See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272028892

Pathology, pseudopathology, and the Dark Triad of personality

Article in Personality and Individual Differences · May 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.028

CITATIONS READS

88 1,941

3 authors:

Peter Karl -PK- Jonason Jasper Duineveld

Akademia Ekonomiczno-Humanistyczna Australian Catholic University
299 PUBLICATIONS 15,145 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 988 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

James Paul Middleton

Western Sydney University
2 PUBLICATIONS 132 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Karl -PK- Jonason on 15 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personality and Individual Differences 78 (2015) 43–47

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Pathology, pseudopathology, and the Dark Triad of personality

Peter K. Jonason a,⇑, Jasper J. Duineveld b, James P. Middleton a
a
University of Western Sydney, Australia
b
Australian Catholic University, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Dark Triad traits (i.e., psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism) have traditionally been
Received 19 October 2014 viewed as undesirable and pathological. In contrast, an evolutionary perspective suggests that traits like
Received in revised form 18 January 2015 these might be pseudopathologies; traits that society actively dislikes in that they pose a threat to the
Accepted 20 January 2015
collective good. We examined (N = 290) how the Dark Triad traits related to intrapersonal (i.e., behavioral
dysfunction), quasibehavioral (i.e., reactive and proactive aggression), and interpersonal (i.e., communal
and exchange orientation) factors. Psychopathy predicted high rates of behavioral dysregulation and both
Keywords:
forms of aggression. Psychopathy and Machiavellianism showed an aversion towards communalism but
Psychopathy
Machiavellianism
an exchange orientation to social relationships. Lastly, individual differences in the Dark Triad traits
Narcissism accounted for part (5–22%) of the sex differences in social strategies and aggression. The theoretical
Social strategies implications of these findings are discussed in, and in support of, an evolutionary paradigm.
Behavioral regulation Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Aggression

1. Introduction links have been observed repeatedly in various ways. The Dark
Triad traits have been linked to various forms of aggression
The Dark Triad traits (i.e., psychopathy, narcissism, and (Jonason & Webster, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2010), future discount-
Machiavellianism) are traditionally viewed as undesirable and ing and drug abuse (Jonason, Koenig, & Tost, 2010), criminal ten-
pathological traits (Campbell & Miller, 2011; Kowalski, 2001). In dencies (Hare, 1985), an exploitive mating strategy (Jonason
contrast, an evolutionary perspective (Jonason, Li, Webster, & et al., 2009), and lying (Baughman, Jonason, Vernon, & Lyons,
Schmitt, 2009; Jonason, Lyons, Bethell, & Ross, 2013) suggests the 2014).
Dark Triad traits might be pseudopathologies where they confer Unsurprisingly these traits tend to be thought of as pathologies
benefits to the person at the cost of the group (Crawford & by most people.1 One way to disentangle the pathological and
Anderson, 1989). In this study we adopt the latter position in pseudopathological aspects of these traits is to examine each trait
understanding the relationships between the Dark Triad traits independently (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). For instance, psychopa-
and behavioral dysregulation, aggression, and social strategies. thy evidences the most socially undesirable value system: Machia-
Importantly, we advance a model whereby the Dark Triad traits vellianism evidences a moral flexibility; narcissism evidences a
are characterized by a social strategy that devalues others over socially desirable value system (Jonason et al., 2015). Much of the
oneself (Jonason, Strosser, Kroll, Duineveld, & Baruffi, 2015) which undesirable aspects of the Dark Triad traits tend to load up on psy-
then facilitates aggression and limited self-control. chopathy. For instance, we expect psychopathy to be related to
Most—implicitly or explicitly—treat behavioral dysregulation behavioral dysregulation. While it might be possible this is evidence
(e.g., Roth, Lance, Isquith, Fischer, & Giancola, 2013; Slick, of some personality disorder, it is also possible they might be part of
Lautzenhiser, Sherman, & Eyrl, 2006) and aggression (Baumeister, the suite of tactics and traits that come together to form a fast life
Bushman, & Campbell, 2000; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; history strategy (Glenn & Raine, 2009). Behavioral dysregulation
Lykken, 1995) as pathologies. The Dark Triad traits are associated might facilitate the immediate extraction of resources from one’s
with both of these through limited executive functioning (Gioia, environment (Jonason & Tost, 2010).
Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000) and limited self-control and We also expect this to be the case when examining the aggres-
impulsivity (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2011). These sion that characterizes these traits. Unlike prior work we examine
it in relation to reactive and proactive aggression (Bobadilla,

⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Social Sciences and Psychology, University 1

We use a liberal definition of word ‘‘pathology’’ in this study because we (1) are
of Western Sydney, Milperra, NSW 2214, Australia. measuring sub-clinical levels of these traits and (2) we feel social perceptions define
E-mail address: p.jonason@uws.edu.au (P.K. Jonason). what is considered a pathology or not (i.e., community standards).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.028
0191-8869/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
44 P.K. Jonason et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 78 (2015) 43–47

Wampler, & Taylor, 2012; Dodge & Coie, 1987). This is an impor- particular social strategies, which then predict behavioral out-
tant distinction in understanding aggression. Each evidences dif- comes. Last, we test whether individual differences in the Dark
ferent estimates of genetic and environmental influence Triad traits can account for part of the sex differences in social
(Tuvblad, Raine, Zheng, & Baker, 2009) and different correlates strategies, aggression, and behavioral dysregulation.
(Bobadilla et al., 2012; Raine et al., 2006). For instance, reactive
but not proactive aggression, might be linked to self-regulation
2. Method
problems (White, Jarrett, & Ollendick, 2013; Winstok, 2009). Psy-
chopathy is associated with self-control problems (Jonason &
2.1. Participants and procedure
Tost, 2010) and neurological antecedents that may relate to the
associated aggression (Glenn & Raine, 2009). Aggression might be
Two hundred and ninety volunteers (35% male) aged 17–65
one of the standard tactics of influence used by those who score
(M = 31.16, SD = 10.34) predominantly (89%) from the United
high in psychopathy (Jonason & Webster, 2012). Proactive and
States were recruited via social networking websites to partake
reactive aggression may serve different functional, adaptive pur-
in a larger online study. Participants were informed about the nat-
poses (Raine et al., 2006), but as those characterized by psychopa-
ure of the study, then proceeded to complete a series of measures
thy adopt aggression as a global approach to getting what they
as described below. Upon completion, participants were thanked
want, we expect psychopathy to be correlated with reactive and
and debriefed.
proactive aggression.
An evolutionary perspective on these traits suggests the Dark
Triad traits are not pathologies but are, instead, ‘‘alternative’’ social 2.2. Measures
strategies (Jonason & Webster, 2012). These social strategies often
manifest themselves in socially undesirable ways (e.g., behavioral The Dark Triad traits were assessed using the 27-item Short
dysregulation and aggression) and, thus, they are deemed as Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Participants indicated their
pathologies (Jonason et al., 2015; Kurt & Paulhus, 2008). Our per- agreement with (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree) on items
spective may translate into associations with the distinction of such as: ‘‘It’s not wise to tell your secrets’’ for Machiavellianism,
communalism (i.e., implicit reciprocity) and exchange (i.e., explicit ‘‘People see me as a natural leader’’ for narcissism, and ‘‘I like to
reciprocity) social strategies (Clark & Mills, 1993, 2011; Clark, get revenge on Authority’’ for psychopathy. The relevant items
Ouellette, Powell, & Milberg, 1987; Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012). were summed to create indexes of narcissism (Cronbach’s
We expect psychopathy and Machiavellianism to be characterized a = .81), Machiavellianism (a = .80), and psychopathy (a = .81).2
by low scores on communalism and high scores on exchange (i.e., Participants completed the Behavioral Regulation Scale (Roth,
pseudopathologies) whereas narcissism may only be correlated Isquith, & Gioia, 2005). It is composed of 30 items asking partici-
with high scores on communalism. In reference to the former, pants how often (1 = Never; 7 = Almost always) within the last
those high in these ‘‘darker’’ aspects of personality may be out month they acted with/without self-control such as: ‘‘Being impul-
for themselves and, thus, might be against the group and only sive’’, and ‘‘After having a problem, not getting over it easily’’. Items
interact with others if they are overtly getting something in were summed to create a measure of individual differences in
exchange. In reference to the latter, narcissism may be ‘‘lighter’’ behavioral dysregulation abilities (a = .96).
and more socially desirable than the other two (Rauthmann & Participants completed the Communal Orientation Scale (Clark
Kolar, 2012) which may manifest in socially desirable approaches et al., 1987) and Exchange Orientation Scale (Clark, Taraban, Ho,
to the group (Jonason et al., 2015). And finally, we present a Struc- & Wesner, 1989) combined. On the Communal Orientation Scale
tural Equation Model that tests our contention that the ‘‘undesir- participants reported how much each item sounded like them
able’’ outcomes associated with the Dark Triad traits are (1 = Definitely does not sound like me; 5 = Definitely sounds like
manifestations of the social strategies that characterize each, with me). It is composed of 14 items that assess one’s orientation to
psychopathy retaining direct links as it is the most ‘‘pathological’’ the group (i.e., communalism) with items such as: ‘‘When I have
trait. a need that others ignore I am hurt’’. The Exchange Orientation
Objectively speaking, men are better characterized by the Dark Scale is composed of nine items that assess one’s orientation
Triad traits than women are (Jonason et al., 2009). The pathological towards self-interest (i.e., exchange) with items like: ‘‘I usually
perspective has little to say as to why this might be the case as only give gifts to those who have given me gifts in the past’’. Items
most of it is not theory driven. In contrast, the pseudopathological on each scale were summed to create indexes for communalism
perspective—an evolutionary perspective—suggests this pattern (a = .84) and exchange (a = .67).3,4
might be a function of the asymmetrical costs between the sexes Participants completed the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Sur-
in engaging in social and sexual strategies that place immediate vey (Raine et al., 2006). It is composed of 30 items that assess indi-
outcomes over delayed ones (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Jonason, vidual differences in one’s tendency to react in an aggressive way
Valentine & Li, 2012) and the Dark Triad trait may facilitate this (e.g., ‘‘Yelled at others when they have annoyed you’’) or a ten-
in men more than in women (Jonason, Koenig, et al., 2010). There- dency to seek out aggressive exchanges (e.g., ‘‘Had fights with oth-
fore, we expect to replicate these sex differences for the Dark Triad ers to show who was on top’’). Participants reported how often
traits, but also expect these differences to mediate sex differences they have used such behavior (1 = Never; 5 = Always). Items were
in social strategies and behaviors (both external manifestations of summed to create indexes of reactive (a = .89) and proactive
internal qualities). For instance, men may be more aggressive in (a = .91) aggression.5
general (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Eagly & Steffen, 1986) and less
communal (Buhrke & Fuqua, 1987; Jonason, Webster, & Lindsey,
2008) than women are. Sex differences in aggression and social 2
Machiavellianism correlated with psychopathy (r(289) = .56, p < .01) and narcis-
strategies may be facilitated by individual differences in the Dark sism (r(289) = .31, p < .01), whereas narcissism correlated with psychopathy
Triad traits. (r(289) = .39, p < .01).
3
While we could have improved Cronbach’s alpha to .72 by eliminating items 5,
In this study we try to describe a position that the Dark Triad
17, and 22, we felt it best to retain the established factor structure.
traits are pseudopathologies characterized by a non-communal 4
These two scales were correlated, but effectively orthogonal (r(289) = .15,
social strategy, behavioral dysregulation, and aggression. We then p < .01).
posit a model whereby personality traits lead to the adoption of 5
These two scales were correlated (r(289) = .64, p < .01).
 P.K. Jonason et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 78 (2015) 43–47 45

3. Results Table 2
Zero-order and standardized regression weights using the Dark Triad traits to predict
social strategies, behavioral dysregulation, and aggression.
Table 1 contains descriptive statistics and sex difference tests
with Hedge’s g, to adjust for the unbalanced sex ratio, for the Dark r (b)
Triad traits, social strategies, behavioral regulation, and aggression. Psychopathy Machiavellianism Narcissism
Men scored higher than women did on all the Dark Triad variables. Communal orientation .32** ( .26**) .33** ( .23**) .01 (.18**)
Men also scored higher than women did on proactive aggression. Exchange orientation .31** (.17*) .36** (.28**) .11 ( .05)
On the other hand, women scored higher than men did on the com- Behavioral dysregulation .44** (.44**) .30** (.08) .08 ( .12*)
munal orientation social strategy. Proactive aggression .54** (.51**) .33** (.01) .27** (.06)
Reactive aggression .56** (.59**) .32** ( .01) .19** ( .04)
Table 2 contains the correlations and standardized regression
coefficients from multiple regression (to control for the shared var- Note: Correlations did not differ as a function of participant’s sex when p < .001.
*
iance among the Dark Triad traits) between the Dark Triad traits p < .05.
**
p < .01.
and social strategies, behavioral regulation, and aggression types.
Behavioral dysregulation, proactive, and reactive aggression were
uniquely (in regression) associated with scores on psychopathy.
All three of the Dark Triad traits explained unique and significant 4. Discussion
variance in communalism. Psychopathy and Machiavellianism
were uniquely associated with an exchange orientation. After con- Are the Dark Triad traits pathologies or pseudopathologies? We
trolling for the shared variance in the Dark Triad traits, narcissism contend the answer to this question depends on one’s perspective.
was associated with low rates of behavioral dysregulation. Adopting the traditional view (Campbell & Miller, 2011; Kowalski,
In Fig. 1 we present a Structural Equation Model that allows us to 2001) would lead one to conclude these are pathologies. However,
control for shared variance within measures and to present our pri- we would contend the traditional view is biased towards empha-
mary theoretical contention. This was a good fitting model sizing group level outcomes (i.e., liberal socialism) over individual
(v2(9) = 13.59, p > .05, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = .04 [90%CI = level ones (i.e., liberal humanism). To us this is only one way of
.00, .09], p-closeness of fit = .56) and shows how social strategies seeing personality traits. From an evolutionary perspective, even
partially mediate the relationships between the Dark Triad traits the most undesirable personality traits can be adaptive if they con-
and behavioral outcomes. Psychopathy had direct and indirect links fer benefits to the individual even at the cost of the group. Such
to the outcomes of aggression and behavioral dysregulation. traits are called pseudopathologies (Crawford & Anderson, 1989)
Machiavellianism and narcissism were only associated with the and may align with the communalism and agency distinction
outcomes through their orientation towards communalism. (Kurt & Paulhus, 2008; Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012).
Based on results in Tables 1 and 2 we tested whether the Dark The evidence is clear that psychopathy is the most socially
Triad traits mediated sex differences in communal orientation and undesirable of the three. It is linked to global aggression, behav-
proactive aggression. Psychopathy partially mediated sex differ- ioral dysregulation, and is rather against the group with its low
ences in communal orientation (DR2 = .06, F(1, 289) = 16.77, scores on communalism. Even in the Structural Equation Model,
p < .01) and proactive aggression (DR2 = .22, F(1, 289) = 83.95, it maintained direct links in the presence of indirect links to proac-
p < .01), where the sex difference (b) decreased from .23 tive aggression. As people have something of a ‘‘groupish’’ nature,
(p < .01) to .16 (p < .05) in the former, and from .27 (p < .01) to individuals who violate group norms or what might be best for the
.13 (p < .01) in the latter. Machiavellianism partially mediated group and are out for themselves are often vilified. An evolutionary
communal orientation (DR2 = .08, F(1, 289) = 24.16, p < .01) and perspective would temper this in that these tendencies might not
proactive aggression (DR2 = .08, F(1, 289) = 25.67, p < .01) such that be good for the group but they could be good for the individual
the direct effect (b) decreased from .23 (p < .01) to .18 (p < .01) and that is what natural selection acts upon. While most would
and .27 (p < .01) to .22 (p < .01) respectively. Narcissism partially consider behavioral dysregulation deleterious and maladaptive,
mediated proactive aggression (DR2 = .05, F(1, 289) = 15.36, an evolutionary perspective suggests it might actually be disposi-
p < .01) where the sex difference (b) decreased from .27 (p < .01) tions instrumental for capitalizing on immediate opportunities in
to .22 (p < .01). This suggests that high scores on communal orien- one’s environment (Crone, Vendel, & van der Molen, 2003;
tation for women may be in part facilitated by low scores on psy- Jonason & Tost, 2010). As long as this conferred some positive
chopathy, and psychopathy and Machiavellianism may account for reproductive fitness over evolutionary time, the two would have
sex differences in proactive aggression. been paired as a coherent suite of dispositions. The same argument

Table 1
Overall descriptive statistics and sex differences for the Dark Triad traits, social strategies, behavioral regulation, and aggression.

Mean (SD) t g
Overall Men Women
Psychopathy 18.61 (6.23) 20.78 (5.94) 17.19 (5.98) 4.73** 0.60
Machiavellianism 29.73 (6.38) 31.09 (6.53) 29.03 (6.24) 2.55* 0.32
Narcissism 24.11 (6.23) 25.61 (6.27) 23.14 (6.10) 3.16** 0.40
Communal orientation 50.17 (7.95) 47.93 (7.48) 51.67 (7.94) 3.78** 0.48
Exchange orientation 25.82 (4.79) 26.38 (4.56) 25.49 (4.98) 1.45 0.18
Behavioral regulation 81.01 (35.07) 80.27 (33.45) 80.45 (35.37) 0.04 0.01
Proactive aggression 14.43 (4.18) 15.46 (4.69) 13.42 (2.71) 3.94** 0.50
Reactive aggression 21.91 (6.48) 22.40 (6.18) 21.34 (6.36) 1.33 0.17

Note: g is Hedge’s g for effect size.

*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
46 P.K. Jonason et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 78 (2015) 43–47

PERSONALITY SOCIAL STRATEGIES OUTCOMES

.56**

-.26** Reactive
Psychopathy Communal Aggression
Orientation
-.16* .50**
.58**
-.23** .49**
Proactive .43**
.40** Aggression
Machiavellianism
.16* .48**
.30** .29**
.18**
.27** Exchange
Orientation Behavioral
Narcissism Regulation

χ2(9) = 13.59, p > .05, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = .04 [90%CI = .00, .09], p-closeness of fit = .56

* p < .05, ** p < .01

Fig. 1. Structural equation model of the significant relationships between the Dark Triad traits, social strategies, and aggression and behavioral regulation.

could be made about aggression. For instance, defending one’s As our study was about whether the Dark Triad traits are
group—broadly defined—would have allowed reactive aggression pathologies or pseudopathologies, it might be worth commenting
to be adaptive whereas preempting the attacks of others or using on where our data comes down on this question. Behavioral dys-
aggression to ‘‘take’’ things from others (Jonason & Webster, regulation could be seen as a pathology or a pseudopathology; it
2012; Raine et al., 2006) may have also been adaptive, especially is all a matter of perspective. This is the same for aggression of
when coupled with limited empathy (Jonason, Lyons, et al., 2013). either the proactive or reactive kind. That is, it is hard to say
In contrast to psychopathy, behavioral dysregulation and aggres- whether the Dark Triad traits are necessarily pseudopathologies
sion were not directly correlated with Machiavellianism and narcis- because aggression and dysregulation are themselves stigmatized
sism. Both were correlated with social strategies only and have behaviors and aspects of people’s personality. However, in the case
some indirect association to reactive aggression through individual of social strategies the answer might be clearer. As each social
differences in communalism; reactive aggression being probably strategy is value-neutral—objectively speaking—the results more
the most essential form of aggression, evolutionarily-speaking. strongly suggest psychopathy and Machiavellianism, in particular,
Importantly, consistent with the pseudopathology framework, are pseudopathologies that adopt an approach to life and others
Machiavellianism, like psychopathy, was associated with a non- that runs counter to the interests of the collective good. Aggression
communal and an exchange social orientation. These traits may ori- and behavioral dysregulation may be part of the latent suite of
ent people against the group in the selfish pursuit of their agendas traits that facilitates just such an approach, especially for those
(Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010; Jonason et al., 2015). Unlike most peo- high on psychopathy (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jonason & Webster,
ple who adopt more mutualistic relationships, those characterized 2012).
by these traits may adopt a competitive or even parasitic approach
to social relationships. In this way, individuals do not invest into
relationships but, instead, do things in hopes of getting something 5. Limitations and conclusions
in return. This may evidence mistrust or cynicism in the reliability
of others and an unwillingness to invest in others which is essential This study had a number of limitations. First, it had an imbal-
to understand psychopathy and Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, anced sex ratio. We tried to adjust for this by using a sample size
1970). In contrast, narcissism revealed a communal social strategy sensitive measure of effect size. Second, our measure of the Dark
when variance with the other traits was controlled (i.e., suppres- Triad traits does not allow the nuance of its longer, parent mea-
sion) thus, it requires further testing. Nevertheless, it is possible sures. Facet-level analyses are useful in understanding the Dark
the social strategy in narcissism might rely on others sufficiently Triad traits (Jonason, Jones, & Lyons, 2013), but we were not inter-
that it orients people to have at least a nominal/superficial amount ested in such associations in this study; focusing on higher-order
of communal orientation. relationships. Third, our sample was W.E.I.R.D. (i.e., western, edu-
Consistent with prior work (Jonason et al., 2009; Jonason, Lyons, cated, industrialized, rich, and democratic; Henrich, Heine, &
et al., 2013), men scored higher on the Dark Triad traits than Norenzayan, 2010). Future research should examine more out-
women did. Men were less communal and more proactive in their comes that result from the ‘‘selfish’’ approach to life characterized
aggression than women were. These latter two sex differences by the Dark Triad traits.
were mediated by individual differences in the Dark Triad traits. In conclusion, we have examined how the Dark Triad traits
The Dark Triad traits might act as the psychological systems that might be pseudopathologies. We showed the pseudopathology of
generate apparent sex differences in various features of our lives. psychopathy may be characterized by an aggressive behavioral
For instance, it might not be that men are necessarily more aggres- profile and an uninhibited intrapersonal psychology. Psychopathy
sive than women are. Men appear to be more proactively aggres- and Machiavellianism were associated with an aversion towards
sive than women are and this is, in part, facilitated by men’s communal relationships and an exchange orientation to social
tendency to be better characterized by the Dark Triad traits. relationships. Pseudopathologies are traits that society actively
 P.K. Jonason et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 78 (2015) 43–47 47

does not like in that they pose a cost for the collective good. Collec- Glenn, A., & Raine, A. (2009). Psychopathy and instrumental aggression:
Evolutionary, neurobiological, and legal perspectives. International Journal of
tivistic and socialistic thinking—something humans may have as a
Law and Psychiatry, 32, 253–258.
function of the selection pressures for group-living (Dunbar, Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy.
2003)—may bias individuals towards thinking the world is (or Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7–16.
should be) one where all can prosper (i.e., a positive-sum game). Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
But life may instead be a zero-sum game; a competitive game of Jonason, P. K., Jones, A., & Lyons, M. (2013). Creatures of the night: Chronotype and
winners and losers in life’s great struggles (e.g., reproduction, the Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 538–541.
resource acquisition). Indeed, this might have been and continues Jonason, P. K., Koenig, B., & Tost, J. (2010). Living a fast life: The Dark Triad and life
history theory. Human Nature, 21, 428–442.
to be one of the most uncomfortable implications of evolutionary Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Teicher, E. A. (2010). Who is James Bond?: The Dark Triad
theory; that we are not all equal and are not all able to be equally as an agentic social style. Individual Differences Research, 8, 111–120.
successful in life. In this competition, individuals—perhaps charac- Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. W., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad:
Facilitating short-term mating in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.
terized by the Dark Triad traits—who are able to take from the Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Bethell, E., & Ross, R. (2013). Different routes to limited
group to their own advantage may have successfully fulfilled var- empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and
ious adaptive tasks in the past, and may continue to do so today. empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 572–576.
Jonason, P. K., Strosser, G. L., Kroll, C. H., Duineveld, J. J., & Baruffi, S. A. (2015).
Valuing myself over others: The Dark Triad traits and moral and social values.
Personality and Individual Differences. in press.
References Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The Dark Triad and self-
control. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 611–615.
Baughman, H. M., Jonason, P. K., Vernon, P. A., & Lyons, M. (2014). Liar liar pants on Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., & Li, N. P. (2012). Human mating. In V. S.
fire. The Dark Triad and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, Ramachandran (Ed.) (2nd ed.. Encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed.) (Vol. 2,
35–38. pp. 371–377). Oxford: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self-esteem, narcissism, Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2012). A protean approach to social influence: Dark
and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened Triad personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual
egotism? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 26–29. Differences, 52, 521–526.
Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the
of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447. Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432.
Bobadilla, L., Wampler, M., & Taylor, J. (2012). Proactive and reactive aggression are Jonason, P. K., Webster, G. D., & Lindsey, A. E. (2008). Solutions to the problem of
associated with different physiological and personality profiles. Journal of Social diminished social interaction. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 637–651.
and Clinical Psychology, 31, 458–487. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations provoke aggression in
Buhrke, R. A., & Fuqua, D. R. (1987). Sex differences in same- and cross-sex psychopaths and narcissists. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1,
supportive relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 339–352. 12–18.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self- Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of
esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 679–682.
violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short-Dark Triad (SD3): A brief
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41.
perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. Kowalski, R. M. (2001). Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal
Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2011). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic relationships. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments. Kurt, A., & Paulhus, D. L. (2008). Moderators of the adaptiveness of self-
New York, NY: Wiley. enhancement: Operationalization, motivational domain, adjustment facet, and
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic evaluator. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 839–853.
Press. Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatze-Kopp, L., Lynman, D., Reynolds, C., et al. (2006).
relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, The reactive-proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of
684–691. reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32,
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (2011). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. 159–171.
In P. A. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How ‘‘dark’’ are the Dark Triad traits?
social psychology (pp. 232–250). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Examining the perceived darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and
Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipient’s mood, psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 884–889.
relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, Roth, R. M., Isquith, P. K., & Gioia, G. A. (2005). Behavior rating inventory of executive
94–103. function-adult version (BRIEF-A). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Clark, M. S., Taraban, C., Ho, J., & Wesner, K. (1989). A measure of exchange Roth, R. M., Lance, R. E., Isquith, P. K., Fischer, A. S., & Giancola, P. R. (2013).
orientation. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University (unpublished Confirmatory factor analysis of the behavior rating inventory of executive
manuscript). function – adult version in healthy adults and application to attention-deficit/
Crawford, C. B., & Anderson, J. L. (1989). Sociobiology: An environmentalist hyperactivity disorder. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28, 425–434.
discipline. American Psychologist, 44, 1449–1459. Slick, D. J., Lautzenhiser, A., Sherman, E. M., & Eyrl, K. (2006). Frequency of scales
Crone, E. A., Vendel, I., & van der Molen, M. W. (2003). Decision-making in elevations and factor structure of the behavior rating inventory of executive
disinhibited adolescents and adults: insensitivity to future consequences or function (BRIEF) in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy. Child
driven by immediate reward? Personality and Individual Differences, 35, Neuropsychology, 12, 181–189.
1625–1641. Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2012). Agentic and communal values: Their scope
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 39–52.
and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Tuvblad, C., Raine, A., Zheng, M., & Baker, L. A. (2009). Genetic and environmental
Social Psychology, 53, 1146–1158. stability differs in reactive and proactive aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 35,
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary 437–452.
perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 163–181. White, B. A., Jarrett, M. A., & Ollendick, T. H. (2013). Self-regulation deficits explain
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic the link between reactive aggression and internalizing behavior problems in
review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, children. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35, 1–9.
309–330. Winstok, Z. (2009). From self-control capabilities and the need to control others to
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior rating proactive and reactive aggression among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 32,
inventory of executive function. Child Neuropsychology, 6, 235–238. 455–466.

View publication stats