The darker angels of our nature: Do social worldviews mediate the associations that dark personality features have with ideological attitudes?

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The darker angels of our nature: Do social worldviews mediate the associations that dark personality features have with ideological attitudes?

T

Virgil Zeigler-Hilla, , Jose L. Martinezb, Jennifer K. Vrabela, Michael Onyeka Ezenwac, Henry Oraetuec, Tochukwu Nwezed,e, David Andrewsa, Brianna Kennya ⁎

a

Oakland University, United States Florida State University, United States c Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, Nigeria d University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria e MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Dark triad Narcissism Psychopathy Machiavellianism Worldviews Social dominance orientation Right-Wing Authoritarianism

The present studies examined the associations that narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness had with the competitive and dangerous social worldviews as well as the possibility that these worldviews may explain, at least in part, the associations that these dark personality features had with the ideological attitudes of social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Across three studies (N = 2,103), we found the dark personality features to be positively associated with the competitive social worldview in Studies 1 and 3 but these associations were much weaker in Study 2. Narcissism, psychopathy, and spitefulness had indirect associations with the dominance and anti-egalitarianism aspects of SDO through the competitive social worldview in Study 3 but not in Study 2. In contrast, the dark personality features had, at best, weak associations with the dangerous social worldview as well as divergent associations with aspects of RWA. More specifically, narcissism and spitefulness were positively associated with aspects of RWA but psychopathy was negatively associated with RWA. Discussion focuses on the role that social worldviews – especially perceptions of the world as being a highly competitive environment – may play in the connections that dark personality features have with various outcomes including ideological attitudes.

Social worldviews reflect beliefs about the social environment including such basic issues as the competitive threats or physical dangers posed by other people (Duckitt & Fisher, 2003; Sibley & Duckitt, 2013). Personality traits appear to play an important role in shaping the social worldviews that individuals adopt (e.g., Duckitt & Sibley, 2010) and there has been growing interest in the connections that the “darker” aspects of personality (e.g., narcissism, psychopathy) have with various outcomes that are related to social worldviews such as prejudice (e.g., Anderson & Cheers, 2018; Cichocka, Dhont & Makwana, 2017; Hodson, Hogg & MacInnis, 2009), motivational processes (Jonason & Zeigler-Hill, 2018; Zeigler-Hill & Hobbs, 2017), political views (e.g., Jonason, 2014; Van Hiel & Brebels, 2011), and ideological attitudes (e.g., Cichocka et al., 2017; Hodson et al., 2009). Considering these darker aspects of personality may be informative because they often involve motives and strategies that are not adequately captured by models such as the Big Five dimensions of personality even though there is clearly a great deal of overlap between these basic personality

⁎

dimensions and the darker aspects of personality (e.g., the darker aspects of personality tend to be characterized by low levels of agreeableness; Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). The purpose of the present studies was to examine the associations that dark personality features had with social worldviews as well as the possibility that these social worldviews may explain, at least in part, the associations that dark personality features had with ideological attitudes. Dark personality features refer to aspects of personality that are often linked with aversive behaviors and attitudes that are considered to be morally, ethically, or socially problematic (e.g., Marcus & ZeiglerHill, 2015). Interest in the darker aspects of personality has expanded considerably during the past two decades with much of this interest originating from the identification of narcissism (characterized by feelings of entitlement, perceived superiority, and a grandiose identity), Machiavellianism (characterized by the use of manipulative and deceitful behaviors intended to undermine others and achieve long-term personal goals), and psychopathy (characterized by malevolent

Corresponding author: Department of Psychology, Oakland University, 654 Pioneer Drive, Rochester, MI 48309. E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Zeigler-Hill).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109920 Received 12 August 2019; Received in revised form 11 December 2019; Accepted 12 February 2020 0191-8869/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al.

behaviors associated with a lack of empathy and impulsivity) as a cluster of personality features that are often referred to as the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The Dark Triad personality features are characterized by callousness and a willingness to exploit and manipulate others (e.g., Jones & Figueredo, 2013; Marcus, Preszler & Zeigler-Hill, 2018) which may explain why these personality features have been found to predict a wide array of behaviors and interpersonal tendencies including hostility, prejudice, sexually aggressive behavior, a lack of concern for others, and the tendency to deceive others (see Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2019, for a review). However, it is important to acknowledge that research concerning the Dark Triad has been criticized during recent years due to issues such as the use of relatively weak instruments (e.g., Miller et al., 2012; Miller, Vize, Crowe & Lynam, ) and the somewhat inconsistent results that have emerged across studies depending on the particular instruments that were used to capture the Dark Triad personality features (e.g., Watts, Waldman, Smith, Poore & Lilienfeld, 2017). Another issue that has been raised concerns the importance of expanding beyond the Dark Triad to include other aspects of personality such as sadism (characterized by enjoying the suffering of others; Buckels, Jones & Paulhus, 2013) and spitefulness (characterized by the willingness to incur costs to oneself in order to inflict harm on others; Marcus, Zeigler-Hill, Mercer & Norris, 2014) in order to provide a more complete and nuanced view of the darker aspects of personality (see Marcus & Zeigler-Hill, 2015, for an extended discussion). Dark personality features may be associated with the development of social worldviews because personality traits predispose individuals to interpret information in particular ways and often have implications for the motives and goals that individuals adopt. For example, individuals with low levels of agreeableness (i.e., those who are toughminded) tend to be sensitive to signals of competition and opportunities for exploiting others which promotes the development of the competitive social worldview (i.e., a perception of the world as being similar to a Darwinian jungle rather than as a cooperative environment characterized by mutually beneficial exchanges; Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2009, 2002). This suggests that dark personality features – which are characterized by qualities such as disagreeableness, callousness, and manipulativeness (e.g., Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Marcus et al., 2018) – should foster a view of the social environment as being a ruthlessly competitive place where the strong survive and the weak perish rather than thinking about the world as a place where people can cooperate with one another in order to live in mutual harmony. In contrast, individuals with low levels of openness (i.e., those who are socially conforming) tend to be sensitive to signals of potential physical and social threats which promotes the development of the dangerous social worldview (i.e., a perception of the world as a threatening and unpredictable place rather than as a largely safe and secure environment). However, openness has, at best, very weak associations with the dark personality features which suggests that the darker aspects of personality may have little connection to the dangerous social worldview. Social worldviews are believed to play a pivotal role in the formation of ideological attitudes because they serve as anchors that predispose individuals to interpret experiences in a manner that is consistent with their existing worldviews (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Perry, Sibley & Duckitt, 2013; Sibley & Duckitt, 2009; Sibley, Wilson & Duckitt, 2007). This basic idea is the foundation of the Dual-Process Cognitive-Motivational Model (Duckitt, 2001) which argues that individuals who possess a competitive social worldview tend to develop higher levels of social dominance orientation (SDO), whereas individuals who possess a dangerous social worldview tend to develop higher levels of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). In essence, SDO represents a competition-driven motivation for group-based dominance and hierarchical social organization (rather than egalitarianism and universalism) that is made chronically salient by competitive social worldviews, whereas RWA represents a threat-driven motivation for collective security and ingroup cohesion (rather than

personal freedom and self-expression) that is made chronically salient by dangerous social worldviews (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Sibley & Duckitt, 2009). Social worldviews have been found to consistently mediate the associations that personality traits have with SDO and RWA (e.g., Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Duckitt et al., 2002; Perry et al., 2013; Sibley & Duckitt, 2009; Van Hiel, Cornelis & Roets, 2007). For example, there is a negative association between agreeableness and SDO that is usually fully mediated by the competitive social worldview as well as a negative association between openness and RWA that is often partially mediated by the dangerous social worldview. Similar results have also emerged from longitudinal studies (e.g., Sibley & Duckitt, 2013) which provide additional support for the idea that personality traits influence the development of competitive and dangerous social worldviews which, in turn, serve as proximal determinants of SDO and RWA. 1. Overview and predictions The goal of the present studies was to examine the associations that dark personality features had with the competitive and dangerous social worldviews. Further, we were interested in the possibility that the competitive and dangerous social worldviews would explain, at least in part, the associations that the dark personality features had with the ideological attitudes of SDO and RWA. Our first prediction was that each of the dark personality features would have similar positive associations with the competitive social worldview. The rationale for this prediction was that individuals who are disagreeable, callous, and manipulative – which are characteristics common to these dark personality features (e.g., Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Marcus et al., 2018) – would be likely to develop social worldviews that emphasize the competitive nature of the social environment (e.g., Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002). Although we had similar predictions for each of the dark personality features, we expected narcissism to have an especially strong connection with the competitive social worldview given the prominent role that the pursuit of status plays in the lives of individuals with narcissistic personality features (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2019). Our second prediction was that the tendency for individuals with dark personality features to perceive the social world as something akin to a competitive jungle should lead them to adopt ideological attitudes such as SDO that involve heightened motivations for power, dominance, and superiority over others who may be considered to be potential rivals. In essence, we expected individuals with dark personality features to be especially sensitive to signals of competition in their social environments that, in turn, would lead them to be motivated to pursue their own self-interested goals with relatively little concern for the interests or desires of others. These predictions are consistent with the results of previous studies showing that certain dark personality features (e.g., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) are positively correlated with competitive social worldviews (Jonason, Okan & Özsoy, 2019) and SDO (e.g., Hodson et al., 2009) as well as studies showing that the negative association between agreeableness and SDO is mediated by the competitive social worldview (e.g., Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Van Hiel et al., 2007). We did not have clear predictions regarding the associations that the dark personality features would have with the dangerous social worldview. For example, there have been arguments that psychopathy reflects a deficiency in the ability to experience appropriate levels of certain negative emotions including fear (e.g., Lykken, 1995) that would suggest the possibility of a negative association between psychopathy and the dangerous social worldview. However, it is widely recognized that the connections between psychopathy and negative emotional experiences are complex (e.g., Hicks & Patrick, 2006) which suggests that psychopathy may not have a simple association with the dangerous social worldview. As a result, we examined the associations 2

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al.

that the dark personality features had with the dangerous social worldview for exploratory purposes. Further, we did not expect the dark personality features to have particularly strong associations with RWA nor did we expect the dangerous social worldview to mediate these associations because previous studies have found dark personality features to have either no association or weak negative associations with RWA (e.g., Cichocka et al., 2017; Hodson et al., 2009). However, we examined these associations for exploratory purposes.

consistencies for this instrument in the present study were lower than what is typically observed. 3.2.2. Sadism Sadism was assessed using the Assessment of Sadistic Personality (Plouffe, Saklofske & Smith, 2017). This 9-item scale is intended to measure the extent to which respondents enjoy hurting others (e.g., “Being mean to others can be exciting” [α = 0.75]). Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item using a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

2. STUDY 1 Our goal for Study 1 was to examine the associations that dark personality features had with the competitive and dangerous social worldviews. We decided to examine these associations in a non-U.S. sample due to concerns regarding overreliance on W.E.I.R.D. samples (i.e., Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic; see Henrich, Heine & Norenzayan, 2010, for a review) for issues surrounding ideological attitudes (e.g., Fatke, 2017). More specifically, we used a general-population prison sample from Nigeria. Examining a prison sample may be especially informative given that there has been very little research concerning the social worldviews held by prisoners.

3.2.3. Spitefulness Spitefulness was assessed using the Spitefulness Scale (Marcus et al., 2014) which is a 17-item instrument designed to measure the willingness of a participant to engage in behaviors that would harm another at some cost to oneself (e.g., “Part of me enjoys seeing the people I do not like fail even if their failure hurts me in some way” [α = 0.75]). Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item using a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 3.2.4. Competitive and dangerous social worldviews Competitive and dangerous social worldviews were assessed using an abbreviated version of the Worldview Scale (Duckitt et al., 2002) that used only three items to capture the competitive social worldview (e.g., “It's a dog-eat-dog world where you have to be ruthless at times” [α = 0.47]) and three items for the dangerous social worldview (e.g., “There are many dangerous people in our society who will attack someone out of pure meanness, for no reason at all” [α = 0.64]). Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item using a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

3. Method 3.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 707 incarcerated adult offenders who were general-population inmates recruited from six prisons in Nigeria. These prisons were located in separate geopolitical zones within Nigeria: Enugu (South East), Ibadan (South West), Port Harcourt (South), Jos (North Central), Kaduna (North West), and Bauchi (North East). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka and the Institutional Review Board of the Nigerian Prisons Service. Participants completed measures of dark personality features and social worldviews – as well as other measures that were not relevant to the current study (e.g., childhood socio-ecological conditions) – in group settings using a pencil-and-paper format. The participants were required to be able to read and write in English to participate in the study. The purpose of the study was thoroughly described and the voluntary nature of participation was emphasized as part of the informed consent procedure. Data were excluded for 151 participants due to careless or inattentive responding: 58 participants for being univariate outliers, 23 participants for being multivariate outliers (as assessed by Mahalanobis distance), 19 participants for inconsistent responding that was assessed by inter-item standard deviation, and 51 participants due to having invariant response patterns (see Curran, 2016, for a review of methods for detecting careless or inattentive responding). The final sample of 556 participants (516 men, 38 women, and 2 individuals who did not provide their gender) had a mean age of 31.90 years (SD = 8.91) and their racial/ethnic composition was 88% Black, 6% White, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other.

4. Results Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 1. Narcissism was not correlated with the competitive social worldview but each of the other dark personality features were positively correlated with the competitive social worldview. Narcissism and Machiavellianism were positively correlated with the dangerous social worldview, whereas sadism was negatively correlated with the dangerous social worldview. Psychopathy and spitefulness were not correlated with the dangerous social worldview. We conducted multiple regression analyses in order to examine whether the dark personality features had unique associations with the competitive and dangerous social worldviews. Due to the relatively large sample sizes and the large number of associations that were examined in our analyses for each of

Table 1 Study 1: Intercorrelations and Descriptive Statistics.

3.2. Measures 1. Narcissism 2. Machiavellianism 3. Psychopathy 4. Sadism 5. Spitefulness 6. Competitive SWV 7. Dangerous SWV Mean Standard Deviation

3.2.1. Dark triad The Short Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) was used to measure narcissism (9 items; e.g., “People see me as a natural leader” [α = 0.38]), Machiavellianism (9 items; e.g., “Make sure your plans benefit you, not others” α = 0.45]), and psychopathy (9 items; e.g., “People who mess with me always regret it” [α = 0.53]). Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item using a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This measure has been shown to possess adequate psychometric properties in previous studies (e.g., Jones & Paulhus, 2014) but the internal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

— .37* −0.07 −0.09 −0.14* .09 .15* 3.34 0.56

— .17* .08 .07 .20* .16* 3.47 0.60

— .48* .40* .22* −0.08 2.74 0.66

— .55* .24* −0.14* 2.47 0.82

— .33* −0.02 2.55 0.63

— .13 2.90 1.04

— 3.49 1.10

Note. SWV = Social worldviews. ⁎ p < .001.

3

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al.

the present studies, we decided to employ a more conservative level of statistical significance for all of our analyses. As a result, we only consider associations across all of the present studies to be significant if p < .001.1,2

6. STUDY 2 Study 1 had various strengths (e.g., relatively large sample of prisoners) but it also had some important limitations (e.g., some of the instruments had weak internal consistencies). The purpose of Study 2 was to replicate and extend the results of Study 1 by examining whether dark personality features had indirect associations with aspects of SDO and RWA through the competitive and dangerous social worldviews. We decided to distinguish between specific aspects of SDO and RWA in order to gain a more nuanced understanding of these ideological attitudes. More specifically, we distinguished between two aspects of SDO: dominance (support for the use of aggressive intergroup behaviors that are intended to maintain the subordination of one or more other groups) and anti-egalitarianism (support for sometimes subtle ideologies and policies that are intended to maintain the subordination of one or more other groups; see Ho et al., 2015, for a review). We also distinguished between three aspects of RWA: authoritarianism (support for the use of harsh punishment for deviance and nonconformity), conservatism (support for maintaining the current status quo), and traditionalism (support for conventional or “old-fashioned” lifestyles, norms, or values; see Duckitt, Bizumic, Krauss & Heled, 2010, for a review).

4.1. Competitive social worldview The results of the analysis for the competitive social worldview revealed a unique positive association for spitefulness (β = 0.28, t = 5.73, p < .001) but the associations for the other dark personality features did not meet our relatively conservative standard for statistical significance (i.e., p < .001): narcissism (β = 0.09, t = 2.10, p = .036), Machiavellianism (β = 0.13, t = 2.91, p = .004), psychopathy (β = 0.07, t = 1.55, p = .123) and sadism (β = 0.05, t = 0.92, p = .357). 4.2. Dangerous social worldview The results of the analysis for the dangerous social worldview revealed that none of the associations observed for the dark personality features met our relatively conservative standard for statistical significance: narcissism (β = 0.09, t = 1.97, p = .050), Machiavellianism (β = 0.14, t = 3.17, p = .002), psychopathy (β = −0.06, t = −1.14, p = .253), sadism (β = −0.18, t = −3.34, p = .001), and spitefulness (β = 0.10, t = 1.97, p = .049).

7. Method 7.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 899 undergraduate students who were recruited from a university in the Midwestern region of the United States. Participants completed measures of dark personality features, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes – as well as other measures that were not relevant to the current study (e.g., pathological personality dimensions) – via a secure website. Data were excluded for 107 participants due to careless or inattentive responding using criteria similar to Study 1. The final sample of 792 participants (177 men, 613 women, and 2 individuals who identified as transgender) had a mean age of 19.89 years (SD = 3.38; range = 18–56 years) and their racial/ethnic composition was 75% White, 9% Black, 6% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 7% other.

5. Discussion The results of Study 1 were somewhat consistent with our predictions such that each of the dark personality features – with the exception of narcissism – had positive zero-order correlations with the competitive social worldview. However, only spitefulness had a unique positive association with the competitive social worldview in the regression analysis. These results are generally consistent with the idea that individuals who have higher levels of dark personality features tend to view the world as being akin to a competitive jungle where the strong dominate the weak with this view of the world being particularly true for individuals with high levels of spitefulness. It should be noted that narcissism was not correlated with the competitive social worldview despite our prediction that it would have an especially strong positive association with this worldview. Narcissism and Machiavellianism had positive zero-order correlations with the dangerous social worldview, whereas sadism had a negative correlation with this worldview. However, none of the dark personality features had unique associations with the dangerous social worldviews in the regression analysis. It should be noted that some of the instruments used in Study 1 demonstrated low internal consistencies which makes it difficult to interpret these results. The reason for these particularly low internal consistencies was not immediately obvious but future researchers interested in the connections between dark personality features and social worldviews outside of W.E.I.R.D. samples may want to consider employing instruments that are adapted for use with individuals from those particular cultures.

7.2. Measures 7.2.1. Dark triad Narcissism (α = 0.74), Machiavellianism (α = 0.75), and psychopathy (α = 0.71) were assessed using the Short Dark Triad as in Study 1. 7.2.2. Sadism Sadism was assessed using the Assessment of Sadistic Personality (α = 0.84) as in Study 1. 7.2.3. Spitefulness Spitefulness was assessed using the Spitefulness Scale (α = 0.88) as in Study 1. 7.2.4. Competitive and dangerous social worldviews The Frequency Estimation Index of Social Worldviews (Perry & Sibley, 2010) was used to capture the competitive social worldview (9 items; e.g., “Estimate the percentage of people who would intimidate someone with their social position to get what they want” [α = 0.90]) and the dangerous social worldview (9 items; e.g., “Estimate the percentage of people who would attack someone for no reason at all” [α = 0.91]). Participants were asked to estimate the percentage of people who would engage in each behavior using scales that ranged from 0% to 100%.

1

We conducted preliminary analyses for each study that included participants who were excluded from the final analyses for inattentive responding. The results of these preliminary analyses were extremely similar to the reported results. That is, excluding the inattentive participants did not have a significant impact on the reported results. 2 Preliminary analyses for each study included sex as a potential moderator. However, sex did not emerge as a significant moderator for any of the analyses nor were the reported results significantly altered by the inclusion of sex in those analyses. As a result, we did not include sex in the final analyses nor do we discuss sex differences in the interest of parsimony. 4

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al.

Table 2 Study 2: Intercorrelations and Descriptive Statistics.

1. Narcissism 2. Machiavellianism 3. Psychopathy 4. Sadism 5. Spitefulness 6. Competitive SWV 7. Dangerous SWV 8. Dominance 9. Anti-Egalitarianism 10. Authoritarianism 11. Conservatism 12. Traditionalism Mean Standard Deviation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

— .35* .33* .22* .21* .11 .13* .32* .16* .17* .15* .21* 2.75 0.64

— .55* .48* .36* .13* .07 .34* .25* .07 −0.04 .01 2.67 0.68

— .65* .56* .08 .09 .34* .34* −0.05 −0.08 −0.05 1.94 0.59

— .58* .06 .05 .35* .36* .01 −0.02 .05 1.59 0.63

— .13* .19* .36* .36* .08 .07 .13* 1.75 0.61

— .65* .05 −0.02 .11 .03 .09 45.69 17.19

— .13* .06 .16* .13* .19* 25.60 14.28

— .62* .31* .34* .31* 2.93 1.14

— .18* .25* .27* 2.49 1.18

— .67* .55* −0.11 1.07

— .66* −0.36 1.27

— −0.65 1.51

Note. SWV = Social worldview. ⁎ p < .001.

7.2.5. Social dominance orientation We used the SDO-7 Scale (Ho et al., 2015) to capture two aspects of SDO: dominance (8 items; e.g., “Some groups of people must be kept in their place” [α = 0.81]) and anti-egalitarianism (8 items; e.g., “Group equality should not be our primary goal” [α = 0.88]). Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement using scales that ranged from 1 (strongly oppose) to 7 (strongly favor).

worldview were associated with the dominance aspect of SDO. Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and spitefulness were positively associated with dominance. However, none of the dark personality features had indirect associations with dominance through either the competitive social worldview or the dangerous social worldview.

7.2.6. Right-Wing authoritarianism We used the Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism Scale (Duckitt et al., 2010) to capture three aspects of RWA: authoritarianism (12 items; e.g., “We should smash all the negative elements that are causing trouble in our society” [α = 0.78]), conservatism (12 items; e.g., “Our leaders should be obeyed without questions” [α = 0.88]), and traditionalism (12 items; e.g., “It is important that we preserve our traditional values and moral standards” [α = 0.88]). Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement using scales that ranged from −4 (very strongly disagree) to +4 (very strongly agree).

Neither the competitive social worldview nor the dangerous social worldview were associated with the anti-egalitarianism aspect of SDO. Sadism and spitefulness were positively associated with anti-egalitarianism. However, none of the dark personality features had indirect associations with anti-egalitarianism through either the competitive social worldview or the dangerous social worldview.

8.2. Anti-Egalitarianism

8.3. Authoritarianism Neither the competitive social worldview nor the dangerous social worldview were associated with the authoritarianism aspect of RWA. Narcissism and spitefulness were positively associated with authoritarianism, whereas psychopathy was negatively associated with authoritarianism. However, none of the dark personality features had indirect associations with authoritarianism through either the competitive social worldview or the dangerous social worldview.

8. Results Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 2. Machiavellianism and spitefulness were positively correlated with the competitive social worldview, whereas narcissism and spitefulness were positively correlated with the dangerous social worldview. Each of the dark personality features were positively correlated with the dominance and anti-egalitarianism aspects of SDO. Narcissism was positively correlated with the authoritarianism, conservatism, and traditionalism aspects of RWA, whereas spitefulness was correlated with traditionalism but not with authoritarianism or conservatism. We used model four of the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2018) to conduct parallel multiple mediation analyses to examine whether the dark personality features had indirect associations with ideological attitudes through the competitive and dangerous social worldviews. The results of these analyses are presented in Fig. 1. In contrast to our predictions, none of the dark personality features had unique associations with the competitive social worldview that met our relatively conservative standards for statistical significance. Spitefulness had a unique positive association with the dangerous social worldview but none of the other dark personality features had unique associations with the dangerous social worldview.

8.4. Conservatism The competitive social worldview was not associated with the conservatism aspect of RWA but the dangerous social worldview was positively associated with conservatism. Narcissism and spitefulness were positively associated with conservatism, whereas psychopathy was negatively associated with conservatism. However, none of the dark personality features had indirect associations with conservatism through either the competitive social worldview or the dangerous social worldview that met our conservative standard for statistical significance. 8.5. Traditionalism The competitive social worldview was not associated with the traditionalism aspect of RWA but the dangerous social worldview was positively associated with traditionalism. Narcissism and spitefulness were positively associated with traditionalism, whereas psychopathy was negatively associated with traditionalism. However, none of the dark personality features had indirect associations with traditionalism

8.1. Dominance Neither the competitive social worldview nor the dangerous social 5

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al.

Fig. 1. Study 2: The results of the parallel multiple mediation analyses with the competitive and dangerous social worldviews mediating the associations that dark personality features had with ideological attitudes. Note: The significant positive associations are indicated by solid black arrows. The significant negative associations are indicated by dashed black arrows. The dotted gray lines represent nonsignificant associations. *p < .001.

6

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al.

through either the competitive social worldview or the dangerous social worldview that met our conservative standard for statistical significance.

attitudes – as well as other measures that were not relevant to the current study (e.g., pathological personality dimensions) – via a secure website. Data were excluded for 190 participants due to careless or inattentive responding using criteria similar to Studies 1 and 2. The final sample of 755 participants (245 men, 504 women, 3 individuals who identified as transgender, and 3 individuals who did not specify their sex) had a mean age of 25.42 years (SD = 9.24; range = 18–66 years) and their racial/ethnic composition was 79% White, 9% Black, 5% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 3% other.

9. Discussion The results of Study 2 provided limited support for our predictions. Machiavellianism and spitefulness had positive zero-order correlations with the competitive social worldview, whereas narcissism and spitefulness had positive correlations with the dangerous social worldview. However, the only unique association between the dark personality features and the social worldviews was an unexpected positive association between spitefulness and the dangerous social worldview. As expected, each of the dark personality features had positive zero-order correlations with the dominance and anti-egalitarianism aspects of SDO but the competitive social worldview was not correlated with either aspect of SDO which helps to explain why the competitive social worldview did not mediate the associations that the dark personality features had with these aspects of SDO. The absence of associations between the competitive social worldview and the aspects of SDO does not align with a large body of previous research that has consistently shown the competitive social worldview to predict SDO (e.g., Perry et al., 2013). The most likely explanation for this unusual pattern was our decision to employ an instrument that has rarely been used to capture social worldviews and that was based on estimating the frequencies of certain events. It appears that the competitive social worldview captured by this frequency-based estimation instrument may have been quite different than what is captured by other instruments that are intended to measure this social worldview. Narcissism was positively associated with all three aspects of RWA, whereas spitefulness was only associated with the traditionalism aspect of RWA. In contrast, psychopathy was negatively associated with all three aspects of RWA. Taken together, these results suggest important differences in the associations that the dark personality features had with RWA. The dangerous social worldview was positively correlated with all three aspects of RWA but it did not mediate the associations that the dark personality features had with these aspects of RWA. Although we used parallel multiple mediation analyses, it is important to note that we were unable to determine the direction of causality between the dark personality features, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes due to the correlational nature of this data (see Maxwell & Cole, 2007, for an extended discussion of the limitations of cross-sectional mediation).

11.2. Measures 11.2.1. Dark triad Narcissism (α = 0.71), Machiavellianism (α = 0.80), and psychopathy (α = 0.82) were assessed using the Short Dark Triad as in the previous studies. 11.2.2. Sadism Sadism was assessed using the Assessment of Sadistic Personality (α = 0.90) as in the previous studies. 11.2.3. Spitefulness Spitefulness was assessed using the Spitefulness Scale (α = 0.94) as in the previous studies. 11.2.4. Competitive and dangerous social worldviews The Social Worldviews Scale-Revised (Perry et al., 2013) was used to capture the competitive social worldview (10 items; e.g., “It's a dog-eat-dog world where you have to be ruthless at times” [α = 0.74]) and the dangerous social worldview (10 items; e.g., “It seems that every year there are fewer and fewer truly respectable people, and more and more persons with no morals at all who threaten everyone else” [α = 0.73]). Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item using a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). 11.2.5. Social dominance orientation We used the SDO-7 to capture the dominance (α = 0.82) and antiegalitarianism (α = 0.87) aspects of SDO as in Study 2. 11.2.6. Right-Wing authoritarianism We used the Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism Scale to capture the authoritarianism (α = 0.80), conservatism (α = 0.88), and traditionalism (α = 0.89) aspects of RWA as in Study 2.

10. STUDY 3

12. Results

The purpose of Study 3 was to extend the results of Study 2 by using a more established instrument for capturing social worldviews instead of the frequency-based estimation instrument that was employed in Study 2. This is important because the results of Study 2 did not align with a large body of existing research showing that the competitive social worldview is strongly and consistently associated with SDO.

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 3. Each of the dark personality features were positively correlated with the competitive social worldview but none of the dark personality features were correlated with the dangerous social worldview. As in Study 2, each of the dark personality features were positively correlated with the dominance and anti-egalitarianism aspects of SDO. Also consistent with the results of Study 2, narcissism was positively correlated with the authoritarianism, conservatism, and traditionalism aspects of RWA, whereas spitefulness was correlated with traditionalism but not with authoritarianism or conservatism. As in Study 2, we used parallel multiple mediation analyses to examine whether the dark personality features had indirect associations with ideological attitudes through the competitive and dangerous social worldviews. The results of these analyses are presented in Fig. 2. Narcissism, psychopathy, and spitefulness had unique positive associations with the competitive social worldview, whereas Machiavellianism and sadism did not have unique associations with the competitive social worldview. None of the dark personality features had unique associations with the dangerous social worldview that met our relatively conservative standard for statistical significance.

11. Method 11.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 373 community adults from the U.S. who were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and 572 undergraduate students who were recruited from a university in the Midwestern region of the United States.3 Participants completed measures of dark personality features, social worldviews, and ideological 3 Preliminary analyses revealed that the results for the MTurk workers and the undergraduates were highly consistent. As a consequence, we decided to report the results from these two samples as a single study in the interest of parsimony.

7

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al.

Table 3 Study 3: Intercorrelations and Descriptive Statistics.

1. Narcissism 2. Machiavellianism 3. Psychopathy 4. Sadism 5. Spitefulness 6. Competitive SWV 7. Dangerous SWV 8. Dominance 9. Anti-Egalitarianism 10. Authoritarianism 11. Conservatism 12. Traditionalism Mean Standard Deviation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

— .45* .38* .36* .35* .42* .07 .41* .25* .26* .27* .27* 2.73 0.64

— .67* .64* .52* .50* −0.01 .33* .31* .09 .04 .03 2.67 0.74

— .81* .71* .62* −0.09 .36* .40* −0.01 .00 .04 2.01 0.74

— .75* .60* −0.06 .39* .41* .05 .05 .10 1.68 0.80

— .63* −0.02 .41* .38* .09 .09 .17* 1.83 0.76

— .11 .49* .43* .22* .17* .13* 3.11 0.72

— .07 −0.01 .41* .34* .39* 4.14 0.81

— .66* .42* .45* .37* 2.93 1.20

— .33* .34* .34* 2.66 1.24

— .75* .66* −0.16 1.27

— .74* −0.40 1.51

— −0.71 1.66

Note. SWV = Social worldview. ⁎ p < .001.

conservatism aspect of RWA but the dangerous social worldview was positively associated with conservatism. Narcissism had a unique positive association with conservatism. None of the dark personality features had indirect associations with conservatism through either the competitive social worldview or the dangerous social worldview.

12.1. Dominance The competitive social worldview was positively associated with the dominance aspect of SDO but the dangerous social worldview was not associated with dominance. Narcissism and spitefulness had unique positive associations with dominance. Narcissism (β = 0.05, z = 4.32, p < .001), psychopathy (β = 0.07, z = 3.68, p < .001), and spitefulness (β = 0.10, z = 5.19, p < .001) had positive indirect associations with dominance through the competitive social worldview. Machiavellianism and sadism did not have indirect associations with dominance through the competitive social worldview nor did any of the dark personality features have indirect associations with dominance through the dangerous social worldview.

12.5. Traditionalism The competitive social worldview was not associated with the traditionalism aspect of RWA but the dangerous social worldview was positively associated with traditionalism. Narcissism and spitefulness had unique positive associations with traditionalism but none of the dark personality features had indirect associations with traditionalism through either the competitive social worldview or the dangerous social worldview.

12.2. Anti-Egalitarianism The competitive social worldview was positively associated with the anti-egalitarianism aspect of SDO but the dangerous social worldview was not associated with anti-egalitarianism. None of the dark personality features had unique associations with anti-egalitarianism but narcissism (β = 0.04, z = 3.93, p < .001), psychopathy (β = 0.06, z = 3.42, p < .001), and spitefulness (β = 0.08, z = 4.55, p < .001) had positive indirect associations with anti-egalitarianism through the competitive social worldview. Machiavellianism and sadism did not have indirect associations with anti-egalitarianism through the competitive social worldview nor did any of the dark personality features have indirect associations with anti-egalitarianism through the dangerous social worldview.

13. Discussion The results of Study 3 were largely consistent with our predictions. As expected, each of the dark personality features had positive zeroorder correlations with the competitive social worldview. However, only narcissism, psychopathy, and spitefulness had unique positive associations with the competitive social worldview when the other dark personality features were included in the same analysis. In addition, each of the dark personality features had positive zero-order correlations with the dominance and anti-egalitarianism aspects of SDO but the competitive social worldview only emerged as a significant mediator of these associations for narcissism, psychopathy, and spitefulness. These results are consistent with the idea that certain dark personality features (i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, and spitefulness) may foster a view of the world as being a ruthlessly competitive place that, in turn, promotes the development of ideological attitudes that involve heightened motivations for power, dominance, and superiority over others who may be considered to be potential rivals. None of the dark personality features were associated with the dangerous social worldview. Narcissism had unique positive associations with the authoritarianism, conservatism, and traditionalism aspects of RWA but these associations were not mediated by either the competitive or dangerous social worldviews. Psychopathy had a negative association with authoritarianism that was not mediated by either the competitive or dangerous social worldviews. Spitefulness had an unexpected positive indirect association with authoritarianism through the competitive social worldview as well as a unique positive association with traditionalism that was not mediated by either the competitive or dangerous social worldviews. As with Study 2, it is important to note that our use of parallel multiple mediation analyses in Study 3 did

12.3. Authoritarianism The competitive social worldview and the dangerous social worldview were both positively associated with the authoritarianism aspect of RWA. Narcissism had a unique positive association with authoritarianism, whereas psychopathy had a unique negative association with authoritarianism. Spitefulness had a positive indirect association with authoritarianism through the competitive social worldview (β = 0.06, z = 3.58, p < .001). None of the other dark personality features had indirect associations with authoritarianism through the competitive social worldview nor did any of the dark personality features have indirect associations with authoritarianism through the dangerous social worldview. 12.4. Conservatism The competitive social worldview was not associated with the 8

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al.

Fig. 2. Study 3: The results of the parallel multiple mediation analyses with the competitive and dangerous social worldviews mediating the associations that dark personality features had with ideological attitudes. Note: The significant positive associations are indicated by solid black arrows. The significant negative associations are indicated by dashed black arrows. The dotted gray lines represent nonsignificant associations. *p < .001.

9

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al.

not allow us to determine the direction of causality between the dark personality features, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes because our data were correlational in nature (e.g., Maxwell & Cole, 2007).

that the dark personality features had with SDO and RWA through the dangerous social worldview. None of the dark personality features had consistent associations with the dangerous social worldview across all three studies. Further, the dangerous social worldview did not mediate the associations that the dark personality features had with RWA. For example, psychopathy had negative unique associations with at least certain aspects of RWA in Studies 2 and 3 but these associations were not mediated by the dangerous social worldview. Rather, the negative associations between psychopathy and aspects of RWA may be best explained by individuals with high levels of RWA viewing themselves as being highly moral (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998), whereas individuals with psychopathic personality features tend to be guided by somewhat untraditional views of morality (e.g., Marshall, Watts & Lilienfeld, 2018). Narcissism had unexpected positive associations with the authoritarianism, conservatism, and traditionalism aspects of RWA in Studies 2 and 3. Although it is often assumed that narcissism is associated with particular ideological attitudes (e.g., conservatives sometimes refer to “liberal superiority”), there has actually been relatively little empirical work dedicated to this topic. For example, studies have reported positive associations between narcissism and political conservatism (e.g., Van Hiel & Brebels, 2011) or a negative association between narcissism and RWA when statistically controlling for self-esteem level (Cichocka et al., 2017). However, a recent study by Hatemi and Fazekas (2018) found relatively equal levels of narcissism for liberals and conservatives but they noted that the facet of narcissism reflecting entitlement was more strongly associated with conservative positions, whereas the facet of narcissism reflecting exhibitionism was more strongly related to liberal values. This suggests that it may be informative for future studies examining the associations between narcissism and ideological attitudes to adopt a more nuanced view of narcissism such as distinguishing between the assertive/extraverted, antagonistic/disagreeable, and vulnerable/neurotic aspects of narcissism. In summary, the dark personality features were at least somewhat similar in terms of their tendency to view the world as a highly competitive place. Despite this general similarity, it is important to note that these dark personality features differed in some important ways. For example, narcissism and spitefulness were positively associated with at least some aspects of RWA, whereas psychopathy was negatively associated with RWA. The results of the present studies provide additional support for considering both the similarities and differences between the dark personality features because doing so allows for a more nuanced understanding of the connections that these dark personality features have with a wide range of outcomes including social worldviews and ideological attitudes. The present studies have provided additional insights into the connections that the dark personality features have with social worldviews and ideological attitudes but it would be helpful for future studies to expand on these results. For example, the present results show that the tendency for individuals with dark personality features to adopt particular social worldviews help explain their ideological attitudes but it would be helpful to examine whether these social worldviews provide additional insight into the associations that dark personality features have with other outcomes. For example, does the tendency to view the world as a competitive place explain, at least in part, the connections that dark personality features have with outcomes such as prejudicial attitudes toward outgroup members, sexually aggressive behavior, or the use of deception? This suggests the intriguing possibility that many of the aversive behaviors that characterize individuals with dark personality features may be explained, to at least some extent, by their perceptions of themselves as living in a hyper-competitive world. This possibility should be examined in future research because social worldviews may serve as one of the mechanisms by which dark personality features “get outside the skin” (Hampson, 2012) by producing particular patterns of behaviors and attitudes. Although the present studies had a number of strengths (e.g.,

14. General discussion The purpose of the present studies was to examine the associations that dark personality features had with the competitive and dangerous social worldviews. Further, we were interested in the possibility that the competitive and dangerous social worldviews would explain, at least in part, the associations that the dark personality features had with the ideological attitudes of SDO and RWA. The present studies provided mixed support for our first hypothesis that the dark personality features would be positively associated with the competitive social worldview. The general pattern that emerged from these studies is consistent with the possibility that the tendency to view the world as a place where only the strong survive may play an important role in framing many of the behaviors and attitudes that have been found to be associated with dark personality features (e.g., hostility, prejudice, sexually aggressive behavior, a lack of concern for the welfare of others). However, it is important to note that the magnitude of the associations that the dark personality features had with the competitive social worldview differed considerably across studies with the strongest associations emerging in Study 3. Machiavellianism and spitefulness were the only dark personality features to have significant zero-order correlations with the competitive social worldview across all three studies which suggests that individuals with high levels of these dark personality features may be particularly inclined to view the world as a competitive place. This pattern may shed light on the connections that Machiavellianism (e.g., Yi, Ji, Xu & Hitchman, 2014) and spitefulness (e.g., Forber & Smead, 2014) have with issues surrounding fairness in social interactions. That is, individuals with these dark personality features may be highly attuned to the possibility of unfair treatment by others because they view the world as a highly competitive environment where even a slight disadvantage or sign of weakness has the potential to be catastrophic for their social position. Our second hypothesis was that the dark personality features would have positive indirect associations with aspects of SDO through the competitive social worldview. This prediction received inconsistent support across the present studies because narcissism, psychopathy, and spitefulness had the expected positive indirect associations with aspects of SDO through the competitive social worldview in Study 3 but not in Study 2. The pattern that emerged in Study 3 suggests that these dark personality features promote a view of the world as being a ruthlessly competitive place that, in turn, fosters the development of ideological attitudes that involve heightened motivations for power, dominance, and superiority over others. The associations between dark personality features and ideological attitudes may be especially important to consider given recent concerns about increasing levels of inequality in various parts of the world. Our best explanation for the inconsistent results between Studies 2 and 3 is that we employed a frequency-based estimation instrument to capture social worldviews in Study 2 that has only been used in a small number of previous studies. Although the competitive and dangerous social worldviews had the expected pattern of associations with SDO and RWA when assessed with this instrument in past research (e.g., Perry & Sibley, 2010), it did not perform as expected in Study 2 (e.g., the competitive social worldview was not correlated with SDO despite a considerable body of previous research demonstrating this association). It appears that the social worldviews captured by the frequency-based estimation instrument used in Study 2 differed considerably from what is captured by the more commonly used instruments for measuring social worldviews that were employed in Studies 1 and 3. We also examined the associations that the dark personality features had with the dangerous social worldview and the indirect associations 10

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al.

utilized large samples from two countries, examined various dark personality features), it is important to acknowledge some of their potential limitations. The first limitation is that we were unable to determine the direction of causality between the dark personality features, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes due to the correlational nature of these studies (e.g., Maxwell & Cole, 2007). The underlying process model for the present studies was that the dark personality features would influence the development of social worldviews that, in turn, would lead to the adoption of particular ideological attitudes. However, other causal patterns may exist between these variables. For example, it is possible that social worldviews may actually precede the development of dark personality features. Another possibility is that an unexamined variable (e.g., early experiences with harsh or unpredictable socioecological conditions) may have impacted the development of dark personality features, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes. Future research should attempt to gain a better understanding of the connections between dark personality features, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes using experimental designs (e.g., manipulate aspects of the environment to activate competitive or social worldviews) or longitudinal studies (e.g., track the role that social worldviews play in the associations between dark personality features and ideological attitudes over extended periods of time). The second limitation concerns the difficulties that are inherent with data analytic approaches that attempt to identify the unique associations that even moderately correlated predictor variables – such as the dark personality features – have with the same outcome variable (see Sleep, Lynam, Hyatt & Miller, 2017, for extended discussions of this “perils of partialling” issue). For example, comparing zero-order correlations and residual regression coefficients revealed that the association a particular dark personality feature had with either social worldviews or ideological attitudes in the present studies often depended on whether the other dark personality features were included in the same analysis. Although there are clearly benefits for statistically removing the influence of other related variables, there are also concerns associated with data analytic approaches that use residual variables (e.g., how should the residual version of psychopathy be interpreted after removing the overlapping variance it shares with the other dark personality features?). This suggests that researchers need to continue devoting effort and resources toward identifying the best analytic strategies for understanding the associations that correlated predictor variables have with the same outcomes. The third limitation is that the present studies relied exclusively on self-report measures of dark personality features, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes which makes it possible that these results may have been distorted by socially desirable response tendencies. In addition, concerns have been raised about the extent to which individuals are able to accurately report on their own social worldviews because they may operate outside of the awareness of the individual to at least some extent (e.g., Van Hiel et al., 2007). Future research would benefit from utilizing strategies that are designed to capture these variables without being completely reliant on self-reports (e.g., observer ratings). The fourth limitation is that the present studies focused on unidimensional conceptualizations of the dark personality features even though some of these dark personality features are almost certainly multidimensional. For example, there is a broad consensus that psychopathy is multidimensional even though there has been considerable debate about the exact nature of its dimensions (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2012; Miller & Lynam, 2012). These debates have dealt with issues such as the emergence of the triarchic model of psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles & Krueger, 2009), interpreting psychopathy through basic dimensions of personality (e.g., Lynam & Miller, 2015), and the role of boldness in understanding psychopathy (e.g., Lilienfeld, Watts & Smith, 2015). The dimensionality of these dark personality features is potentially important because some studies have found different facets of the same dark personality feature to have divergent associations with outcomes (e.g., the boldness dimension of psychopathy is often associated with

more positive outcomes than the other dimensions of psychopathy; Lilienfeld et al., 2015). This suggests that the unidimensional approach for measuring the dark personality features that was adopted across the present studies may have obscured potentially important distinctions among these dark personality features. It will be important for future research in this area to include multidimensional conceptualizations for at least some of these dark personality features (e.g., distinguishing between the disinhibition, boldness, and meanness aspects of psychopathy; Patrick et al., 2009) in order to gain an even more nuanced understanding of their associations with social worldviews and ideological attitudes. The final limitation of the present studies is that we failed to collect any information concerning the current political affiliation of the participants. This prevented us from examining whether political affiliation may have played any role in the present results. Despite these limitations, the results of the present studies expand the current understanding of the connections between dark personality features, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes. 15. CONCLUSION The present studies investigated whether dark personality features were associated with competitive and dangerous social worldviews and whether these social worldviews may have played a role in explaining the associations that dark personality features had with ideological attitudes. Our results showed that the dark personality features had at least somewhat similar associations with the competitive social worldviews. Further, the competitive social worldview was found to sometimes mediate the associations that narcissism, psychopathy, and spitefulness had with aspects of SDO. The dark personality features did not have consistent associations with the dangerous social worldview across studies nor did the dangerous social worldview mediate the associations that the dark personality features had with ideological attitudes. Taken together, these results suggest that the competitive social worldview plays a crucial role in understanding the connections that certain dark personality features have with ideological attitudes. References Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality. In M. P. Zanna (Vol. Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: 30, (pp. 47–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Anderson, J., & Cheers, C. (2018). Does the dark triad predict prejudice? the role of machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism in explaining negativity toward asylum seekers. Australian Psychologist, 53, 271–281. Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Behavioral confirmation of everyday sadism. Psychological Science, 24, 2201–2209. Cichocka, A., Dhont, K., & Makwana, A. P. (2017). On self‐love and outgroup hate: Opposite effects of narcissism on prejudice via social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism. European Journal of Personality, 31, 366–384. Curran, P. G. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4–19. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–114. Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to rightwing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31, 685–715. Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199–222. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 98–109. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1894. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75–93. Fatke, M. (2017). Personality traits and political ideology: A first global assessment. Political Psychology, 38, 881–899. Forber, P., & Smead, R. (2014). The evolution of fairness through spite. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281, 1–8. Hampson, S. E. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits “get outside the skin.”. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 315–339. Hatemi, P. K., & Fazekas, Z. (2018). Narcissism and political orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 62, 873–888. Hayes, A. F. (2018). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

11

Personality and Individual Differences 160 (2020) 109920

V. Zeigler-Hill, et al. analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2006). Psychopathy and negative emotionality: Analyses of suppressor effects reveal distinct relations with emotional distress, fearfulness, and anger-hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 276–287. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., & Henkel, K. E. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–1028. Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of “dark personalities” (narcissism, machiavellianism, psychopathy), big five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 686–690. Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331–339. Jonason, P. K. (2014). Personality and politics. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 181–184. Jonason, P. K., Okan, C., & Özsoy, E. (2019). The dark triad traits in australia and turkey. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 123–127. Jonason, P. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2018). The fundamental social motives that characterize dark personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 132, 98–107. 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. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 27, 28–41. Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 327–340. Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful psychopathy: A scientific status report. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 298–303. Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Psychopathy from a basic trait perspective: The utility of a five‐factor model approach. Journal of Personality, 83, 611–626. Marcus, D. K., Preszler, J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2018). A network of dark personality traits: What lies at the heart of darkness. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 56–62. Marcus, D. K., & Zeigler‐Hill, V. (2015). A big tent of dark personality traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 434–446. Marcus, D. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mercer, S. H., & Norris, A. L. (2014). The psychology of spite and the measurement of spitefulness. Psychological Assessment, 26, 563–574. Marshall, J., Watts, A. L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2018). Do psychopathic individuals possess a misaligned moral compass? a meta-analytic examination of psychopathy's relations with moral judgment. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9, 40–50. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23–44. Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Seibert, L. A., Watts, A., Zeichner, A., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the dirty dozen measure of psychopathy: A cautionary tale about the costs of brief measures. Psychological Assessment, 24, 1048–1053. Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the psychopathic personality inventory’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 305–326.

Miller, J. D., Vize, C., Crowe, M. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2019). A critical appraisal of the dark-triad literature and suggestions for moving forward. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 353–360. Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913–938. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. Perry, R., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Dangerous and competitive schemas: A new frequency estimation index of the dual process model’s social worldviews component. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 983–988. Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 116–127. Plouffe, R. A., Saklofske, D. H., & Smith, M. M. (2017). The assessment of sadistic personality: Preliminary psychometric evidence for a new measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 166–171. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2009). Big-Five personality, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes: Further tests of a dual process cognitive-motivational model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 545–561. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). The dual process model of ideology and prejudice: A longitudinal test during a global recession. Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 448–466. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a five-month period. Political Psychology, 28, 357–371. Sleep, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Miller, J. D. (2017). Perils of partialing redux: The case of the dark triad. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 939–950. Van Hiel, A., & Brebels, L. (2011). Conservatism is good for you: Cultural conservatism protects self-esteem in older adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 120–123. Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., & Roets, A. (2007). The intervening role of social worldviews in the relationship between the five‐factor model of personality and social attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 21, 131–148. Watts, A. L., Waldman, I. D., Smith, S. F., Poore, H. E., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). The nature and correlates of the dark triad: The answers depend on the questions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 951–968. Yi, D., Ji, T. T., Xu, C., & Hitchman, G. (2014). Fear of rejection or concern for fairness: The proposer’s offering behavior in the ultimatum game. Social Behavior and Personality, 42, 401–406. Zeigler-Hill, V., & Hobbs, K. A. (2017). The darker aspects of motivation: Pathological personality traits and the fundamental social motives. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 36, 87–107. Zeigler-Hill, V., & Marcus, D. K. (2019). The dark side of personality: Building on paulhus and williams (2002). In P. J. Corr (Ed.). Personality and individual differences: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 245–262). London: SAGE. Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., McCabe, G. A., Cosby, C. A., Traeder, C. K., & Hobbs, K. A., & Southard, A. C. (2019). Narcissism and the pursuit of status. Journal of Personality, 87, 310–327.

12