[Paleopsych] Dean Keith Simonton: Presidential IQ, Openness,
Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Fri Jul 28 09:51:02 MDT 2006
This is a fabulous article, and I trust Simonton's objectivity completely.
Dean Keith Simonton: Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance,
and Leadership: Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives
Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2006
Simonton teaches at the University of California at Davis
[I can supply the PDF.]
First, the summary from the "Magazine and Journal Reader" feature of the
daily bulletin from the Chronicle of Higher Education, 6.7.12
http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/07/2006071201j.htm
A glance at the current issue of Political Psychology: Rating American
presidents' IQ's
President Bush is definitely intelligent, but his IQ is "below
average" when compared to that of his 41 predecessors, according to a
new study by Dean Keith Simonton, a professor of psychology at the
University of California at Davis.
Using statistical methods to translate several personality traits
associated with intelligence, Mr. Simonton has compiled IQ estimates
for every American president. General acuity is a crucial measure of a
leader's performance, he says, but given that most presidents died
before the advent of intelligence tests, their IQ's have remained a
mystery.
Mr. Simonton calculates that President Bush's IQ probably ranges
between 111.1 and 138.5, with an average near 125. That would place
Mr. Bush "in the upper range of college graduates in raw intellect,"
he writes. Moreover, he says that these findings endorse what has been
claimed on the basis of the president's SAT scores and Harvard MBA:
"namely, that his IQ most likely exceeds 115. ... He is certainly
smart enough to be president of the United States."
That is the good news for the president. The bad news is that his
estimated IQ is lower than that of nearly every other president who
preceded him. In fact, the only president during the 20th century to
score lower than President Bush was Warren G. Harding. Mr. Harding,
who graduated from Ohio Central College, had an estimated IQ range
between 107.8 and 139.9, with an average just below 124.
President Grover Cleveland, whose nonconsecutive terms made him the
nation's 22nd and 24th chief executive, was rated slightly higher than
Mr. Bush, with an estimated IQ range of 116.9 to 144.
John Quincy Adams, a graduate of Harvard College, was the president
with the highest estimated IQ. He had a score that ranged between 165
and 175. Other high scores came from Presidents Thomas Jefferson, John
F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton. Some of the lowest-scoring presidents
included James Monroe, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant.
The article, "Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and
Leadership: Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives,"
is available to subscribers or for purchase through Blackwell
Publishing.
--Jason M. Breslow
____________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
Individual differences in intelligence are consistently associated with
leader performance, including the assessed performance of presidents of
the United States. Given this empirical significance, IQ scores were
estimated for all 42 chief executives from George Washington to G. W.
Bush. The scores were obtained by applying missing-values estimation
methods (expectation-maximization) to published assessments of (a) IQ
(Cox, 1926; n = 8), (b) Intellectual Brilliance (Simonton, 1986c; n = 39),
and (c) Openness to Experience (Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004; n = 32).
The resulting scores were then shown to correlate with evaluations of
presidential leadership performance. The implications for George W. Bush
and his presidency were then discussed.
KEY WORDS: Presidential leadership, IQ, Openness to Experience,
Intellectual Brilliance, intelligence
Perhaps no individual-difference variable has more practical consequences
than does general intelligence. This impact is witnessed at five levels of
specificity. First, at the broadest level of applicability, intelligence
is closely associated with the cognitive complexity necessary for meeting
the demands of modern life (Gottfredson, 1997). Second, and more
specifically, cognitive capacity is the best single predictor of job
performance in a wide range of occupations (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert,
2005). Third, and yet more narrowly, individual differences in
intelligence correlate positively with leader performance (Bass, 1990;
Simonton, 1995). For instance, according to one meta-analysis of 151
independent samples (Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004), the overall
correlation is .27 (when corrected for range restriction). Fourth, this
association holds for a more specialized form of leadership, namely the
performance of political leaders (Simonton, 1990). For example, a
historiometric study of 342 European monarchs found that intelligence
correlated .32 with eminence and .67 with leadership (Simonton, 1984; see
also Simonton, 1983, 2001a). Fifth, and most specifically, assessed
intelligence has a positive correlation with the performance of U.S.
presidents (Simonton, 1986c, 1988, 2001b), where performance was based on
surveys of presidential experts, including both political scientists and
historians. In fact, out of more than two dozen individual-difference
variables examined, intelligence was the only one to display consistently
positive correlations with all available measures of presidential
greatness (Simonton, 1992; cf. McCann, 1992). Indeed, it constitutes the
only direct individual-difference correlate of performance once
situational factors are taken into account (Simonton, 1991b, 1992; see
also Simonton, 1986a, 1996). Intelligence is a crucial component of leader
performance, in part, because it is associated with other advantageous
attributes, such as charisma and creativity (Simonton, 1988).
Given that most presidents of the United States died long before the
advent of intelligence tests, it is imperative to specify the basis for
the scores used in these investigations (Simonton, 1986c, 1987).
Assessment began by extracting personality descriptions from several
biographical sources for 39 presidents from Washington through Reagan. All
identifying information was then removed to produce anonymous biographical
profiles. Several independent judges used these profiles in conjunction
with the Gough Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) to rate the
presidents on 300 descriptors, obtaining reliable assessments for 110
adjectives (cf. Deluga, 1997, 1998; Historical Figures Assessment
Collaborative, 1977). These latter measures were then subjected to a
factor analysis that obtained 14 distinct dimensions. One of these factors
included such items as "intelligent," "wise," "inventive," "interests
wide," "artistic," "curious," "sophisticated," "complicated," and
"insightful" (but not "dull" or "commonplace"). Moreover, a factor score
defined by the linear composite of these items yielded a measure having an
internal-consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) of .90 (Simonton,
1986c). The resulting factor was then interpreted as assessing the chief
executives on Intellectual Brilliance.
This measure was then validated a number of ways. For example, the
variable correlates with objective biographical events, such as the chief
executive’s preelection publication record (Simonton, 1986c), a variable
that prior research showed was associated with presidential greatness
(Simonton, 1981). In addition, Intellectual Brilliance correlates with
alternative assessments of presidential intellect. For instance, the
measure has a correlation of .80 with Thorndike’s (1950) intelligence
evaluations of 10 chief executives based on his reading of pertinent
biographical data (Simonton, 1986c).
Even more significant for our current purposes, Intellectual Brilliance
correlates .70 with the IQ scores that Cox (1926) had calculated for eight
U.S. presidents as part of Terman’s (1925-59) classic study of the
relation between intelligence and achievement (Simonton, 1986c). These IQ
scores, though extracted from biographies using historiometric methods,
used an entirely different operational definition of intelligence and
therefore focused on contrasting sources of information. In particular,
Cox compiled chronologies of childhood and adolescent achievements to
detect any signs of intellectual precocity. Using a team of independent
raters, the ages at which certain accomplishments appeared were compared
with the average ages at which those achievements would be expected in the
general population. The IQ scores were then defined according to the
traditional concept of the intelligence quotient as 100 ¥ MA/CA, where MA
is mental age and CA is chronological age (extended from Terman, 1917).
The method was applied to only eight chief executives because the sample
consisted of 301 leaders and creators from numerous nations and periods of
history (Cox, 1926). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the IQ scores
for this sample correlated .25 with individual differences in eminence
(using an archival space measure devised by Cattell, 1903; cf. Simonton,
1986c). Furthermore, high IQs in Cox’s (1926) sample are linked with
traits that have a close affinity with those defining Intellectual
Brilliance, namely, originality of ideas, profoundness of apprehension,
pervasive cognitive activity and drive, and intellectual versatility (Cox,
1926; Simonton, 1976; White, 1931).
The Intellectual Brilliance assessment was validated much later via a
totally divergent methodology (Simonton, 2002). Rubenzer, Faschingbauer,
and Ones (2000) assessed the 41 U.S. presidents prior to George W. Bush on
the NEO, a standard measure of the "Big Five" personality dimensions
(Costa & McCrae, 1992a,b). The assessment was executed by having
recognized experts on specific presidents rate their subjects on the items
making up the key facets and factors of the NEO. From these questionnaires
useful measures were obtained for all of the NEO scales, at least for a
subset of 31 chief executives for whom sufficient ratings were available.
The resulting measure of special relevance here is Openness to Experience,
a cognitive proclivity that encompasses unusual receptiveness to fantasy,
aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values. In the general
population this factor is positively associated with intelligence (Bates &
Shieles, 2003; Gignac, Stough, & Loukomitis, 2004; Harris, 2004). In the
specific case of presidents, as well, Openness correlates .71 with the
Intellectual Brilliance factor (Simonton, 2000, 2002). In other words,
Intellectual Brilliance has almost the exact same correlation with
Openness as it does with the Cox (1926) IQ scores. Thus, it is very likely
that the three measures, despite their distinct origins, are all tapping
into the same underlying construct--each president’s broad intellectual
breadth, power, and energy.1 As further support for this conjecture, the
Openness scores also predict the performance ratings that the presidents
receive from historians and political scientists who have expertise in the
American presidency (Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, & Ones, 2000). In fact, not
only does Openness predict presidential success better than any other Big
Five factor, but it correlates with "ethics on the job" as well (Ones,
Rubenzer, & Faschingbauer, 2004).
1 Some would argue that general intelligence (or Spearman’s g) can be
psychometrically discriminated from Openness (e.g., Costa & McCrae,
1992a,b). From this perspective the high correlation observed between
Openness and the other measures may be suspicious because it is more than
double the correlation usually observed in the general population.
However, the two constructs may be more closely related in samples of
presidents because of how such individuals are recruited to enter and
succeed in politics. There is a precedent for such a selection effect in
the fact that the power and achievement motives are more highly correlated
among presidents than in the population at large (Winter, 1973, 1987).
Thus in the case of U.S. chief executives (and perhaps other political
leaders) high general intelligence may be more strongly linked with the
qualities associated with Openness.
Most recently, Rubenzer and Faschingbauer (2004) published the book
Personality, Character, & Leadership in the White House in which they
could elaborate and extend the findings reported in Rubenzer,
Faschingbauer, and Ones (2000). Among the many additions in this later
publication is the inclusion of NEO scores for George W. Bush, thereby
enlarging the sample of assessed presidents from 31 to 32. This
enlargement provided the impetus for the current investigation.
Specifically, the goal is threefold. First, by applying modern statistical
methods for reconstructing missing values, I provide estimates of IQ,
Openness, and Intellectual Brilliance for all 42 presidents. Second, these
objective (even if tentative) estimates will be correlated with the most
up-to-date measure of presidential performance for the 41 presidents for
whom ratings are possible. Third, the association from this result will be
used to predict George W. Bush’s most likely performance rating were it
based on intellectual ability alone.
Method
The sample consists of all presidents of the United States from George
Washington to George W. Bush. Although Bush was inaugurated as the 43rd
President of the United States, he was only the 42nd U.S. president
(because Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms as the 22nd and 24th
president of the United States). Hence, the sample size is 42 rather than
43.
Intellectual Capacity Measures
The factor scores for Intellectual Brilliance were taken from Simonton
(1986c, p. 154). All presidents between Washington and Reagan were
assessed (n = 39), the scores having been standardized to a zero mean and
a unit standard deviation (i.e., z scores). The Openness scores came from
Rubenzer and Faschingbauer (2004, pp. 26, 200, 302). These scores have a
hypothetical range of 0 to 100, and the actual range is very close to
that. Even though presidents from Washington to George W. Bush were
assessed, 10 presidents could not be reliably scored because of the
unavailability of appropriate experts, thereby reducing the sample size (n
= 32). Finally, IQ estimates were adopted from Cox (1926) for the small
subset of presidents who were of sufficient renown to make it into the
sample of 301 geniuses (n = 8). Actually, there were four estimates for
each president. First, IQs were calculated for two periods of biographical
data, the first from birth to age 17 and the second from age 18 to age 26.
These were identified by Cox as IQ I and IQ II. Second, the raw IQ scores
for each of these periods were corrected for measurement error (see Cox,
1926, pp. 82-83, for the specific formula). This statistical correction
for attenuation was deemed necessary because some biographies had more
adequate information than did others. Hence, each period has both
uncorrected (U) and corrected (C) IQ scores. The outcome is four IQ
scores: I-U, I-C, II-U, and II-C.
The original scores on Intellectual Brilliance, Openness to Experience,
and the four Cox (1926) IQ estimates are shown in boldface in Table 1.
These numbers have been rounded off to the first figure to the right of
the decimal point. Table 2 shows the basic statistics for each measure,
including the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). It should be observed
that the four IQ estimates differ in three systematic ways. First, the
corrected scores (C) tend to be larger than the uncorrected scores (U).
This is not surprising given that the correction for attenuation is
supposed to have this consequence, but it does raise the issue of whether
the corrected scores might be too high. Second, the first-period estimates
(I) tend to be smaller than the second-period estimates (II). Third, the
dispersion, as indicated by the standard deviations, tends to be larger
for the first-period estimates (I) relative to the second-period estimates
(II).2
2 Because these IQs were based on the old definition of the intelligence
quotient as a ratio of mental to chronological age (rather than the modern
definition of IQ in terms of the normal distribution), the scores have no
pre-set standard deviation (16 or 15 in most modern tests). Nonetheless,
the standard deviations for the entire sample tend to be between 14 and 15
(Simonton, 1976).
Lastly, it is worth noting that although the presidents range tremendously
in Openness, the mean for the group falls in the low end of the
distribution.
Leadership Performance Measure
The measure of presidential leadership was based on the ratings or
rankings contained in the following 12 sources: the Schlesinger (1948)
survey, the Rossiter (1956) rating, the Schlesinger (1962) second survey,
the Bailey (1966) rating (as quantified by Kynerd, 1971), the Maranell
(1970) survey, the Chicago Tribune Magazine poll (as reported in Murray &
Blessing, 1983), the Porter poll (also as reported in Murray & Blessing,
1983), the Murray and Blessing survey (1983), the Siena Research Institute
survey (Kelly & Lonnstrom, 1990), the Ridings and McIver (1997) survey,
and a survey conducted by C-Span (C-Span Survey of Presidential
Leadership, 2000). When necessary, the original scores were inverted so
that higher numbers signified greater presidential performance. All 12
measures were then standardized to produce z scores (i.e., M = 0 and SD =
1). The average of these dozen standardized measures defined the indicator
of each president’s leadership performance (or "presidential greatness").
Table 1. Original and Imputed Scores for 42 Presidents
IQ estimates
President/ Intellectual brilliance /Openness /
[IQ Estimates] I-U/ I-C/ II-U/ II-C
Washington 0.3 14.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0
J. Adams 0.6 61.0 120.0 150.0 145.0 155.0
Jefferson 3.1 99.1 145.0 160.0 150.0 160.0
Madison 0.6 62.0 120.0 150.0 135.0 160.0
Monroe -1.4 3.7 109.0 120.7 128.2 138.6
J. Q. Adams 1.2 98.0 165.0 170.0 165.0 175.0
Jackson -0.6 0.5 110.0 120.0 130.0 145.0
Van Buren -0.3 31.0 119.4 132.9 135.1 146.0
W. Harrison -0.1 31.5 120.3 133.6 135.5 146.3
Tyler 0.2 37.9 122.9 136.6 137.2 148.1
Polk -0.6 21.0 116.0 128.7 132.7 143.4
Taylor -1.2 9.0 110.8 122.7 129.3 139.8
Fillmore -0.7 46.0 120.8 136.7 137.4 149.0
Pierce -0.3 37.0 120.6 134.8 136.3 147.4
Buchanan -0.8 5.0 111.9 122.8 129.4 139.6
Lincoln 0.8 95.0 125.0 145.0 140.0 150.0
A. Johnson -1.2 8.0 110.8 122.7 129.3 139.8
Grant -1.4 2.3 110.0 115.0 125.0 130.0
Hayes -0.1 31.5 120.3 133.6 135.5 146.3
Garfield 0.9 52.9 129.0 143.5 141.2 152.3
Arthur 0.9 52.9 129.0 143.5 141.2 152.3
Cleveland -0.5 23.0 116.9 129.6 133.3 144.0
B. Harrison -0.7 30.0 117.5 131.4 134.3 145.4
McKinley -0.6 20.8 116.0 128.6 132.7 143.4
T. Roosevelt 0.9 56.0 129.7 144.6 141.8 153.0
Taft 0.0 1.0 114.5 123.8 129.8 139.5
Wilson 1.3 64.0 133.0 148.3 143.9 155.2
Harding -2.0 10.0 107.8 121.1 128.4 139.9
Coolidge -1.5 17.0 111.4 124.8 130.6 141.6
Hoover 0.5 8.0 118.0 127.5 132.0 141.6
F. Roosevelt 0.9 45.0 127.4 140.9 139.7 150.5
Truman 0.2 1.7 115.5 124.6 130.3 139.8
Eisenhower -0.7 29.0 117.3 131.1 134.1 145.1
Kennedy 1.8 82.0 138.9 155.7 148.2 159.8
L. Johnson -0.2 7.0 114.8 125.2 130.7 140.6
Nixon 0.4 14.0 118.9 129.2 133.0 142.9
Ford -0.6 8.0 113.3 124.4 130.2 140.4
Carter 0.0 77.0 130.2 149.0 144.4 156.8
Reagan 0.4 10.0 118.0 127.9 132.2 141.9
G.H.W. Bush -0.3 18.0 116.5 128.4 132.6 143.0
Clinton 1.0 82.0 135.6 153.6 147.0 159.0
G.W. Bush -0.7 0.0 111.1 121.4 128.5 138.5
Note. Original scores are in boldface, estimates in regular font. All
statistics are rounded off to one
decimal place. Intellectual brlliance is expressed by z scores with a mean
of 0 and a standard
deviation of 1 (from Simonton, 1986c). Openness is expressed as a
percentage score ranging from 0
to 100 (from Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004). The four IQ estimates
originate in Cox (1926) and
represent standard IQ scores with a hypothetical mean of 100 and a
standard deviation of 16. The
latter represent four estimates: I-U (ages 0-17, uncorrected), I-C (ages
18-26, corrected for data
reliability), II-U (ages 0-17, uncorrected), and II-C (ages 18-26,
corrected for data reliability).
Table 2. Basic Statistics for Original Measures
President/ Intellectual brilliance /Openness
I-U I-C II-U II-C
n 39 32 8888
Minimum 2.0 0.0 110.0 115.0 125.0 130.0
Maximum 3.1 99.1 165.0 170.0 165.0 175.0
M -0.0 35.4 127.5 142.5 140.6 151.9
SD 1.0 32.5 18.7 19.3 12.7 13.9
In line with previous research demonstrating the impressive expert
consensus on the differential reputation of the U.S. presidents, the
resulting 12-item composite had an internal-consistency (coefficient
alpha) reliability of .99, which is as close to perfection as can be
expected for real data (see also Simonton, 1986b, 1991a). As further
validation of this measure, it was correlated with published ratings of
supposed components of presidential leadership. In particular, the
greatness measure correlated positively with Maranell’s (1970) assessments
of presidential prestige (r = .95), strength (r = .96), activity (r =
.90), and accomplishments (r = .97) and with Ridings and McIver’s (1997)
assessments of presidential leadership (r = .93), accomplishments (r =
.94), political skill (r = .90), and appointments (r = .90). Hence, the
leadership criterion reflects the essential features of presidential
performance.
Results
The first step in the analysis was to use the observed scores in Table 1,
indicated in boldface, to reconstruct the missing values (Little & Rubin,
2002). This was possible for three reasons. First, every president has at
least one score that is not missing. Second, statistical tests indicated
that one could not reject the null hypothesis that the scores are "missing
completely at random" (MCAR = 5.03, df = 4, p = .284). That is, the scores
seen in Table 1 can be said to be representative of the population of
scores rather than having some selection bias. Third, the six measures are
highly intercorrelated, indicating that there is enough redundant
information to predict (or impute) the missing scores with a reasonable
degree of accuracy.
The magnitude of this redundancy is shown in Table 3, which gives the
Pearson product-moment correlations using pairwise deletion (i.e., each
correlation is calculated across all cases for which both scores are
available). It should be immediately obvious that the six variables are
assessing the same underlying quality of cognitive power. Not only are the
four Cox (1926) scores highly intercorrelated, but also all four are
strongly correlated with both Intellectual Brilliance and Openness to
Experience. The smallest correlation is that between the last two
variables, yet even this is high enough to suggest considerable overlap
between the two constructs. What renders these strong associations all the
more remarkable is that the variables are based on three disparate
methodologies: ratings based on personality profiles extracted from
biographies (Intellectual Brilliance), evaluations obtained by surveying
biographers (Openness), and scores calculated from chronologies of early
childhood and adolescent accomplishments (IQ). Although each technique
will have its own distinctive methodological advantages and disadvantages,
the methods still converge on a consistent overall assessment.
Table 3. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations among Original Measures
Variable 12345
1. Intellectual brilliance
2. Openness .69
3. IQ I-U .71 .74
4. IQ I-C .82 .92 .84
5. IQ II-U .72 .80 .94 .92
6. IQ II-C .70 .81 .81 .94 .89
Note. All correlations are significant at the p . .05 level or better
except for that between Intellectual Brilliance and IQ II-C
(p = .054).
The missing values were imputed using the Expectation-Maximization (EM)
algorithm that constructs the complete data matrix according to the
patterns displayed by the nonmissing scores (Little & Rubin, 2002). This
iterative procedure uses the maximum-likelihood criterion to compute the
missing values. Because it takes into consideration the entire data
structure, EM has been shown to be superior to alternative imputation
procedures, such as regression (see, e.g., Gold & Bentler, 2000). The EM
algorithm was specifically implemented via the Missing Value Analysis
module in SYSTAT 11 (SYSTAT 11, 2004, vol. 2, chap. 7). The outcome is
shown in Table 1, the imputed scores given in regular font. The
reconstructions are greatest for the four IQ estimates, least for the
Intellectual Brilliance scores. Although the IQ scores must therefore be
considered more tentative and approximate than the other two scores, they
do have the asset of a substantive meaning comparable to scores on
standardized IQ tests. That renders them more interpretable to a broad
audience.
To obtain a better idea of the nature of these imputed values, Table 4
provides the basic statistics for the completed data matrix. Overall the
results are fairly similar, except that the IQ estimates have lower means
and standard deviations. Because far more missing values are estimated for
the IQ scores than for the Intellectual Brilliance and Openness measures,
the replaced values are more likely to regress toward the mean and to
reduce variance. Although it is not obvious from mere inspection, the
scores on all six measures appear to be free of any political bias. In
particular, one cannot reject the null hypothesis that Democratic and
Republican presidents have the same expected intelligence. This null
result holds whether the sample includes all presidents since Jackson
(when the Democratic Party began) or just all presidents since Lincoln
(when the Republican Party began).
Table 4. Statistics and Leader Performance Correlations (rs) for Measures
with
Imputed Values (N = 42)
President Intellectual brilliance Openness
I-U I-C II-U II-C
Minimum -2.0 0.0 107.8 115.0 125.0 130.0
Maximum 3.1 99.1 165.0 170.0 165.0 175.0
M -0.0 33.4 121.0 134.4 136.0 146.8
SD 1.0 29.6 10.9 12.5 7.6 8.3
r .56 .34 .34 .35 .32 .31
Note. The rs are Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. All
coefficients except the last are significant at the p . .05 level, and for
the last (p = .054). The correlation for Intellectual Brilliance is
significant at the p . .001 level.
But how do these reconstructed scores correlate with the leadership
performance criterion? The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients
are given in the last row of Table 4. It is evident that all six measures
are positively correlated with presidential leadership, and all measures
but one have about the same effect size (viz. about 10% of the variance is
shared). Moreover, with that one exception, the correlations are about the
same size as Ones, Rubenzer, and Faschingbauer (2004) found between
Openness and their assessment of presidential success. The lone departure
from the general pattern is Intellectual Brilliance, which has a
correlation noticeably larger than the other five. Hence, if it was
necessary to identify a single predictor variable, this would be the
measure of choice. This explanatory superiority may help explain why it
has consistently emerged as a significant predictor in a series of
investigations published between 1986 and 2002 (e.g., Simonton, 1986c,
1988, 2001b, 2002). These studies also indicate that the impact of
intelligence on greatness has not changed over the course of U.S.
history.3 That is, its predictive power has neither increased nor declined
with time. For instance, an early study of 36 presidents obtained a
standardized partial regression coefficient of .26 (Simonton, 1986c) while
a much later study of 41 presidents obtained a coefficient of .29
(Simonton, 2002), a trivial difference. This temporal stability would not
hold if either (a) the cognitive assessment of recent presidents was more
or less reliable than the assessment of earlier presidents or (b) the
structural association between intelligence and leader performance had
weakened or strengthened in the U.S. modern presidency.
3 Contrary to what has been suggested in some leadership research
(Simonton, 1985), presidential greatness is not a curvilinear, inverted-U
function of Intellectual Brilliance (Simonton, 1986c). Instead, the
function is positive and linear. This is not to say that exceptional
intellect cannot be a liability: Highly intelligent presidents are much
less likely to win election by landslide victories (Simonton, 1987).
Discussion
Ever since George W. Bush was elected to the presidency, questions have
emerged about his general intelligence (Sailer, 2004). Although some of
these attacks were nothing more than internet hoaxes, and others were
founded solely on his frequent verbal slips, still others were based on
more serious speculations, such as attempts to estimate his IQ from his
reported performance on the SAT (Immelman, 2001). The results reported in
Table 1 provide a more objective and quantitative means to address this
issue. Two points should be clear from the imputed IQ scores.
First, Bush is definitely intelligent. The IQ estimates range between
111.1 and 138.5, with an average around 125. That places him in the upper
range of college graduates in raw intellect (Cronbach, 1960). Admittedly,
this average is influenced by Cox’s (1926) corrected scores, which may be
overestimates. Yet even if we focus on just the uncorrected IQs, the range
is between 111.1 and 128.5, with a mean around 120, which is about the
average IQ for a college graduate in the United States. In addition, the
figure is more than one standard deviation above the population mean,
placing Bush in the upper 10% of the intelligence distribution (Storfer,
1990). These results endorse what has been claimed on the basis of his SAT
scores and his Harvard MBA, namely, that his IQ most likely exceeds 115
(Immelman, 2001). He is certainly smart enough to be president of the
United States (Simonton, 1985).
Second, Bush’s IQ is below average relative to that subset of the U.S.
citizens who also managed to work their way into the White House. In fact,
his intellect falls near the bottom of the distribution. When compared
with twentieth-century presidents from Theodore Roosevelt through Clinton,
only Harding has a lower score (at least on three of the four estimates).
A similar conclusion is suggested by the Intellectual Brilliance measure,
albeit in this case there are now two twentieth- century presidents with
lower scores, namely, Harding and Coolidge. Moreover, Bush’s IQ falls
about 20 points--more than one standard deviation--below that of his
predecessor, Clinton, a disparity that may have created a contrast effect
that made any intellectual weaknesses all the more salient. Clinton’s
intellectual attainments as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law School graduate,
his demonstrated capacity for mastering impressive amounts of complex and
detailed information, his verbal eloquence and fluency, and his logical
adroitness and sophistication--at times, as during the Monica Lewinsky
scandal, verging on sophistry--places Clinton head and shoulders above his
successor in terms of intellectual power.
Needless to say, it can be argued that the Intellectual Brilliance and IQ
estimates are biased downward. George W. Bush may be much smarter than
Table 1 implies. The counterargument must aim at the score he received on
Openness, a score that provided the only information for the imputation of
his IQ and Intellectual Brilliance estimates. This score placed him at the
very bottom of the distribution of U.S. presidents. Indeed, the score puts
him toward the bottom of the general population as well. One reason to
question this placement is that Rubenzer and Faschingbauer obtained Bush’s
NEO scores in a different manner than they did for the preceding
presidents. As they expressed it, "We depart here from our usual method;
rather than having biographers rate the president, the authors read
biographies and then rated him. This was done for one simple reason: None
of the few biographers available returned our questionnaires" (2004, p.
301). Although these assessments were supplemented somewhat by a
last-minute questionnaire response received right before the book’s
publication they warned "Although we did eventually obtain three raters,
greater caution is called for here in reading our results" (pp. 301-302).
After all, "None of us have a deep knowledge of Mr. Bush comparable to the
presidential experts that provided the other ratings" (p. 302). Thus, the
authors themselves claim that their scores, including the Openness
assessment, can only be considered tentative.
Even so, there are several reasons for suggesting that the numbers
reported in last row of Table 1 are not unreasonable. To begin with, it is
likely that his Openness score would not be higher than his father’s,
whose score of 18.0 put his IQ estimates in the low end of the
distribution as well. If anything, the son’s score should be lower given
that his intellectual curiosity appears to be noticeably more restricted
than his father’s. As one national correspondent for United Press
International put it, "despite being the scion of an elite family with
worldwide connections, Bush’s hobbies appear limited to not much more than
running, fishing and baseball" (Sailer, 2004, p. 2). In fact, with respect
to the Intellectual Brilliance evaluation, it would seem that the younger
Bush does not make the impression of having wide interests or of being
especially artistic, curious, sophisticated, complicated, and insightful.
The same holds for the Openness measure. Presidents who score high on this
assessment tend to rate high on the following facets: (a) Openness to
Fantasy--"Vivid imagination and rich fantasy life; dreamy," (b) Openness
to Aesthetics--"Deep appreciation of art, music, poetry, beauty; artistic,
original," (c) Openness to Feelings--"Receptivity to own inner feelings
and emotions. Experience emotions fully and value them; excitable,
spontaneous," (d) Openness to Actions--"Willingness to try new activities,
go new places, do things differently; wide interests, adventurous," (e)
Openness to Ideas--"Intellectual curiosity, willingness to consider new
ideas; idealistic, inventive," and (f) Openness to Values--"Readiness to
reexamine (or reject) social, political and religious values;
unconventional" (Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004, p. 12). At best,
according to the three raters, Bush only shows some proclivity for one
facet, namely, Openness to Feelings, and many close observers of the
president would probably agree (see, e.g., Suskind, 2004).
Finally, Bush’s low Openness score is corroborated by a totally
independent methodology: content analytical measures of integrative
complexity. Applied to verbal materials such as speeches (with identifying
material deleted), this objective technique gauges the extent to which the
individual can differentiate multiple perspectives on an issue and
integrate those perspectives into a single coherent point of view
(Suedfeld, Guttieri, & Tetlock, 2003; Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert,
1992). Low scorers on integrative complexity can only see things from a
single perspective--their own--and so no integration is necessary. One
analysis showed that Bush’s pre-9/11 baseline complexity was appreciably
lower than that of Tony Blair, the prime minister of Great Britain during
the same period (Suedfeld & Leighton, 2002). Bush’s specific score is
indicative of someone who discusses issues without taking alternative
points of view into serious consideration. Significantly, the score that
Bush received is markedly below that of every single elected U.S.
president from McKinley through Carter inclusively (as reported in
Tetlock, 1981). In addition, his score is below that of most U.S. senators
and Supreme Court justices, albeit under certain circumstances it stands
at about the same level as highly conservative senators and justices
(using statistics reported in Tetlock, 1983; Tetlock, Bernzweig, &
Gallant, 1985; Tetlock, Hannum, & Micheletti, 1984).
Yet these outcomes cannot simply be attributed to his being a conservative
Republican: Bush’s integrative complexity is also comparable to (a)
extreme abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates in antebellum United
States (as contrasted with free-soil Republicans and Buchanan Democrats;
Tetlock, Armor, & Peterson, 1994), (b) hard-line communists in the Soviet
leadership (Tetlock & Boettger, 1989), and (c) the extremist Islamic
Fundamentalists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership (Suedfeld &
Leighton, 2002)--with the notable exception of Osama bin Laden, who is
lower still. Even more tellingly, Bush’s score does not change with the
political conditions, unlike what usually holds for successful political
and military leaders (e.g., Suedfeld, Corteen, & McCormick, 1986; Tetlock,
1981), but rather stays consistently low (Suedfeld & Leighton, 2002), and
thus reveals a trait-like stability. Given the objective nature of these
integrative complexity scores, their apparent lack of political bias, and
their prima facie connection with both Openness to Ideas and Openness to
Values, the overall Openness score Bush received in Table 1 may not be too
far off the mark.4
4 For the 11 presidents for which measures were available, integrative
complexity correlated .58 with Openness to Experience, suggesting that
they overlap conceptually, albeit the former variable is supposedly more
responsive to situational influences whereas the latter purports to
represent a stable trait.
If we assume that Bush’s scores on Intellectual Brilliance, Openness, and
IQ are in the right ballpark, then his expected presidential leadership
would be lowered. The predicted disadvantage is most apparent in the case
of Intellectual Brilliance because this measure has the highest
correlation with performance as judged by historians and political
scientists best qualified to evaluate U.S. presidents.5 Specifically, on
the basis of this trait we would predict that Bush’s ultimate standing
with posterity will fall about two-fifths of a standard deviation below
the mean (i.e., -0.7 ¥.56 =-0.39). This would put him on about the same
level as Jimmy Carter (Simonton, 2002). In terms of the presidential
rankings, he would come in 26th out of 42 chief executives. To be sure,
intellect is not by any means the only predictor of presidential
leadership. Many other variables are involved as well, including both
personality traits (McCann, 1992; Ones, Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004;
Winter, 1987) and situational factors (Kenney & Rice, 1988; Nice, 1984;
Simonton, 1987, 1993). Some of these variables can raise his final
assessment to that of an average, and even above-average, chief executive
(but see Immelman, 2002). Yet the conclusion remains, however tentative at
this point in time, that Bush's intellect may be more a liability than an
asset with respect to his performance as the nation's chief executive. His
strengths most likely lie elsewhere.
5 In fact, when entered into a multiple regression equation that includes
five other predictors of presidential greatness (years in office, war
years, assassination, scandals, and war hero), only Intellectual
Brilliance emerges as a significant predictor (b=.29, p . .01, versus
b=.19, p . .05, for the other five intellect measures).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dean Keith
Simonton, Department of Psychology, One Shields Avenue, University of
California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616-8686. E-mail: dksimonton at ucdavis.edu
REFERENCES
Bailey, T. A. (1966). Presidential greatness. New York: Appleton-Century.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bates, T. C., & Shieles, A. (2003). Crystallized intelligence as product
of speed and drive for experience: The relationship of inspection time and
openness to g and Gc. Intelligence, 31, 275-287.
C-Span Survey of Presidential Leadership. (2000). Retrieved November 17,
2000, from http://
www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/overall.asp.
Cattell, J. M. (1903). A statistical study of eminent men. Popular Science
Monthly, 62, 359-377. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Revised
NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Four ways five factors are basic.
Personality & Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.
Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New
York: Harper & Row.
Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic
leadership, narcissism, and related performance. Leadership Quarterly, 8,
51-65.
Deluga, R. J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic
leadership, and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 265-291.
Gignac, G. E., Stough, C., & Loukomitis, S. (2004). Openness,
intelligence, and self-report intelligence. Intelligence, 32, 133-143.
Gold, M. S., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Treatments of missing data: A Monte
Carlo comparison of RBHDI, iterative stochastic regression imputation, and
expectation-maximization. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(3), 319-355.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life.
Intelligence, 24, 79-132.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. (1965). The Adjective Check List
manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Harris, J. A. (2004). Measured intelligence, achievement, openness to
experience, and creativity. Personality & Individual Differences, 36,
913-929.
Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative. (1977). Assessing historical
figures: The use of observer-based personality descriptions. Historical
Methods Newsletter, 10, 66-76.
Immelman, A. (2001). Bush gets bad rap on intelligence. St. Cloud Times,
January 14, p. 11B. (Available online at
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm) Immelman, A. (2002).
The political personality of U.S. president George W. Bush. In L. O.
Valenty & O. Feldman (Eds.), Political leadership for the new century:
Personality and behavior among American leaders (pp. 81-103). Westport:
Praeger.
Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and
leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 542-552.
Kelly, T., & Lonnstrom, D. (1990). Presidents’ survey. Unpublished
manuscript. Siena College. Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1988). The
contextual determinants of presidential greatness. Presidential Studies
Quarterly, 18, 161-169.
Kynerd, T. (1971). An analysis of presidential greatness and "President
rating." Southern Quarterly, 9, 309-329.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing
data. Hoboken: Wiley- Interscience.
Maranell, G. M. (1970). The evaluation of presidents: An extension of the
Schlesinger polls. Journal of American History, 57, 104-113.
McCann, S. J. H. (1992). Alternative formulas to predict the greatness of
U.S. presidents: Personological, situational, and zeitgeist factors.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 469-479.
Murray, R. K., & Blessing, T. H. (1983). The presidential performance
study: A progress report. Journal of American History, 70, 535-555.
Nice, D. C. (1984). The influence of war and party system aging on the
ranking of presidents. Western Political Quarterly, 37, 443-455.
Ones, D., Rubenzer, S. J., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2004). Predicting
presidential success. In S. J. Rubenzer & T. R. Faschingbauer,
Personality, character, and leadership in the White House: Psychologists
assess the presidents (pp. 38-59). Washington: Brassey’s.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Cognitive ability in
selection decisions. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Handbook of
understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 431-468). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Ridings, W. J., Jr., & McIver, S. B. (1997). Rating the presidents: A
ranking of U.S. leaders, from the great and honorable to the dishonest and
incompetent. Secaucus: Citadel Press.
Rossiter, C. L. (1956). The American presidency. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Rubenzer, S. J., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2004). Personality, character, &
leadership in the White House: Psychologists assess the presidents.
Washington: Brassey’s.
Rubenzer, S. J., Faschingbauer, T. R., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Assessing the
U.S. presidents using the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Assessment,
7, 403-420.
Sailer, S. (2004). Analysis: How smart is Bush? Retrieved August 25, 2004,
from http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-074349-3947r
Schlesinger, A. M. (1948). Historians rate the U.S. presidents. Life, 25
(18), November 1 pp. 65-66, 68, 73-74.
Schlesinger, A. M. (1962). Our presidents: A rating by 75 historians. New
York Times Magazine, July 29 pp. 12-13, 40-41, 43.
Simonton, D. K. (1976). Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A
multivariate approach to the Cox data. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 33, 218-226.
Simonton, D. K. (1981). Presidential greatness and performance: Can we
predict leadership in the White House? Journal of Personality, 49,
306-323.
Simonton, D. K. (1983). Intergenerational transfer of individual
differences in hereditary monarchs: Genes, role-modeling, cohort, or
sociocultural effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,
354-364.
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Leaders as eponyms: Individual and situational
determinants of monarchal eminence. Journal of Personality, 52, 1-21.
Simonton, D. K. (1985). Intelligence and personal influence in groups:
Four nonlinear models. Psychological Review, 92, 532-547.
Simonton, D. K. (1986a). Dispositional attributions of (presidential)
leadership: An experimental simulation of historiometric results. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 389-418.
Simonton, D. K. (1986b). Presidential greatness: The historical consensus
and its psychological significance. Political Psychology, 7, 259-283.
Simonton, D. K. (1986c). Presidential personality: Biographical use of the
Gough Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 149-160.
Simonton, D. K. (1987). Why presidents succeed: A political psychology of
leadership. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Presidential style: Personality, biography, and
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 928-936.
Simonton, D. K. (1990). Personality and politics. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 670-692). New York:
Guilford.
Simonton, D. K. (1991a). Latent-variable models of posthumous reputation:
A quest for Galton’s G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
607-619. Simonton, D. K. (1991b). Predicting presidential greatness: An
alternative to the Kenney and Rice Contextual Index. Presidential Studies
Quarterly, 21, 301-305.
Simonton, D. K. (1992). Presidential greatness and personality: A response
to McCann (1992). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
676-679.
Simonton, D. K. (1993). Putting the best leaders in the White House:
Personality, policy, and performance. Political Psychology, 14, 537-548.
Simonton, D. K. (1995). Personality and intellectual predictors of
leadership. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook
of personality and intelligence (pp. 739-757). New York: Plenum. Simonton,
D. K. (1996). Presidents’ wives and First Ladies: On achieving eminence
within a traditional gender role. Sex Roles, 35, 309-336.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Déjà vu. Monitor on psychology, 31(11), 8, 86.
Simonton, D. K. (2001a). Kings, queens, and sultans: Empirical studies of
political leadership in European hereditary monarchies. In O. Feldman & L.
O. Valenty (Eds.), Profiling political leaders: Cross-cultural studies of
personality and behavior (pp. 97-110). Westport: Praeger.
Simonton, D. K. (2001b). Predicting presidential greatness: Equation
replication on recent survey results. Journal of Social Psychology, 141,
293-307.
Simonton, D. K. (2002). Intelligence and presidential greatness: Equation
replication using updated IQ estimates. Advances in Psychology Research,
13, 143-153.
Storfer, M. D. (1990). Intelligence and giftedness: The contributions of
heredity and early environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Suedfeld, P., & Leighton, D. C. (2002). Early communications in the war
against terrorism: An integrative complexity analysis. Political
Psychology, 23, 585-599.
Suedfeld, P., Corteen, R. S., & McCormick, C. (1986). The role of
integrative complexity in military leadership: Robert E. Lee and his
opponents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 498-
Suedfeld, P., Guttieri, K., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Assessing integrative
complexity at a distance: Archival analyses of thinking and decision
making. In J. M. Post (Ed.), The psychological assessment of political
leaders: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton (pp. 246-270).
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992).
Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and
personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393-400).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suskind, R. (2004). The price of loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House,
and the education of Paul O’Neill. New York: Simon & Schuster.
SYSTAT 11. (2004). Richmond, CA: SYSTAT Software, Inc.
Terman, L. M. (1917). The intelligence quotient of Francis Galton in
childhood. American Journal of Psychology, 28, 209-215.
Terman, L. M. (1925-59). Genetic studies of genius (5 vols.). Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Tetlock, P. E. (1981). Pre-to postelection shifts in presidential
rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 207-212.
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 118-126.
Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Cognitive and rhetorical styles of
traditionalist and reformist Soviet politicians: A content analysis study.
Political Psychology, 10, 209-232.
Tetlock, P. E., Armor, D., & Peterson, R. S. (1994). The slavery debate in
antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of
compromise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 115-126.
Tetlock, P. E., Bernzweig, J., & Gallant, J. L. (1985). Supreme Court
decision making: Cognitive style as a predictor of ideological consistency
of voting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1227-1239.
Tetlock, P. E., Hannum, K. A., & Micheletti, P. M. (1984). Stability and
change in the complexity of senatorial debate: Testing the cognitive
versus rhetorical style hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46, 979-990.
Thorndike, E. L. (1950). Traits of personality and their intercorrelations
as shown in biographies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 41, 193-216.
White, R. K. (1931). The versatility of genius. Journal of Social
Psychology, 2, 460-489.
Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press.
Winter, D. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive
profiles of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and
elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 196-202.
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list