976) Moikm factor analysts {ird ed ) Chicago, IL University ofChicago Press

Kim, M P , & Rosenberg, S (1980) Companson of two structural models of implicitpersonality theory Journal of Personaltty and Soctal Psychobgy, 38(3), 375-389

Kissmger, H (1979) Whtte House years Boston Little, BrownKissinger, H (1982) Years of upheaval Boston Little, BrownKruskal, J B (1964) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling Psychometrtka, 19, 1-27,

115-129Kruskal, J B,&Wish, M (1978) Multtdtmenstonal scaltng Beverly Hills, CA Sage

PublicationsMulaik, S A (1972) Thefoundatums of factor analysts NY McGraw-HillNorman, W T (1963) Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes Reph-

cated &ctor structure m peer nomination personality ratings Joumal qf Abnormaland Soctal Psychobgy, 66, 574-583

Nunnally, J C (1962) The analysis of profile data Psychobgtcal Bulkttn 59,311-319Nunnally, J C (1967) Psychometnc theory New York, NY McGraw-HillOsgood, C E , May, W H ,& Miron, M S (1975) Crossculturduntversalstnaffec-

ttve meantng Urbana, IL University of Illinois PressRiegel, K F (1973) Dialectic operations The final period of cognitive development

Human Development, 16, 346-370Romney, A K , Shepard, R N , & Nerlove, S B (Eds ) (1972) Multtdtmenstonal

scaltng Theory and appltcattons tn the behavtoral sctences II Appltcattons NYSeminar Press

Rosenberg, S (1977) New approaches to the analysis of personal constructs m personperception In Nebraska Sympostum on mottvatton, 1976, 24 (179-242) Lincdn,NE University of Nebraska

Rosenberg, S , & Jones, R (1972) A method for investigating and representing a per-son's implicit theory of personality Theodore Dreiser s view of people JoumalcfPersontUity and Soctal Psychobgy, 22, 372-386

Rosenberg, S , & Sedlak, A (1972) Structural representations of perceived person-ality trait relaticKiships In A K Romney, R A Shepard, & S Nerlove (Eds ),

646 Sv)«de and Tetlock

Multtdtmenstonal scaltng Theory and appltcattons tn the behavioral sctences IIAppltcattons NY Seminar Press

Schneider, D J , Hastorf, A H , & Ellsworth, P C (1979) Person perception (2nded ) Reading, MA Addison-Wesley

Schroder, H M , Dnver, M J , & Streufert, S (1967) Human tnformatton process-tng NY Holt, Rinehart & Winston

Scott, W A , Osgood, W, & Peterson, C (1979) Cogntttve structure Theory andmeasurement oftndivtdual differences Washmgton, DC Winston & Sons

Shepard, R N , Romney, A K , & Nerlove, S B (Eds ) (1972) Multtdtmenstonalscaltng Theory and appltcattons xn the behavtoral sctences I. Theory NY Sem-inar Press

Shikiar, R (1974) The perception of politicians and pohtical issues A multidimen-sional scaling approach Multtvanate Behavtoral Besearch, 9, 461-477

Shweder, R A (1975) Howrelevant is an individual difference theory of personality''Joumal of Personaltty, 43, 455-484

Shweder, R H ,& D'Andrade, R G (1979) Tlie systematic distortion hypothesis InR Shweder (Ed ) (1980) New dtrecttons for the methodobgy of soctal and behav-toral science (Vol 4) San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass

Skinner, H A (1978) Differentiating the contnbution of elevation, scatter and shapein profile similanty Educattonal and Psychobgtcal Measurement, 38, 297-308

Sneath, P H A , &Sokal, R R (1973) Numerical taxonomy Thepnnctplesandprac-ttces cf numencal classtfication San Francisco, CA W H Freeman and Co

Swede, S W, & Ifetlock, P (1985a) Henry Kisstngfir's tmpltctt personaltty theory Atechntcal report on a quantttattve case study Survey Research Center, Universityof Cahfomia, Berkeley, CA

Swede, S W, & Tetlock, P (1985b) Henry Kissinger's 18,752 personaltty descnp-tions qf thirty-eight poltttcal leaders m Whtte House Years—"States," "Tratts,""Behaviors" and "Habits " Unpublished data base. University of California,Berkeley, CA

Tetlock, P E (1981a) Pre- to post-election shifts in presidential rhetonc Impressionmanagement or cognitive adjustment?/ourjuiZ cf Persorudity and Socud Psychol-ogy, 41, 207-212

Tetlock, P E (1981b) Personality and isolationism Content analysis of senatonalspeeches Joumal ofPersondttu and Soctal Psychobgy, 41, 737-743

Tetlock, P E (1983) Cognitive style and political ideology Joumal of Personaltty andSoctal Psychology, 45, llB-126

Tetlock, P E (1984) Cognitive style and political behef systems m the Bntish Houseof Ciommons Joumalcf Personality and Soctal Psychobgy, 46, 365-375

Tetlock, P E (1985) Integrative comiJexity of American and Soviet foreign policystatements A time-senes analysis Joumalqf Personaltty and Soctal Psychobgy,49,1565-1585

Tetlock, P E , Bemzweig, J , & Gallant, J (1985) Supreme Court decisicm maku^Cognitive style as a predictor of ideological ctmsistency of vobng Joumal tf Per-sonaltty and Soctal Psychobgy, 48, 1227-1239

Tetlock, P E , Crosby, F, fit Crosby, T (1981) Pditical psychobiography Mtcropoh-ttcs, 1,191-213

Trzebmski, J (1985) Action-onented representations of lmj^cit personahty theoryJoumal of Personality and Soctal Psychobey, 48,1226-1278

Tversky, A (1977) Ffeatures of similanty Psf/cKofogteoZReweu), 84, 327-352Walker, S G (1977) Hie interface between behds aiui bdiaviar Henry Kissu^er's

operational code and tbe Vietnam yrai Joumal qf Conflict Besdutton, 21(1), 1 ^ -168

Ward, T H (1963) Hierarchical grouping to c^timize an objective fiincfcHm Joumalqfthe American Stattstical Assoctatum, 58, 236

Wi^ns , J S (1973) PersonalUy and prediction Pnnctpks of personality assess-ment Reading, MA A^s<m-Wesley

Y«jn«, F W, fit Lewycky], R (1981) ALSCAL-4 user's gutde Chapel HiU, NC Uni-versity of NMIII Canrfina, Psychometric Laboratory

Manusanpt recetved December 3, i9S5, revised April 17, J986