Presidential greatness: The historical consensus and its psychological significance

Abstract

Two interconnected questions are addressed. One,\textbackslashndoes a historical consensus exist concerning the\textbackslashndifferential “greatness” of the American presidents?\textbackslashnTwo, what do these ratings imply about presidential\textbackslashnleadership? A factor analysis of 16 assessments\textbackslashnindicated the presence of a primary “greatness”\textbackslashndimension and a bipolar “dogmatism” dimension. The\textbackslashnthree most recent measures were then singled out for\textbackslashnan analysis aimed at identifying the antecedents of\textbackslashnpresidential greatness. Hundreds of potential\textbackslashnpredictors were operationalized, including family\textbackslashnbackground, personality traits, occupational and\textbackslashnpolitical experiences, and administration\textbackslashnevents. Five predictors replicated across the\textbackslashngreatness measures and survived tests for\textbackslashntranshistorical invariance. In descending order of\textbackslashnpredictive generality, these are the number of years\textbackslashnin office, the number of years as a wartime\textbackslashncommander-in-chief, administration scandal,\textbackslashnassassination, and having entered office as a\textbackslashnnational war hero. The theoretical meaning of these\textbackslashnpredictors is explored in further empirical analysis\textbackslashnand discussion.