A quick search on "psychology of con men" came up with this web site. Although its focus is on current day crime frauds.. I think lots can be gleaned from it with relevance to Smith's motivations and personality type.
From t r e n d s & i s s u e s
No. 199
The Psychology of Fraud
Grace Duffield and Peter Grabosky
in crime and criminal justice
March 2001
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti199.pdf
or
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:F6y ... =clnk&cd=1
I've taken only some selected portions and bolded some text.
Psychological Factors in Fraud
At first glance, a psychological explanation for fraud would appear simple—greed and
dishonesty. Such an explanation is, however, overly simplistic.There are many in society who are aggressively acquisitive but generally law abiding. Moreover, not all dishonest people commit fraud. To date, behavioural scientists have been unable to identify a psychological
characteristic that serves as a valid and reliable marker of the propensity of an individual to
commit fraud.
Common Elements of Motivation
for Fraud
Explanations based on financial strain feature in almost every type of fraudulent activity. This may arise from imprudence, misfortune or a combination of the two. Of course, financial strain is a very subjective thing. Even those of above-average affluence
may feel economically deprived in comparison to what they perceive to be their relevant
standard. At times, “keeping up with the Jones’s” may require other than lawful conduct. Simply put, this comes down to the desire to possess what one cannot afford, even when true financial deprivation may not exist.
Inherent in this is an element of ego in which there is a
comparison with others who are better off and a desire to match that standard in terms of lifestyle, comfort and material possessions.
Financial strain may also arise from the threat of loss of something currently owned. For
example, high-flying entrepreneurs may encounter adverse business conditions that
place them in a position of acute financial vulnerability and threaten the empire that they
have built for themselves.
The threat of loss here is not only of material wealth but also of power,status and pride.
Another aspect of motivation that may apply to some or all types of fraud is ego/power. Thiscan relate to power over people as well as power over situations. In terms of the former, the sensation of power over another individual or individuals seems to be a strong motivating force for some fraud offenders to the point that itbecomes an end in itself. As one
confidence man put it: For myself, I love to make people do what I want them to, I love
command. I love to rule people. That’s why I’m a con artist.
(quoted in Blum 1972, p. 46)
In manipulating and making fools of their victims, some fraud perpetrators seem to take a
contemptuous delight in the act itself rather than simply theoutcome. As Stotland (1977)
points out:
…sometimes individuals’ motivation for crime may have originally been relative
deprivation, greed, threat to continued goal attainment and so forth. However, as they found
themselves successful at this crime, they began to gain some secondary delight in the knowledge that they are fooling the world, that they are showing their superiority to others. (pp. 186–7)
Similar to the sense of superiority over others is the gratification obtained from mastery of a situation. This may be particularly prevalent in more complex, long-term fraud and computer fraud where specialist skills are required.
It also reflects the professional pride of the confidence artist. The following quotation illustrates the thrill of the chase.
Half of being a con man is the challenge. When I score, I get more kick out of that than
anything; to score is the biggest kick of my whole life. (quoted in Blum 1972, p. 44)
Stotland (1977) calls this motivation “ego challenge” (p. 188) and it relates to the sense of mastery and excitement in meeting and overcoming challenges. As he points out, some fraud
perpetrators work very hard at their trade, so they are not in it for an “easy buck”.
Another general psychological aspect of fraud is the process of rationalisation which reduces the offender’s inhibition. Such attempts at prospective excuse have been termed “techniques of neutralisation” (Sykes & Matza 1957). There has been a tendency
in the literature to confuse motivation with neutralisation, but they differ in important ways.
Motivation is what drives the act of fraud, while neutralisation paves the way by nullifying
internal moral objections.
Regardless of the type of fraud, most offenders seem to seek to justify or rationalise their activity. In doing so they will use “vocabularies of adjustment” (Cressey 1953, 1986; Krambia-
Kapardis 2001) that manufacture rationale and extenuating circumstances and remove the
perception of criminality from the act (at least from the point of view of the perpetrator).
Techniques of neutralisation will vary with the type of fraud (Benson 1985).
Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders
,
narcissistic personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. Individuals with this disorder
believe that they are superior, unique and “chosen”, and they are likely to have inflated views of their own accomplishments and abilities. They focus on how well they are doing in comparison with others, and this can take the form of an excessive need for
attention and admiration. A sense of entitlement is evident and they expect to be given whatever they want regardless of the imposition it places on others. In the
workplace these people tend to overwork others.
They demand unquestioning loyalty and are incredulous or infuriated when it is not forthcoming. They are likely to respond angrily to
criticism (DSM-IV Task Force
1994, pp. 658–9).
Perhaps most relevant to fraud offences is the tendency of the narcissistic personality to usurp special privileges and extra resources that they feel they have an entitlement
to, over and above ordinary people.
Due to their ambition, confidence and ruthlessness in dealing with others, the
narcissistic personality may be a high achiever in their chosen field of endeavour.
However, it can be argued that the presence of narcissistic personality traits increases the
risk of fraud on the part of an individual through the attitudes they manifest, their leadership
style and the environment that they seek out.
The direct person-to-person deception of another individual can involve utter ruthlessness.
This may take such extreme forms as the person who takes a widow into his or her confidence and leaves her penniless.
Offenders of this type may manifest a number
of traits including lack of affection or empathy, lack of remorse and a general lack of conventional conscience. Such individuals are also likely to enjoy acting, as acting skills are advantageous, if not essential, to the deception inherent in face-to-face fraud.
Beyond this, skills in salesmanship and sociability are also helpful to the “con artist”.
One notes that some of the same qualities that facilitate fraud are also integral to successful
commercial activity of a legitimate nature.
What Blum uncovered in his sample is a strong thread of antisocial personality disorder.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
antisocial personality
disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of the rights of, others. This basically refers to a lack of social conscience and conventional morality. These personalities
frequently deceive, exploit and manipulate others in order to achieve personal gain (for
example, money, sex or power). A pattern of impulsivity is often apparent in all aspects of their lives and there is a special attraction to risk-taking, thrill- seeking and gambling. These
individuals show no genuine remorse for their actions. The superficial justifications that they
offer for having hurt others resemble the neutralisations that were discussed earlier. They
blame their victims for being stupid or deserving of their fate, they minimise the harmful
consequences of their actions or they may simply display an arrogant indifference. They are also likely to believe that it is a “dog-eat-dog” world and everyone is out for number one
(DSM-IV Task Force 1994,