International relations

International relations

With mention to illustrations, critically analyse the function played by personality in the preparation and execution of foreign policy.

In the field of international dealingss, bookmans have accredited political results to situational factors and constructions, herewith minimising the importance of leaders. However, in recent old ages, political scientists have been called upon by a turning figure of bookmans who seek an account of political results through the traditional carelessness of leaders. An incontrovertible rule of logic is that provinces do non do determinations, persons do. The personality of an single plays a extremely of import function in decision-making. Personality variables are frequently neglected by parts of political research and understanding how and when of actions, personality is of cardinal importance to the rationalisation of province behavior. Personality variables are straight linked to the account of the actions of decision-makers, the actions of provinces. To this point in history, there can be no penurious theory to explicate the behavior of worlds or their establishment. At the root of all societal scientific discipline research is the inquiry ‘why? ‘- Why does personality act upon a province ‘s concluding result, the determination implemented within foreign policy? This inquiry is addressed and adopted by many bookmans and theoreticians who research into possible end product theories explicating this.

Persons who are involved in a bureaucratic scene know and understand how much of the decision-making procedure is devoted to/influenced by pride, egomania, one-upmanship and other games that have comparatively any relation to the nonsubjective conditions the bureaucratism has to face with ( Allison 1971 ) . Realist accounts of the planetary behavior of provinces still use the province and its “ involvements ” as the cardinal causal component. Realist theories argue that through penurious theory, personality variables/aspects/elements can be eradicated throughout the clip of the bureaucratic scene, in peculiar when covering with farther everyday bureaucratic determinations. In conformity to Lakato ‘s thought of progressive subsidiary hypothesis ( Lakato ‘s 1970 ) ; when personality does do a difference in the behavior of a individual, an establishment or a system, which becomes the focal point of the theory, it must be considered a necessary extremity to his chief account. His hypothesis is an ad-lib amendment to a theory that helps it explicate better. The chief jobs about personality variables within a decision-maker rely in two inquiries – the job of histrion dispensableness – would the same determination have been made by any other individual in the same place? Second – the job on action dispensableness – are the actions of the individual involved at the critical minute in history indispensable in changing the results? Or whether larger forces are at work? ( Greenstein 1969 ) The jobs of histrion dispensableness argue that decision-makers express their ain desires and caprices willfully. Unprecedented, unplanned and fresh state of affairss allow more liberty for the look of personality properties. Action dispensableness nevertheless, argues that when the histrion ‘s environment is imbalanced and restructuring, the demand is satisfied ( buscar en cyberspace ) . Furthermore, when the histrion ‘s location in the decision-making construction and the relevant accomplishments needed to cover with the state of affairs, let greater impact than some other histrion, given the same set of initial fortunes ( paraphrasing and intending ) . Basically, through a psychological research position, persons in a strong leading place, whose environment is flexible and extremely equivocal, and whose functions are defectively delineated or mutable through personal prudence are much more profitable topics for political personality analysis.

The instance of Stalin

Stalin portrayed a presence of apparent and influential personality properties, which presents an ideal topic for the usage of personality variables in foreign policy devising. Besides a few notable exclusions, it is rarely considered that Stalin ‘s Acts of the Apostless were the merchandise of implicit in psychological demands ( Rancour-Laferiere, 1988 ) . However, it is believed that Stalin ‘s personality lists legion features of a paranoid psychological science. But aside from this acceptance, many consider Stalin ‘s personality is important in the portraiture of Soviet behavior ; however do non embrace a psychological ‘diagnosis ‘ of paranoia. Conversely, Tucker ‘s ( 1991 ) description of Stalin is about absolutely suited to the clinical definition of paranoia. He describes Stalin holding “ distressingly sensitive self-pride ” and an “ idealised ego ” where he claimed his enemies were to be considered enemies of the province. There are several major episodes of Soviet policy which examine this claim, but the chief focal point is on the period instantly following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. A inquiry which must be addressed is ‘How and to what extent did Stalin ‘s personality interact with and impact Soviet policies? ‘ Stalin infamously possessed legion enemies which expanded exponentially, alongside his province policies which wrought ever-greater failure on the Soviet economic system and society. For Stalin, in 1939 complete international isolation was over when Hitler sent a deputation to Moscow with the intent of negociating the well-known Ribbentrop-Molotov nonaggression act. Rancour-Laferiere ( 1988 ) claims that Stalin identified himself with Hitler and even admired him. Following this psychological designation, it seemingly led Stalin to discredit that Hitler would ne’er assail him – the province. Consequently Stalin reduced defense mechanisms and military opposition on the Polish frontier were deplorably scarce and unequal. Finally, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, yet Stalin thought studies were fictions and aggravations by German officers who wanted to originate war between both provinces. A hebdomad after the onslaught, Stalin despairingly fell into depression. Once he recovered, he began to asseverate himself in an aggressive and hostile mode be aftering a vindictive onslaught. His egotistic personality constituent grew progressively more superior. It is believed that Stalin used the Soviet bureaucratism as an self-importance defense mechanism, therefore doing the province at a critical period, an enlargement of one adult male ‘s personality. Stalin possessed a immense self-importance and an ill-defined personality which caused decease and devastation to the Soviet Union. Along with the premises of his ‘paranoia ‘ a survey of psychiatric patients and political activity demonstrated the capacity of paranoid persons to lift to the top of a political administration ( Rutherford 1966 ) . Harmonizing to Lasswell ( 1948 ) , an “ unhealthy personality can last in the unsure sphere of political relations ” . A period of war in history was caused by his over-confidence, incautious and imprudent decision-making.

Presidential personality ( disagree with personality variables ) / METHODS

One of the chief obstructions to come on in the survey of personality and political relations is the elaborateness in geting dependable and nonsubjective steps of personality. Greenstein stated in 1969: “ bookmans who study political relations do non experience equipped to analyze personality in ways that meet their rational criterions ” ( Greenstein 1969, pp.2 ) . However, several methods of personality appraisal for political psychological science have evolved. Stephenson ( 1953 ) developed the Q-Sorting Technique. More late, Block ( 1978 ) besides developed and enhanced this method for psychologists and Brown ( 1980 ) for political scientists. This method allows the research worker to roll up adept personality appraisals of persons who are indirectly accessible. It offers a relatively profound profile of presidential personality and may even be used to systematise informations obtained utilizing the instance survey attack. This method presents a strict and nonsubjective technique of comparing subjective personality appraisals. The statement that presidential personality is unimportant and irrelevant when covering with a province ‘s foreign policy is based on at least two common premises. The personality and personal appeal of each president is a alone complex of many different personality traits, therefore impossible to explicate the regularities and variables of political behavior. A corollary to this premise is that since a president ‘s personality is typical, offering strict and penurious theories to our apprehension of repeating forms in presidential behavior is hard to accomplish and understand. Second, harmonizing to Craik ( 1986 ) , the unsure position of personality theory itself has caused assorted political psychologists to favor cognitive theories of political pick and behavior, whilst avoiding personality variables, following the lead of other psychologists ( Baars 1986 ) .

American leaders

Despite legion bookmans believing and saying that personality features do non impact foreign policy determinations, Etheredge ( 1978 ) has researched and argued the reverse. Surveies within personality features of American leaders have shown important correlativities of personality qualities with foreign policy penchants within mass populaces. The survey leans on two hypotheses of American foreign policy between 1898 and 1968. They were derived from the Interpersonal Generalization Theory created by Bjorn Christensen. He believed that behavioral differences in interpersonal state of affairss produced similar behavioral differences in international state of affairss. However, the survey was non unequivocal for understanding authorities behavior in international dealingss. Furthermore, the topics were neither national leaders with expertness, extended cognition and duty, doing it difficult to measure their function and personality effects. It did non prosecute in treatment or take into history opposing positions on issues asked about. Since Christiansen ‘s survey, assorted other surveies have been carried out to back up his theory in mass populace samples. The theory shows that the person ‘s inclination is to generalise Acts of the Apostless by psychological analogy crossing available capablenesss which produces, particularly among Americans, a magnification of interpersonal inclinations. Etheredge believes that personality ( cultural value, intelligence, etc ) should non be addressed to place a relation with foreign policy devising, but in “ fluctuations ” in personality features which produce fluctuations in policy penchants.

Ferguson and Barth ‘s ( 2002 ) involvements in the importance of personality in a political environment prompted them to research how personality affects an person ‘s ability to take, concentrating on American provinces. They developed a proving theoretical account – Gubernatorial Leadership – that merges personality with contextual and institutional features. They focused on the importance of governors in the American system and their inter-relations with ultimate decision-makers, the president. Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson were distinguished for their cognition of the “ legislative procedure, their accomplishments at pull stringsing that procedure and their evident love of the political system ” ( Ferguson & A ; Barth, 2002, pp. 789 ) . Concerns over the theoretical account arose avering that the institutional and political contexts besides affect the chance and success of leading, no affair the character of the single governor. Furthermore, institutional factors, short-run political factors ( popularity, old experience ) and the economic environment besides affect the credibleness of the theoretical account. These factors are widely contended to impact the abilities of main executives to exert leading. Scher ( 1997 ) developed a ‘Southern Gubernatorial Leadership theoretical account ‘ that non merely includes the political environment, but besides the construction of the governor ‘s office and ‘personal properties ‘ as cardinal facets in finding leading manners. However, he entirely noted that the theoretical account is “ really abstract ” and therefore hard to mensurate it ( Scher 1997, pp. 303 ) . Governors play an of import function beside major decision-makers in determining foreign policy, and their personality will hold an consequence on doing it successful. A major Clinton White House speechwriter late stated, “ [ Clinton ] chose me to be his manager of speechwriting non because of my liquid prose, but because it was thought, I understood his policies and his head ” ( Waldman, 2000, pp. 16 ) .

What stimulates an person ‘s aspirations or attracts them toward certain ideals? Psychoanalyst Heinz Kohut and Karen Horney ( 1994 ) developed the ‘Kohutian analysis ‘ where political personality is based depending on the strength of the cardinal personality characteristics. The theoretical account identifies six cardinal political personality profiles – Maestro, Achiever, Performer, Follower, Loner and Toward ( psychological motion ) ( Swansbrough, 1994, pp. 227- 251 ) . An analysis of George Bush ( Senior ) was carried out which determined him as an Achiever, portraying a competitory nature and a cognitive desire for inside informations. He believed a good leader requires “ hearing all the point of position before doing the determination ” ( Bush, 1987, pp. 252 ) . He worked as a CIA manager which granted him the ability to analyze intelligence. This nevertheless created confusion in his disposal during the October 1989 Panamanian putsch effort. He installed high- engineering resources in the White House at an early phase which created upset within unanalysed studies. His doggedness on holding complete information and entire control delayed policy decision-making. For case, he was loath to admit independency of the Baltic Republics until he could see “ a few more cards on the tabular array before we take another measure ” ( August, 1991 – obtained from ) . His engagement in ‘Operation Desert Storm ‘ after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait was perceived as his personal defensive reaction Hussein ‘s business of Kuwait represented to his presidential term and of course, the danger this struggle posed to US oil involvements in the part.

The United States has had a volatile and unsteady relationship with Iran. Throughout decennaries, US presidents have been responsible for this instability and each single personality has affected the policy decision-making, determining both states ‘ relationship. At the beginning of the Cold War the Truman disposal adopted a ‘policy of containment ‘ to forestall the Soviet Union from spread outing which resulted in the US ‘s engagement ( Sick, 1986 ) . Relations were well-maintained given the US had oil involvements in the part. In 1972, after Nixon applied the ‘Nixon Doctrine ‘ , dealingss with Iran ‘s authorities were stable and enhanced. Throughout Carter ‘s presidential term nevertheless, personal businesss began to alter. In 1977, Carter focused his political idealism on advancing regard for human rights. Although he used human rights as his cardinal foreign policy ; given the US ‘s critical involvements, he did non bring on or accomplish authorization on Iran, which abused human rights. Iran ‘s population displayed dissatisfaction and restlessness with lifting corruptness and a turning spread between the rich and the hapless. This led to a important societal agitation. Khomeini, a spiritual resistance leader, directed radical protests and activities deriving public support. Carter believed lifting instability from the resistance would impact US involvements, yet continued to back up Shah ‘s leading. An anti-American feeling spread throughout Iran and resistance grew well. In 1993, Clinton ‘s disposal compelled minimum dealingss with Iran, forbiding trade and investing between US houses and Iran. He besides believed Iran possessed atomic arms and mass-destruction arms which could endanger the place of the US. As presented, a president ‘s personality can impact the quality of decision-making, whether under emphasis, an unstable political environment or popularity among provinces. Nowadays, US dealingss with Iran continue to be unsure and fail to a diplomatic understanding about the ownership of atomic arms. It is a widely contested issue which is still yet to be resolved. This reflects personality is a cardinal factor in international dealingss and the execution of foreign policies.


It is true that societal scientists can non do an explanatory theory that will foretell the distinct behavior of one individual in a given state of affairs. There is non a individual theory – totalitarian system demands, classical pragmatism, or psychological – that can of all time be taken as an absolute and sole ground behind the actions of the Soviet Union under Stalin, the presidential term of George Bush, American governors, ( CASE STUDIES ) greater attending to the greater deepness and texture of properties traveling into the political procedures will bring forth better, more complex accounts. Some political scientists may reason that variables such as personality features hardly have matter-of-fact accounts to lend to our apprehension of political procedures and results. There is no explanatory theory to measure an person ‘s personality. Conversely, others argue that Q-methodology is well-suited to the survey of personality and political relations by offering a qualitative appraisal of dependability of personality profiles.

Both future policy-makers and pupils of authorities require the most complete apprehension of the yesteryear in order to cover with the hereafter.


  • Allison, G.T. ( 1971 ) Kernel of Decision, Boston: Small Brown
  • Block, J. ( 1978 ) The Q-sort method in personality appraisal and psychiatric research, Palo Alto, California
  • Brown, S.R. ( 1980 ) Political subjectiveness: Applications of Q methodological analysis in political scientific discipline, New Haven: Tale University Press
  • Clark, M. & A ; White, B. ( 1989 ) Understanding Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy Systems Approach, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
  • Craik, K.H. ( 1986 ) ‘Personality research methods: A historical position ‘ , Journal of personality, Vol. 54, pp. 18-51
  • Etheredge, L. ( 1978 ) ‘Personality Effects on American Foreign Policy, 1898-1968 ‘ , American Political Science Review
  • Ferguson, M.R. & A ; Barth, J. ( 2002 ) ‘Governors in the Legislative Sphere: The Importance of Personality in Shaping Success ‘ , Political Psychology, Vol. 23, No 4
  • Greenstein, F.I. ( 1969 ) Personality and Politicss: Problems of grounds, illation and conceptualisation, Chicago: Markham
  • Hill, C. ( 2003 ) The Changing of Foreign Policy, London: Palgrave
  • Holsti, K.J. ( 1995 ) International Politics: A Framework for Analysis, London: Prentice-Hall International
  • Kowart, P.A. ( 1996 ) ‘Where does the vaulting horse halt? : Measuring the impact of Presidential Personality ‘ , Political Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 421-452
  • Lakatos, L.I. ( 1970 ) ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs ‘ , Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91-195
  • Lasswell, H.D. ( 1948 ) Power and Personality – obtained from
  • Rancour-Laferiere, R.C. ( 1988 ) ‘The Dictator and Totalitarianism ‘ in F.I. Greenstein and M. Lerner ( explosive detection systems ) , A beginning of book for the survey of personality and political relations, Chicago: Markham, pp. 477-485
  • Rancour-Larefiere, R.C. ( 1988 ) ‘The head of Stalin ‘ : A psychoanalytic survey, Ann Arbor: Ardis
  • Rutherford, B. ( 1966 ) ‘Psychology, decision-making and political engagement ‘ , Journal of struggle declaration, Vol. 10, pp. 387-407
  • Scher, R.K. ( 1997 ) Politics in the New South: Republicanism, race and leading n the 20th century ( 2nd erectile dysfunction ) , New York: M.E. Sharpe
  • Sick, G. ( 1986 ) All Fall Down: America ‘s Tragic Encounter with Iran, New York: Viking Penguin
  • Smith, S. , Hadfield, A. & A ; Dunne, T. ( 2008 ) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Stephenson, W. ( 1953 ) The survey of behavior: Q technique and its methodological analysis, Chicago: Chicago University Press
  • Swansbrough, R.H. ( 1994 ) ‘A Kohutian Analysis of President Bush ‘s Personality and Style in the Persian Gulf Crisis ‘ , Political Psychology, Vol. 15, No 2
  • Tucker, R.C. ( 1990 ) Stalin in Power, New York: W.W Norton, pp. 162-165
  • Waldman, M. ( 2000 ) POTUS speaks: Finding the words that defined the Clinton presidential term, New York: Simon & A ; Schuster
  • United States Foreign Policy: America and its Relationship with the World ( 1997 ) , Vol. 18, No 2 – obtained from
  • Ziv, G. ( 2009 ) Action Dispensability and Actor Dispensability in Foreign Policymaking: Shimon Peres and the Gallic Connection ( 1953-1958 ) – obtained from
  • hypertext transfer protocol: //
  • hypertext transfer protocol: //
  • hypertext transfer protocol: // seq=37 & A ; Search=yes & A ; term=decisions & A ; term=policy & A ; term=foreign & A ; term=personality & A ; list=hide & A ; searchUri= % 2 Faction % 2FdoBasicResults % 3Fhp % 3D25 % 26la % 3D % 26wc % 3Don % 26gw % 3Djtx % 26jcpsi % 3D1 % 2 6artsi % 3D1 % 26Query % 3Dpersonality % 2Band % 2Bforeign % 2Bpolicy % 2Bdecisions % 26sbq % 3Dpersonality % 2Band % 2Bforeign % 2Bpolicy % 2Bdecisions % 26dc % 3DAll % 2BDisciplines % 26si % 3D1 % 26jtxsi % 3D1 & A ; item=25 & A ; ttl=16410 & A ; returnArticleService= showArticle & A ; resultsServiceName=doBasicResultsFromArticle