Trait expectations: Another look at why addictive personality is a complete myth

In the 30 years that I have been carrying out research into addiction, the one question that I have been asked the most – particularly by those who work in the print and broadcast media – is whether there is such a thing as an ‘addictive personality’? In a previous blog I briefly reviewed the concept of ‘addictive personality’ but since publishing that article, I have published a short paper in the Global Journal of Addiction and Rehabilitation Medicine on addictive personality, and in this blog I review I outline some of the arguments as to why I think addictive personality is a complete myth.

Psychologists such as Dr. Thomas Sadava have gone as far to say that ‘addictive personality’ is theoretically necessary, logically defensible, and empirically supportable. Sadava argued that if ‘addictive personality’ did not exist then every individual would vulnerable to addiction if they lived in comparable environments, and that those who were addicted would differ only from others in the specifics of their addiction (e.g., alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, heroin). However, Sadava neglected genetic/biological predispositions and the structural characteristics of the substance or behaviour itself.

There are many possible reasons why people believe in the concept of ‘addictive personality’ including the facts that: (i) vulnerability is not perfectly correlated to one’s environment, (ii) some addicts are addicted to more than one substance/activity (cross addiction) and engage themselves in more than one addictive behaviour, and (iii) on giving up addiction some addicts become addicted to another (what I and others have referred to as ‘reciprocity’). In all the papers I have ever read concerning ‘addictive personality’, I have never read a good operational definition of what ‘addictive personality’ actually is (beyond the implicit assumption that it refers to a personality trait that helps explain why individuals become addicted to substances and/or behaviours). Dr. Craig Nakken in his book The Addictive Personality: Understanding the Addictive Process and Compulsive Behaviour argued that ‘addictive personality’ is “created from the illness of addiction”, and that ‘addictive personality’ is a consequence of addiction and not a predisposing factor. In essence, Nakken simply argued that ‘addictive personality’ refers to the personality of an individual once they are addicted, and as such, this has little utility in understanding how and why individuals become addicted.

When teaching my own students about the concept of ‘addictive personality’ I always tell them that operational definitions of constructs in the addictive behaviours field are critical. Given that I have never seen an explicit definition of ‘addictive personality’ I provide my own definition and argue that ‘addictive personality’ (if it exists) is a cognitive and behavioural style which is both specific and personal that renders an individual vulnerable to acquiring and maintaining one or more addictive behaviours at any one time. I also agree with addiction experts that the relationship between addictive characteristics and personality variables depend on the theoretical considerations of personality. According to Dr. Peter Nathan there must be ‘standards of proof’ to show valid associations between personality and addictive behaviour. He reported that for the personality trait or factor to genuinely exist it must: (i) either precede the initial signs of the disorder or must be a direct and lasting feature of the disorder, (ii) be specific to the disorder rather than antecedent, coincident or consequent to other disorders/behaviours that often accompany addictive behaviour, (iii) be discriminative, and (iv) be related to the addictive behaviour on the basis of independently confirmed empirical, rather than clinical, evidence. As far as I am aware, there is no study that has ever met these four standards of proof, and consequently I would argue on the basis of these that there is no ‘addictive personality’.

Although I do not believe in the concept of ‘addictive personality’ this does not mean that personality factors are not important in the acquisition, development, and maintenance of addictive behaviours. They clearly are. For instance, a paper in the Psychological Bulletin by Dr. Roman Kotov and his colleagues examined the associations between substance use disorders (SUDs) and higher order personality traits (i.e., the ‘big five’ of openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism) in 66 meta-analyses. Their review included 175 studies (with sample sizes ranged from 1,076 to 75,229) and findings demonstrated that SUD addicts were high on neuroticism (and was the strongest personality trait associated with SUD addiction) and low on conscientiousness. Many of the studies the reviewed also reported that agreeableness and openness were largely unrelated to SUDs.

Dr. John Malouff and colleagues carried published a meta-analysis in the Journal of Drug Education examining the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and alcohol. The meta-analysis included 20 studies (n=7,886) and showed alcohol involvement was associated with low conscientiousness, low agreeableness, and high neuroticism. Mixed-sex samples tended to have lower effect sizes than single-sex samples, suggesting that mixing sexes in data analysis may obscure the effects of personality. Dr. James Hittner and Dr. Rhonda Swickert published a meta-analysis in the journal Addictive Behaviors examining the association between sensation seeking and alcohol use. An analysis of 61 studies revealed a small to moderate size heterogeneous effect between alcohol use and total scores on the sensation seeking scale. Further analysis of the sensation seeking components indicated that disinhibition was most strongly correlated with alcohol use.

Dr. Marcus Munafo and colleagues published a meta-analysis in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research examining strength and direction of the association between smoking status and personality. They included 25 cross-sectional studies that reported personality data for adult smokers and non-smokers and reported a significant difference between smokers and non-smokers on both extraversion and neuroticism traits. In relation to gambling disorder, Dr. Vance MacLaren and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 44 studies that had examined the personality traits of pathological gamblers (N=2,134) and non-pathological gambling control groups (N=5,321) in the journal Clinical Psychology Review. Gambling addiction was shown to be associated with urgency, premeditation, perseverance, and sensation seeking aspects of impulsivity. They concluded that individual personality characteristics may be important in the aetiology of pathological gambling and that the findings were similar to the meta-analysis of substance use disorders by Kotov and colleagues.

More recently, I co-authored a study with Dr. Cecilie Andreassen and her colleagues in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions. We carried out the first ever study investigating the inter-relationships between the ‘big five’ personality traits and behavioural addictions. They assessed seven behavioural addictions (i.e., Facebook addiction, video game addiction, Internet addiction, exercise addiction, mobile phone addiction, compulsive buying, and study addiction). Of 21 inter-correlations between the seven behavioural addictions, all were positive (and nine significantly so). More specifically: (i) neuroticism was positively associated with Internet addiction, exercise addiction, compulsive buying, and study addiction, (ii) extroversion was positively associated with Facebook addiction, exercise addiction, mobile phone addiction, and compulsive buying, (iii) openness was negatively associated with Facebook addiction and mobile phone addiction, (iv) agreeableness was negatively associated with Internet addiction, exercise addiction, mobile phone addiction, and compulsive buying, and (v) conscientiousness was negatively associated with Facebook addiction, video game addiction, Internet addiction, and compulsive buying and positively associated with exercise addiction and study addiction. However, replication and extension of these findings is needed before any definitive conclusions can be made.

Overall these studies examining personality and addiction consistently demonstrate that addictive behaviours are correlated with high levels of neuroticism and low levels of conscientiousness. However, there is no evidence of a single trait (or set of traits) that is predictive of addiction, and addiction alone. Others have also reached the same conclusion based on the available evidence. For instance, R.G. Pols (in Australian Drug/Alcohol Review) noted that findings from prospective studies are inconsistent with retrospective and cross-sectional studies leading to the conclusion that the ‘addictive personality’ is a myth. Dr. John Kerr in the journal Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental noted that ‘addictive personality’ had long been argued as a viable construct (particularly in the USA) but that there is simply no evidence for the existence of a personality type that is prone to addiction. In another review of drug addictions, Kevin Conway and colleagues asserted (in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence) there was scant evidence that personality traits were associated with psychoactive substance choice. Most recently, Maia Szalavitz in her book Unbroken Brain: A Revolutionary New Way of Understanding Addiction noted that:

“Fundamentally, the idea of a general addictive personality is a myth. Research finds no universal character traits that are common to all addicted people. Only half have more than one addiction (not including cigarettes)—and many can control their engagement with some addictive substances or activities, but not others”.

Clearly there are common findings across a number of differing addictions (such as similarities in personality profiles using the ‘big five’ traits) but it is hard to establish whether these traits are antecedent to the addiction or caused by it. Within most addictions there appear to be more than one sub-type of addict suggesting different pathways of how and way individuals might develop various addictions. If this is the case – and I believe that it is – where does that leave the ‘addictive personality’ construct?

‘Addictive personality’ is arguably a ‘one type fits all’ approach and there is now much evidence that the causes of addiction are biopsychosocial from an individual perspective, and that situational determinants (e.g., accessibility to the drug/behaviour, advertising and marketing, etc.) and structural determinants (e.g., toxicity of a specific drug, game speed in gambling, etc.) can also be influential in the aetiology of problematic and addictive behaviours. Another problem with ‘addictive personality’ being an explanation for why individuals develop addictions is that the concept inherently absolves an individual’s responsibility of developing an addiction and puts the onus on others in treating the addiction. Ultimately, all addicts have to take some responsibility in the development of their problematic behaviour and they have to take some ownership for overcoming their addiction. Personally, I believe it is better to concentrate research into risk and protective factors of addiction rather than further research of ‘addictive personality’.

As I have argued in a number of my papers and book chapters, not every addict has a personality disorder, and not every person with a personality disorder has an addiction. While some personality disorders appear to have an association with addiction including Antisocial Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder, just because a person has some of the personality traits associated with addiction does not mean they are, or will become, an addict. Practitioners consider specific personality traits to be warning signs, but that’s all they are. There is no personality trait that guarantees an individual will develop an addiction and there is little evidence for an ‘addictive personality’ that is predictive of addiction alone. In short, ‘addictive personality’ is a complete myth.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Andreassen, C.S., Griffiths, M.D., Gjertsen, S.R., Krossbakken, E., Kvan, S., & Ståle Pallesen, S. (2013). The relationships between behavioral addictions and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2, 90-99.

Conway, K. P., Kane, R. J., Ball, S. A., Poling, J. C., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2003). Personality, substance of choice, and polysubstance involvement among substance dependent patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 71(1), 65-75.

Griffiths, M.D. (1994). An exploratory study of gambling cross addictions. Journal of Gambling Studies, 10, 371-384.

Griffiths, M.D. (1996). Behavioural addictions: An issue for everybody? Journal of Workplace Learning, 8(3), 19-25.

Griffiths, M.D. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use, 10, 191-197.

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). The psychology of addictive behaviour. In: M. Cardwell, M., L. Clark, C. Meldrum & A. Waddely (Eds.), Psychology for A2 Level (pp. 236-471). London: Harper Collins.

Griffiths, M.D. (2017). The myth of ‘addictive personality’. Global Journal of Addiction and Rehabilitation Medicine, 3(2), 555610.

Hittner, J. B., & Swickert, R. (2006). Sensation seeking and alcohol use: A meta-analytic review. Addictive Behaviors, 31(8), 1383-1401.

Kerr, J. S. (1996). Two myths of addiction: The addictive personality and the issue of free choice. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 11(S1), S9-S13.

Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768-821.

MacLaren, V. V., Fugelsang, J. A., Harrigan, K. A., & Dixon, M. J. (2011). The personality of pathological gamblers: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 1057-1067.

Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Rooke, S. E., & Schutte, N. S. (2007). Alcohol involvement and the Five-Factor Model of personality: A meta-analysis. Journal of Drug Education, 37(3), 277-294.

Munafo, M. R., Zetteler, J. I., & Clark, T. G. (2007). Personality and smoking status: A meta-analysis. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 9(3), 405-413.

Nakken, C. (1996). The addictive personality: Understanding the addictive process and compulsive behaviour. Hazelden, Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Nathan, P. E. (1988). The addictive personality is the behavior of the addict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(2), 183-188.

Pols, R. G. (1984). The addictive personality: A myth. Australian Alcohol/Drug Review, 3(1), 45-47.

Sadava, S.W. (1978). Etiology, personality and alcoholism. Canadian Psychological Review/Psychologie Canadienne, 19(3), 198-214.

Szalavitz M (2016). Unbroken brain: A revolutionary new way of understanding addiction. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Szalavitz M (2016). Addictive personality isn’t what you think it is. Scientific American, April 5.

Story rebellion: A brief look at ‘news addiction’

Earlier this year, I was contacted by a BBC reporter asking me what the latest research on ‘news addiction’ was. I politely told him I was unaware of any such research and that if ‘news addiction’ existed, it would be more akin to ‘television addiction’ or ‘boxset bingeing’. About a month after that call, a paper on ‘news addiction’ was published in the Journal of the Dow University of Health Sciences Karachi by Pakistani psychologists Ghulam Ishaq, Rafia Rafique, and Muhammad Asif.

I have to admit that some might say I’m a bit of a ‘news junkie’. As soon as I get up in the morning or as soon as I come home from work I switch on the radio or television to listen to the news. However, I do not consider my love of listening to the news to be an addiction, and I suspect most people like me wouldn’t either. Of course, there are now other ways for individuals to get their ‘news fix’ including thousands of online news sites and via social media which is why Ishaq and his colleagues decided to look at the construct of ‘news addiction’. They claimed that:

“People are persuaded towards news. Similarly, engrossment of certain individuals in any domain from politics, sports, global issues, arson or terrorism can also promote news habituation or addiction and intensify inspection towards news. News addiction comes under the term behavioral-related behavior…When somebody interacts with news, this gives him/her satisfying feelings and sensations that he/she is not able to get in other ways. The reinforcement an individual gets from these feelings compels him to repeat their behavior to get these types of feelings and sensations repeatedly… eventually causing a disturbance in every sphere of life… individuals who are addicted to news feel themselves much obsessed to check the news in uncontrollable ways”.

Theoretically there is no reason why individuals cannot be addicted to reading and/or listening to the news as long as they are being constantly rewarded for their behaviour. In fact, the authors used some of my papers on behavioural addiction more generally to argue for the construct of ‘news addiction’ as a construct to be empirically investigated. In their study, Ishaq and colleagues wanted to examine the relationship between (the personality construct of) conscientiousness, neuroticism, self-control, and news addiction. Conscientiousness is a personality trait and refers to individuals who are orderly, careful, and well organised. Neuroticism is another major personality trait and refers to individuals who have high mental instability such as depression and high anxiety. The researchers hypothesised that there would be negative correlation between conscientiousness and news addiction, and that neuroticism would be positively correlated with news addiction.

To test their hypotheses, a survey was completed by 300 participants (aged 18 to 60 years; average age 39 years) from major cities of the Punjab (Lahore, Multan, Bahawalpur, Faisalabad, Sargodha). The authors developed their own 19-item News Addiction Scale (NAS) although the paper didn’t give any examples of any of the items in the NAS. They also administered the ‘Big Five Inventory’ (which assesses five major personality traits – Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism). The study found that the hypotheses were supported (i.e., news addiction was positively correlated with neuroticism and negatively correlated with conscientiousness. Previous literature has consistently shown that there is relationship between personality traits and behavioural addiction. The findings of this study are very similar to those more widely in the general literature for both substance and behavioural addictions (which also show most addictions have a low correlation with conscientiousness and a high correlation with neuroticism). The authors also argued that:

“(The findings show that) self-control plays an active role [in] refraining from the instant pleasure of impulse that would hinder with daily functioning and attainment goals…[The] current study findings demonstrated that self-control acts as a mediating variable between conscientiousness, neuroticism and news addiction”.

They also reported that females had higher scores on neuroticism and conscientiousness and that males had higher scores on the News Addiction Scale. The authors also claimed that there was much similarity between social media addiction (although provided no evidence for this except to say that they were both examples of behavioural addiction).

There was no mention at all in the paper about how their participants accessed their news. I access most (but certainly not all) of my news via television and therefore if I was watching an abnormal amount of news on the television, this would more likely be a sub-type of television addiction or a sub-type of television binge-watcher (both of which have been reported in the psychological literature). If someone addictively accessed all their news online or via social media, this could perhaps come under more general umbrella terms such as ‘internet addiction’ or ‘social media addiction’.

However, things are further complicated by the fact that ‘news’ can be defined in a number of ways. In the study by Ishaq and colleagues, news was defined as a “statement of specific information and facts and figures on any substantial event” but such a definition doesn’t take into account such things as political opinions and nor does it define what a ‘substantial event’ is. Given that this is the only study on news addiction that I am aware of, I’ll need a lot more research evidence before I am convinced that it really exists.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (1996). Behavioural addictions: An issue for everybody? Journal of Workplace Learning, 8(3), 19-25.

Griffiths, M.D.  (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use, 10, 191-197.

Ishaq, G., Rafique, R., & Asif, M. (2017). Personality traits and news addiction: Mediating role of self-control. Journal of Dow University of Health Sciences, 11(2), 31-53.

Orosz, G., Bőthe, B., & Tóth-Király, I. (2016). The development of the Problematic Series WatchingScale (PSWS). Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5(1), 144-150.

Orosz, G., Vallerand, R. J., Bőthe, B., Tóth-Király, I., & Paskuj, B. (2016). On the correlates of passion for screen-based behaviors: The case of impulsivity and the problematic and non-problematic Facebook use and TV series watching. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 167-176.

Sussman, S., & Moran, M.B. (2013). Hidden addiction: Television. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(3), 125-132.

Walton-Pattison, E., Dombrowski, S.U. & Presseau, J. (2017). ‘Just one more episode’: Frequency and theoretical correlates of television binge watching. Journal of Health Psychology, doi:1359105316643379

Tech it or leave it: Excessive email use and how to curb it

If there is a single behaviour in my life that borders on the pathological, it is the urge I feel to log on and check my emails. When I have no email access (such as when I am on a plane or am on holiday staying at a foreign beachside villa with no Wi-Fi) I function perfectly well but as soon as I know there is a Wi-Fi connection, the first thing I typically do is check my emails. It’s like an itch that I have to scratch. Given that the vast majority of my emails are work-related I don’t necessarily see this as problematic (as I love my work) but it does admittedly facilitate my workaholic tendencies. The psychology and psychosocial impact of email use is also an area that I have published a few articles and book chapters on (see ‘Further reading’ below).

The reason I mention all this is that earlier this month, many of the British newspapers featured a story about how turning off automatic emails helps reduce stress levels. The survey study of just under 2,000 individuals was carried out by psychologists at the Future Work Centre (FWC) and examined the impact of ‘email pressure’ on individuals’ work-life balance. The report noted that there were “2.5 billion email users worldwide, and adults spent an average of over an hour of each day on emails, according to Radicati and Ofcom”. The FWC’s main findings (which I have taken verbatim from the report) highlighted:

• A strong relationship between using ‘push’ email and perceived email pressure. This means that people who automatically receive email on their devices were more likely to report higher perceived email pressure.
• People who leave their email on all day were much more likely to report perceived email pressure.
• Checking email earlier in the morning or later at night is associated with higher levels of perceived email pressure.
• Managers experience significantly higher levels of perceived email pressure when compared to non-managers.
• Higher email pressure was associated with more examples of work negatively impacting home life and home life negatively impacting performance at work.
• Perceived email pressure is significantly higher in people with caring responsibilities. This finding is probably less of a surprise, as the work-life balance research literature is full of examples citing the challenges facing carers when it comes to navigating the boundaries between work and home. Interestingly, our data didn’t reveal any significant differences between people with different caring responsibilities. It seems that just having these responsibilities is associated with significantly higher email pressure.
• Personality appears to moderate the relationship between perceived email pressure and work-life balance. People who rate their own ability and sense of control over their environment lower find that work interferes more with their home life, and vice versa.

Clearly the benefits of email outweigh the disadvantages but as the FWC report noted, emails are a “double-edged sword” in that that they are clearly a useful communication tool but can be a source of stress. The report concluded that:

“[The results of the study] link perceptions of email pressure to actual work-life balance outcomes, not just perceptions of work-life balance. But that’s not the end of the story. Whilst we’ve identified the external factors that affect our perceived email pressure and explored the relationship between perceived email pressure and work-life balance, there’s another variable we should consider in order to increase our understanding of an individual’s experience of email – personality…Personality moderates the relationship between perceived email pressure and all work-life balance outcomes. It shows that people with low core self-evaluation experience more interference, both positive and negative, between their work and home lives – i.e. they are more sensitive to how the two domains – work and home – affect each other. This could be due to how people with low core self-evaluation make sense of their world. People with high core self-evaluation don’t see these things as happening to them – they can take control and set boundaries”.

The report also provided some tips to combat email stress many of which can be found in other articles examining the topic. For instance, back in 2004, I published my own set of tips in the British Medical Journal (not that I follow my own advice based on what I said in the opening paragraph of this article). However, I’ll end this blog with my (hopefully) common-sense and practical advice:

• Set retrieval limits: Limit email retrieval to a few times per day (say when you first get in, lunchtime, and/or just before you leave work). You will spend less time both reading and responding to each email than if you had read them when they individually came in.
• Turn off instant messaging system: There is a tendency to look at emails straight away if the instant messaging system is turned on. This is only helpful when you are expecting a message.
• Get a good spam filter: There is nothing worse than an inbox full of junk mail so invest in a good filter system.
• Use your ‘auto delete’ button: If there are constant junk emails that you get most days then use the ‘auto delete’ button to avoid them appearing in your inbox.
• Develop a good filing system: The setting up of a good email filing system is paramount in keeping on top of your emails. This is no different to the desktop management system on your computer. You can put unread messages into appropriate folders to read at a later time and reducing the size of your inbox. A good filing system also aids in retrieving important emails at a later date.
• Reply and file: Once you have replied to an email either delete it immediately or file it away in a separate email folder.
• Use your ‘out of office’ assistant facility: This will help reduce the repeated emails from the same people asking “Did you get my earlier email?” Once people know you are unavailable for a given time period they may not send the email in the first place.
• Print out hard copies of really important e-mails: There is always a chance that emails can get lost or accidentally deleted. If it is really important, print a hard copy straight away and file it.
• Be selective in who you respond to: When responding to an email sent to a group, don’t necessarily reply to all the group. This will cut down on the number of potential replies.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33, 309-327.

Future Work Centre (2015). You’ve got mail: Research Report 2015. London: Future Work Centre. Located at: http://www.futureworkcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FWC-Youve-got-mail-research-report.pdf

Giumetti, G.W., Hatfield, A.L., Scisco, J. L., Schroeder,
A.N., Muth, E.R., & Kowalski, R. M. (2013).
What a rude email! Examining the differential effects of incivility versus support on mood, energy, engagement, and performance in an online context. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 297-309.

Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Hey! Wait, just a minute, Mister Postman: The joy of e-mail. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 8, 373.

Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Tips on…Managing your e-mails. British Medical Journal Careers, 329, 240.

Griffiths, M.D. & Dennis, F. (2000). How to beat techno-stress. Independent on Sunday (Reality section), May 7, p.22.

Sutton, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Emails with unintended criminal consequences. The Criminal Lawyer, 130, 6-8.

Sutton, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Emails with unintended consequences: New lessons for policy and practice in work, public office and private life. In P. Hills (Ed.). As Others See Us: Selected Essays In Human Communication (pp. 160-182). Dereham: Peter Francis Publishers.

Ng, K. (2016). Turn off automatic email updates to ease stress, psychologists advise. The Independent, January 5. Located at: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/turn-off-automatic-email-updates-to-ease-stress-psychologists-advise-a6794826.html

Radicati, S. & Levenstein, J. (2014). Email Statistics Report, 2014-2018. Located at: http://www.radicati.com/?p=10644

Leader’s digest: A brief psychological profile of Adolf Hitler

Over the last few weeks I have been watching the television series The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler (here in the UK’s BBC2). Not only am I psychologically fascinated with one of the world’s most infamous dictators, but I’m also interested in the concept of ‘charisma’ (a topic on which I have actually carried out some research with Dr. Mark Shevlin, Dr. Mark Davies and Phil Banyard within academic settings – see ‘Further reading’ section below). I’ve also made reference to Hitler’s alleged sexually paraphilic behaviour in my previous blog on coprophilia (and I am going to cover this as a separate blog in the coming months).

In 2007, Dr. Frederick Coolidge (along with Felicia Davis, and Dr. Daniel Segal) published a paper in the journal Individual Differences Research examining the psychological profile of Adolf Hitler. The study was based on Davis’ Master’s thesis research and attempted to posthumously investigate Hitler’s personality. As Coolidge and his colleagues note: “The name Adolf Hitler conjures-up images of a madman in power, Nazi concentration camps in Germany and Europe, and an evil of such magnitude that millions of Jewish people and others were subjected to unimaginable torture, terror and death”. The paper also made references to previous psychological profiles of Hitler. For instance, they summarized the work of psychoanalysts Dr. Walter Langer and Dr. Henry Murray who both assessed Hitler for the US Office of Strategic Services during World War II:

“Using sources only available up until 1943, Langer diagnosed Hitler as a neurotic bordering on psychotic with a messiah complex, masochistic tendencies, strong sexual perversions, and a high likelihood of homosexuality. He also stated that Hitler had many schizophrenic tendencies and that the most plausible outcome for Hitler would be that he would commit suicide…Murray thought Hitler exhibited all the classic symptoms of schizophrenia including paranoia and hypersensitivity, panic attacks, irrational jealousy, and delusions of persecution, omnipotence, megalomania, and ‘messiahship’. Murray also thought Hitler was extremely paranoid and suffered from hysterical dissociation”.

The paper also makes reference to the work of Dr. J.D. Mayer published in a 1993 issue of the Journal of Psychhistory. Mayer proposed something he called ‘dangerous leader disorder’ and compared six world leaders (Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, and George Bush Sr.) on three major categories:

“(1) indifference, manifested by murdering rivals, members of one’s family, citizens, and genocide, (2) intolerance, manifested by censoring the press, secret police, and condoning torture, and (3) grandiosity, manifested by seeing oneself as a ‘uniter’ of people, increases in military and overestimation of military power, identification with religion/nationalism, and promulgating a grand plan…He found, of course, that Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein all met far more of the criteria than their counterparts, although a ‘promulgating plan’ was characteristic of all six leaders”.

The study by Coolidge and colleagues used the “informant version of the Coolidge Axis II Inventory (CATI)” that assesses personality, and clinical/neuropsychological disorders. The CATI was completed by five historians (all of who were experts on Hitler – “academicians who had published books or articles about Hitler were chosen to evaluate Hitler”) and the inter-rater reliability between the responses of the five of them was high. The authors’ hypothesized (before the experts filled out the CATI) that Hitler would be diagnosed with schizophrenia (paranoid type). They noted that:

“This hypothesis was based upon his frequent preoccupation with delusions of persecution (e.g., by his disapproving father, those unwilling to recognize his ‘talents’, and Jewish protagonists), and grandiosity (e.g., fantasies of unlimited success and recognition, his “prophesies”, etc.), hisearly academic / interpersonal / occupational dysfunction, [and] his extremely virulent and paranoiac delusions about Jews”.

The CATI is actually a whole battery of tests. Rather than miss anything out, the following paragraph sets out in detail everything that the authors included:

“The CATI is a 225-item self-report inventory with each item assessed on a 4-point true-false Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly false, (2) more false than true, (3) more true than false, to (4) strongly true. The CATI measures 12 personality disorders in DSM-IV and 2 personality disorders from DSM-III-R (self-defeating and sadistic). The CATI also measures selected Axis I disorders (e.g., Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Schizophrenia [with a Psychotic Thinking subscale] and Social Phobia [with a Withdrawal subscale]). The CATI also has a scale for the assessment of general neuropsychological dysfunction (with three subscales assessing Memory and Concentration Problems, Language Dysfunction, and Neurosomatic Complaints). The CATI also has an 18-item scale measuring executive function deficits of the frontal lobes (with three subscales assessing Decision-Making Difficulties, Planning Problems, and Task Completion Difficulties). There are five scales measuring personality change due to a general medical condition. They are Emotional Lability, Disinhibition, Aggression, Apathy, and Paranoia. There are three hostility scales measuring Anger, Dangerousness, and Impulsiveness. Finally, there is one non-clinical scale on the CATI measuring Introversion-Extroversion. In addition, critical items are included to assess drug and alcohol abuse, and sexual identity and orientation”.

The authors acknowledged that such clinical diagnoses should ideally be done face-to-face but given that Hitler died in 1945 this was not possible. The authors also note that the length of time since his death means that the number of people who are still alive and had social interactions with Hitler are very few. However, all of the expert informants had at least interviewed people who had known Hitler personally.

The results of the study found that on Axis I, the highest meanscores were for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Psychotic Thinking and Schizophrenia. On Axis II, the highest meanscores were Paranoid Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Sadistic Personality Disorder. In short, the hypothesis that Hitler would be classed as a schizophrenic was broadly supported (although other personality disorders scored more highly). The findings suggested there was little or no evidence for neuropsychological dysfunction. They also noted:

“It could, of course, be questioned whether someone with a schizophrenic disorder could rise to such a high position of power and control of others, given that schizophrenia is generally such a debilitating disease, particularly socially and occupationally. However, there are other documented cases of murderous schizophrenic persons who have had extraordinary influence on groups of others (e.g., Charles Manson, James Jones, etc.)”.

There are of course many limitations to the study including the reliance on expert opinion and small sample size. The authors also added that another limitation was the possibility of the five raters focusing on Hitler’s later life as opposed to his life before he became Germany’s Chancellor. Finally, the authors concluded that:

“The prediction, understanding, and control of such individuals’ behaviors could benefit generations. As Mayer (1993) has noted, there are international citizens’ groups that monitor human rights. Perhaps, an international group of mental health professionals could identify, assess, and monitor the activities of dangerous current world leaders, and the analysis of previous dangerous leaders, such as Hitler, might be a fruitful place to begin”.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Coolidge, F., Davis, F. & Segal, D. (2007). Understanding Madmen: A DSM-IV Assessment of Adolf Hitler. Individual Differences Research, 5(1), 30-43.

Coolidge, F., & Segal, D. (2007). Was Saddam Hussein Like Adolf Hitler? A Personality Disorder Investigation Military Psychology, 19 (4), 289-299.

Coolidge, F., & Segal, D. (2009). Is Kim Jong‐il like Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler? A personality disorder evaluation Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 1 (3), 195-202.

Langer, W.C. (1972). The Mind of Adolf Hitler. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Mayer, J.D. (1993). The emotional madness of the dangerous leader. Journal of Psychohistory, 20, 331-348.

Murray, H.A. (1943/2005). Analysis of the personality of Adolf Hitler with predictions of his future behavior and suggestions for dealing with him now and after Germany’s surrender. A report prepared for the Office of Strategic Services, October 1943. Located at: http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/hitler

Shevlin, M., Banyard, P., Davies, M.N.O.  & Griffiths, M.D. (2000). The validity of student evaluations in higher education: Love me, love my lectures? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 397-405.

Shevlin, M., Banyard, P., Davies, M.N.O.  & Griffiths, M.D. (2004). The validity of student evaluations in higher education: Love me, love my lectures. In M. Tight (Ed.), The Routledge Falmer Reader Reader in Higher Education. pp.99-107.  London: Routledge.

Is there a “gambling personality”?

One of the more interesting research avenues in the psychology of gambling is whether there might be a unique “gambling personality”, that is, a trait-cluster that marks out the gambler as a risk taker. One of the problems with this whole area of research is that personality is a hypothetical construct that isn’t easy to define. However, most psychologists would probably agree that a person’s personality centres on the distinctive and characteristic patterns of thought, emotion and behaviour that define their personal style, and influence their interactions with the environment. The use of psychometric tests in research on gamblers has not been particularly promising. Most research has been carried out on three personality dimensions – ‘sensation-seeking’, ‘extroversion’ and ‘locus of control’.

The American psychologist Marvin Zuckerman defined sensation-seeking as the “need for varied, novel and complex sensations and experiences, and the willingness to take physical and social risks for the sake of such experience.” This should mean that gamblers are higher than non-gamblers on sensation-seeking measures. However, studies in this area have provided contrasting results with some studies supporting the theory, some studies showing no difference between gamblers and non-gamblers, and others showing gamblers to be lower on sensation-seeking than non-gamblers!

In studies on extraversion, the findings have again proved contradictory. Since extraverts are highly sociable, crave excitement, and enjoy noisy and active environments the theory is that gamblers are more likely to be extraverted. Although some studies have indeed found gamblers to be more extraverted than control groups, other studies have found gamblers to have lower extraversion scores or have found no difference.

One personality trait that has received more consistent findings is that of locus of control. This personality trait refers to a person’s perception of how their own efforts effect events. For instance, ‘internal’ individuals attribute their experiences to their own actions whereas ‘external’ individuals attribute their experiences to chance. Research has shown that ‘internal’ individuals gamble more persistently when chasing losses because they believe all that is required is an increase in concentration and an overall improved effort in order to win. However, one of the problems with research into locus of control is that we do not know the direction of causality, that is, whether their particular locus of control preceded the gambling, or whether the gambling preceded their locus of control.

So why are there so few consistent results surrounding personality and gambling? One of the most obvious answers is that gambling is multi-faceted and not a unitary phenomenon. Treating all forms of gambling as equivalent in terms of underlying psychology, personality or motivation may cloud the issue rather than clarify it. For instance, can we really say that a regular lottery player has similar underlying psychology to a regular slot machine player? Is an online poker player similar to a roulette gambler? Of course not – and that is one of the reasons for inconsistent findings. Psychologists have tended to clump gamblers together as if they were a unified and homogenous group of people.

In addition, demographic differences – such as age, gender, and culture – may produce very different findings in motivation to gamble. For instance, an adult horserace gambler cannot be easily compared to an adolescent slot machine player; a male sports gambler cannot be easily compared to a female bingo player; and slot machine players in the UK cannot necessarily be compared to slot machine players in the US. What’s more, each individual gambling activity has its own unique structural differences. For instance, gambling can be differentiated in terms of stake size, time gap between each gamble, skill level, prize structures, size of jackpot etc. Each of these differences may have implications for the gambler’s motivations and the interplay between personality and the individual gambling activity.

It would appear from this brief overview that the usefulness and the value of psychometric-based personality studies remain doubtful. The notion that gamblers possess a unique set of variables or traits is a naive over-simplification and appears to be a fruitless direction for research. Gambling is complex and multidimensional, and personality factors are too ‘global’ to serve as the single cause. Research into gambling is still at a relatively early stage, and it is clear that a person’s gambling behaviour results from an interaction between many different variables including environmental, social, psychological and biological.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Benson, L., Norman, C. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). The role of impulsivity, sensation seeking, coping, and year of study in student gambling: A pilot study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, DOI 10.1007/s11469-011-9326-5.

McDaniel, S., & Zuckerman, M. (2003). The relationship of impulsive sensation seeking and gender to interest and participation in gambling activities. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1385-1400.

Myrseth, H., Pallesen, S., Molde, H., Johnsen, B. & Lorvik, I. (2009) Personality factors as predictors of pathological gambling. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 933-937.

Parke, A., Griffiths, M.D. & Irwing, P. (2004). Personality traits in pathological gambling: Sensation seeking, deferment of gratification and competitiveness as risk factors, Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 201-212.

Wagenaar, W.A. (1988). Paradoxes of Gambling Behaviour. Erlbaum, London.

Zuckerman, M. (2005) Faites vos jeux anouveau: Still another look at sensation seeking and pathological gambling. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 361-365.