Senior Fellow Kevin A. Hassett

The untimely death of Anna Nicole Smith is the latest in a long list of celebrity tragedies. Why are famous people so often hit by misfortune? The clear answer is they indulge disproportionately in destructive behavior. While the exact cause of Smith's death is still unknown, her life was sadly typical of our modern celebrity culture.

From Dennis Rodman to Lindsay Lohan to Paris Hilton, traditional boundaries of public behavior seem a thing of the past. Why do celebrities tend to be such boors? A study by Clemson University economist Todd Kendall sheds fascinating new light on the question.

Kendall considers a number of competing economic theories of boorishness. The first, the "Beautiful Mind" theory, is that people who perhaps genetically disregard norms are more likely to have a creative impact. These same people might well behave more poorly than a typical conformist.

Alternatively, it might be that high income makes an individual insensitive to the normal disciplines of society. A third possibility is that celebrities tend to be young, and youths are much more likely to indulge in destructive conduct. Finally, it might be that individuals who can't be easily replaced tend to be the misfits.

Practical experience suggests that the last explanation may be the best. Janitorial workers, Kendall argues, tend to perform tasks that require little training. On the other hand, it can be next to impossible to find an individual capable of successfully keeping your company's computer network up and running. Casual observation suggests that janitorial workers are more pleasant than computer specialists.

Perhaps this is because computer specialists, being so hard to replace, know they can get away with quirky behavior.

Notorious NBA

To establish which explanation of bad behavior works best, Kendall gathered data from the National Basketball Association. Players in that league have been notorious for their rude and at times even criminal behavior. Fights on the court, brutish fouls, and even rape have been in the news in recent years. Kendall set out to discover which players behave the worst.

The NBA is a fine place to test these competing theories. Its players are young, have high incomes and guaranteed contracts. There is also significant variation in ability. Some players, like Kobe Bryant of the Lakers, have such preternaturally special skills that they fundamentally change the competitive level of their team. Others play their positions adequately, yet could be easily replaced. Do the irreplaceable stars tend to misbehave more?

Rodman, Barkley

To find out, Kendall gathered data on unsportsmanlike "technical" fouls for many years. He then performed a statistical analysis to identify what set the bad boys apart. While Kendall analyzed behavior across the entire population, his list of the worst offenders is a Who's Who of sportsmanship's greatest embarrassments, including such players as Rodman, Charles Barkley and Rasheed Wallace.

The results were striking. Income matters, but substitutability appears to matter more. If you want to know who will be a bad actor, look to a player's salary rank on a team. The player with the highest salary will behave the worst.

If you have two identical players, one who makes $10 million and is the third-highest-paid player on a team, and another who makes $10 million and is the highest paid on his team, the latter will behave much worse. The fellow with the top salary believes he cannot be replaced and abandons self control.

Bad News

For the NBA, these results are very bad news. When the player with the top salary on each team behaves boorishly, it is highly visible and will have an enormous impact on the image of the league. Since unusual athletic ability is so rare, it is hard to imagine what NBA management can do to fix the problem.

But as far as celebrity in general is concerned, Kendall's results might actually be good news. Because of blogs, YouTube, and the proliferation of many different types of media, it's probably the case that the substitutability of celebrities is increasing over time. In the old days, the Hollywood film studios decided who we should all pay attention to, and those stars could act any way they wanted.

Today, the process is much more democratic, and hundreds, if not thousands, of entertainment choices compete for our attention. If we become offended by stories of celebrity excess, we can much more easily tune them out. A Tara Reid or a Jim Carrey can more easily be replaced.

Tales of Adultery

Tabloids will always be able to sell more copies if they fill their headlines with tales of adultery and drug abuse, just as newspapers sell more when disaster strikes. There is undoubtedly a certain human fascination with train wrecks.

But people with movies to make and television shows to produce understand how easy it is for their customers to tune them out. Just as coworkers discipline a fellow who makes the workplace unpleasant, customers' dislike of miscreants reduces sales.

People who know they can't be replaced behave the worst. As society becomes more fluid, everybody can be replaced. That will improve the general level of public conduct, even among celebrities.

Kevin A. Hassett is a senior fellow and director of economic policy studies at AEI.