Full Length Article
Is the Dark Triad common factor distinct from low Honesty-Humility?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.012Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Is the Dark Triad latent factor unique from basic personality?

  • Utilize meta-analytic estimates from self-report data (N = 1402; k = 4).

  • Additionally, re-analyze peer report data.

  • Find a near-perfect inverse relation between latent Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility.

  • Conclude that common Dark Triad variance is not distinct.

Abstract

There is interest in the psychological meaning of the variance shared among the “Dark Triad” variables (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy). Unknown is the degree to which this common variance is distinct from that of the basic personality dimensions. We test the extent to which the latent Dark Triad overlaps with the low pole of the HEXACO Honesty-Humility factor (traits of sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty). Using meta-analytic estimates from self-report data (N = 1402, k = 4) we find a near-complete overlap (latent correlation −0.95). Peer report data show a similar pattern. The latent Dark Triad corresponds almost completely with the opposite pole of Honesty-Humility, contrary to assertions that the common Dark Triad variance is distinct from other personality constructs.

Introduction

In a recent article, Muris, Merckelbach, Otgaar, and Meijer (2017) provided a valuable conceptual review and meta-analysis on the three personality variables collectively known as the “Dark Triad” (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy). Their efforts have successfully synthesized past research findings and will serve to stimulate discussion concerning the conceptualization of the Dark Triad and its status in relation to other personality constructs. A point of contention, at present, is whether the underlying Dark Triad common factor contains personality variance outside of the space of the major personality factors. In this article we examine its statistical overlap with Honesty-Humility, one of the basic factors of the HEXACO personality model (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2007), to see how far this single factor alone can explain covariance among Dark Triad components. Given recent concerns with “concept creep” (Haslam, 2016), we here examine whether the latent Dark Triad construct demonstrates any statistical uniqueness. Evidence of near-perfect statistical overlap with a core personality factor (such as Honesty-Humility) would suggest that future research on the covariation among the Dark Triad’s subscales is unwarranted.

The Dark Triad consists of three related constructs. Narcissism reflects the pursuit of vanity and an overblown self-admiration. Machiavellianism reflects a “cynical disregard for morality” with an emphasis on “self-interest and personal gain” (Muris et al., 2017, p. 184) marked by duplicity and deceit. Psychopathy is generally considered an individual difference characterized by callous affect, low empathy, antisocial behavior, and reckless lifestyle choices. For further details see reviews by Furnham et al., 2013, Paulhus and Williams, 2002, Paulhus, 2014, and Muris et al. (2017).

In coining the term “Dark Triad,” Paulhus and Williams (2002) made several important theoretical and conceptual points. First, these “subclinical” constructs are derived conceptually from similar clinical (and maladaptive) constructs, but describe meaningful inter-individual differences within general population samples. Second, although important in their own right (i.e., independently), these constructs covary in ways that are psychologically meaningful. Colorful language is used to reflect this covariation, including “latent supertrait of malevolence” or an “overlapping constellation” of “dark personalities” or a “callous constellation” (e.g., Jones and Paulhus, 2014, Muris et al., 2017, Paulhus, 2014). Others have described the Dark Triad traits as a “bundle” (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009), a “cluster of personality traits” (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010), or an “antisocial trinity” (Veselka, Schermer, Martin, & Vernon, 2010). Others refer to the Dark Triad as “an orientation”, “an exploitative social style” (Jonason et al., 2009), or even as a “strategy” (Jonason and Kavanagh, 2010, Jonason and Tost, 2010, Jonason and Webster, 2010) or a “coordinated system” (Jonason, Girgis, & Milne-Home, 2017) for exploitation and cheating. Common to these descriptions is the explicit or implicit understanding that these specific traits “go together” for a reason.

This position implies that what these traits share in common (as a latent construct) is important and presumably distinct from other personality dimensions. Although some covariation between some Dark Triad measures may represent item-content overlap (Muris et al., 2017), the covariation itself could be psychologically meaningful. For example, Paulhus (2014, p. 422) observed that a “positive manifold of negative traits… suggest[s] a common component that may have psychological significance in its own right” [italics added]. Paulhus and Williams (2002) have also suggested that three traits “share a common core” and describe it as a “root” of the triad’s negativity (p. 561). As an example, Jones and Neria (2015) modelled a latent Dark Triad variable and found that it strongly predicted a latent Aggression variable (r = 0.64). Indeed, research has successfully conceptualized the Dark Triad as a latent construct (e.g., Bertl et al., 2017, Jonason and Webster, 2010). Jonason et al. (2017) go so far as to say that without the shared or common variance among the triad variables, the leftover variances are “shadows” (p. 698) of themselves and of questionable value in predicting outcomes (such as, in their study, rape attitudes). Relatedly, Jones and Figueredo (2013) found that the “Dark Core” of the Dark Triad is captured by Hare’s Factor 1 (callous manipulation), with Dark Triad residuals showing little correlation after accounting for this common element.

Thus, in research on the Dark Triad variables, a common core is generally posited and confirmed. Researchers differ primarily in terms of how to interpret this covariance (see e.g., Furnham, Richards, Rangel, & Jones, 2014), not whether it exists. Even those researchers primarily arguing that the triad traits are distinct and worthy of study in their own right (e.g., Jones and Paulhus, 2011, Jones and Paulhus, 2017) nonetheless speak of these constructs as though a latent factor underpins them. Indeed, in the words of its founder: “To warrant membership in the dark constellation…candidates must share the callousness that unites the others” (Paulhus, 2014, p. 424). (For a fuller list of quotations where authors imply or state that there is a common or latent core to the Dark Triad, see Supplemental Table 1.)

The Dark Triad variables clearly covary, with meta-analytic correlations in the 0.34–0.58 range (Muris et al., 2017, Fig. 3). We seek to examine whether the Dark Triad covariation can be accounted for by basic personality dimensions. We pay special attention to Honesty-Humility, one of the six dimensions of the HEXACO model of personality structure. As operationalized in the HEXACO Personality Inventory—Revised (e.g., Ashton and Lee, 2009, Lee and Ashton, 2004, Lee and Ashton, in press), Honesty-Humility is defined by four facet-level traits called Sincerity, Fairness, Greed Avoidance, and Modesty (see Table 1; see also descriptions at http://hexaco.org/scaledescriptions/).

As noted by others (e.g., Jones and Paulhus, 2017, Muris et al., 2017, Paulhus, 2014), Honesty-Humility facets are conceptually related to the Dark Triad components (see Table 1 for comparisons). The Honesty-Humility facets are also empirically related to the individual Dark Triad subscales, with meta-analytic correlations in the −0.09 to −0.56 range (averaging −0.36) (see Muris et al., 2017, Table 3). This raises the question of whether the Dark Triad overlaps almost completely with the low pole of Honesty-Humility from the HEXACO personality space, when the two constructs are considered as latent factors. Paulhus (2014) has explicitly considered a similar possibility, stating that “… one intriguing possibility for future research would involve measuring both positive and dark personality traits in the same people. We suspect that they are not polar opposites” (p. 424). Here we take up this suggestion with an empirical approach, expecting that the underlying “light” and “dark” factors will in fact be polar opposites (i.e., two ends of a common dimension). That is, for those interested in the shared variance among the Dark Triad traits, it would be of value to consider the degree to which this covariance is essentially the opposite of Honesty-Humility. Our purpose therefore is to quantify the previously observed conceptual overlap between the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility (e.g., Book et al., 2015, Lee and Ashton, 2005, Lee and Ashton, 2014, Lee et al., 2013, Muris et al., 2017, Paulhus, 2014).

Whether or not the Dark Triad latent factor can be accounted for by basic personality factors such as Honesty-Humility is an empirical question. In light of the meta-analytic results presented by Muris et al. (2017), we anticipate a great deal of overlap, with little remaining variance after modelling the relation between these constructs. Past research has illustrated the value in such an approach. For example, the link between psychological essentialism and racism, or between generalized authoritarianism and generalized prejudice, doubles when measured at the latent level, often approaching a perfect correlation (i.e., unity) (Hodson et al., 2017, Hodson and Skorska, 2015). Within the Dark Triad domain, researchers have modelled its common variance to represent a Dark Triad latent variable (e.g., Bertl et al., 2017, Hodson et al., 2009, Jones and Neria, 2015), an approach we employ here.

Despite modest correlations between the Dark Triad facets and the Honesty-Humility facets (average r = −0.36 in Muris et al., 2017), correlations between Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility composite scores could be much stronger, and at the latent level the correlation could even be perfect.1 To illustrate, suppose that the correlations of Dark Triad facets with Honesty-Humility facets all equal −0.36, and that the correlations between Dark Triad facets, and the correlations between Honesty-Humility facets, also all equal 0.36 (see Fig. 1). The correlation between the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility would be strong (−0.66) at the composite-variable level (assuming equal SDs for facet-level variables; see Nunnally, 1979, pp. 163–168). But this association is limited by the unique variance associated with the facet variables making up each composite; the latent factors for Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility—each representing the common variance of its facets—would show a perfect negative correlation (see Fig. 1).2 This would be the case regardless of the Dark Triad scales used, providing they produce intercorrelations in this range.

Next we show that these hypothetical data are in fact a close approximation to reality. We first model the structural relations using meta-analytic estimates from four datasets (N ≈ 1400) containing the relevant variables as assessed through self-report. We then consider peer report data in a re-analysis of Lee et al. (2013); peer analyses can address whether laypeople implicitly treat these constructs as redundant when providing character descriptions of close others. We anticipate that latent factors for the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility are correlated near perfectly (negatively) for both self-report and peer report data.

Section snippets

Method

We used data from four previously published papers (Book et al., 2015, Study 1, n = 355; Book et al., 2015, Study 2, n = 325; Book et al., 2016, n = 490; Lee et al., 2013, Sample 1, n = 232) (i.e., N = 1402, k = 4)). Each dataset was based on undergraduate respondents and contained measures of (a) the Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014), with nine-item subscales for each of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, and (b) the HEXACO-60 (Ashton & Lee, 2009) Honesty-Humility

Empirical relations between constructs (self-report data, meta-analyzed)

First we note that the relation between a composite SD3 Dark Triad scale and the HEXACO-60 Honesty-Humility (composite) scale was sizeable, mean r = −0.65 [95% CI: −0.68, −0.62], p < .001.5 This matches the composite-level correlation derived from the hypothetical correlation matrix (see Fig. 1). Thus, the composite variables share approximately 42% of their variance. Our principal analyses, however, focus on latent-level relations. Based on the

General discussion

As the review by Muris et al. (2017) highlights, Dark Triad research has exploded in popularity. Moreover, prominent theorists argue that the covariation of these “dark personality” variables is meaningful. But the patterns of correlations from this literature ought to be cause for concern, as illustrated by our analysis of hypothetical data using typical values (Fig. 1). There is need to clarify whether the Dark Triad, operationalized as the covariation of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and

Concluding remarks

Writings about “…warrant[ing] membership in the dark constellation” (Paulhus, 2014, p. 424) make it very clear that this particular grouping is considered a select club of very specific variables. If so, presumably their covariation is not irrelevant. Our results indicate that this Dark Triad latent covariation almost fully overlaps with the low pole of Honesty-Humility from the basic personality space. Although the overall Dark Triad enterprise has raised the profile of such socially aversive

References (49)

  • K. Lee et al.

    Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-Factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2005)
  • K. Lee et al.

    The Dark Triad, the Big Five, and the HEXACO model

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2014)
  • D.L. Paulhus et al.

    The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (2002)
  • L. Saulsman et al.

    The five factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review

    Clinical Psychology Review

    (2004)
  • L. Veselka et al.

    Relations between humor styles and the Dark Triad traits of personality

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2010)
  • M.C. Ashton et al.

    Trait variance and response style variance in the scales of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5)

    Journal of Personality Assessment

    (2017)
  • M.C. Ashton et al.

    A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality

    European Journal of Personality

    (2001)
  • M.C. Ashton et al.

    Honesty-Humility, the Big Five, and the Five-Factor Model

    Journal of Personality

    (2005)
  • M.C. Ashton et al.

    Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure

    Personality and Social Psychology Review

    (2007)
  • M.C. Ashton et al.

    The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality

    Journal of Personality Assessment

    (2009)
  • M.C. Ashton et al.

    The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality factors: A review of research and theory

    Personality and Social Psychology Review

    (2014)
  • N.A. Card

    Applied meta-analysis for social science research

    (2012)
  • P.T. Costa et al.

    Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual

    (1992)
  • A. Furnham et al.

    The Dark Triad of personality: A 10-year review

    Social & Personality Psychology Compass

    (2013)
  • Cited by (127)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text