Bringing the Leader Back In: The Case for Political Psychology in International Affairs

Understanding a leader’s personality, beliefs, and motivations is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Political psychology offers the tools to do just that, yet its insights remain underused in policy and intelligence circles. This commentary offers both a reflection on what has been done and a call to explore how these insights can be more effectively integrated into present and future analyses.

The emphasis on understanding leaders as individuals is not new. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter demonstrated the value of such analysis during the Camp David negotiations between Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel. After thirteen intense days, a historic peace agreement was reached. Reflecting on this pivotal moment in his memoir Keeping Faith, Carter emphasised how crucial it was to understand the people involved – not just the politics. He recalls: ‘I was poring over psychological analyses of two of the protagonists, which had been prepared by a team of experts within our intelligence community.’ He wanted to understand what made these leaders tick – their ambitions, beliefs, strengths, and likely reactions under pressure.

The team Carter referred to was part of the Centre for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behaviour (CAPPB) within the CIA, founded by Dr Jerrold Post. A pioneer in the field of political psychology, Post developed psychological profiles of key historical figures to aid negotiation and anticipate behaviour. Yet, following the Cold War, these efforts were scaled back, contributing – according to Post – to intelligence ‘surprises’ in the face of major global events.

While leadership analysis may still feature in some areas of government, the extent to which it is used, how influential it is, and whether it consistently draws on evidence-based methods all remain unclear. Yet the need for such analysis has never been more urgent. Relying solely on structural or realist frameworks – approaches that treat leaders as interchangeable and states as purely rational actors – no longer suffices in explaining today’s geopolitical realities. Political psychology offers rigorous, research-based insights that can enhance our understanding of decision-making at the highest levels. It is time we take this knowledge more seriously.

While Carter’s case illustrates the value of such analysis, references to ‘leader psychology’ today are often vague or reductive. Analysts, journalists, and even academics frequently invoke it as a catch-all explanation for behaviour that defies conventional logic, without drawing on the field’s methodological depth. Political psychology is not a rhetorical device – it is a discipline with decades of empirical research and tested frameworks for profiling and understanding leaders. To meet the challenges of our current moment, we must apply its tools with greater precision and purpose.

For instance, prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2021, many analysts focused on Vladimir Putin’s cost-benefit calculations, assuming a large-scale military operation would not align with Moscow’s interests. Reports such as one from the Centre for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) did warn, however, that emotion and miscalculation could override rational judgement – echoing historical moments like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. When the invasion occurred, some analysts were caught off guard, interpreting Putin’s behaviour as irrational or emotionally driven.

This framing overlooks a deeper point. Political psychologists have long challenged the traditional concept of 'rationality' in international relations – a model that assumes leaders make decisions through objective, utility-maximising calculations. In contrast, psychology shows that decision-making is shaped by how individuals perceive and interpret their environment, filtered through belief systems, emotions, cognitive biases, and past experiences. These are not random or chaotic influences, but patterned and analysable factors. Leaders, like all individuals, are subject to psychological dynamics that shape how they respond to information, interpret constraints, and navigate crises. Labelling behaviour as simply rational or irrational, without examining these underlying processes, offers limited explanatory value. By incorporating these insights, political psychology helps us make sense of decisions that might otherwise seem erratic or unpredictable.

Putin’s psychological profile offers a clear case for the value of political psychology. Psychological profiling of Vladimir Putin shows that his belief system has shifted significantly over time, becoming increasingly adversarial. Early in his presidency, he appeared more cooperative, but by the 2008 Georgia conflict, profiles noted growing frustration and a loss of control. This trend intensified after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, with a marked rise in hostility towards the US, NATO, and the EU.

Despite the described shifts in Putin’s worldview, much of the Western political establishment continued to engage with him as a rogue – but ultimately manageable – leader. While expert analysis and perceptions did evolve over time, this shift was often slower or more cautious than the changing nature of Putin’s leadership may have warranted. Scholars have also found that Putin should be seen not as a grand strategist but as an opportunist, whose decisions are shaped more by his perception of immediate circumstances than by long-term plans. This interpretation not only helps explain his actions but also suggests a need for nuanced strategies of engagement based on psychological insight.

Another useful example is the reaction to Donald Trump’s behaviour during his second term, which many analysts and politicians described as notably different from his first. He appeared more aggressive in implementing changes, more willing to threaten traditional allies, and more inclined to pursue previously unthinkable alliances. Yet, such reactions often ignore long-standing insights from political psychology. It is well established that leaders learn during their time in office, adjusting their behaviour as they come to understand the limits of their power and the constraints of political institutions. In this context, Trump’s second-term focus on consolidating authority and surrounding himself with like-minded individuals is not unexpected.

Although Trump is frequently described as unpredictable, research has shown that his actions are, in fact, predictable when viewed through the lens of his personality. For example, his approach to China during his first term reflected traits such as competitiveness, distrust, and a preference for direct confrontation – behaviour consistent with his psychological profile. In this sense, he is described as ‘predictably unpredictable.’

Numerous psychological assessments of Trump, including those conducted before he took office, have consistently highlighted the extremity of his profile compared to other world leaders. These studies have identified a strong preference for conflictual methods, high achievement and power motives, deep distrust of others, extreme extraversion, low emotional stability, and elevated traits of narcissism and Machiavellianism. Historically, such characteristics have been linked to a heightened focus on loyalty, resistance to constraints, impulsiveness, intolerance, and manipulative behaviour – traits that increase the likelihood of conflict escalation and, in some cases, the outbreak of war.

Scholars in this field have long examined how leaders respond to crises, process external information, challenge established norms and rely on emotions and belief systems in decision-making. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods – such as content analysis and psychobiographical studies – they have developed tools to assess, compare, and even predict leadership behaviour. Techniques like Leadership Trait Analysis and Operational Code Analysis allow us to profile leaders and compare their scores to known patterns of behaviour among similar profiles.

For example, leaders high in control and power motivation tend to act assertively, while those with lower scores favour collaboration. A greater degree of conceptual complexity relative to self-confidence correlates with openness to advice and flexibility, whereas the reverse often results in rigidity and selective perception. Task-oriented leaders focus on outcomes, sometimes at the expense of cohesion, while relationship-oriented leaders prioritise unity and internal support. Traits such as high in-group bias or distrust further raise the likelihood of norm violations and conflict.

In this context, it is not too late to make greater use of the tools offered by political psychology – not only to deepen our understanding of leaders but also to improve diplomacy and better anticipate future behaviour. Like any field that seeks to explain human action, psychology is not without its limitations and continues to evolve. Still, the analytical frameworks already available can offer valuable insights. Ignoring them is a missed opportunity for both scholars and policymakers.

Geopolitics will always matter in global security, but it is the choices of individuals – often idiosyncratic, emotionally charged, or shaped by deeply held beliefs – that ultimately steer the course of world events. The assumption that leaders are interchangeable or inherently rational no longer holds. As today’s challenges become more volatile and personalised, integrating psychological insight into political analysis is not optional – it is essential.

© Consuelo Thiers, 2025, published by RUSI with permission of the author.

The views expressed in this Commentary are the author's, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.

For terms of use, see Website Ts&Cs of Use.

Have an idea for a Commentary you’d like to write for us? Send a short pitch to commentaries@rusi.org and we’ll get back to you if it fits into our research interests. View full guidelines for contributors.