The Homo Economicus as a Prototype of a Psychopath? A Conceptual Analysis and Implications for Business Research and Teaching

Fuchs, Flo ian; Lingnau, Volke
A icle — Published Ve sion
The Homo Economicus as a P o o ype o a Psychopa h?
A Concep ual Analysis and Implica ions o Business
Resea ch and Teaching
Jou nal o Business E hics
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Sp inge Na u e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Fuchs, Flo ian; Lingnau, Volke (2024) : The Homo Economicus as a P o o ype o a
Psychopa h? A Concep ual Analysis and Implica ions o Business Resea ch and Teaching, Jou nal o
Business E hics, ISSN 1573-0697, Sp inge Ne he lands, Do d ech , Vol. 195, Iss. 4, pp. 763-777,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-024-05638-7
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/315221
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Vol.:(0123456789)
Jou nal o Business E hics (2024) 195:763–777
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-024-05638-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Homo Economicus asaP o o ype o aPsychopa h? AConcep ual
Analysis andImplica ions o Business Resea ch andTeaching
Flo ianFuchs1 · Volke Lingnau1
Recei ed: 14 Oc obe 2023 / Accep ed: 7 Feb ua y 2024 / Published online: 22 Ma ch 2024
© The Au ho (s) 2024
Abs ac
Since he beginning o business esea ch and eaching, he basic assump ions o he discipline ha e been in ensely deba ed.
One o hese basic assump ions conce ns he beha io al aspec s o human beings, which a e adi ionally ep esen ed in he
cons uc o homo economicus. These assump ions ha e been inc easingly challenged in ligh o indings om social, e h-
nological, psychological, and e hical esea ch. Some publica ions om an in eg a i e pe spec i e ha e sugges ed ha homo
economicus embodies o a high deg ee da k cha ac e ai s, pa icula ly ela ed o he cons uc o psychopa hy, ep esen -
ing indi iduals who a e ex emely sel -cen e ed and u hless, wi hou eelings o emo se o compassion. While a g owing
body o esea ch no es such a simila i y on a mo e o less anecdo al basis, his a icle aims o explo e his connec ion om
a mo e igo ous pe spec i e, b idging insigh s om psychological, economic, and business esea ch o be e unde s and
he po en ially da k ai s o homo economicus. The analysis shows ha homo economicus is no simply some kind o psy-
chopa h, bu speci ically a so-called subclinical o Fac o 1 psychopa h, who is also e e ed o as a “co po a e psychopa h”
in business esea ch. Wi h such an analysis, he pape adds an addi ional pe spec i e and a deepe psychological le el o
unde s anding as o why homo economicus is o en con o e sially deba ed. Based on hese insigh s, se e al implica ions
o academic esea ch and eaching a e discussed and e lec ed upon in ligh o an e hics o i ue and ca e.
Keywo ds Homo economicus· Da k ai s· Psychopa hy
In oduc ion
F om he pe spec i e o he philosophy o science, each
scien i ic discipline is cha ac e ized by some basic assump-
ions. In disciplines such as philosophy, an h opology,
sociology, bu also in business esea ch and economics, he
assumed concep o a human being (“Menschenbild,” see,
e.g., Zichy, 2020) is one o hese undamen al assump ions.
While in philosophy since he Enligh enmen a human being
is concei ed o as a a ional ac o in a e y b oad sense,
also om a mo al capabili ies pe spec i e (e.g., in Kan ’s
mo al philosophy), in adi ional heo e ical models o eco-
nomics and business his a ionali y has been s ongly na -
owed o a u hless, sel ish pu sui o ma e ial bene i s. This
sole, oppo unis ic pu sui o ma e ial ad ancemen is well
e lec ed in he concep o homo economicus, he s anda d
concep o an ac o in neoclassical economics.
In e es ingly, he co e disposi ions and mo i a ions o
homo economicus ha e been deba ed since he c ea ion
o he concep in he nine een h cen u y. In pa icula , i
o en has been no ed ha he homo economicus’ mo i a-
ional disposi ions, which ha e been made he ounda ion
o o hodox economics, i.e., u hless sel ishness and g eed,
would be heologically conside ed as ca dinal o mo al sins
(Ma inás, 2010; Ve bu g, 2018; Zamagni, 2011). Beyond
such a mo al analysis, in he las decade, some publica ions
ha e s a ed ha homo economicus seems o inco po a e da k
cha ac e ai s, and especially signs o psychopa hy (e.g.,
Bailey, 2017; Da ies, 2016; Ho man, 2011; S ou , 2014).
Ye , he e has been e y li le sys ema ic and deepe psycho-
logical in es iga ion in o he co e ai s o homo economi-
cus. Such an analysis appea s o be ele an o a numbe
o easons. Fi s o all, he concep o homo economicus
is s ill c i ically discussed in con empo a y business e h-
ics esea ch as a ques ionable model o human beha io
* Flo ian Fuchs
lo ian. uchs@ p u.de
Volke Lingnau
lingnau@ p u.de
1 RPTU School o Business & Economics, Uni e si y
o Kaise slau e n-Landau, Kaise slau e n, Ge many
764 F.Fuchs, V.Lingnau
(e.g., F iedland & Cole, 2019; Haa jä i & Laa i-Salmela,
2022; Racko, 2019). A psychological analysis could p o ide
an addi ional, highly in e es ing pe spec i e o his ongo-
ing discussion. Fu he mo e, homo economicus, e en i
no always made explici , is s ill p e alen in undamen al
economic, manage ial, and o ganiza ional heo ies (Melé
& Can ón, 2014). Al hough business esea ch applies a
a ie y o me hods and heo e ical backg ounds, he homo
economicus concep is, o ins ance, he basis o mic oeco-
nomic i m p o i o indi idual u ili y maximiza ion (e.g.,
Pa kin, 2014; Pindyck & Rubin eld, 2018). Likewise, key
beha io al disposi ions o homo economicus a e e lec ed
in p incipal-agen heo y (Gin is & Khu ana, 2016). Wi h
ega d o capi al ma ke s, adi ional ins umen s like he
Capi al Asse P icing Model a e buil on assump ions o eco-
nomic a ionali y (Bake & Riccia di, 2014). Mo eo e , he
concep is gene ally he basis o a ional choice heo y (e.g.,
Gilboa, 2012) and he e o e pa o all app oaches based on
his concep , which especially holds o a g ea numbe o
analy ical esea ch ha elies on o mal modeling. Finally,
besides economics and business, he concep has also been
adop ed in o he disciplines like sociology, poli ics, o law
(e.g., Guzman, 2008; Hech e & Kanazawa, 1997; Pa sons,
2005; Za i o ski, 2014).
As his pape a gues, he undamen al selec ion o models
is no jus a heo e ical issue, hese choices also ma e in
p ac ice. Speci ically, he a gumen s ha homo economi-
cus “is jus a model” o “i ’s simply an ‘as i ’ assump ion”
wi h some p edic i e alue (e.g., F iedman, 1976), all sho
o se e al easons (also see Dosi e al., 2021). Besides he
coun e a gumen ha such an “as i ” app oach would no do
su icien jus ice o suppo ing he s udy o a eal decision-
make , he e is an e en po en ially s onge a gumen wi h
ega d o he eal-wo ld implica ions o model choices on
business and policy-making p ocesses, on which his pape
will elabo a e. In such ein, he pape is no only solely heo-
e ically insigh ul bu also c ea es se e al links o p ac ice.
Al hough homo economicus is e iden ly no a eal pe son,
i is no solely an abs ac , imagina i e concep de ached
om any impac on eali y. Ra he , i ep esen s a dis inc
a i ac o hinking abou basic ules in business and human
in e ac ion in gene al, which also e lec s back on and in lu-
ences he easoning and ac ing in hese con ex s (Lins ead &
G a on-Small, 1990). This has se e al implica ions. Fi s o
all, as will be discussed, homo economicus s ill e e be a es
in co po a e p ac ice, o ins ance in compe i i e, indi idual-
is ic en i onmen s and mone a y incen i e schemes. Equally,
when academic heo y is applied in p ac ice, like in cases
o economic de egula ion, he implied concep o a human
being ma e s (e.g., F idman, 2010). In addi ion, he indings
o his pape a e also insigh ul wi h ega d o academic
eaching. As se e al s udies ha e shown, eaching con eys
ce ain basic alues—a leas implici ly, simply by he ac
o model choice and he implied concep o humani y ha
was chosen (e.g., F ank e al., 1993; I che & Za ghamee,
2018; Kowaleski e al., 2020; Racko, 2019). In such ein, o
ins ance, he las inancial c isis has been linked o a leas
implici ly augh alues associa ed wi h homo economicus
(Giacalone & Wa go, 2009; Melé, 2009; Melé e al., 2011).
Also om a wide pe spec i e, se e al co po a e scandals
wi h a - eaching o ganiza ional and socie al consequences
a e discussed as being, a leas pa ly, caused by in e nal-
izing economic a ionali y, and homo economicus as a ep-
esen a ion o such a ionali y (Ong e al., 2022). Based on
hese conside a ions, se e al au ho s ha e called o a c i ical
examina ion o he academic cu icula o eaching business
(Die ksmeie , 2011; Fougè e & Soli ande , 2023; Giacalone
& Wa go, 2009; Gin is & Khu ana, 2016; Waddock, 2020).
Gi en he con inuing c i icism o homo economicus and
he lack o sys ema ic deepe analyses wi h ega d o he
po en ially da k ai s o his model, his pape conduc s an
analysis om a mo e igo ous psychological pe spec i e.
As such, he pape is s uc u ed as ollows. In he begin-
ning, he pape will conduc a sho e iew o he wo majo
no ions, i.e., i s , he concep o homo economicus and
second ha o psychopa hy is discussed. A e p esen ing
he wo majo concep s, bo h lines o hough a e combined
and homo economicus is sys ema ically analyzed h ough
a psychological lens. As a majo inding, his pape shows
ha he co e ai s o homo economicus as an emo ionally
shallow, sel ish, oppo unis ic, and manipula i e agen can
be psychologically desc ibed as psychopa hic. Speci ically,
homo economicus shows s ong ai s o so-called subclini-
cal psychopa hy, which ela es o he no ion o co po a e
psychopa hy widely applied in business esea ch. A e
discussing his inding, se e al implica ions o business
esea ch and eaching a e e lec ed upon h ough he lens o
an e hics o i ue and ca e.
The Concep o Homo Economicus
Al hough an ea ly discussion o ai s esembling he con-
cep la e coined “homo economicus” can be aced back
o he an iqui ies (Dixon & Wilson, 2012), he no ion is
pa icula ly linked o he ad en o he classic economic
heo y in he eigh een h and nine een h cen u y. Acco ding
o he seminal e iew by Pe sky (1995), i was shaped by
John S ua Mill, pos ula ing ha economic analysis should
es ic i sel o he concep o an agen p ima ily mo i a ed
by “ he desi e o weal h, [.] a e sion o labou , and desi e
o he p esen enjoymen […]” (Mill, 1844, p. 138). Ye , he
exac e minology was only la e in oduced by au ho s like
John Kells Ing am and John Ne ille Keynes in hei c i ical
discussion o Mill’s economic g oundwo k. Subsequen ly, i
has been equen ly assumed ha he concep was s ongly
765
The Homo Economicus asaP o o ype o aPsychopa h? AConcep ual Analysis andImplica ions o …
in luenced by he wo k o Adam Smi h gi en ha in his
Weal h o he Na ions (Smi h, 1804), he a gues ha eco-
nomic exchange shall be seen p ima ily in ligh o mu ual
sel -in e es ins ead o social mo i es such as al uism. This
iew is, howe e , o i s simplici y challenged by he newe
Adam Smi h esea ch (e.g., Hühn & Die ksmeie , 2016),
pa icula ly wi h ega d o his second g oundb eaking and
po en ially complemen a y wo k on The Theo y o Mo al
Sen imen s (Smi h, 1761). A g ea leap in he de elopmen
o he mode n unde s anding o homo economicus is p o-
ided by he de elopmen o neoclassical economics wi h
a s onge emphasis on ma hema ical o maliza ion, which
in u n was hea ily in luenced by physics, and in speci ic,
de e minis ic mechanics and he modynamic equilib ium
heo y (Smi h & Foley, 2008). Wi h ega d o he “ o ces”
leading o economic equilib ia, sel -in e es coupled wi h
a possession o comple e in o ma ion became he s anda d
doc ine o economic models in neoclassical app oaches.
These assump ions a e embedded in he concep o homo
economicus as an agen solely conce ned wi h maximiz-
ing u ili y while possessing a empo ally s able p e e ence
s uc u e. This s uc u e is independen o o he s—o o say
mo e p ecisely: co e s he needs o o he s only o such an
ex en as hese o he s a e deemed bene icial o he homo
economicus’ own ends (Ki chgässne , 2008). The a ional-
i y o homo economicus is he e o e s ic ly based on he
own bene i and ep esen s a hinking in pu pose-means
ela ionships (Ande son, 2000; Els e , 1989). Al hough i
is some imes a gued ha he model o homo economicus
could be concei ed o as being conce ned wi h he sa is ac-
ion o a bi a y, e.g., also al uis ic, needs (England, 2003),
like in he wo ks o Becke (1981, 1993), such an ex ension
o he sa is ac ion o all concei able p e e ences alls sho
in a leas wo espec s. Fi s , de ining all ac ions as u il-
i y maximizing makes he model a au ology whe e e e y
conduc is ex-pos explained by u ili y, hus lacking any
analy ical sha pness, being ac ually non- es able and logi-
cally ci cula (Os apiuk, 2021; S ou , 2014). Second, om
a concep ual poin o iew, he homo economicus model
is de ac o o en unde s ood as na owed o he adi ional,
al eady elabo a ed mo i es (England, 2003): a maximiza ion
o ma e ial bene i s, as o ins ance measu ed in discoun ed
cash lows o ne p esen alue as a adi ional measu e o
a ional decision-making (Magni, 2009). As such, homo eco-
nomicus is a “single-minded income-maximizing economic
ac o ” (Pea ls ein, 2016) o as Fleming (2017, p. 98) pu s
i , a “dolla -hun ing animal” ep esen ed in “ he mone ised
p inciple o pu e u ili y.”
Mo eo e , he academic examina ion is equen ly limi ed
inso a as he con o e sies o en mix wo dis inc ea u es o
homo economicus, which, i no clea ly disen angled, blu s
he deba e on he concep and which his pape he e o e
shall delinea e mo e p ecisely: namely a cogni i e and a
beha io al assump ion o he model. In he cogni i e dimen-
sion, he in o ma ion s a us and compu a ional capabili ies
o he ac o a e co e ed. In such ein, i is assumed ha
homo economicus possesses comple e in o ma ion, has no
es ic ions in compu a ion, and can adap a in ini e speed
o a change in in o ma ion. Unsu p isingly, hese e iden ly
s a k assump ions ha e been hea ily c i icized, pa icula ly
in he domain o bounded a ionali y esea ch ini ia ed by
He be Simon, who ha shly c i icized he God-like, “Olym-
pian model” (Simon, 1983, p. 34) o homo economicus,
which he assigned o “Pla o’s hea en o ideas” (p. 13). In
con as , Simon’s g oundb eaking wo k emphasizes ha
human indi iduals a e no ully knowledgeable and de i-
a e om he s anda d economic maximiza ion pa adigm by
“sa is icing” (i.e., being sa is ied wi h an achie emen o a
p e iously de ined “good” esul le el) ins ead o “op imiz-
ing,” which has in consequence inspi ed se e al s eams o
esea ch un il p esen day (also see Simon, 1983). These
a e, o ins ance, he “biases and illusions” esea ch by Kah-
neman and T e sky, which in es iga es he de ia ion om
s anda d economic a ionali y as cogni i e biases, mos ly in
expe imen al con ex s (e.g., Kahneman, 2012; Kahneman &
T e sky, 1979; T e sky & Kahneman, 1974), and he ield
o “ecological a ionali y” in he adi ion o Gige enze ,
emphasizing in opposi ion o he “biases and illusions”
esea ch ha heu is ic app oaches o en deli e good solu-
ions in eal p oblem sol ing si ua ions, i.e., unde consid-
e a ion o he eal p oblem en i onmen (e.g., Gige enze ,
2004; Gige enze & B igh on, 2009; Gige enze & Gaiss-
maie , 2011; Gige enze & Golds ein, 2016).
Besides hese cogni i e assump ions, e en mo e in e es -
ing o he p esen pape a e he beha io al assump ions o
he homo economicus model. F om his iew, homo eco-
nomicus can be linked back o he o iginal conside a ions
deba ed in he con ex o Mill’s economic heo y, i.e., an
indi idual’s conduc ha is s uc u ed by a s ic pu sui o
sel -in e es , as said, mos ly educed o ma e ial bene i s
o a oid a mo i a ionally a bi a y and au ological model.
Gi en he o al absence o any genuine social conce ns,
he model is based on an oppo unis ic exploi a ion o any
op ions a ailable o inc ease pe sonal weal h. The indi idual
ad an age is he e o e pu sued wi hou empa hy, eelings o
emo se o guil , any eelings o o he s a all, and only based
on he p ospec o a possible en ichmen . These cha ac e -
is ics a e widely e lec ed in in o ma ion economics (e.g.,
Bi chle & Bü le , 2007; Macho-S adle & Pé ez-Cas illo,
2001), o ins ance in he con ex o ad e se selec ion o hid-
den ac ion, and conside a ions on he impo ance o design-
ing incen i e and con ol sys ems (see e.g., Me chan & Van
de S ede, 2017) o limi disc e iona y beha io (Pico e al.,
2008). These assump ions also ha e been s ongly con es ed
om an empi ical pe spec i e. In pa icula , beha io al
esea ch has emphasized he impo ance o no neglec ing
766 F.Fuchs, V.Lingnau
s able social ai s such as al uism, ai ness, o ecip oc-
i y (Bol on & Ocken els, 2000; Bol on e al., 2005; Feh
& Fischbache , 2002; Feh & Schmid , 2006; Fischbache
e al., 2001; Gäch e & Falk, 2002). The es ic ion o a u h-
less, sel ish, and oppo unis ic conduc , seeing o he s me ely
as a means o maximize he own ad an age, has led o a
widesp ead c i icism o o hodox economics as a “dismal
science” (Ald ed, 2009; B ue & G an , 2013; Le y, 2002;
Ma glin, 2008). Howe e , s ill, a mo e sys ema ic analysis
o hese assump ions om he pe spec i e o da k cha ac e
ai s, and psychopa hy in pa icula , needs o be conduc ed.
The Concep o Psychopa hy
As a i s gene al de ini ion, he no ion o psychopa hy e e s
o a “dis inc psychia ic illness ma ked by se ious beha -
io al de iancy in he con ex o in ac a ional unc ion”
(Pa ick, 2018, p. 4). Acco ding o Ha e (1999, p. 34) psy-
chopa hy mus be conside ed a synd ome, i.e., “a clus e o
ela ed symp oms,” as shown in a mo ally de ian , u hless,
and sel ish conduc . I is impo an o no e ha in compa i-
son o insani y o madness, psychopa hs commi hei mo al
ansg essions and c imes in ull cla i y o conduc — hey
simply do no ca e o o he s and he ha m in lic ed on hem
(Glenn e al., 2009). In e es ingly, om he i s concep s
speci ying psychopa hy in he nine een h cen u y and un il
ecen imes, a wide ange o psychological esea ch has
ocused on he so-called clinical psychopa h, an indi idual
who no only lacks any a ec ion and empa hy o o he s bu
likewise shows a se ious lack o long- e m-o ien ed con-
duc and beha io al con ol, leading o an uns eady li e and
equen un es ained ou bu s s o physical iolence. As a
esul , hese indi iduals end o come in o con lic wi h he
law a an ea ly age and o en ace imp isonmen (Ha e &
Neuman, 2008). Howe e , no all psychopa hs a e impai ed
in his way. Ra he , he e a e indi iduals who possess some
o he co e ai s o clinical psychopa hy and ye a e able
o lead seemingly no mal li es, be a i s glance likable
and cha ming, and e en succeed in hei indi idual ca ee s.
These indi iduals a e e e ed o as subclinical psychopa hs.
This ac is summa ized in he amous quo e by Ha e s a ing:
“No all psychopa hs a e in p ison. Some a e in he Boa d-
oom” (as ci ed in Babiak e al., 2010, p. 174).
F om a esea ch pe spec i e, he exis ence o such sub-
clinical psychopa hs has s i ed inc easing academic in e es
in ecen decades, pa icula ly in ligh o some spec acula
collapses o once p es igious companies due o massi e le -
els o execu i e misconduc and aud (Lingnau e al., 2017).
In e es ingly, he p e alence o subclinical psychopa hs has
also been sugges ed as a eason o he las inancial c isis
(Boddy, 2011; G ego y, 2014; Ma shall e al., 2013). To
be e unde s and he unde lying phenomenon, i is help ul
o deepe in es iga e he cha ac e is ics o psychopa hy as a
cons uc o wo majo , o e a ching ac o s (Babiak, 2016).
Such a di e en ia ion began wi h he seminal wo k by Cleck-
ley (1941), who no only de eloped he mode n concep o
psychopa hy by elabo a ing se e al co e aspec s o he syn-
d ome bu al eady no ed ha he e a e some indi iduals wi h
psychopa hic ai s ha could be highly success ul in hei
ca ee s. This esea ch inspi ed Ha e (1980) o de elop he
Psychopa hy Checklis (PCL), which ex ended Cleckley’s
no ion wi h some addi ional, especially an isocial, enden-
cies o en ound in ins i u ionalized psychopa hs (Ha e &
Neumann, 2005, 2008). This scale was la e e ised o he
PCL-R (Ha e, 2003). In addi ion o i s widesp ead use in he
de ec ion o psychopa hy (e.g., Acheson, 2005; Falkenbach,
2007; F i zon e al., 2020; Lynam, 2011), he PCL-R is also
no ewo hy because i s empi ical applica ion has helped o
shape a deepe concep ual unde s anding o he cons uc o
psychopa hy i sel . Speci ically, he empi ical applica ion
e ealed ha he cons uc is composed o se e al sub ac-
o s ha a e insigh ul o classi ica ion, as he ollowing
discussion will show. As such, he PCL-R shows wo majo
dimensions, o o e a ching ac o s o psychopa hy, which
can be u he di e en ia ed in o wo sub ac o s (Ha e &
Neumann, 2005, 2008) (see Table1 and Fig.1).
The i s majo ac o o psychopa hy e e s o an in e -
pe sonal and a ec i e dimension. In he a ec i e dimension
(callous a ec ) hese indi iduals a e ex emely u hless and
coldhea ed, showing a de iciency in emo ional esponses,
pa icula ly when o he s a e ha med. They a e u he lack-
ing any conscience, eelings o guil o emo se, and do no
ake esponsibili y o hei ac ions. The second sub ac o o
he i s dimension is in e pe sonal manipula ion. I.e., such
indi iduals do no e ain om using and misusing o he s o
each hei goals, which also includes decei ul beha io like
chea ing and lying on a habi ual basis. This is especially easy
o psychopa hs because hey eel less cogni i e dissonance
in doing so (Mu ay e al., 2012). Al hough indi iduals wi h
such ai may appea likable and cha ming a i s glance,
hey a e en i ely sel - ocused and do no ca e abou o he s,
me ely using hem o pe sonal ad an age. The e o e and in
summa y, indi iduals wi h an ele a ed Fac o 1 a e cha -
ac e ized by supe icial cha m, an ex eme lack o empa hy
o compassion, leading o a u hless, manipula i e conduc
wi hou eelings o shame, emo se, o guil (Ha e & Neu-
mann, 2005, 2008). Besides Fac o 1 as a co e elemen o
he no ion o psychopa hy (Ha pu e al., 1989; He pe z
& Sass, 2000), Fac o 2 cha ac e izes issues wi h an indi-
idual’s long- e m planning and beha io al con ol, leading
o an uns eady li es yle, impulsi e hough lessness, gene -
ally openly displayed i esponsible and an isocial conduc ,
and he e o e mos o en ea ly delinquency. This second ac-
o can be di e en ia ed in an e a ic li es yle, pa icula ly
ocusing on a lack o long- e m-o ien ed conduc and an

767
The Homo Economicus asaP o o ype o aPsychopa h? AConcep ual Analysis andImplica ions o …
uns eady li e, and an isocial beha io , as o ins ance ep e-
sen ed in iolen ou bu s s and law-b eaking, leading o ea ly
c iminal beha io (Ha e & Neumann, 2005, 2008).
I is wo h no ing ha he e has been some discussion on
he la e sub ac o . As such, Cooke and Michie (2001) ha e
a gued o a h ee- ac o model ha d ops he sub ac o o
an isocial beha io because his ac o includes blue-colla
c ime endencies, which hey a gue o be consequences o
ai s and no he ai s hemsel es. Howe e , as Ha e and
Neumann (2005, 2008) a gue in e u n, d opping ou an i-
social beha io would also exclude ele an aspec s such
as poo beha io al con ol ypical o clinical psychopa hs.
In his pape , we canno a emp o emedy such in e nal
psychological discussion. Howe e , as we shall discuss,
he e a e some good easons o apply he 2 by 2 model in
he ollowing analysis. Fi s , i may be highly in e es ing o
e alua e homo economicus also in e ms o he beha io-
al con ol aspec , which would be excluded i he an iso-
cial beha io sub ac o we e no examined. Such an aspec
seems wo h discussing wi h homo economicus and p o-
ides a deepe analysis. Mo eo e , his model is use ul o
dis inguishing be ween clinical and subclinical psychopa hy
(Babiak, 2016), which, as he ollowing analysis shows, is
e y insigh ul. Wi h ega d o such model, he adi ional
Table 1 Analysis o homo economicus on psychopa hy
✓: s ong indica ions, (✓): some indica ions, ✗ : no indica ions
Sub ac o I ems In homo economicus
Callous a ec Shallow a ec ✓S ong indica ions. Ru hless pu sui o own in e es s, no empa hy and ca e
o o he s, no eelings o guil o emo se, and does no ake esponsibil-
i y owa d o he s
Lack o empa hy ✓
Lack o guil o emo se ✓
Fails o accep esponsibili y ✓
In e pe sonal manipula ion Glibness, supe icial cha m ✓S ong indica ions. Glib and supe icial owa d o he s. Oppo unis ically
lies, chea s, and manipula es o he s o pe sonal bene i . Some sense o
g andiosi y
Sense o g andiosi y (✓)
Pa hological lying ✓
Conning & manipula i e ✓
E a ic li es yle S imula ion seeking ✗I a all, only mino indica ions. Some indica ions wi h ega d o a po en-
ially pa asi ic li es yle ha exploi s he alue c ea ion o o he s
Impulsi i y ✗
I esponsible ✗
Pa asi ic li es yle (✓)
Lack o ealis ic goals ✗
An isocial beha io Poo beha io al con ols ✗I a all, only mino indica ions. Some indica ions wi h ega d o commi -
ing a a ie y o c iminal ac s i such seems pe sonally bene icial
Ea ly beha io p oblems ✗
Ju enile delinquency ✗
Re oca ion o condi ional eleases ✗
C iminal e sa ili y (✓)
Fig. 1 Cogni i e and beha io al
dimension o homo economicus
768 F.Fuchs, V.Lingnau
concep o psychopa hy, i.e., clinical psychopa hy, e e s o
indi iduals wi h a subs an ially ele a ed Fac o 1 and Fac o
2. Consequen ly, hese a e u hless and coldhea ed indi idu-
als wi h conside able beha io al p oblems and an uns eady
li es yle. In con as , subclinical psychopa hs, who a e pa -
icula ly in e es ing om a business esea ch pe spec i e,
show an equally p o oundly ele a ed Fac o 1 bu , a mos ,
only a mildly ele a ed Fac o 2 (Babiak, 2016). These indi-
iduals a e he e o e ex emely coldhea ed, oppo unis ic,
and wi hou emo se o guil . Ye , hey can plan e y s a e-
gically and possess a ela i ely no mal beha io al con ol,
enabling hem o appea e en as cha ming and likable a i s
glance as hey a e mas e s o concealing hei da k ai s. As
a esul , such indi iduals a e equen ly able o climb he
co po a e ladde , which is especially p opelled in Wes e n
cul u es (Boddy e al., 2010a; S ou , 2005). This is acili a ed
by an inc easing expec a ion o equen job changes in lead-
e ship posi ions (Boddy e al., 2021) and in e nally as well
as ex e nally o en u bulen , compe i i e business en i on-
men s. The ascen o such indi iduals is also con i med in
se e al empi ical in es iga ions. Fo example, Babiak e al.
(2010) ound ha up o 6% o op manage s showed psy-
chopa hic ai s while F i zon e al. (2017) ound e en 21%
o manage s o display subs an ially ele a ed psychopa hic
ai s in he supply chain con ex . In compa ison, he p e a-
lence in he gene al popula ion is me ely abou 1%. These
subclinical psychopa hs a e e e ed o by a a ie y o e ms.
Besides he simple e m as a “Fac o 1 psychopa h,” hey a e
also e e ed o as “o ganiza ional psychopa h” (e.g., Boddy,
2006), “execu i e psychopa h” (e.g., Mo se, 2004), “co -
po a e psychopa h” (Babiak & Ha e, 2019; Boddy, 2005;
B ooks e al., 2020; Lingnau e al., 2017), o “success ul
psychopa h” (e.g., Benning e al., 2018; Boa d & F i zon,
2005; Ha e & Neumann, 2008; He é, 2007; Webe e al.,
2008). In he ollowing, we will e e o hese indi iduals
p ima ily as “co po a e psychopa hs.”
Analysis o Homo Economicus
onPsychopa hy
In o de o sys ema ically analyze he concep o homo
economicus wi h ega d o psychopa hic ai s, he PCL-R
will be applied. As such, in he dimension o p ima y psy-
chopa hy, he i s sub ac o o be analyzed is callous a ec ,
which e e s o a de iciency in emo ional esponses, i.e.,
showing a shallow a ec , no empa hy wi h o he s, a lack o
emo se o guil , and no aking esponsibili y. Looking a
he discussion o homo economicus in he li e a u e, al eady
Boulding (1969, p. 10) iden i ied he concep o homo eco-
nomicus as someone who “coun ed e e y cos and asked
o e e y ewa d, was ne e a lic ed wi h mad gene osi y
o uncalcula ing lo e, and who ne e ac ed ou o a sense
o inne iden i y and indeed had no inne iden i y e en i
he was occasionally a ec ed by ca e ully calcula ed con-
side a ions o bene olence o male olence.” Simila ly, also
Homans (1961, p. 79) concluded ha he homo economi-
cus essen ially was “an isocial and ma e ialis ic, in e es ed
only in money and ma e ial goods and eady o sac i ice
e en his old mo he o ge hem.” Finally, Sen (1977, p. 336)
amously labeled he homo economicus a “ a ional ool” and
a “social mo on.” Also in newe publica ions, he callous-
ness o homo economicus has been no ed by emphasizing
an ex eme le el o sel ishness, i.e., homo economicus ca es
only abou he pe sonal u ili y and is he e o e indi e en
owa d he needs o o he s, as long as hese o he s a e no
necessa y o ad ance he own bene i s (Boddy, 2023; Ki ch-
gässne , 2008). In such a eckless pu sui o sel -in e es ,
he e is also no place o conscience, guil , eelings o du y,
and emo se, which ep esen s a high deg ee o emo ional
de achmen om o he s (Ba on, 2014; Lingnau e al., 2017;
Ogaki & Tanaka, 2019; S ou , 2012). As a esul , “homo
economicus is a clinical calcula o o his own ad an age, a
u hless pu sue o his own in e es […]” (Mell & Walke ,
2014, p. 17). Homo economicus “has no mo al compunc ion,
does no engage in ac ions jus because some abs ac social
no ms equi e doing so” and has no “ eelings o guil ” (Ben-
Ne & Pu e man, 1998, p. 18). Las ly, conce ning he aspec
o aking esponsibili y, i is clea ha homo economicus
is u hless and has “no esponsibili y o anyone” (Nelson,
1993, p. 292), excep o po en ially op imizing he own
bene i . Thus, he e is no genuine “ esponsibili y o o he
people and u u e gene a ions” (Siebenhüne , 2000, p. 18).
Summa izing hese s a emen s, one can subsume ha homo
economicus shows a high deg ee o callous a ec .
The second sub ac o o be discussed is in e pe sonal
manipula ion, which comp ises aspec s o glib, supe icial
cha m, a sense o g andiosi y, pa hological lying, and he
endency o manipula e o he s in o de o achie e pe sonal
goals. Looking a he li e a u e, homo economicus does no
main ain genuine and deep pe sonal ela ionships. As Da ies
(2016, p. 61) subsumes: “Homo economicus doesn’ ha e
iends.” Ra he , he ins umen al a ionali y o homo eco-
nomicus leads o a supe icial in e ac ion wi h o he s, which
Dobuzinskis (2019, p. 105) desc ibes as “all oo glib.” The
co e ai s o manipula i e and un us wo hy conduc o
his sub ac o a e well e lec ed in p incipal-agen heo y
s a ing ha a p incipal has o assume un u h ul epo s
and a gene al lack o commi men by an agen (Pico e al.,
2008). In such ein, i can be s a ed wi h Williamson (1985,
p. 51) ha homo economicus will egula ly apply “ he
ull se o ex an e and ex pos e o s o lie, chea , s eal,
mislead, disguise, ob usca e, eign, dis o , and con use,”
as long as such p omises he ealiza ion o pe sonal gain.
Simila ly, Hun and Vi ell (2015, p. 34) poin edly s a e ha
“homo economicus no only maximizes sel -in e es bu
769
The Homo Economicus asaP o o ype o aPsychopa h? AConcep ual Analysis andImplica ions o …
does so wi h oppo unis ic ‘guile’.” Thus, homo economi-
cus is “designed o chea , lie, and exploi ” (Dash, 2019, p.
26). Las ly, al hough homo economicus is e iden ly no
designed as a Na cissis wi h a need o social a i ma ion
(e.g., Mille e al., 2021), some sense o g andiosi y implied
in he model could be seen in he quo e by Sen (1977, p.
336) s a ing ha homo economicus is no only a “ a ional
ool” bu also “decked in he glo y o his one all-pu pose
p e e ence o de ing.” In summa y, he second sub ac o is
also well ep esen ed wi hin he homo economicus model. I
can be subsumed ha homo economicus is ex emely sel ish,
and me ely conside s o he s as a means o pe sonal en ich-
men , also habi ually applying me hods o lying and chea -
ing, using and misusing o he s o achie e pe sonal bene i .
Thus, in conclusion, bo h sub ac o s, i.e., callous a ec and
in e pe sonal manipula ion a e well echoed in he concep o
homo economicus. Consequen ly, homo economicus ep e-
sen s o a la ge deg ee ai s o he Fac o 1 o psychopa hy.
Wi h espec o he Fac o 2 o psychopa hy, he i s
sub ac o is e a ic li es yle comp ising s imula ion seeking,
impulsi e, sho - e m-o ien ed beha io , ca eless, i espon-
sible conduc , a lack o ealis ic goals, and a endency owa d
a pa asi ic li es yle. As a i s aspec , s imula ion seeking
e e s o he p opensi y o be easily bo ed and hus o seek
ou ense si ua ions, such as egula pa icipa ion in isky
ac i i ies like skydi ing. Gene ally, s imula ion seeking is
no implied in he concep o homo economicus as a cool-
minded calcula o (Mell & Walke , 2014). Wi h ega d o
implied isk aking, an in e es ing aspec can be discussed.
Fi s o all, homo economicus is gene ally no inclined o
make pe sonally o e ly and unnecessa ily isky decisions.
Howe e , homo economicus could e y well accep subs an-
ial isks i hey a e ul ima ely bo ne by o he s, as was e i-
den in he example o he massi e isk aking ha led o he
inancial c isis (Boddy, 2011). Such isk aking is howe e
mo e oo ed in he callous a ec o Fac o 1, i.e., based on
a lack o emo ions and no accep ing esponsibili y i o he s
a e ha med. Conce ning he i ems ha e e o a lack o eal-
is ic long- e m planning, i.e., li ing in o he day and le ing
onesel ca elessly and in a po en ially sel -ha ming, i e-
sponsible way d i om one impulse o ano he , is clea ly
no embodied in he homo economicus model. Ra he , as
discussed, homo economicus is cha ac e ized by a men ally
cool, emo ionally de ached, e lec i e, and goal-o ien ed
conduc . Howe e , a pa asi ic li es yle could esona e wi h
homo economicus o some deg ee inso a as he model e y
well implies a po en ially oppo unis ic exploi a ion o o h-
e s’ alue c ea ion. Ye , besides such mino indica ions,
homo economicus does e iden ly no quali y o uly a es -
ing an e a ic li es yle.
Las ly he sub ac o o an isocial beha io shall be
discussed, which comp ises a subs an ial impai men in
beha io al con ol (e.g., equen iolen ou bu s s), o en
al eady a an ea ly age, ju enile delinquency, e oca ion o
condi ional eleases, and c iminal e sa ili y. Wi h ega d o
homo economicus, he concep e lec s a u hless, emo ion-
ally de ached conduc , which, howe e , is combined wi h
a e y con olled, clea -minded, a ge -o ien ed decision-
making and execu ion o plans and no endency owa d
uncon olled iolence o physical misconduc . Consequen ly,
homo economicus does no ep esen p oblems wi h beha -
io al con ol as o ins ance s uggling wi h ou bu s s o io-
lence and openly b eaking he law. Ye , homo economicus
could o cou se engage in a a ie y o c iminal ac i i ies
i such would appea o be pe sonally p o i able, howe e ,
in a e lec i e and con olled manne (e.g., Becke , 1968).
Summa izing he discussion on he la e wo sub ac o s, i
became clea ha no subs an ially ele a ed Fac o 2 can be
a ibu ed o homo economicus. In compa ison, as he p e i-
ous discussion shows, homo economicus s ongly ep esen s
psychopa hic ai s o Fac o 1 o psychopa hy. Thus, as a
inal esul , he psychological analysis e eals ha homo
economicus is e iden ly a subclinical, i.e., co po a e psy-
chopa h (see Table1 and Fig.1).
Discussion
The inding ha homo economicus is a co po a e psycho-
pa h is o pa icula in e es o business e hics esea ch as
i p o ides a link o he inc easing amoun o publica ions
indica ing he ex emely des uc i e po en ial o such sub-
clinical psychopa hs in business, as also se e al publica ions
in his jou nal show (e.g., Boddy, 2011, 2017; Boddy e al.,
2010b). Co po a e psychopa hs a e gene ally associa ed wi h
an o ganiza ional decline wi h ega d o long- e m e enue,
employee commi men , and inno a i eness (Boddy, 2017).
They a e esponsible o a de e io a ing wo k clima e by bul-
lying and demo alizing colleagues (Boddy & Taplin, 2016;
Ma hieu & Babiak, 2016; Sheehy e al., 2021; Valen ine
e al., 2018) and c ea ing an a mosphe e o ea (Boul e
& Boddy, 2021). This, in u n, o en leads o inc easing
sickness a es and some imes e en long-las ing and se e e
auma iza ion (Boddy & Taplin, 2016). Al hough co po-
a e psychopa hs p esen hemsel es in an eloquen man-
ne , behind hei shiny açade hey a e o en less quali ied
han hey appea , which hey compensa e by hei eloquen
communica i e skills and sel -con iden demeano (Babiak
e al., 2010; Pe i, 2013). The e a e also se e al inciden s
known o o ge y o alse diplomas and o he c eden ials
(Boddy & Taplin, 2016). Co po a e psychopa hs a e also
known o exe a nega i e impac on co po a e sus ainabil-
i y decisions (Boddy e al., 2010b; Myung, e al., 2017). In
addi ion, such indi iduals a e gene ally conside ed une hical
decision-make s (S e ens e al., 2012; Van Sco e & De Déa
Roglio, 2020) and a e p one o accep e en c imes o achie e
770 F.Fuchs, V.Lingnau
hei goals (Lingnau e al., 2017; Ray & Jones, 2011). Being
impai ed in hei eelings o ea o emo se, hey also ha e
been associa ed wi h aking un easonable o ganiza ional
isks (Babiak & Ha e, 2019; Boddy e al., 2010b) and a e
mo e likely o accep di ec ha m on o he s (Koenigs e al.,
2012). The e o e, in he long un, such psychopa hs a e
conside ed a subs an ial o ganiza ional isk ac o and a e
associa ed wi h a diminished business pe o mance and e en
se e al co po a e b eakdowns (Boddy, 2011, 2017; Sheehy
e al., 2021). Gi en hese implica ions, he opic o co po a e
psychopa hy is inc easingly in e es ing om he pe spec-
i e o p e en ion (Lingnau e al., 2017), which in ol es a
a ie y o in e disciplina y esea ch, including neu oscience,
psychology, and law (Sheehy e al., 2021).
The inding ha homo economicus is no jus mo ally
ques ionable bu esembles a speci ic o m o psychopa hy
o be ound in business is he e o e no only concep ually
insigh ul, bu i also p o ides se e al links o business p ac-
ice. As shall be a gued, he concep o homo economicus is
no only a ma e o ex book heo ems bu , i closely con-
side ed, he discussed pe sonali y aspec s e e be a e (o en
unspoken) in ins i u ional se ings o businesses, being able
o a leas pa ially explain why speci ic indi iduals a e
pa icula ly success ul and p omo ed in hese se ings. In
such ein, o ad ance in hei ca ee s, i is o en expec ed
ha leade s a e ough and decisi e, being able o make di -
icul decisions. Such ai s a e also pa icula ly e lec ed
in adi ional chains o command wi h hei indi idualized,
hie a chical wo king con ex s, which pu less emphasis on
ai s o compassion and emo ional closeness. This co e-
sponds wi h he adi ional assump ion o an economically
a ional leade ship as discussed by Nicholson and Ku ucz
(2019). In addi ion, many wo king places a e unde going
cons an changes, acing u bulen en i onmen s. Thus, i
may be expec ed o leade s o s ay calm and ocused. As
such, i has been no ed ha some o he co e cha ac e is ics
o co po a e psychopa hs, especially hose o he a ec i e
dimension like cool-mindedness and ex eme con idence
a e o en misin e p e ed as desi able leade ship quali ies
(Babiak & Ha e, 2019; Du on, 2013; Hill & Sco , 2019).
Thus, subclinical psychopa hs a e o en e y success ul in
he hi ing p ocess, gi en hei seemingly decisi e and s ong
appea ance (Boddy e al., 2021). Fu he mo e, equen job
changes a e common in leade ship posi ions and also o
some deg ee expec ed. This also p o ides an excellen se -
ing o co po a e psychopa hs o employ hei manipula i e
ai s as hese a e o en e y di icul o de ec in he sho
un (Boddy e al., 2021).
In addi ion, i could be a gued ha he mode n capi al-
is ic co po a ion i sel is esembling homo economicus. As
such, Bakan (2004) a gues ha he co po a ion has psy-
chopa hic a ibu es (also see Ke ola, 2006). Th ough he
lens o ins i u ional-o ganiza ional i heo ies ha ocus
on a sel -selec ion o speci ic indi iduals in o an o ganiza-
ion (e.g., Lazea & Rosen, 1981; Ouchi, 1979), i could
be explained why co po a e psychopa hs a e especially
a ac ed o business en i onmen s. Mo e speci ically,
many businesses apply ma e ial incen i es and bonus
schemes. T adi ionally, hese a e based on he assump ions
o unbounded oppo unism (Williamson, 1985), and in spe-
ci ic, he beha io al assump ion o he a e age indi idual as
a po en ial wo k a e se shi ke (Mankiw, 2018), i.e., a mani-
es a ion o homo economicus o a co po a e psychopa h.
In such ein, i could be s a ed wi h Milg om and Robe s
(1992, p. 42) ha hese sys ems a e “designed as i peo-
ple we e en i ely mo i a ed by na ow, sel ish conce ns and
[…] will be undamen ally amo al, igno ing ules, b eaking
ag eemen s, and employing guile, manipula ion, and decep-
ion i hey see pe sonal gain in doing so.” E en in ligh o
o he mo i es on he side o companies o es ablish such
bonus schemes, indi idualized ma e ial incen i es esona e
s ongly wi h he sel ish and oppo unis ic ai s o co po a e
psychopa hs, gi en he emphasis on a ealiza ion o pe sonal
bene i . Thus, hey a ac co po a e psychopa hs o he “ eal
homo economicus” (Ho man, 2011, p. 491). As hese con-
side a ions show, e en i no always made explici , he model
o homo economicus is o en e lec ed in he ins i u ional
se ings o he “ ules o he game” in business.
Implica ions o Resea ch andTeaching
F om hese conside a ions, se e al implica ions o esea ch
and eaching can be deduced. As a i s mo i a ion, gi en
he as des uc ion and o ganiza ional haza d co po a e
psychopa hs un old (e.g., Boddy, 2011, 2017), a be e
unde s anding o he a o emen ioned impac o homo eco-
nomicus would be ele an o he long- e m success and
o ganiza ional esilience o an o ganiza ion. Besides such,
he ollowing conside a ions can also be mo i a ed om an
e hical pe spec i e ha is ocused on os e ing mo e humane
and esponsible business p ac ices. To his end, he ollow-
ing discussion will d aw on i ue e hics and an e hics o
ca e as wo majo s eams o business e hics (Dawson, 2015;
Nicholson & Ku ucz, 2019). Fo i ue e hics, he pape
e e s o he e hics amewo k by Slo e (1992), who clas-
si ies i uous conduc as comp ised o essen ially h ee
ela ed majo condi ions (Dawson, 2015). Fi s , he e is
he equi emen ha i ues a e no sel ish, i.e., hey do no
exclude o he s. Second, he e is he equi emen o an agen /
o he -balance, i.e., indi iduals mus conside wha is good
o hemsel es and good o he o he (s), which has o be
balanced o . Thi d, i uous conduc s i es o sa is ac ion
and no maximiza ion. As a co po a e psychopa h, homo
economicus e iden ly ails on all h ee c i e ia. Fi s , homo
economicus only ca es abou he pe sonal bene i and he
777
The Homo Economicus asaP o o ype o aPsychopa h? AConcep ual Analysis andImplica ions o …
Zamagni, S. (2011). A a ice. In L. Bouckae & L. Zsolnai (Eds.),
Handbook o spi i uali y and business (pp. 212–218). Palg a e
Macmillan.
Zichy, M. (2020). Wha is a Menschenbild? In oducing a ui ul Ge -
man concep . In P. Jonke s, X. He, & Y. Shi (Eds.), Sel -awa e-
ness o li e in he new e a (pp. 57–71). Council o Resea ch and
Values in Philosophy.
Publishe 's No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o
ju isdic ional claims in published maps and ins i u ional a ilia ions.