A dehumanization perspective on dependence in low-satisfaction (abusive) relationships

Dehumanizing others is linked to harmful behavior

Interpersonal interactions play an important role in maintaining perceptions of our own and others’ humanity. Feeling a sense of connectedness and belonging to others is a fundamental human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and social connectedness provides a sense that relational partners possess humanity (cf. Bastian & Haslam, 2010; Haslam, 2006). In sum, social connectedness and perceptions of humanity are bounded (but see Waytz & Epley, 2012): People are motivated to seek out social connection with other humans, and positive social interactions may serve to bolster the perception of one’s own and others’ humanity.

On the flip side, when others behavior hurts or harms us, this can not only undermine a sense of social connectedness, but also perceptions of one’s own and others humanity. For instance, the idea that perpetrators may dehumanize their victims has a long history within dehumanization research. This has been observed in the case of soldiers at war who are ordered to engage in the use of military force against the enemy (McAlister, Bandura, & Owen, 2006) and in the case of prison executioners who are responsible for extinguishing the life of prisoners on death row (Osofsky, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2005). Dehumanization serves a protective function in these cases and has also been observed when people are reminded of past atrocities committed by their group (Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006), reducing feelings of guilt, empathy, and the perceived need to make reparation for past atrocities (Čehajić, Brown, & González, 2009; Zebel, Zimmerman, Viki, & Doosje, 2008). In effect, dehumanizing victims allows perpetrators to downplay the ethical implications of their harmful actions.

In the context of harmful behavior, dehumanization is not limited to how perpetrators view their victims. Rather, research shows that victims also dehumanize their perpetrators. Bastian and Haslam (2010) observed that after recalling an episode of social ostracism or being ostracized during a game of Cyber-ball, participants saw the perpetrators of ostracism as less human compared to their ratings of another person with whom they had an everyday interaction or whom had included rather than excluded them. One reason for why victims dehumanize perpetrators may be because it makes the perpetrators behavior appear to be less intentional (Gray, Gray, & Wegner, 2007) and being harmed unintentionally hurts less (Gray & Wegner, 2008). Another may be that dehumanizing perpetrators reduces their status and increases social distance of the perpetrator to the self. Again, this may make maltreatment easier to bear (being harmed by people who are of lower status and more distanced from the self may hurt less); furthermore, it also provides an avenue through which victims can reclaim relative status and power in the context of historical harm. Dehumanization of perpetrators by their victims, therefore, may buffer the self from the impact of harmful behavior.

Both perpetrators and victims dehumanize their interaction partner in the context of harmful behavior, albeit for different reasons. Perpetrators dehumanize their victims to escape the moral implication of their actions, while victims may dehumanize perpetrators in order to minimize the impact of their harmful treatment. Common to these two responses, however, is a motivation to protect the self. Based on an interpersonal account of dehumanization, downplaying the humanity of victims and perpetrators may serve to increase the likelihood of that behavior happening again in the future. This is because perpetrators see their actions as justified while victims may come to expect their maltreatment, viewing their perpetrators as incapable of acting more humanely, and potentially excusing their actions as unintentional or reactionary.

Critically, however, there are also cases where victims of abuse may fail to dehumanize their perpetrators, even when those same perpetrators hold dehumanizing perceptions of their victims. This type of dynamic may be evident in cases where perpetrators hold particularly positive self-impressions and use emotional manipulation in their relationships whereby their victims become convinced of the perpetrators superiority. For instance, research shows that narcissists tend engender relative positive impressions, even in view of their harmful interpersonal tendencies (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). In these cases, victims may come to see themselves as deserving of their abuse, while maintaining a perception of their perpetrators as just and fair. This possibility has received little direct research attention to date.

Self-dehumanization is linked to acknowledgment of harm

Beyond dehumanizing the other, interpersonal maltreatment may also lead to dehumanization of the self. Starting with the self-perception of victims, Bastian and Haslam (2011, Study 1) developed a taxonomy of 26 different types of maltreatment, including humiliation, exploitation, ostracism, and betrayal in the context of everyday interactions. Ratings revealed that the extent to which the various maltreatments were considered dehumanizing was associated with adverse cognitive and emotional reactions. This work demonstrated that people are sensitive to dehumanizing maltreatment by others and that these dehumanizing experiences have cognitive and emotional consequences. Taking this further, Bastian and Haslam (2010) asked participants to rate their self-perception in response to either recalling an episode of social ostracism or playing a game of Cyber-ball where they were excluded (as descried earlier). The findings demonstrated that compared to inclusive or everyday interactions, being socially excluded led victims to see themselves as less human.

As argued by Bastian et al. (2014), one reason that victims might self-dehumanize is because doing so makes their maltreatment appear to be deserved, in turn reducing their motivation to leave or retaliate. Although unhealthy for victims, this response may be likely to protect the relationship. This is evident in cases of domestic violence or perhaps parental abuse, where victims report feeling that they deserve their mistreatment. The self-dehumanization of victims may also make mistreatment easier to bear. Viewing the self as less-emotionally responsive, as superficial and cold, may well serve this purpose.

Self-dehumanization has also been observed in the case of perpetrators. Bastian et al. (2013) investigated the effects of ostracizing others on self-perception. Across four studies drawing on participant recall of episodes of ostracizing others or real-time experiences of ostracizing others within the laboratory, they observed that perpetrators of social ostracism see themselves as less human compared to when they have an everyday or more inclusive interaction with others. Converging evidence came from two studies examining the impact of violent video games on self-perception. Here, Bastian, Jetten, and Radke (2012) found that participants who played a violent video game (e.g., Mortal Kombat) rated themselves as less human compared to those who played a competitive but nonviolent game (Top Spin Tennis). Engaging in violent and aggressive acts, even when these are directed at computer-generated avatars, is sufficient to make individuals see themselves as less human.

Perpetrators are not only dehumanized by their victims, but they also see themselves in this way. By observing their own harmful behavior, perpetrators make internal attributions about their own qualities and characteristics (Bem, 1972). When people engage in violent and aggressive behavior, it affects their perceptions of their own humanity, and as observed by Bastian and colleagues (2013), self-dehumanization of perpetrators is to some degree explained by whether or not they see their behavior as immoral. That is, when people feel they have acted immorally, this makes them feel less human. Critically, however, and inconsistent with previous theorizing that dehumanization of perpetrators is associated with cycles of violence (Kelman, 1976; see also Goldstein, Davis, & Herman, 1975; Martens, Kosloff, Greenberg, Landau, & Schmader, 2007), Bastian and colleagues (2013) found that perpetrators who self-dehumanized were more likely to engage in pro-social helping behavior. This finding provides a novel perspective on dehumanization (i.e., that it may have a range of positive consequences; although see Kouchaki, Dobson, Waytz, & Kteily, 2018) and also suggests that individuals may be motivated to reclaim their humanity when they feel it has been diminished.

The link between self-dehumanization of perpetrators and pro-social behavior provides a new perspective from which to consider how downward spirals of violence arise. A consistent predictor of ongoing aggression and violence is the failure to engage with the self-relevant consequences of one’s own actions (Bandura, Underwood, & Fromson, 1975; Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). This has also long been considered a core feature of psychopathy (Hare, 2003; Meier, Sellbom, & Wygant, 2007; Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009), where psychopaths tend to blame their victims for the negative consequences of their behavior (Hare, 1996). Self-dehumanization for perpetrators may serve to limit rather than motivate subsequent acts of violence or harm and to reconnect perpetrators back into their human community through motiving pro-social acts.

Although only recently introduced into the literature on dehumanization, the evidence shows that people self-dehumanize, and this tends to occur in the context of immoral and harmful interactions (see Bastian & Crimston, 2014). Unlike dehumanization of the other, as discussed earlier, self-dehumanization of victims and perpetrators appears to have different implications for cycles of maltreatment. Whereas the self-dehumanization of victims may serve to maintain and reinforce harmful behavior—by viewing it as justified and deserved, and thereby protecting the relationship—the self-dehumanization of perpetrators is driven by a recognition that such behavior is unacceptable. Self-dehumanization of perpetrators, therefore, has a distinct set of consequences from other sources of dehumanization within close personal relationships. While dehumanization in general tends to reinforce cycles of maltreatment, the self-dehumanization of perpetrators is likely to inhibit this behavior, leading instead to attempts at reconciliation.

In terms of understanding factors leading to increased dependency in the context of abusive relationships, a relational dehumanization perspective suggests this is likely to occur when victims engage in self-dehumanization, but perpetrators do not. Specifically, on the one hand, victims feel dehumanized by their abuse, also reinforcing the belief that they do not deserve any better, thereby reducing the perception that they have access to viable alternatives. On the other hand, perpetrators fail to see their abuse as unjustified, and therefore do not view their own humanity as tarnished. As I will review next, this dynamic may be common in the context of an abusive relationship and also helps to explain why such relationships may persist over time.

Self- and other-dehumanization are inversely related in the context of harm

Perpetrators will not always see themselves as less human after causing harm to others, with evidence suggesting that rather than self-dehumanizing, sometimes perpetrators engage in self-serving or ego-protective responses (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1996), finding ways to obfuscate personal responsibility or to minimize the significance of their actions (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Wotman, 1990; Kowalski, 2000; Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). It is in these cases that, rather than seeing the self as less human, perpetrators may choose to dehumanize their victims instead (whether they be individuals or groups: Bandura, 1999; Bandura et al., 1996; Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006; McAlister et al., 2006; Osofsky et al., 2005). As already noted, if those that one harms are dehumanized and therefore less deserving of moral concern, it becomes less problematic to hurt, harm, or kill them.

It is this dynamic interplay between self- and other-dehumanization which sets the scene for understanding how dependency can remain high within the context of abusive and unsatisfactory relationships. Specifically, whereas positive interactions have the capacity to elevate the humanity of both parties in unison, maltreatment appears to do the opposite. Rather than self- and other humanity being positively related, a general downward revision of both self- and other humanity may be associated with an inverse relationship in these perceptions of interaction partners. This is evident from previous work on moral disengagement (e.g., Bandura, 1999) where dehumanizing one’s victim’s serves to protect perpetrators from the immoral and affective consequences of their actions—by dehumanizing others, perpetrators can protect their own self-perceived humanity. Just so, however, where self-dehumanization of perpetrators is evident this may be related to an increased willingness to acknowledge the humanity of one’s victims. Bastian et al. (2014) report unpublished data showing that in instances where perpetrators saw themselves and their victims as less human, as a result of their harmful behavior, this changed the dynamic between self- and other humanity. Compared to an everyday interaction, in which self- and other humanity was largely unrelated, the extent to which perpetrators of maltreatment attributed humanity to their victims was inversely related to the extent to which they attributed humanity to themselves. When perpetrators self-dehumanized, they were less likely to dehumanize their victims, and greater dehumanization of victims was associated with lesser dehumanization of the self. Maltreatment, therefore, changed the dynamic interplay between perceptions of self- and other humanity.

Importantly, from the victim’s perspective, this dynamic between self- and other-humanity is less clear, especially when considering close personal relationships. While a victim’s self-dehumanization may serve to protect the relationship, thereby maintaining perceptions of the perpetrator as human, it would also be conceivable that self-dehumanizing victims may see their perpetrators as less human. In this sense, the self-dehumanization of victims in response to harmful behavior may co-occur with a perception that their perpetrators lack humanity and this, in part, explains their behavior. In this sense, self-dehumanized victims come to accept their maltreatment as deserved and justified, but also see their perpetrators as incapable of acting differently due to their own lack of humanity. Supportive of this notion, Bastian et al. (2014) report unpublished data indicating that compared to more inclusive interactions, instances of social ostracism do not change the dynamic between self- and other-humanity from the victim’s perspective. Nonetheless, as noted earlier, less work has examined how victims view their perpetrators and under what conditions they may preserve a humanized impression of the perpetrator while also engaging in self-dehumanization.

In sum, then, there are two ways that a dehumanizing dynamic may lead to high levels of dependence within the context of an abusive relationship. In all cases, we would expect perpetrators to dehumanize victims yet fail to engage with the self-dehumanizing consequences of their own actions. Meanwhile, we would also expect victims to routinely view themselves as less human and therefore be more likely to accept their abuse. Furthermore, when victims self-dehumanize in response to their abuse, they are less likely to view alternative possibilities as viable and less likely to view themselves as likely to attract alternative partnerships. The distinction arises in how victims see their perpetrators and their reasons for self-dehumanization. On the one hand, they may view their perpetrators as fully human, perhaps due to a perception that their treatment is justified and that they are therefore deserving of their abuse. In this case, the victims own self-dehumanization is likely reinforced by the dehumanizing perceptions of their perpetrators, whose opinions and actions they have come to accept. On the other hand, victims may self-dehumanize in order to make their maltreatment easier to bear, due to a desire to maintain the relationship. In this case, it is not that they feel they deserve their abuse, but they have chosen to endure it because they value the relationship or see their continuing the relationship as important, for other reasons. One reason may be that they come to feel that their perpetrator needs them, and this may be reinforced by their own perception that their perpetrator is less-than-human. In this case, they view their perpetrator as lacking the capacity to act differently, as potentially vulnerable, and therefore in need of their support. While this presents a picture of a person who is more powerful and taking care of another, when victims are also self-dehumanizing in response to ongoing maltreatment, they may come to feel dependent on this relationship. They feel that their perpetrator needs them, but they also feel they have few alternatives and therefore remain dependent on the relationship. Studies directly exploring these various dynamics, and the motivations underpinning them, are needed in order to provide empirical evidence to these various possibilities.

The dehumanization of perpetrators and victims by observers

While the parties within an abusive relationship may dehumanize each other, it is also the case that such interactions do not take place in a vacuum and are observed by others within the social environment. Recent work has illustrated that perpetrators whose offenses evoke moral outrage tend to be dehumanized by observers. In a study by Bastian, Denson, and Haslam (2013), participants were asked to rate the humanity of perpetrators of different crimes varying on type and severity. They found that dehumanized perceptions of perpetrators were associated with feelings of moral outrage (anger, contempt, and disgust), and this relationship existed independently of the extent to which the perpetrator was disliked. When people act abusively in their relationships with others, it not only plays out in the perceptions of those involved in the abuse, but also those who observe it.

What is the purpose of observers dehumanizing perpetrators of abuse? In their study, Bastian and colleagues (2012) revealed that moral outrage and particularly dehumanization predicted longer and harsher offender sentencing decisions and a perception that offenders are not suitable for rehabilitation. The more offenders were dehumanized, the more they were viewed as deserving of harsh punishment, suggesting that dehumanization oils the wheels of retributive justice and may be motivated by the desire to see that perpetrators get their “just deserts” (e.g., Darley & Pittman, 2003). Additional support for this function of dehumanizing those who enact abuse comes from Myers, Godwin, Latter, and Winstanley (2004) who found that in actual court cases, dehumanizing language use to describe offenders was associated with a tendency for jurors to assign harsher punishment. Viewing perpetrators of abuse as lacking core human capacities may reduce perceptions of their capacity for intentional action but may also make them appear less sensitive to pain, more dangerous and uncontrollable, and thus more needful of severe and coercive forms of punishment (Sanderson, Zanna, & Darley, 2000). From this perspective, it would appear that the dehumanization of perpetrators allows for the restoration of justice through harsh punishment.

Of more direct relevance to the current review, however, is the tendency for observers to dehumanize victims of abuse. In a study by Kozak, Marsh, and Wegner (2006), researchers found that people viewed a target as possessing fewer human-like mental states when they were portrayed as the victim of unfortunate and difficult circumstances compared to when they were not portrayed as the victims of such circumstances. Other work by Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick (2007) suggests that people tend to see those who have become victims of bad circumstances (i.e., the homeless or welfare recipients) as less human. These findings are consistent with the notion of victim derogation, which has been argued to be motivated by the need to see the world as a just a fair place. The “just world hypothesis” (Lerner & Miller, 1978) highlights that people prefer to see the world around them as just and that actions therefore have appropriate and predictable consequences. When people see others being abused this belief is challenged, and rather than give up on this belief, people make sense of these situations by derogating (dehumanizing) the victims of abuse.

In terms of predicting dependency within abusive relationships, the third-party dehumanization of victims may concretely reduce the availability of alternatives. Just as victims who self-dehumanize may view their chances of attracting a better partner, or perhaps improving their circumstances in other ways, as limited, observers may likewise downgrade the social value of the victims they dehumanize. This could literally mean that victims are less likely to been seen as viable relational partners or has having the capacity to fulfill important functions in social and employment contexts. Under these circumstances, they would be less likely to be afforded these opportunities by others within their social environment.

An interpersonal perspective on dehumanization reveals how abusive behavior may shape social perception within close relationships, as well as third-party perceptions of those living in abusive relationships. Furthermore, it reveals how self- and other-dehumanization may be related in different ways and the various dynamics that can emerge. Whereas positive interactions more straightforwardly humanize all parties, abusive behavior is dehumanizing and changes this dynamic whereby patterns of self- and other-dehumanization can lead to increased dependency within unsatisfactory and harmful relationships.

What are the Dark Triad traits?

The Dark Triad or Dark Tetrad cluster draw together three or four traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and everyday sadism—which have been linked to a socially malevolent character. Behavior of individuals high on these traits is characterized by self-promotion and they are often described as emotionally cold, deceitful, and aggressive. Some researchers have viewed these traits as independent constructs that overlap to some degree (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), while others have suggested they are different measures of the same latent construct (Jonason & Webster, 2010). From an evolutionary perspective, the Dark Triad has been described as a short-term, agentic social strategy that evolved to enable the exploitation of others (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009).

Differences between each of the traits are also apparent. Narcissists are noted for their grandiose self-promotion and constant appetite for attention. Machiavellianism refers specifically to a tendency toward manipulative behavior. Psychopathy is linked to high impulsivity and thrill-seeking along with low empathy and anxiety and with the capacity to be callous and harmful in their treatment of others. Finally, a more recent addition, everyday sadism, is linked to verbal or physical abuse of others for pure enjoyment (see Paulhus, 2014).

In terms of close relationships, all three (or four) Dark Triad (Tetrad) traits are associated with a view of interpersonal relationships as a means to achieve their own ends (e.g., Jonason & Schmitt, 2012). Narcissists may use relationships as vehicles of self-promotion, Machiavellians as avenues for satisfying personal needs, and psychopaths or everyday sadists as targets for cruel thrill-seeking or sadistic enjoyment. This sets up a dynamic whereby relationship partners may be viewed as less-than-human, and their needs and preferences as lacking in importance, and suggests that Dark Triad traits may be associated with a behavioral pattern that has dehumanizing implications for interpersonal relationships.

Dark Triad traits and dehumanization of others

One of the key features of Dark Triad individuals is their repeated maltreatment of others (e.g., Baughman et al., 2012; Jonason et al., 2012). These traits tend to be associated with lowered empathy for the needs of others, mixed with a tendency to focus on one’s own gains even when this is achieved through the use of coercion or abuse (Paulhus, 2014). Providing some insight into this pattern of interpersonal behavior, research has found that Dark Triad traits are associated with emotional deficiencies relating to limited empathy and alexithymia (Jonason & Krause, 2013; Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012).

Haslam (2006) argued that those with “empathy disorders” may be especially prone to dehumanizing others, citing evidence that psychopaths show an attenuated autonomic response to others distress and reduced concern for their wellbeing (Blair, 1995; Blair, Jones, Clark, & Smith, 1997). Although Dark Triad traits are distinct from personality disorders, they are predictive of an empathy deficit (although presumably of a lesser magnitude) and this appears to be in part also linked to a general reduction in emotional awareness, including toward the self (Jonason & Krause, 2013). This suggests that Dark Triad traits may be linked to a chronic tendency to view others as less human, in part because attributions of humanity require an empathic ability to “see” affective human-like qualities in others.

Beyond this chronic tendency, there are also situational reasons to predict that Dark Triad individuals may dehumanize others. Evidence suggests that dehumanization may not only be an outcome of reduced empathy deficits, but may also be used to attenuate empathy. For instance, Haque and Waytz (2012) note that doctors routinely dehumanize their patients because this allows for better medical decision-making. Other work has shown that medical caregivers use dehumanization spontaneously as a method to cope with stress (Di Bernardo, Visintin, Dazzi, & Capozza, 2011), and a failure to do so predicts burnout (Vaes & Muratore, 2013). Dehumanization is, therefore, an effective strategy for reducing empathy and for this reason it is also employed in contexts where people are motivated to morally disengage from their actions (e.g., Bandura, 1999). Dehumanizing victims reduces the perception that one has acted immorally, reduces feelings of empathy for this maltreatment, and therefore protects the self from discomfort associated with harmful behavior.

Although Dark Triad individuals may fail to recognize the humanity of others a priori (due to a general empathy deficit) leading to careless and unemphatic treatment, they may also dehumanize others in order to specifically achieve their own ends. Dark Triad traits are associated with a general proclivity toward self-serving behavior, and therefore a tendency to elevate one’s own needs and desires above those of others. Strategically dehumanizing others in contexts where self- and other-needs come into conflict, allows for the prioritization of one’s own goals. This may be especially evident in the case of Machiavellians who tend to engage in manipulative behavior to get what they want. Furthermore, given that traits such as psychopathy and every sadism are associated with enjoyment of causing harm to others, fulfilling such desires may require strategic dehumanization to carry out such acts.

The abovementioned illustrates that from a social cognitive perspective, there are two ways to understand how Dark Triad traits may shape the dehumanization of others, and in turn facilitate or justify their maltreatment. The first is due to a general empathy deficit, meaning that the human qualities of others are never fully appreciated, and this effectively opens that gate to harmful behavior. The second is due to the need to disengage from harmful behavior that otherwise may be motivated by self-interest. Both pathways provide insight into how the maltreatment of others may be maintained and have specific implications for understanding how Dark Triad traits may shape close interpersonal relationships.

Dark Triad traits and (de)humanization of the self

Research has shown that people tend to view themselves as more human than others (Haslam et al., 2005). Indirect evidence suggests that this tendency might be elevated within those high on Dark Triad traits, and especially for those high in narcissism. In a study examining self-perception during a cooperation game, it was observed that Narcissists tended to self-aggrandize in agentic traits such as assertiveness, outgoingness, openness, and intelligence. Furthermore, this appeared to be independent of how they were viewed by others or how they viewed others (Rauthmann, 2012), indicating a fairly domain general tendency to positively evaluate the self. Interestingly, this was less evident for Machiavellianism and psychoticism, suggesting that chronic self-humanization may be especially linked to narcissism (Rauthmann, 2012).

Beyond this chronic tendency toward “self-love” which is characteristic of narcissists, the Dark Triad traits are also likely to be associated with a reduced tendency to self-dehumanize in response to the maltreatment of others. As noted earlier, self-dehumanization is driven by engaging with the consequences of one’s own actions and a recognition that those actions are immoral and have caused harm to others. In this way, self-dehumanization is in-part linked to an acknowledgement of the humanity of others, and as already suggested, those high on Dark Triad traits are less likely to see the humanity of others and may be more likely to deny that humanity in response to their own maltreatment. This reduces the perceived moral consequences of one’s actions and therefore also reduces self-dehumanization. In contexts where self-dehumanization may be the appropriate response (Bastian et al., 2013), those high in Dark Triad traits are more likely to maintain an untarnished perception of their own humanity, and a corresponding belief that their actions are justified and acceptable due to the diminished humanity of their victims.

Some support for this comes from a study by Rauthmann (2012), who observed that Machiavellianism was most associated with viewing interaction partners negatively. This may be driven by a propensity to take advantage of one’s interaction partners. However, this finding was also outside the context of clearly harmful behavior, and there may be other more self-protective motivations to dehumanize others in these contexts. For instance, the “self-love” or fragile egoism of narcissists may drive the dehumanization of others in order to protect the self from appearing immoral. As such, both other-harming and self-protection motives may drive the dehumanization of others, and thereby, protect against perceptions that one’s own humanity has been tarnished.

Responding to maltreatment from those high in Dark Triad traits

As noted, the key feature of those high in Dark Triad traits is their propensity to persist in the maltreatment of others. This also raises the question of how it is that others may allow this type of behavior to continue over time. Drawing from a relational perspective on dehumanization, those confronted with perpetrators who are both convinced of their own humanity and have a tendency not to see the humanity of their victims, may be especially likely to self-dehumanize in response to their own maltreatment. They may come to use cues from their perpetrators as guides to their own self-perception. Furthermore, their self-dehumanizing response would serve to protect the relationship, albeit at the expense of their own wellbeing.

Evidence for this possibility comes from the tendency of Dark Triad individuals to use manipulation in their relationships (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010; Jonason et al., 2012; Jonason & Webster, 2012; Rauthmann, 2011) and to be relatively agentic and dominant in their social interactions with others (especially in the case of narcissism and psychopathy; Jonason et al., 2010; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). Narcissists appear to be less disliked relative to other Dark Triad traits (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013), suggesting that they may be especially adept at impression management. Victims may see those high on Dark Triad traits as strong, knowledgeable, and self-directed, making their actions appear justified.

Thus, a mixture of self-belief, dominance, and a tendency to see others as objects to be manipulated for one’s own gain may influence the perception of relationship partners. Those in an abusive relationship with Dark Triad individuals may, nonetheless, place high value on the relationship and therefore may self-dehumanize so as to protect this valued partnership. This tendency may be further bolstered due to the fragile egoism characteristic of narcissists, where confronting or addressing the inappropriateness of behavior would likely lead to reactionary and negative outcomes. It is through this process that relationship partners may become entrapped and vulnerable, suffering maltreatment at the hands of those high in Dark Triad traits.

Finally, it is also likely that observers of these relationships may maintain a positive and humanized perception of perpetrators high on Dark Triad traits, for the same reasons that victims do, due to their tendency to be agentic, dominant, and their skills at impression management. This may further exacerbate the tendency for third-party observers to view the victims of abuse in these relationships as dehumanized, as deserving of their abuse, and therefore as incapable of fulfilling critical social and economic functions within society. As noted earlier, this reduces the availability of alternatives for victims of abuse and further increases their dependency on an abusive relationship.