Measures of Dark Personalities

Transcription

1 C H A P T E R 20 Measures of Dark Personalities Delroy L. Paulhus 1 and Daniel N. Jones 2 1 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada 2 University of Texas, El Paso, TX, USA This chapter reviews measures of socially aversive personalities. Although aversive, such personalities do not rise to the clinical or criminal level and can even flourish in everyday society. In attempting to organize the literature on such aversive (but subclinical) personalities, Paulhus and Williams (2002) concluded that narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy had the broadest treatment. Because they were found to overlap both theoretically and psychometrically, these three variables came to be known as the Dark Triad. At least two reviews are now available (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Jones & Paulhus, 2011a). Because the Dark Triad framework anchors this chapter both historically and psychometrically, we begin by updating those three literatures. Machiavellianism In introducing the construct into the personality literature, Christie and Geis (1970) were primarily influenced by the writings of political strategist, Niccolo Machiavelli. As a result, the items on their personality scales capture themes such as cynical worldview, lack of morality, and manipulativeness (see review by Fehr, Samsom, & Paulhus, 1992). The more recent review by Jones and Paulhus (2009) added elements drawn from a neglected predecessor, namely, the first century military strategist-philosopher, Sun Tzu (translated 1998). Along with themes similar to Machiavelli s, Sun Tzu added planning, coalition-formation, and reputation-building. The latter qualities turn out to be important in distinguishing among the Dark Triad constructs. Whereas psychopaths pay little attention to the impact of their behaviors (Hare & Neumann, 2008), Machiavellians plan ahead, build alliances, and try to maintain a positive reputation. By integrating Machiavelli s precepts with those of Sun-Tzu, Jones and Paulhus concluded that the elements best defining Machiavellianism are (a) strategic manipulation; (b) callous affect; and (c) alliance building. Ignoring this last element has led some writers to confuse Machiavellianism with psychopathy. Psychopathy Modern conceptions of psychopathy originate in the work of Cleckley (1941). He postulated a self-control deficit that, along with callousness, has remained central to criminal conceptions (Hare & Neumann, 2008) as well as non-criminal conceptions of psychopathy (Hall & Benning, 2006; Lebreton, Binning, & Adorno, 2006). At least as callous as Machiavellians, psychopaths act out in a reckless fashion (Jones & Paulhus, 2011b). When extreme, this combination of callous manipulation and impulsivity predisposes a grab and run tactic that eventuates in a lifetime of criminal behavior (Hare & Neumann, 2008). Self-report measures of psychopathy are aimed at the non-criminal variant. As outlined by Hall and Benning (2006), the avoidance of criminal sanctions can be explained in three ways. First is the notion that non-criminal psychopathy is simply less extreme than the criminal version. The second is the moderator case: When accompanied by some socially attractive attribute (e.g., intelligence, attractiveness, athletic ability), psychopathic behavior may take on a less virulent form. Third is the case where individuals possess only a subset of the psychopathic profile, possibly the more adaptive aspects. Although we emphasize the continuity of a single core dimension of psychopathy, there is merit in all three notions for explaining non-criminal cases. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs. DOI: Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2 20. MEASURES OF DARK PERSONALITIES 563 Narcissism Recent theoretical reviews are anchored in the writings of Kohut and Kernberg (see Jones & Paulhus, 2011a; Levy, Ellison, & Reynoso, 2011). The characteristic grandiosity and attention seeking of narcissists was traditionally explained by a tension between a superior surface identity and underlying insecurity: In short, compensatory self-promotion. This maladaptive version remains the concern for modern clinicians dealing with pathological cases of narcissism (see Morey et al., 2012; Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008). The advent of the NPI (Raskin & Hall, 1979) redirected much research energy toward subclinical narcissism (e.g., Emmons, 1987). The key element in this operationalization is grandiosity, that is, an exaggerated sense of self-importance (Miller & Campbell, 2011). In 2-factor solutions, one is variously labeled (self-attributed) leadership or authority, and the other exploitative entitlement (Kubarych, Deary, & Austin, 2004). Note that the interpersonal difficulties created by grandiosity do not necessarily translate into personal maladjustment (Campbell & Foster, 2007; Wink, 1991). After Wink (1991) sharpened up that distinction, the insecure element was encapsulated in several newer measures. First was the Hypersensitive Narcissism scale developed by Hendin and Cheek (1997). More recently, Pincus and colleagues teased apart the vulnerable from the grandiose component in their Pathological Narcissism Inventory (e.g., Pincus et al., 2009). Nonetheless, a large body of research has confirmed that the subclinical conception tapped by the NPI is largely consistent with clinical conceptions of narcissism (Miller & Campbell, 2008). For example, grandiosity leads narcissistic individuals on a never-ending quest for ego-reinforcement (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), often resulting in self-destructive behaviors (Vazire & Funder, 2006). Rather than deliberate, the cognitive processes of narcissists are more self-deceptive: They seem to believe their own boasts even when the distortion seems selfevident to others (Robins & John, 1997). Narcissistic grandiosity can even precipitate aggression, if that grandiosity is threatened (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Jones & Paulhus, 2010). By contrast, the notion of narcissistic self-loathing has little support (Campbell & Foster, 2007) at least in the construct captured by NPI. It is this grandiose aspect of narcissism that is most relevant to the Dark Triad. Whereas psychopaths and Machiavellians are motivated by instrumental gain, ego-reinforcement is the all-consuming motive behind narcissistic behavior (Jones & Paulhus, 2011a). The grandiose variant has subsequently been partitioned into self-admiration and rivalry by Back et al. (2013). According to these researchers, rivalry is the more toxic element. A more ambivalent variant is the concept of communal narcissism: The notion is that some people advance their grandiosity via claims of superiority in communal behavior (Gebauer, Sedikides, Verplanken, & Maio, 2012). Several other conceptual variants have generated published scales. Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, and Bushman (2004) focused on measuring entitlement because of its toxic interpersonal consequences. Specifically selfish is the concept of egoism (Weigel, Hessing, & Elffers, 1999). Most positive is Paunonen s (2002) egotism notion: Although operationalized as exaggerated self-positivity, its outcomes are sometimes adaptive. Dark Triad as a Constellation The members of the Dark Triad have much in common (Jonason, Kavanagh, Webster, & Fitzgerald, 2011; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). In our view, their similarities derive from a common interpersonal callousness (see evidence from Douglas, Bore, & Munro, 2012; Jones & Figueredo, 2013; Jones & Paulhus, 2011a). This common feature helps explain why they share a reputation as socially aversive (Rauthmann, 2012; Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012). It seems that callousness (i.e., lack of empathy) leads inevitably to the tendency to manipulate others. In other cases, the Dark Triad members exhibit markedly different behavior: Ego-promoting outcomes (e.g., relentless bragging) are best predicted by narcissism; those involving reckless antisocial behavior (e.g., vandalism) are best predicted by psychopathy; and long-term scheming (e.g., elaborate fraud) are best predicted by Machiavellianism (Furnham et al., 2013). In sum, the literature suggests that: (a) ego-enhancement goals drive narcissistic behavior, whereas instrumental goals drive Machiavellian and psychopathic behavior; (b) Machiavellianism differs from psychopathy with respect to impulsivity; (c) all three have a callous core that engenders manipulation of others (Jones & Paulhus, 2011a). Although the notion of the Dark Triad frames much of this chapter, it is unlikely to be an exhaustive taxonomy of dark personalities. Hence we will also cover everyday sadism (Paulhus & Dutton, in press), sensational interests (Egan et al., 1999), and amoralism (Knežević, 2003). Although they all overlap empirically with at least one of the Dark Triad, these variables have rather different conceptual roots.

3 MEASURES OF DARK PERSONALITIES MEASURES REVIEWED HERE We have partitioned our review into four categories of measures: standard measures of the Dark Triad, combination measures, brief measures, and miscellaneous measures. Because the four categories are qualitatively different, we will treat them separately. We acknowledge that the notion of dark personalities, even when defined as socially aversive, remains fuzzy and ultimately, arbitrary. A wide range of potential candidates had to be ruled out of our review. We drew the line at constructs that were insufficiently normal or insufficiently malevolent. For example, we considered including hypersensitive narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality, but ruled them out because they involve pathological levels of personal distress (Miller et al., 2010). Also in contention were alexithymia (Hall et al., 2013) and status-driven risk-taking (Ashton, Lee, Pozzebon, Visser, & Worth, 2010; Visser, Pozzebon, and Tamayo in press), but we considered them to be insufficiently malevolent. Note that we distinguish between pathological (in the sense of personal maladjustment) and socially maladaptive (interpersonal maladjustment). Measures of the latter may qualify but not the former. A few others, such as social dominance and authoritarianism, are malevolent (or not) depending on one s political orientation (Haidt, 2013). Similarly, we will not cover the multi-scale psychopathology inventories that happen to include one or more members of the Dark Triad (e.g., Millon, 1983). Although some of these inventories have been usefully applied to non-clinical samples, they tend to be lengthy, proprietary, and largely clinically-oriented: Among these are the SNAP (Clark, 1993), the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) (Morey, 2007) and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP) (Livesley & Jackson, 2009). Another broad inventory, the Hogan Development Survey (Hogan & Hogan, 1997), does target the subclinical level of maladaptive personalities. It maps 11 personality disorders onto more mundane types of workplace misbehavior. We cannot review it here, however: Its coverage goes well beyond our current mandate and the items have proprietary status. Finally, we acknowledge, but will not review, measures derived from a novel approach developed by Widiger and colleagues (2012). The method involves selecting items from Big Five instruments to serve as proxy measures of personality disorders (see Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001; Widiger, Lynam, Miller, & Oltmanns, 2012). The assumption is that darker aspects of personality can be captured by judicious choice of items from measures aimed at normal personality. A clear advantage is the ability to assemble ad hoc measures from broad datasets collected for other purposes. As with inventories targeting personality disorders, the resulting measures tend to be rather lengthy and are not framed in terms of the Dark Triad. List of Measures Reviewed Here A. Standard Measures of Dark Triad 1. Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970) 2. Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Hall, 1979) 3. Self Report Psychopathy (SRP) scale (Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, 2014). B. Combination Measures of Dark Triad 1. Dirty Dozen (DD) (Jonason & Webster, 2010) 2. Short Dark Triad (SD3) (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) C. Brief Measures Machiavellianism 1. Trimmed MACH (Rauthmann, 2013) 2. Mach VI (Jones & Paulhus, 2008; 2009) 3. Machiavellian Personality Scale (MPS) (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009) Narcissism, Egotism, and Egoism 1. Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-16) (Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006) 2. Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Back et al., 2013) 3. Supernumery Personality Inventory Egotism (Paunonen, 2002) 4. Psychological Entitlement Scale (Campbell et al., 2004) 5. Communal Narcissism Inventory (Gebauer et al., 2012) 6. Egoism Scale (Weigel et al., 1999)

4 DARK TRIAD MEASURES 565 D. Miscellaneous Malevolence Measures 1. Short Sadistic Impulse Scale (SSIS) (O Meara, Davies, & Hammond, 2011) 2. Varieties of Sadistic Tendencies (VAST) (Paulhus et al., 2010) 3. Sensational Interests Questionnaire (Egan et al., 2005) 4. Amoralism Scale (Knežević, 2003; Knežević, Radovic, & Perunicic, 2008) DARK TRIAD MEASURES In this section, we review measures devoted to the Dark Triad constellation. To set the stage, we first summarize work on the three standard measures. Because they have been reviewed in detail elsewhere, we only provide a synopsis and update the research. We then move on to detailed reviews of the newer multi-scale instruments that simultaneously measure all three variables. A. Standard Measures of the Dark Triad Early work on the Dark Triad used well-established measures of each variable. For narcissism, the measure of choice has been the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979); for Machiavellianism, it is the Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970); for psychopathy, it is the Self Report Psychopathy (SRP) scale (Paulhus et al., 2014; Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007). Because the first wave of Machiavellianism ( Mach ) measures were reviewed in an earlier volume of this handbook (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991), we provide a brief summary and report on important updates. Similarly, independent reviews of NPI (Campbell & Miller, 2011) and the SRP (Hicklin & Widiger, 2005; Lebreton et al., 2006) have appeared elsewhere. These standard measures were key predecessors of the newer measures reviewed here and, in some cases, their status has changed substantially since the earlier (1991) handbook. 1. Mach IV Empirical assessment of the Machiavellian personality began with Christie and Geis (1970). They developed no fewer than five instruments, namely, Mach I through Mach V. Literature using these instruments was reviewed by Fehr et al. (1992) and, more recently, by Jones and Paulhus (2009). Of the five versions, the 20-item Mach IV is by far the most widely used and those two reviews generally supported its use. Items are presented in 7-point Likert-type format with response options ranging from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. Sample items include Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble and It is wise to flatter important people. A full review of the Mach IV appeared in the earlier edition of this handbook and was written by Christie himself. That 1991 chapter included all the Mach IV items (pp ). They are also available in the original book by Christie and Geis (1970). Less popular was the Mach V, which was hampered by the complexity of its scoring system. Despite its popularity, even the Mach IV has been subject to criticism (e.g., Dahling et al., 2009; Hunter, Gerbing, & Boster, 1982). Rather than its predictive validity, however, the debates have focused on the factor structure. 2. NPI Publication of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Hall, 1979) triggered a landslide of research that continues to this day. Instead of a categorical personality disorder, the concept was transformed into a normal personality variable amenable to research in both laboratory and survey research. An extensive empirical literature on the NPI has confirmed a behavioral pattern that is remarkably parallel to that found in the clinical literature (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). One exception is the lack of a vulnerable component in the NPI (see Miller et al., 2010; Pincus et al., 2009). Items are presented in forced-choice format: One option is narcissistic whereas the other option represents a more modest choice. The full item set of the NPI is available in the original article (Raskin & Hall, 1979). Several followup papers reported support for its reliability and validity (Raskin & Hall, 1981; Raskin & Terry, 1988). Sample narcissistic options include the following: I like to be the center of attention, The world would be a better place if I were the leader ; I think I am a special person ; I like to show off my body.

5 MEASURES OF DARK PERSONALITIES The instrument has had its critics (Brown & Tamborski, 2011) as well as its supporters (Miller & Campbell, 2011). A major source of debate has centered on the factor structure. Estimates of the number of factors have ranged from two to seven (Corry, Merritt, Mrug, & Pamp, 2008; Kubarych et al., 2004). As noted earlier, the instrument does not capture the vulnerable component assumed in the clinical literature (see Hendin & Cheek, 1997; Miller et al., 2010; Pincus et al., 2009). 3. SRP Three self-report measures of psychopathy are in popular use: (1) the 64-item Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) scale (Paulhus et al., 2014; Neal & Sellbom, 2012; Williams et al., 2007), (2) the 180-item Psychopathic Personality Index (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996), and (3) the 26-item Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). According to Hicklin and Widiger (2005), total scores on the SRP and PPI measure similar constructs whereas the LSRP has more in common with measures of antisocial personality. Most recent is the Psychopathy Resemblance Index (Miller et al., 2001). However, it requires the entire set of NEO-PI items to calculate the respondent s similarity to the psychopath template. Although the manual did not appear until 2014, the SRP scale was in use much earlier (e.g., Williams et al., 2007) and has been the standard measure in most Dark Triad research. The LSRP has also been used a few times, but, as far as we know, the PPI and PRI have never been used in any Dark Triad studies (see review by Furnham et al., 2013). Sample SRP items include the following: I have threatened people into giving me money, clothes, or makeup ; I rarely follow the rules ; I have attacked someone with the idea of injuring them ; Some people say I have a cold personality ; I have assaulted a law enforcement official or social worker ; I ve often done something dangerous just for the thrill of it. A serious problem with the standard measures is their length. Even the shortest versions of the SRP (29), Mach (20), and NPI (16) add up to 65 items. Lack of sufficient administration time or space has deterred many researchers from using them. Consequently, recent research has turned to the use of shorter combination measures that distinguish the triad members (Jonason & Webster, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). B. Combination Measures of the Dark Triad There are only four instruments designed to capture all three of the Dark Triad. Most widely-used are the Short Dark Triad (SD3) inventory (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) and the Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Two other measures have not yet been followed up: (a) Dark Triad Screen (MacNeil, Whaley, & Holden, 2007); and (b) the Mini-Markers of Evil (Harms, Roberts, & Kuncel, 2004). 1. Dirty Dozen (DD) (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Variable Jonason and colleagues have argued that the triad members converge on a specific evolutionary adaptation (e.g., Jonason, Koenig, & Tost, 2010), and that all three capture an impulsive, short-term mating strategy (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009; Jonason & Tost, 2010). For many purposes, the authors argue, the three variables can be combined into an overall Dark Triad composite (Jonason et al., 2011). Description The DD is a 12-item questionnaire comprising three 4-item subscales with the usual Dark Triad labels: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy. Responses are collected on 5 or 9-point Likert scales. The 3-factor structure emerged from exploratory factor analyses of a 22-item pool (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Sample The original samples consisted of 273 and 246 undergraduate students (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Reliability Internal Consistency Cronbach alpha coefficients for the two original samples were as follows: narcissism (.87 and.85), Machiavellianism (.67 and.72), and psychopathy (.62 and.66) (Jonason & Webster, 2010).

6 DARK TRIAD MEASURES 567 Test Retest Over two weeks, mean test retest reliability coefficients were.87, 85, and.77 for narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, respectively (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Validity Convergent/Concurrent Much of the DD research has emphasized the similarities among the Dark Triad members. Intercorrelations ranging from.34 to.76 have been reported (Jonason, Li, & Czarna, 2013). Rauthmann and Kolar (2013) reported similar correlation coefficients ranging from.21 to.56. Divergent/Discriminant Some research has suggested differential correlates. In a study on self-reported manipulation tactics in work settings, for example, psychopathic individuals reported harsh tactics; narcissists reported soft tactics; Machiavellians reported use of both (Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012). With regard to empathy, Jonason and Krause (2013) found a complex interaction of empathy type, gender, and triad member. Construct/Factor Analytic The authors provided a confirmatory factor analysis to verify that the 3-factor pattern did not emerge by chance (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Later, they followed up with a more complex structural analysis showing that both 1-factor and 3-factor solutions have utility (Jonason et al., 2011). Criterion/Predictive Crysel, Crosier, and Webster (2013) used the DD to predict a variety of risky behaviors: Only narcissism showed significant correlations with behavioral outcomes, namely, risky blackjack bets (.13) and temporal discounting (.17). All three members favored short-term over long-term mating strategies (Jonason et al., 2009). Mate preferences, however, showed more complexity. For example, men high in Dark Triad traits were choosy about long-term relationship partners but had very low standards when it came to short-term relationships (Jonason et al., 2012). Other studies have found common correlates, for example, with night-time biological rhythms (Jonason, Jones, & Lyons, 2013). Location Jonason, P.K., & Webster, G.D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, Results and Comments (See Section B summary below) Please rate your agreement with the items below using the response anchors ranging from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (9). 1. I tend to manipulate others to get my way. 2. I have used deceit or lied to get my way. 3. I have used flattery to get my way. 4. I tend to exploit others towards my own end. 5. I tend to lack remorse. 6. I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions. DIRTY DOZEN 7. I tend to be callous or insensitive. 8. I tend to be cynical. 9. I tend to want others to admire me. 10. I tend to want others to pay attention to me. 11. I tend to seek prestige or status. 12. I tend to expect special favors from others. Notes: Subscale scoring: Machiavellianism 5 mean of items 1 4; Psychopathy 5 mean of items 5 8; Narcissism 5 mean of items Reproduced with permission.

7 MEASURES OF DARK PERSONALITIES 2. Short Dark Triad (SD3) (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Variable The SD3 was designed to capture the Dark Triad as conceptualized by Jones and Paulhus (2011a). Details of their rationale were provided earlier in the introduction. Special care was taken to focus on the classic conceptions of the variables and to cover all the appropriate facets in each trait. In brief, narcissists are attention-seeking self-promoters; Machiavellians are strategic manipulators; psychopaths are impulsive thrill-seekers. Description Exploratory factor analyses of a large item pool yielded three factors corresponding to narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Paulhus & Jones, 2011). Three 9-item subscales were assembled to form the SD3. Responses are collected on 5-point Likert-type scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Sample The authors developed the instrument on several large community samples (N 5 768). The peer-validation study was conducted on 65 students (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Reliability Internal Consistency The subscales exhibited Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from.70 to.80 in cross-validation samples (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Test Retest Two-week test retest reliability coefficients ranging from.77 to.84 were reported by Paulhus and Jones (2011). Validity Convergent/Concurrent Intercorrelations among the SD3 subscales ranged from.22 to.55 (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). For the subscales, the authors reported (a) convergence with the standard Dark Triad measures; (b) convergence with peer-ratings; and (c) confirmation of patterns of association with the interpersonal circumplex (Paulhus & Jones, 2011). Also, correlations of the SD3 subscales with the Big Five (e.g., Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Maples, Lamkin, & Miller, 2014; Veselka et al., 2011) were comparable to those based on standard measures of the Dark Triad (de Vries & van Kampen, 2010; Furnham et al., 2013). Divergent/Discriminant Discriminant validity has been demonstrated in North America, Australia, and Europe. For example, Egan, Chan, and Shorter (2014) showed differential correlates of well-being. In a series of studies, Vernon and colleagues used the measure to discriminate humor styles and lying skill (Giammarco, Atkinson, Baughman, Veselka, & Vernon, 2013; Veselka et al., 2010). Lee et al. (2013) reported correlations of 2.42, 2.67, 2.57 between their Honesty Humility factor and narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, respectively. Construct/Factor Analytic A confirmatory factor analysis provided further support for the 3-factor model (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Criterion/Predictive The three SD3 subscales often show differential predictive correlates. Lee and colleagues (2012) found that the SD3 subscales predicted motivation for sex, money and power above and beyond the Big Five. Buckels, Jones, and Paulhus (2013) found that, of the three subscales, psychopathy showed the strongest association with laboratory aggression (r 5.49). Additional behavioral evidence comes from Ashton-James and Levordashka (2013).

8 DARK TRIAD MEASURES 569 They reported that behavioral mimicry of high status interactants was predicted only by narcissism, whereas Machiavellianism and psychopathy associations were non-significant. For example, narcissism had the highest correlation with overclaiming (r 5.26), and Machiavellianism was the only index positively associated with delay of gratification (r 5.30) (Paulhus & Jones, 2011; 2013). Infidelity reports also show differential correlates (Jones & Weiser, 2014). Location Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personalities. Assessment, 21, Results and Comments (See Section B summary below) Please rate your degree of agreement with each item on a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. 1. It s not wise to tell your secrets. 2. Generally speaking, people won t work hard unless they have to. 3. Whatever it takes, you must get the important people on your side. 4. Avoid direct conflict with others because they may be useful in the future. 5. It s wise to keep track of information that you can use against people later. 6. You should wait for the right time to get back at people. 7. There are things you should hide from other people because they don t need to know. 8. Make sure your plans benefit yourself, not others. 9. Most people can be manipulated. 10. People see me as a natural leader. 11. I hate being the center of attention. (R) 12. Many group activities tend to be dull without me. SHORT DARK TRIAD (SD3) 13. I know that I am special because everyone keeps telling me so. 14. I like to get acquainted with important people. 15. I feel embarrassed if someone compliments me. (R) 16. I have been compared to famous people. 17. I am an average person. (R) 18. I insist on getting the respect I deserve. 19. I like to get revenge on authorities. 20. I avoid dangerous situations. (R) 21. Payback needs to be quick and nasty. 22. People often say I m out of control. 23. It s true that I can be mean to others. 24. People who mess with me always regret it. 25. I have never gotten into trouble with the law. (R) 26. I enjoy having sex with people I hardly know. 27. I ll say anything to get what I want. Notes: Reverse scored item (R). Subscale scoring: Machiavellianism 5 mean of items 1 9; Narcissism 5 mean of items 9 18; Psychopathy 5 mean of items Reproduced with permission. Results and Comments (Comparing Combination Measures) The two popular combination measures exemplify the trade-off of brevity and validity. The recent paper by Maples et al. (2014) showed that the median response time for the DD was much faster (39 secs) compared with the SD3 (99 secs). Both measures show solid structural models, although the DD has no reverse-worded items. Given its reasonable ability to predict appropriate outcomes, some users may opt for the DD when time and space is at a premium. Other users may prefer the SD3 simply because head-to-head comparisons indicate superior reliability and construct validity (Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Maples et al., 2014). Some studies suggest that findings with the DD do not correspond well with studies standard measures of the Dark Triad (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Lee et al., 2012; Maples et al., 2014; Miller et al. 2012). In the words of Jonason and colleagues (2013), the DD measure represents a trade-off of accuracy for efficiency.

9 MEASURES OF DARK PERSONALITIES C. Brief Measures This section includes a variety of brief measures of narcissism and Machiavellianism. Because they are brief, they can be used in various combinations depending on (a) the researcher s preferences and (b) space and time limitations. Beyond those included in the Dark Triad inventories (DD & SD3), no brief measures of psychopathy are yet available. Brief Measures of Machiavellianism Since the era of the standard Mach IV (reviewed by Christie in the 1991 version of this handbook), several newer measures have been developed. Although the Mach IV, is not particularly long (20 Likert-type items), the newer measures are even shorter. In addition, each newer version has sought to redress some limitation of the original scale. 1. Trimmed Machiavellianism Scale (MACH*) (Rauthmann, 2013). Variable In abbreviating the Mach IV scale, Rauthmann (2013) sought to resolve two criticisms of the original measure. One was the issue of multidimensionality (e.g., Panitz, 1989; Rauthmann & Will, 2011). Second was an attempt to reduce the length of the measure. To this end, he applied item response theory (IRT) to shorten and sharpen the item focus. The theme now emphasizes cynicism and misanthropy. Description The resulting measure, labeled the trimmed Mach or MACH*, comprises five items that IRT indicated were the most informative and precise of the original 20. Responses are collected on 5-point Likert-type scales. The full set of items is provided below. Sample The primary data source was a sample of 528 German speakers collected from an online site called PSYTESTS (Rauthmann, 2013). The mean age was 33.1 years (the proportion of female respondents was.79). Reliability Internal Consistency Rauthmann (2013) reported that the Cronbach alpha coefficient of the MACH* was.77, comparable to that of the full Mach IV (.81). Test Retest No test retest reliability coefficients have been reported to-date. Validity Convergent/Concurrent The MACH* correlated.63 with the 15 remaining Mach IV items. Moreover, the MACH* correlates were similar to those of the original Mach IV scale (with the MACH* items removed). Despite the reduction to five items, the criterion correlations were only slightly weaker. MACH* also correlated with a full range of self-reported manipulation tactics including betrayal (.40) and revenge (.39) (Rauthmann, 2013). Divergent/Discriminant Compared with the full Mach IV, MACH* showed lower correlations with narcissism and Machiavellianism. These reductions were evident even after disattenuation was used to control the differential reliabilities of the full Mach IV and the trimmed version. Construct/Factor Analytic A confirmatory factor analysis revealed a clear fit to a unidimensional model (Rauthmann, 2013).

10 DARK TRIAD MEASURES 571 Location Rauthmann, J. (2013). Investigating the Mach IV with item response theory and proposing the trimmed Mach*. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, Results and Comments The shortening process necessitated a slight re-orientation and focusing of the original content. The authors concluded that misanthropy and cynicism were at the core of the construct. A novel contribution was the IRT comparison: They showed that both Mach IV and MACH* provide the best discrimination at average to aboveaverage levels of Machiavellianism. Respondents are asked to rate their agreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) completely disagree to (5) completely agree. 1. Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble. 2. It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance. TRIMMED MACH* SCALE 3. Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless absolutely necessary. 4. Most people are basically good and kind (R). 5. The biggest difference between criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught. Notes: Reverse scored item (R). Reproduced with permission. 2. Mach VI (Jones & Paulhus, 2008; 2009). Variable This instrument was designed to revisit the original conception of Machiavellianism, that is, strategic manipulation (Machiavelli, 1513; Sun-Tzu, 1998). The authors argued that the Mach IV had inadvertently introduced an element of impulsivity into the instrument. Description The authors compiled a comprehensive set of manipulation-related items, and selected those with low or negative correlations with impulsivity. The result was a set of 12 items aimed at a more cautious and strategic orientation toward the achievement of selfish goals. The complete set of items is provided below. Sample The authors reported on five samples totaling 1249 students and 374 participants from a community sample on Mechanical Turk (Jones & Paulhus, 2008). Reliability Internal Consistency In a sample of 407 undergraduate students, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was.88 (Jones & Paulhus, 2008). Test Retest No test retest reliability coefficients have been reported to-date. Validity Convergent/Concurrent In a sample of 563 students, Mach VI correlated.59 with the Mach IV (Jones & Paulhus, 2008). They also found positive correlations with measures of psychopathy (.44) and narcissism (.33).

11 MEASURES OF DARK PERSONALITIES Divergent/Discriminant In several studies, it was shown that correlations with impulsivity were eliminated by use of the Mach VI rather than the Mach IV. The highest correlations with the Big Five were negative with agreeableness (2.22) and conscientiousness (2.19) (Jones & Paulhus, 2008). Construct/Factor Analytic A principal components analysis was conducted on a sample of 330 students. Loadings of the nine items on the first unrotated principal component were all positive, ranging from.19 to.44, suggesting a unidimensional structure (Jones & Paulhus, 2008). Criterion/Predictive No information on criterion or predictive validity is currently available. Location Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2008, February). The Mach VI: Toward a more strategic Machiavellianism. Presented at the meeting of the Association for Research in Personality, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Results and Comments This measure reduces the overlap with impulsiveness inherent in measures of psychopathy. Nonetheless, its other correlates are similar to those with the original Mach IV. Research validating its strategic focus is still in progress (Paulhus & Jones, 2013). Please rate your agreement with the following nine items. Your answers can range from (1) completely disagree to (5) completely agree. 1. Don t make enemies because you never know who may be useful in the future. 2. It is necessary to get important people on your side. 3. I am good at keeping secrets about myself. 4. When I have a good hand of cards, my face gives it away (R). MACH VI 5. If I don t like someone, I come right out and say it (R). 6. It is not wise to tell your secrets. 7. You might have to surrender one battle to win the war. 8. I m willing to wait to get back at people. 9. Attacking people directly rarely works. Notes: Reverse scored item (R). Reproduced with permission. 3. Machiavellian Personality Scale (MPS) (Dahling et al., 2009). Variable Dahling et al. (2009) summarized a number of concerns about the standard Mach IV, with a special focus on the inflammatory nature of the items. The authors also argued that the content should be expanded beyond cynicism and manipulation to include desire for control and pursuit of status. Description Beginning with a pool of 45 items written to tap all four a priori domains (cynicism, manipulation, desire for control, desire for status), the authors narrowed the item set down to subscales tapping each of four facets (see samples below). The final version contains 16 items scored on 7-point Likert-type response scales. Sample The two samples in the initial publication comprised 176 and 323 employed students (Dahling et al., 2009).

12 DARK TRIAD MEASURES 573 Reliability Internal Consistency Dahling et al. (2009) reported a Cronbach alpha coefficient of.82. Zagenczyk, Restubog, Kiewitz, Kiazad, and Tang (2014) reported alpha coefficients of.79 and.88. Test Retest No test retest reliability coefficients have been reported to-date. Validity Convergent/Concurrent Dahling et al. (2009) found substantial positive correlations of MPS with a narcissism scale (.55) and a selfreport measure of counterproductive work behavior (.38). Divergent/Discriminant Dahling et al. (2009) found non-significant correlations between the MPS and self-monitoring, need for achievement, and cognitive ability as measured by the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1977). Construct/Factor Analytic The authors reported a structural model that supported their 4-facet hypothesis. Follow-up studies have added to the construct validity (e.g., Kiazad et al., 2010). However, none of these studies demonstrated incremental validity of the MPS over the original Mach IV (Dahling et al., 2009). Criterion/Predictive The authors predicted, but did not find, an association with work performance, as rated by employers (Dahling et al., 2009). Location Dahling, J.J., Whitaker, B.G., & Levy, P.E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, Results and Comments The authors re-oriented the construct somewhat by specifying four specific subscales. Two of them overlap with Mach IV subscales (Amoral Manipulation and Distrust of Others) and two others are novel (Desire for Control and Desire for Status). The latter facet appears to be equivalent to narcissism. Rather surprising is that this measure has never been compared head-to-head with the Mach IV. At 16 items, it is not much shorter than the original 20-item Mach IV. Please indicate the extent of your agreement with each statement below. Your responses can range from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. 1. I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed. 2. I enjoy having control over other people. 3. Status is a good sign of success in life. MPS SAMPLE ITEMS 4. Accumulating wealth is an important goal for me. 5. I want to be rich and powerful someday. Notes: The full set of 16 items can be summed or divided into four facets: Amorality, Desire for Control, Desire for Status, and Distrust of Others (Dahling et al., 2009). Reproduced with permission. Results and Comments (Comparing Brief Mach Measures) Although three different measures were used in one research article (Zagenczyk et al., 2014), there are no studies directly pitting multiple Mach measures head-to-head in their ability to predict important criteria. In future work, inclusion of the original Mach IV would help confirm the decrease (or increase) in validity due to the use

13 MEASURES OF DARK PERSONALITIES of brief measures instead of the gold standard. A few other measures of Machiavellianism warrant mention. As far as we know, the version developed by Henning and Six (1977) is only available in German. A 5-item version of the Mach IV developed by Valentine and Fleischman (2003) fared well against the full measure (Zagenczyk et al., 2014). Finally, the Organizational Mach Scale, at 31 items and two new facets (Power & Harsh Tactics), is not sufficiently brief to be reviewed here (Kessler et al., 2010). Several issues need further attention in future Mach research. One is the impact of first person wording (I manipulate) vs. strategy recommendation (manipulation works). Second is the difference between short-term and long-term manipulation. The latter form seems most relevant to Machiavellianism and the former more relevant to psychopathy. Brief Measures of Narcissism, Egotism, and Egoism These measures are reviewed in order of similarity to the standard self-report measure of narcissism, namely, the original Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979). Although the terms narcissism, egotism, and egoism seem to be conceptually interchangeable, their measures are not. 1. Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-16) (Ames et al., 2006). Variable The authors sought to shorten the original NPI while remaining true to the original construct espoused by Raskin and Hall (1979; 1981). As noted in the introduction, the key concepts were self-promotion and selfcenteredness. Description All items came from the original NPI. The primary criteria for item selection were conceptual: (1) coverage of the factors found in earlier research and (2) avoidance of items regarding ancillary concepts (e.g., leadership, assertiveness). The final version comprises 20 dichotomous (forced choice) items. Sample The five studies reported by Ames and colleagues (2006) were performed on large student samples, including undergraduates and MBA students. Total sample sizes were Study 1 (776), Study 2 (167), Study 3 (117), Study 4 (176), and Study 5 (43). Reliability Internal Consistency Across five studies, the Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged from.65 to.85 (Ames et al., 2006). Test Retest The authors reported a 5-week test retest reliability of.85 in a sample of 158 undergraduate students (Ames et al., 2006). Validity Convergent/Concurrent The validation process was largely focused on concurrent validity. That is, the NPI-16 was shown to perform very similarly to the total 40-item NPI. For example, the 16-item version correlated.71 with the remaining 24 items (Ames et al., 2008) and.90 with the total 40 items (Gebauer et al., 2012). As expected, the correlation with Rosenberg self-esteem was moderate in size (.38) (Ames et al., 2006). Divergent/Discriminant By showing non-significant correlations, the authors ruled out confounds with trait measures of dispositionism, cooperativeness, and belief in a just world. In a group discussion, the NPI-16 was unrelated to objective performance (Ames et al., 2006).

14 DARK TRIAD MEASURES 575 Construct/Factor Analytic Using a sample of 776 undergraduates, Ames et al. (2006, p. 442) reported that, For the NPI-16, loadings on the first unrotated factor ranged from.13 to.66 and accounted for most of the variance. Criterion/Predictive The authors reported a study on self- and other ratings in group discussions. NPI-16 predicted subsequent tendency to rate oneself as more powerful (r 5.29) and as more attractive (r 5.37) (Ames et al., 2006). Other research has shown expected correlates with behavior and other self-reports (Hart et al., 2011; Witt & Donnellan, 2008). Location Ames, R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C.P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, Results and Comments The NPI-16 continues the NPI tradition of measuring the grandiose version of narcissism using forced-choice items. The instrument is remarkable in its ability to reproduce results similar to those with the full 40-item version. However, an even newer version, the NPI-13, has produced a more balanced factor structure while retaining comparable validity to the NPI-16 (Gentile et al., 2013). NPI-16 SAMPLE ITEMS The format retained the original NPI format, that is, dichotomous forced-choice items. I like to be the center of attention vs. I prefer to blend in with the crowd. I think I am a special person vs. I am no better nor worse than most people. Note: Reproduced with permission. 2. Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ) (Back et al., 2013). Variable The NARQ is based on the idea that narcissism can be decomposed into two positively correlated components: Admiration and Rivalry. These components refer to complementary interpersonal strategies: the tendency to gain social admiration by means of self-promotion (i.e., assertive self-enhancement) and the tendency to prevent social failure by self-defense (i.e., antagonistic self-protection). Nonetheless, the two components share the overarching goal to maintain a grandiose self (Back et al., 2013). Description A total of 18 items are partitioned into Narcissistic Admiration (9 items) and Narcissistic Rivalry (9 items). Responses are collected on 6-point Likert-type scales. German, English, Dutch, Danish, and Chinese versions are available from the authors. A brief 6-item version is also available with three items for each subscale (Back et al., 2013). Sample The authors reported seven samples comprising over 4000 participants, primarily German- or Englishspeaking. All of the psychometric properties reported below derive from those samples (Back et al., 2013). Reliability Internal Consistency Back et al. (2013) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients of.88 and.83, respectively. Alpha coefficients for the Brief NARQ were also reported for the six-item overall measure (.74) as well as for the three-item admiration (.76) and rivalry (.61) measures (Back et al., 2013).

15 MEASURES OF DARK PERSONALITIES Test Retest In a sample of 93 students, the authors reported 5-week test retest reliability coefficients of.79 and.76 for admiration and rivalry, respectively (Back et al., 2013). Validity Convergent/Concurrent The subscales show moderate to large positive intercorrelations: Coefficients of.43 and.61 were reported in the initial article. Each subscale converged with the NPI, although the correlation with admiration (.63) was larger than that with rivalry (.32). In addition, the subscales exhibited substantial self-other agreement: The authors reported correlation coefficients of.51 and.27, respectively, for admiration and rivalry (Back et al., 2013). Divergent/Discriminant Although intercorrelated, the subscales exhibit markedly different nomological networks and interpersonal consequences. Differential patterns were demonstrated with a large variety of external correlates: the Big Five, self-esteem, pathological narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, self-enhancement, and impulsivity (Back et al., 2013). For example, whereas Admiration was found to be negatively related to neuroticism (r 52.19) and positively to extraversion (r 5.31) and openness (r 5.25), Rivalry was positively correlated with neuroticism (r 5.16), and negatively correlated with agreeableness (r ) and conscientiousness (r 52.19). Other correlations were non-significant. Construct/Factor Analytic In a sample of 953 internet users, the authors conducted a confirmatory factor analysis hypothesizing two second-order latent variables. Results supported the 2-factor model (Back et al., 2013). Criterion/Predictive In regression analyses, the two subscales differentially predicted reactions to transgressions in friendships and romantic relationships, interpersonal perceptions during group interactions, and observed behaviors in experimental observations (Back et al., 2013). Location Back, M.D., Küfner, A.C.P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T.M., Rauthmann, J.F., & Denissen, J.J.A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, Results and Comments By separating the two agentic components of narcissism (self-admiration and rivalry), the authors offer a model of the dynamics of narcissistic self-presentation. Narcissistic individuals make exaggerated claims about their assets and, if challenged, respond aggressively. That aggression then deters further challenges. NARCISSISTIC ADMIRATION AND RIVALRY QUESTIONNAIRE (BRIEF VERSION) Please indicate how much the following statements apply to you by choosing a number ranging from 1 5 don t agree at all to 6 5 agree completely. 5. I manage to be the center of attention with my outstanding contributions. 6. Most people are somehow losers. 1. I react annoyed if another person steals the show from me. 2. I deserve to be seen as a great personality. 3. I want my rivals to fail. 4. Being a very special person gives me a lot of strength. Notes: The Admiration subscale score is the mean of scores on items 2, 4, and 5. The Rivalry subscale score is the mean of scores on items 1, 3, and 6. Reproduced with permission.