Picture these two scenarios:

Candidate X is running for President of the USA. He has held several elected positions prior at the county and state levels. He has a reputation for really getting what he wants. He seems to focus very much on himself during campaign season. He is not afraid to put the feelings of others aside to get what he wants. He knows that his vision is best for everyone.

Candidate Y is running for President of the USA. He has held several elected positions prior at the county and state levels. He has a reputation as truly believing in the good side of his constituents. And he seems to truly care about people from all walks of life. He prioritizes the needs of each individual constituent over his own political success. He truly hopes that his vision is best for everyone.

In a recent study from our research team (based on an advanced undergraduate research class in the State University of New York at New Paltz Psychology Department), we asked participants (comprised largely of psychology majors at our university) to read each of these scenarios and rate each hypothetical candidate on a 1-7 scale in terms of how much they like the candidate.

Our research is partly based on the idea within evolutionary psychology that is referred to as strategic pluralism (see Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). This idea basically speaks to the fact that there are often multiple paths or strategies that evolved to help humans navigate various spheres of life. With this idea in mind, our team concluded that there seem to be two very different paths for emerging in a leadership position. In some cases, people who have........

© Psychology Today