How have past presidential candidates been evaluated for psychopathy by experts?
Executive summary
Experts have evaluated presidential candidates and presidents for psychopathic traits using standardized psychometric tools and expert ratings, finding that some "boldness" traits linked to psychopathy—often called fearless dominance—correlate with perceived presidential success, while impulsive and callous traits do not reliably predict good leadership [1] [2] [3]. High-profile popular interpretations—such as Kevin Dutton’s league tables that placed contemporary candidates near historical autocrats—have amplified sensational comparisons but rest on abbreviated instruments and proxy raters rather than clinical diagnoses [4] [5] [6].
1. Methods used: inventories, expert raters and historical profiles
Researchers have primarily relied on established psychometric instruments adapted for public figures—most notably variants of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised (PPI‑R) and component measures like “fearless dominance” and “impulsive antisociality”—applied not by direct clinical interview but by experts, biographers, journalists or reporters rating subjects from historical records or public behavior [1] [5] [3]. Large-scale projects enlisted dozens to over a hundred expert raters to score the first 42 U.S. presidents on personality inventories and related measures and then compared those trait estimates to independent historical rankings of presidential performance [1] [2] [7].
2. Core finding: boldness can be adaptive in leadership
Multiple analyses concluded that the fearless‑dominance cluster—traits like social boldness, stress immunity and persuasiveness commonly subsumed under psychopathy—was positively associated with higher ratings of presidential leadership, crisis management and international stature, suggesting some psychopathic-style boldness may be adaptive for heads of state [1] [2] [3]. In contrast, maladaptive features frequently linked to clinical psychopathy—impulsivity, antisocial behavior and coldheartedness—were either uncorrelated or predictive of poor outcomes such as impeachment efforts or ethical lapses [1] [3].
3. Contemporary candidate work: league tables and their limits
Popular pieces and books by psychologists like Kevin Dutton translated abbreviated PPI‑R scores into league tables comparing modern candidates to historical leaders—reports that placed figures like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton high on psychopathy scales and produced attention‑grabbing claims (for example, comparing Trump’s score to dictators)—but these relied on proxy raters and short forms, and authors caution that such rankings describe trait tendencies rather than clinical diagnoses [4] [6] [5]. Journalistic presentations sometimes amplified dramatic headlines (e.g., “Trump ranks above Hitler” in some press summaries), a framing that experts warn can mislead readers about method and meaning [4] [6].
4. Ethical and professional constraints on diagnosing public figures
Psychiatric and ethical standards constrain clinicians from making public diagnostic claims about figures they have not personally evaluated: the American Psychiatric Association’s Goldwater Rule arose after 1964 and is codified in professional guidance to discourage armchair diagnoses during campaigns, a restraint reflected in contemporary commentary urging caution and structured vetting rather than public proclamation [8]. Several commentators and policy pieces therefore recommend transparent, standardized health and neuropsychological evaluations for candidates rather than informal public labeling [8].
5. Caveats, competing interpretations and political uses
Interpretations of these studies are contested: one strand argues that "dark" traits explain some political appeal and effectiveness, while critics note selection biases in expert raters, limits of retrospective coding, and the danger of partisan misuse—papers and media can be used to delegitimize opponents by invoking clinical language without clinical basis [1] [6] [3]. Social‑psychological work also shows associations between psychopathic traits and political attitudes or supporter profiles in some samples, complicating clean narratives about leaders versus followers and raising questions about demographic moderators that deserve more study [9].