corpoate psychopath jpg 150x150 Corporate psychopathy or old fashioned witch hunt?A group of psychologists have made a film titled I am Fishead which discusses some interesting hypotheses. The team consists of some big fish in the world of psychology including the highly influential Gary Greenberg, Phillip Zimbardo (known for the infamous “prison experiment”), Robert Hare and Paul Babiak. The film addresses the following questions:

  • Did anti-depressants play a role in the financial crisis?
  • Are bankers and executives more likely to be psychopaths than the rest of the population?
  • Do financial institutions behave in the same way as psychopaths?

The ideas that the film presents are certainly worthy of discussion but the conclusions that the film draws appear to somewhat overstate the case. Despite the big names, it has a decidedly brain-washy feel and is extremely light on evidence, instead taking a speculative approach. The film also fails to reach a satisfactory conclusion (simply concluding with that age old happy ending that we should do on to others as we would like done to ourselves).

The film alludes to the idea that the bankers who caused the financial crisis were loaded on anti-depressants and as such, felt no “prick of conscience” that would have prevented them from speculating their businesses in to the ground. It turns out there is little in terms of research evidence to directly support this hypothesis, but admittedly the hypothesis does make sense theoretically – “emotional blunting” and “reduced sympathy and empathy” are serious unfortunate side effects of most popular anti-depressants. I was surprised given the theme, that the film failed to mention that the next edition of the diagnostic manual (DSM-5) is set to expand the definitions and lower the thresholds of both depression and psychosis, which will result unequivocally in more prescriptions of both anti-depressants and anti-psychotics. If the hypothesis the film presents is correct, this will worsen the situation.

Another theory proposed in the film is that bankers are themselves, more likely to be psychopathic. This claim is based on one study (Babiak, Neumaan and Hare, 2010), which incidentally is authored by two of the leading contributors to the film  (Babiak and Hare) who in the film describe the paper as:

The first empirical study of this sort.. it’s the first study that was able to use a well validated measure of psychopathy with a lot of high level executives

It’s an idea born to go viral, given our current international public past-time of banker-bashing but the study in question in fact tells us very little.  The study was only tiny – looking at 203 “supervisors, managers or executives”, it did not look specifically at banking and used only a research description of psychopathy rather than a clinical description. The sample was not randomly selected nor was it representative – looking at only seven companies. The experimenters were not blinded – (far from it – they were the authors) and to top it off there was no experimental control group. If you read the (paywalled) paper (none of this information is included in the abstract) you’ll see that the percentage of “supervisors, managers or executives” who met the research definition of  having “potential or possible psychopathy” was actually 5.9% which is only 4.7% higher than in the general population. The average psychopathy rating in the experiment was in fact lower than in the general population. This study alone really isn’t strong enough evidence to draw the conclusions made in the film, the findings are certainly well within the margins of error. It is an interesting finding that warrants further study but to describe it as anything other than this is somewhat misleading. This has not stopped such “reputable outlets” as The Huffington PostCurrent and Business Insider misreporting otherwise (needless to say, none of the publications have corrected the mistakes in their print – the 10% figure that has been plucked from the sky for example).

This would certainly be an interesting area of research, it just seems odd that the film has been made before any remotely conclusive research has been done. Admittedly this is no simple task, Hare’s study was the first of it’s kind and the banking industry isn’t exactly begging to open their doors to researchers asking to study their executives to see if they are a bunch of psychopaths. Even if they did achieve this on a large scale, a truly representative population would be near impossible to achieve – one can’t help but think that a psychopath at the very top of their game in the corporate world might not reply to an email asking them to participate in a psychology study. Even if they did, by definition – they would be very good at hiding the traits that make them a psychopath. I can’t help but feel that these researchers face the same problem as Henry the VIII did when he wrote up the Witchcraft Act of 1542.

In conclusion, this film presents some fascinating speculative ideas, it’s a pity the research is so weak. That is not necessarily the fault of the researchers – I just feel they could have done a better job of making this clear. It’s certainly a film worth watching, though the conclusions drawn should be taken with a heap of salt.

References:

Babiak, P., Neumann, C., & Hare, R. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk Behavioral Sciences & the Law DOI: 10.1002/bsl.925 (£)

Price J, Cole V, & Goodwin GM (2009). Emotional side-effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: qualitative study. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 195 (3), 211-7 PMID: 19721109 (PDF)

Follow Simon on TwitterFacebookGoogle+RSS, or join the mailing list.
Tagged with:
 

Ever spent an entire day in bed and got up in the evening feeling no better off?

295e11bb 44ee 4ae4 a85c f30aa35ac182 Why Airports Suck So Much and Doing Nothing Can Be So Damn Tiring

The evolutionary explanation for our choice of behavior is obvious, to conserve energy. A study published in July has proposed that when given the choice between doing something or not doing something we will take the lazy option near on every time. The paper published in psychological science proposes that we’d be happier if we spent the time actively than standing around, even if that activity was walking round in circles.

So far so good, yada yada. Heres where it gets fishy…. The study (ironicly conducted in a business school) reviewed a stack of research confirming the above and suggesting we live in a paradox in which:

1. We dread Idleness and crave activity

2. We need reason for activity and won’t enter in to it voluntarily

This led the authors to consider a rather startling hypothesis:

“busy people are happier than idle people, regardless of whether they choose to be busy or are forced to be busy” (Hsee et al 2010)
stalin Why Airports Suck So Much and Doing Nothing Can Be So Damn Tiring
The researchers proceed to perform a strangely elaborate test on the participants. The experimenter gave the participants a chocolate bar in return for them completing an inconsequential questionairre and then gave them the choice to hand back the questionnaire or walk back to the experimenter’s office and return it to a pigeon-hole. They were then asked to rate the chocolate on how good it tasted. The participants that walked thought the chocolate tasted nicer.
wonka bar Why Airports Suck So Much and Doing Nothing Can Be So Damn Tiring
Sorry, rewind! Never mind the possible spurious variables… like the effect of exercise on us wanting chocolate, or the limitations in application (or “ecological validity” as us Psych buffs call it), or happiness being a far more complex an emotion than taste, or that taste is not really even an emotion at all. Or the possibility that it might have just been a friendly act to walk the paper back and these friendly people also surprise surprise were less likely to say “your free chocolate tasted like arse, thankyou very much”. Or the fact that this entire experiment is about bloody chocolate bars. Despite all of this, this somehow led the researchers to the conclusion:
“people are happier when busy than when idle, even if busyness is forced upon them”
Pardon me but that sounds awfully like the Scientific equivalent of discerning the meaning of life from Charlie in the Chocolate Factory. In fact scratch that, that sounds like a much better idea all together.
charlie and the chocolate factory 9 Why Airports Suck So Much and Doing Nothing Can Be So Damn TiringNow I’m just going to go ahead and be lazy and quote directly from the “Implications” section of this thesis, because to sumarise just wouldn’t do it justice:
“We advocate a third kind of busyness: futile busyness, namely, busyness serving no purpose other than to prevent idleness. Such activity is more realistic than constructive busyness and less evil than destructive busyness.”
It gets better…
wow bridge Why Airports Suck So Much and Doing Nothing Can Be So Damn Tiring
“This is where paternalism can play a role (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). For example, homeowners may increase the happiness of their idle housekeepers by letting in some mice and prompting the housekeepers to clean up. Governments mayincrease the happiness of idle citizens by having them build bridges that are actually useless.”
big brother Why Airports Suck So Much and Doing Nothing Can Be So Damn Tiring
Get ready, Big Brothers coming… and this time he’s bringing his whip!
NB: Believe it or not this is not a new idea, it’s being going on for ages. Larson (1987) proposed that airport customers would be happier aimlessly trekking it round the air port in circles than causing trouble  by baggage reclaim or heaven forbid perhaps reading a book.

airportmaze2 Why Airports Suck So Much and Doing Nothing Can Be So Damn Tiring

Well, if it fails to make people happy it’s one way to solve an unemployment problem at least… sigh

Follow Simon on TwitterFacebookGoogle+RSS, or join the mailing list.

Bigger Stronger Faster Poster Chris Bell 202x300 What Really Made America Supersized?

Thanks to Paul for sending me this video in response to my post on the load of dodgy  “health products” I’ve seen over in the states. The video is factual, enlightening and very entertaining, though it does have that “Michael Moore style” preachy voice over. It makes some interesting arguments in both directions of a lot of interesting topics ranging from surprisingly far reaching effects of anabolic steroids on American culture and society to the worrying continuing use of amphetamines by the US air force and it’s tendency to lead to unnecessary aggression and trigger happy decisions at the command of hundred pound bombs.

The film is titled BIGGER STRONGER FASTER if you don’t trust me, trust the 96% rotton tomatoes review. Run time 1hr 56 mins

NB: If you just can’t wait to get the dvd someone has put it on youtube, you can always watch it there and if you like it buy the DVD as a gift for a friend who would enjoy it or could use the advice. Personally I think that would be a much more touching anti-piracy slogan but thats just my two cents.

On the topic of America, if you plan to visit, here’s some essential reading.

Follow Simon on TwitterFacebookGoogle+RSS, or join the mailing list.
Tagged with:
 

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...