The Human Factor: How Personality and Psychology Drive Crises

Introduction

Political crises – such as; global conflicts, genocide, and political corruption – are shaped by a multitude of factors. In this paper, crises refer to political events that radically disrupt daily life.  Geopolitical forces – i.e., power politics, economic incentives, and ethnic disputes – are often regarded as the most relevant factors. However, explaining crises through the psychology of the leaders who are responsible for them remains underexplored. In this paper, I will examine the personality and psychology of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. This investigation will focus on two crises: first, Putin’s war on Ukraine, and Trump’s reported annexation plans in Greenland, Canada, and The Panama Canal. I contend that these crises are not merely the product of political hardball and power politics but also emerge from deeper psychological tendencies and a social tolerance for such abuses. 

Literature 

Recent scholarship suggests that personality may be an underappreciated factor contributing to political tensions. Psychoanalytical frameworks like the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM-2) and the “dark triad” model of personality traits provide critical insights into how the insecurities, narcissism, and emotional volatility of leaders manifest in governance (e.g.: Lingiardi et al., 2015; Jonason & McCain, 2012; Gordon, 2024).

Building on this, Gordon (2024) examines the mental fitness of 3 political leaders – Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Volodoymyr Zelenskyy. He uses the PDC-2, a 12-level personality measurement system, to assess the sanity of a personality. This measurement system ranges from impulse control and regulation to understanding and communicating emotions “that are appropriate for a particular situation and consistent with cultural norms” (Gordon, 2024, p.111). Fifty mental health experts rate these three leaders on the PDC-2 chart. Donald Trump was evaluated at the 25% level, which is in the severe mental illness category. Vladimir Putin’s average score was 41%, in the serious mental illness range.

It is debatable to what extent a diagnosis of a public figure from afar is valid and correct. For instance in the US, this is reflected in the Goldwater rule. The Goldwater rule states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to offer a professional opinion about a public figure unless proper examination and consent have been ensured (McLoughlin, 2021). In other words, psychiatrists are not allowed to “speculate” on the mental health of public figures, unless they have conducted a one-on-one interview.  The rule has the benefit of preventing harm and misrepresentation of the opinion offered (McLoughlin, 2021).  However, it might prevent professionals from warning the public and encourage debate. It could be argued that the Goldwater rule is a relic “of a bygone era” and needs  to be updated (McLoughlin, 2021). Nevertheless, even if these ratings are imperfect and controversial, they suggest that strongman tactics may be symptomatic of underlying psychological propensities.

Personality and leadership

Jonason & McCain (2012) suggest that some world leaders exhibit traits associated with the dark triad, which are narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. These traits are the common factors of manipulation and callousness (Jones & Figueredo, 2012). Leaders who are typically identified as autocrats score significantly higher on the dark triad scale (Nai & Toros, 2020). Such individuals can be described as having an inflated yet fragile self-image, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. Their self-esteem is high but unstable, often masking insecurity with outward confidence. Emotional volatility and aggression frequently accompany this personality type, along with a desire for power and control. Narcissists believe they are exceptional and deserving of admiration, and often see their lives as memoir-worthy, driven by the conviction that they are inherently special (Maak et al., 2021). 

Research highlights how leaders with narcissistic traits handle crises ineffectively. Investigating the impact of leadership on the COVID-19 crisis, Maak et al. (2021) describe different political leaders and factors influencing the successful navigation of the global pandemic. They found that narcissism is a major factor influencing the handling of these global crises. Narcissists, under intense pressure, become fixated on external validation and remaining in control. They also disregard established protocols. This contributes to poor crisis management, often with catastrophic consequences (Maak et al., 2021). 

Maak et al. 2021 explain that “leaders’ personal faults and foibles that, under normal circumstances, may appear as mildly irritating eccentricities, can have truly disastrous consequences […] during a crisis” (p. 68). They analyse Trump’s and Bolsonaro’s policy responses and public communication. They argue that the threat  of COVID-19, misled the public, focused on self-aggrandizement, and sidelined experts. These behaviors contributed to poor crisis management (Maak et al., 2021).  In contrast, Bolsonaro openly disregarded the safety of Brazilians–stating that ‘some will die, such is life’ (Londoño et al., 2020, as cited in Maak et al., 2021).

Narcissists may use political leadership roles to serve self-validation needs, disregarding the interests of their constituents as they fail to guide and lead their administration; threatening effective and responsible national management (Maak et al., 2021). Forsberg and Pursiainen (2017) analyse the psychological dimension of Russian foreign policy, particularly focusing on Vladimir Putin’s personal psychology. Their analysis of psychological and journalistic accounts suggests that Putin’s childhood trauma and emotional reactivity may have influenced his political decisions. According to their analysis, Putin experienced an emotionally deprived upbringing, shaped by cold and detached parents, which might have forced the development of emotional suppression. This emotional suppression was counterbalanced with narcissism, being an explanatory factor for the hypersensitivity and reactivity to criticism – especially criticism directed at Russia. Their analysis posits that Putin’s formative experiences may contribute to his retaliatory and expansionist foreign policy (Forsberg and Pursiainen, 2017).

Ihanus (2014, as cited in Forsberg & Pursiainen, 2017) further contends that signs of aging could have exacerbated Putin’s feelings of weakness and fragility. It is argued that these sentiments are compensated with increasingly aggressive behavior. While these personal psychological analyses offer a tempting explanation, Forsberg and Pursiainen (2017) warn against reducing Putin’s actions solely to individual impulses.

Public enablers

It would be too simple to affirm that leaders’ personality alone defines their leadership. Politics, ideology, and circumstances all play a role. Yet, it can be observed across different contexts how leaders with these traits exhibit a pattern: an insatiable need for validation, a resistance to criticism, and a governing style that prioritizes their personal image over the collective interest. Yet, the question remains, what mechanisms enable the electoral success of individuals with these traits? Trump’s election, for instance, was not as clear. A study by Quinnipiac University, at the time of Trump’s first term, highlights significant doubt amongst voters regarding Trump’s fitness to lead (Malloy & Smith, 2017). 

Gordon (2024) points to people looking for strong leaders, and narcissists typically reflect these traditionally strong characteristics. A more pertinent question might not be whether narcissists make good leaders, but whether we are drawn to them despite knowing the risks. This raises uncomfortable questions about society’s role in enabling such leaders: How do such personalities keep getting elected? Since 2010, political leaders commonly characterized as populists in scholarly literature have governed in several countries, including Hungary, India, Poland and Turkey (Funke et al., 2023; Krause-Jackson & Quick, 2025).

With Trump’s return to office, this reflection is particularly timely. His recent proposal to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” (CNN, 2025; Trump, 2025), and remarks from his close associate Elon Musk, may be interpreted as indicative of either extreme policy radicalism or a lack of coherent rationale (Bland, 2025). Based on the previous analysis, there should be enough tell-tale signs that certain leaders might lack necessary qualities for office. This raises the question of how such leaders then made it into office. Is it that democracies are drawn to their traits or do we lack the systemic checks to screen such personalities? 

Given the consistent electoral successes of such candidates, we should investigate how our political system rewards these traits. The literature suggests that people when faced with instability prefer strong, decisive leadership, even if that leadership is fundamentally flawed (Nai & Toros, 2020; Gordon, 2024; Schoel et al., 2015). Confidence is often conflated for competence in public perception, leading to the election of individuals whose confidence may not reflect actual governance skills (Maak et al., 2021). Moreover, education plays a significant role in determining a population’s resilience to manipulation. A poorly informed electorate is significantly more vulnerable to emotional appeals and rhetoric rather than critical assessment of policies and leadership qualities (Gordon, 2024). A study by Nai (2019) shows that electoral success is positively correlated with psychopathic traits. This suggests that manipulative and anti-social tendencies might be advantageous in electoral democratic contexts. Historical patterns reveal that societies repeatedly fall for the allure of “strongman” figures who promise stability while undermining democratic institutions and safeguards (Schoel et al., 2015).

Should democracies screen for personality disorders?

If democracy fails to filter out such leaders, what can be done to improve it? One possible approach is the implementation of psychological evaluations for political candidates to ensure that those with dangerous personality traits do not attain positions of immense power. However, such a proposal raises serious concerns, such as issues of patient confidentiality or the right to refuse treatment. Silvester and Dykes (2007) argue in favour of psychological assessments. Their research shows that assessment centres selecting political candidates based on standardised tests measuring criteria – such as communication skills, critical thinking ability and the ability to relate to people – predict electoral success (Silvester and Dykes, 2007). 

 Silvester & Dykes (2007) acknowledge that they “have sidestepped the issue of what is meant by effective performance for elected politicians“, noting that its meaning is highly contested along ideological and contextual lines (p.21). This study raises a question: if certain characteristics and abilities are desirable for political candidates, should the selection criteria be extended to potentially harmful personality traits – particularly for liberal democracies – such as narcissism and psychopathy? Indeed, Boddy (2016) contends that psychological screening may be ethically warranted due to the considerable evidence that psychopathy is associated with harmful outcomes in society. Therefore, Boddy (2016) argues, psychological screening might be a valid tool to prevent harm. This position is challenged by Smith et al. (2023) who shed light on ambiguities in constitutional law, on discrepancies between “discrepancies between medical and legal definitions of mental health disorders” (Smith et al., 2023, p. 2),  as well as on the risk of professional biases or conflicts of interest (Smith et al., 2023). 

Nevertheless, the election of any high office ultimately remains with the people. It remains unclear what traits would be deemed disqualifying. What would conditions like autism or depression mean for the eligibility to run for office? It may be a Pandora’s box best left unopened.

Strengthening institutions to resist narcissistic leadership is also essential, as many democracies struggle to hold such figures accountable once they are in power. Improving education may also help to safeguard societies against charismatic but dangerous leaders, by providing citizens with the tools to critically evaluate leadership beyond surface-level appeal. For instance, Freedom House (n.d.) recommends investing in civic education to “[foster] strong public understanding of democratic principles”.

Conclusion

I believe that individuals whose character tendencies can lead to immense consequences – such as in public safety and foreign affairs – should be approached with caution when considering their eligibility for high office. Political mandates that bear enormous responsibility should retain high criteria for the mental fitness of their holders, for instance those stipulated by Gordon (2024). It is important to acknowledge my own limitations. Lacking formal expertise in clinical and political psychology, my perspective may not carry the weight of professional analysis. Yet, the logic of my reflection remains the same. People with particular traits such as narcissism and “dark triad” traits should, at the minimum, undergo stringent public, and maybe institutional, scrutiny, before being entrusted to high office. I am specifically referring to the presidency of the United States, but this line of argument could very well be extended to any political leadership position where decisions impact many, and stability of character remains paramount.

In sum, the personal psychology of our leaders should not only be the interests of academics, and mainstream commentary. Instead, it provides a very real, if underexplored, indicator of the paths our nations may take. The Goldwater rule and the study by Gordon (2024) bring forward the tension between the validity and ethicality of analysis from afar. This shows the need for a framework that balances our responsibility of electing our leaders with the survival of democracy. Ultimately, then, the resilience of our democracies lies not only with our critical engagement but also on the checks and balances that should be present in our societies.

References

Bland, A. (2025, February 6). Thursday briefing: The outlandish plan to turn Gaza into a ‘riviera of the Middle East.’ The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/06/thursday-briefing-first-edition-gaza-riviera-middle-east-donald-trump

CNN. (2025, February 21). Arab leaders gather to discuss postwar Gaza proposal to counter Trump’s ‘Riviera’ plan. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/21/middleeast/arab-leaders-meeting-gaza-trump-intl-latam

Forsberg, T., & Pursiainen, C. (2017). The psychological dimension of Russian foreign policy: Putin and the annexation of Crimea. Global Society, 31(2), 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2016.1274963

Freedom House. (n.d.). Policy recommendations. In Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule/policy-recommendations?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Funke, M., Schularick, M., & Trebesch, C. (2023). Populist leaders and the economy. American Economic Review, 3249–3288. https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-04211174/file/2023_manuel_funke_moritz_schularick_christoph_trebesch_populist_leaders_and_the_economy.pdf

Gordon, R. M. (2024). Measuring the mental functioning of Putin, Trump, and Zelensky. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 103–120). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032637822-11

Jonason, P. K., & McCain, J. (2012). Using the HEXACO model to test the validity of the Dirty Dozen measure of the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 935–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.010

Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2012). The Core of Darkness: Uncovering the heart of the dark triad. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1893

Krause-Jackson, F., & Quick, M. (2025, January 17). Global Voter Fury Ushers in Era of the ‘Authoritarian Populist.’ Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-01-17/global-voter-anger-lifts-populist-leaders-to-power-in-new-era?embedded-checkout=true

Kung, J. K., & Lin, J. Y. (2003). The Causes of China’s Great Leap Famine, 1959–1961. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 52(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1086/380584 

Lingiardi, V., McWilliams, N., Bornstein, R. F., Gazzillo, F., & Gordon, R. M. (2015). The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual Version 2 (PDM-2): Assessing patients for improved clinical practice and research. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 32(1), 94–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038546

Londoño, E., Andreoni, M., & Casado, L. (2020, April 1). Bolsonaro, Isolated and Defiant, Dismisses Coronavirus Threat to Brazil. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/world/americas/brazil-bolsonaro-coronavirus.html

Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Wohlgezogen, F. (2021). The Fault Lines of Leadership: Lessons from the Global Covid-19 Crisis. Journal of Change Management, 21(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1861724

Malloy, T., & Smith, P. (2017, September 27). Trump is not fit to be president, American voters say, Quinnipiac University National poll finds; Voters disapprove 2-1 of his handling of race relations | Quinnipiac University Poll. https://poll.qu.edu/Poll-Release-Legacy?releaseid=2487

McLoughlin, A. (2021). The Goldwater Rule: a bastion of a bygone era? History of Psychiatry, 33(1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957154×211062513

Nai, A. (2019). The electoral success of angels and demons: Big Five, Dark Triad, and performance at the ballot box. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(2), 830–862. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v7i2.918

Nai, A., & Toros, E. (2020). The peculiar personality of strongmen: comparing the Big Five and Dark Triad traits of autocrats and non-autocrats. Political Research Exchange, 2(1), 1707697. https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736x.2019.1707697

Silvester, J., & Dykes, C. (2007). Selecting political candidates: A longitudinal study of assessment 

centre performance and political success in the 2005 UK General Election. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317906×156287

of knowledge. PS Political Science & Politics, 53(3), 527–531. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096519002233

Smith, A., Theil, S., Hart, S. D., & Liebrenz, M. (2023). Mental health-related limitations and political leadership in Germany: A multidisciplinary analysis of legal, psychiatric, and ethical frameworks. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 89, 101908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2023.101908

Trump, D. (2025, February 26). Instagram. Instagram. Retrieved February 26, 2025, from https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGhfpgHsOg6/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==