(By Joe Koletar<\/a>) We usually find it both normal and charming for a young child to make up an imaginary friend they may play with and even talk to. There comes a time, however, when little boys discard their \u201csuper-hero\u201d costumes, and little girls discard their tin-foil \u201cprincess\u201d tiaras.<\/p>\n Such behavior can frequently carry over into adulthood, especially among women, who use chemicals to alter the natural color of their hair or contours and complexion of their face. (In fairness to women, men seem to be catching up, especially in the realm of elective cosmetic surgery.) Women actually call such products \u201cmake up,\u201d and many are quite skilled at using these techniques.<\/p>\n All of this is, within reason, well and good, but its character changes when we enter the realm of fraud. Those inclined toward unethical behavior seem to have a habit of \u201cmaking up\u201d an alternate persona \u2013 usually that of the kind, honest, giving, and trustworthy person. Consideration of such behavior brings us to an interesting point of analysis.<\/p>\n Is the new \u201cpersona\u201d merely an artificial lure to draw in more victims, or is it deeper in terms of the individual psychology of the perpetrator? It is merely useful, or is it necessary? (The two options may actually be quite closely related.)<\/p>\n The fraudulent person often is generous in supporting good and worthy causes, but they rarely do so in private. (No anonymous donors here.) They get public recognition, media attention and, down the line, \u201ccharacter\u201d references when they come up for sentencing. (Now, the fact that they did these good deeds with stolen money seems to be frequently overlooked, but that is another story.) Charity fraud and affinity fraud are pretty common, because the victims are emotionally vulnerable and therefore gullible. It\u2019s been written that \u201cA funny thing happens when a person with money<\/em> meets a person with experience<\/em>: The person with the experience<\/em> ends up with all the money<\/em> and the person with the money<\/em> ends up with all the experience<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n But, what psychology drives such behavior? Is it purely utilitarian (\u201cbait,\u201d) or is there another element at play? One might wish to consider the worth of Leon Festinger regarding what he termed \u201ccognitive dissonance\u201d theory. The concept is somewhat simple. People who do bad things often have a psychological need to try to \u201cbalance\u201d such actions with good actions, so they feel better about themselves. (Think of Robin Hood, and you may be getting close.) Colleague Daven Morrison points out that narcissism (a maladaptive need to make oneself the center of attention) may be involved. Or the \u201cAs-If\u201d personality, where it\u2019s hard to find the real person because of the illusions created by airs and affectations. Both types of issues can be found in damaged people who are insecure in themselves.<\/p>\n For those with an interest in fraudulent behavior, it is a challenging, and often murky, road to explore. Recognize the road surface, but take time to examine the murky psychological road-bed beneath it. That road-bed can be explored in A.B.C.s of Behavioral Forensics<\/a><\/em> (Wiley, 2013).<\/p>\n Copyright \u2013 2015
\nJoseph W. Koletar<\/p>\n