Dark Triad traits and their structure: An empirical approach

Open Access
Article

Abstract

In the present research we investigated the structure of the Dark Triad of personality. On the basis of analyses performed on a broad spectrum of different items from different measures of traits usually included into the Dark Triad we provided support for the ideas that: (1) narcissism and the Dark Dyad are independent constructs; (2) it is possible to differentiate twelve meaningful dark facets in the pool of dark items from various measure of psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism; (3) these facets could be organized within a hierarchical structure, which suggests that Machiavellianism as it is currently measured is an aspect of psychopathy in a similar manner as exhibitionism is an aspect of narcissism; (4) distinguished facets are organized in a theoretically predictable pattern of relations with basic personality traits and values, just as narcissism and the Dark Dyad are related to personality metatraits and higher order values.

Keywords

Dark triad Personality traits Values 

The Dark Triad of personality is a constellation of three socially aversive personality traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy; Paulhus and Williams 2002). Although research on the Dark Triad is flourishing (Furnham et al. 2013), little is known about the structure of the Dark Triad. As according to the Paulhus and Williams (2002), the Dark Triad traits were selected not on the basis of stringent criteria, but because they shared some commonalities such as social aversion, self-promotion, emotional coldness, and aggressiveness. Such a choice may be seen as intuitive but not exhaustive, which resulted in controversies on the number of dark traits within the constellation – are they the Dark Dyad, Triad, Tetrad or even a Tent?

The concept of the Dark Dyad assumes that Machiavellianism and psychopathy are closely related to each other and could be even treated as two facets of one construct. This hypothesis found support in different studies, where narcissism was least correlated, excluded from the models, and with different criterion validity (Egan et al. 2014; Kowalski et al. 2016; Petrides et al. 2011; Rogoza and Cieciuch 2017). Exclusion of narcissism reflects the idea that psychopathy and Machiavellianism are closely related as psychopathy is theorized to be a broader construct that includes Machiavellianism with the addition of impulsivity and risk-taking (Glenn and Sellbom 2015).

On the other hand, some researchers argued that there are more than three dark traits, and the Dark Triad should be extended to include status-driven risk taking (Visser et al. 2014) or everyday sadism (Buckels et al. 2014). Paulhus (2014) pointed out the key features of the Dark Tetrad (including sadism), and the only common element between the Dark Triad and sadism was callousness, which suggests that each personality trait that could be described as callous is a potentially new dark trait. Marcus and Zeigler-Hill (2015) noticed the need to broaden the view of dark personality features and instead of investigating three or four traits as a one construct, they advocate that there is a Big Tent under which all dark traits (such as greed, spitefulness, perfectionism, dependency) could be classified.

These controversies regarding the number of dark traits raise the questions of whether Machiavellianism is a derivative of psychopathy, and is narcissism is conceptually separate from the Dark Triad. Are the Dark Triad or Tetrad a finished constellation of the dark traits? Do any other dark traits meet these inclusion criteria? The study reported in the present paper may not be exhaustive in answering these questions; however, it is intended to provide evidence pertinent to them by investigating the structure of a pool of items developed to measure psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism.

Structure of Narcissism

Narcissism, as a personality trait, was initially conceptualized as a unidimensional construct (Raskin and Hall 1979); however, more recent propositions posit that it is multidimensional. Two alternative models exist: a three-dimensional model proposed by Ackerman et al. (2011) and a two-dimensional model proposed by Back et al. (2013). Ackerman et al.’s (2011) model assumes the existence of adaptive (Leadership/Authority – self-perceived leadership abilities) and maladaptive (Grandiose Exhibitionism – self-absorption, vanity and exhibitionistic tendencies; and Entitlement/Exploitiveness – entitled beliefs and manipulative behaviors) aspects of narcissism. Within maladaptive narcissism, it is the Entitlement/Exploitiveness that is the socially toxic aspect, while Grandiose Exhibitionism has both negative and some positive aspects (Ackerman et al. 2011). The limitation of this model is the fact that it was developed on the basis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), a questionnaire designed by Raskin and Hall (1979), which was meant to reflect the DSM-III (APA 1980) narcissistic personality disorder diagnostic criteria. Moreover, the NPI is focused on the grandiose and assertive aspects of narcissism, while the aggressive and antagonistic aspects of narcissism are underrepresented.

The Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC; Back et al. 2013) overcomes this limitation by introducing a new theoretical model of narcissism. The NARC model assumes that the main aim of the narcissist is to maintain the grandiose self, which can be achieved through two strategies: self-enhancing admiration and self-defensive rivalry. The components of admiration may be divided into striving for uniqueness (affective-motivational), preoccupation with grandiose fantasies (cognitive) and charming behavior (behavioral aspect), whereas rivalry may be divided into striving for supremacy (affective-motivational), devaluation of others (cognitive) and aggressive behavior (behavioral aspect). Although admiration represents the socially positive strategy and rivalry represents the socially malevolent strategy, both remain positively correlated (Back et al. 2013; Rogoza et al. 2016a).

Structure of Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism, unlike narcissism and psychopathy, does not have a clinical equivalent in either the DSM or ICD classifications. The trait Machiavellianism was named after Niccolò Machiavelli, who was a diplomatic senior official in Florentine Republic who wrote the book (Il Principe) in which he described how to be an effective ruler no matter at the cost. Machiavellianism is a personality trait that should characterize an efficient leader who is able to maintain his resources and privileges no matter what the costs; thus, such a leader should be pragmatic, tactical, and strategic but also immoral, manipulative and cynical (Christie and Geis 1970; Jones and Paulhus 2009). The structure of Machiavellianism is somewhat unclear, and the following facets are usually differentiated: cynical worldview, manipulative tactics, amorality, lack of empathy, agentic motives, and self-enhancement (Christie and Geis 1970; Fehr et al. 1992; Jones and Paulhus 2009); however, the results from the study of Gu et al. (2017) suggest that only desire for control can be meaningfully differentiated from global Machiavellianism.

Rauthmann and Will (2011) consolidated existing knowledge and proposed a multifaced theoretical conceptualization of Machiavellianism, which is expressed in desires, cognition, affect, and behavior. Machiavellian desires represent self-interest (self-promoting and self-protecting), agentic orientations and impulse control; Machiavellian cognition can be divided into negative world view (e.g., cynicism, immorality) and view of people (e.g., suspiciousness, instrumentalism), specific strategies and egocentricity; and Machiavellian affect includes a low level of remorse and emotional detachment. The broadest aspect is Machiavellian behavior, which could be characterized as follows: anti-social tendencies, bistrategic tactics, self-beneficial and antagonistic behavior, detachment, exploitation and manipulation. Manipulation is one of the core elements of a Machiavellian personality, and can be further analyzed into more specific behavior patterns, such as tactical manipulation, presentation management, flexible adaptation, deceit and duplicity, concealment (agenda, imperfection, state or personality-related), and specific manipulative tactics such as emotional manipulation, ingratiation, persuasion, supplication, intimidation, dominance and power, or self-disclosure. The multifaceted conceptualization of Machiavellianism (Rauthmann and Will 2011; Rauthmann 2012) emphasizes that the structure of Machiavellianism is complex but it also emphasizes that its complexity is on a very specific hierarchical level that may be difficult to differentiate.

Structure of Psychopathy

Hare and Neumann (2008) distinguished four dimensions of psychopathy: interpersonal (superficial charm, grandiose self-worth, pathological deception, and manipulative), affective (lack of remorse and empathy, shallow affect), antisocial conduct (poor behavioral control, criminal versatility, and juvenile delinquency), and lifestyle (stimulation seeking, impulsivity, and irresponsibility). Although this conceptualization was initially developed for clinical purposes, this four-factor psychopathy model (including: interpersonal manipulation, callous affect, erratic lifestyle, and antisocial behavior) was successfully adapted into personality assessment of community samples (Neal and Sellbom 2012; Paulhus et al. in press) and validated in different cultural contexts (e.g., Chegeni and Atari 2016). Hare and his colleagues also hypothesize two broader dimensions that incorporate these four, one grouping together interpersonal manipulation and callous affect, and the other grouping together erratic lifestyle and antisocial behavior (Dębowska et al. 2014; Hare and Neumann 2008). These could be compared to the conceptualization of primary and secondary psychopathy (Karpman, 1941; Levenson et al. 1995). Primary psychopathy is characterized as callous, manipulative, selfish, and untruthful; secondary psychopathy is characterized as antisocial behavior under the influence of an emotional disorder, manifested by impulsivity (Levenson et al. 1995).

Another proposition of the psychopathy structure is the triarchic conceptualization proposed by Patrick et al. (2009), which encompasses three distinct phenotypic constructs: boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. Boldness represents interpersonal dominance, fearlessness, high self-confidence, and risk taking; meanness represents callousness, lack of empathy, deliberate cruelty, shallow emotionality, and exploitativeness; disinhibition represents general problems with impulse control, poor self-regulation and failure in delaying gratification (Brislin et al. 2015; Patrick et al. 2009).

The structure of psychopathy is closely related to Machiavellianism due to their theoretical overlap (Glenn and Sellbom 2015; Miller et al. 2017; Vize et al. in press); in the terminology of the multidimensional Machiavellianism model, both traits have similar affective characteristics (emotionally detached and low remorse) and similar behavioral characteristics (manipulation, exploitation, antagonistic and anti-social tendencies), which could differentiate these traits only at specific hierarchal level (e.g., specific manipulation tactics), similar cognitive characteristics (negative world and person view and egocentricity) but with different strategies, and similar desires (self-interest and agentic orientations) but with different impulse control abilities (Hare and Neumann 2008; Levenson et al. 1995; Neal and Sellbom 2012; Patrick et al. 2009; Rauthmann and Will 2011; Rauthmann 2012). Thus, the theoretical overlap between these two traits is high, and only the impulse regulation ability sufficiently differentiates these two traits (Glenn and Sellbom 2015; Jones and Paulhus 2011; Rogoza and Cieciuch 2017).

Relationship between the Dark Triad and Personality Traits and Basic Values

The Dark Triad is located within the personality structure; thus investigating its relations with the Big Five traits (McCrae and Costa 1997) or value preferences (Schwartz 1992), which are complementary, basic characteristics of personality (Cieciuch 2012; McCrae 2009) is especially helpful. Some existing studies suggest that there are many similarities in relations between particular Dark Triad traits and personality or value constructs. For example, each of the Dark Triad traits on both the basic and facet level is related to low agreeableness and a strong preference for valuing power, achievement and hedonism (Balakrishan et al. 2017; DeShong et al. 2015; DeShong et al. 2017; Jonason et al. 2015; Kajonius et al. 2015; Krizan and Herlache 2017; Paulhus and Williams 2002; Rogoza et al. 2016a; Vernon et al. 2008). On the other hand, there are also some relations specific for some of the Dark Triad traits. For example, only narcissism tends to be related to extraversion and openness to experience traits, and self-direction and stimulation values, whilst psychopathy and Machiavellianism do not (Muris et al. 2017; O’Boyle et al. 2015; Rogoza et al. 2016a; Vize et al. in press). Although the relationship with neuroticism is not obvious, as the meta-analysis of Muris et al. (2017) provides support that the Dark Triad traits are uncorrelated with neuroticism, the study of DeShong et al. (2017) provided evidence that each of the Dark Triad traits are related to the angry hostility facet of neuroticism. Because personality traits have hierarchical structure, the relations were analyzed at a different level of the structure, including the level below the basic traits or values (McCrae and Costa 1997) and above the basic traits, the so called higher-order traits (Cieciuch and Strus 2017) or higher-order values (Schwartz et al. 2012). Also, it is worth noting that the Dark Triad traits, similarly to the basic personality traits can also adapt hierarchical structure, which makes such comparisons more meaningful; however, so far the empirical verification of the hierarchical structure was limited to narcissism as measured by the NPI (Ackerman et al. 2015).

Dark Triad’s Structure – Brief Summary and Rationale for the Study

The Dark Triad traits do not have a simple unidimensional structure, and yet they are frequently reduced to a general score and analyzed in the context of variables of interest (Buckels et al. 2014; Jakobwitz and Egan 2006; Jonason and Kavanagh 2010; Jones and Paulhus 2011; Lee et al. 2012; Maples et al. 2014), which may lead to superficial and blurred results, especially because the structure of Machiavellianism and psychopathy theoretically overlap (Vize et al. in press). The Dark Triad of personality seems to be composed of narcissism and psychopathy, from which Machiavellianism could be differentiated on a more specific level; therefore, the triadic structure of this construct is questionable.

The Dark Triad has already successfully demonstrated its utility for personality researchers (e.g., the Dark Triad is systematically related to personality traits as agreeableness and honesty-humility, but also e.g., humor styles; Lee and Ashton 2005; Veselka et al. 2010), clinicians (e.g., the Dark Triad traits predicts subjective well-being and personality disorders; Aghababaei and Błachnio 2015; Miller et al. 2011) and even employers (e.g., the Dark Triad traits predict job performance and counterproductive work behavior; DeShong et al. 2015; O’Boyle et al. 2012).

Despite the overlap between Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Glenn and Sellbom 2015; Vize et al. in press), these traits tend to explain some external variables in a slightly different manner. For example, only narcissism followed by Machiavellianism (the relation with psychopathy albeit significant was more than three times weaker) are associated with counterproductive behavior (DeShong et al. 2015; Jonason et al. 2014; O’Boyle et al. 2012). Moreover, each of the dark personalities seems to have different vocational interests (e.g., it is more likely to meet a psychopath in sales or it is less likely to meet Machiavellian in personal service; Kowalski et al. 2017).

Notwithstanding, the Dark Triad is commonly used in everyday empirical work (e.g., in explaining sexual strategies or financial behaviors (Jonason et al. 2015; Jones 2014), while the understanding of its structure is only partial and mostly limited to single measures (e.g., Persson et al. 2017; Savard et al. 2017). Therefore, better understanding of how the Dark Triad traits are organized in multi-scale context will enhance the utility of this model. More specifically, we expect that the additional knowledge and understanding of the structure of the Dark Triad traits will allow for making more precise predictions for the researchers (owing to the knowledge of the dependencies between the dark traits), more valid diagnoses for the clinicians (owing to the understanding of the underlying hierarchical nature), and the more accurate judgments for the employers (owing to the differentiation of more specific facets). The significance of the present study is therefore broad and important, as the scrutinizing of the Dark Triad structure in an empirical approach can provide a datum point for the wide audience of researchers and practitioners.

Current Study

Decades of research on the dark traits (Christie and Geis 1970; Raskin and Hall 1979) resulted not only in development of new scales, but more importantly it resulted in the development of a broad spectrum of indicators of these traits, that is, items measuring them. However, so far research on the Dark Triad structure was limited to a single measure, and thus studied the structure of the given measurement model and not the structure of the construct. In the current study, we investigate the Dark Triad’s structure by using as broad spectrum of dark personality items originating from different, most frequently used measures (i.e., the NPI, the MACH-IV and the LSRP) as possible, which overcomes the limitations of the existing single measurement models (e.g., SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) and allows for complex analysis of the phenomenon.

The scale-level analyses show how different dark traits measured by different instruments are related to each other, whereas item-level analyses allow for taking into account the overlap between scales and start a step before measurement established Dark Triad constructs. This can provide information about what the scales of interest really measure because the item is the most basic element of self-report assessment, a direct stimulus, whereas the scale represents an indirect applied interpretation of a previously selected set of items. For this purpose, we decided to use four questionnaires which represent the entirety of dark traits indicators: the SD3 questionnaire that captures all Dark Triad traits, and three standard measures that assess each of the traits independently.

Firstly, we hypothesized that the three-factor structure of the Dark Triad on the scale-level would not be confirmed due to high theoretical overlap of Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Secondly, we hypothesized that it is possible to differentiate a set of meaningful dark traits (factors) in the Dark Triad item pool. Thirdly, we assumed that these traits could be organized within a meaningful hierarchical structure. Finally, we examined the validity of the distinguished factors by investigating their relationships with personality traits and basic values. The validity analyses were carried out in correspondence to the theoretical level of variables, i.e., dark traits from the bottom of hierarchy were related with basic personality traits and values, whereas dark higher-order factors from the top of the hierarchy were related with personality metatraits and higher order values.

Material and Methods

Participants and Procedure

The study was conducted online and was accessible only via direct link, which was sent to individual respondents using a social networking site (Facebook). It was especially advertised on a range of local community and student groups. The study advertisement was accessed by 2503 individuals among which 1856 has started the survey. A total of n = 844 participants did not finished the started survey as the mean time of completion took approximately 40 min. The final sample therefore comprised 1012 Polish participants between 17 and 35 years of age. In the overall sample, there were 202 male (M = 22.28; SD = 3.26) and 810 female participants (M = 22.38; SD = 3.49). All of the participants were informed that the study was anonymous; however, every participant had an opportunity to provide his or her e-mail address in order to participate in a lottery to win a book as a reward for participating in the study.

Measures

Measurement of the Dark Triad Traits

To measure the Dark Triad traits we used the 27-item SD3 (Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Polish adaptation: Rogoza and Cieciuch 2017), which measures narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy simultaneously. Respondents rate their agreement using Likert type scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). Additionally each trait was measured independently in more detail: primary and secondary psychopathy using the 26-item LSRP (Levenson et al. 1995; Polish translation made by the authors with the permission and in correspondence with the author of the scale) on which respondents rate their agreement using Likert type scale ranging from one (disagree strongly) to four (agree strongly), Machiavellian personality using the 20-item MACH-IV (Christie and Geis 1970; Polish translation: Pospiszyl 2000), on which respondents also use Likert type scale ranging from one (disagree strongly) to seven (agree strongly), and narcissistic leadership, vanity, admiration and self-efficacy using the 34-item NPI (Raskin and Hall 1979; Polish adaptation: Bazińska and Drat-Ruszczak 2000) on which respondents rate how much each statement describes them using Likert type scale from one (it’s not me) to five (it’s me). Summing up, we used a total pool of 107 different items measuring different aspects of the Dark Triad. The descriptive statistics and reliability estimates of the Dark Triad traits are presented in Table 1.
Table 1

Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates of the measures of the Dark Triad

 

M

SD

α

Psychopathy

 Psychopathy (SD3)

2.14

0.54

.67

 Primary psychopathy (LSRP)

1.92

0.50

.86

 Secondary psychopathy (LSRP)

1.86

0.42

.61

Machiavellianism

 Machiavellianism (SD3)

3.08

0.61

.73

 Machiavellianism (MACH-IV)

3.83

0.75

.84

Narcissism

 Narcissism (SD3)

2.85

0.57

.73

 Leadership (NPI)

2.84

0.82

.89

 Vanity (NPI)

2.86

0.92

.79

 Admiration (NPI)

2.71

0.79

.87

 Self-efficacy (NPI)

3.40

0.71

.77

SD3, Short Dark Triad; LSRP, Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale; NPI, Narcissistic Personality Inventory

Measurement of other Variables

Within the current study we also measured two major complementary characteristics of one’s personality. Specifically, we measured the Big Five traits (extraversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness, intellect and agreeableness using the IPIP-50 (Goldberg 1999; Polish adaptation: Strus et al. 2014a) and the nineteen basic values distinguished within the refined theory of values using the PVQ-57 (Schwartz et al. 2012; Polish adaptation: Cieciuch 2013): achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction in action, self-direction in thought, universalism-tolerance, universalism-nature, universalism-concern, benevolence-caring, benevolence-dependability, humility, conformity-interpersonal, conformity-rules, tradition, security-societal, security-personal, face, power-resources, power-dominance (Table 2).
Table 2

Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates of the measures of the personality traits and basic values

 

M

SD

α

Personality traits

 Extraversion

3.11

0.87

.91

 Emotional stability

2.64

0.81

.89

 Conscientiousness

3.36

0.72

.84

 Intellect

3.74

0.58

.80

 Agreeableness

3.93

0.60

.84

Basic values

 Achievement

4.56

0.97

.71

 Hedonism

4.71

0.87

.73

 Stimulation

3.84

1.11

.75

 Self-direction in action

5.01

0.85

.78

 Self-direction in though

4.87

0.91

.74

 Universalism-tolerance

4.62

1.05

.79

 Universalism-nature

3.87

1.22

.88

 Universalism-concern

4.62

1.06

.79

 Benevolence-caring

5.13

0.83

.78

 Benevolence-dependability

5.22

0.78

.79

 Humility

3.74

1.05

.58

 Conformity-interpersonal

3.71

1.21

.86

 Conformity-rules

3.92

1.18

.85

 Tradition

3.98

1.33

.87

 Security-societal

4.54

1.20

.90

 Security-personal

4.51

0.92

.63

 Face

4.52

1.00

.72

 Power-resources

3.13

1.23

.84

 Power-dominance

2.37

1.13

.84

Statistical Procedure

The first hypothesis regarding the structure of the Dark Triad on the scale-level was tested using the confirmatory variant of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM; Asparouhov and Muthén 2009) in which we compared three models: (1) a model in which all Dark Triad scales were hypothesized to load onto a single latent factor; (2) a model in which scales capturing narcissism were expected to load onto one factor and scales capturing Machiavellianism and psychopathy loading onto another factor; and (3) a model in which each respective scale was expected to load on corresponding factor (e.g., narcissistic scales were expected to load on narcissism factor, psychopathy scales on the psychopathy factor and Machiavellianism scales on the Machiavellianism factor). The confirmatory variant of ESEM with the target rotation allows for targeting which loadings should be as close to zero as possible and which loadings should be freely estimated (Marsh et al. 2014). To evaluate whether the model fit the data, we used the following model fit indicators: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals (SRMR); and the χ2/df ratio, since using χ2 in large samples almost always results in a significant fit (Kline 2011). Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested a cutoff value for CFI above .90, while Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggested a cutoff value for SRMR less than .06, while the value of the χ2/df ratio should be <2. However those “golden rules” should be interpreted with caution since they are nothing more than “rules of thumb” (Marsh et al. 2004).

The second hypothesis regarding differentiation of meaningful dark traits in the Dark Triad item pool was tested using the exploratory variant of ESEM with oblique geomin rotation. We decided to explore the Dark Triad structure as we did not have any theoretical predictions regarding lower-order structure. We explored the structure by comparing which of the competing models is best fitted to the data and explains the most information. In addition to the approximate model fit indicators described above, we used the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC); the model with the lowest value of BIC is preferred (Nylund et al. 2007).

The third hypothesis regarding the hierarchical organization of the distinguished dark traits was tested using Goldberg’s (2006) top down proposition: we extracted the factor scores from several ESEM analyses with an increasing number of factors, and correlated them level by level; that is, the factor score from the single factor model was correlated with factor scores from the two factor model; the factor scores from the two factor model were correlated with factor scores from the three factor model, and so on.

Finally, we examined the relationships between distinguished dark traits with personality traits and values. We (1) correlated the constructs (dark traits, personality traits and values) by using two-tailed Pearson’s r coefficient and (2) exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation to see if they group into meaningful factors. Additionally, we also correlated the traits from the top of the Dark Triad hierarchy with constructs on their corresponding level of theoretical complexity (i.e., metatraits of personality and higher order values, which was also tested using two-tailed correlations).

Results

Structure of the Dark Triad Traits

Scale Level

To test the structure of the Dark Triad as measured by different Dark Triad instruments, we conducted three ESEM models (ranging from one to three factors) with target rotation and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Each loading that was not expected to load on a given factor was targeted to be close to 0.

Although all scales were significantly loading in the single factor model, it was poorly fitted to the data (χ2(9) = 974.85; p < .001; CFI = .672; SRMR = .127). The three-factor Dark Triad model did not converge, whereas the two-factor narcissism and Machiavellianism-psychopathy model presented in Table 3 was excellently fitted to the data (χ2(4) = 33.66; p < .001; CFI = .990; SRMR = .014).
Table 3

Standardized factor loadings of targeted Exploratory Structural Equation model of the Narcissism and Dark Dyad

Scale

Narcissism

Machiavellianism-psychopathy (Dark Dyad)

Narcissism (SD3)

.91

−.06

Narcissism (NPI)

.88

.07

Machiavellianism (SD3)

.02

.76

Machiavellianism (MACH-IV)

−.06

.77

Psychopathy (SD3)

.07

.70

Psychopathy (LSRP)

−.02

.89

SD3, Short Dark Triad; NPI, Narcissistic Personality Inventory; LSRP, Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale

All scales measuring narcissism grouped within one factor, and all scales measuring Machiavellianism and psychopathy grouped within another factor and the cross-loadings did not exceed a value of .07, confirming our hypothesis. Within the Dark Triad of personality, it is impossible to sufficiently differentiate Machiavellianism and psychopathy on a general level.

Item Level

To differentiate dark facets within the pool of “dark items,” we ran competing ESEM models (varying in the number of factors) with oblique geomin rotation on items from all measures used. To decide which model best reproduced the structure, we relied on approximate model fit indices (CFI and SRMR) and BIC. Model fit indices of competing ESEM models are presented in Table 4.
Table 4

Model fit indices of competing exploratory structural equation models of the Dark Triad

Number of factors

χ2(df)

p

χ2/df

CFI

SRMR

BIC

1

28,325.60(5564)

.001

5.09

.403

.091

320,551.99

2

21,271.33(5458)

.001

3.90

.585

.058

313,750.97

3

18,967.75(5353)

.001

3.54

.643

.050

311,726.53

4

16,564.66(5249)

.001

3.16

.703

.045

309,972.49

5

14,756.34(5146)

.001

2.87

.748

.039

308,756.28

6

13,331.96(5044)

.001

2.64

.783

.036

307,919.22

7

12,361.47(4943)

.001

2.50

.805

.034

307,493.31

8

11,320.97(4843)

.001

2.34

.830

.032

307,101.54

9

10,885.88(4744)

.001

2.30

.839

.030

306,920.85

10

9765.91(4646)

.001

2.10

.866

.027

306,736.99

11

9126.11(4549)

.001

2.01

.880

.026

306,687.34

12

8411.46(4453)

.001

1.89

.896

.024

306,666.24

13

8035.21(4358)

.001

1.84

.904

.023

306,849.80

First acceptable values were bolded

CFI, comparative fit index; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion

Regarding SRMR. all models, starting from the two-factor model was well fitted to the data. The CFI value reached an acceptable level in the thirteen factor model, whereas the BIC was lowest for the twelve factor model. Because the twelfth model explained the most information, and the value of CFI was at the boundary of acceptable model fit, we decided to choose this model over all other competing models for further analyses. Thus, it could be concluded that the “dark items” were best represented by twelve distinct facets.

The standardized factor loadings, item content and the intercorrelations of the twelve-factor Dark Triad model are presented within the Appendix. Summarizing, we distinguished factors as follows: (1) impulsive revengefulness, (2) law of jungle rivalry, (3) ingratiative manipulation, (4) leadership/authority, (5) grit, (6) grandiosity, (7) admiration, (8) foolhardiness, (9) grandiose fantasies, (10) compliance with rules, (11) exhibitionism, (12) suspiciousness. The 5th and 10th facets consist of reversed items, and therefore form positive rather than dark traits as will be discussed below.

Hierarchical Structure of the Dark Triad

To test whether distinguished facets of the Dark Triad compose a hierarchical structure, we followed the procedure proposed by Goldberg (2006). This analysis allows us to see on which level each facet is differentiated from the other facets. For example, the exhibitionism facets emerge on the 8th level of the hierarchical structure from grandiosity, which means that grandiosity is a broader construct and contains exhibitionism. The hierarchical structure of the Dark Triad is presented in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Hierarchical structure of the Dark Triad. Arrows represents significant correlations between facets larger than .40. Strongest correlations were bolded. Narcissism and its facets were greyed

From a more general perspective, narcissism is differentiated from the Dark Triad on the second level, whereas Machiavellianism and psychopathy could not be sufficiently differentiated until the 9th level. Thus, it could be concluded that narcissism disentangles from other constructs of the Dark Triad at the highest possible level in the hierarchy, whereas the differentiation between Machiavellianism and psychopathy is troublesome, since they share many characteristics; therefore, it seems to be justified to interpret narcissism and the Dark Dyad as independent constructs.

From a more specific perspective, narcissism at the beginning disentangled into leadership/authority and grandiosity. Whereas leadership/authority did not differentiate on lower levels, grandiosity divided into several additional aspects: admiration, grandiose fantasies, and exhibitionism. The Dark Dyad began its differentiation on the 5th level, where primary and secondary psychopathy emerged; however, clear differentiation is possible on the 9th level, where impulsive revengefulness as a distinct indicator of psychopathy and ingratiative manipulation as a distinct indicator of Machiavellianism emerged. In the end, two additional distinct facets emerged: suspiciousness for Machiavellianism on the 10th level and foolhardiness for psychopathy on the 11th level. It is difficult to differentiate between these traits because they share some common characteristics, and even on the 12th level of the Dark Triad’s hierarchy, the differentiation in the law of jungle rivalry was troublesome. During the analyses, two positive facets emerged: grit (which is interpreted as long-term goal perseverance; Duckworth et al. 2007) and compliance with rules. The presence of positive facets is due to the reversed items included in analyses, thus, they should be interpreted reversely. Grit emerged on the third level and compliance with rules followed on the fifth level. Grit is somewhat present in all Dark Triad traits on some level, and is a primary trait for psychopathy’s foolhardiness facet. Compliance with rules mostly is associated with Machiavellianism and psychopathy, with limited interaction with narcissism. Summarizing, the Dark Triad’s twelve facets could be arranged within a hierarchical structure, where narcissism-related facets are quite independent from Machiavellianism and psychopathy and disentangled on the higher levels, whereas Machiavellianism and psychopathy shares many characteristics; thus, their differentiation is only possible closer to the bottom of the structure. Such a hierarchical structure puts into doubt current conceptualizations of the Dark Triad of personality, where narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy are assumed to be structurally equivalent traits.

Relationships of the Dark Triad Facets with Personality Traits and Basic Values

Bottom Level of the Hierarchy

The Pearson correlation coefficients between the twelve distinguished facets of the Dark Triad with personality traits and basic values are presented in Table 5.
Table 5

Relationships between Dark Triad facets and personality traits and basic values

 

E

A

C

S

I

AC

HE

ST

SDA

SDT

UNT

UNN

UNC

BEC

BED

HU

COI

COR

TR

SES

SEP

FAC

POR

POD

Impulsive revengefulness

.09

−.33

−.15

−.28

.08

.15

.20

.25

.14

.13

−.28

−.01

−.24

.02

−.10

−.16

−.43

−.24

−.11

−.01

−.10

.15

.24

.36

Law of jungle rivalry

.07

−.49

.00

.05

.01

.30

.24

.29

.12

.04

−.36

−.12

−.51

−.24

−.32

−.35

−.24

−.18

−.15

−.12

.02

.17

.57

.52

Ingratiative manipulation

.03

−.28

−.14

−.05

.11

.18

.25

.23

.09

.08

−.19

−.09

−.32

−.11

−.17

−.23

−.24

−.30

−.18

−.07

−.06

.24

.33

.42

Foolhardiness

.20

−.10

−.22

.21

.23

.07

.18

.42

.28

.29

.04

.14

−.07

−.02

−.04

−.10

−.24

−.31

−.20

−.07

−.44

−.19

.06

.21

Compliance with rules

−.08

.40

.21

−.16

.06

−.25

−.23

−.16

−.19

−.09

.15

.06

.36

.13

.14

.24

.24

.35

.29

.13

.08

−.17

−.44

−.49

Suspiciousness

−.19

−.33

−.10

−.15

.04

.11

.11

.04

.21

.24

−.17

−.07

−.22

−.01

−.05

−.12

−.21

−.19

−.25

.03

.03

.22

.20

.19

Grit

.26

.26

.53

.40

.28

.18

−.08

.02

.19

.15

.06

.02

.03

.08

.10

−.11

−.10

.15

.16

.06

−.04

−.22

−.20

−.23

Leadership/authority

.61

.01

.16

.23

.38

.32

.11

.31

.26

.22

−.18

.01

−.25

−.04

−.07

−.35

−.40

−.16

−.08

−.02

.23

−.05

.19

.37

Grandiosity

.40

.00

.18

.28

.48

.37

.14

.28

.32

.29

−.15

.03

−.25

−.07

−.12

−.40

−.36

−.17

−.12

.00

−.16

.03

.15

.24

Admiration

.62

.09

−.07

.06

.18

.35

.23

.30

−.01

−.06

−.10

−.06

−.20

−.04

−.10

−.33

−.18

−.23

−.05

−.08

−.15

.12

.25

.25

Grandiose fantasies

.16

−.02

.02

−.11

.24

.44

−.02

.08

−.02

−.05

−.22

−.08

−.20

−.16

−.16

−.34

−.08

−.12

−.04

.03

−.08

.17

.34

.29

Exhibitionism

.27

−.06

−.03

.17

.13

.23

.20

.17

.05

.00

−.09

.00

−.14

−.07

−.17

−.28

−.16

−.18

−.09

−.01

−.11

.07

.26

.19

The means of basic values scales were centered

Correlations larger than .30 were bolded

E, Extraversion; A, Agreeableness; C, Conscientiousness; S, Emotional Stability; I, Intellect; AC, Achievement; HE, Hedonism; ST, Stimulation; SDA, Self-direction-action; SDT, Self-direction-thought; UNT, Universalism-tolerance; UNN, Universalism-nature; UNC, Universalism-concern; BEC, Benevolence-caring; BED, Benevolence-dependability; HU, Humility; COI, Conformity-interpersonal; COR, Conformity-rules; TR, Tradition; SES, Security-societal; SEP, Security-personal; FAC, Face; POR, Power-resources; POD, Power-dominance

In regard to personality traits, only facets of narcissism (leadership/authority, grandiosity, and admiration) correlated with extraversion and among these, leadership/authority and grandiosity additionally correlated with intellect. Among the Dark Dyad facets, they were only related to low agreeableness; however, grit was positively related to both conscientiousness and emotional stability, which could be interpreted reversely due to item wording. Among all of the measured Dark Triad facets, three of them were not related to any personality trait: foolhardiness, grandiose fantasies, and exhibitionism.

In regard to basic values, preference for Achievement was related to law of jungle rivalry and with most of the narcissism facets, including grandiose fantasies, which was not related to any personality trait. The Stimulation value was related to the two narcissism facets: leadership/authority and grandiose fantasies, but also with a facet of psychopathy, foolhardiness. The values which were related to only one of the distinguished facets are Self-direction in action, related to grandiosity; Universalism – Tolerance and Benevolence – dependability, related to the law of jungle rivalry; and Security – personal, related to foolhardiness. Universalism – concern and Conformity – rules were related only to the Dark Dyad’s facets – ingratiative manipulation, and compliance with rules related to both values, and law of jungle rivalry related Universalism – concern, and foolhardiness related to Conformity - rules. The value of Humility was related mostly to narcissism facets, including leadership/authority, grandiosity, admiration, and grandiose fantasies, but also to law of jungle rivalry. The Conformity-interpersonal value was related to impulsive revengefulness, leadership/authority, and grandiose fantasies. Both Power values were rather related to the Dark Dyad’s facets: law of jungle rivalry, ingratiative manipulation, and compliance with rules; Power-resources was additionally related to grandiose fantasies, whereas Power-dominance was additionally related to leadership/authority. Among all of the facets, only three of them were not related to any of the measured value preferences, i.e., grit, exhibitionism, and suspiciousness.

To test the mutual relationship between dark facets, personality traits and basic values, we additionally ran an exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation. The investigation of the scree plot’s break suggested extraction of the three factors explaining 43.20% of the variance. The results are presented in Table 6.
Table 6

Rotated factor loadings of the dark triad facets, personality traits and the basic values

 

F1

F2

F3

Dark facets

 Impulsive revengefulness

−.16

.10

.46

 Law of jungle rivalry

−.21

.11

.68

 Ingratiative manipulation

−.16

.09

.55

 Leadership/Authority

−.08

.68

.21

 Grit

.30

.43

−.20

 Grandiosity

−.02

.67

.24

 Admiration

−.09

.43

.24

 Foolhardiness

−.35

.41

−.07

 Grandiose fantasies

.09

.24

.47

 Compliance with rules

.67

−.05

−.20

 Exhibitionism

−.10

.33

.25

 Suspiciousness

−.15

−.07

.34

Personality traits

 Neuroticism

.14

−.39

.21

 Extraversion

.01

.65

.06

 Intellect

.12

.59

.04

 Agreeableness

.51

.23

−.46

 Conscientiousness

.33

.33

−.06

Basic values

 Achievement

.36

.51

.44

 Hedonism

.29

.39

.27

 Stimulation

.18

.54

.22

 Self-direction in action

.30

.57

.12

 Self-direction in thought

.29

.51

.05

 Universalism-tolerance

.52

.16

−.34

 Universalism-nature

.39

.19

−.06

 Universalism-concern

.68

.03

−.35

 Benevolence-caring

.61

.23

−.11

 Benevolence-dependability

.68

.24

−.13

 Humility

.50

−.21

−.33

 Conformity-interpersonal

.57

−.23

−.16

 Conformity-rules

.66

−.08

−.10

 Tradition

.58

.03

−.06

 Security-societal

.54

.11

.06

 Security-personal

.65

−.12

.19

 Face

.44

.02

.48

 Power-resources

−.03

.18

.71

 Power-dominance

−.18

.30

.64

Factor loadings > .30 were bolded

We found that that amongst the three distinguished factors, the first one represented what is bright in the measured characteristics, whereas the remaining two factors demonstrated two distinct tones of darkness. The first one represents agentic narcissism, a dark characteristic involving craving for attention and glory (as expressed by achievement preference), self-focus (as expressed by power-dominance), and constantly exploring the social environment to lure new prey (as expressed by extraversion, intellect, stimulation and self-direction); the second factor represents the malevolent psychopathic type, a dark personality, which cares the most about power and does not care what others think about them, whether good or bad (as suggested by its negative relations with universalist values and agreeableness).

Additionally, we repeated this procedure, replacing dark facets with the original scales. Similarly, three factors were extracted according to the scree plot, which explained 48.12% of the variance. The rotated factor loadings are presented in Table 7.
Table 7

Rotated factor loadings of the dark triad scales, personality traits and the basic values

 

F1

F2

F3

Dark scales

 SD3 Narcissism

.81

−.10

.14

 NPI Admiration

.68

−.09

.38

 NPI Leadership

.82

−.10

.23

 NPI Vanity

.56

−.08

.15

 NPI Self-efficacy

.76

.07

.05

 SD3 Psychopathy

.19

−.28

.61

 LSRP Primary psychopathy

.28

−.36

.71

 LSRP Secondary psychopathy

−.24

−.16

.53

 SD3 Machiavellianism

.17

−.13

.71

 MACH-IV

.13

−.06

.56

Personality traits

 Neuroticism

−.38

.15

.30

 Extraversion

.64

.01

−.05

 Intellect

.55

.14

−.01

 Agreeableness

.13

.52

−.46

 Conscientiousness

.28

.26

−.23

Basic values

 Achievement

.58

.34

.27

 Hedonism

.37

.34

.28

 Stimulation

.50

.23

.24

 Self-direction in action

.53

.34

.10

 Self-direction in thought

.46

.34

.06

 Universalism-tolerance

.06

.56

−.29

 Universalism-nature

.15

.41

−.05

 Universalism-concern

−.07

.70

−.29

 Benevolence-caring

.17

.63

−.08

 Benevolence-dependability

.17

.72

−.11

 Humility

−.29

.51

−.22

 Conformity-interpersonal

−.23

.54

−.17

 Conformity-rules

−.04

.59

−.19

 Tradition

.05

.54

−.12

 Security-societal

.12

.54

.04

 Security-personal

−.04

.59

.10

 Face

.11

.43

.40

 Power-resources

.32

−.05

.56

 Power-dominance

.41

−.18

.54

Factor loadings > .30 were bolded

SD3, Short Dark Triad; NPI, Narcissistic Personality Inventory; LSRP, Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale

The obtained results on the original scales replicated the facet level findings, specifically that there are two, distinct dark types: one self-enhancing and opened for change, and the second also self-enhancing but also antagonistic.

Top Level of the Hierarchy

In order to summarise the relations between more narrowly defined dark facets, values and traits we also tested relations between dark traits differentiated at the top level of the hierarchy and variables on a similar level (i.e., personality metatraits and higher order values). The Pearson correlation coefficients between narcissism and the Dark Dyad with personality metatraits and higher-order values are presented in Table 8.
Table 8

Relationships between narcissism, Dark Dyad and personality metatraits and higher-order values

 

Narcissism

Dark Dyad

Plasticity

.70

.05

Stability

.19

−.31

Conservation

−.49

−.52

Openness to change

.40

.36

Self-transcendence

−.29

−.50

Self-enhancement

.49

.66

The means of higher-order values scales were centered

Whereas the pattern of relationship between the Dark Dyad, narcissism, and higher-order values were similar; that is both traits are positively related to openness to change and negatively with conservation, but the Dark Dyad is more related to self-enhancement and less to self-transcendence than narcissism. The differences emerged in the relationships of the Dark Dyad and narcissism with personality metatraits: the Dark Dyad was unrelated whereas narcissism was strongly related with Plasticity; and the Dark Dyad was negatively related and narcissism positively related with Stability. These results confirm that on a scale level, differentiation between the Dark Dyad and narcissism is possible. Whereas their motivation may be common to some extent, their personality significantly differs.

Discussion

The main aim of the current paper was to scrutinize the structure of the Dark Triad, which was done on several different theoretical and empirical levels using a broad spectrum of the Dark Triad traits indicators. What is novel about our paper is the applied procedure of treating the problem as most of the existing research is done on items of a specific scale (e.g., the NPI; Ackerman et al. 2011, or SD3; Atari and Chegeni 2016), which limits the conclusions just to the used scale. We generalized the very same procedure to all of the multiple independent forms of Dark Triad trait measurements. Of course, we are still locked in the initial pool of items, which was not finite, but the construct coverage seems to be far deeper than in research using single scales.

We provided evidence that the structure of the Dark Triad as currently measured by existing instruments is not necessarily triarchic but rather dyadic, both on the scale- and item-level. It turned out that within the Dark Triad a total of twelve facets, which are organized in a hierarchical structure, could be distinguished. Differentiated facets presented distinct relations with personality traits and basic values, and likewise dark metatraits did with personality metatraits and higher order values.

Our results are consistent with the most recent arguments indicating that Machiavellianism as it is currently measured is indistinct from psychopathy (Glenn and Sellbom 2015; Miller et al. 2017; Vize et al. in press). On the scale level, we were able to distinguish two factors, narcissism and the Dark Dyad (a combination of items measuring both psychopathy and Machiavellianism which were not distinguishable on the basis of statistical criteria). These results suggested that narcissism is quite independent from the construct of the Dark Dyad, whereas the latter share some more specific elements which we investigated in more detail on the item-level.

On the basis of comparison of competing structural models of the Dark Triad, we identified a total of twelve distinct facets. Five facets related to narcissism were as follows: (1) leadership/authority, which reflects self-perceived leadership abilities and is reflected as one of the narcissism factors within Ackerman et al.’s (2011) model; (2) grandiosity, which reflects the core features of narcissism (e.g., self-absorption and superiority), and is reflected as a component of the grandiose exhibitionism factor in Ackerman et al.’s (2011) model; (3) admiration, which reflects the need to show off and be the center of attention, which is perceived as a distinct and socially potential narcissistic strategy within the NARC model (Back et al. (2013); (4) grandiose fantasies, which reflects exaggerated thoughts about being special and unique; within the NARC model, grandiose fantasies are assumed to be the cognitive component of the narcissistic admiration strategy; (5) exhibitionism, which reflects confidence with one’s body and the tendency to exhibit it in order to be admired, which is a specific facet that was extracted from Ackerman et al.’s (2011) grandiose exhibitionism factor. Similarly to narcissism, five facets of the Dark Dyad were distinguished: (1) impulsive revengefulness, which represents the tendency to retaliate, and impulsive behaviors, which could be interpreted in terms of antisocial tendencies and disinhibition (Patrick et al. 2009); (2) law of jungle rivalry, which represents selfishness and callousness, is similar in conceptualization to primary psychopathy (Levenson et al. 1995); (3) ingratiative manipulation, which represents a specific strategy of manipulation, is listed as one of the Machiavellian tactics (Rauthmann 2012); (4) foolhardiness, which represents diminished fear capacity and stimulation seeking, could be compared to one of Patrick et al.’s (2009) components of psychopathy (boldness); and (5) suspiciousness, which represents distrust towards other people and negative views of people, and is present in both Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Hare and Neumann 2008; Rauthmann and Will 2011). Finally, two positively worded facets were also differentiated: (1) grit, which represents (lack of) perseverance towards long-term goals (Duckworth et al. 2007) in both narcissism and psychopathy; and (2) compliance with rules, which represents the (lack of) morality, conformism and obedience to authorities and rules, which was a facet composed of items measuring psychopathy and Machiavellianism.

As a next step, we assessed how these facets are organized within a hierarchical structure, namely, which of these are more general constructs from which more specific facets emerge. Our results indicated that from the top of the hierarchy, narcissism and the Dark Dyad differentiate from one another. The most basic differentiation of narcissism is on leadership/authority and grandiosity. Grandiosity further divides into admiration, exhibitionism, and grandiose fantasies. The Dark Dyad starts to divide into primary and secondary psychopathy on the very same level as admiration could be differentiated from grandiosity. Furthermore, when the facet typical for Machiavellianism emerges, (ingratiative manipulation) simultaneously, on the same level within narcissism, exhibitionism divided from grandiosity. Because Machiavellianism and psychopathy could not be differentiated until later than exhibitionism is differentiated from grandiosity in narcissism, it is thus not theoretically justified to put Machiavellianism in alignment with narcissism and psychopathy as three traits constituting the Dark Triad.

The pattern of relationships of differentiated facets with basic personality traits and values revealed another set of differences between narcissism and the Dark Dyad. Narcissistic facets were most strongly related to extraversion and slightly with intellect, whereas the Dark Dyad was most strongly related to low agreeableness, which is a typical result (e.g., Hare and Neumann 2008). Narcissists are often described as disagreeable extraverts (Paulhus, 2001); however, in the current study we did not find support for the relation with disagreeableness. This is most likely related to the imperfect measurement of narcissism, as in the current study we missed many antagonistic aspects of narcissism, which are essentially related to disagreeableness (Rogoza et al. 2016a). The main motivation of the narcissist, who characterize themselves with high social desirability (Kowalski et al. 2018), was the need to pursue achievements and the lack of humility, whereas the main motivation of psychopaths was the lack of respect toward rules and power. These are also consistent with other findings throughout the literature (Kajonius et al. 2015; Rogoza et al. 2016a). In terms of the relation of narcissism and the Dark Dyad to the personality metatraits and higher order values, it turned out that their motivation is similar; however, its realization proceeds via different means: plastic in narcissism and unstable in the Dark Dyad. Similarly to the relation with basic traits, narcissists were described as presenting not only plastic behaviors but unstable ones as well (Rogoza et al. 2016b), which we believe also resulted from too few items measuring the antagonistic aspects of narcissism.

We found out that the dark personalities could be divided into two distinct tones; the first being focused on constant exploiting and demanding admiration from the social environment for as long as possible, followed by exploration to find other people who do not know them yet whenever the pool of social resources is drying up. Such a description is closely related to Paulhus’s (1998) description of the narcissistic individual within a group as someone who is initially perceived as agreeable, competent, and well-adjusted, but within only a few weeks is judged in the opposite manner. Such results are also found in more recent studies suggesting that narcissists make good first impressions, especially at the moment of zero acquaintance, but after time passes and their flaws become more salient and their true dark nature repels other people (Back et al. 2010; Leckelt et al. 2015; Rogoza et al. 2016b). The second tone of darkness represents pure antagonism; in other words, a complete lack of respect towards social norms, morality, tradition, and other people in general. As this type subsumes facets of both psychopathy and Machiavellianism (and also some elements of narcissism), it should be interpreted as a general cue suggesting that these two are hard to differentiate as currently measured (Miller et al. 2017). Despite the fact that behavioral studies demonstrate some difference between Machiavellians and psychopaths (Jones and Paulhus 2017), in the end, they are all just some malevolent characteristics, which can sometimes be differentiated from one another; however, the fact that such differentiation is possible only far down in the hierarchy makes psychopathy a preferable (or at least more general and inclusive of Machiavellian features) construct.

Limitations

The results of the current study do not deliver the final solution to the problem of the Dark Triad structure, but rather demonstrate that there are many different facets under the umbrella of a common construct. Twelve distinguished facets do not definitively exhaust the existing item pool; due to the actual length of the study, we tried to include two measures for each construct; however we missed many important measures containing many valuable items. Some example is the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD; Jonason and Webster 2010), which is a concise measure of the Dark Triad traits. We decided to use SD3 (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) in favor of the DTDD (Jonason and Webster 2010) because both of these were inspired on the basis of standard measures, but the SD3 provided a slightly broader pool of items.

Also, some of the measures lacked important elements; for example. Within the Polish adaptation of the NPI (Bazińska and Drat-Ruszczak 2000) some items measuring Entitlement/Exploitativeness were excluded, and thus they were not included in the analyses. Although these are often found to be unreliable in their measurement (Ackerman et al. 2011), they capture the most antagonistic content of narcissism, and their omission could significantly impact the obtained hierarchical structure. Also, the Polish adaptation of the NPI (Bazińska and Drat-Ruszczak 2000) is rated on a five-point Likert type scale, instead of classical forced-choice format proposed by Raskin and Hall (1979). Although this could be seen as a limitation, more recent analyses on the NPI structure suggests that the Likert-type scale may be successfully implemented and it resolves some of existing limitations of the original NPI (e.g., weak reliability estimates; Ackerman et al. 2015).

The data was collected using the internet and participants were recruited via social networking sites, which recently has become common practice (e.g., Jonason et al. 2015; Jones and Paulhus 2011; Miller et al. 2017). However, the gender distribution in our sample was unequal, with an underrepresentation of men – a typical problem of using social networking sites and the internet for data gathering (Vize et al. in press). Such a distribution could substantially limit the generalizability of our results as men score higher on Dark Triad traits than women (Jonason et al. 2009). The overrepresentation of females however is quite typical also for the research on the Dark Triad traits in which samples from many studies exceed 70% of females within the sample (see Grijalva et al. (2015) for meta-analysis regarding gender differences in narcissism, which also includes studies investigating other Dark Triad traits).

Another limitation of the present study, is the fact that it was conducted using self-report measures only. When investigating the differences between Machiavellianism and psychopathy using experimental methods, they become more salient (see Jones and Paulhus 2017), which is why we do not question the construct of the Machiavellianism itself, but rather we question its measurement in its current form (see also Miller et al. 2017). Our results simply support the idea that we need more tools, which would assess Machiavellianism in a more sophisticated manner.

Finally, our results regarding the relationships with the Big Five were limited to the basic personality traits only. There is clear evidence that personality has a hierarchical structure, beginning from the metatraits of personality (see Strus et al. 2014b for review) they expand into basic traits of personality (which were the subject of the current study), which further divides onto aspects (DeYoung et al. 2007) and facets (McCrae and Costa 1997). Although within the current study, we investigated the two top levels of the personality hierarchy, investigation of its lower-order structure is also an important issue which might provide more information on the differentiation between constructs. The results provided by DeShong et al. (2017) which investigated the relationship between the Dark Triad and the facets of personality however provided results which are consistent with our conclusions; that is, they claim that Machiavellianism is currently not adequately assessed.

Owing to these limitations, it is important to recognize that the presented structure of the Dark Triad is neither exhaustive nor final. Instead of that, we suggest that the structure of the Dark Triad is far more complex than currently conceptualized (Furnham et al. 2013) and substantial further research on its structure is needed. This paper therefore does not present a breakthrough new model of the Dark Triad, but it should be interpreted as a beacon which guides the direction of future research.

Conclusion

Our results provide evidence that Machiavellianism is a construct which is not on the same level of trait complexity as psychopathy and narcissism and it seems to be a distinct component of psychopathy. We do not argue that the presented structure is definite, but we question the idea of the Dark Triad as a construct of three equally important socially aversive traits. We advocate on one hand, that researchers could use our work and scrutinize the issue of the Dark Triad structure further and overcome our limitations, while on the other, we support the position of Marcus and Zeigler-Hill (2015) that researchers should focus beyond narcissism and psychopathy and investigate other dark traits of personality.

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by Polish National Science Center (grant number 2014/14/M/HS6/00919).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance 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.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Radosław Rogoza declares that he has no conflict of interest. Jan Cieciuch declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12144_2018_9834_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 33 kb)

References

  1. Ackerman, R.A., Donnellan, M.B., Roberts, B.W. & Fraley, R.C. (2015). The effect of response format on the psychometric properties of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Consequences for item meaning and factor structure. Assessment, 118. Advance online publication. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114568113.
  2. Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure? Assessment, 18, 67–87.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110382845.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aghababaei, N., & Błachnio, A. (2015). Well-being and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 365–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  5. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atari, M., & Chegeni, R. (2016). Assessment of dark personalities in Iran: Psychometric evaluation of the Farsi translation of the short dark triad (SD3-F). Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 111–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013–1037.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at the first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 132–145.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Balakrishan, A., Plouffe, R., & Saklofske, D. H. (2017). What do sadists value? Is honesty-humility and intermediary? Replicating and extending findings on the link between values and “dark” personalities. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 142–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bazińska, R., & Drat-Ruszczak, K. (2000). Struktura narcyzmu w polskiej adaptacji kwestionariusza NPI Raskina i Halla [structure of the narcissism in polish adaptation of Raskin and hall questionnaire]. Czasopismo Psychologiczne, 6, 171–187.Google Scholar
  11. Brislin, S. J., Drislane, L. E., Toney Smith, S., Edens, J. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2015). Development and validation of Triarchic psychopathy scales from the multidimensional personality questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 27, 838–851.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000087.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67¸, 97–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chegeni, R., & Atari, M. (2016). Validation of a short four-factor measure of psychopathy among Iranian university students. Rooyesh-e-Ravanshenasi Journal, 4, 105–112.Google Scholar
  15. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cieciuch, J. (2012). The big five and big ten: Between Aristotelian and Galileian physics of personality. Theory and Psychology, 22, 689–696.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311432904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cieciuch, J. (2013). Pomiar wartości w zmodyfikowanym modelu Shaloma Schwartza. [The measurement of values in the refined Schwartz’s theory]. Psychologia Społeczna, 8, 22–41.Google Scholar
  18. Cieciuch, J., & Strus, W. (2017). The two-factor model of personality. In Virgil Zeigler-Hill & Todd Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 1–16). Springer International Publishing AG. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_2129-1.
  19. Dębowska, A., Boduszek, D., Kola, S., & Hyland, P. (2014). A bifactor model of the polish version of the hare self-report psychopathy scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 231–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DeShong, H. L., Grant, D. M., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2015). Comparing models of counterproductive workplace behaviors: The five factor model and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 55–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeShong, H. L., Helle, A. C., Lengel, G. J., Meyer, N., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2017). Facets of the dark triad: Utilizing the five-factor model to describe Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 218–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Egan, V., Chan, S., & Shorter, G. W. (2014). The dark triad, happiness and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 17–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fehr, B., Samsom, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10-year review. Social and Personality Compass, 7, 199–216.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glenn, A. L., & Sellbom, M. (2015). Theoretical and empirical concerns regarding the dark triad as a construct. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29, 360–377.  https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldberg, L.R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, 7 (pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Goldberg, L. R. (2006). Doing it all bass-ackwards: The development of hierarchical factor structures from the top down. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 347–358.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 261–310.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038231.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gu, H., Wen, Z., & Fan, X. (2017). Structural validity of the Machiavellian personality scale: A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 11–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fi t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331–339.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jonason, P. K., Duineveld, J. J., & Middleton, J. P. (2015). Pathology, pseudopathology, and the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 43–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonason, P. K., & Kavanagh, P. (2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 606–610.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., & Blanchard, A. (2015). Birds of a “bad” feather flock together: The dark triad and mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 34–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jonason, P.K., Wee, S., Li, N.P., & Jackson, C. (2014). Occupational niches and the Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 119–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.024.
  40. Jonason, P. K., Strosser, G. L., Kroll, C. H., Duineveld, J., & Baruffi, S. A. (2015). Valuing myself over others: The dark triad traits and moral and social values. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 102–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychologial Assessment, 22, 420–432.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones, D. N. (2014). Risk in the face of retribution: Psychopatic individuals persist in financial misbehavior among the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 109–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Doyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93–108). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  44. Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief-measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105.
  45. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 679–682.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2017). Duplicity among the dark triad: Three faces of deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 329–342.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kajonius, P. J., Persson, B. N., & Jonason, P. K. (2015). Hedonism, achievement, and power: Universal values that characterize the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 173–178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Karpman, B. (1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types: the symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, 3, 112–137Google Scholar
  49. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kowalski, C. M., Vernon, P. A., & Schermer, J. A. (2016). The general factor of personality: The relationship between the big one and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 256–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kowalski, C. M., Vernon, P. A., & Schermer, J. A. (2017). Vocational interests and dark personality: Are there dark career choices? Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 43–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kowalski, C. M., Vernon, P. A., & Schermer, J. A. (2018). The dark triad and the self-presentation variables of socially desirable responding and self-monitoring. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 234–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Krizan, K., & Herlache, A. D. (2017). The narcissism Spectrum model: A synthetic view of narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316685.
  54. Leckelt, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Behavioral processes underlying the decline of narcissists' popularity over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 856–871.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the five-factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1571–1582.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., & Galucci, A. (2012). Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the dark triad and honesty-humility. European Journal of Personality, 27, 169–184.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a Noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Maples, J. L., Lamkin, J., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of two brief measures of the dark triad: The dirty dozen and the short dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 26, 326–331.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035084.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Marcus, D. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). A big tent of dark personality traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 434–446.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & 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, 320–341.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Marsh, H., Morin, A., Parker, P., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. McCrae, R. R. (2009). The physics and chemistry of personality. Theory and Psychology, 19, 670–687.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309341928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Miller, J. D., Crowe, M., Weiss, B., Maples-Keller, J. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2017). Using online, crowdsourcing platforms for data collection in personality disorder research: The example of Amazon’s mechanical Turk. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8, 26–34.  https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Searching for vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78, 1529–1564.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00660.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Miller, J. D., Hyatt, C. S., Maples-Keller, J. L., Carter, N. T., & Lynam, D. R. (2017). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism: A distinction without a difference? Journal of Personality, 85, 439–453.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12251.
  67. Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 183–204.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Neal, T. M. S., & Sellbom, M. (2012). Examining the factor structure of the hare self-report psychopathy scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 244–253.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.648294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniels, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., Story, P. A., & White, C. D. (2015). A meta-analytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the dark triad and five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 86, 644–664.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913–938.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Paulhus, D. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197–1208.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Paulhus, D.L. (2001). Normal narcissism: Two minimalist accounts. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 228–230.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_2.
  75. Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 421–426.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (in press). Manual for the self-report psychopathy scale. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  77. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Persson, B. N., Kajonius, P. J., & Garcia, D. (2017). Revisiting the structure of the short dark triad. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117701192.
  79. Petrides, K. V., Vernon, P. A., Schermer, J. A., & Veselka, L. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence and the dark triad traits of personality. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 14, 35–41.  https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.14.1.35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Pospiszyl, K. (2000). Psychopatia [Psychopathy]. Warszawa: Żak.Google Scholar
  81. Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). Towards multifaceted Machiavellianism: Content, factorial, and construct validity of a German Machiavellianism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 345–351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rauthmann, J. F., & Will, T. (2011). Proposing a multidimensional Machiavellianism conceptualization. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 391–404.  https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2011.39.3.391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rogoza, R., & Cieciuch, J. (2017). Structural investigation of the short dark triad questionnaire in polish population. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9653-1.
  85. Rogoza, R., Wyszyńska, P., Maćkiewicz, M., & Cieciuch, J. (2016a). Differentiation of the two narcissistic faces in their relations to personality traits and basic values. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 85–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rogoza, R., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Rogoza, M., Piotrowski, J., & Wyszyńska, P. (2016b). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry in the context of personality metatraits. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 180–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Savard, C., Simard, C., & Jonason, P. K. (2017). Psychometric properties of the French-Canadian version of the dark triad dirty dozen. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 122–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25 (pp. 1–65). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  89. Schwartz, S.H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C. ... Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663–688. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393.
  90. Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowiński, T. (2014a). Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza IPIP-BFM-50 do pomiaru pięciu cech osobowości w ujęciu leksykalnym. [polish adaptation of the IPIP-BFM-50 questionnaire measuring five personality traits in lexical frame]. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 17, 327–346.Google Scholar
  91. Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowiński, T. (2014b). The Circumplex of personality Metatraits: A synthesizing model of personality based on the big five. Review of General Psychology, 18, 273–286.  https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Vernon, P. A., Vilani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioural genetic investigation of the dark triad and the big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 445–452.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., Martin, R. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2010). Relations between humor styles and the dark triad traits of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 772–774.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Visser, B. A., Pozzebon, J. A., & Reina-Tamayo, A. M. (2014). Status-driven risk taking: Another “dark” personality? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 46, 485–496.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vize, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Collision, K. L., & Miller, J. D. (in press). Differences among dark triad components: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment.  https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000222.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations