[supplement] Many negatively connoted personality traits (often termed “dark traits”) have been introduced to account for ethically, morally, and socially questionable behavior.

Herein, we provide a unifying, comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding dark personality in terms of a general dispositional tendency of which dark traits arise as specific manifestations. That is, we theoretically specify the common core of dark traits, which we call the Dark Factor of Personality (D). The fluid concept of D captures individual differences in the tendency to maximize one’s individual utility—disregarding, accepting, or malevolently provoking disutility for others—accompanied by beliefs that serve as justifications.

To critically test D, we unify and extend prior work methodologically and empirically by considering a large number of dark traits simultaneously, using statistical approaches tailored to capture both the common core and the unique content of dark traits, and testing the predictive validity of both D and the unique content of dark traits with respect to diverse criteria including fully consequential and incentive-compatible behavior.

In a series of 4 studies (n > 2,500), we provide evidence in support of the theoretical conceptualization of D, show that dark traits can be understood as specific manifestations of D, demonstrate that D predicts a multitude of criteria in the realm of ethically, morally, and socially questionable behavior, and illustrate that D does not depend on any particular indicator variable included.

…Preliminary Empirical Support for a Common Core of Dark Traits: One line of evidence supporting the idea that various dark traits arise from a general underlying disposition and thus share a common core stems from studies that concurrently investigated various dark traits. In practically all these investigations, dark traits are positively—although imperfectly—associated with each other.

In a meta-analysis by O’Boyle et al 2012 on the currently most prominent dark traits Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy (the “Dark Triad”, Paulhus & Williams2002), the correlation between Machiavellianism and Narcissism was r = 0.23 (n = 8,423), the correlation between Machiavellianism and Psychopathy was r = 0.46 (n = 5,762), and the correlation between Narcissism and Psychopathy was r = 0.42 (n = 8,538). Similar results were observed in a more recent meta-analysis by Muris et al 2017, with correlations of r = 0.34 between Machiavellianism and Narcissism, r = 0.58 between Machiavellianism and Psychopathy, and r = 0.34 between Narcissism and Psychopathy (n = 42,359). Examples involving dark traits other than the components of the Dark Triad are more rare, but nonetheless reveal similar degrees of overlap: Campbell et al 2004 reported a correlation of r = 0.50 (n = 918) between Psychological Entitlement and Narcissism, Gerbasi & Prentice2013 reported a correlation of r = 0.46 (n = 80) between Self-Interest and Narcissism, Moore et al 2012 reported correlations of 0.44 ≤ r ≤ 0.56 (n = 194 and n = 272, respectively) between Moral Disengagement and Machiavellianism, and Marcus et al 2014 reported correlations of 0.06 ≤ r ≤ 0.71 between Spitefulness and all Dark Triad traits (297 ≤ n ≤ 946).

As these examples illustrate, the correlations between different dark traits typically range 0.20–0.60 and are thus substantial in magnitude, though not perfect. This substantial proportion of shared variance among various dark traits, in turn, can be taken as evidence concerning commonalities between various dark traits and consequently makes the existence of a common underlying dispositional tendency plausible.

…All authors contributed equally to this work. The order of authorship was determined by a nonlinear combination of subjectively weighted criteria with unknown ecological validity, mingled with and ultimately outweighed by a nontransparent randomization, which, incidentally, was performed by Morten Moshagen.

See Also: