Personality and Individual Differences 200 (2023) 111889

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The relationship between the Dark Triad and attitudes towards feminism
Melanie D. Douglass a, *, Michael Stirrat a, Monica A. Koehn b, Robert S. Vaughan a
a
York St John University, UK
b
Western Sydney University, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Dark Triad traits are considered a male-centric framework of personality with women generally scoring
Dark Triad lower on narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Research has examined the drivers behind this rela­
Narcissism tionship attributing effects mostly to biological or evolutionary reasons with less work understanding environ­
Machiavellianism
mental factors. To date, no research has examined the relationship between the Dark Triad and attitudes towards
Psychopathy
Feminism
feminism. Three hundred and forty-three participants completed self-report measures of the Dark Triad and
feminist attitudes. Results reported no differences between men and women on feminist attitudes, but men
scored higher on the Dark Triad. Multiple linear regression indicated a negative association between the Dark
Triad and feminist attitudes with all three traits significantly negatively contributing to the model. In all cases,
this effect was stronger in men. These findings suggest that whilst men and women hold similar feminist atti­
tudes, Dark Triad traits may facilitate a disregard for feminism.

1. Introduction society views male and female traits (e.g., social dominance; Semenyna
& Honey, 2015).
1.1. The Dark Triad Individuals high in Dark Triad traits also share inappropriate re­
actions in interpersonal situations (Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012). This in­
The Dark Triad of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism cludes a tendency towards cold-heartedness, reduced motivation for
are separate yet related traits (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Narcissism justice, and less condemnation of immoral behaviour (Decety & Yoder,
describes grandiosity, entitlement, and superiority, Machiavellianism is 2016). These behaviours have the potential to decrease prosociality
characterised by manipulation, self-service, and deceit, and psychopa­ (White, 2014), tend to result in an unwillingness to intervene on behalf
thy describes an impulsive, unempathetic, and erratic individual of victims in moral dilemmas (Takamatsu & Takai, 2019), and predict
(Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Together, they provide social and biolog­ race-based prejudice (Koehn et al., 2019). When combined with the
ical advantages through behaviours that typify them; for example, ‘fast’ influence that the traits have on one's sexual script (Willis et al., 2017),
mating strategies (Jonason et al., 2009; Jonason & Buss, 2012). this results in attitudes and beliefs that contribute to sexual assault by
Consistent with a life-history model, the traits hold a fitness benefit for shifting the blame from the perpetrator to the victim in the form of
men via behavioural manifestations, including assertiveness, reproduc­ victim-blaming (Brewer et al., 2019), the acceptance of rape myths
tive opportunities, and interpersonal relations (Jonason & Davis, 2018; (Jonason et al., 2017), and rape-accepting/enabling attitudes (Jonason
Koehn, Okan, & Jonason, 2019). There is debate regarding the appro­ et al., 2017).
priateness of applying genetic explanations, such as those proposed in Finally, those high in Machiavellianism and psychopathy are more
life history theory, as rationale for processes that tailor an individual to intrasexually competitive (e.g., women spreading rumours about other
its environment (i.e., trait covariation; see Zietsch & Sidari, 2020, and women; Lyons et al., 2019) and narcissism may be particularly relevant
Menie et al., 2021, for contrasting reviews). Nonetheless, research in predicting female-on-female competition (i.e., intrasexual competi­
proposes that the Dark Triad reinforces stereotypical gender roles by tion; Carter et al., 2015) which likely impact ones attitudes towards
advantaging men who possess them via social adaptions of masculinity feminism (e.g., solidarity with women). Specifically for women, high
and femininity (Jonason & Davis, 2018), gender specific approaches to scores in the Dark Triad may provide social advantages via extra re­
life (Jonason et al., 2011; Jonason et al., 2013), and differences in how sources, higher social rank, and less suspicion in malevolent behaviours

* Corresponding author at: Room HG209, School of Education, Language and Psychology, York St John University, Lord Mayors Walk, York YO31 7EX, UK.
E-mail address: m.douglass@yorksj.ac.uk (M.D. Douglass).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111889
Received 11 November 2021; Received in revised form 24 August 2022; Accepted 27 August 2022
Available online 6 September 2022
0191-8869/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.D. Douglass et al. Personality and Individual Differences 200 (2023) 111889

used during intrasexual competition (Semenyna & Honey, 2015). This associated with fewer sexist beliefs (Becker & Wagner, 2009).
intrasexual competition is not necessarily hierarchical, like male intra­ Stereotypical male behaviours tend to occur in social contexts that
sexual aggression, rather, women compete via subtle, more relational devalue femininity. Therefore, more masculine women may feel pres­
strategies (Campbell, 1999), and are invested in their comparative social sure to shift ideology to fit in with the masculine group (Lemaster et al.,
status (Eder, 1985). This suggests that, despite women scoring lower on 2015). However, there is some inconsistencies in the evidence. That is,
the Dark Triad (e.g., Gluck et al., 2020; Vaughan et al., 2019), the traits engaging in masculine behaviour (e.g., building with tools) predicts
may still be adaptive. lower feminist attitudes in women, endorsing stereotypic masculine
If selective pressure for the Dark Triad is beneficial to men, it should traits (e.g., importance on high physical strength) is positively corre­
follow that there is selective pressure for these traits in women (Koehn lated with feminist attitudes (Lemaster et al., 2015). Despite this evi­
et al., 2019). However, the behavioural expression may differ between dence, the manifestations of the Dark Triad suggest that such women
the sexes. Research attests that men and women may benefit in similar would not endorse feminist ideology. Feminism is a collective move­
domains but through different mechanisms. For example, Jonason et al. ment by women with the aim of achieving gender equality. By contrast,
(2013) found that whilst the Dark Triad was linked to lower empathy in women high in the Dark Triad do not identify with other women and
both men and women, the traits differentiated across sex with low engage in more intrasexual competition, so are unlikely to join in
empathy related to narcissism in women but psychopathy in men. activism for the greater good.
Moreover, given their lack of prosociality and disregard for victims of For men, there is greater consistency with higher gender-
gender-based violence, it suggests that there may be a link between the identification in men predicting sexist and less feminist attitudes
Dark Triad and anti-feminist attitudes. That is, a generally antagonistic (Lemaster et al., 2015). Moreover, the sexism found in men high in Dark
and exploitive life approach is less likely to be concerned with others Triad traits, combined with their tendency to engage in exploitation of
wellbeing (e.g., lack of empathy for victims; Jonason et al., 2017). women, suggests that they are also unlikely to hold feminist attitudes.
Both lines of evidence suggest that the Dark Triad decreases feminist
1.2. Feminism beliefs in men and women because both engage in more stereotypically
masculine behaviour at the same time as identifying more with men.
Feminism is a collective movement advocating women's rights with This argument is strengthened by the traits being positively correlated
the aim of achieving gender equality (Davis, 2021). Psychological with sexism, with a similar magnitude for men and women (Gluck et al.,
research, including the above, has been criticised for its generally 2020). This led Gluck and colleagues to suggest that sexism is one factor
androcentric nature (Unger & Crawford, 1992) and patriarchal societies which underpins Dark Triad. However, no research to date has explored
(Buss & Schmitt, 2011). Although more overt forms of sexism have whether this association extends to feminist ideology.
decreased in recent years, particularly among younger cohorts (e.g.,
Knight & Brinton, 2017), and efforts have been made to bridge the gap 1.4. Current study
between epistemologies (Davis), sexism still exists in varied forms. For
example, modern sexism is linked to criticising victims of sexual No research to date has examined the relationship between the Dark
violence (Haywood & Swank, 2008), and the inhibition of collective Triad and attitudes towards feminism. Considering previous work
action towards equality (Ellemers & Barreto, 2009). These anti-feminist reporting higher scores for women than men on attitudes towards
and sexist beliefs are known to predict gender inequality (Brandt, 2011), feminism (Fassinger, 1994), and the Dark Triads association with male-
objectification of women, and hostility towards them (Swami & Vor­ centric characteristics (Jonason et al., 2011; Jonason et al., 2013; Jon­
acek, 2013). Men who hold such attitudes also endorse rape myths ason & Davis, 2018), we predict a negative relationship between the
(Aosved & Long, 2006). Given the attitudinal overlap between those Dark Triad and attitudes towards feminism. We also expect to replicate
high in the Dark Triad traits and sexism, previous research has investi­ sex differences in the Dark Triad (Gluck et al., 2020; Vaughan et al.,
gated whether the two are correlated. 2019). Finally, we predict that sex would moderate the relationship
between the Dark Triad and attitudes towards feminism with effects
1.3. The Dark Triad and feminism larger for men.

There is direct evidence that Dark Triad traits are positively corre­ 2. Methods
lated with sexism (Gluck et al., 2020). This is corroborated by the
finding that male and female adolescents high in Dark Triad traits hold 2.1. Participants
more benevolent (i.e., idealization of traditional gender roles posi­
tioning men above women) and hostile (i.e., negative opinion of other Three hundred and forty-three individuals (56.90 % female) aged
sexes based on heterosexual aggression) sexist attitudes (Navas et al., between 18 and 54 years of age (Mage = 21.59 ± SD = 6.77) from in the
2020). One way that the Dark Triad may affect sexism is through gender United Kingdom participated. The G*Power program (Faul et al., 2007)
roles. Gender is composed of activities, gender attitudes, personality for a priori power analysis (0.80) suggested a sample size of 109 for
traits, relationships, and self-ratings of masculinity and femininity correlations, 187 for a linear multiple regression with three predictors
(Twenge, 1999). Those high in Dark Triad traits, particularly psychop­ and a medium effect size (0.12), and 199 for moderation analyses
athy and Machiavellianism, are less behaviourally and psychologically including the interaction term and a medium effect size (0.12).
feminine (Jonason & Davis, 2018). Moreover, they tend to have lower
femininity scores, and higher masculinity scores, with sex differences in 2.2. Materials
the traits only mediated by femininity scores (Jonason & Davis, 2018).
Engaging in more stereotypically masculine activity predicts less 2.2.1. The Dark Triad were measured using the 27-item Short Dark Triad
feminist views in men and women (Lemaster et al., 2015). The literature scale (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014)
also shows that women engage in gatekeeping behaviour towards other The participants were asked the extent of their agreement (1 =
women, which is common in those who do not hold feminist attitudes Disagree strongly; 5 = Agree strongly) with statements like: “I'll say any­
(Derks et al., 2011). This is consistent with previous research showing thing to get what I want” (i.e., psychopathy), and “People see me as a
that men who identify more with other men also show more covert natural leader” (i.e., narcissism), and “I like to use clever manipulation
sexism (i.e., sexism that is less obvious or hidden in cultural and societal to get my way” (i.e., Machiavellianism). Items were meant to create
norms; Leaper & Van, 2008). The evidence with women is more complex indices for psychopathy (α = 0.75), narcissism (α = 0.78), and Machi­
but suggests the opposite; that identification with other women is avellianism (α = 0.74).

2
M.D. Douglass et al. Personality and Individual Differences 200 (2023) 111889

2.2.2. To measure attitudes towards feminism, we used the 20-item short Table 2
scale of attitudes towards feminism (FEM; Smith et al., 1975) Bivariate correlations by sex.
The self-report scale captures feminist attitudes (e.g., “Women have Variable Machiavellianism Narcissism Psychopathy Feminism
the right to complete with men in every sphere of activity”) on a five-
Machiavellianism 0.21** 0.41** − 0.25**
point Likert-type scale from (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly Narcissism 0.38** 0.21** − 0.18**
disagree). Lower scores indicate liberal, feminist attitudes, whereas high Psychopathy 0.61** 0.38** − 0.20**
scores indicate conservatism and anti-feminist attitudes. Items were Feminism − 0.49** − 0.35** − 0.45**
summed to create an index of feminism (α = 0.79). Note. Correlations for men below the diagonal and women above the diagonal.
N = 343.
**
2.3. Procedure p < .01.

Ethical approval was granted via committee at a university in the psychopathy (z = 2.81, p < .05), narcissism and psychopathy (z = 1.70,
United Kingdom. Recruitment was sought from universities, businesses, p < .05), Machiavellianism and feminism (z = 2.55, p < .05), narcissism
and sports clubs with the majority from England. Data were collected and feminism (z = 1.67, p < .05), and psychopathy and feminism (z =
electronically for participants convenience using a touch-screen com­ 2.56, p < .05).
puter. Participants were briefed, provided informed consent, and then
completed demographic information, the SD3, and FEM. After comple­ 3.2. Multiple regression analyses
tion, participants were thanked and released. Data was entered onto the
SPSSvs26 software program for analysis. Next, standard linear multiple regression was conducted to deter­
mine whether the Dark Triad predicted attitudes towards feminism (see
2.4. Design and analysis Table 3). The linear combination of the traits explained 17 % of attitudes
towards feminism (F(3,339) = 24.67, p < .01). Machiavellianism,
The study adopted a cross-sectional design with opportunity sam­ narcissism, and psychopathy were significant unique negative predictors
pling. Data were screened for outliers and missing data per Tabachnick of attitudes towards feminism, indicating that participants with higher
et al. (2007). Skewness and kurtosis of all variables were within range scores on the traits held more conservative, anti-feminist attitudes. This
(Tabachnick et al., 2007). There was no missing data, univariate outliers effect was robust to the partialing of the shared variance in the Dark
(e.g., no z-scores > 3.50), or multivariate outliers (e.g., no participant Triad traits.
showed a Mahalanobis distance greater than the critical value of χ 2(4) =
15.63, p < .01) therefore all data were retained for analyses. Descriptive 3.3. Moderation analyses
statistics, tests of differences between sexes, and bivariate correlations
were run on the SD3 and FEM scores. We also compared bivariate cor­ Finally, we explored the interaction between sex and the Dark Triad
relations for men and women using Fisher's r-to-z transformations. in predicting attitudes towards feminism.
Multiple regression was used to assess the relationship between the Dark Regarding Machiavellianism, the model was significant (R2 = 17 %,
Triad and attitudes towards feminism with Machiavellianism, narcis­ F[3,339] = 22.91 p < .001). The interaction between sex and Machia­
sism, and psychopathy entered as predictors and attitudes towards vellianism (b = − 0.18, SE = 0.05, t = − 3.36, p < .001, LLCI = 0–0.27;
feminism as the criterion variable. To further explore the interaction ULCI = − 0.08) significantly predicted attitudes towards feminism (see
between sex, the Dark Triad, and attitudes towards feminism we tested Fig. 1). Inclusion of the interaction predicted 2 % additional variance (F
moderation effects using Hayes's (2013) PROCESS macro (model 1) with [1,339] = 8.78 p < .01) with conditional effects of the focal predictor
5000 bootstrap samples. Interactions were considered significant at the indicating larger effects for men (b = − 0.41, SE = 0.06, t = − 7.36, p <
0.05 level if upper (ULCI) and lower (LLCI) confidence intervals did not .001, LLCI = − 0.52; ULCI = − 0.31) compared to women (b = − 0.18, SE
cross zero. = 0.05, t = − 3.36, p < .001, LLCI = − 0.29; ULCI = − 0.08).
Regarding narcissism, the model was significant (R2 = 9 %, F[3,339]
3. Results = 10.71 p < .001). The interaction between sex and narcissism (b =

3.1. Preliminary analyses Table 3

Summary of multiple linear regression between Dark Triad and attitudes to­
Consistent with previous research, men scored higher than women in wards feminism.
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (see Table 1). There Variable b SE β Partial Tolerance VIF
were no sex differences in feminist attitudes. The Dark Triad traits
Machiavellianism − 0.43 0.10 − 0.26** − 0.21 0.66 1.51
showed moderate inter-correlations and all three traits were associated Narcissism − 0.20 0.09 − 0.12** − 0.11 0.81 1.21
with lower feminist attitudes. Psychopathy − 0.36 0.12 − 0.15** − 0.12 0.68 1.48
Fisher's r-to-z transformations indicated correlations were signifi­
Note. Dependent variable = feminism. VIF = variance inflation factor. N = 343.
cantly larger for men compared to women (see Table 2). Machiavel­ **
p < .01.
lianism and narcissism (z = 1.70, p < .05), Machiavellianism and

Table 1
Descriptive statistics, test of differences, and bivariate correlations.
Variable M (SD) t d 1 2 3

Total Male Female

1. Machiavellianism 3.20 (0.61) 3.39 (0.63) 3.04 (0.57) 5.25 0.57**

2. Narcissism 2.50 (0.62) 2.85 (0.58) 2.24 (0.52) 4.31 0.54** 0.38**
3. Psychopathy 2.61 (0.43) 2.80 (0.40) 2.48 (0.39) 5.28 0.39** 0.52** 0.35**
4. Feminism 4.34 (0.47) 4.29 (0.52) 4.39 (0.41) 1.68 0.04 − 0.38** − 0.27** − 0.33**

Note. N = 343.
**
p < .01.

3
M.D. Douglass et al. Personality and Individual Differences 200 (2023) 111889

Fig. 1. Interaction of sex and Machiavellianism on feminism relationship.

− 0.12, SE = 0.06, t = − 2.01, p < .05, LLCI = − 0.25; ULCI = − 0.01) − 2.62, p < .01, LLCI = − 0.37; ULCI = − 0.05).
significantly predicted attitudes towards feminism (see Fig. 2). Inclusion
of the interaction predicted 1 % additional variance (F[1,339] = 4.84 p 4. Discussion
< .05) with conditional effects of the focal predictor indicating larger
effects for men (b = − 0.32, SE = 0.06, t = − 5.01, p < .001, LLCI = Gender inequality and sexism are public issues and understanding
− 0.45; ULCI = − 0.19) compared to women (b = − 0.12, SE = 0.06, t = the contributing factors is an essential task. We took an individual dif­
− 2.01, p < .05, LLCI = − 0.25; ULCI = − 0.01). ferences approach in understanding feminist attitudes versus more
Regarding psychopathy, the model was significant (R2 = 14 %, F conservative attitudes. As predicted, all Dark Triad traits were signifi­
[3,339] = 17.74 p < .001). The interaction between sex and psychop­ cantly negatively correlated with feminism, and significantly predicted
athy (b = − 0.21, SE = 0.08, t = − 2.62, p < .01, LLCI = − 0.37; ULCI = feminism. In addition, consistent with previous literature, Dark Triad
− 0.05) significantly predicted attitudes towards feminism (see Fig. 3). scores were significantly higher for men. This suggests a degree of val­
Inclusion of the interaction predicted 3 % additional variance (F[1,339] idity of the results, given this is a well-established finding (Gluck et al.,
= 9.93 p < .01) with conditional effects of the focal predictor indicating 2020; Vaughan et al., 2019). The magnitude of effects was stronger for
larger effects for men (b = − 0.59, SE = 0.09, t = − 6.57, p < .001, LLCI = men in all cases, which is consistent with previous research (Gluck et al.,
− 0.76; ULCI = − 0.41) compared to women (b = − 0.20, SE = 0.08, t = 2020), albeit feminism scores did not differ by sex. This is consistent

Fig. 2. Interaction of sex and narcissism on feminism relationship.

4
M.D. Douglass et al. Personality and Individual Differences 200 (2023) 111889

Fig. 3. Interaction of sex and psychopathy on feminism relationship.

with the concept of increasingly egalitarian attitudes in Western soci­ scores did not differ between the sexes, whereas correlations between
eties (Knight & Brinton, 2017). Though, to the extent that attitudes variables were significantly different for each sex. Future research
reflect behaviour, it is somewhat inconsistent with the view that sexism should investigate these relationships by measuring gender identity,
is common in the West. gender roles, endorsement of sexist attitudes, and Dark Triad scores in
The finding that Dark Triad scores negatively predicted feminist at­ men and women.
titudes is consistent with previous literature showing a positive corre­ A second limitation is the use of self-report measures, which raises
lation between sexism and the Dark triad (Gluck et al., 2020). In terms of the possibility of socially desirable responding. This may be particularly
men, this is consistent with previous findings, thereby strengthening our the case of the FEM scale. With the increase of egalitarian attitudes in
understanding of the relationship. However, as noted, there is some society (Knight & Brinton, 2017), those who do not hold such beliefs
complexity in the literature regarding gender roles and sexism in women may be reluctant to admit to anti-feminist attitudes, particularly in
who identify with more stereotypic masculine traits who show less higher education settings, where there may be more homogeneity in
sexism but those who identify more with masculine behaviours show attitudes. In addition, the FEM score contains some outdated con­
more sexism (Lemaster et al., 2015). ceptualisations, which may either fail to tap modern anti-feminist ide­
Results suggest that women who score high on the Dark Triad may ology or be more prone to socially desirable responding. Future research
adopt more flexible life approaches (e.g., disclose higher or lower atti­ should seek ways of investigating feminism that are less prone to socially
tudes towards feminism depending on the situation; Jonason et al., desirable responding. Moreover, whilst previous research has supported
2009; Jonason et al., 2011; Jonason et al., 2013; Jonason & Davis, the scales internal consistency and unidimensional structure (Smith
2018). That is, they may be more stereotypically masculine and engage et al., 1975), there is evidence that such scales are not appropriate with
in more intrasexual competition (Lyons et al., 2019), and may be less younger samples (Byrne et al., 2011). Given this, and recent research
feminine in some other aspects (Jonason & Davis, 2018). They do not showing that misogynistic dialogue on social media (Blake et al., 2021)
typically hold feminist ideals because they favour their own self- predict violence against women, future research should investigate
interests over that of solidarity with other women. Also, Dark Triad predictors of behavioural outcomes directly (e.g., misogyny, sexual
women may identify less with masculine stereotypic traits (Lemaster aggression, sexual objectification) in experimental designs.
et al., 2015) and use feminine roles for intrasexual competition. Future Next, the Dark Triad as a concept has also been criticised (Glenn &
research could test this idea by examining the interplay between the Sellbom, 2015). For example, with regards to the SD3, narcissism mostly
Dark Triad, feminism, and intrasexual competition in men and women. reflects grandiosity and superiority rather than vulnerability – an
Research suggests that maintaining adaptable interpersonal attitudes important facet of the construct (Maples et al., 2014). There is consid­
allows easier exploitation of others (Koehn et al., 2019). Research also erable overlap among the traits, however each predict diverse outcomes
attests that high scores in the Dark Triad are related to behaviours that and are distinct constructs (Koehn et al., 2019). It is believed that the
manifest in the exploitation of others (Koehn et al.). We believe this various scales do not sufficiently tap into female manifestations of the
explanation is the most likely and a candidate for future work. That is, personality. This may explain why research consistently finds sex dif­
those high in the Dark Triad favour their own interests irrespective of ferences between men and women. To combat this, extensive work is
sex. This would support Gluck et al.'s (2020) argument that sexism un­ needed to develop an empirical understanding of the traits and to find
derpins sex differences in the Dark Triad stemming from socially sup­ effective ways of measuring them. Finally, research has advanced dark
ported privilege surrounding men and masculinity. personality theory to include additional traits such as sadism (i.e., Dark
Tetrad; Book et al., 2016). Future research could replicate these findings
with additional traits such as sadism.
4.1. Limitations and future directions

The present study has a few limitations. The findings support Gluck
et al.'s (2020) argument that sexism underpins Dark Triad but feminism

5
M.D. Douglass et al. Personality and Individual Differences 200 (2023) 111889

5. Conclusions Fassinger, R. E. (1994). Development and testing of the Attitudes Toward Feminism and
the Women's Movement (FWM) scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(3),
389–402. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00462.x htt
The results were consistent with the hypotheses, all aspects of the ps://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00462.x.
Dark Triad negatively predicted feminism and Dark Triad traits signifi­ Glenn, A. L., & Sellbom, M. (2015). Theoretical and empirical concerns regarding the
cantly differing between men and women. However, endorsement of Dark Triad as a construct. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(3), 360–377. https://
doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_162
feminist attitudes did not differ between men and women. This adds to Gluck, M., Heesacker, M., & Choi, H. D. (2020). How much of the Dark Triad is accounted
previous research suggesting that Dark traits are correlated with sexism for by sexism? Personality and Individual Differences, 154, Article 109728. https://doi.
but is the first known paper to directly investigate the relationship be­ org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_162
Haywood, H., & Swank, E. (2008). Rape myths among Appalachian college students.
tween Dark Triad and feminism. Given the negative consequences of Violence and Victims, 23(3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.3.373
sexism, and its impact on society, it is important to understand the Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for
factors that underpin such attitudes, so steps can be taken to combat implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52,
606–610. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.015 https://psycnet.
them. apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.015.
Jonason, P. K., & Davis, M. D. (2018). A gender role view of the Dark Triad traits.
Personality and Individual Differences, 125, 102–105. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/
CRediT authorship contribution statement
10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.004 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.paid.2018.0
1.004.
MDD was responsible for literature review and writing of intro & Jonason, P. K., Girgis, M., & Milne-Home, J. (2017). The exploitive mating strategy of the
Dark Triad traits: Tests of rape-enabling attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 46,
discussion.
697–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0937-1
MS & MK aided in write-up. Jonason, N. P., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad:
RV was responsible for data collection and data analysis. Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23,
5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.698
Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Bethell, E. J., & Ross, R. (2013). Different routes to limited
Data availability empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and empathy.
Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 572–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Data will be made available on request. paid.2012.11.009
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., & Harbeson, C. L. (2011). Mate selection and
the Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile
References environment. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 759–763. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.025
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short Dark Triad (SD3) a brief
Aosved, A. C., & Long, P. J. (2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism,
measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/
racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles, 55(7–8),
10.1177/1073191113514105
481–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9101-4
Koehn, M. A., Jonason, P. K., & Davis, M. D. (2019). A person-centered view of prejudice:
Becker, J. C., & Wagner, U. (2009). Doing gender differently—The interplay of strength
The Big Five, Dark Triad, and prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 139,
of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women's
313–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105
endorsement of sexist beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 487–508.
Koehn, M. A., Okan, C., & Jonason, P. K. (2019). A primer on the Dark Triad traits.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/ejsp.551 https://psycnet.apa.org/d
Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(1), 7–15. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/
oi/10.1002/ejsp.551.
ajpy.12198 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/ajpy.12198.
Blake, K. R., O’Dean, S. M., Lian, J., & Denson, T. F. (2021). Misogynistic tweets correlate
Knight, C. R., & Brinton, M. C. (2017). One egalitarianism or several? Two decades of
with violence against women. Psychological Science, 32(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/
gender-role attitude change in Europe. American Journal of Sociology, 122(5),
10.1177/0956797620968529
1485–1532. https://doi.org/10.1086/689814
Book, A., Visser, B. A., Blais, J., Hosker-Field, A., Methot-Jones, T., Gauthier, N. Y.,
Leaper, C., & Van, S. R. (2008). Masculinity ideology, covert sexism, and perceived
Volk, A., Holden, R. R., & D'Agata, M. T. (2016). Unpacking more "evil": What is at
gender typicality in relation to young men's academic motivation and choices in
the core of the dark tetrad? Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 269–272.
college. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9(3), 139–153. https://psycnet.apa.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.009
doi/10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.139 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1524-922
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles,
0.9.3.139.
64(9), 768–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3
Lemaster, P., Strough, J., Stoiko, R., & DiDonato, L. (2015). To have and to do: Masculine
Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological
facets of gender predict men's and women's attitudes about gender equality among
Science, 22, 1413–1418. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0956797611420445
college students. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 195–205. https://psycnet.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0956797611420445.
apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0036429 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0036429.
Brewer, G., Lyons, M., Perry, A., & O’Brien, F. (2019). Dark Triad Traits and perceptions
Lyons, M., Gillies, N., & Brewer, G. (2019). Dark Triad traits, Facebook intensity, and
of sexual harassment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, 1–15. https://doi.org/
intrasexual competition. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 157–159.
10.1177/0886260519827666
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.012
Byrne, Z. S., Felker, S., Vacha-Haase, T., & Rickard, K. M. (2011). A comparison of
Maples, J. L., Lamkin, J., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of two brief measures of the Dark
responses on the Attitudes Toward Women Scale and Attitudes Toward Feminism
Triad: The dirty dozen and short dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 26(1),
Scale: Is there a difference between college-age and later-life adults with the original
326–331. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0035084 https://psycnet.apa.
norms? Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 44(4), 248–264.
org/doi/10.1037/a0035084.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175611418982
Menie, M. A., Luoto, S., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., & Sarraf, M. A. (2021). Life history is a
Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women's intrasexual
major source of adaptive individual and species differences: A critical commentary
aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/
on Zietsch and Sidari (2020). Evolutionary Psychological Science, 7(3), 213–231.
S0140525X99001818
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-021-00280-2
Carter, G. L., Montanaro, Z., Linney, C., & Campbell, A. C. (2015). Women's sexual
Navas, M. P., Maneiro, L., Cutrín, O., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., & Sobral, J. (2020).
competition and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 275–279.
Associations between Dark Triad and ambivalent sexism: Sex differences among
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.022
adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21),
Davis, A. C. (2021). Resolving the tension between feminism and evolutionary
7754. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217754
psychology: An epistemological critique. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 15(4),
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
368–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000193
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6),
Decety, J., & Yoder, K. J. (2016). Empathy and motivation for justice: Cognitive empathy
556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
and concern, but not emotional empathy, predict sensitivity to injustice for others.
Semenyna, S. W., & Honey, P. L. (2015). Dominance styles mediate sex differences in
Social Neuroscience, 11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1029593
Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 37–43. https://doi.org/
Derks, B., Ellemers, N., van Laar, C., & de Groot, K. (2011). Do sexist organizational
10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.046
cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 519–525.
Smith, E. R., Ferree, M. M., & Miller, F. D. (1975). A short scale of attitudes toward
https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X525280
feminism. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 51–58.
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female
Swami, V., & Voracek, M. (2013). Associations among men's sexist attitudes,
adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154–165. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112416
objectification of women, and their own drive for muscularity. Psychology of Men &
Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2009). Collective action in modern times: How modern
Masculinity, 14(2), 168–174. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0028437 https
expressions of prejudice prevent collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4),
://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0028437.
749–768. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01621.x
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. 5 pp.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01621.x.
481–498). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
Takamatsu, R., & Takai, J. (2019). With or without empathy: Primary psychopathy and
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
difficulty in identifying feelings predict utilitarian judgment in sacrificial dilemmas.
Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

6
M.D. Douglass et al. Personality and Individual Differences 200 (2023) 111889

Ethics & Behavior, 29(1), 71–85. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/ Wai, M., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the
10508422.2017.1367684 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/10508422.2017.1 Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(7), 794–799.
367684. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.008 https://psycnet.apa.org/d
Twenge, J. M. (1999). Mapping gender: The multifactorial approach and the oi/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.008.
organization of gender-related attributes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), White, B. A. (2014). Who cares when nobody is watching? Psychopathic traits and
485–502. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00377.x htt empathy in prosocial behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 116–121.
ps://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00377.x. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.033
Unger, R. K., & Crawford, M. E. (1992). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. Temple Willis, M., Birthrong, A., King, J. S., Nelson-Gray, R. O., & Latzman, R. D. (2017). Are
University Press. infidelity tolerance and rape myth acceptance related constructs? An association
Vaughan, R., Madigan, D. J., Carter, G. L., & Nicholls, A. R. (2019). The Dark Triad in moderated by psychopathy and narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences,
male and female athletes and non-athletes: Group differences and psychometric 117, 230–235. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.015 https://ps
properties of the Short Dark Triad (SD3). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 43, 64–72. ycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.015.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.01.002 https://psycnet. Zietsch, B. P., & Sidari, M. J. (2020). A critique of life history approaches to human trait
apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.01.002. covariation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(6), 527–535. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.05.007