Political psychologist analyzes what makes Bill and Bob run
ANN ARBOR—Power motivates President Bill Clinton more strongly than it did in the past, but it’s less important these days to Bob Dole.
That’s one of the findings of University of Michigan psychology Prof. David G. Winter, who has analyzed the content of both candidates’ public speeches for clues to their personalities.
In fact, Winter has culled the inaugural addresses of every U.S. president, starting with George Washington, for imagery that reveals their underlying concerns. He measures how often their language reveals three basic motivations: the drives for power, for achievement and for affiliation, the need to connect with others.
“For political leaders, to be high in achievement motivation but not power motivation is not a good thing,” says Winter, the author of several articles on presidential personality differences.
“Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were all highly motivated by the wish to accomplish great things during their presidencies, but all, to various degrees, became frustrated when their aspirations got chewed up in the political process.”
But since 1994, Clinton has steadily moved away from this frustrating high achievement pattern and toward a pleasure in politics pattern characterized by John F. Kennedy and Harry S. Truman. “They took pleasure in being president, and had fun with politics,” notes Winter.
Bob Dole’s profile has also changed over the years, says Winter. In the mid-1970s, when he entered the national scene as Gerald Ford’s running mate, Dole’s speeches revealed a man largely motivated by the need to exercise power. Since the mid- 80s, Winter found, the importance of power has receded, while affiliation and achievement have become more important motives for Dole.
“For all his image of crustiness, Dole’s actual motive profile is dominated by affiliation imagery, that is, a concern for warm, friendly relations. A good comparison among previous U.S. presidents is Dwight Eisenhower, whose dominant motive was also affiliation.”