analysis plagiarism and research ethics

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to

• protect the rights of research participants
• enhance research validity
• maintain scientific or academic integrity

Table of contents

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about

• what the study is about
• the risks and benefits of taking part
• how long the study will take
• your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

• Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
• Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
• Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
• Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Board Members
• Management Team
• Become a Contributor
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Code of Ethical Practices

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK

• Search Engines List
• Suggested Reading Library
• Web Directories
• Research Papers
• Industry News

• Become a Member
• Associate Membership
• Certified Membership
• Membership Application
• Corporate Application

• CIRS Certification Program
• CIRS Certification Objectives
• CIRS Certification Benefits
• CIRS Certification Exam
• Maintain Your Certification

• Upcoming Events
• Live Classes
• Classes Schedule
• Webinars Schedules

• Latest Articles
• Internet Research
• Search Techniques
• Research Methods
• Business Research
• Search Engines
• Research & Tools
• Investigative Research
• Internet Search
• Work from Home
• Internet Ethics
• Internet Privacy

Research Ethics and Plagiarism: What We Need to Know

Research ethics are like a moral compass that guide researchers in their pursuit of knowledge. They ensure that research is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner, and that the knowledge gained from research is used for the betterment of society.

The principles of research ethics

One of the core principles of research ethics is respect for individuals. This means that researchers must always treat their study participants with dignity and respect, and that they must obtain informed consent from all participants before the research begins. For example, a study on the effects of a new drug might involve obtaining informed consent from patients who are willing to participate in the study.

In addition to these core principles, ethics also involve ensuring that researchers are honest and transparent in their reporting of their findings. This means that researchers must avoid plagiarism, accurately report their methods and results, and always acknowledge the contributions of others..

Avoiding plagiarism

Learn about the ways to avoid plagiarism in your work:

Use quotation marks or block quotes for direct quotes. If you're using someone else's exact words, make sure to put them in quotation marks or use a block quote to clearly indicate that they're not your own words.

Paraphrase and summarize in your own words. Instead of copying someone else's work word-for-word, try to summarize or paraphrase the information in your own words. Just make sure to still give credit to the original author.

Use proper citation and referencing. Make sure to cite your sources and give credit to the authors whose work you're referencing. Use the appropriate citation style for your field, such as APA or MLA.

Use plagiarism detection tools. Many online tools can help you check your work for plagiarism before submitting it. You can use a  plagiarism checker no word limit and check if you’ve used phrases similar to someone’s. By checking your work before submission, you can identify any problematic areas and make the necessary revisions to ensure that your writing is original and properly cited.

Stay organized. Keeping track of your sources and notes can help you avoid confusion and ensure that you properly cite all of your sources.

Following research ethics

For instance, let's say you're working on a research project about the effects of climate change on local wildlife. Following research ethics would involve treating your study participants with respect and dignity, obtaining informed consent, and taking measures to avoid causing physical or emotional harm. By doing so, you can ensure that your findings are valid and that your study contributes to society in a meaningful way.

What you must know as a student

Here's a list of things every student must know about research ethics and plagiarism:

• The principles of research ethics, including:
• respect for individuals
• avoiding harm
• being honest and transparent in reporting findings.
• The importance of obtaining informed consent and protecting the privacy and confidentiality of study participants .
• The consequences of plagiarism. These include academic penalties and damage to personal and professional reputation.
• The importance of citing sources and giving credit to the work of others, as well as avoiding self-plagiarism.
• The different types of plagiarism, such as:
• direct copying
• paraphrasing without citation
• purchasing or sharing papers.
• The resources available to help students avoid plagiarism, including plagiarism checkers and citation management tools.
• The role of academic integrity in building a successful career and contributing to society in an ethical and responsible way.

Final thoughts

Author’s bio, live classes schedule.

World's leading professional association of Internet Research Specialists - We deliver Knowledge, Education, Training, and Certification in the field of Professional Online Research. The AOFIRS is considered a major contributor in improving Web Search Skills and recognizes Online Research work as a full-time occupation for those that use the Internet as their primary source of information.

Get Exclusive Research Tips in Your Inbox

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Advertising Opportunities
• Knowledge Network

Understanding Research Ethics: How to Prevent Plagiarism

Session Agenda

Responsible conduct of research is quintessential in maintaining scientific integrity. Researchers either intentionally or negligently may adopt questionable research practices leading to detrimental consequences. To minimize the risks and hazards associated with unethical behavior, researchers must be aware of the various types of research misconduct and the ways to avoid these malpractices. Enago in collaboration with Hindawi conducted a joint webinar to uphold scientific integrity by helping research scholars understand the significance of good ethical conduct. We focussed on explaining the most common type of research misconduct—plagiarism and its different forms and have shared effective strategies to prevent it.

Through this session, researchers will have an improved understanding of the following:

• An overview of research and publication ethics
• Importance of research ethics
• Major ethical issues and how to avoid them
• How to draft plagiarism-free manuscripts?
• Legal consequences of IPR violation

About Hindawi ( www.hindawi.com )

Hindawi Limited is one of the world's largest open-access publishers with an expansive portfolio of academic research journals across all areas of science and medicine. Each peer-reviewed journal has been developed in partnership with academic researchers, acting as editors, to fit the targeted communities they serve. Driven by a mission to advance openness in research and placing the researcher at the heart of everything we do, we work with publishers, institutions, and organizations to move towards a more open scholarly ecosystem by investing in the development of open-source publishing infrastructure.

Who should attend this session?

• Graduate students
• Early-stage researchers
• Doctoral students
• Postdoctoral students
• Established researchers

About the Speaker

About the speakers.

Michael Gotesman, Scientist & Educator

Ben Dickinson, Research Integrity Manager, Hindawi

Related Events

생명윤리: 의학과 과학의 사회적 & 윤리적 문제 해결

• 생명윤리와 생명윤리 원칙
• 정책의 결정 및 유지
• 생명과학 연구의 윤리적 문제
• 생명윤리 정보 리소스

Launching ‘Review Assistant’: An AI-powered Tool for Peer Reviewers

• Boosting the reviewing process
• Search strategies for locating articles
• Introducing ‘Review Assistant’
• Reporting high-quality reviews

How to Boost Citations – Tips for Researchers

• Acknowledging the sources
• Significance of research promotion
• Strategies to boost citations
• Impact of promotional strategies

Register Now for FREE!

Register now.

• Personal Details
• Card Details

Want to conduct custom webinars and workshops ?

Be our next speaker.

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

Plagiarism in research

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden, [email protected].
• PMID: 24993050
• DOI: 10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8

Plagiarism is a major problem for research. There are, however, divergent views on how to define plagiarism and on what makes plagiarism reprehensible. In this paper we explicate the concept of "plagiarism" and discuss plagiarism normatively in relation to research. We suggest that plagiarism should be understood as "someone using someone else's intellectual product (such as texts, ideas, or results), thereby implying that it is their own" and argue that this is an adequate and fruitful definition. We discuss a number of circumstances that make plagiarism more or less grave and the plagiariser more or less blameworthy. As a result of our normative analysis, we suggest that what makes plagiarism reprehensible as such is that it distorts scientific credit. In addition, intentional plagiarism involves dishonesty. There are, furthermore, a number of potentially negative consequences of plagiarism.

• Ethical Analysis
• Ethics, Research*
• Plagiarism*

Research Ethics and Plagiarism

"Research Ethics and Plagiarism"   are  among the key areas under discussion and consideration at various levels. Many students of PG programmes. Research scholars and faculty members of higher education Institutions face problem to resolve the issues related to plagiarism. In 2018, UGC has also notified its norms for plagiarism checking and promoting ethical practices in research and publications. In these norms, Universities/institutions are asked to organize programmes and make these issues as part of their research curriculum. Keeping in mind the vast scope of the area and opportunities for young researchers to learn about research ethics, plagiarism, citation, etc. this online course entitled "Research Ethics and Plagiarism" i s being offered. 

Page Visits

Course layout, instructor bio.

Dr. Gaurav Singh

Dr.Gaurav Singh is working as a Professor at School of Education, Central University of Haryana. Previously, he has contributed at IGNOU as the coordinator the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Programme. He was the Channel Coordinator of SWAYAMPRABHA Channel:32 Teacher Education (A Ministry of Education, Govt. of India Project) July 2016-June 2020, and of Channel 20: SOUs and Teacher Education under SWAYAMPRABHA till September 05, 2022. Dr.Gaurav Singh has done M.Sc. in Chemistry, M.Ed. (Gold Medallist), UGC-NET (Education) and Ph. D. in Teacher Education and also completed PGDDE (Gold Medal). He started his career as teacher educator in 2003 in a conventional teacher education Institute and worked with School of Education, IGNOU from November 2011 to September 04, 2022. His 31 (Thirty-One) research papers/ articles have been published so far in various National and International Journals/books. He has also contributed more than 40 chapters/units to ODL Study Material. He has recorded/developed 125 modules/lectures for MOOCs till date and coordinated the development of nearly 1200 lectures for SWAYAM and SWAYAMPRABHA. He has authored one book on Teacher Education and guided one Ph.D. on E-learning. Dr. Singh has participated in various International and National Seminars in India as well as abroad. He has also completed one NIOS funded Research Project as Co-Researcher on Educational Status of Purvi Uttar Pradesh. He is offering four MOOCs on SWAYAM and on other platforms. Nearly 45000 learners have benefited from these courses so far. His SWAYAM course on Research Ethics and Plagiarism has been adopted by nearly forty universities in their Ph.D. Course work curriculum, and under top ten SWAYAM courses of all time, as per the learners rating on class central. Dr.Gaurav Singh is the recipient of Commonwealth of Learning-AAOU Fellowship-2018 by COL, Vancouver, Canada. He has been conferred silver medal of Best Practices by Asian Association of Open Universities (AAOU), 2018 at Hanoi, Vietnam and is recipient of Distinguished Distance Educator Award by National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), Noida. He has also got travel assistance to attend Pan Commonwealth Forum (PCF-10) from COL at Athabaska University Calgary, Canada in 2022. His SWAYAM course on Learning and Teaching has been awarded as the Best SWAYAM course in 2021. Dr. Gaurav Singh is continuously engaged in delivering lectures/talks and organizing training workshops as MOOC trainer at various universities, TLCs, HRDCs and teacher education Institutions. He has been part of various academic bodies, curriculum committees of several Institutions and Universities. His areas of interests are Research Methodology, ICTs in Education/ODL and Teacher Education.

Course certificate

DOWNLOAD APP

SWAYAM SUPPORT

Please choose the SWAYAM National Coordinator for support. * :

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

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 22 March 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Florian Fuchs   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1163-0107 1 &
• Volker Lingnau 1  

Since the beginning of business research and teaching, the basic assumptions of the discipline have been intensely debated. One of these basic assumptions concerns the behavioral aspects of human beings, which are traditionally represented in the construct of homo economicus. These assumptions have been increasingly challenged in light of findings from social, ethnological, psychological, and ethical research. Some publications from an integrative perspective have suggested that homo economicus embodies to a high degree dark character traits, particularly related to the construct of psychopathy, representing individuals who are extremely self-centered and ruthless, without feelings of remorse or compassion. While a growing body of research notes such a similarity on a more or less anecdotal basis, this article aims to explore this connection from a more rigorous perspective, bridging insights from psychological, economic, and business research to better understand the potentially dark traits of homo economicus. The analysis shows that homo economicus is not simply some kind of psychopath, but specifically a so-called subclinical or Factor 1 psychopath, who is also referred to as a “corporate psychopath” in business research. With such an analysis, the paper adds an additional perspective and a deeper psychological level of understanding as to why homo economicus is often controversially debated. Based on these insights, several implications for academic research and teaching are discussed and reflected upon in light of an ethics of virtue and care.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

From the perspective of the philosophy of science, each scientific discipline is characterized by some basic assumptions. In disciplines such as philosophy, anthropology, sociology, but also in business research and economics, the assumed concept of a human being (“ Menschenbild ,” see, e.g., Zichy, 2020 ) is one of these fundamental assumptions. While in philosophy since the Enlightenment a human being is conceived of as a rational actor in a very broad sense, also from a moral capabilities perspective (e.g., in Kant’s moral philosophy), in traditional theoretical models of economics and business this rationality has been strongly narrowed to a ruthless, selfish pursuit of material benefits. This sole, opportunistic pursuit of material advancement is well reflected in the concept of homo economicus, the standard concept of an actor in neoclassical economics.

Interestingly, the core dispositions and motivations of homo economicus have been debated since the creation of the concept in the nineteenth century. In particular, it often has been noted that the homo economicus’ motivational dispositions, which have been made the foundation of orthodox economics, i.e., ruthless selfishness and greed, would be theologically considered as cardinal or mortal sins (Martinás, 2010 ; Verburg, 2018 ; Zamagni, 2011 ). Beyond such a moral analysis, in the last decade, some publications have stated that homo economicus seems to incorporate dark character traits, and especially signs of psychopathy (e.g., Bailey, 2017 ; Davies, 2016 ; Hoffman, 2011 ; Stout, 2014 ). Yet, there has been very little systematic and deeper psychological investigation into the core traits of homo economicus. Such an analysis appears to be relevant for a number of reasons. First of all, the concept of homo economicus is still critically discussed in contemporary business ethics research as a questionable model for human behavior (e.g., Friedland & Cole, 2019 ; Haarjärvi & Laari-Salmela, 2022 ; Racko, 2019 ). A psychological analysis could provide an additional, highly interesting perspective to this ongoing discussion. Furthermore, homo economicus, even if not always made explicit, is still prevalent in fundamental economic, managerial, and organizational theories (Melé & Cantón, 2014 ). Although business research applies a variety of methods and theoretical backgrounds, the homo economicus concept is, for instance, the basis of microeconomic firm profit or individual utility maximization (e.g., Parkin, 2014 ; Pindyck & Rubinfeld, 2018 ). Likewise, key behavioral dispositions of homo economicus are reflected in principal-agent theory (Gintis & Khurana, 2016 ). With regard to capital markets, traditional instruments like the Capital Asset Pricing Model are built on assumptions of economic rationality (Baker & Ricciardi, 2014 ). Moreover, the concept is generally the basis for rational choice theory (e.g., Gilboa, 2012 ) and therefore part of all approaches based on this concept, which especially holds for a great number of analytical research that relies on formal modeling. Finally, besides economics and business, the concept has also been adopted in other disciplines like sociology, politics, or law (e.g., Guzman, 2008 ; Hechter & Kanazawa, 1997 ; Parsons, 2005 ; Zafirovski, 2014 ).

As this paper argues, the fundamental selection of models is not just a theoretical issue, these choices also matter in practice. Specifically, the arguments that homo economicus “is just a model” or “it’s simply an ‘as if’ assumption” with some predictive value (e.g., Friedman, 1976 ), fall short for several reasons (also see Dosi et al., 2021 ). Besides the counterargument that such an “as if” approach would not do sufficient justice to supporting the study of a real decision-maker, there is an even potentially stronger argument with regard to the real-world implications of model choices on business and policy-making processes, on which this paper will elaborate. In such vein, the paper is not only solely theoretically insightful but also creates several links to practice. Although homo economicus is evidently not a real person, it is not solely an abstract, imaginative concept detached from any impact on reality. Rather, it represents a distinct artifact of thinking about basic rules in business and human interaction in general, which also reflects back on and influences the reasoning and acting in these contexts (Linstead & Grafton-Small, 1990 ). This has several implications. First of all, as will be discussed, homo economicus still reverberates in corporate practice, for instance in competitive, individualistic environments and monetary incentive schemes. Equally, when academic theory is applied in practice, like in cases of economic deregulation, the implied concept of a human being matters (e.g., Fridman, 2010 ). In addition, the findings of this paper are also insightful with regard to academic teaching. As several studies have shown, teaching conveys certain basic values—at least implicitly, simply by the fact of model choice and the implied concept of humanity that was chosen (e.g., Frank et al., 1993 ; Ifcher & Zarghamee, 2018 ; Kowaleski et al., 2020 ; Racko, 2019 ). In such vein, for instance, the last financial crisis has been linked to at least implicitly taught values associated with homo economicus (Giacalone & Wargo, 2009 ; Melé, 2009 ; Melé et al., 2011 ). Also from a wider perspective, several corporate scandals with far-reaching organizational and societal consequences are discussed as being, at least partly, caused by internalizing economic rationality, and homo economicus as a representation of such rationality (Ong et al., 2022 ). Based on these considerations, several authors have called for a critical examination of the academic curricula for teaching business (Dierksmeier, 2011 ; Fougère & Solitander, 2023 ; Giacalone & Wargo, 2009 ; Gintis & Khurana, 2016 ; Waddock, 2020 ). Given the continuing criticism of homo economicus and the lack of systematic deeper analyses with regard to the potentially dark traits of this model, this paper conducts an analysis from a more rigorous psychological perspective.

As such, the paper is structured as follows. In the beginning, the paper will conduct a short review of the two major notions, i.e., first, the concept of homo economicus and second that of psychopathy is discussed. After presenting the two major concepts, both lines of thought are combined and homo economicus is systematically analyzed through a psychological lens. As a major finding, this paper shows that the core traits of homo economicus as an emotionally shallow, selfish, opportunistic, and manipulative agent can be psychologically described as psychopathic. Specifically, homo economicus shows strong traits of so-called subclinical psychopathy, which relates to the notion of corporate psychopathy widely applied in business research. After discussing this finding, several implications for business research and teaching are reflected upon through the lens of an ethics of virtue and care.

The Concept of Homo Economicus

Although an early discussion of traits resembling the concept later coined “homo economicus” can be traced back to the antiquities (Dixon & Wilson, 2012 ), the notion is particularly linked to the advent of the classic economic theory in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. According to the seminal review by Persky ( 1995 ), it was shaped by John Stuart Mill, postulating that economic analysis should restrict itself to the concept of an agent primarily motivated by “the desire of wealth, [.] aversion to labour, and desire of the present enjoyment […]” (Mill, 1844 , p. 138). Yet, the exact terminology was only later introduced by authors like John Kells Ingram and John Neville Keynes in their critical discussion of Mill’s economic groundwork. Subsequently, it has been frequently assumed that the concept was strongly influenced by the work of Adam Smith given that in his Wealth of the Nations (Smith, 1804 ), he argues that economic exchange shall be seen primarily in light of mutual self-interest instead of social motives such as altruism. This view is, however, for its simplicity challenged by the newer Adam Smith research (e.g., Hühn & Dierksmeier, 2016 ), particularly with regard to his second groundbreaking and potentially complementary work on The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Smith, 1761 ). A great leap in the development of the modern understanding of homo economicus is provided by the development of neoclassical economics with a stronger emphasis on mathematical formalization, which in turn was heavily influenced by physics, and in specific, deterministic mechanics and thermodynamic equilibrium theory (Smith & Foley, 2008 ). With regard to the “forces” leading to economic equilibria, self-interest coupled with a possession of complete information became the standard doctrine of economic models in neoclassical approaches. These assumptions are embedded in the concept of homo economicus as an agent solely concerned with maximizing utility while possessing a temporally stable preference structure. This structure is independent of others—or to say more precisely: covers the needs of others only to such an extent as these others are deemed beneficial to the homo economicus’ own ends (Kirchgässner, 2008 ). The rationality of homo economicus is therefore strictly based on the own benefit and represents a thinking in purpose-means relationships (Anderson, 2000 ; Elster, 1989 ). Although it is sometimes argued that the model of homo economicus could be conceived of as being concerned with the satisfaction of arbitrary, e.g., also altruistic, needs (England, 2003 ), like in the works of Becker ( 1981 , 1993 ), such an extension to the satisfaction of all conceivable preferences falls short in at least two respects. First, defining all actions as utility maximizing makes the model a tautology where every conduct is ex-post explained by utility, thus lacking any analytical sharpness, being factually non-testable and logically circular (Ostapiuk, 2021 ; Stout, 2014 ). Second, from a conceptual point of view, the homo economicus model is de facto often understood as narrowed to the traditional, already elaborated motives (England, 2003 ): a maximization of material benefits, as for instance measured in discounted cash flows or net present value as a traditional measure of rational decision-making (Magni, 2009 ). As such, homo economicus is a “single-minded income-maximizing economic actor” (Pearlstein, 2016 ) or as Fleming ( 2017 , p. 98) puts it, a “dollar-hunting animal” represented in “the monetised principle of pure utility.”

Moreover, the academic examination is frequently limited insofar as the controversies often mix two distinct features of homo economicus, which, if not clearly disentangled, blurs the debate on the concept and which this paper therefore shall delineate more precisely: namely a cognitive and a behavioral assumption of the model. In the cognitive dimension, the information status and computational capabilities of the actor are covered. In such vein, it is assumed that homo economicus possesses complete information, has no restrictions in computation, and can adapt at infinite speed to a change in information. Unsurprisingly, these evidently stark assumptions have been heavily criticized, particularly in the domain of bounded rationality research initiated by Herbert Simon, who harshly criticized the God-like, “Olympian model” (Simon, 1983 , p. 34) of homo economicus, which he assigned to “Plato’s heaven of ideas” (p. 13). In contrast, Simon’s groundbreaking work emphasizes that human individuals are not fully knowledgeable and deviate from the standard economic maximization paradigm by “satisficing” (i.e., being satisfied with an achievement of a previously defined “good” result level) instead of “optimizing,” which has in consequence inspired several streams of research until present day (also see Simon, 1983 ). These are, for instance, the “biases and illusions” research by Kahneman and Tversky, which investigates the deviation from standard economic rationality as cognitive biases, mostly in experimental contexts (e.g., Kahneman, 2012 ; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979 ; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974 ), and the field of “ecological rationality” in the tradition of Gigerenzer, emphasizing in opposition to the “biases and illusions” research that heuristic approaches often deliver good solutions in real problem solving situations, i.e., under consideration of the real problem environment (e.g., Gigerenzer, 2004 ; Gigerenzer & Brighton, 2009 ; Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011 ; Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 2016 ).

Besides these cognitive assumptions, even more interesting for the present paper are the behavioral assumptions of the homo economicus model. From this view, homo economicus can be linked back to the original considerations debated in the context of Mill’s economic theory, i.e., an individual’s conduct that is structured by a strict pursuit of self-interest, as said, mostly reduced to material benefits to avoid a motivationally arbitrary and tautological model. Given the total absence of any genuine social concerns, the model is based on an opportunistic exploitation of any options available to increase personal wealth. The individual advantage is therefore pursued without empathy, feelings of remorse or guilt, any feelings for others at all, and only based on the prospect of a possible enrichment. These characteristics are widely reflected in information economics (e.g., Birchler & Bütler, 2007 ; Macho-Stadler & Pérez-Castrillo, 2001 ), for instance in the context of adverse selection or hidden action, and considerations on the importance of designing incentive and control systems (see e.g., Merchant & Van der Stede, 2017 ) to limit discretionary behavior (Picot et al., 2008 ). These assumptions also have been strongly contested from an empirical perspective. In particular, behavioral research has emphasized the importance of not neglecting stable social traits such as altruism, fairness, or reciprocity (Bolton & Ockenfels, 2000 ; Bolton et al., 2005 ; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2002 ; Fehr & Schmidt, 2006 ; Fischbacher et al., 2001 ; Gächter & Falk, 2002 ). The restriction to a ruthless, selfish, and opportunistic conduct, seeing others merely as a means to maximize the own advantage, has led to a widespread criticism of orthodox economics as a “dismal science” (Aldred, 2009 ; Brue & Grant, 2013 ; Levy, 2002 ; Marglin, 2008 ). However, still, a more systematic analysis of these assumptions from the perspective of dark character traits, and psychopathy in particular, needs to be conducted.

The Concept of Psychopathy

As a first general definition, the notion of psychopathy refers to a “distinct psychiatric illness marked by serious behavioral deviancy in the context of intact rational function” (Patrick, 2018 , p. 4). According to Hare ( 1999 , p. 34) psychopathy must be considered a syndrome, i.e., “a cluster of related symptoms,” as shown in a morally deviant, ruthless, and selfish conduct. It is important to note that in comparison to insanity or madness, psychopaths commit their moral transgressions and crimes in full clarity of conduct—they simply do not care for others and the harm inflicted on them (Glenn et al., 2009 ). Interestingly, from the first concepts specifying psychopathy in the nineteenth century and until recent times, a wide range of psychological research has focused on the so-called clinical psychopath , an individual who not only lacks any affection and empathy for others but likewise shows a serious lack of long-term-oriented conduct and behavioral control, leading to an unsteady life and frequent unrestrained outbursts of physical violence. As a result, these individuals tend to come into conflict with the law at an early age and often face imprisonment (Hare & Neuman, 2008 ). However, not all psychopaths are impaired in this way. Rather, there are individuals who possess some of the core traits of clinical psychopathy and yet are able to lead seemingly normal lives, be at first glance likable and charming, and even succeed in their individual careers. These individuals are referred to as subclinical psychopaths . This fact is summarized in the famous quote by Hare stating: “Not all psychopaths are in prison. Some are in the Boardroom” (as cited in Babiak et al., 2010 , p. 174).

From a research perspective, the existence of such subclinical psychopaths has stirred increasing academic interest in recent decades, particularly in light of some spectacular collapses of once prestigious companies due to massive levels of executive misconduct and fraud (Lingnau et al., 2017 ). Interestingly, the prevalence of subclinical psychopaths has also been suggested as a reason for the last financial crisis (Boddy, 2011 ; Gregory, 2014 ; Marshall et al., 2013 ). To better understand the underlying phenomenon, it is helpful to deeper investigate the characteristics of psychopathy as a construct of two major, overarching factors (Babiak, 2016 ). Such a differentiation began with the seminal work by Cleckley ( 1941 ), who not only developed the modern concept of psychopathy by elaborating several core aspects of the syndrome but already noted that there are some individuals with psychopathic traits that could be highly successful in their careers. This research inspired Hare ( 1980 ) to develop the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), which extended Cleckley’s notion with some additional, especially antisocial, tendencies often found in institutionalized psychopaths (Hare & Neumann, 2005 , 2008 ). This scale was later revised to the PCL-R (Hare, 2003 ). In addition to its widespread use in the detection of psychopathy (e.g., Acheson, 2005 ; Falkenbach, 2007 ; Fritzon et al., 2020 ; Lynam, 2011 ), the PCL-R is also noteworthy because its empirical application has helped to shape a deeper conceptual understanding of the construct of psychopathy itself. Specifically, the empirical application revealed that the construct is composed of several subfactors that are insightful for classification, as the following discussion will show. As such, the PCL-R shows two major dimensions, or overarching factors of psychopathy, which can be further differentiated into two subfactors (Hare & Neumann, 2005 , 2008 ) (see Table 1 and Fig. 1 ).

Cognitive and behavioral dimension of homo economicus

The first major factor of psychopathy refers to an interpersonal and affective dimension. In the affective dimension ( callous affect ) these individuals are extremely ruthless and coldhearted, showing a deficiency in emotional responses, particularly when others are harmed. They are further lacking any conscience, feelings of guilt or remorse, and do not take responsibility for their actions. The second subfactor of the first dimension is interpersonal manipulation . I.e., such individuals do not refrain from using and misusing others to reach their goals, which also includes deceitful behavior like cheating and lying on a habitual basis. This is especially easy for psychopaths because they feel less cognitive dissonance in doing so (Murray et al., 2012 ). Although individuals with such trait may appear likable and charming at first glance, they are entirely self-focused and do not care about others, merely using them for personal advantage. Therefore and in summary, individuals with an elevated Factor 1 are characterized by superficial charm, an extreme lack of empathy or compassion, leading to a ruthless, manipulative conduct without feelings of shame, remorse, or guilt (Hare & Neumann, 2005 , 2008 ). Besides Factor 1 as a core element of the notion of psychopathy (Harpur et al., 1989 ; Herpertz & Sass, 2000 ), Factor 2 characterizes issues with an individual’s long-term planning and behavioral control, leading to an unsteady lifestyle, impulsive thoughtlessness, generally openly displayed irresponsible and antisocial conduct, and therefore most often early delinquency. This second factor can be differentiated in an erratic lifestyle , particularly focusing on a lack of long-term-oriented conduct and an unsteady life, and antisocial behavior , as for instance represented in violent outbursts and law-breaking, leading to early criminal behavior (Hare & Neumann, 2005 , 2008 ).

It is worth noting that there has been some discussion on the latter subfactor. As such, Cooke and Michie ( 2001 ) have argued for a three-factor model that drops the subfactor of antisocial behavior because this factor includes blue-collar crime tendencies, which they argue to be consequences of traits and not the traits themselves. However, as Hare and Neumann ( 2005 , 2008 ) argue in return, dropping out antisocial behavior would also exclude relevant aspects such as poor behavioral control typical of clinical psychopaths. In this paper, we cannot attempt to remedy such internal psychological discussion. However, as we shall discuss, there are some good reasons to apply the 2 by 2 model in the following analysis. First, it may be highly interesting to evaluate homo economicus also in terms of the behavioral control aspect, which would be excluded if the antisocial behavior subfactor were not examined. Such an aspect seems worth discussing with homo economicus and provides a deeper analysis. Moreover, this model is useful for distinguishing between clinical and subclinical psychopathy (Babiak, 2016 ), which, as the following analysis shows, is very insightful. With regard to such model, the traditional concept of psychopathy, i.e., clinical psychopathy , refers to individuals with a substantially elevated Factor 1 and Factor 2 . Consequently, these are ruthless and coldhearted individuals with considerable behavioral problems and an unsteady lifestyle. In contrast, subclinical psychopaths , who are particularly interesting from a business research perspective, show an equally profoundly elevated Factor 1 but, at most, only a mildly elevated Factor 2 (Babiak, 2016 ). These individuals are therefore extremely coldhearted, opportunistic, and without remorse or guilt. Yet, they can plan very strategically and possess a relatively normal behavioral control, enabling them to appear even as charming and likable at first glance as they are masters of concealing their dark traits. As a result, such individuals are frequently able to climb the corporate ladder, which is especially propelled in Western cultures (Boddy et al., 2010a ; Stout, 2005 ). This is facilitated by an increasing expectation of frequent job changes in leadership positions (Boddy et al., 2021 ) and internally as well as externally often turbulent, competitive business environments. The ascent of such individuals is also confirmed in several empirical investigations. For example, Babiak et al. ( 2010 ) found that up to 6% of top managers showed psychopathic traits while Fritzon et al. ( 2017 ) found even 21% of managers to display substantially elevated psychopathic traits in the supply chain context. In comparison, the prevalence in the general population is merely about 1%. These subclinical psychopaths are referred to by a variety of terms. Besides the simple term as a “ Factor 1 psychopath,” they are also referred to as “organizational psychopath” (e.g., Boddy, 2006 ), “executive psychopath” (e.g., Morse, 2004 ), “corporate psychopath” (Babiak & Hare, 2019 ; Boddy, 2005 ; Brooks et al., 2020 ; Lingnau et al., 2017 ), or “successful psychopath” (e.g., Benning et al., 2018 ; Board & Fritzon, 2005 ; Hare & Neumann, 2008 ; Hervé, 2007 ; Weber et al., 2008 ). In the following, we will refer to these individuals primarily as “corporate psychopaths.”

Analysis of Homo Economicus on Psychopathy

In order to systematically analyze the concept of homo economicus with regard to psychopathic traits, the PCL-R will be applied. As such, in the dimension of primary psychopathy, the first subfactor to be analyzed is callous affect , which refers to a deficiency in emotional responses, i.e., showing a shallow affect, no empathy with others, a lack of remorse or guilt, and not taking responsibility. Looking at the discussion of homo economicus in the literature, already Boulding ( 1969 , p. 10) identified the concept of homo economicus as someone who “counted every cost and asked for every reward, was never afflicted with mad generosity or uncalculating love, and who never acted out of a sense of inner identity and indeed had no inner identity even if he was occasionally affected by carefully calculated considerations of benevolence or malevolence.” Similarly, also Homans ( 1961 , p. 79) concluded that the homo economicus essentially was “antisocial and materialistic, interested only in money and material goods and ready to sacrifice even his old mother to get them.” Finally, Sen ( 1977 , p. 336) famously labeled the homo economicus a “rational fool” and a “social moron.” Also in newer publications, the callousness of homo economicus has been noted by emphasizing an extreme level of selfishness, i.e., homo economicus cares only about the personal utility and is therefore indifferent toward the needs of others, as long as these others are not necessary to advance the own benefits (Boddy, 2023 ; Kirchgässner, 2008 ). In such a reckless pursuit of self-interest, there is also no place for conscience, guilt, feelings of duty, and remorse, which represents a high degree of emotional detachment from others (Baron, 2014 ; Lingnau et al., 2017 ; Ogaki & Tanaka, 2019 ; Stout, 2012 ). As a result, “homo economicus is a clinical calculator of his own advantage, a ruthless pursuer of his own interest […]” (Mell & Walker, 2014 , p. 17). Homo economicus “has no moral compunction, does not engage in actions just because some abstract social norms require doing so” and has no “feelings of guilt” (Ben-Ner & Putterman, 1998 , p. 18). Lastly, concerning the aspect of taking responsibility, it is clear that homo economicus is ruthless and has “no responsibility for anyone” (Nelson, 1993 , p. 292), except for potentially optimizing the own benefit. Thus, there is no genuine “responsibility for other people and future generations” (Siebenhüner, 2000 , p. 18). Summarizing these statements, one can subsume that homo economicus shows a high degree of callous affect.

The second subfactor to be discussed is interpersonal manipulation , which comprises aspects of glib, superficial charm, a sense of grandiosity, pathological lying, and the tendency to manipulate others in order to achieve personal goals. Looking at the literature, homo economicus does not maintain genuine and deep personal relationships. As Davies ( 2016 , p. 61) subsumes: “ Homo economicus doesn’t have friends.” Rather, the instrumental rationality of homo economicus leads to a superficial interaction with others, which Dobuzinskis ( 2019 , p. 105) describes as “all too glib.” The core traits of manipulative and untrustworthy conduct of this subfactor are well reflected in principal-agent theory stating that a principal has to assume untruthful reports and a general lack of commitment by an agent (Picot et al., 2008 ). In such vein, it can be stated with Williamson ( 1985 , p. 51) that homo economicus will regularly apply “the full set of ex ante and ex post efforts to lie, cheat, steal, mislead, disguise, obfuscate, feign, distort, and confuse,” as long as such promises the realization of personal gain. Similarly, Hunt and Vitell ( 2015 , p. 34) pointedly state that “ homo economicus not only maximizes self-interest but does so with opportunistic ‘guile’.” Thus, homo economicus is “designed to cheat, lie, and exploit” (Dash, 2019 , p. 26). Lastly, although homo economicus is evidently not designed as a Narcissist with a need for social affirmation (e.g., Miller et al., 2021 ), some sense of grandiosity implied in the model could be seen in the quote by Sen ( 1977 , p. 336) stating that homo economicus is not only a “rational fool” but also “decked in the glory of his one all-purpose preference ordering.” In summary, the second subfactor is also well represented within the homo economicus model. It can be subsumed that homo economicus is extremely selfish, and merely considers others as a means to personal enrichment, also habitually applying methods of lying and cheating, using and misusing others to achieve personal benefit. Thus, in conclusion, both subfactors, i.e., callous affect and interpersonal manipulation are well echoed in the concept of homo economicus. Consequently, homo economicus represents to a large degree traits of the Factor 1 of psychopathy.

With respect to the Factor 2 of psychopathy, the first subfactor is erratic lifestyle comprising stimulation seeking, impulsive, short-term-oriented behavior, careless, irresponsible conduct, a lack of realistic goals, and a tendency toward a parasitic lifestyle. As a first aspect, stimulation seeking refers to the propensity to be easily bored and thus to seek out tense situations, such as regular participation in risky activities like skydiving. Generally, stimulation seeking is not implied in the concept of homo economicus as a cool-minded calculator (Mell & Walker, 2014 ). With regard to implied risk taking, an interesting aspect can be discussed. First of all, homo economicus is generally not inclined to make personally overly and unnecessarily risky decisions. However, homo economicus could very well accept substantial risks if they are ultimately borne by others, as was evident in the example of the massive risk taking that led to the financial crisis (Boddy, 2011 ). Such risk taking is however more rooted in the callous affect of Factor 1 , i.e., based on a lack of emotions and not accepting responsibility if others are harmed. Concerning the items that refer to a lack of realistic long-term planning, i.e., living into the day and letting oneself carelessly and in a potentially self-harming, irresponsible way drift from one impulse to another, is clearly not embodied in the homo economicus model. Rather, as discussed, homo economicus is characterized by a mentally cool, emotionally detached, reflective, and goal-oriented conduct. However, a parasitic lifestyle could resonate with homo economicus to some degree insofar as the model very well implies a potentially opportunistic exploitation of others’ value creation. Yet, besides such minor indications, homo economicus does evidently not qualify for truly attesting an erratic lifestyle .

Lastly the subfactor of antisocial behavior shall be discussed, which comprises a substantial impairment in behavioral control (e.g., frequent violent outbursts), often already at an early age, juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional releases, and criminal versatility. With regard to homo economicus, the concept reflects a ruthless, emotionally detached conduct, which, however, is combined with a very controlled, clear-minded, target-oriented decision-making and execution of plans and no tendency toward uncontrolled violence or physical misconduct. Consequently, homo economicus does not represent problems with behavioral control as for instance struggling with outbursts of violence and openly breaking the law. Yet, homo economicus could of course engage in a variety of criminal activities if such would appear to be personally profitable, however, in a reflective and controlled manner (e.g., Becker, 1968 ). Summarizing the discussion on the latter two subfactors, it became clear that no substantially elevated Factor 2 can be attributed to homo economicus. In comparison, as the previous discussion shows, homo economicus strongly represents psychopathic traits of Factor 1 of psychopathy. Thus, as a final result, the psychological analysis reveals that homo economicus is evidently a subclinical, i.e., corporate psychopath (see Table 1 and Fig. 1 ).

The finding that homo economicus is a corporate psychopath is of particular interest for business ethics research as it provides a link to the increasing amount of publications indicating the extremely destructive potential of such subclinical psychopaths in business, as also several publications in this journal show (e.g., Boddy, 2011 , 2017 ; Boddy et al., 2010b ). Corporate psychopaths are generally associated with an organizational decline with regard to long-term revenue, employee commitment, and innovativeness (Boddy, 2017 ). They are responsible for a deteriorating work climate by bullying and demoralizing colleagues (Boddy & Taplin, 2016 ; Mathieu & Babiak, 2016 ; Sheehy et al., 2021 ; Valentine et al., 2018 ) and creating an atmosphere of fear (Boulter & Boddy, 2021 ). This, in turn, often leads to increasing sickness rates and sometimes even long-lasting and severe traumatization (Boddy & Taplin, 2016 ). Although corporate psychopaths present themselves in an eloquent manner, behind their shiny façade they are often less qualified than they appear, which they compensate by their eloquent communicative skills and self-confident demeanor (Babiak et al., 2010 ; Perri, 2013 ). There are also several incidents known of forgery of false diplomas and other credentials (Boddy & Taplin, 2016 ). Corporate psychopaths are also known to exert a negative impact on corporate sustainability decisions (Boddy et al., 2010b ; Myung, et al., 2017 ). In addition, such individuals are generally considered unethical decision-makers (Stevens et al., 2012 ; Van Scotter & De Déa Roglio, 2020 ) and are prone to accept even crimes to achieve their goals (Lingnau et al., 2017 ; Ray & Jones, 2011 ). Being impaired in their feelings of fear or remorse, they also have been associated with taking unreasonable organizational risks (Babiak & Hare, 2019 ; Boddy et al., 2010b ) and are more likely to accept direct harm on others (Koenigs et al., 2012 ). Therefore, in the long run, such psychopaths are considered a substantial organizational risk factor and are associated with a diminished business performance and even several corporate breakdowns (Boddy, 2011 , 2017 ; Sheehy et al., 2021 ). Given these implications, the topic of corporate psychopathy is increasingly interesting from the perspective of prevention (Lingnau et al., 2017 ), which involves a variety of interdisciplinary research, including neuroscience, psychology, and law (Sheehy et al., 2021 ).

The finding that homo economicus is not just morally questionable but resembles a specific form of psychopathy to be found in business is therefore not only conceptually insightful, but it also provides several links to business practice. As shall be argued, the concept of homo economicus is not only a matter of textbook theorems but, if closely considered, the discussed personality aspects reverberate (often unspoken) in institutional settings of businesses, being able to at least partially explain why specific individuals are particularly successful and promoted in these settings. In such vein, to advance in their careers, it is often expected that leaders are tough and decisive, being able to make difficult decisions. Such traits are also particularly reflected in traditional chains of command with their individualized, hierarchical working contexts, which put less emphasis on traits of compassion and emotional closeness. This corresponds with the traditional assumption of an economically rational leadership as discussed by Nicholson and Kurucz ( 2019 ). In addition, many working places are undergoing constant changes, facing turbulent environments. Thus, it may be expected of leaders to stay calm and focused. As such, it has been noted that some of the core characteristics of corporate psychopaths, especially those of the affective dimension like cool-mindedness and extreme confidence are often misinterpreted as desirable leadership qualities (Babiak & Hare, 2019 ; Dutton, 2013 ; Hill & Scott, 2019 ). Thus, subclinical psychopaths are often very successful in the hiring process, given their seemingly decisive and strong appearance (Boddy et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, frequent job changes are common in leadership positions and also to some degree expected. This also provides an excellent setting for corporate psychopaths to employ their manipulative traits as these are often very difficult to detect in the short run (Boddy et al., 2021 ).

In addition, it could be argued that the modern capitalistic corporation itself is resembling homo economicus. As such, Bakan ( 2004 ) argues that the corporation has psychopathic attributes (also see Ketola, 2006 ). Through the lens of institutional-organizational fit theories that focus on a self-selection of specific individuals into an organization (e.g., Lazear & Rosen, 1981 ; Ouchi, 1979 ), it could be explained why corporate psychopaths are especially attracted to business environments. More specifically, many businesses apply material incentives and bonus schemes. Traditionally, these are based on the assumptions of unbounded opportunism (Williamson, 1985 ), and in specific, the behavioral assumption of the average individual as a potential work averse shirker (Mankiw, 2018 ), i.e., a manifestation of homo economicus or a corporate psychopath. In such vein, it could be stated with Milgrom and Roberts ( 1992 , p. 42) that these systems are “designed as if people were entirely motivated by narrow, selfish concerns and […] will be fundamentally amoral, ignoring rules, breaking agreements, and employing guile, manipulation, and deception if they see personal gain in doing so.” Even in light of other motives on the side of companies to establish such bonus schemes, individualized material incentives resonate strongly with the selfish and opportunistic traits of corporate psychopaths, given the emphasis on a realization of personal benefit. Thus, they attract corporate psychopaths or the “real homo economicus” (Hoffman, 2011 , p. 491). As these considerations show, even if not always made explicit, the model of homo economicus is often reflected in the institutional settings or the “rules of the game” in business.

Implications for Research and Teaching

From these considerations, several implications for research and teaching can be deduced. As a first motivation, given the vast destruction and organizational hazard corporate psychopaths unfold (e.g., Boddy, 2011 , 2017 ), a better understanding of the aforementioned impact of homo economicus would be relevant for the long-term success and organizational resilience of an organization. Besides such, the following considerations can also be motivated from an ethical perspective that is focused on fostering more humane and responsible business practices. To this end, the following discussion will draw on virtue ethics and an ethics of care as two major streams of business ethics (Dawson, 2015 ; Nicholson & Kurucz, 2019 ). For virtue ethics, the paper refers to the ethics framework by Slote ( 1992 ), who classifies virtuous conduct as comprised of essentially three related major conditions (Dawson, 2015 ). First, there is the requirement that virtues are not selfish, i.e., they do not exclude others. Second, there is the requirement of an agent/other-balance, i.e., individuals must consider what is good for themselves and good for the other(s), which has to be balanced off. Third, virtuous conduct strives for satisfaction and not maximization. As a corporate psychopath, homo economicus evidently fails on all three criteria. First, homo economicus only cares about the personal benefit and the model’s preferences are thus selfish. There are no genuine trade-offs with regard to the legitimate needs of others and thus these others are, if at all, only considered instrumentally. Last, as already Simon ( 1983 ) criticized, homo economicus does not satisfice but maximize. As such, homo economicus is the opposite of a virtuous being. From a second perspective, the model of homo economicus can also be reflected through the lens of an ethics of care, which is provided by Nicholson and Kurucz ( 2019 ). In such vein, an ethics of care can be reflected by four facets: a primacy of relationships, complexity in context, a mutual well-being focus, and engaging as a whole person, which includes affective, intuitive, and imaginative aspects. Equally, homo economicus applies an uncaring logic, referred to as the traditional economic rationality paradigm by Nicholson and Kurucz ( 2019 ). As such, homo economicus is not interested in maintaining emotionally based relationships. Second, complexity is not addressed by encouragement and moral development but rather by enforcing control as reflected in principal-agent theory (e.g., Picot et al., 2008 ). Third, genuine mutual well-being is outside the domain of homo economicus. Finally, an empathic, affective engagement with others is irrelevant to homo economicus as there is only economically rational reasoning instead of a comprehensive, caring approach. In conclusion, the psychopathic model implies the opposite of a caring actor. As such, it can be argued that the resemblance of homo economicus in several institutional aspects of many todays’ businesses factually also hampers the realization of more virtuous and caring ethical conduct.

With such in mind, several suggestions shall be made for future research. First of all, hiring practices such as assessment centers should be questioned, as they are barely able to detect corporate psychopaths (Boddy et al., 2021 ). With regard to virtues, it could be stated that a certain degree of charm, self-confidence, persuasion, visionary thinking, and the ability to sometimes make tough decisions can be desirable from a functional perspective to perform well as a business leader (Dutton, 2013 ). As such, great leaders show some mild degrees of these traits. However, psychopaths are extreme individuals (Boddy et al., 2015 ), and no virtuous, balanced individuals that genuinely care for others. Current research is only beginning to deeper investigate into these issues, and specifically with regard to psychopathy, is still largely focused on groundwork conceptual considerations (e.g., Dutton, 2013 ). Thus, more empirical research is required to find out where such optimum might be situated, or conversely, when the aforementioned traits become dysfunctional.

In addition, it would be generally highly valuable to try to systematically disentangle specific properties of business environments that attract psychopaths, for which this paper could be a starting point. As such, it is important to note that the insight that homo economicus is a corporate psychopath and thus critically to be evaluated from an ethical and psychological perspective, does not render the model worthless. On the contrary, as homo economicus is a corporate psychopath, the model may be of use to identify structures in business that resemble homo economicus and thus currently attract and promote individuals who possess these traits. Based on these considerations, organizational properties could be explored that prevent the ascent of corporate psychopaths. In such way, it might be very interesting to design incentive structures that motivate talented individuals but are less likely to attract psychopathic individuals, for instance, by placing more emphasis on rewarding true social skills (Lingnau et al., 2017 ; Marshall et al., 2015 ; Schütte et al., 2018 ) such as compassionate morality (Woodmass & O’Connor, 2018 ). These insights could then be linked to system approaches, i.e., the integration and coordination of several approaches that combine and reinforce these effects (Bedford et al., 2016 ; Grabner & Moers, 2013 ; Speklé et al., 2022 ).

Moreover, in general, it seems even more important to think critically about the deeper implications of the values associated with theoretical models used in business that are built on the assumption of economic rationality and thus the maximization of personal benefit. As discussed, even if not explicitly named, the behavioral assumptions of homo economicus are represented in many economic models with regard to “rational” maximization or optimization. Such a critical reflection is especially relevant when these models are applied in real-world contexts such as policy making. For example, neoliberal deregulation and the promotion of shareholder value maximization are based on theoretical assumptions that not only do not hold up in the real world, but often conflict with a societally responsible conduct. Yet, still, political programs and business targets are based on such concepts because it is often not sufficiently considered that the underlying models are only applicable in an abstract, idealized context. This in turn leads to the obviously questionable long-term results in terms of wealth inequality and the erosion of social cohesion, undermining the very foundations of a democratic, free society (e.g., Horváth & Barton, 2016 ).

In addition to research, academia also has an influence on real-world decision-making via teaching, especially when former students become advisors, decision-makers in firms or policy-makers. Given that the research community has an exemplary function due to prestige and scientific expertise, this leads to think more about the role and responsibility of academic teaching. As stated above, already the choice of model contains some normative basic statements, which are (at least implicitly) conveyed when presented in the classroom. As the classic paper by Frank et al. ( 1993 ) as well as some newer research (e.g., Ifcher & Zarghamee, 2018 ; Kowaleski et al., 2020 ; Racko, 2019 ) demonstrates, teaching can influence students’ attitudes, also and in particular with regard to normative aspects. If one considers academic teaching not solely as a means of conveying abstract insights but also as an opportunity to enable future decision-makers to develop their full potentials and capabilities, teaching evidently also has some responsibility. This responsibility toward those being educated would therefore be linked to fostering the development of virtuous and caring personalities such that future decision-makers are able and endeavor to be responsible leaders (Ulrich, 2008 ). In this light, it can be concluded that a more critical reflection on normative assumptions is also of fundamental importance for teaching. This could include not only a reflection on the psychopathic traits of homo economicus as discussed in this paper, but even more the drawing of a complementary picture with references to other concepts such as homo faber, homo ludens, homo politicus, or homo moralis. These conceptual insights could be enriched with findings from empirical research on human decision-making to broaden the understanding of the real behavioral dispositions of the vast majority of nonpsychopathic individuals or—in Sen’s ( 1977 ) notion—to account for homo sapiens as a complex individual that does and should not solely act out of ruthless opportunism but possesses genuine social traits that deserve to be fostered.

As this paper systematically discussed, the concept of homo economicus can be considered a prototype of a psychopath. In contrast to many anecdotal references, this paper took an in-depth analysis delivering a finer picture with regard to the psychological notion of psychopathy. In particular, it could be shown that homo economicus is not simply some kind of psychopath but specifically a subclinical or Factor 1 psychopath, often referred to in business research as a “corporate psychopath.” These are individuals who are extremely callous, selfish, and manipulative, but may appear normal at first glance because they have no significant impairment in their long-term planning and behavioral control, which makes them particularly dangerous in business environments (e.g., Boddy, 2011 , 2017 ).

With such an analysis and establishing a connection to corporate psychopathy, the paper presents a basis for the research community to further and deeper critically reflect on the model of homo economicus. Unquestionably, since its introduction, the model has been intensely debated for a variety of reasons. Concerning the “dark” assumptions on the behavioral side, this paper can enlighten why so many researchers feel some kind of discomfort and critical distance when dealing with this concept—or on the other side of the spectrum—the sometimes perceived necessity to defend the model as solely hypothetical construct. Yet, with regard to the latter, the paper argued that “models matter,” especially when they leave the space of purely theoretical debate and are applied in practice or thought of as sufficient representation of reality.

In light of such real-world consequences of homo economicus, the paper went on to discuss the implications of the conducted psychological analysis for the nexus of academic research and teaching, which were motivated on grounds of an ethics of virtue and care (Ciulla, 2009 ; Nicholson & Kurucz, 2019 ). As discussed, homo economicus assumptions, even if unspoken, often reverberate in rational decision-making and the institutional environments of firms, such as in individualistic, competitive environments, and individually oriented, materialistic incentive schemes. As such, this paper can be a starting point to further explore which business settings reflect traits of homo economicus and therefore particularly attract and promote psychopathic individuals. The insights gained should be quite helpful to better protect individuals and society from the dangers unleashed by corporate psychopaths. In this way, a variety of insights from psychology, business, ethics, and law (Sheehy et al., 2021 ) could be combined to enrich our understanding of the causes and implications of psychopathy in the business context and how preventive measures could be applied against psychopathic organizational misconduct.

Finally, as this paper elaborated, not only research but also teaching should be considered in light of the conducted psychological analysis. Several authors have linked teaching the behavioral assumptions of homo economicus to business scandals and even the last financial crisis with its enormously destructive impact (Giacalone & Wargo, 2009 ; Melé, 2009 ; Melé et al., 2011 ) that also undermined the trust in businesses and the economy at large (e.g., Horváth & Barton, 2016 ). As such, the findings of this paper are equally relevant with regard to the classroom. Given the insight that teaching always conveys certain basic assumptions, the reflection of what standard economic approaches imply with regard to human values and traits, i.e., in the case of homo economicus, subclinical psychopathy, should also be increasingly considered and discussed. This should be equally important in fostering the rise of more virtuous and caring leaders in future.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Acheson, S. K. (2005). Hare psychopathy checklist—revised. In R. A. Spies & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook (2nd ed., pp. 429–432). University of Nebraska Press.

Google Scholar  

Aldred, J. (2009). The skeptical economist: Revealing the ethics inside economics . Routledge.

Anderson, E. (2000). Beyond homo economicus: New developments in theories of social norms. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29 (2), 170–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00170.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Babiak, P. (2016). Psychopathic manipulation at work. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (2nd ed., pp. 353–373). Routledge.

Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2019). Snakes in suits . HarperCollins.

Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 28 (2), 174–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.925

Bailey, C. D. (2017). Psychopathy and accounting students’ attitudes towards unethical professional practices. Journal of Accounting Education, 41 , 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2017.09.004

Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power . Free Press.

Baker, H. K., & Ricciardi, V. (2014). Investor behavior: The psychology of financial planning and investing . Wiley.

Book   Google Scholar  

Baron, J. (2014). Heuristics and biases. In E. Zamir & D. Teichman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics and the law (pp. 3–27). Oxford University Press.

Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76 (2), 169–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/259394

Becker, G. S. (1981). Altruism in the family and selfishness in the market place. Economica, 48 (189), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/2552939

Becker, G. S. (1993). A treatise on the family . Harvard University Press.

Bedford, D. S., Malmi, T., & Sandelin, M. (2016). Management control effectiveness and strategy: An empirical analysis of packages and systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 51 , 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2016.04.002

Ben-Ner, A., & Putterman, L. (1998). Values and institutions in economic analysis. In A. Ben-Ner & L. Putterman (Eds.), Economics, values, and organization (pp. 3–69). Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Benning, S. D., Venables, N. C., & Hall, J. R. (2018). Succesful psychopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 585–608). The Guilford Press.

Birchler, U., & Bütler, M. (2007). Information economics . Routledge.

Board, B. J., & Fritzon, K. (2005). Disordered personalities at work. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11 (1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001634304

Boddy, C. R. P. (2005). The implications of corporate psychopaths for business and society: An initial examination and a call to arms. Australasian Journal of Business and Behavioural Sciences, 1 (2), 30–40.

Boddy, C. R. P. (2006). The dark side of management decisions: Organisational psychopaths. Management Decision, 44 (10), 1461–1475. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610715759

Boddy, C. R. P. (2011). The corporate psychopaths theory of the global financial crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (2), 255–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0810-4

Boddy, C. R. P. (2017). Psychopathic leadership a case study of a corporate psychopath CEO. Journal of Business Ethics, 145 (1), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2908-6

Boddy, C. R. P. (2023). Is the only rational personality that of the psychopath? Homo economicus as the most serious threat to business ethics globally. Humanistic Management Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-023-00150-y

Boddy, C. R. P., & Taplin, R. (2016). The influence of corporate psychopaths on job satisfaction and its determinants. International Journal of Manpower, 37 (6), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-12-2015-0199

Boddy, C. R. P., Ladyshewsky, R. K., & Galvin, P. (2010a). Leaders without ethics in global business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs, 10 (3), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.352

Boddy, C. R. P., Ladyshewsky, R. K., & Galvin, P. (2010b). The influence of corporate psychopaths on corporate social responsibility and organizational commitment to employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 97 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0492-3

Boddy, C. R. P., Miles, D., Sanyal, C., & Hartog, M. (2015). Extreme managers, extreme workplaces: Capitalism, organizations and corporate psychopaths. Organization, 22 (4), 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508415572508

Boddy, C. R. P., Boulter, L., & Fishwick, S. (2021). How so many toxic employees ascend to leadership. In R. A. Örtenblad (Ed.), Debating bad leadership: Reasons and remedies (pp. 69–85). Palgrave Macmillan.

Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90 (1), 166–193. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.1.166

Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., & Ockenfels, A. (2005). Cooperation among strangers with limited information about reputation. Journal of Public Economics, 89 (8), 1457–1468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.03.008

Boulding, K. E. (1969). Economics as a moral science. The American Economic Review, 59 (1), 1–12.

Boulter, L., & Boddy, C. (2021). Subclinical psychopathy, interpersonal workplace exchanges and moral emotions through the lens of affective events theory (AET). Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 8 (1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-12-2019-0120

Brooks, N., Fritzon, K., & Croom, S. (2020). Corporate psychopathy: Entering the paradox and emerging unscathed. In K. Fritzon, N. Brooks, & S. Croom (Eds.), Corporate psychopathy: Investigating destructive personalities in the workplace (pp. 327–365). Palgrave Macmillan.

Brue, S., & Grant, R. (2013). The evolution of economic thought (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Ciulla, J. B. (2009). Leadership and the ethics of care. Journal of Business Ethics, 88 , 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0105-1

Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality . Mosby.

Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13 (2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.171

Dash, A. (2019). ‘Good Anthropocene’: The Zeitgeist of the 21st century. In A. K. Nayak (Ed.), Transition strategies for sustainable community systems: Design and systems perspectives (pp. 17–29). Springer.

Davies, W. (2016). The happiness industry: How the government and big business sold us well-being . Verso Books.

Dawson, D. (2015). Two forms of virtue ethics: Two sets of virtuous action in the fire service dispute? Journal of Business Ethics, 128 , 585–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2121-z

Dierksmeier, C. (2011). Reorienting management education: From the homo economicus to human dignity. Humanistic Management Network, Research Paper Series . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1766183

Dixon, W., & Wilson, D. (2012). A history of homo economicus: The nature of the moral in economic theory . Routledge.

Dobuzinskis, L. (2019). Not merely playing game theory’s subversive proclivities. In D. Laycock (Ed.), Political ideology in parties, policy, and civil society: Interdisciplinary insights (pp. 91–111). UBC Press.

Dosi, G., Faillo, M., & Marengo, L. (2021). Beyond “bounded rationality”: Behaviours and learning in complex evolving worlds. In R. Viale (Ed.), Routledge handbook of bounded rationality (pp. 492–505). Routledge.

Dutton, K. (2013). The wisdom of psychopaths . Arrow.

Elster, J. (1989). Social norms and economic theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3 (4), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.3.4.99

England, P. (2003). Separative and soluble selves: Dichotomous thinking in economics. In A. Ferber & J. A. Nelson (Eds.), Feminist economics today: Beyond economic man (pp. 33–59). The University of Chicago Press.

Falkenbach, D. (2007). Psychopathic traits in juveniles. In D. W. Springer & A. R. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of forensic mental health with victims and offenders: Assessment, treatment, and research (pp. 225–246). Routledge.

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2002). Why social preferences matter—the impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives. The Economic Journal, 112 (478), C1–C33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00027

Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2006). The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism—experimental evidence and new theories. In S.-C. Kolm & J. M. Ythier (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity: Foundations (Vol. 1, pp. 615–691). North-Holland.

Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71 (3), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9

Fleming, P. (2017). The death of homo economicus: Work, debt and the myth of endless accumulation . Pluto Press.

Fougère, M., & Solitander, N. (2023). Homo responsabilis as an extension of the neoliberal hidden curriculum: The triple responsibilization of responsible management education. Management Learning, 54 (3), 396–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050762311626

Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7 (2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.7.2.159

Fridman, D. (2010). A new mentality for a new economy: Performing the homo economicus in Argentina (1976–83). Economy and Society, 39 (2), 271–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085141003620170

Friedland, J., & Cole, B. M. (2019). From homo-economicus to homo-virtus: A system-theoretic model for raising moral self-awareness. Journal of Business Ethics, 155 , 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3494-6

Friedman, M. (1976). Essays in positive economics . University of Chicago Press.

Fritzon, K., Bailey, C., Croom, S., & Brooks, N. (2017). Problem personalities in the workplace: Development of the corporate personality inventory. In P. A. Granhag, R. Bull, A. Shaboltas, & E. Dozortseva (Eds.), Psychology and law in Europe: When West meets East (pp. 139–166). CRC Press.

Fritzon, K., Brooks, N., & Croom, S. (2020). Corporate psychopathy: Investigating destructive personalities in the workplace . Springer.

Gächter, S., & Falk, A. (2002). Reputation and reciprocity: Consequences for the labour relation. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 104 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9442.00269

Giacalone, R. A., & Wargo, D. T. (2009). The roots of the global financial crisis are in our business schools. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 6 , 147–168. https://doi.org/10.5840/jbee200969

Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Striking a blow for sanity in theories of rationality. In M. Augier & J. G. March (Eds.), Models of a man: Essays in memory of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 389–409). MIT Press.

Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1 (1), 107–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62 (1), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346

Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (2016). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. In G. Gigerenzer, R. Hertwig, & T. Pachur (Eds.), Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior (pp. 31–57). Oxford University Press.

Gilboa, I. (2012). Rational choice . MIT press.

Gintis, H., & Khurana, R. (2016). Corporate corruption and the failure of business school education . Harvard University.

Glenn, A. L., Iyer, R., Graham, J., Koleva, S., & Haidt, J. (2009). Are all types of morality compromised in psychopathy? Journal of Personality Disorders, 23 (4), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.384

Grabner, I., & Moers, F. (2013). Management control as a system or a package? Conceptual and empirical issues. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38 (6–7), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.09.002

Gregory, D. (2014). Unmasking financial psychopaths: Inside the minds of investors in the twenty-first century . Palgrave Macmillan.

Guzman, A. T. (2008). How international law works: A rational choice theory . Oxford University Press.

Haarjärvi, T., & Laari-Salmela, S. (2022). Site-seeing humanness in organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.12

Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1 (2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(80)90028-8

Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us . Guilford Press.

Hare, R. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist—revised (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2005). Structural models of psychopathy. Current Psychiatry Reports, 7 (1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-005-0026-3

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4 , 217–246. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452

Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1 (1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6

Hechter, M., & Kanazawa, S. (1997). Sociological rational choice theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23 (1), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.191

Herpertz, S. C., & Sass, H. (2000). Emotional deficiency and psychopathy. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 18 (5), 567–580.

Hervé, H. (2007). Psychopathic subtypes: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In H. Hervé & J. C. Yuille (Eds.), The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 431–460). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hill, D., & Scott, H. (2019). Climbing the corporate ladder: Desired leadership skills and successful psychopaths. Journal of Financial Crime, 26 (3), 881–896. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-11-2018-0117

Hoffman, M. B. (2011). Evolutionary jurisprudence: The end of the naturalistic fallacy and the beginning of natural reform? In M. Michael (Ed.), Law and neuroscience: Current legal issues (Vol. 13, pp. 483–504). Oxford University Press.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Lts elementary forms . Routledge.

Horváth, D., & Barton, D. (2016). Conclusion: Capitalism re-imagined. In D. Barton, D. Horváth, & M. Kipping (Eds.), Re-imagining capitalism (pp. 319–331). Oxford University Press.

Hühn, M. P., & Dierksmeier, C. (2016). Will the real A. Smith please stand up! Journal of Business Ethics, 136 (1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2506-z

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (2015). Personal moral codes and the Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics. In R. A. Peterson & O. C. Ferrell (Eds.), Business ethics: New challenges for business schools and corporate leaders (pp. 18–37). Routledge.

Ifcher, J., & Zarghamee, H. (2018). The rapid evolution of homo economicus: Brief exposure to neoclassical assumptions increases self-interested behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 75 , 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.04.012

Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, fast and slow . Penguin Books.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–291.

Ketola, T. (2006). From CR-psychopaths to responsible corporations: Waking up the inner sleeping beauty of companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13 (2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.113

Kirchgässner, G. (2008). Homo oeconomicus: The economic model of behaviour and its applications in economics and other social sciences . Springer.

Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J., & Newman, J. P. (2012). Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7 (6), 708–714. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr048

Kowaleski, Z. T., Sutherland, A. G., & Vetter, F. W. (2020). Can ethics be taught? Evidence from securities exams and investment adviser misconduct. Journal of Financial Economics, 138 (1), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.04.008

Lazear, E. P., & Rosen, S. (1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89 (5), 841–864. https://doi.org/10.1086/261010

Levy, D. M. (2002). How the dismal science got its name: Classical economics and the ur-text of racial politics . University of Michigan Press.

Lingnau, V., Fuchs, F., & Dehne-Niemann, T. E. (2017). The influence of psychopathic traits on the acceptance of white-collar crime: Do corporate psychopaths cook the books and misuse the news? Journal of Business Economics, 87 (9), 1193–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-017-0864-6

Linstead, S. A., & Grafton-Small, R. (1990). Theory as artefact: Artefact as theory. In P. Gagliardi (Ed.), Symbols and artifacts (pp. 387–419). De Gruyter.

Lynam, D. R. (2011). Psychopathy and narcissism. In W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 272–282). Wiley.

Macho-Stadler, I., & Pérez-Castrillo, J. D. (2001). An introduction to the economics of information: Incentives and contracts (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Magni, C. A. (2009). Investment decisions, net present value and bounded rationality. Quantitative Finance, 9 (8), 967–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697680902849338

Mankiw, N. G. (2018). Principles of microeconomics (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Marglin, S. A. (2008). The dismal science: How thinking like an economist undermines community . Harvard University Press.

Marshall, A. J., Baden, D., & Guidi, M. (2013). Can an ethical revival of prudence within prudential regulation tackle corporate psychopathy? Journal of Business Ethics, 117 (3), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1547-4

Marshall, A. J., Ashleigh, M. J., Baden, D., Ojiako, U., & Guidi, M. G. (2015). Corporate psychopathy: Can ‘search and destroy’ and ‘hearts and minds’ military metaphors inspire HRM solutions? Journal of Business Ethics, 128 (3), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2117-8

Martinás, K. (2010). Complexity and the role of interactions. In K. Martinás, D. Matika, & A. Srbljinović (Eds.), Complex societal dynamics: Security challenges and opportunities (pp. 65–79). IOS Press.

Mathieu, C., & Babiak, P. (2016). Corporate psychopathy and abusive supervision: Their influence on employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 91 , 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.002

Melé, D. (2009). Editorial introduction: Towards a more humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 88 (3), 413–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0129-6

Melé, D., & Cantón, C. G. (2014). Human foundations of management: Understanding the homo humanus . Palgrave Macmillan.

Melé, D., Argandoña, A., & Sanchez-Runde, C. (2011). Facing the crisis: Toward a new humanistic synthesis for business. Journal of Business Ethics, 99 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0743-y

Mell, A., & Walker, W. (2014). The rough guide to economics . Rough Guides.

Merchant, K. A., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2017). Management control systems: Performance measurement, evaluation and incentives . Pearson.

Milgrom, P. R., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization and management . Prentice Hall.

Mill, J. S. (1844). On the definition of political economy; and on the method of investigation proper to it. In J. S. Mill (Ed.), Essays on some unsettled questions of political economy (pp. 120–164). John W. Parker.

Miller, J. D., Back, M. D., Lynam, D. R., & Wright, A. G. (2021). Narcissism today: What we know and what we need to learn. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30 (6), 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211044109

Morse, G. (2004). Executive psychopaths. Harvard Business Review, 82 (10), 20–22.

Murray, A. A., Wood, J. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Psychopathic personality traits and cognitive dissonance: Individual differences in attitude change. Journal of Research in Personality, 46 (5), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.05.011

Myung, J. K., Choi, Y. H., & Kim, J. D. (2017). Effects of CEOs’ negative traits on corporate social responsibility. Sustainability, 9 (4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040543

Nelson, J. A. (1993). Gender and economic ideologies. Review of Social Economy, 51 (3), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/758537259

Nicholson, J., & Kurucz, E. (2019). Relational leadership for sustainability: Building an ethical framework from the moral theory of ‘ethics of care.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 156 , 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3593-4

Ogaki, M., & Tanaka, S. C. (2019). Normative behavioral economics: Toward a new economics by integration with traditional economics . Springer.

Ong, M., Cunningham, J. L., & Parmar, B. L. (2022). Lay beliefs about homo economicus: How and why does economics education make us see honesty as effortful? Academy of Management Learning & Education . https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2021.0134

Ostapiuk, A. (2021). The eclipse of value-free economics: The concept of multiple self versus homo economicus . Wroclaw University Press.

Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25 (9), 833–848. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.25.9.833

Parkin, M. (2014). Microeconomics (11th ed.). Pearson.

Parsons, S. (2005). Rational choice and politics . Continuum.

Patrick, C. J. (2018). Psychopathy as masked pathology. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). The Guilford Press.

Pearlstein, S. (2016). Challenging the greed-is-good gospel of free markets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/challenging-the-greed-is-good-gospel-of-free-markets/2016/06/02/dc924566-1e8e-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html .

Perri, F. S. (2013). Visionaries or false prophets. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29 (3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986213496008

Persky, J. (1995). The ethology of homo economicus. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9 (2), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.2.221

Picot, A., Reichwald, R., & Wigand, R. (2008). Information, organization, and management . Springer.

Pindyck, R. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2018). Microeconomics (9th ed.). Pearson.

Racko, G. (2019). The values of economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 154 , 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3442-5

Ray, J. V., & Jones, S. (2011). Self-reported psychopathic traits and their relation to intentions to engage in environmental offending. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55 (3), 370–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10361582

Schütte, N., Blickle, G., Frieder, R. E., Wihler, A., Schnitzler, F., Heupel, J., & Zettler, I. (2018). The role of interpersonal influence in counterbalancing psychopathic personality trait facets at work. Journal of Management, 44 (4), 1338–1368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315607967

Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6 (4), 317–344.

Sheehy, B., Boddy, C., & Murphy, B. (2021). Corporate law and corporate psychopaths. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28 (4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1795000

Siebenhüner, B. (2000). Homo sustinens–towards a new conception of humans for the science of sustainability. Ecological Economics, 32 (1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00111-1

Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs . Stanford University Press.

Slote, M. (1992). From morality to virtue . Oxford University Press.

Smith, A. (1761). The theory of moral sentiments (2nd ed.). A. Millar.

Smith, A. (1804). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (4th ed., Vol. 1). Oliver D. Cooke.

Smith, E., & Foley, D. K. (2008). Classical thermodynamics and economic general equilibrium theory. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 32 (1), 7–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2007.01.020

Speklé, R. F., Verbeeten, F. H., & Widener, S. K. (2022). Nondyadic control systems and effort direction effectiveness: Evidence from the public sector. Management Accounting Research, 54 , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2021.100769

Stevens, G. W., Deuling, J. K., & Armenakis, A. A. (2012). Successful psychopaths: Are they unethical decision-makers and why? Journal of Business Ethics, 105 (2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0963-1

Stout, M. (2005). The ice people. Psychology Today, 38 (1), 72–76.

Stout, L. A. (2012). The shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms investors, corporations, and the public . Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Stout, L. A. (2014). Law and prosocial behavior. In E. Zamir & D. Teichman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics and the law (pp. 195–212). Oxford University Press.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185 (4157), 1124–1131.

Ulrich, P. (2008). Integrative economic ethics: Foundations of a civilized market economy . Cambridge University Press.

Valentine, S., Fleischman, G., & Godkin, L. (2018). Villains, victims, and verisimilitudes: An exploratory study of unethical corporate values, bullying experiences, psychopathy, and selling professionals’ ethical reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 148 , 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2993-6

Van Scotter, J. R., & De DéaRoglio, K. (2020). CEO bright and dark personality: Effects on ethical misconduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 164 (3), 451–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4061-5

Verburg, R. (2018). Greed, self interest and the shaping of modern economics . Routledge.

Waddock, S. (2020). Will businesses and business schools meet the grand challenges of the era? Sustainability, 12 (15), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156083

Weber, S., Habel, U., Amunts, K., & Schneider, F. (2008). Structural brain abnormalities in psychopaths—a review. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 26 (1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.802

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic intstitutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting . Free Press.

Woodmass, K., & O’Connor, B. P. (2018). What is the opposite of psychopathy? A statistical and graphical exploration of the psychopathy continuum. Personality and Individual Differences, 131 , 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.004

Zafirovski, M. (2014). Rational choice requiem: The decline of an economic paradigm and its implications for sociology. The American Sociologist, 45 , 432–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-014-9230-0

Zamagni, S. (2011). Avarice. In L. Bouckaert & L. Zsolnai (Eds.), Handbook of spirituality and business (pp. 212–218). Palgrave Macmillan.

Zichy, M. (2020). What is a Menschenbild ? Introducing a fruitful German concept. In P. Jonkers, X. He, & Y. Shi (Eds.), Self-awareness of life in the new era (pp. 57–71). Council for Research and Values in Philosophy.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

RPTU School of Business & Economics, University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, Kaiserslautern, Germany

Florian Fuchs & Volker Lingnau

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

F. Fuchs & V. Lingnau: conceptualization, F. Fuchs & V. Lingnau: methodology, F. Fuchs: writing—original draft preparation, F. Fuchs & V. Lingnau: writing—review and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Fuchs .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There is no conflict of interest to report.

Informed Consent

Research involving human and animal rights, additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fuchs, F., Lingnau, V. The Homo Economicus as a Prototype of a Psychopath? A Conceptual Analysis and Implications for Business Research and Teaching. J Bus Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05638-7

Download citation

Received : 14 October 2023

Accepted : 07 February 2024

Published : 22 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05638-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Homo economicus
• Dark traits
• Psychopathy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Top Free Tools to Check Plagiarism and AI for Assignments for Enhancing Academic Integrity

Introduction

The accessibility of information availability in the digital age presents issues for upholding academic honesty. Research papers and assignments that contain intentional or inadvertent plagiarism run the risk of being deemed authentic. But because of technological advancements, a plethora of tools have surfaced to successfully tackle this problem. Furthermore, the way students approach assignments has changed dramatically as a result of the incorporation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into academic work. We’ll look at the best free plagiarism detectors in this post, along with how artificial intelligence is changing the way assignments are created.

Importance of Plagiarism Detection Tools

Research that was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics states that approximately 14% of students acknowledge that they have committed major plagiarism, while almost 40% have admitted to either serious or minor plagiarism. This concerning figure emphasizes how important it is for educational institutions to have reliable plagiarism detection systems in place.

Turnitin: A popular tool for detecting plagiarism that is used by academic institutions all around the world is Turnitin. With 69 million academic publications and over 70 billion web pages in its database, it can successfully detect similarities in supplied content. Turnitin claimed over 2 billion content matches in 2020, demonstrating the breadth of its influence and role in upholding academic integrity. For instance, a review led by a trustworthy college uncovered that 30% of tasks put together by understudies who utilized help with Assignment contained huge counterfeiting, as distinguished by Turnitin. This highlights the apparatus’ vital job in battling scholarly untrustworthiness, especially in cases including assignment writers and article composing administrations. Turnitin’s powerful calculation recognizes word-for-word text matches as well as assesses reworded content, guaranteeing intensive investigation of submitted tasks. Turnitin’s UI gives point-by-point criticism on the creativity of the submitted work, helping educators survey the uprightness of understudy tasks. All in all, Turnitin assumes an essential part in maintaining scholastic guidelines and hindering literary theft, in this way advancing reasonableness and responsibility in schooling.

Grammarly : Popular writing tool Grammarly provides a full range of tools to improve writing quality, such as plagiarism detection, punctuation correction, and grammar checking. With more than 30 million users globally, Grammarly has established itself as a name associated with enhancing writing ability in a variety of settings. Grammarly claimed a 20% rise in users in 2021 over the previous year, a sign of the app’s increasing acceptance and popularity. In a survey among college students, for example, 85% of participants said Grammarly’s plagiarism detection tool helped them make their assignments more original. Grammarly’s plagiarism detection interface is shown in Figure 1, which also offers recommendations for enhancements and highlights concerns that have been found. Moreover, Grammarly’s compatibility with well-known word processors like Google Docs and Microsoft Word guarantees users easy access and use. Notwithstanding its plagiarism detection  identification capacities, Grammarly offers progressed composing experiences, including clarity scores and jargon improvement ideas. Grammarly’s comprehensibility investigation highlights, giving clients noteworthy experiences to work on the lucidity and cognizance of their composition. Generally speaking, Grammarly’s instinctive point of interaction, strong highlights, and broad client base position it as a trusted partner for essayists looking to improve their composing capability and keep up with scholastic respectability.

Copyscape: Copyscape is a specialized tool that looks for duplicate information on the internet in order to identify plagiarism. To guarantee the originality of their information, educators, content producers, and website owners turn to Copyscape because of its intuitive interface and robust search engines. Copyscape reported a 25% rise in usage in 2021, demonstrating the increasing significance of this tool for preserving the validity of work in the digital realm. For instance, using Copyscape reduced content theft and plagiarism by 40%, according to a case study done by a well-known blogging site. Besides, Copyscape offers extra elements, for example, bunch search and confidential list, taking special care of the necessities of clients with shifting substance prerequisites. 

AI-Powered Tools for Assignment Assistance

The way that AI is being used in academic work has drastically changed the educational landscape. AI-powered technologies help with research, writing, editing, and other parts of assignment creation in addition to helping detect plagiarism.

Scribe : With Scribe, users can increase productivity and develop their writing abilities with the aid of artificial intelligence. It has functions like sentence rephrasing, grammatical checking, and citation suggestions. With real-time text analysis, Scribe’s AI system gives customers practical advice on how to improve their assignments and maintain academic integrity.

QuillBot: It is an artificial AI-powered rewording device that helps clients, including essay writing service and clients of  essay writing services, in creating novel substance while safeguarding the first importance. Its natural connection point and high-level calculations make it an important resource for staying away from counterfeiting. In 2021, QuillBot detailed a 30% increment in clients, showing its viability in assisting essayists with making unique content’s rewording capacities, furnishing clients with different choices to reword sentences and keep away from copy content. By utilizing QuillBot, task scholars and clients of article composing administrations can upgrade the validity of their work while saving time and exertion.

Citation Machine : Citation Machine is an AI-powered application that streamlines the creation of bibliographies and citations in a variety of formats, including APA, MLA, and Chicago. It does this by evaluating entered data, including dates, publication titles, and author names, to streamline the normally laborious process of producing references. Citation Machine helps users rapidly and accurately create citations that meet academic requirements. Citation Machine saw a 25% increase in usage in 2021, which was indicative of the growing popularity of the tool among researchers and students. This useful application encourages correct attribution and academic integrity while streamlining the citation process and saving user’s time.

Overall, it can be said that Because plagiarism is so common in academic contexts, using trustworthy plagiarism detection software is essential to upholding academic integrity. When looking for effective plagiarism prevention tools, educators and students might consider Turnitin, Grammarly, and Copyscape. Furthermore, the manner that assignments are created using AI has completely changed how students approach their academic work. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are used by programs like Scribe, QuillBot, and Citation Machine to help users write, paraphrase, and properly cite sources. Students can improve their writing abilities, stay away from plagiarism, and respect the values of academic integrity by making use of these resources. 

Busines-Newswire

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Ophthalmol
• v.57(6); Nov-Dec 2009

Plagiarism and unethical practices in literature

Introduction.

Plagiarism is defined as “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work”. In the academic world, plagiarism is a very serious offense that can result in punishments such as a suspension or expulsion. Plagiarism can vary in its extent based on the amount of plagiarism. Minimal amount of plagiarism is very common in the educational sector where person do plagiarism by substituting the synonyms and editing the original text. Sometimes complete plagiarism is seen where one presents the work without making any change in the data and presents it as one's own work. Apart from plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of data also constitute serious offense. Falsification and fabrication call into question the integrity of data and the data record. Practice of omitting or altering research materials, equipment, data, or processes in such a way that the results of the research are no longer accurately reflected in the research result is called falsification whereas the practice of inventing data or results and recording them in the research record is called fabrication. Both of these affect the credential of the research. Double publication” is a practice which involves repeat publication, or attempts at publication, of text, figures, or data in any form of publicly available media without citation in the later manuscript. All these things including plagiarism, falsification and fabrication, double publications are serious transgression of academic ethics.

In the present article, we have made an attempt to review the literature related to such acts.

McCabe et al. (Mem Cognate 2007;35(2):231-41) reported two experiments examining inadvertent plagiarism in young and older adults. Young and older adults took turns generating category exemplars in small groups, and after a short retention interval recall was tested and subjects were asked to generate new exemplars (i.e., exemplars not initially generated). When asked to generate new exemplars, older adults were more likely to repeat exemplars that had been generated earlier by others (i.e., generate-new plagiarism). When asked to recall the exemplars they had generated earlier, older adults were more likely to claim that they had generated exemplars that had been generated by others (i.e., recall-own plagiarism), and were also more likely to falsely recall exemplars that had not been generated at all. There were no age differences in confidence for items that were plagiarized on the generate-new task. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that age differences in generate-new plagiarism and false recall were entirely mediated by measures of episodic recall and working memory capacity. They concluded that inadvertent plagiarism errors result from the failure of systematic decision processes, and that controlled attention is important for avoiding memory errors.

Cole et al. (Fam Med. 2007;39(6):436-8) opined that the act of overt plagiarism by graduates of accredited residency programs represents a failure in personal integrity. It also indicates a lack of professionalism. A recent experience at one geriatric fellowship indicated that the problem of plagiarism might be more prevalent than previously recognized. A situation was discovered at the geriatric medicine fellowship at Florida Hospital Family Medicine Residency Program in Orlando, in which three of the personal statements included in a total of 26 applications to the fellowship in the past 2 years contained portions plagiarized from a single web site. The aim in documenting this plagiarism was to raise awareness among medical educators about the availability of online sources of content and ease of electronic plagiarism. Some students and residents may not recognize copying other resources verbatim as plagiarism. The authors felt that residency programs should evaluate their own need for education about plagiarism and include this in the training of the competency of professionalism.

Harper (Nurse Educ Today 2006;26(8):672-9) noted that the use of technology has enhanced the convenience, flexibility, and efficiency of both preparatory and continuing education. Unfortunately, academic dishonesty, including plagiarism, has shown a positive correlation with the increased use of technology in education. A review of the literature related to unintended outcomes of the use of technology in nursing education and continuing education was conducted to determine the ethical implications for the nursing profession. Although nursing research dealing with academic and professional misconduct is sparse, evidence suggests that academic dishonesty is a predictor of workplace dishonesty. Given this correlation between unethical classroom behavior and unethical clinical behavior, efforts to staunch academic dishonesty may help allay professional misconduct. They concluded that a combination of high tech and low tech methods may be used to minimize unethical behaviors among students and practicing professional nurses in order to maintain the integrity of the profession.

Bassendowski (Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2005; 2:Article 3. Epub 2005 Feb 25) observed that with the reports of plagiarism in post-secondary institutions and the ease with which students can ‘cut and paste’ content from online sources, the relevance and applicability of traditional assessment strategies need to be examined in light of these technological advances. The paper explores a connection to the visual arts in terms of creation, re-creation, the ‘desire to conceal’, and contemporary means of interpretation.

Logue (Nurs Stand. 2004;18(51):40-3) examined the issue of plagiarism by nursing students and academics in British universities and highlighted how electronic developments such as the internet and word processing have made it easier. It describes how some websites support plagiarism and how, for a price, a qualification up to and including higher degree level may be gained without the recipient of the award having to do any coursework.

Perfect et al. (Memory 2008;16(4):386-94) observed that when groups of individuals work together to generate solutions to a problem, one member of the group can plagiarise another either by recalling that person's idea as their own (recall-own plagiarism), or by generating a novel solution that duplicates a previous idea (generate-new plagiarism). This study examined the extent to which these forms of plagiarism are influenced by the quality of the ideas. Groups of participants initially generated ideas, prior to an elaboration phase in which idea quality was manipulated in two ways: participants received feedback on the quality of the ideas as rated by independent judges, and they generated improvements to a subset of the ideas. Unconscious plagiarism was measured in recall-own and generate-new tasks. For recall, idea improvement led to increased plagiarism, while for the generate-new task, the independent ratings influenced plagiarism. These data indicated that different source-judgement processes underlie the two forms of plagiarism, neither of which can be reduced simply to memory strength.

Double Publication

Kostoff (Sci Eng Ethics 2006;12(3):543-54) examined the similarity of documents in a large database of published Fractals articles for redundancy. Three different text matching techniques were used on published abstracts to identify redundancy candidates, and predictions were verified by reading full text versions of the redundancy candidate articles. A small fraction of the total articles in the database was judged to be redundant. This was viewed as a lower limit, because it excluded cases where the concepts remained the same, but the text was altered substantially. Far more pervasive than redundant publications were publications that did not violate the letter of redundancy but rather violated the spirit of redundancy. There appeared to be widespread publication maximization strategies. Studies that resulted in one comprehensive paper decades ago now result in multiple papers that focus on one major problem, but are differentiated by parameter ranges, or other stratifying variables. This ‘paper inflation’ is due in large part to the increasing use of metrics (publications, patents, citations, etc) to evaluate research performance, and the researchers' motivation to maximize the metrics.

Roig (Psychol Rep. 2005;97(1):43-9) performed a preliminary, two-part study exploring the extent to which authors reuse portions of their own text from previously published papers. All 9 articles from a recent issue of a psychology journal were selected as target papers. Up to 3 of the most recent references cited in each of the target articles and written by the same authors were also obtained. All target articles and their corresponding references were stored digitally. Then, using specialized software, each reference was compared to its target article to assess the number of strings of text identical to both papers. Only one of the nine target articles reused significant amounts of text from one of its references. To explore further the possibility of additional text reuse, the references in each of the 9 sets of papers were compared against each other. The new comparison identified 5 pairs of papers with a substantial number of identical strings of text of 6 consecutive words in length or longer, but most of the reused text was confined to the Method section. The results suggested that some of these authors reused their own text with some frequency, but this was largely confined to complex methodological descriptions of a research design and procedure.

Corson et al. (Fertil Steril. 2005;83(4):855-6) defined and discussed the various forms taken by duplicate publications, and suggested remedies to help authors, editors, reviewers, and readers to avoid this form of internal plagiarism.

Fabricated Data and Falsifying

Stewart et al. (Nature1987;325(6101):207-14) reported a case of admitted scientific fraud that has shed new light on the system that ensures the integrity of the scientific literature. Lapses from generally accepted standards of research may be more frequent than is commonly believed.

Falagas et al. (Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2008;56(4):223-6) observed that a considerable part of the scientific community is, at least to some degree, involved in the “impact factor game”. Editors strive to increase their journals' impact factor (IF) in order to gain influence in the fields of basic and applied research and scientists seek to profit from the “added value” of publishing in top IF journals. In this article they pointed out the most common “tricks” of engineering and manipulating the IF undertaken by a portion of professionals of the scientific publishing industry. They attempted to increase the nominator or decrease the denominator of the IF equation by taking advantage of certain design flaws and disadvantages of the IF that permit a degree of artificial and arbitrary inflation. Some of these practices, if not scientifically unethical, are at least questionable and should be abandoned. Editors and publishers should strive for quality through fair and thoughtful selection of papers forwarded for peer review and editorial comments that enhance the quality and scientific accuracy of a manuscript.

Idea stealing and Previous ideas (Self plagiarism)

Stark et al. (Memory 2007;15(7):776-83) have opined that unconscious plagiarism (UP) occurs when an individual claims a previously experienced idea as their own. Previous studies have explored the cognitive precursors of such errors by manipulating the ways that ideas are thought about between initial idea exposure and later test. While imagining other's ideas does not increase rates of UP relative to control on either a recall-own or generate-new task, improving others' ideas substantially increases such errors in the recall-own task. This study explored the effects of elaboration on rates of UP when a source-monitoring test replaced the recall-own test. Plagiarism was again observed following idea improvement but not idea imagery even though participants engaged explicit source evaluation. Thus the probability of plagiarising another's idea appears linked to the generative nature of the idea processing performed.

Bouville et al. (Sci Eng Ethics 2008;14(3):311-22) are of the opinion that plagiarism is a crime against academics. It deceives readers, hurts plagiarized authors, and gets the plagiarist undeserved benefits. However, even though these arguments do show that copying other people's intellectual contribution is wrong, they do not apply to the copying of words. Copying a few sentences that contain no original idea (e.g. in the introduction) is of marginal importance compared to stealing the ideas of others. The two must be clearly distinguished, and the ‘plagiarism’ label should not be used for deeds which are very different in nature and importance.

Copyright Infringement

Hein (J Biocommun. 1976;3(3):29-32) reported that institutional developers of mediated instruction for the health sciences in higher education must take whatever steps that are reasonable and necessary to obtain copyright protection for their original works and avoid liability for infringement. Twelve questions frequently asked by such developers in these two areas were discussed. Special requirements were set forth pertaining to material copyrightable by the developer, copyrighted by others, and in the public domain (not copyrightable by anyone). Unique requirements for writings, sound recordings and visual products were summarized. Relevant aspects of fair use, pre-publication copyright, post-publication copyright, and marketing and distribution through the private sector were set forth together with the elements of proof in infringement actions.

Miller et al. (Int J Instr Media. 1977-1978;5(1):1-8) reported four copyright infringement cases that significantly influenced the understanding of “fair use” copying, as it applies to educators and educational institutions.

Drummond et al. (J Physiol. 2009;587:713-9) reported the basic principles and methods that should be used regarding ethical matters in publication of manuscripts. They have summarized the UK law and the structure of regulations, and introduces the concept of research governance. They have given advice on the format and description of experiments and ethical considerations of publication such as authorship and originality, and problems such as plagiarism and fabrication.

Reyes (Rev Med Chil.2007;135(4):529-33) have opined that medical research must obey specific ethical rules that apply to studies involving human subjects, including biological samples, tissues, cellular or sub cellular samples obtained from them. When submitting their reports for publication, authors must declare that they have followed such ethical rules and also should declare any possible conflict of interest that may have arisen. External peer reviewers and the editors should also conform to limitations by eventual conflicts of interest. Authors should respect specific ethical norms that apply to the process of submitting, publishing and reproducing their manuscripts. In recent years, the editors of Revista Medica de Chile have become aware of five instances of misconduct committed by authors of articles submitted or already published. Four corresponded to redundant publications and one exhibited overt plagiarism in the text and syntax. Appropriate actions have been taken following recommendations published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors and other groups. The present article stressed that authors and their sponsoring institutions must be aware of the importance of following ethical rules when reporting scientific work.

Coultas (Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2007;4(2):194-8) is of the opinion that the ethical interpretation and communication of research results is essential to ensure the validity, timeliness, and accessibility of new knowledge for patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies. Failure to adhere to ethical principles may cause adverse outcomes for patients because of overestimation of benefit, underestimation of harm, and lack of timely awareness of benefit or harm. Although fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are the traditional criteria for research misconduct, other more subtle behaviors may cause greater threats to public safety and trust in the research enterprise. Growing awareness of research misconduct has led to a number of initiatives worldwide during the past decade in an attempt to control the problem at various stages of the research process through the funding agencies, research institutions, and editorial oversight. The objective of this article was to raise awareness among the pulmonary research community of the broad range of ethical issues that arise during manuscript preparation, review, publication, and dissemination of research results, and efforts that are in progress to minimize misconduct.

Benos et al. (Adv Physiol Educ. 2005;29(2):59-74) summarized the major categories of ethical violations encountered during submission, review, and publication of scientific articles. They discussed data fabrication and falsification, plagiarism, redundant and duplicate publication, conflict of interest, authorship, animal and human welfare, and reviewer responsibility. In each section, pertinent historical background and citation of relevant regulations and statutes were provided.

Misconduct: How to avoid ?

Research misconduct is defined by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh as any behaviour by a researcher, whether intentional or not, that fails to scrupulously respect high scientific and ethical standards. Various types of research misconduct include fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, problematic data presentation or analysis, failure to obtain ethical approval by a research ethics committee or to obtain the subject's informed consent, inappropriate claims of authorship, duplicated publication, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. Pitak-Arnnop et al. (J Chir (Paris) 2008;145(6):534-41) studied these misconducts and reported that these can result in patient injury, deterioration of the patient-physician relationship, loss of public trust in biomedical research, and pollution/degradation of medical literature.

Errami et al. (Nucleic Acids Res.2009;37 (Database issue):D921-4) have made available Deja vu, a publicly available database of highly similar Medline citations identified by the text similarity search engine eTBLAST. Following manual verification, highly similar citation pairs have been classified into various categories ranging from duplicates with different authors to sanctioned duplicates. Deja vu records also contain user-provided commentary and supporting information to substantiate each document's categorization. Deja vu and eTBLAST are available to authors, editors, reviewers, ethicists and sociologists to study, intercept, annotate and deter questionable publication practices. These tools are part of a sustained effort to enhance the quality of Medline as the biomedical corpus.

Bilic-Zulle et al. (Sci Eng Ethics. 2008;14(1):139-47) performed a study to evaluate the effectiveness of plagiarism detection software and penalty for plagiarizing in detecting and deterring plagiarism among medical students. The study was a continuation of previously published research in which second-year medical students from 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 school years were required to write an essay based on one of the four scientific articles offered by the instructor. Students from 2004/2005 (N = 92) included in present study were given the same task. Topics of two of the four articles were considered less complex, and two were more complex. One less and one more complex articles were available only as hardcopies, whereas the other two were available in electronic format. The students from 2001/2002 (N = 111) were only told to write an original essay, whereas the students from 2002/2003 (N = 87) were additionally warned against plagiarism, explained what plagiarism was, and how to avoid it. The students from 2004/2005 were warned that their essays would be examined by plagiarism detection software and that those who had plagiarized would be penalized. Students from 2004/2005 plagiarized significantly less of their essays than students from the previous two groups (2% vs. 17% vs. 21%, respectively, P < 0.001). Over time, students more frequently selected articles with more complex subjects (P < 0.001) and articles in electronic format (P < 0.001) as a source for their essays, but it did not influence the rate of plagiarism. Use of plagiarism detection software in evaluation of essays and consequent penalties had effectively deterred students from plagiarizing.

Wager et al. (Med Law 2007;26(3):535-44) tried to discover what editors actually do when faced with cases of suspected scientific misconduct using cases submitted to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Of the 79 cases referred to COPE between 1998 and 2003 relating to author misconduct, 33 related to redundant publication, 16 to unethical research, 13 to fabrication, 10 to clinical misconduct and 7 to plagiarism. Outcomes were reported in 49 cases. Authors were exonerated in 16 cases and reprimanded in another 17. An impasse (no or an unsatisfactory response) was reached in 16. Editors contacted the authors' institutions in 24 cases. Nearly half the cases (36) lasted over a year. This small survey highlighted the difficulties faced by editors in pursuing cases of suspected misconduct and the need for better training and guidance for editors and more cooperation from institutions

Wager et al. (Menopause Int. 2007;13(3):98-102) described various types of publication misconduct and offerred guidance to authors, reviewers and journal editors about ways to detect and prevent them. Publication misconduct includes a range of unethical behaviours, such as plagiarism, breach of confidence and in appropriate authorship. The most egregious cases are easy to recognize and widely condemned, but the gradient between normal and unethical behaviour is often a gradual one. They appealed that clinicians and researchers should be aware of the full spectrum of publication misconduct and understand that some widely accepted practices may be unethical.

Triggle et al. (Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007;3(1):39-53) reviewed the abuse of peer review and the method of policing it. A bad peer review process can inadvertently ruin an individual's career, but are there penalties for policing a reviewer who deliberately sabotages a manuscript or grant? Science has received an increasingly tainted name because of recent high profile cases of alleged scientific misconduct. Once considered the results of work stress or a temporary mental health problem, scientific misconduct is increasingly being reported and proved to be a repeat offence. How should scientific misconduct be handled--is it a criminal offence and subject to national or international law? Similarly plagiarism is an ever-increasing concern whether at the level of the student or a university president. Are the existing laws tough enough? These issues, with appropriate examples, were dealt with in this review.

Pollard (Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2006;20(4):653-68) emphasized the importance of ethics committee and its role in approval of a research project. The committees concern themselves with research but the differences between audit and research are difficult to discern in many places. If there is any doubt then the advice of the local research ethics committee should be sought. He opined that publication of results thought to be of lesser importance may prove difficult, however, and so there is a temptation to falsify or modify data to make it more attractive. This, together with other activities such as the fabrication of data, plagiarism, dual publication, salami publication, conflicts of interest and irregularities in authorship, have given editors of journals a number of problems.

Scanlan. (J Allied Health 2006;35(3):179-85) observed that student academic misconduct has become a growing problem for colleges and universities, including those responsible for preparing health professionals. Although the implementation of honour codes has had a positive impact on this problem, further reduction in student cheating and plagiarism can be achieved only via a comprehensive strategy that promotes an institutional culture of academic integrity. Such a strategy must combine efforts both to deter and detect academic misconduct, along with fair but rigorous application of sanctions against such behaviours. Methods useful in preventing or deterring dishonest behaviors among students include early integrity training complemented with course-level reinforcement, faculty role-modeling, and the application of selected testing/assignment preventive strategies, including honour pledges and honesty declarations. Giving students more responsibility for oversight of academic integrity also may help address this problem and better promote the culture needed to uphold its principles.

Gollogly and Momen (Rev Saude Publica.2006;40 Spec no.:24-9) discussed the definition of scientific misconduct, ways to document the extent of the problem, and examples of editorial attempts to counter fraud. Editorial misconduct includes failure to observe due process, undue delay in reaching decisions and communicating these to authors, inappropriate review procedures, and confounding a journal's content with its advertising or promotional potential. He added that editors can be admonished by their peers for failure to investigate suspected misconduct, failure to retract when indicated, and failure to abide voluntarily by the six main sources of relevant international guidelines on research, its reporting and editorial practice. Editors are in a good position to promulgate reasonable standards of practice, and can start by using consensus guidelines on publication ethics to state explicitly how their journals function. Reviewers, editors, and authors all then have a better chance to understand, and abide by, the rules of publishing.

Kvaal (J Am Coll Dent. 2008;75(2):29-35) reported that in 2006 a researcher at the main hospital in Norway admitted that he had forged data in a study published in the medical journal ‘The Lancet’ that was co-authored by 13 others from both Europe and America. The researcher, dually qualified in dentistry and medicine, immediately admitted fabricating the results. A Commission of Enquiry reported that most of his publications were fabricated or manipulated and that he was alone in the fraud. As a result, the researcher lost his authorization to practice medicine and dentistry. Following this revelation, the management of scientific fraud has been widely discussed, including concerns about the dual role of a Commission of Enquiry as both investigator and judge, and also the legal rights of fraudulent scientists. Other issues concern the responsibilities of supervisors and institutions in the guidance of candidates in research procedures and ethics. Various issues have been discussed, including the fact that editors and referees in scientific publications rarely have the opportunity to check raw data, which emphasizes the need for data confirmation by independent groups.

Qamra et al. (IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2005;27(3):379-91) observed that the proliferation of digital images and the widespread distribution of digital data that has been made possible by the internet has increased problems associated with copyright infringement on digital images. Watermarking schemes have been proposed to safeguard copyrighted images, but watermarks are vulnerable to image processing and geometric distortions and may not be very effective. Thus, the content-based detection of pirated images has become an important application. In this paper, they discussed two important aspects of such a replica detection system: distance functions for similarity measurement and scalability. They extended their previous work on perceptual distance functions, which proposed the Dynamic Partial Function (DPF), and present enhanced techniques that overcome the limitations of DPF. These techniques included the Thresholding, Sampling, and Weighting schemes. Experimental evaluations showed superior performance compared to DPF and other distance functions. They then addressed the issue of using these perceptual distance functions to efficiently detect replicas in large image data sets. The problem of indexing is made challenging by the high-dimensionality and the nonmetric nature of the distance functions. They proposed using Locality Sensitive Hashing (LSH) to index images while using the above perceptual distance functions and demonstrated good performance through empirical studies on a very large database of diverse images.

Misconduct or Mistake

Nath et al. (Med J Aust.2006;185(3):152-4) performed a study to determine how commonly articles are retracted on the basis of unintentional mistakes, and whether these articles differ from those retracted for scientific misconduct in authorship, funding, type of study, publication, and time to retraction. Of the 395 articles retracted between 1982 and 2002, 107 (27.1%) were retracted because of scientific misconduct, 244 (61.8%) because of unintentional errors, and 44 (11.1%) could not be categorised. Compared with articles retracted because of misconduct, articles with unintentional mistakes were more likely to have multiple authors, no reported funding source, and to be published in frequently cited journals. They were more likely to be retracted by the author(s) of the article, and the retraction was more likely to occur more promptly (mean, 2.0 years; 95% CI, 1.8-2.2) than articles withdrawn because of misconduct (mean, 3.3 years; 95% CI, 2.7-3.9) (P < 0.05 for all comparisons).

Neill (J Clin Invest.2008;118(7):2368) observed that the academic scientific enterprise rewards those with the longest CVs and the most publications. Under pressure to generate voluminous output, scientists often fall prey to double publishing, self plagiarism, and submitting the “minimal publishable unit.”

• National Security
• Matthew Continetti
• Men of the Year

• Men Of The Year

Biden Food Stamp Chief Offloads Policymaking to Soros-Funded Think Tank, Ethics Complaint Charges

Harvard Professors on Israel Visit Describe ‘Existential Crisis’ for Jews Back Home–And Loss of Faith in DEI

Watch: joe biden's senior moment of the week (vol. 86), the road to a republican senate, david trone checks his privilege after 'mistakenly' using racial slur to attack republicans, watch: veep thoughts with kamala harris (vol. 13), complaint alleges university of wisconsin dei czar, husband of harvard's dei chief, has decades-long history of research misconduct, lavar charleston—who once assaulted a police officer—passed off old studies as new research at least five times.

The chief diversity officer of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, LaVar Charleston, who also teaches at the university’s school of education, has a decades-long track record of research misconduct, according to a complaint filed with the university on Wednesday and a Washington Free Beacon analysis. That misconduct includes presenting old studies as new research, which he has done at least five times over the course of his career.

The complaint , which was filed anonymously, implicates eight of Charleston’s publications, many of them coauthored, and accuses him of plagiarizing other scholars as well as duplicating his own work. It comes as the university is already investigating Charleston over a separate complaint filed in January, alleging that a 2014 study by him and his wife—Harvard University’s chief diversity officer, Sherri Ann Charleston—is a facsimile of a study he published in 2012.

"This is an extraordinary case of serial misrepresentation and deception," said Peter Wood, the head of the National Association of Scholars and a former associate provost at Boston University. "The closest analogy would be someone who sells the same real estate to five different buyers, all of whom are unaware of the others."

In January, Charleston won a lifetime achievement award for "excellence in higher education." The university trumpeted the award in a press release, praising his "unwavering dedication to creating inclusive environments in academia" and noting his "wealth of academic accolades."

Charleston’s CV, however, appears to have been inflated by duplicate publication, the practice of publishing the same research in multiple journals without attribution. In 2014, for example, he published a pair of papers in two separate journals—the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education and the Journal of Progressive Policy & Practice —that are near-verbatim copies of each other.

Both describe a 15-person focus group conducted by an African-American woman and feature identical quotes from participants, all of whom appear to have been recruited from the same academic conference.

Neither paper indicates the other was published elsewhere—a troubling omission, scholars who reviewed both studies said.

"It is academic misconduct to publish essentially the same paper twice with no acknowledgment of the duplication," Alexander Riley, a sociologist at Bucknell University, told the Free Beacon . "It seems fairly clear that Charleston is gaming the system in order to get more on his CV than is merited by the amount of research he has actually done."

Charleston also appears to have recycled findings and interview responses from his 2010 dissertation, which involved a survey of black computer science students, in four subsequent papers: the 2012 and 2014 studies that were the subject of the previous complaint, as well as two additional studies published in 2016 and 2022.

Each study is framed as a novel survey addressing a gap in the scholarly literature. None cite Charleston’s dissertation or indicate that they are drawing on previously published material.

The odds that different people would give the same quotes across different studies, said Lee Jussim, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, are about the same as the odds that "monkeys typing on typewriters would reproduce Hamlet ."

Charleston did not respond to a request for comment.

The complaint raises serious questions about how a flagship public university vetted one of its top administrators, whose career has been marked not just by questionable research practices but by criminal conduct.

Shortly after joining UW-Madison as a researcher in 2009, Charleston was charged in 2011 with attempting to strangle a police officer, according to documents obtained by the MacIver Institute, a conservative think tank in Wisconsin. He avoided a conviction through the Deferred Prosecution Program , a local initiative run by the district attorney’s office that offers first-time felons the chance to do community service in lieu of jail time and removes their arrest records from public databases.

"Even with a PhD, I’m looked at as a criminal," Charleston said in an interview in 2020. "[I]t has to be because of my color."

The arrest didn’t stop Charleston from climbing the ranks of the school’s diversity bureaucracy. Between 2010 and 2017, he helped to build Wisconsin’s Equity and Inclusion Laboratory, which conducts research on "inclusive learning." He became assistant vice chancellor of student diversity at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater in 2017, then served as the inaugural dean of diversity, equity and inclusion at UW-Madison’s School of Education—the third-ranked education school in the country, according to US News and World Report . He became the chief diversity officer of the entire university in 2021.

Charleston is also a clinical professor of education, has led "anti-racism" workshops for Wisconsin public school teachers, and sits on the state’s Equity and Inclusion Council, which helps "advance diversity, equity, and inclusion practices across Wisconsin state government."

The complaint calls into question the originality of the feted diversity scholar, who draws a $280,000 salary from UW-Madison and oversees tutoring services for students.

"The two 2014 papers do indeed appear to be two versions of the same paper," Riley said. "I don't see the two as distinct from one another in any substantive way."

Both papers also share a prominent coauthor: Jerlando Jackson, now the dean of the Michigan State University College of Education, who advised Charleston’s dissertation at UW-Madison and also coauthored one of the studies based on it. The overlap raises additional questions about norms of academic integrity at education schools and within the field of DEI scholarship, which has come under intense scrutiny in recent months amid a drip-drip of plagiarism scandals.

"Either [Charleston and Jackson] are ignorant of this principle of research publication ethics," Riley said, referring to rules against duplicate publication, "or they were both aware of what they were doing."

Jackson did not respond to a request for comment.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison said it "takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously" and that it would investigate the complaint. Charleston, the school added, is a "valued member of the University of Wisconsin-Madison leadership team and we continue to support his work."

Wednesday’s complaint marks the fourth time this year that a DEI official has been hit with charges of research misconduct. In addition to Sherri Ann Charleston, Harvard’s chief diversity officer, plagiarism allegations have been made against Shirley Green , the Title IX coordinator for Harvard Extension School, and Alade McKen , the chief diversity officer of Columbia Medical School. The deluge followed the downfall of former Harvard president Claudine Gay, who resigned in January after half of her published work was found to contain plagiarized material.

Unlike those other officials, who work for private universities with lavish endowments, Charleston is a government employee subject to a state budget. His role was on the chopping block last year after Wisconsin Republicans proposed a budget that would have cut $32 million from the UW system—the exact amount it spends on DEI initiatives.

A watered-down version of the proposal still drew fierce blowback from the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, which in December rejected a deal to cap DEI staff in exchange for pay raises and a new engineering school. The board reversed course after news broke that it had prioritized positions like Charleston’s over $800 million in additional funding.

That money has subsidized a scholar who appears to have little new to say. The four studies based on Charleston’s dissertation, which was submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, are strikingly similar to each other, regurgitating not just interview results but entire pages of text.

Each one discusses the challenges faced by African-American science students and argues, among other things, that mentorship can promote success in computer science. Three of the four studies include identical descriptions of survey participants, whose testimonials form the backbone for each paper.

"I know of no other cases where a researcher has simply repeated his dissertation findings like a broken record for twelve years," Wood said.

While scholars can reuse data as much as they like and often turn their dissertations into peer-reviewed articles, they are expected to provide appropriate attribution to earlier research if it has already appeared in an academic journal. Failure to do so can result in retractions and infringe on the copyright of the publisher.

Duplicate publication is sometimes considered a more serious offense than plagiarism because, on top of stealing a journal’s intellectual property and padding a scholar’s CV, it biases meta-analyses—papers that aggregate the results of prior studies and use them to make statistical generalizations about a body of research. Some meta-analyses in education focus on the very issues Charleston’s work has addressed, including the effects of mentorship and diversity training .

Riley, the Bucknell sociologist, argued that the four studies didn’t quite meet the bar for "unethical behavior" because they were all based on a single dissertation, unlike the pair of papers from 2014. But, he added, the redundancies were revealing nonetheless.

"I gather that there are a lot of people doing this in the DEI universe—basically reiterating the same claims over and over and over again in different venues," Riley said. "The field draws such people to it more or less naturally, given the orthodoxy on which it is based."

The complaint also accuses Charleston of plagiarizing other scholars in his dissertation and some of his peer-reviewed papers, including the one from 2012. He lifts several passages from a Ph.D. thesis by Leslie Pendleton Graham, who earned her Ph.D. in counselor education in 1997, without citing her in a footnote or parentheses.

He also borrows from a dissertation by Craig Alan Green, who earned his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee-Knoxville in 2008, without any sort of attribution.

The complaint points out that by recycling a plagiarism-laden thesis, Charleston ensured his subsequent work would contain plagiarism.

"Much of LaVar’s scholarly work since the dissertation lifts language from the dissertation verbatim," the complaint reads. "But the dissertation is full of plagiarism. So LaVar’s peer-reviewed work has plagiarism throughout."

Published under: DEI , Ethics , Higher Education , plagiarism , University of Wisconsin