Does the Dark Triad Manifest Similarly in men and Women? Measurement Invariance of the Dirty Dozen across sex
The Dark Triad is a constellation of three socially undesirable personality traits: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Previous research has shown that men tend to score higher than women on Dark Triad scales, but the validity of these results is questionable as there is no evidence that the scales used exhibit measurement invariance across sex in the adult population. Here, we report four studies assessing the measurement invariance across sex of a recently developed, concise measure of the Dark Triad, namely Jonason and Webster's (2010) Dirty Dozen (DD). As no validated Italian version of the DD was available, we developed an Italian version and assessed its psychometric properties. Studies 1 to 3 revealed that the Italian DD had adequate psychometric properties, and replicated the three-factor structure and the nomological network of the original version. Study 4 provided evidence of the measurement invariance of the DD across sex, such that men scored higher than women with respect to psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and, to a lesser extent, narcissism. These findings indicate that the DD can be used to provide reliable assessments of sex differences in Dark Triad traits. Furthermore, the results of sex comparisons are consistent with a biosocial approach to social role theory that assumes that being agentic rather than communal is considered desirable for men and undesirable for women.
KeywordsDark triad Measurement invariance Sex differences Machiavellianism Psychopathy Narcissism
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
All procedures performed in the studies were in accordance with the Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (American Psychological Association 2010), with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx.
- Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI-2: Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(4), 638–656. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.09.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., De Carlo, N. A., & Robusto, E. (Eds.). (2006). Multidimensional personality profile. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
- Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Donà, G., Micheluzzi, F., & Boaretto, M. (2006). La dimensione strutturale del test MMPI-2: monofattoriale o multifattoriale? Un’analisi quantitativa e qualitativa dei fattori significativi [MMPI-2 structural dimension: monofactorial or multifactorial? Quantitative and qualitative analysis of significant factors]. Giornale Italiano di Psicopatologia, 12, 293–302.Google Scholar
- First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis II personality disorders, (SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc..Google Scholar
- Fossati, A., & Borroni, S. (2008a). Versione italiana del narcissistic personality inventory [Italian version of the narcissistic personality inventory]. In C. Maffei (Ed.), Borderline (pp. 387–413). Milano: Raffaello Cortina.Google Scholar
- Fossati, A., & Borroni, S. (2008b). Versione italiana dell’Aggression questionnaire [Italian version of the aggression questionnaire]. In C. Maffei (Ed.), Borderline (pp. 279–307). Milano: Raffaello Cortina.Google Scholar
- John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory-versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.Google Scholar
- Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Teicher, E. A. (2010a). Who is James bond?: The dark triad as an agentic social style. Individual Differences Research, 8(2), 111–112.Google Scholar
- Jonason, P. K., Baughman, H. M., Carter, G. L., & Parker, P. (2015). Dorian Gray without his portrait: Psychological, social, and physical health costs associated with the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 5–13. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.008
- Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93–108). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Differentiating the dark triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz & S. N. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal theory and research (pp. 249–267). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Klimstra, T. A., Sijtsema, J. J., Henrichs, J., & Cima, M. (2014). The dark triad of personality in adolescence: Psychometric properties of a concise measure and associations with adolescent adjustment from a multi-informant perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 84–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2005). The self-report assessment of psychopathy. Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107–132). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78(5), 1529–1564. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.201.0066.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd..Google Scholar
- Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Pancheri, P., & Sirigatti, S. (Eds.). (1995). MMPI-2 - Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory - 2. Manuale. Firenze: Giunti O.S.Google Scholar
- Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In D. N. Jackson & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Paulhus, D. L., Hemphill, J. F., & Hare, R. D. (2009). Manual for the self-report psychopathy scale (SRP-III). Toronto: Mulit-Health Systems.Google Scholar
- Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. doi: 10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1683.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Prezza, M., Trombaccia, F. R., & Armento, L. (1997). La scala dell’autostima di Rosenberg: traduzione e validazione italiana [The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Italian translation and validation]. Bollettino Di Psicologia Applicata, 223, 35–44.Google Scholar
- Ray, J. V., Hall, J., Rivera-Hudson, N., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Morano, M. (2013). The relation between self-reported psychopathic traits and distorted response styles: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1037/a0026482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Revelle, W. (2015). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version = 1.5.4.
- Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (personnel research section. Report no. 984). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Ubbiali, A., Chiorri, C., Hampton, P., & Donati, D. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Italian adaptation of the big five inventory (BFI). Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 266, 37–48.Google Scholar
- Webster, G. D., & Jonason, P. K. (2013). Putting the “IRT” in “dirty”: Item response theory analyses of the dark triad dirty dozen-an efficient measure of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 302–306. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., & Sawalani, G. M. (2011). On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. In K. H. Trzesniewski, M. B. Donnellan, & R. E. Lucas (Eds.), Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists (pp. 39–61). Washington: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/12350-003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In J. M. Olson & P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.46) (pp. 55–123). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar