ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Numerous historical accounts suggest the presence of mental illness in US Presidents, but no systematic review has been undertaken for all holders of this office. We reviewed biographical sources regarding mental illness in 37 US Presidents from 1776 to 1974. Material was extracted by one of the authors and given to experienced psychiatrists for independent review of the correspondence of behaviors, symptoms, and medical information in source material to DSM-IV criteria for Axis I disorders. Levels of confidence were given for each diagnosis. Eighteen (49%) Presidents met criteria suggesting psychiatric disorder: depression (24%), anxiety (8%), bipolar disorder (8%), and alcohol abuse/dependence (8%) were the most common. In 10 instances (27%), a disorder was evident during presidential office, which in most cases probably impaired job performance. Mental illness in heads of state is a topic deserving further attention. Methodological limitations of using biography to determine psychopathology are discussed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Mental Illness In U.S. Presidents Between 1776 and 1974
A Review of Biographical Sources
Jonathan R. T. Davidson, MD, Kathryn M. Connor, MD, and Marvin Swartz, MD
Abstract: Numerous historical accounts suggest the presence of
mental illness in US Presidents, but no systematic review has been
undertaken for all holders of this office. We reviewed biographical
sources regarding mental illness in 37 US Presidents from 1776 to
1974. Material was extracted by one of the authors and given to
experienced psychiatrists for independent review of the correspon-
dence of behaviors, symptoms, and medical information in source
material to DSM-IV criteria for Axis I disorders. Levels of confi-
dence were given for each diagnosis. Eighteen (49%) Presidents met
criteria suggesting psychiatric disorder: depression (24%), anxiety
(8%), bipolar disorder (8%), and alcohol abuse/dependence (8%)
were the most common. In 10 instances (27%), a disorder was
evident during presidential office, which in most cases probably
impaired job performance. Mental illness in heads of state is a topic
deserving further attention. Methodological limitations of using
biography to determine psychopathology are discussed.
Key Words: Presidents, mental illness, biographical sources.
(J Nerv Ment Dis 2006;194: 47–51)
The success or failure of political leaders is determined, in
part, by their state of health. Mental health problems in a
head of state may be significant for different reasons. Firstly,
there is the possible threat to effective government, as well as
to national and even international security. A historical ex-
ample of incapacitating psychosis in a ruling monarch, which
led to the appointment of a regent, can be found in King
George III (MacAlpine and Hunter, 1969). Secondly, char-
acteristics embodied in a particular head of state invariably
personify, at some level, values and visions held of a country
by its population. Thus, people saw in Calvin Coolidge “the
fine simplicities, the sturdy patriotism, the firm unpretentious
character, the spirit of New England . . . he inspires a deep
nationwide confidence that all will go well with the country
while he is in the White House” (Stoddard, 1927). After he
developed overwhelming grief and depression in office, it is
doubtful if he would have still symbolized these values.
The presence of psychiatric disorder among politicians
has already been noted by Post (1994), who reported high
rates of depression (41%), somatoform disorder (33%), and
anxiety (22%) in a nonrandomly chosen sample of 50 world
famous politicians. Furthermore, Freeman (1991) observed
that political leadership has become increasingly stressful
over the past several decades (e.g., the spread of nuclear
weapons, rise of global terrorism, the need to be available on
a ’round-the-clock basis, being subject to almost constant
scrutiny, and the power of the media). Lyndon Johnson
described the work of the presidency as “demanding and
unrelenting . . . always there to be done.” He went on to
describe that he rarely slept for more than 4 or 5 hours and
that “it became a question of how much the physical consti-
tution could take” (Johnson, 1971). The need for resiliency
among our Chief Executives is imperative.
From George Washington to Richard Nixon, there have
been a total of 37 US Presidents, some of whom are widely
acknowledged to have exhibited major mental illness, e.g.,
John Adams and Abraham Lincoln. Although a few individ-
ual psychiatric portraits exist (Freud and Bullitt, 1999; Sotos,
2003), we are unaware of any systematic psychiatric review
of all who have held office as US President. We therefore
undertook such a survey, drawn largely from historians’
secondary accounts, and then applied current DSM-IV diag-
nostic criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) to
the extracted information for all US Presidents between
Washington and Nixon, covering the period from 1776 to
1974. We assessed (1) the likely level of confidence that a
psychiatric disorder was present, (2) type of disorder, and (3)
whether it was evident during the presidential term of office.
METHODS
Material was obtained from a variety of secondary
sources, including biographies, narrative accounts, medical
books, and journals (Barber, 1972; Bruenn, 1970; Bumgarner,
1994; Caro, 1990a, 1990b, 2003; Cerinchiari et al., 2000;
Coolidge, 1931; Deppisch, 1997; Deppisch et al., 1999;
DiGregorio, 2002; Fieve, 1981; Gilbert, 1998; Goodwin and
Jamison, 1990; Hersh, 1983; Levin, 2001; Marx, 1960;
McCullough, 2001; Nichols, 2003; Russell, 1968; Sobel,
1998). Relevant material was extracted by one of the authors
(J. R. T. D.) and then independently reviewed by two separate
raters (K. M. C., M. S.), who each evaluated the likelihood of
a psychiatric disorder and its type.
Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North
Carolina.
Send reprint requests to Jonathan R. T. Davidson, MD, Duke University Medical
Center, Department of Psychiatry, Box 3812, Durham, NC 27710.
Copyright © 2006 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
ISSN: 0022-3018/06/19401-0047
DOI: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000195309.17887.f5
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Volume 194, Number 1, January 2006 47
Criteria used to establish the presence of a disorder are
provided in Table 1. Based on these considerations, three
levels of likelihood (i.e., confidence) were established: (1)
“high,” if all three criteria were met as set out in Table 1; (2)
“probable,” if criterion A and either B or C were met; and
(3) “possible,” if only criterion A was met. To lessen the
likelihood of false positives, we present only those cases
where all three raters concurred at a confidence level of 1 or
2. Levels of judgment were applied to the presence of a
psychiatric disorder in general, as opposed to levels of con-
fidence in a particular DSM-IV subtype. It was not always
possible, for example, to judge whether a president had five
out of nine symptoms of major depressive disorder, thereby
qualifying for a definite DSM-IV diagnosis, but it would
nonetheless be apparent that a depressive disorder was
present, persistent, impairing, and/or evident to others. For
bipolar disorder, it was rarely possible to establish the num-
ber of consecutive days in which bipolar symptoms mani-
fested. However, if other criteria were clearly met, then we
judged the individual to exhibit type I or II bipolar disorder,
depending on reported symptoms.
Source materials were reviewed for the presence of
Axis I disorders (e.g., clinical psychiatric disorders) or per-
sistent psychopathology due to obvious Axis III disorders
(e.g., general medical conditions). Therefore, Presidents who
underwent obvious major medical disorders accompanied by
brief spells of impaired lucidity or judgment (e.g., arguably
Arthur Bumgarner, 1994, Harding during his presidential
term Deppisch, 1997, and F. Roosevelt Bruenn, 1970) are
not considered to fall under the rubric of having a major
psychiatric disorder. In cases in which multiple persistent
somatic symptoms occurred in the absence of any other
known medical diagnosis of that time (as was the case with
Madison, Wilson, and Harding), we leaned more to viewing
these symptoms as psychological in origin, in keeping with
biographic accounts.
RESULTS
A summary of our assessments is presented in Table 2.
Of 37 Presidents between 1776 and 1974, 18 (49%) exhibited
features suggesting psychiatric disorder, 14 of whom experi-
enced one disorder, while four experienced two or more. In
one instance (Wilson), raters unequivocally agreed on the
existence of pathology, but disagreed as to whether it was
best classified as anxiety or depression.
The most common disorder was unipolar depression
(N9), followed by anxiety (N3), alcohol abuse or
dependence (N3), somatoform disorder (N1), bipolar I
disorder (N2), bipolar II disorder (N1), paranoia
secondary to cerebrovascular accident (N1), and breath-
ing-related sleep disorder (N1) (President Wilson was not
included in this count).
Episodes occurring during presidential office were
noted in 10 instances (J. Adams, Pierce, Lincoln, T. Roos-
evelt, Taft, Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Johnson, and Nixon).
In all cases except T. Roosevelt, there was evidence to
support the conclusion that symptoms interfered with effec-
tiveness or performance.
Several Presidents appear to have exhibited psychiat-
ric symptoms or were at heightened risk. For example,
Kennedy’s repeated use of inappropriately prescribed stimu-
lant drugs is well documented (Gilbert, 1998), but we found
no evidence that it led to significant paranoia or other mental
impairment. In Arthur’s case, it was difficult to determine the
impact of progressive renal failure on his mental state, al-
though one of the raters (K. M. C.) believed there to be some
evidence of depression. The source of Jackson’s unpredict-
able mood swings, irritability, and suspicion have been de-
bated inconclusively as being caused by heavy metal poison-
ing from mercury and/or lead toxicity (Cerinchiari et al.,
2000; Deppisch et al., 1999). His complex medical history,
including chronic infections and pain, makes it very difficult
to conclude that he had a primary psychiatric disorder, and
we have excluded him as well. Jefferson experienced re-
peated, stress-related headaches, which eventually remitted
late in life. Their origin is still a matter for conjecture (Pearce,
2003). Madison’s pseudoseizures appear best viewed as petit
mal epilepsy (Bumgarner, 1994), although we cannot be
certain about this.
DISCUSSION
We found that 49% of US Presidents exhibited features
suggestive of mental illness at some stage in their life, a
figure that is in line with national prevalence rates (Kessler et
al., 1994), although the rate of depression seems high for a
male population. Broadly, we can define two emergent pat-
terns: (a) Presidents with disorders in early adult life but who
had apparently recovered well before their presidential terms,
and (b) those with persisting or recurrent problems that were
sometimes exacerbated during the course of office. A third
pattern almost certainly exists, in which late life psychopa-
TABLE 1. Guidelines Used to Assess for Presidential
Psychiatric Disorders
Criteria for Assessment
A. Persistent (i.e., at least some weeks)
or recurrent (i.e., not transient)
B. Symptoms classifiable by DSM-IV,
either as:
(a) Meeting full criteria, or
(b) Meeting subthreshold criteria
C. Presence of at least one of the
following attributable to the
condition:
(a) Alteration in personality
(b) Alteration in relationships
(c) Impairment or deterioration in
work capacity
(d) Treatment by either self or a
medical professional
(e) Evident to others
Level of confidence
1. High Meets criteria A, B, and C
2. Probable Meets 2 of 3 criteria (of
which one must be A)
3. Possible Meets criterion A only
Davidson et al. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Volume 194, Number 1, January 2006
© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins48
thology emerges, e.g., dementia or neurocognitive changes
due to a general medical condition, as recently exemplified by
Ronald Reagan. However, from the source material upon
which this paper is based, we have come across almost no
information on the mental decline of aging presidents, except
possibly for Pierce and Hayes. Belonging to pattern (a) are
Madison, J. Q. Adams, Grant, Hayes (Marx, 1960), Garfield
(DiGregorio, 2002), Harding (Deppisch, 1997; Marx, 1960),
and Eisenhower (Barber, 1972). To contemporaries well
acquainted with Madison, Hayes, Grant, and Wilson, it must
have appeared that, as young men, these individuals were
doing very little with their lives, with Grant, in particular,
unable to hold down even the most simple employment on
account of alcohol problems.
Ten (27%) Presidents exhibited psychopathology dur-
ing their presidential terms, which, in a number of instances,
produced untoward or unexpected changes evident to others.
In some cases (e.g., Pierce), associates commented that he
was not the person who had victoriously campaigned for
office. Other notable examples in this category are Taft,
Wilson, Coolidge, and Hoover.
Bereavement occurred often enough to bear further
discussion. Two Presidents, Pierce and Coolidge, tragically
and unexpectedly lost favorite sons either immediately before
assuming office (Pierce) or during administration (Coolidge),
with significant untoward effects upon their effectiveness in
office. Interestingly, neither President was renominated for
a second term. In Pierce’s case, while he sought renomina-
tion, his party repudiated him, while in the other instance
(Coolidge), to the surprise of the country and prominent
observers (Stoddard, 1927), he chose not to run for a second
term. Neither President was able to commit himself effec-
tively to the task of leadership following such tragic loss:
traumatic bereavement may have left each one poorly
equipped to discharge the demanding responsibilities of of-
fice. Pierce’s loss was particularly traumatic, in that he and
his wife saw their son decapitated in front of their eyes in a
railway accident. Whether Pierce suffered from posttraumatic
stress disorder is unclear, although one of us (K. M. C.)
believed there was evidence of intrusive, numbing, and hy-
perarousal symptoms. That he suffered from traumatic grief
is incontestable: “In these two months he can be said to have
lost his son, his wife, and his capacity to command success”
(Nichols, 2003, p. 536); “. . . disorganized and numbed by
personal tragedy, he seemed to understand little of the forces
outside himself which were combining with his inward inse-
curity to make him one of democracy’s most unfortunate
victims” (Nichols, 2003, p. 546).
TABLE 2. Psychiatric Disorders in US Presidents (1776–1974)
President Diagnosis (Identified by Raters)
a
Confidence
Level
Evident in
Office
Persistent or
Recurrent
Impaired, Evident
to Others or
Sought Treatment
DSM-IV
Criteria
J. Adams (1797–1801) Bipolar II disorder (296.89) 1 Y Y Y Y
Jefferson (1801–1809) Social phobia (non-generalized) (300.23) 2 N Y Y N
Madison (1809–1817) Major depressive disorder (296.2) 1 N Y Y Y
J. Q. Adams (1825–1829) Major depressive disorder (296.2) 1 N Y Y Y
Pierce (1853–1857) Alcohol dependence (303.9) 1 Y Y Y Y
Major depressive disorder (296.2) 1 Y Y Y Y
Lincoln (1861–1865) Major depressive disorder, recurrent, with
psychotic features (296.34)
1Y Y Y Y
Grant (1869–1877) Alcohol dependence (305.9) 1 N Y Y Y
Social phobia (300.23) 1 N Y Y Y
Specific phobia (blood) (300.29) 2 N Y ? Y
Hayes (1877–1881) Major depressive disorder (296.2) 1 N Y Y Y
Garfield (1881) Depressive disorder NOS (311) 1 N Y ? Y
T. Roosevelt (1901–1909) Bipolar I disorder (296.44) 1 Y Y Y Y
Taft (1909–1913) Breathing-related sleep disorder (780.59) 1 Y Y Y Y
Wilson (1913–1921)
a
Anxiety disorder NOS (300.0) 1 Y Y Y Y
Generalized anxiety disorder (300.02) 1 N Y Y Y
Major depressive disorder (296.3) 1 Y Y Y Y
Personality change due to stroke (310.1) 1 Y Y Y Y
Harding (1921–1923) Somatoform disorder NOS (300.81) 1 N Y Y Y
Coolidge (1923–1929) Social phobia (300.23) 1 N Y Y Y
Major depressive disorder (296.2) 1 Y Y Y Y
Hypochondriasis (300.7) (2) 2 Y Y N Y
Hoover (1929–1933) Major depressive disorder (296.2) 1 Y Y Y Y
Eisenhower (1953–1961) Major depressive disorder (296.2) 1 N Y Y Y
L.B. Johnson (1963–1969) Bipolar I disorder (296.5) 1 Y Y Y Y
Nixon (1969–1974) Alcohol abuse (305.00) 1 Y Y Y Y
a
Diagnoses given were anxiety disorder NOS (300.0) (K. C.), generalized anxiety disorder (300.02) (J. D.), and major depressive disorder (296.3) (M. S.).
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Volume 194, Number 1, January 2006 Mental Illness in U.S. Presidents
© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 49
Other Presidents have endured grief during their ad-
ministration. Jackson entered the White House distraught
over the loss of his wife just before inauguration and spent the
remainder of his years in mourning; his inaugural speech was
one of the shortest in history. Presidents Tyler and Wilson
both lost spouses while in the White House, while Arthur lost
his wife 1 year earlier and Harrison also lost his wife. J.
Adams lost a son toward the end of his term, while Lincoln
lost his favorite son, and Kennedy a newborn child. The
success with which each person overcame his grief was
variable and no doubt was determined by a variety of factors.
Other Presidents who perhaps fell short of fulfilling
their potential include Taft and Wilson (in spite of Wilson’s
high ranking as a “great” President, as noted below). Wil-
son’s inability to lead his administration effectively has been
well documented, and questions were raised as to his suit-
ability for the job, all of which happened at a particularly
critical time in world history. The development of paranoia
and other mental changes, which could have amplified his
rigidity of character, perhaps prevented him from taking
advantage of the opportunities in his hands as President of the
world’s most powerful country after World War I (Runyon,
1982, pp. 195–196). In Taft’s case, it was “drift, drift,
drift—little attempted, nothing done” (Stoddard, 1927) and
abdication of any real interest in leadership. The fact that he
coped with the stress of the Presidency by overeating to the
point of massive obesity and obstructive sleep apnea meant
that he probably could not give full attention to the job.
We did not find that any particular historical epoch was
associated with greater or lesser likelihood of presidential
psychopathology. Three Founding Fathers fulfilled criteria
for a disorder, as did several Presidents throughout the 19th
and early 20th centuries, and three recent Presidents. Criteria
for psychiatric disorder were noted in six consecutive presi-
dents between 1908 and 1928 (T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson,
Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), in four of whom we believe
that an abnormal mental state adversely impacted presidential
performance. More recently, there is the documented prob-
lematical and excessive alcohol use by Nixon during the
stresses of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.
While our study has revealed psychopathology in a
substantial number of US Presidents, we should acknowledge
several limitations to this report. In the first place, we may
have underestimated the burden of psychopathology inas-
much as we did not identify and review all that has been
written about presidential health. To have covered the terrain
of all primary and secondary sources (e.g., major biographies,
presidential papers and collections) was beyond the scope of
this report. Our method likely underestimates more subtle
forms of psychopathology and even within major diagnostic
categories misses certain key symptom clusters that might
appreciably change the diagnosis. For example, in several
cases there was clear evidence of depressive symptoms but
inadequate biographical detail to rule out manic symptoms.
As a result, finer-grained diagnostic precision is hard to
achieve from biography alone.
We have not entered the debate over disagreements
within the psychobiography literature, but it is certainly
necessary to acknowledge that such disagreements exist (Ru-
nyon, 1982; Schlesinger, 2004; Wills, 2004). Although the
validity of diagnosis from historical sources is unproven, it
continues as an established practice. Among the suggested
criteria for assessing psychobiography are whether (1) more
than one rater was used and (2) material is factual or inter-
pretative/speculative (Runyon, 1982). By using three inde-
pendent raters, we attempted to introduce a degree of meth-
odological rigor to this survey.
We also recognize that description of mental illness
was not usually a focus of the biographical sources and that,
moreover, any presentation of presidential behavior or emo-
tional state may have been colored by the writer’s personal
bias. Also undetermined is the effect of applying contempo-
rary criteria to a description of human behavior and health
from a time when concepts of mental illness were very
different from those in use today. However, in any culture or
period of history, evidence that a person was hospitalized or
unable to function constitutes prima facie evidence that some
form of significant health problem existed, no matter how
illness was conceptualized.
Our findings raise several interesting issues. Firstly, no
national calamities appear to have occurred due to presiden-
tial mental illness. Secondly, Presidents are seen to be human,
and if so many of them have a major psychiatric disorder,
then it could at least serve to lessen the long-standing stigma
toward mental illness. Thirdly, in situations where mental
illness has occurred, it has usually been of the type that is
readily treatable with appropriate professional help and sup-
port. Whether such episodes should be kept private or made
public is a matter for debate. The general issue of medical
cover-ups in the White House and their attendant problems
has been described elsewhere (MacMahon and Curry, 1987).
Does the public have a right to know, for example, if their
next President is likely to make crucial decisions under the
influence of alcohol or if severe psychopathology is likely to
impair decision making and judgment?
Mental illness in the President also raises important
issues of how temporary or permanent mental impairment or
incapacity should be handled. The assassination of President
Kennedy in 1963 raised questions about the process of
declaring the President incapacitated, which were addressed
in 1967 by ratification of the 25th amendment to the US
Constitution. The amendment stipulates that the Vice Presi-
dent become Acting President whenever the President notifies
the Senate and the House of Representatives that he is unable
to serve. The President may resume his duties by his written
declaration that he is fit to do so, unless contested and two
thirds of both Houses of Congress agrees that the President is
unable to discharge his duties.
Mental illness and potential loss of insight regarding
the illness also raise the specter of the President or his staff
failing to disclose or resisting a determination of incapacity.
While this provision of the 25th Amendment has never been
invoked, the Vice President and Cabinet may declare the
President incapacitated, and the Vice President then tempo-
rarily serves as Acting President unless contested by the
Davidson et al. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Volume 194, Number 1, January 2006
© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins50
President and arbitrated similarly by a vote of two thirds of
both Congressional Houses.
Understandably, the 25th Amendment sets a high
threshold for nonconsensually removing a US President due
to mental or physical incapacity. The possibility of a partisan
attempt to remove a President clearly requires careful safe-
guards. At the same time, in certain instances—for example,
President Wilson’s impairment after a stroke—attempts may
be made to conceal potential incapacity. Given the extensive
powers of the President, the apparently fairly common oc-
currence of mental illness, and the potentially devastating
impact of impaired judgment due to mental illness, perhaps
an additional mechanism to initiate a politically neutral ex-
amination of the President’s capacity should be considered.
CONCLUSION
This review of biographical sources reveals the likeli-
hood, to varying degrees of confidence, of major mental
illness in 49% of presidents; in 27%, such disorder occurred
during the term of office and, in many cases, was believed
to affect performance adversely. The occurrence of mental
illness was distributed across all historical epochs, spanning
the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. We have considered the
strengths and numerous limitations of our approach.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (4th ed). Washington DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
Barber JD (1972) The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the
White House. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall.
Bruenn HG (1970) Clinical notes on the illness and death of President
Franklin D. Roosevelt. Ann Intern Med. 72:579 –591.
Bumgarner JR (1994) The Health of the Presidents: The 41 United States
Presidents through 1993 from a Physician’s Point of View. Jefferson
(NC): McFarland and Co. Inc.
Caro RA (1990a) The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Vol. 1, The Path to Power.
New York: Vintage Books.
Caro RA (1990b) The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Vol. 2, Means of Ascent.
New York: Alfred A. Knoff.
Caro RA (2003) The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Vol. 3, Master of the Senate.
New York: Vintage Books.
Cerinchiari E, Myers GM, Clarkson TW, Weiss B (2000) Did Andrew
Jackson have mercury poisoning? JAMA. 283:200 –201.
Coolidge C (1931) The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge. New York:
Cosmopolitian Book Corp.
Deppisch LM, Centeno JA, Gemmel DJ, Torres NL (1999) Andrew Jackson’s
exposure to mercury and lead: Poisoned president? JAMA. 282:569–571.
Deppisch, LM (1997) Homeopathic medicine and presidential health. Pharos
Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc. Fall: 5–10.
DiGregorio WA (2002) The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York:
Gramercy Books.
Fieve RR (1981) Moodswing: The Third Revolution in Psychiatry. New
York: Bantam Books.
Freeman HL (1991) The human brain and political behavior. Br J Psychiatry.
159:19 –32.
Freud S, Bullitt W (1999) Woodrow Wilson, A Psychological Study. New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Gilbert RE (1998) The Mortal Presidency: Illness and Anguish in the White
House (2nd ed). New York: Fordham University Press.
Goodwin FK, Jamison KR (1990) Manic Depressive Illness (pp 359 –360).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hersh S (1983) The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House.
New York: Summit.
Johnson LB (1971) The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency,
1963–1969 (p 425). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Zhao S, Nelson CB, Hughes M, Eshelman S,
Wittchen H-U, Kendler KS (1994) Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of
DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: Results from the
National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 51:8 –19.
Levin PO (2001) Abigail Adams: A Biography. New York: Thomas Dunne
Books, St. Martin’s Press.
MacAlpine I, Hunter RA (1969) George III and the Mad Business. New
York: Pantheon.
MacMahon EB, Curry LP (1987) Medical Cover-Ups in the White House.
Washington DC: Farragut Publishing Co.
Marx R (1960) The Health of the Presidents. New York: GP Putnam’s Sons.
McCullough D (2001) John Adams. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Nichols RF (2003) Franklin Pierce: Young Hickory of the Granite Hills.
Newtown (CT): American Political Biography Press.
Pearce JMS (2003) The headaches of Thomas Jefferson. Cephalagia. 23:
472– 473.
Post F (1994) Creativity and psychopathology: A study of 291 world-famous
men. Br J Psychiatry. 165:22–34.
Runyon WM (1982) Life Histories and Psychobiography: Explorations in
Theory and Method. New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell F (1968) The Shadow of Blooming Grove: Warren G. Harding and
His Times. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.
Schlesinger J (2004) Creativity and mental health letter.Br J Psychiatry.
184:184.
Sobel R (1998) Coolidge: An American Enigma. Washington DC: Regency
Publishing Co.
Sotos JG (2003) Taft and Pickwick: Sleep apnea in the White House. Chest.
124:1133–1142.
Stoddard HL (1927) As I Knew Them: Presidents and Politics from Grant to
Coolidge. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Wills G (2004) Creativity and mental health (author’s reply). Br J Psychi-
atry. 4:184 –185.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Volume 194, Number 1, January 2006 Mental Illness in U.S. Presidents
© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 51
... g., (Ghaemi, 2011)). Analysing the biographies of United States presidents, Davidson and colleagues argue that eighteen in their total sample (n = 37) met diagnostic criteria per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (Davidson, Connor, & Swartz, 2006). These researchers contend that ten presidents may have had a mental illness whilst in office, which likely affected role capacities (Davidson et al., 2006). ...
... Analysing the biographies of United States presidents, Davidson and colleagues argue that eighteen in their total sample (n = 37) met diagnostic criteria per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (Davidson, Connor, & Swartz, 2006). These researchers contend that ten presidents may have had a mental illness whilst in office, which likely affected role capacities (Davidson et al., 2006). Likewise, Lilienfeld et al. identified psychopathic traits in several American leaders; although not constituting psychiatric diagnoses in themselves, these may have resulted in successful interpersonal behaviours, whilst concomitantly entailing adverse influences on job performance (Lilienfeld et al., 2012). ...
Article
In recent years, political events have reignited contentious debates about psychiatry and democratic governance. This discourse has largely centred around the ethics and morality of public commentary, particularly in relation to the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater Rule. Yet, few studies have examined the practical implications of health-related limitations due to mental illness in national leadership and the constitutional and legal provisions that surround these issues, including voluntary or involuntary proceedings. Accordingly, this theoretical paper analyses these topics in a German context using the position at the head of the executive: the chancellorship. Germany was selected as a case example as the biggest democracy in Europe with modern legal frameworks representative of the post-World War Two era in European constitutionalism, and for its economic and political influence within the European Union. Throughout this paper, we do not speculate on the mental health of any individual (past or present), but instead explore jurisdictional mechanisms around health-related limitations in German high office. Consequently, we outline relevant constitutional and legal scenarios, and how short- or long-term medical incapacity may determine requisite responses and contingent complexities. This underpins our discussion, where we consider legal ambiguities, functional capacity, and ethical concerns in psychiatric practice.
... However, as Anna Cornelia Beyer (2019, p. 105) has noted, "we need to integrate mental health issues in the analysis of security and International Relations." There is a prevailing myth that national leaders are rational, but for instance, one review suggests that half of US presidents have suffered from psychiatric disorders such as depression or paranoia (Davidson et al., 2006). Moreover, as the psychology literature proposes, it seems very reasonable to assume that diseases (e.g. ...
Book
This book focuses on foreign policy decision-making from the viewpoint of psychology. Psychology is always present in human decision-making, constituted by its structural determinants but also playing its own agency-level constitutive and causal roles, and therefore it should be taken into account in any analysis of foreign policy decisions. The book analyses a wide variety of prominent psychological approaches, such as bounded rationality, prospect theory, belief systems, cognitive biases, emotions, personality theories and trust to the study of foreign policy, identifying their achievements and added value as well as their limitations from a comparative perspective. Understanding how leaders in world politics act requires us to consider recent advances in neuroscience, psychology and behavioral economics. As a whole, the book aims at better integrating various psychological theories into the study of international relations and foreign policy analysis, as partial explanations themselves but also as facets of more comprehensive theories. It also discusses practical lessons that the psychological approaches offer since ignoring psychology can be costly: decision-makers need to be able reflect on their own decision-making process as well as the perspectives of the others. Paying attention to the psychological factors in international relations is necessary for better understanding the microfoundations upon which such agency is based. Christer Pursiainen is Professor of Societal Security at the Arctic University of Norway (UiT) in Tromsø, Norway. Tuomas Forsberg is Director of the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies at the University of Helsinki and Professor of International Relations at Tampere University, Finland.
... However, as Anna Cornelia Beyer (2019, p. 105) has noted, "we need to integrate mental health issues in the analysis of security and International Relations." There is a prevailing myth that national leaders are rational, but for instance, one review suggests that half of US presidents have suffered from psychiatric disorders such as depression or paranoia (Davidson et al., 2006). Moreover, as the psychology literature proposes, it seems very reasonable to assume that diseases (e.g. ...
Chapter
Chapter 4 of The Psychology of Foreign Policy ponders whether beliefs matter. Conventional wisdom holds that decision-making depends more on people’s beliefs about the reality than on the external reality as such. The chapter scrutinizes the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, how it affects decision-making, and the methodologies related to how these issues can be studied and used as explanatory causal factors in the study of foreign policy decision-making. The chapter looks at such research fields as belief systems, studies of ideologies, images, cognitive maps, and operational codes. A number of prominent foreign policy applications are reviewed, and the respective theoretical and methodological challenges discussed. These include the notion that while information about beliefs can be relatively easily gathered from public sources such as speeches and other discourse, unlike in most psychological approaches, foreign policy decision-makers may hide their real motives and thoughts regarding an action and use popular ideologies as a smokescreen for both domestic and foreign audiences.
... However, as Anna Cornelia Beyer (2019, p. 105) has noted, "we need to integrate mental health issues in the analysis of security and International Relations." There is a prevailing myth that national leaders are rational, but for instance, one review suggests that half of US presidents have suffered from psychiatric disorders such as depression or paranoia (Davidson et al., 2006). Moreover, as the psychology literature proposes, it seems very reasonable to assume that diseases (e.g. ...
Chapter
Chapter 7 of The Psychology of Foreign Policy discusses personality. The personalization of politics seems to be a pervasive trend in world politics, judging by the daily news as well as political and diplomatic discussions. This is in stark contrast to current mainstream International Relations theorizing, which concentrates on the structures and has either neglected the personality factors or placed them artificially outside the scope of the discipline. The chapter takes an in-depth look at the theoretical and methodological opportunities for integrating personality into the study of foreign policy decision-making. The issue at stake is whether personality matters, or whether systemic drivers suppress personal qualities and characteristics. The chapter starts by reviewing the generic personality theories, such as psychohistorical and psychoanalytical approaches, theories on personality types, and those based on personality traits and their sub-categories in different combinations. We then move to applications of these theories in the field of International Relations by looking at key research literature on personalities of foreign policy leaders and leadership traits. In a more detailed fashion, short illustrative psychological profiles of two great-power leaders are delineated. Finally, the challenges of the above approaches are discussed critically but constructively, pointing out the obvious data and methodological problems, but also issues such as whether personalities are subject to change, and what that would entail.
... However, as Anna Cornelia Beyer (2019, p. 105) has noted, "we need to integrate mental health issues in the analysis of security and International Relations." There is a prevailing myth that national leaders are rational, but for instance, one review suggests that half of US presidents have suffered from psychiatric disorders such as depression or paranoia (Davidson et al., 2006). Moreover, as the psychology literature proposes, it seems very reasonable to assume that diseases (e.g. ...
Chapter
Chapter 5 of The Psychology of Foreign Policy addresses heuristics and cognitive biases that have often been regarded as being at the core of psychological approaches to foreign policy. This field does not constitute a unified theory as such but concerns a variety of cognitive mechanisms that affect decision-making. We start by briefly outlining the main theoretical approaches concerning these phenomena before taking a closer look at some of the most foreign policy relevant biases. In order to illustrate the diversity of the factors we look at confirmation bias, overconfidence, attribution error, cognitive dissonance, misleading historical analogies, groupthink and polythink. After that, representative examples of their applications in the empirical analysis of foreign policy decisions are presented. In the discussion part, conceptual, theoretical and methodological challenges are identified, such as the difficulties involved in verifying those circumstances where biases have or have not materialized.
... However, as Anna Cornelia Beyer (2019, p. 105) has noted, "we need to integrate mental health issues in the analysis of security and International Relations." There is a prevailing myth that national leaders are rational, but for instance, one review suggests that half of US presidents have suffered from psychiatric disorders such as depression or paranoia (Davidson et al., 2006). Moreover, as the psychology literature proposes, it seems very reasonable to assume that diseases (e.g. ...
Chapter
Chapter 3 of The Psychology of Foreign Policy concerns prospect theory, which originates from behavioural economics but has been increasingly applied to International Relations and Foreign Policy Analysis. It is one of the most influential cognitive psychological decision-making theories. The theory arose to challenge the straightforward expected utility-based rational choice theory. Prospect theory claims that people hardly ever make choices on the basis of the mathematical utility value of the available options, as the expected utility theory models the decision-making situation. Focusing on risky decision-making, the theory argues that the way in which a decision is framed, that is, whether it is understood to be in the realms of loss or gain, defines whether the decision-maker is a risk-taker or risk-averse. After carefully considering the generic theory, the chapter presents its applications to foreign policy decision-making. In addition to methodological challenges, the critical discussion deals with the issue of whether a theory based on average behaviour and tested by small monetary values in controlled circumstances can be applied to foreign policy decision-making.
... However, as Anna Cornelia Beyer (2019, p. 105) has noted, "we need to integrate mental health issues in the analysis of security and International Relations." There is a prevailing myth that national leaders are rational, but for instance, one review suggests that half of US presidents have suffered from psychiatric disorders such as depression or paranoia (Davidson et al., 2006). Moreover, as the psychology literature proposes, it seems very reasonable to assume that diseases (e.g. ...
Chapter
Chapter 9 of The Psychology of Foreign Policy provides a systematic and structured comparison of the psychological approaches discussed in the book. It concludes by summarising their ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions, and discusses the methodological solutions as applied to foreign policy decision-making. In an encompassing manner, it elaborates on the issues of the reliability and validity of psychological theories in the context of foreign policy decision-making studies. The chapter discusses the (im)possibility of creating a single research programme around the psychological theories when studying foreign policy decision-making, noting that this would be a challenge without any clear common core of basic assumptions. Nevertheless, the chapter identifies those areas where research shows the most promise in producing new theoretical innovations and empirical explanations within the field of foreign policy analysis. It also outlines practical takeaways for foreign policy decision-makers and practitioners.
... However, as Anna Cornelia Beyer (2019, p. 105) has noted, "we need to integrate mental health issues in the analysis of security and International Relations." There is a prevailing myth that national leaders are rational, but for instance, one review suggests that half of US presidents have suffered from psychiatric disorders such as depression or paranoia (Davidson et al., 2006). Moreover, as the psychology literature proposes, it seems very reasonable to assume that diseases (e.g. ...
Chapter
Chapter 2 of The Psychology of Foreign Policy discusses the extent to which foreign policy decisions can be deemed rational. The chapter provides a reasoned justification for why one must go beyond the rational choice models towards psychological theories when explaining decision-making. In addition to a rather critical but nonetheless constructive discussion of instrumental rationality, the chapter reviews the theoretical and methodological foundations of two modifications of rational choice, namely bounded rationality and the poliheuristic theory of decision-making. Both take into account the cognitive limitations of information-gathering and decision-making, but the latter emerges more inherently from the tradition of Foreign Policy Analysis and is more adapted to empirical applications in this field. On this general basis, some relevant applications in the field of international politics and foreign policy are presented, illustrating the operationalization of the aforementioned approaches. In the discussion part, the conceptual, theoretical and methodological challenges and limitations are identified. The question of whether and how one can apply the theoretical assumptions of these schools in empirical studies and gather the required data is considered, as well as the degree to which these approaches add to the pure rational choice analysis explanation.
Chapter
The study of leadership is a rapidly evolving, multi-faceted field. Leadership is conceptualized as a social and cultural phenomenon, which cannot be fully understood from a single perspective. The leader, the follower, the context, and the interactions amongst these elements must all be considered. The Oxford Handbook of Leadership explores the complex relationship between leader, led, and the environment that constitutes leadership. Divided into five parts, it provides comprehensive coverage of the field, exploring the roles individual attributes, training, and development play in generating a leader who is capable of performing effectively. The book also examines the relationship between leadership and contextual factors in terms of an organizational role, one's culture, and a specific setting (e.g. military, higher education, and presidential). It furthermore takes a critical look at the extent to which leader and follower behavior in a social and/or organizational context are tied. The book also gives a consideration of what leader effectiveness means (i.e., what differentiates effective from ineffective leadership, including insights and scholarship that have emerged regarding this issue). A concluding chapter provides some overall comments concerning the current state of leadership research and some thoughts about potentially fruitful directions. Leadership research has come a long way, but the inherent dimensionality of the field leaves room for new insights and new directions.