- Email: [email protected]
avoidance tendencies in dark personalities
Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Approach/avoidance tendencies in dark personalities☆ Adon Lee Neria, Maricarmen Vizcaino, Daniel Nelson Jones ⁎ The University of Texas at El Paso, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 10 December 2015 Accepted 23 May 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Dark Triad BIS/BAS RST Machiavellianism Psychopathy Narcissism
a b s t r a c t Although there are strong correlations among “dark” personalities (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism), they differ in important ways. The present study examined differences in approach vs. avoidance tendencies using Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. A Structural Equations Model addressed the degree to which these variables differ in their associations with Behavioral Inhibition Systems (BIS) and Behavioral Activation Systems (BAS). Results showed predicted differences in Machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathy and narcissism, with respect to BIS and BAS. Specifically, Machiavellianism was positively associated with BIS, psychopathy was negatively associated with BIS, and narcissism was positively associated with certain aspects of BAS. Implications are discussed for the Dark Triad and the role of reinforcement in personality, more broadly. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Although positively correlated, malevolent personality traits are distinguishable from one another (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). Previous work on dark personalities focused on a cluster of three harmful personality traits referred to as the Dark Triad (hereafter: “D3”; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), which consists of strategically manipulative Machiavellianism, reckless and antisocial psychopathy, and grandiose and entitled narcissism. Central to these three traits are high levels of callousness and manipulation (Jones & Figueredo, 2013). Recent research found inconsistent patterns of reinforcement sensitivity among the D3 across two short measures of the D3, which also used a newer measure of reinforcement sensitivity (Jonason & Jackson, 2016). In order to build on these findings, we examined the relationship the D3 traits have with reinforcement sensitivity using original measures of the D3 (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) and reinforcement sensitivity (Carver & White, 1994).
1.1. Machiavellianism Machiavellianism is defined by amorality, manipulative tendencies and a cynical worldview (Christie & Geis, 1970). Although amorality does not form a coherent facet in typical assessments (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009), Machiavellianism is associated with ☆ The authors would like to thank Osvaldo Morera, PhD, for his guidance with the statistical analyses and for his critiques on early drafts of this manuscript. ⁎ Corresponding author at: The University of Texas at El Paso, Department of Psychology, 500 W. University Ave., El Paso, TX 79968, United States. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (D.N. Jones). URL: http://academics.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=72785 (D.N. Jones).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.054 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
callousness (Jones, 2016) and a disregard for conventional morality (Noser et al., 2015). According to theory, Machiavellianism is unique to other dark personalities because of the strategic and cautious nature of their manipulation attempts (Jones & Paulhus, 2010). Generally, research has found that Machiavellian individuals will behave selfishly only when the risk of negative consequences is low (Cooper & Peterson, 1980). Further, individuals high in Machiavellianism chart a course of manipulation (Czibor & Bereczkei, 2012) that involves anticipation and forethought (Esperger & Bereczkei, 2012), driven by a longterm and bottom-line focus (Jones, 2016). 1.2. Narcissism Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, entitlement, dominance, and a sense of superiority (Emmons, 1987). Narcissistic individuals have an insatiable need for social reinforcement and praise (Campbell, 1999), and get aggressive when ego-threatened (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Individuals high in narcissism take risks out of overconfidence (Foster & Trimm, 2008) rather than out of a deficit in impulse control (as is the case with psychopathy; Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Individuals high in narcissism also have an inflated sense of entitlement (Emmons, 1987). 1.3. Psychopathy Psychopathy is defined through a presence of manipulation, callousness, impulsivity, and aggressive or antisocial behavior (Hare, 1996). Early research by Lykken (1957) found that the presence of anxiety differentiated two types of psychopathic individuals: “Primary” and “Secondary.” Whereas primary psychopathy is associated with manipulation, fearlessness, and callousness, secondary psychopathy is
A.L. Neria et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269
seen as symptomatic of antisocial behavioral problems (Karpman, 1948). Whereas individuals with “primary” psychopathy characteristics (callous affect, shallow emotions) had deficits in anxiety, those with “secondary” characteristics (erratic/impulsive behavior) had increased anxiety. Fowles (1980) later examined this distinction physiologically and argued that primary psychopathy was linked with poor behavioral inhibition but had no association with behavioral approach. Work by Newman, MacCoon, Vaughn, and Sadeh (2005) are among the first to relate the primary/secondary distinction to Gray's biopsychological theory of personality (1987). Newman and colleagues found the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) was negatively associated with primary psychopathy and Behavioral Activation System (BAS) was positively related to secondary psychopathy. 1.4. Dark personalities and their relationship to BIS/BAS dimensions Jonason and Jackson (2016) examined reinforcement sensitivity and the D3. They found that Machiavellianism was associated with behavioral inhibition when assessed using the Short-Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014), but not when using the Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Further, both measures found that narcissism was associated with behavioral activation, but only the Dirty Dozen measure of narcissism was associated with behavioral inhibition. Finally, neither psychopathy measure was associated with behavioral inhibition or activation. Building on these findings, we are interested in the questions: (a) how do original measures of dark personalities relate to BIS/BAS dimensions when the overlap among them is appropriately assessed in SEM framework? (b) do the D3 traits each have a unique BIS/BAS signature? 1.5. Hypotheses and predictions Guided by previous research, we investigated the approach/avoidance tendencies of the D3. We predicted that these callous dispositions will have different patterns of association with BIS/BAS when examined simultaneously because of their unique elements. Strategic Machiavellianism should be uniquely associated with BIS due to the caution inherent in the Machiavellian profile, but have little association with BAS facets. Psychopathy, on the other hand, is a reckless trait that should be negatively associated with BIS. We also predict that individuals high in narcissism will be associated with BASR because of their never-ending need for agentic success and social praise (Campbell, 1999). Breaking BIS/BAS dimensions down more thoroughly, we predict that individuals high in Machiavellianism will have a unique positive association with BIS-anxiety and Fight-Flight-Fear System (FFFS). By contrast, because of their reckless nature, individuals high in psychopathy should have a unique negative association with both BIS-anxiety and FFFS. Finally, narcissism should have no associations with BIS-anxiety or FFFS, but should have a unique association with BAS-Reward. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants A total of 356 individuals were recruited via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (see Paolocci & Chandler, 2014 for review) and were compensated $0.50 for their time. The sample was reduced to 319 because 37 individuals failed to pass attention checks (e.g., failing to agree with the statement: “I breathe oxygen every day”). The final sample consisted of 53.9% women, mean age 35.52 (SD= 12.89), 77.2% White, 6.7% Asian, 5.9% Latino, 5.3% Black, and 4.9% other. A priori power analysis utilizing the notclose fit approach indicated that with an alpha of 0.05, (α= 0.05), a desired power of 0.80 (1− β = 0.80), a null RMSEA= 0.05, an alternative RMSEA = 0.01, and df= 47, approximately 277 participants were needed (Preacher & Coffman, 2006). Therefore, it was concluded that the present study had adequate power.
265
2.2. Materials & procedures 2.2.1. Behavioral Inhibition & Activation (BIS/BAS) After consent, participants filled out the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) to measure the dimensions previously described by the RST. The whole scale consisted of 24 items, which reflected 5 independent factors scored on a 4-point scale (1 = Very TRUE for me; 4 = Very FALSE for me).1 We used a revised approach (Heym, Ferguson, & Lawrence, 2008) to scoring BIS/BAS dimensions that separates BIS into Fight, Flight, Freeze System fear (FFFS) and BIS-anxiety. Thus, the five factors were: FFFS (3 items, α = 0.75; e.g., “If I think something unpleasant is going to happen I usually get pretty worked up.”), BIS (4 items α = 0.82; e.g., “Criticism or scolding hurts me quite a bit.”), BASR (5 items, α = 0.79; e.g., “When I see an opportunity for something I like I get excited right away.”), BASD (4 items, α = 0.80; e.g. “When I want something I usually go all-out to get it.”), and BASF (4 items, α = 0.74; e.g. “I will often do things for no other reason than that they might be fun.”). The FFFS and BIS anxiety scores were positively correlated, r = 0.68, p b 0.001. Neither BIS anxiety nor FFFS had a significant correlation with BASF (r's = −0.08 and 0.09, respectively, p's N 0.09). BIS anxiety had no significant correlation with BASD, whereas FFS had a significant negative correlation (r's = −0.07, p = 0.218 and −0.21, p b 0.001, respectively). Finally, both FFFS and BIS anxiety had significant and positive correlations with BASR (r's = 0.14 and 0.34, respectively, p's b 0.01). BASD, BASF and BASR correlations were positive and significant (BASF and BASD, r = 0.47, BASF and BASR, r = 0.48, BASD and BASR, r = 0.48, all p b 0.001). All other measures were presented randomly before a demographics questionnaire was issued, which concluded the study.
2.2.2. Psychopathy Participants completed the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP; α = 0.92; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press), which was designed to be a selfreport analogue of the clinical and forensic measure of psychopathy: The Psychopathy Check-List-Revised (PCL-R; Hare & Vertommen, 2003). The scale present scale (see Mahmut, Menictas, Stevenson, & Homewood, 2011), scored on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree) divided into 4 inter-correlated facets. These facets were: Inter-Personal Manipulation (IPM; 8 items, α = 0.76; e.g. “I would get a ‘kick’ out of scamming someone”), Callous Affect (CA; 8 items, α = 0.81; e.g. “I'm not afraid to step on others to get what I want”), Erratic LifeStyle (ELS; 8 items, α = 0.81; e.g. “Rules are made to be broken”), and Anti-Social Behavior (ASB; 10 items, α = 0.84; e.g. “I have cheated on school tests”). For our model, psychopathy was indicated by all four facets. The composite SRP score correlated positively with all other dark personality variables (narcissism r = 0.47, Machiavellianism r = 0.49, all p b 0.001).
2.2.3. Machiavellianism Participants filled out the 20-item MACH-IV (α = 0.85; Christie & Geis, 1970) to measure Machiavellianism. Although there is debate over the factor structure of the MACH-IV, the most reliable has been a two-factor structure consisting of manipulative tactics and cynical worldview (Dahling et al., 2009). Items on the MACH-IV are measured on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 3 = Neutral, 5 = Strongly Agree) and can be decomposed into two correlated facets: Cynical World View (CWV; 12 items, α = 0.76; e.g. “Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble”) and Manipulative Tactics (TACT; 7 items, α = 0.70; e.g. “Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so”). The composite MACH-IV correlated positively with all other dark personality variables (narcissism r = 0.29, p b 0.001). 1 All but two items of the BIS/BAS scale are reverse coded such that a higher score on BIS would indicate higher levels of BIS.
266
A.L. Neria et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269
2.2.4. Narcissism The 13-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-13; α = 0.75; Gentile et al., 2013) was used to assess narcissism. The scale is separated into three inter-correlated facets: Leadership/Authority (LA; 4 items, α = 0.67; e.g. “I like having authority over people”), Grandiose/Exhibitionism (GR; 5 items, α = 0.64; e.g. “I am apt to show off if I get the chance”), and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (EE; 4 items, α = 0.50; e.g. “I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve”). Although this alpha is quite low for EE, it is representative of other samples (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004). Items on the NPI-13 were scored such that two statements were displayed and participants were asked to select the one they most agreed with; a statement that endorsed narcissism was scored a 2, while a statement that did not endorse narcissism was scored a 1. 2.2.5. Demographics questionnaire The final survey to which participants were exposed was a demographics questionnaire, which asked standard demographics questions including ethnicity, age, socio-economic status (SES), and level of education. The participants' involvement in the study was concluded after the demographics questionnaire was assessed. 2.3. Statistical analyses Univariate analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 22. The data were screened for normality through PRELIS with LISREL software version 8.80. Results indicated that several variables presented kurtosis values greater than eight in combination with skewness values greater than three. Hence, non-normality was assumed. Further screening of the data found some random missing values; however, there were less than 5% missing in all cases and consequently data imputation was not necessary (Kline, 2011). Further, multivariate analyses were performed using Mplus version 7.11 using the Robust Maximal Likelihood estimator (MLR) and Full-Information Maximal Likelihood (FIML) to handle non-normality and missing data, respectively. Because the BIS/BAS scales are inter-correlated, and the dark personalities all have positive inter-correlations, we used a Structural Equations Model (SEM) framework to account for these associations to determine unique associations among dark personalities and aspects of BIS/BAS (Kline, 2011). 2.3.1. Using parcels based on facet scores The use of parcels in factor analysis and SEM is under debate; however, it is arguably more advantageous to make use of parcels with large models when certain conditions are met (Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013). In our case, the present analyses involved estimating an unusually large number of parameters and therefore required a computer with an exceptionally large amount of RAM. Basing our analyses on the individual item-scores of each participant made our analyses inefficient. To address this issue, our personality factors were indicated by parcels that were defined by the mean score of the items representing a single facet. For example, Machiavellianism—as measured by the MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970)—is indicated by 12 items that measure Cynical World View (CWV) and 7 items that measure Manipulative Tactics (TACT). As an alternative to running our analyses using every item as an indicator we defined the parcel CWV as the mean score of the items that relate to CWV. Likewise we defined the parcel TACT as the mean score of the items that relate to TACT, and so on with all the personality variables in our models. As a preliminary step, before making use of our parcels, we ran a confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) on all personality scales to ensure adequate factor structure and justify parceling based on facet scores, rather than individual item scores. After finding adequate loadings (all λs N 0.4, all ps b . 001), the personality facets were used as observed exogenous predictors of all factors in all structural models. For instance,
CWV and TACT were used as the facets indicators of Machiavellianism. Following CFAs bivariate correlations were assessed on all personality facets, it was predicted that all dark personality facets will be significantly correlated with each other. 2.3.2. Main analyses We constructed a structural equation model (SEM) to investigate how BIS and BAS will be associated with the dark personality types. Psychopathy should be negatively associated with BIS-anxiety and FFFS and positively associated differentially with one or more of the BAS dimensions. In particular, we predict that psychopathy will be positively associated with BASF and BASR, and negatively associated with FFFS, and narcissism will be positively associated with BASD and BASR. In contrast, we predict that Machiavellianism will be positively associated with BIS-anxiety and FFFS, and negatively associated with all BAS dimensions. Significant differences on the personality measures by sex and age were expected; however, previous studies of this nature typically find that population heterogeneity across these variables do not differentially impact the study's outcome variable (Jones & Figueredo, 2013). Consequently, sex and age were included as predictors of our personality variables and the interactions of sex and age with our personality variables were included as predictors of BIS and BAS. The SEM model was evaluated using the chi-square test of model fit (χ2) with values closer to zero indicating better model fit and a nonsignificant p-value indicating that the model is consistent with the covariance data (Kline, 2011). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) provides a range of inferences with values below 0.05 indicating excellent fit, values between 0.05 and 0.08 indicating good fit, values between 0.08 and 0.10 indicating acceptable to borderline fit, and values greater than 0.10 indicating poor fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI, synonymous with NNFI or non-normed fit index) both suggest that values greater than 0.90 indicate acceptable fit and values greater than 0.95 indicate good to excellent fit (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; Kline, 2011). Finally, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) suggests, perhaps too liberally (Kline, 2011), that values lower than 0.08 indicate better fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). 3. Results Table 1 depicts the descriptive statistics and gender comparisons. Importantly, none of the interactions between gender and age with personality traits and their association with BIS/BAS were significant. That is, differences in neither age nor gender did not represent a significant impact on BIS/BAS activation. 3.1. Descriptive statistics Table 2 presents all bivariate correlations among the facets of each assessment of the D3 (i.e., Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism). As predicted, all facets were significantly and positively correlated with Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and comparisons by sex for all malevolent personalities and BIS/BAS. Men (n = 147)
Women (n = 172)
Variable
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
t
p
Psychopathy Machiavellianism Narcissism BIS FFFS BASD BASF BASR
2.45 (0.53) 2.80 (0.54) 1.28 (0.22) 1.75 (0.64) 2.03 (0.73) 2.33 (0.60) 2.32 (0.62) 1.59 (0.43)
1.98 (0.43) 2.52 (0.51) 1.20 (0.20) 2.19 (0.61) 2.47 (0.66) 2.26 (0.63) 2.29 (0.60) 1.78 (0.56)
9.19⁎ 5.14⁎ 3.73⁎ −6.21⁎ −6.03⁎
b0.001 b0.001 b0.001 b0.001 b0.001 0.285 0.621 b0.001
⁎ p b 0.05.
1.07 0.50 −3.58⁎
A.L. Neria et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269
267
Table 2 Bivariate correlations among Dark Triad and Sadism facets. Facets
1
2
3
4
1. PSYC: IPM 2. PSYC: CA 3. PSYC: ELS 4. PSYC: ASB 5. MACH: CWV 6. MACH: TACT 7. NARC: LA 8. NARC: GR 9. NARC: EE
1 0.680⁎⁎ 0.572⁎⁎ 0.562⁎⁎ 0.458⁎⁎ 0.435⁎⁎ 0.312⁎⁎ 0.319⁎⁎ 0.423⁎⁎
5
1 0.523⁎⁎ 0.597⁎⁎ 0.462⁎⁎ 0.396⁎⁎ 0.340⁎⁎ 0.282⁎⁎ 0.449⁎⁎
1 0.641⁎⁎ 0.300⁎⁎ 0.307⁎⁎ 0.320⁎⁎ 0.300⁎⁎ 0.317⁎⁎
1 0.402⁎⁎ 0.383⁎⁎ 0.212⁎⁎ 0.249⁎⁎ 0.337⁎⁎
1 0.706⁎⁎ 0.188⁎⁎ 0.086 0.401⁎⁎
6
7
8
9
1 0.143⁎⁎ 0.108⁎ 0.357⁎⁎
1 0.357⁎⁎ 0.399⁎⁎
1 0.323⁎⁎
1
10
11
12
Correlations in bold are facets within the same scale. ⁎ p b 0.05 (2-tailed). ⁎⁎ p b 0.01 (2-tailed).
one another (Jones & Figueredo, 2013), with the exception that Cynical Worldview (Machiavellianism) was not correlated with Grandiosity (narcissism). Importantly, and in line with observations by Jones and Figueredo (2013), correlations were generally higher among facets belonging to the same scale. Table 3 shows the correlation between the dark personality composite scores and the different aspects of the BIS/ BAS scales.
3.2. Final model The final model of the D3 and BIS/BAS (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism on BASF; BASD; BASR; BIS; FFFS), had borderline fit (χ2 = 708.42, p b 0.001; RMSEA = 0.057, CFI/TLI = 0.90 / 0.88; SRMR = 0.065). Results for the measurement portion of the baseline model indicated that all facets significantly loaded on their respective personality traits (all λs N 0.47, all ps b 0.001). The standardized results partially supported our hypotheses (see Fig. 1). As predicted, Machiavellianism was significantly associated with BIS (β = 0.246, p = 0.028), FFFS (β = 0.394, p b . 0001). However, unexpectedly, Machiavellianism also had negative associations with BASD (β = − 0.275, p = 0.009), and BASF (β = − 0.403, p =0.001). As predicted, narcissism was significantly associated with BASD (β = 0.632, p b 0.001), and BASR (β = 0.478, p b 0.001). Finally, as predicted, psychopathy was significantly and negatively associated with FFFS (β = − 0.526, p = 0.001), and BASF (β = 0.504, p b 0.001). In this model, Machiavellianism was residually correlated with narcissism (r = 0.438, p b 0.001) and psychopathy (r = 0.620, p b 0.001), and narcissism was also residually correlated with psychopathy (r = 0.656, p b 0.001).
4. Discussion With respect to the D3, psychopathy (as measured by the SRP) does indeed have a negative association with FFFS but no relationship with BIS-anxiety. Psychopathy also has a significant and positive association with BASF. Machiavellianism, on the other hand, had a positive relationship with both BIS-anxiety and FFFS, and a negative association with BASD and BASF. Finally, narcissism had positive relationships with both BASD and BASR. These findings were fairly consistent with our predictions.
Table 3 Zero-order correlations between dark personalities and BIS/BAS dimensions.
PSYC MACH NARC ⁎ p b 0.05.
BIS
FFFS
BASD
BASF
BASR
−0.18⁎ −0.03 −0.23⁎
−0.27⁎ −0.01 −0.24⁎
0.14⁎ −0.03 0.34⁎
0.23⁎ 0.01 0.16⁎
−0.19⁎ −0.11⁎ 0.01
These findings generally supported the idea that low FFFS and high BASF are critical association with the psychopathy construct, which replicates previous research (e.g., Hughes, Moore, Morris, & Corr, 2012). Our findings also further support the idea that Machiavellian individuals are generally the most cautious and vigilant to threat (Bereczkei, Deak, Papp, Perlaki, & Orsi, 2013). These findings are also consistent with findings that Machiavellianism has less impulsivity than narcissism or psychopathy (Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Thus, given their cynical and longerterm nature, it is not surprising that is associated with threat vigilance. Our results support the idea that narcissism is approach and reinforcement based, which is consistent with previous literature (Foster & Trimm, 2008). In sum, the associations among the D3 with BIS/BAS were consistent with previous theory, and that the D3 (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) are incentivized differentially (Jones & Paulhus, 2010). Results indicated that the BIS/BAS theoretical framework is useful in distinguishing the D3. The D3 each had unique associations with BIS and the three dimensions of BAS across all models. The present research also clarifies the unique associations that psychopathy has with indexes of BIS/BAS tendencies. In this way, our results also manage to build upon the distinction between Machiavellianism and psychopathy, which has been a somewhat elusive theoretical-distinction to demonstrate empirically (Jones, 2016). To date, there have been a host of studies examining physiological states and tendencies of individuals high in psychopathy (e.g., Lykken, 1995). However, few have controlled for the overlap among other dark personalities in the analyses (for an exception see Jonason & Jackson, 2016). Thus, the present research builds on these findings with self-report research from the original D3 scales. Specifically, the present results partially replicated that of the Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) with respect to Machiavellianism and behavioral inhibition. Further, our results partially replicate the results from both brief D3 measures (Dirty Dozen & SD3) with respect to narcissism being associated with behavioral activation (Jonason & Jackson, 2016). However, unlike previous findings for either short measure of the D3, psychopathy (when assessed using the SRP) had a negative association with BIS. However, these comparisons should be interpreted with caution given the differences in reinforcement sensitivity assessment across these studies (see Corr, 2016, for comparisons). There are several limitations to our approach, including the use of self-reported instruments and cross-sectional design, as well as our choice of assessments. Future research should utilize physiological indicators of BIS/BAS related outcomes. However, rather than focus on only one personality trait at a time, we hope to encourage researchers investigating the behavioral motivations of malevolent personalities to specifically account for overlapping personality traits. Especially in an SEM framework, where the overlap between highly correlated malevolent personality traits can be accounted, continuing research along this vein will do much to address the ongoing debate over exactly what behaviors can be attributed to what personalities. Finally, we used an assessment of BIS/BAS that reflects an older view of behavioral approach
268
A.L. Neria et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269
Fig. 1. Model 1: The Baseline D3 Model with standardized factor loadings. * The mean score of the given personality facets trait and were treated as observed variables. Note: solid lines indicate significant loadings, dashed lines indicate non-significant loadings, curved lined indicate correlated error variances.
and inhibition. Future research should incorporate multiple perspectives on BIS/BAS and should include different measures of the Dark Triad, especially psychopathy. Further, our model had marginal fit. Although it should be noted that there is debate over how stringent cut-offs should be, given personality data especially with larger models like the ones tested here, as well as over the use of factor analytic approaches to personality data (i.e., Crowley & Fan, 1997; Raykov, 1998). It should also be noted that some of the NPI subscales had poor internal consistencies, which is common for the NPI factors that are made up of binary items, especially the four-item entitlement factor (e.g., Gentile et al., 2013). In sum, dark personalities differ in critical ways, especially with respect to their approach/avoidance orientations. It appears that our findings support previous theory in how D3 traits should overlap and differentiate. In particular, Machiavellianism was associated with a longer-term profile than the other traits (as evidenced by a positive relationship with BIS), and psychopathy was related to low BIS and high BAS. Finally, narcissism showed reliable association with BAS-Drive and -Reward, which is also consistent with the idea that narcissistic individuals are constantly seeking praise, power, and admiration (Campbell, 1999). Thus, these findings support the notion that dark personalities can be differentiated along approach/avoidance dimensions, and these findings have implications for how they are conceptualized.
References Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. Bereczkei, T., Deak, A., Papp, P., Perlaki, G., & Orsi, G. (2013). Neural correlates of Machiavellian strategies in a social dilemma task. Brain and Cognition, 82, 108–116. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit (Sage Focus Editions )Vol. 154. (pp. 136), 136.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229. Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1254–1270. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45. Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Cooper, S., & Peterson, C. (1980). Machiavellianism and spontaneous cheating in competition. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 70–75. Corr, P. J. (2016). Reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality questionnaires: Structural survey with recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 60–64. Crowley, S. L., & Fan, X. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications in personality assessment research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(3), 508–531. Czibor, A., & Bereczkei, T. (2012). Machiavellian people's success results from monitoring their peers. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 202–206. Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, 257. Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11–17. Esperger, Z., & Bereczkei, T. (2012). Machiavellianism and spontaneous mentalization: One step ahead of others. European Journal of Personality, 26, 580–587. Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcissism and approach—avoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1004–1017. Fowles, D. C. (1980). The three arousal model: Implications of Gray's two-factor learning theory for heart rate, electrodermal activity, and psychopathy. Psychiatry, 17, 87–104. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216. Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose naricissism: The narcissistic personality inventory-13 and narcissistic personality inventory-16. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1120–1136. Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. New York, NY Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy a clinical construct whose time has come.Criminal Justice and Behavior 23, 25-54.: Cambridge University Press.
A.L. Neria et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269 Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy a clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54. Hare, R. D., & Vertommen, H. (2003). The hare psychopathy checklist-revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Heym, N., Ferguson, E., & Lawrence, C. (2008). An evaluation of the relationship between Gray's revised RST and Eysenck's PEN: Distinguishing BIS and FFFS in Carver and White's BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 709–715. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. Hughes, K. A., Moore, R. A., Morris, P. H., & Corr, P. J. (2012). Throwing light on the dark side of psychopathy: Reinforcement sensitivity theory and primary/secondary psychopathy in a student population. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 532–536. Jonason, P. K., & Jackson, C. J. (2016). The Dark Triad traits through the lens of Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 273–277. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Differentiating the dark triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz, & S. N. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal theory and research (pp. 249–267). New York, NY: Guilford. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 679–682. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41. Jones, D. N. (2016). The nature of Machiavellianism: Distinct patterns of misbehavior. In V. Zeigler-Hill, & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality. American Psychological Association. Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27, 521–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ per.1893.
269
Karpman, B. (1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 104(9), 523–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.104.9.523. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press. Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300. Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(1), 6–10. Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Psychology Press. Mahmut, M. K., Menictas, C., Stevenson, R. J., & Homewood, J. (2011). Validating the factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 670. Newman, J. P., MacCoon, D. G., Vaughn, L. J., & Sadeh, N. (2005). Validating a distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy with measures of Gray's BIS and BAS constructs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(2), 319. Noser, A. E., Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., Besser, A., Ewing, T. D., & Southard, A. C. (2015). Dark and immoral: The links between pathological personality features and moral values. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 30–35. Paolocci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2016). Manual for the self-report psychopathy scale. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems (in press). Preacher, K. J., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA [computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org Raykov, T. (1998). On the use of confirmatory factor analysis in personality research. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 291–293.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Approach/avoidance tendencies in dark personalities☆ Adon Lee Neria, Maricarmen Vizcaino, Daniel Nelson Jones ⁎ The University of Texas at El Paso, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 10 December 2015 Accepted 23 May 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Dark Triad BIS/BAS RST Machiavellianism Psychopathy Narcissism
a b s t r a c t Although there are strong correlations among “dark” personalities (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism), they differ in important ways. The present study examined differences in approach vs. avoidance tendencies using Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. A Structural Equations Model addressed the degree to which these variables differ in their associations with Behavioral Inhibition Systems (BIS) and Behavioral Activation Systems (BAS). Results showed predicted differences in Machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathy and narcissism, with respect to BIS and BAS. Specifically, Machiavellianism was positively associated with BIS, psychopathy was negatively associated with BIS, and narcissism was positively associated with certain aspects of BAS. Implications are discussed for the Dark Triad and the role of reinforcement in personality, more broadly. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Although positively correlated, malevolent personality traits are distinguishable from one another (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). Previous work on dark personalities focused on a cluster of three harmful personality traits referred to as the Dark Triad (hereafter: “D3”; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), which consists of strategically manipulative Machiavellianism, reckless and antisocial psychopathy, and grandiose and entitled narcissism. Central to these three traits are high levels of callousness and manipulation (Jones & Figueredo, 2013). Recent research found inconsistent patterns of reinforcement sensitivity among the D3 across two short measures of the D3, which also used a newer measure of reinforcement sensitivity (Jonason & Jackson, 2016). In order to build on these findings, we examined the relationship the D3 traits have with reinforcement sensitivity using original measures of the D3 (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) and reinforcement sensitivity (Carver & White, 1994).
1.1. Machiavellianism Machiavellianism is defined by amorality, manipulative tendencies and a cynical worldview (Christie & Geis, 1970). Although amorality does not form a coherent facet in typical assessments (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009), Machiavellianism is associated with ☆ The authors would like to thank Osvaldo Morera, PhD, for his guidance with the statistical analyses and for his critiques on early drafts of this manuscript. ⁎ Corresponding author at: The University of Texas at El Paso, Department of Psychology, 500 W. University Ave., El Paso, TX 79968, United States. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (D.N. Jones). URL: http://academics.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=72785 (D.N. Jones).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.054 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
callousness (Jones, 2016) and a disregard for conventional morality (Noser et al., 2015). According to theory, Machiavellianism is unique to other dark personalities because of the strategic and cautious nature of their manipulation attempts (Jones & Paulhus, 2010). Generally, research has found that Machiavellian individuals will behave selfishly only when the risk of negative consequences is low (Cooper & Peterson, 1980). Further, individuals high in Machiavellianism chart a course of manipulation (Czibor & Bereczkei, 2012) that involves anticipation and forethought (Esperger & Bereczkei, 2012), driven by a longterm and bottom-line focus (Jones, 2016). 1.2. Narcissism Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, entitlement, dominance, and a sense of superiority (Emmons, 1987). Narcissistic individuals have an insatiable need for social reinforcement and praise (Campbell, 1999), and get aggressive when ego-threatened (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Individuals high in narcissism take risks out of overconfidence (Foster & Trimm, 2008) rather than out of a deficit in impulse control (as is the case with psychopathy; Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Individuals high in narcissism also have an inflated sense of entitlement (Emmons, 1987). 1.3. Psychopathy Psychopathy is defined through a presence of manipulation, callousness, impulsivity, and aggressive or antisocial behavior (Hare, 1996). Early research by Lykken (1957) found that the presence of anxiety differentiated two types of psychopathic individuals: “Primary” and “Secondary.” Whereas primary psychopathy is associated with manipulation, fearlessness, and callousness, secondary psychopathy is
A.L. Neria et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269
seen as symptomatic of antisocial behavioral problems (Karpman, 1948). Whereas individuals with “primary” psychopathy characteristics (callous affect, shallow emotions) had deficits in anxiety, those with “secondary” characteristics (erratic/impulsive behavior) had increased anxiety. Fowles (1980) later examined this distinction physiologically and argued that primary psychopathy was linked with poor behavioral inhibition but had no association with behavioral approach. Work by Newman, MacCoon, Vaughn, and Sadeh (2005) are among the first to relate the primary/secondary distinction to Gray's biopsychological theory of personality (1987). Newman and colleagues found the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) was negatively associated with primary psychopathy and Behavioral Activation System (BAS) was positively related to secondary psychopathy. 1.4. Dark personalities and their relationship to BIS/BAS dimensions Jonason and Jackson (2016) examined reinforcement sensitivity and the D3. They found that Machiavellianism was associated with behavioral inhibition when assessed using the Short-Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014), but not when using the Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Further, both measures found that narcissism was associated with behavioral activation, but only the Dirty Dozen measure of narcissism was associated with behavioral inhibition. Finally, neither psychopathy measure was associated with behavioral inhibition or activation. Building on these findings, we are interested in the questions: (a) how do original measures of dark personalities relate to BIS/BAS dimensions when the overlap among them is appropriately assessed in SEM framework? (b) do the D3 traits each have a unique BIS/BAS signature? 1.5. Hypotheses and predictions Guided by previous research, we investigated the approach/avoidance tendencies of the D3. We predicted that these callous dispositions will have different patterns of association with BIS/BAS when examined simultaneously because of their unique elements. Strategic Machiavellianism should be uniquely associated with BIS due to the caution inherent in the Machiavellian profile, but have little association with BAS facets. Psychopathy, on the other hand, is a reckless trait that should be negatively associated with BIS. We also predict that individuals high in narcissism will be associated with BASR because of their never-ending need for agentic success and social praise (Campbell, 1999). Breaking BIS/BAS dimensions down more thoroughly, we predict that individuals high in Machiavellianism will have a unique positive association with BIS-anxiety and Fight-Flight-Fear System (FFFS). By contrast, because of their reckless nature, individuals high in psychopathy should have a unique negative association with both BIS-anxiety and FFFS. Finally, narcissism should have no associations with BIS-anxiety or FFFS, but should have a unique association with BAS-Reward. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants A total of 356 individuals were recruited via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (see Paolocci & Chandler, 2014 for review) and were compensated $0.50 for their time. The sample was reduced to 319 because 37 individuals failed to pass attention checks (e.g., failing to agree with the statement: “I breathe oxygen every day”). The final sample consisted of 53.9% women, mean age 35.52 (SD= 12.89), 77.2% White, 6.7% Asian, 5.9% Latino, 5.3% Black, and 4.9% other. A priori power analysis utilizing the notclose fit approach indicated that with an alpha of 0.05, (α= 0.05), a desired power of 0.80 (1− β = 0.80), a null RMSEA= 0.05, an alternative RMSEA = 0.01, and df= 47, approximately 277 participants were needed (Preacher & Coffman, 2006). Therefore, it was concluded that the present study had adequate power.
265
2.2. Materials & procedures 2.2.1. Behavioral Inhibition & Activation (BIS/BAS) After consent, participants filled out the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) to measure the dimensions previously described by the RST. The whole scale consisted of 24 items, which reflected 5 independent factors scored on a 4-point scale (1 = Very TRUE for me; 4 = Very FALSE for me).1 We used a revised approach (Heym, Ferguson, & Lawrence, 2008) to scoring BIS/BAS dimensions that separates BIS into Fight, Flight, Freeze System fear (FFFS) and BIS-anxiety. Thus, the five factors were: FFFS (3 items, α = 0.75; e.g., “If I think something unpleasant is going to happen I usually get pretty worked up.”), BIS (4 items α = 0.82; e.g., “Criticism or scolding hurts me quite a bit.”), BASR (5 items, α = 0.79; e.g., “When I see an opportunity for something I like I get excited right away.”), BASD (4 items, α = 0.80; e.g. “When I want something I usually go all-out to get it.”), and BASF (4 items, α = 0.74; e.g. “I will often do things for no other reason than that they might be fun.”). The FFFS and BIS anxiety scores were positively correlated, r = 0.68, p b 0.001. Neither BIS anxiety nor FFFS had a significant correlation with BASF (r's = −0.08 and 0.09, respectively, p's N 0.09). BIS anxiety had no significant correlation with BASD, whereas FFS had a significant negative correlation (r's = −0.07, p = 0.218 and −0.21, p b 0.001, respectively). Finally, both FFFS and BIS anxiety had significant and positive correlations with BASR (r's = 0.14 and 0.34, respectively, p's b 0.01). BASD, BASF and BASR correlations were positive and significant (BASF and BASD, r = 0.47, BASF and BASR, r = 0.48, BASD and BASR, r = 0.48, all p b 0.001). All other measures were presented randomly before a demographics questionnaire was issued, which concluded the study.
2.2.2. Psychopathy Participants completed the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP; α = 0.92; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press), which was designed to be a selfreport analogue of the clinical and forensic measure of psychopathy: The Psychopathy Check-List-Revised (PCL-R; Hare & Vertommen, 2003). The scale present scale (see Mahmut, Menictas, Stevenson, & Homewood, 2011), scored on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree) divided into 4 inter-correlated facets. These facets were: Inter-Personal Manipulation (IPM; 8 items, α = 0.76; e.g. “I would get a ‘kick’ out of scamming someone”), Callous Affect (CA; 8 items, α = 0.81; e.g. “I'm not afraid to step on others to get what I want”), Erratic LifeStyle (ELS; 8 items, α = 0.81; e.g. “Rules are made to be broken”), and Anti-Social Behavior (ASB; 10 items, α = 0.84; e.g. “I have cheated on school tests”). For our model, psychopathy was indicated by all four facets. The composite SRP score correlated positively with all other dark personality variables (narcissism r = 0.47, Machiavellianism r = 0.49, all p b 0.001).
2.2.3. Machiavellianism Participants filled out the 20-item MACH-IV (α = 0.85; Christie & Geis, 1970) to measure Machiavellianism. Although there is debate over the factor structure of the MACH-IV, the most reliable has been a two-factor structure consisting of manipulative tactics and cynical worldview (Dahling et al., 2009). Items on the MACH-IV are measured on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 3 = Neutral, 5 = Strongly Agree) and can be decomposed into two correlated facets: Cynical World View (CWV; 12 items, α = 0.76; e.g. “Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble”) and Manipulative Tactics (TACT; 7 items, α = 0.70; e.g. “Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so”). The composite MACH-IV correlated positively with all other dark personality variables (narcissism r = 0.29, p b 0.001). 1 All but two items of the BIS/BAS scale are reverse coded such that a higher score on BIS would indicate higher levels of BIS.
266
A.L. Neria et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269
2.2.4. Narcissism The 13-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-13; α = 0.75; Gentile et al., 2013) was used to assess narcissism. The scale is separated into three inter-correlated facets: Leadership/Authority (LA; 4 items, α = 0.67; e.g. “I like having authority over people”), Grandiose/Exhibitionism (GR; 5 items, α = 0.64; e.g. “I am apt to show off if I get the chance”), and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (EE; 4 items, α = 0.50; e.g. “I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve”). Although this alpha is quite low for EE, it is representative of other samples (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004). Items on the NPI-13 were scored such that two statements were displayed and participants were asked to select the one they most agreed with; a statement that endorsed narcissism was scored a 2, while a statement that did not endorse narcissism was scored a 1. 2.2.5. Demographics questionnaire The final survey to which participants were exposed was a demographics questionnaire, which asked standard demographics questions including ethnicity, age, socio-economic status (SES), and level of education. The participants' involvement in the study was concluded after the demographics questionnaire was assessed. 2.3. Statistical analyses Univariate analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 22. The data were screened for normality through PRELIS with LISREL software version 8.80. Results indicated that several variables presented kurtosis values greater than eight in combination with skewness values greater than three. Hence, non-normality was assumed. Further screening of the data found some random missing values; however, there were less than 5% missing in all cases and consequently data imputation was not necessary (Kline, 2011). Further, multivariate analyses were performed using Mplus version 7.11 using the Robust Maximal Likelihood estimator (MLR) and Full-Information Maximal Likelihood (FIML) to handle non-normality and missing data, respectively. Because the BIS/BAS scales are inter-correlated, and the dark personalities all have positive inter-correlations, we used a Structural Equations Model (SEM) framework to account for these associations to determine unique associations among dark personalities and aspects of BIS/BAS (Kline, 2011). 2.3.1. Using parcels based on facet scores The use of parcels in factor analysis and SEM is under debate; however, it is arguably more advantageous to make use of parcels with large models when certain conditions are met (Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013). In our case, the present analyses involved estimating an unusually large number of parameters and therefore required a computer with an exceptionally large amount of RAM. Basing our analyses on the individual item-scores of each participant made our analyses inefficient. To address this issue, our personality factors were indicated by parcels that were defined by the mean score of the items representing a single facet. For example, Machiavellianism—as measured by the MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970)—is indicated by 12 items that measure Cynical World View (CWV) and 7 items that measure Manipulative Tactics (TACT). As an alternative to running our analyses using every item as an indicator we defined the parcel CWV as the mean score of the items that relate to CWV. Likewise we defined the parcel TACT as the mean score of the items that relate to TACT, and so on with all the personality variables in our models. As a preliminary step, before making use of our parcels, we ran a confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) on all personality scales to ensure adequate factor structure and justify parceling based on facet scores, rather than individual item scores. After finding adequate loadings (all λs N 0.4, all ps b . 001), the personality facets were used as observed exogenous predictors of all factors in all structural models. For instance,
CWV and TACT were used as the facets indicators of Machiavellianism. Following CFAs bivariate correlations were assessed on all personality facets, it was predicted that all dark personality facets will be significantly correlated with each other. 2.3.2. Main analyses We constructed a structural equation model (SEM) to investigate how BIS and BAS will be associated with the dark personality types. Psychopathy should be negatively associated with BIS-anxiety and FFFS and positively associated differentially with one or more of the BAS dimensions. In particular, we predict that psychopathy will be positively associated with BASF and BASR, and negatively associated with FFFS, and narcissism will be positively associated with BASD and BASR. In contrast, we predict that Machiavellianism will be positively associated with BIS-anxiety and FFFS, and negatively associated with all BAS dimensions. Significant differences on the personality measures by sex and age were expected; however, previous studies of this nature typically find that population heterogeneity across these variables do not differentially impact the study's outcome variable (Jones & Figueredo, 2013). Consequently, sex and age were included as predictors of our personality variables and the interactions of sex and age with our personality variables were included as predictors of BIS and BAS. The SEM model was evaluated using the chi-square test of model fit (χ2) with values closer to zero indicating better model fit and a nonsignificant p-value indicating that the model is consistent with the covariance data (Kline, 2011). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) provides a range of inferences with values below 0.05 indicating excellent fit, values between 0.05 and 0.08 indicating good fit, values between 0.08 and 0.10 indicating acceptable to borderline fit, and values greater than 0.10 indicating poor fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI, synonymous with NNFI or non-normed fit index) both suggest that values greater than 0.90 indicate acceptable fit and values greater than 0.95 indicate good to excellent fit (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; Kline, 2011). Finally, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) suggests, perhaps too liberally (Kline, 2011), that values lower than 0.08 indicate better fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). 3. Results Table 1 depicts the descriptive statistics and gender comparisons. Importantly, none of the interactions between gender and age with personality traits and their association with BIS/BAS were significant. That is, differences in neither age nor gender did not represent a significant impact on BIS/BAS activation. 3.1. Descriptive statistics Table 2 presents all bivariate correlations among the facets of each assessment of the D3 (i.e., Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism). As predicted, all facets were significantly and positively correlated with Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and comparisons by sex for all malevolent personalities and BIS/BAS. Men (n = 147)
Women (n = 172)
Variable
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
t
p
Psychopathy Machiavellianism Narcissism BIS FFFS BASD BASF BASR
2.45 (0.53) 2.80 (0.54) 1.28 (0.22) 1.75 (0.64) 2.03 (0.73) 2.33 (0.60) 2.32 (0.62) 1.59 (0.43)
1.98 (0.43) 2.52 (0.51) 1.20 (0.20) 2.19 (0.61) 2.47 (0.66) 2.26 (0.63) 2.29 (0.60) 1.78 (0.56)
9.19⁎ 5.14⁎ 3.73⁎ −6.21⁎ −6.03⁎
b0.001 b0.001 b0.001 b0.001 b0.001 0.285 0.621 b0.001
⁎ p b 0.05.
1.07 0.50 −3.58⁎
A.L. Neria et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269
267
Table 2 Bivariate correlations among Dark Triad and Sadism facets. Facets
1
2
3
4
1. PSYC: IPM 2. PSYC: CA 3. PSYC: ELS 4. PSYC: ASB 5. MACH: CWV 6. MACH: TACT 7. NARC: LA 8. NARC: GR 9. NARC: EE
1 0.680⁎⁎ 0.572⁎⁎ 0.562⁎⁎ 0.458⁎⁎ 0.435⁎⁎ 0.312⁎⁎ 0.319⁎⁎ 0.423⁎⁎
5
1 0.523⁎⁎ 0.597⁎⁎ 0.462⁎⁎ 0.396⁎⁎ 0.340⁎⁎ 0.282⁎⁎ 0.449⁎⁎
1 0.641⁎⁎ 0.300⁎⁎ 0.307⁎⁎ 0.320⁎⁎ 0.300⁎⁎ 0.317⁎⁎
1 0.402⁎⁎ 0.383⁎⁎ 0.212⁎⁎ 0.249⁎⁎ 0.337⁎⁎
1 0.706⁎⁎ 0.188⁎⁎ 0.086 0.401⁎⁎
6
7
8
9
1 0.143⁎⁎ 0.108⁎ 0.357⁎⁎
1 0.357⁎⁎ 0.399⁎⁎
1 0.323⁎⁎
1
10
11
12
Correlations in bold are facets within the same scale. ⁎ p b 0.05 (2-tailed). ⁎⁎ p b 0.01 (2-tailed).
one another (Jones & Figueredo, 2013), with the exception that Cynical Worldview (Machiavellianism) was not correlated with Grandiosity (narcissism). Importantly, and in line with observations by Jones and Figueredo (2013), correlations were generally higher among facets belonging to the same scale. Table 3 shows the correlation between the dark personality composite scores and the different aspects of the BIS/ BAS scales.
3.2. Final model The final model of the D3 and BIS/BAS (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism on BASF; BASD; BASR; BIS; FFFS), had borderline fit (χ2 = 708.42, p b 0.001; RMSEA = 0.057, CFI/TLI = 0.90 / 0.88; SRMR = 0.065). Results for the measurement portion of the baseline model indicated that all facets significantly loaded on their respective personality traits (all λs N 0.47, all ps b 0.001). The standardized results partially supported our hypotheses (see Fig. 1). As predicted, Machiavellianism was significantly associated with BIS (β = 0.246, p = 0.028), FFFS (β = 0.394, p b . 0001). However, unexpectedly, Machiavellianism also had negative associations with BASD (β = − 0.275, p = 0.009), and BASF (β = − 0.403, p =0.001). As predicted, narcissism was significantly associated with BASD (β = 0.632, p b 0.001), and BASR (β = 0.478, p b 0.001). Finally, as predicted, psychopathy was significantly and negatively associated with FFFS (β = − 0.526, p = 0.001), and BASF (β = 0.504, p b 0.001). In this model, Machiavellianism was residually correlated with narcissism (r = 0.438, p b 0.001) and psychopathy (r = 0.620, p b 0.001), and narcissism was also residually correlated with psychopathy (r = 0.656, p b 0.001).
4. Discussion With respect to the D3, psychopathy (as measured by the SRP) does indeed have a negative association with FFFS but no relationship with BIS-anxiety. Psychopathy also has a significant and positive association with BASF. Machiavellianism, on the other hand, had a positive relationship with both BIS-anxiety and FFFS, and a negative association with BASD and BASF. Finally, narcissism had positive relationships with both BASD and BASR. These findings were fairly consistent with our predictions.
Table 3 Zero-order correlations between dark personalities and BIS/BAS dimensions.
PSYC MACH NARC ⁎ p b 0.05.
BIS
FFFS
BASD
BASF
BASR
−0.18⁎ −0.03 −0.23⁎
−0.27⁎ −0.01 −0.24⁎
0.14⁎ −0.03 0.34⁎
0.23⁎ 0.01 0.16⁎
−0.19⁎ −0.11⁎ 0.01
These findings generally supported the idea that low FFFS and high BASF are critical association with the psychopathy construct, which replicates previous research (e.g., Hughes, Moore, Morris, & Corr, 2012). Our findings also further support the idea that Machiavellian individuals are generally the most cautious and vigilant to threat (Bereczkei, Deak, Papp, Perlaki, & Orsi, 2013). These findings are also consistent with findings that Machiavellianism has less impulsivity than narcissism or psychopathy (Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Thus, given their cynical and longerterm nature, it is not surprising that is associated with threat vigilance. Our results support the idea that narcissism is approach and reinforcement based, which is consistent with previous literature (Foster & Trimm, 2008). In sum, the associations among the D3 with BIS/BAS were consistent with previous theory, and that the D3 (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) are incentivized differentially (Jones & Paulhus, 2010). Results indicated that the BIS/BAS theoretical framework is useful in distinguishing the D3. The D3 each had unique associations with BIS and the three dimensions of BAS across all models. The present research also clarifies the unique associations that psychopathy has with indexes of BIS/BAS tendencies. In this way, our results also manage to build upon the distinction between Machiavellianism and psychopathy, which has been a somewhat elusive theoretical-distinction to demonstrate empirically (Jones, 2016). To date, there have been a host of studies examining physiological states and tendencies of individuals high in psychopathy (e.g., Lykken, 1995). However, few have controlled for the overlap among other dark personalities in the analyses (for an exception see Jonason & Jackson, 2016). Thus, the present research builds on these findings with self-report research from the original D3 scales. Specifically, the present results partially replicated that of the Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) with respect to Machiavellianism and behavioral inhibition. Further, our results partially replicate the results from both brief D3 measures (Dirty Dozen & SD3) with respect to narcissism being associated with behavioral activation (Jonason & Jackson, 2016). However, unlike previous findings for either short measure of the D3, psychopathy (when assessed using the SRP) had a negative association with BIS. However, these comparisons should be interpreted with caution given the differences in reinforcement sensitivity assessment across these studies (see Corr, 2016, for comparisons). There are several limitations to our approach, including the use of self-reported instruments and cross-sectional design, as well as our choice of assessments. Future research should utilize physiological indicators of BIS/BAS related outcomes. However, rather than focus on only one personality trait at a time, we hope to encourage researchers investigating the behavioral motivations of malevolent personalities to specifically account for overlapping personality traits. Especially in an SEM framework, where the overlap between highly correlated malevolent personality traits can be accounted, continuing research along this vein will do much to address the ongoing debate over exactly what behaviors can be attributed to what personalities. Finally, we used an assessment of BIS/BAS that reflects an older view of behavioral approach
268
A.L. Neria et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269
Fig. 1. Model 1: The Baseline D3 Model with standardized factor loadings. * The mean score of the given personality facets trait and were treated as observed variables. Note: solid lines indicate significant loadings, dashed lines indicate non-significant loadings, curved lined indicate correlated error variances.
and inhibition. Future research should incorporate multiple perspectives on BIS/BAS and should include different measures of the Dark Triad, especially psychopathy. Further, our model had marginal fit. Although it should be noted that there is debate over how stringent cut-offs should be, given personality data especially with larger models like the ones tested here, as well as over the use of factor analytic approaches to personality data (i.e., Crowley & Fan, 1997; Raykov, 1998). It should also be noted that some of the NPI subscales had poor internal consistencies, which is common for the NPI factors that are made up of binary items, especially the four-item entitlement factor (e.g., Gentile et al., 2013). In sum, dark personalities differ in critical ways, especially with respect to their approach/avoidance orientations. It appears that our findings support previous theory in how D3 traits should overlap and differentiate. In particular, Machiavellianism was associated with a longer-term profile than the other traits (as evidenced by a positive relationship with BIS), and psychopathy was related to low BIS and high BAS. Finally, narcissism showed reliable association with BAS-Drive and -Reward, which is also consistent with the idea that narcissistic individuals are constantly seeking praise, power, and admiration (Campbell, 1999). Thus, these findings support the notion that dark personalities can be differentiated along approach/avoidance dimensions, and these findings have implications for how they are conceptualized.
References Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. Bereczkei, T., Deak, A., Papp, P., Perlaki, G., & Orsi, G. (2013). Neural correlates of Machiavellian strategies in a social dilemma task. Brain and Cognition, 82, 108–116. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit (Sage Focus Editions )Vol. 154. (pp. 136), 136.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229. Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1254–1270. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45. Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Cooper, S., & Peterson, C. (1980). Machiavellianism and spontaneous cheating in competition. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 70–75. Corr, P. J. (2016). Reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality questionnaires: Structural survey with recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 60–64. Crowley, S. L., & Fan, X. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications in personality assessment research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(3), 508–531. Czibor, A., & Bereczkei, T. (2012). Machiavellian people's success results from monitoring their peers. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 202–206. Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, 257. Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11–17. Esperger, Z., & Bereczkei, T. (2012). Machiavellianism and spontaneous mentalization: One step ahead of others. European Journal of Personality, 26, 580–587. Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcissism and approach—avoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1004–1017. Fowles, D. C. (1980). The three arousal model: Implications of Gray's two-factor learning theory for heart rate, electrodermal activity, and psychopathy. Psychiatry, 17, 87–104. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216. Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose naricissism: The narcissistic personality inventory-13 and narcissistic personality inventory-16. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1120–1136. Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. New York, NY Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy a clinical construct whose time has come.Criminal Justice and Behavior 23, 25-54.: Cambridge University Press.
A.L. Neria et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 101 (2016) 264–269 Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy a clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54. Hare, R. D., & Vertommen, H. (2003). The hare psychopathy checklist-revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Heym, N., Ferguson, E., & Lawrence, C. (2008). An evaluation of the relationship between Gray's revised RST and Eysenck's PEN: Distinguishing BIS and FFFS in Carver and White's BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 709–715. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. Hughes, K. A., Moore, R. A., Morris, P. H., & Corr, P. J. (2012). Throwing light on the dark side of psychopathy: Reinforcement sensitivity theory and primary/secondary psychopathy in a student population. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 532–536. Jonason, P. K., & Jackson, C. J. (2016). The Dark Triad traits through the lens of Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 273–277. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Differentiating the dark triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz, & S. N. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal theory and research (pp. 249–267). New York, NY: Guilford. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 679–682. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41. Jones, D. N. (2016). The nature of Machiavellianism: Distinct patterns of misbehavior. In V. Zeigler-Hill, & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality. American Psychological Association. Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27, 521–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ per.1893.
269
Karpman, B. (1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 104(9), 523–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.104.9.523. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press. Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300. Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(1), 6–10. Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Psychology Press. Mahmut, M. K., Menictas, C., Stevenson, R. J., & Homewood, J. (2011). Validating the factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 670. Newman, J. P., MacCoon, D. G., Vaughn, L. J., & Sadeh, N. (2005). Validating a distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy with measures of Gray's BIS and BAS constructs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(2), 319. Noser, A. E., Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., Besser, A., Ewing, T. D., & Southard, A. C. (2015). Dark and immoral: The links between pathological personality features and moral values. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 30–35. Paolocci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2016). Manual for the self-report psychopathy scale. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems (in press). Preacher, K. J., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA [computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org Raykov, T. (1998). On the use of confirmatory factor analysis in personality research. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 291–293.