Parent Autonomy Support and Psychological Control,Dark Triad,and Subjective Well-Being of Chinese Adolescents: Synergy of Variable- and Person-Centered Approaches

Abstract

In the current study, variable- and person-centered approaches were simultaneously adopted to investigate the relations among perceived parental autonomy support and psychological control, the Dark Triad traits, and subjective well-being (SWB) among Chinese adolescents (N = 1,533). Results showed that autonomy support from parents primarily contributed to narcissism, whereas psychological control predicted all the Dark Triad traits, which in turn had reversed effects on adolescents’ SWB. In particular, narcissism had more prominent effects on SWB and important mediating effects in the relation between parent autonomy support and psychological control and SWB. Four distinct Dark Triad traits groups were identified, and the characteristics of these groups suggested that Machiavellianism was more strongly related to psychopathy relative to narcissism; moreover, the four groups demonstrated different links with parental autonomy support and psychological control and SWB, further supporting the results noted above. Implications for theory and practice are included.

Keywords

Dark Triad autonomy support psychological control subjective well-being

The Dark Triad traits are used to identify three types of aversive personalities: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Many researchers have investigated the power of the Dark Triad to predict negative outcomes, including but not limited to antisocial behaviors (e.g., bullying behaviors) (Geel, Goemans, Toprak, & Vedder, 2017), moral disengagement (Egan, Hughes, & Palmer, 2015), interpersonal difficulties (Muris, Merckelbach, Otgaar, & Meijer, 2017), and unhealthy physical behaviors (Jonason, Baughman, Carter, & Parker, 2015). By contrast, recent researchers have turned their attention to the contributions of the Dark Triad traits to positive outcomes like self-esteem and hope (Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015), honesty‒humility (Muris et al., 2017), and well-being (Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Egan, Chan, & Shorter, 2014; Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015; Volmer, Koch, & Göritz, 2016). The current study focused on the relations of the Dark Triad traits to parenting (i.e., autonomy support, psychological control) and subjective well-being (SWB). On one hand, this study represents an attempt to investigate the potential mediating roles of the three Dark Triad traits through a variable-centered approach; on the other hand, the researchers also sought to describe the natural configurations of the three Dark Triad traits and their linkages with parenting and well-being through a person-centered approach. The adoption of combined variable- and person-centered approaches could provide more comprehensive evidence for understanding the origins and effects of the Dark Triad traits and their roles in the relation between parenting and well-being.

Parental Autonomy Support, Psychological Control, and the Dark Triad Traits

Machiavellianism refers to behavior that is cold and manipulative, focusing on self-interest, acting cynically, and disregarding morality; narcissism suggests a pattern of grandiosity, dominance, entitlement, and superiority; and psychopathy is characterized by high thrill-seeking, lack of personal affect, low empathy, and remorselessness (Furnham et al., 2013; Muris, Meesters, & Timmermans, 2013; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy are positively related to one another; yet the correlation between Machiavellianism and psychopathy is stronger than others (Furnham et al., 2013; Vize, Lynam, Collison, & Miller, 2016). Beside genetic factors, the Dark Triad traits are also attributable to resources and fluctuations in the environment (Furnham et al., 2013; Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008), especially for Machiavellianism (Vernon et al., 2008). Parenting, including autonomy support and control as environmental factors, plays a profound and irreplaceable role during the growth of children and in turn may exert influence on the Dark Triad. Parental autonomy support refers to viewing issues from children’s perspectives and providing opportunities for children to feel volitional and make choices by themselves (Ryan & Deci, 2009). On the contrary, parental control involves coercive and pushy parenting, derived from parents’ failing to consider issues from the perspectives of children or forcing them to meet their own demands (Grolnick & Pomerantz, 2009).

Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; La Guardia & Ryan, 2007) and life history theory (B. Chen, Shi, & Sun, 2017; Figueredo et al., 2006; Jonason, Webster, Schmitt, Li, & Crysel, 2012) act as the bridge connecting parenting and the Dark Triad traits. Life strategy, the core concept of life history theory, refers to the strategies human or other species use to allocate bioenergetics and material resources (B. Chen et al., 2017; Figueredo et al., 2006; Jonason et al., 2012). Parenting is linked to the development of children’s life history strategy (B. Chen et al., 2017; Dunkel, Mathes, Kesselring, Decker, & Kelts, 2015). According to SDT, an autonomy supportive environment contributes to individuals’ personality expression (La Guardia & Ryan, 2007). Building upon the characteristics of parents, autonomy support from parents (Ryan & Deci, 2009) tends to create a stable and secure environment for children; however, parental control creates an unstable and unsecure environment (La Guardia & Ryan, 2007). More specifically, children in an unstable and unpredictable environment (e.g., characterized by fluctuation in resources) that parents provide and shape tend to adopt a fast life history strategy, which features the pursuit of short-term rewards and thus aggressive, impulsive, and adventurous behaviors; in the contrast, children growing up in a stable and predictable environment tend to adopt a slow life history strategy, which facilitates the pursuit of long-term benefits or goals and in turn prosocial, self-controlled, organized, and responsible behavior (B. Chen et al., 2017; Figueredo et al., 2006; Hurst & Kavanagh, 2017)). Actually, this study showed that lower parental support is related to the faster life strategy, and individuals with the faster life strategy tend to have higher symptoms of psychopathology (Hurst & Kavanagh, 2017). Overall, parents’ autonomy support instead of control makes children feel autonomous rather than compelled and encourages them to express themselves authentically (La Guardia & Ryan, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2004); in turn, a supportive environment (e.g., providing high support for individuals’ autonomy) rather than a controlling environment (e.g., thwarting autonomy) is beneficial for children’s personalities, making them less selfish, aggressive, and materialistic (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Several empirical studies have investigated the power of parenting to predict children’s personalities, including the Dark Triad traits and other traits (Branje, van Lieshout, & van Aken, 2004; Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015; Jonason, Lyons, & Bethell, 2014). For instance, high-quality maternal care and secure attachment negatively predicted Machiavellianism and psychopathy, and secure attachment negatively predicted entitlement (a dimension of narcissism) (Jonason, Lyons, & Bethell, 2014). In addition, adolescents’ perceptions of parental relational support correlate with their Big Five personality traits, especially agreeableness (Branje et al., 2004) negatively related to Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Muris et al., 2013). The Dark Triad traits emerge during adolescence (Lau & Marsee, 2013; Muris et al., 2013), and the contribution of parenting to adolescents’ personalities may be more easily observed because they are still under the protection of and have considerable interaction with their parents; however, few researchers have been concerned with the relation between parenting and the Dark Triad traits among adolescents.

The Dark Triad Traits and Well-Being

SWB denotes individuals’ welfare evaluated in terms of satisfaction with life as a whole, which comprises life satisfaction as well as positive and negative affect (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). According to previous relevant research, the Dark Triad traits share close links with individuals’ SWB (Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Egan et al., 2014; Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015; Ng, Cheung, & Tam, 2014). For example, narcissism positively predicted well-being, psychopathy negatively predicted well-being, and Machiavellianism was unrelated to well-being among young adults (Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015); however, a negative relation between Dark Dyad (Machiavellianism and psychopathy) and positive mood has also been found (Egan et al., 2014). A recent meta-analysis indicated the three Dark Triad traits are related to poor well-being; however, if controlling their shared variance, only the association between psychopathy and poor well-being was observed (Muris et al., 2017). As a whole, meaningful empirical studies have shown the connection between the Dark Triad traits and well-being and suggest that narcissism seems to be the “lighter” component among the three dark traits (Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Egan et al., 2014; Jonason & Tome, 2019; Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015).

Linked to poor well-being, Machiavellianism and psychopathy may contribute to their correlation with the tendency to keep a distance from others. For instance, researchers have found that people with high Machiavellianism are uninterested in jobs that involve caring for others (e.g., treating sick people), and those with high psychopathy prefer jobs that require no interaction with people, such as realistic and practical jobs (e.g., repairing motor vehicles) (Jonason, Wee, Li, & Jackson, 2014). Routine behaviors needed to maintain interpersonal relationships (e.g., friendship) are, however, linked to higher levels of happiness (Demir, Özdemir, & Marum, 2011). Similarly, people with high psychopathy levels tend to have low-quality relationships, yet high-quality relationships are essential in enhancing SWB (Love & Holder, 2016). On the contrary, the positive association between narcissism and well-being may be interpreted by the linkage between narcissism and the sense of superiority (Jonason et al., 2012; Kong, Zhao, & You, 2012); furthermore, narcissism facilitates individuals’ interaction with others (Jonason, Wee, et al., 2014). Narcissism makes people feel good about themselves and consider themselves inherently better than others (Jonason et al., 2012), thus experiencing a high level of self-esteem, which is related to more positive affect (Kong et al., 2012). Individuals with high levels of narcissism adopt the slower life strategy (Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015), which relates to higher levels of relationship satisfaction and psychological well-being (Dunkel, Mathes, & Harbke, 2011; Olderbak & Figueredo, 2010).

Autonomy Support, Psychological Control, and Well-Being

From the perspective of SDT, parental autonomy support and psychological control create either autonomous or controlling environments, which contribute to individuals’ well-being through the satisfaction or frustration of psychological needs, respectively (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). Empirical studies have also revealed the power of parents’ autonomy support to positively predict well-being (Costa, Cuzzocrea, Gugliandolo, & Larcan, 2016; Ratelle, Simard, & Guay, 2013) and psychological control to negatively predict well-being (Costa et al., 2016; Shek, 2007). Parental autonomy support is linked to vitality through need satisfaction, and parental psychological control is linked to depression through need frustration (Costa et al., 2016). Parental psychological control in Time 1 has been shown to negatively predict Chinese adolescents’ life satisfaction in Time 1 and Time 2 (Shek, 2007).

To summarize, results of previous variable-centered studies have supported the relation between parenting and the Dark Triad (e.g., Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015; Jonason, Lyons, & Bethell, 2014) and SWB (Costa et al., 2016; Ratelle et al., 2013; Shek, 2007) as well as the Dark Triad and SWB (e.g., Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Egan et al., 2014; Volmer et al., 2016). The Dark Triad traits may, therefore, mediate the relation between parenting and SWB; yet this potential mediating effect has not been investigated to date.

The Current Study

Meaningful studies have shown the various associations between the three Dark Triad traits and well-being, and narcissism seems more relatively positive than other two traits (Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Egan et al., 2014; Jonason, Wee, & Li, 2015; Volmer et al., 2016). Machiavellianism and psychopathy are constructs that share several conceptual similarities, including manipulativeness and callousness (Furnham et al., 2013; Jonason & Krause, 2013; Muris et al., 2013); in turn, they seem to have similar predictive effects. Triggering researchers’ curiosity about the integral contributions of the Dark Triad traits, the differential predictions of the three Dark Triad traits highlight the importance of considering them at the same time and distinguishing their unique contributions, for instance, whether an adolescent group exists with high narcissism but low Machiavellianism and psychopathy and whether the contributions of the three traits will be offset when high narcissism is combined with high Machiavellianism and psychopathy.

A variable-centered approach could be used to investigate the potential relations between variables as well as the mediating or moderating effect from an integrated perspective. Personality is a combination of various traits, and a person-centered approach may contribute more to reveal natural configurations of the Dark Triad traits. A person-centered approach can identify relatively homogeneous groups of individuals with qualitatively and quantitatively distinct configurations in terms of individuals’ characteristics, such as personality traits; that is, individuals are categorized into distinct subgroups with different personality configurations (Litalien, Morin, & McInerney, 2017; Specht, Luhmann, & Geiser, 2014). As noted above, variable-centered studies have shown that Machiavellianism is more similar to psychopathy than narcissism (e.g., Furnham et al., 2013; Jonason & Krause, 2013; Muris et al., 2013); however, many research questions—whether personality types characterized by high levels of Machiavellianism and psychopathy and low levels of narcissism exist, how many adolescents exhibit such personality types, and how such personality types relate to SWB—remain unanswered. A person-centered approach could help answer these questions and supplement results derived from both variable- and person-centered approaches, providing more comprehensive descriptions of the Dark Triad traits.

To our knowledge, some researchers have used the person-centered approach to identify personality configurations. Specht et al. (2014) found relatively consistent and stable Big Five personality types among various gender and culture groups. Garcia and MacDonald (2017) identified three groups (high malevolent, intermediate malevolent, and benevolent) based on participants’ scores on the Short Dark Triad (SD3); however, little research has been conducted on the configurations of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy among adolescents and their connections with parenting and SWB.

Overall, the first purpose of the current study was to investigate the relations of the Dark Triad traits with parenting and SWB and their mediating role in the relation between parenting and SWB among Chinese adolescents through a variable-centered approach. Previous studies (e.g., Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Jonason, Lyons, & Bethell, 2014; Volmer et al., 2016) have shown that autonomy support and psychological control negatively and positively predict the Dark Triad, respectively (H1a); the Dark Triad traits predict SWB (H1b), which also mediate the relationship between parenting and SWB (H2c). Moreover, previous studies have shown that the associations between the Dark Triad traits and antisocial behaviors (e.g., drug use, criminal behavior) differ for males and females (Declercq, Markey, Vandist, & Verhaeghe, 2009; Muris et al., 2017). Although gender difference was not a primary concern of this study, the structural invariance of the mediation model across gender was tested by using multiple group analysis. Furthermore, the moderation model was conducted to identify whether the Dark Triad moderates the association between parenting and SWB in order to rule out other potential models.

The second purpose was to determine the configurations of the Dark Triad traits among Chinese adolescents and their relations with parenting and SWB. Based on previous person-centered studies (Furnham et al., 2013; Vize et al., 2016), the Dark Triad groups may exist with varying levels of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (H2a). Meanwhile, parental autonomy support and psychological control may be related to the possibilities of membership in a specific personality group (H2b), and groups may have varying levels of SWB (H2c) (e.g., Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Jonason, Lyons, & Bethell, 2014; Volmer et al., 2016).

Method

Participants and Procedures

The convenience sample of the study involved 1,533 students from four schools in China ( $\bar{X}$ _age = 15.29, SD = 1.59; 689 males and 844 females), 345 in Grade 7, 328 in Grade 8, 487 in Grade 10, and 373 in Grade 11. Participants and their parents were informed of the study by teachers at the schools. Teachers helped to convey information about consent to parents, who were told that their children could choose to participate in a survey about adolescent development in the form of an anonymous paper questionnaire in classrooms; if parents did not want their children to participant in the survey, research assistants would not distribute questionnaires to those students. Participants were told the same information and could choose to participate or not; they could quit the survey at any time without explanation. All measurements and procedures were approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the authors’ institution.

Measurements

Dark Triad

The 27-item Short Dark Triad (SD3) was used to assess the Dark Triad traits (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). All items were ranked on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). The scale showed good internal consistency reliability in a previous study, Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .71 to .80 (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) as well as in the current study (Machiavellianism: α = .78, narcissism: α = .61, psychopathy: α = .64). Sample items include “I like to use clever manipulation to get my way” (Machiavellianism), “People see me as a natural leader” (narcissism), and “I like to get revenge on authorities” (psychopathy). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed an acceptable fit (χ²/df = 4.25, p < .001, CFI = .90, TLI = .88, RMSEA [90% CI] = .051 [.043, .049], SRMR = .058). Two Chinese research assistants translated the English questionnaire into Chinese independently and then translated each other’s Chinese version back into English. Possible inconsistency or confusion was resolved by discussions.

Perceived parental autonomy support

The psychological autonomy questionnaire, which was used to assess perceived parental autonomy support (Wang, Pomerantz, & Chen, 2007), included two dimensions: choice making and opinion exchanges. All eight items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree); a sample item was “My parents are willing to consider issues from my perspective.” The scale showed good psychometric function with correlations between dimensions ranging from .65 to .78 in a previous study (Wang et al., 2007) and good internal consistency reliability and constructive validity in the current study (α = .87; χ²/df = 4.13, p < .001, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA [90% CI] = .045 [.035, .056], SRMR = .018).

Perceived parental control

Perceived parental control was assessed with a psychological control questionnaire (Wang et al., 2007) that included three dimensions: guilt induction, withdrawal of love, and assertion of authority. Eighteen items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree), for example, “I should feel guilty when I cannot fulfill expectations of my parents.” The questionnaire showed good psychometric function with internal consistency reliability ranging from .89 to .95 in a previous study (C. S. Cheung & Pomerantz, 2011) and good internal consistency reliability and constructive validity in the current study (α = .91; χ²/df = 8.28, p < .001, CFI = .93, TLI = .91, RMSEA [90% CI] = .065 [.065, .073], SRMR = .042).

Life satisfaction

The Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale was used to assess life satisfaction (Huebner, 1994; Tian & Liu, 2005) in five domains (self, family, friend, school, and living environment; e.g., “I like to be with my family”; “My friends treat me well”). Twenty-five items were rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = totally disagree, 4 = totally agree); a higher average score indicates higher life satisfaction. The scale showed good psychometric function in a previous study with alpha ranging from .70 to .87 (Tian & Liu, 2005), and also showed good internal consistency reliability and constructive validity in the present study (α = .93, χ²/df = 7.23, p < .001, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA [90% CI] = .065 [.061, .066], SRMR = .059).

Positive and negative affect

The Affect Balance Scale was used to assess positive and negative affect (Bradburn, 1969; W. Chen & Zhang, 2004). Participants rated all items (eight items for positive affect, e.g., “I am optimistic about the future”; and 16 items for negative affect, e.g., “I feel upset”) on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always). The scale showed good psychometric function in a previous study with internal consistency reliability ranging from .80 to .82 (W. Chen & Zhang, 2004), and it also showed good internal consistency and constructive validity in the present study (positive affect: α = .83, χ²/df = 5.85, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI = .95, RMSEA [90% CI] = .056 [.046, .067], SRMR = .026; negative affect: α = .79, χ²/df = 6.79, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA [90% CI] = .061 [.047, .077], SRMR = .023).

Analytical Strategy

Missing data

The proportion of missing items among all was less than 5%. Missing data from 1% to 20% are considered to be acceptable (Schlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010). Results of Little’s missing completely at random (MCAR) test showed that the missing date were not completely at random (χ²/df = 1.13, p < .001). Missing data were conducted with the expectation-maximization (EM) method when calculating correlations and two-step cluster analysis because EM is superior to traditional methods like Listwise deletion (Peugh & Enders, 2004) and full information maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data when testing mediation and moderation models (Little, Jorgensen, Lang, & Moore, 2013).

Variable-centered analysis

To test the first hypothesis of the study, a mediation model was developed to test the mediating roles of the Dark Triad traits. Mplus 7.4 was used to conduct the mediation model based on the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation because bootstrapping was not available for the robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR; Muthén & Muthén, 2014). First, the measurement model containing all variables was subject to a test, in which all variables were latent variables and the measurement error and shared variance of the three Dark Triad traits were considered. Specifically, autonomy support, psychological control, and life satisfaction were shown in the scores of subdimensions; Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and positive and negative affect were randomly parceled because these scales are unidimensional and random parceling could decrease model complexity (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Then, the researchers tested the mediating model, using bias-corrected bootstrapping to test the mediating effect with 2,000 bootstrap samples. A series of fit indices were evaluated to estimate the model fit: the chi-square goodness-of-fit test (χ²), comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Recommended in prior studies, fit was assessed by the following cutoff criteria: CFI ≥ .90, TLI ≥ .90, RMSEA < .06, SRMR < .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). For RMSEA, values close to .08 suggest reasonable errors of approximation (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

Demographic information was controlled in the mediation model; moreover, a series of nested models were conducted to test structural invariance across gender, for instance, whether the correlations between autonomy support and narcissism differed for boys and girls. Multigroup comparisons were conducted based on three models: configural invariance model (no constraint was imposed), measurement invariance model (weak factorial invariance model, factor loadings were constrained to be equal), and structural invariance model (the correlations between latent variables were held invariant). For invariance testing across gender, if the difference of CFI and TLI is greater than .01 (G. W. Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) and RMSEA changes more than .015 (F. F. Chen, 2007), the invariance hypothesis should be rejected.

Finally, latent moderated structural equation models (LMS) were adopted to determine the potential moderating roles of the Dark Triad traits. LMS models are recommended because they make evaluating the interactions not influenced by measurement errors possible (Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000). All observed variables except gender were standardized, and MLR was used to address the potential nonnormality and nonindependence of the data. Following procedures proposed by Sardeshmukh and Vandenberg (2017), the direct model (Model 0), which did not contain the latent interaction between parenting (autonomy support, psychological control) and the Dark Triad traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy), was estimated first. If the direct model provides adequate fit and has significant factor loadings, the second step could proceed because the indicators of interaction measure the constructs well. In the study, all potential interactions between parenting (i.e., autonomy support, psychological control) and the Dark Triad traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy) were tested. The LMS with six latent interactions is too complex (this model needs to estimate the predictions of six interactions on three dependent variables); to account for this complexity, six models were built to test the potential moderating effects (i.e., once for one interaction). Then the difference of log-likelihood rate was used to determine whether the direct model (Model 0) shows significant loss in fit compared with the model with the latent interaction (Model 1) (Maslowsky, Jager, & Hemken, 2015). If the direct model (Model 0) fits well, and the log-likelihood ration test is significant (indicating that Model 1 represents a significant increase in fit compared with Model 0), then the moderation model is supported.

Person-centered analysis

Two-step cluster analysis (log-likelihood distance measure) revealed homogeneous groups with different levels of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy with SPSS 20.0. Beside theoretical conformity, several statistical indicators were considered to determine the best optimal classifications: the Bayesian information criteria (BIC), the Akaike information criteria (AIC), the average silhouette value (measures of cohesion and separation of cluster), and the ratio of distance measure. Lower AIC and BIC and higher ratio of distance measure indicate better fit. The automatically determined number of groups is also referred. The researchers used original scores and selected a standardized option. After identifying the Dark Triad groups, multinomial logistic regression was conducted to test the association between predictors (age, gender, autonomy support, psychological control) and these groups. Then multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to explore the potential differences between those Dark Triad groups in adolescents’ SWB.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Descriptive statistics and the results of correlation analysis appear in Table 1. Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy were positively related to one another. Machiavellianism and psychopathy were negatively associated with parental autonomy support, life satisfaction, and positive affect and positively related to parental control and negative affect; in contrast, narcissism showed inverse correlations with those variables.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Main Variables.

Variables	$\bar{X}$	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Age	15.29	1.59
2. Gender	0.55	0.50	.01
3. Machiavellianism	2.91	0.69	.20***	−.16***
4. Narcissism	2.79	0.53	−.02	−.09***	.16***
5. Psychopathy	2.73	0.49	.09***	−.13***	.40***	.26***
6. Autonomy support	3.73	0.82	.10***	.08**	−.07**	.14***	−.13***
7. Psychological control	2.83	0.83	−.17***	−.12***	.22***	.07**	.23***	−.43***
8. Life satisfaction	3.25	0.47	.02	.08**	−.17***	.22***	−.21***	.51***	−.28***
9. Positive affect	3.19	0.51	−.00	.11***	−.11***	.25***	−.06***	.32***	−.13***	.55***
10. Negative affect	2.35	0.61	.11***	.09***	.21***	−.08***	.22***	−.17***	.20***	−.34***	−.27***

Note. Gender (0 = male, 1 = female).

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Variable-Centered Approach: The Structural Equation Model

The measurement model showed acceptable fit (χ²/df = 7.21, p < .001, CFI = .90, TLI = .88, RMSEA [90% CI] = .064 [.061, .066], SRMR = .055). Then the mediation model was tested, and it was also acceptable (χ²/df = 6.28, p < .001, CFI = .90, TLI = .88, RMSEA [90% CI] = .059 [.056, .062], SRMR = .060). Standardized coefficients appear in Figure 1, and bootstrapping results are displayed in Table 2. Autonomy support from parents positively predicted only narcissism, and psychological control positively predicted all three traits (supporting H1a). Machiavellianism negatively predicted only positive affect; psychopathy negatively predicted life satisfaction and positively predicted negative affect; and narcissism positively predicted life satisfaction and positive affect and negatively predicted negative affect (supporting H1b). Bootstrapping showed that Machiavellianism mediated the association between psychological control and negative affect. Psychopathy mediated the association between psychological control and life satisfaction and between psychological control and negative affect. Narcissism mediated the relations between parenting (i.e., autonomy support, psychological control) and SWB (life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect), and the mediating role between psychological control and negative affect was marginally significant (p = .051). Results of bootstrapping supported H1c.

Table 2.

Bootstrapping Results of the Specific Indirect Effect.

Pathway	Est	SE	95% CIs
Pathway	Est	SE	Lower 2.5%	Higher 2.5%
AS→LS
Total effect	.541***	.038	.468	.617
Total indirect	.110***	.021	.068	.150
AS→Ma→LS	−.001	.003	−.008	.005
AS→Nar→LS	.115***	.023	.074	.165
AS→Ps→LS	−.005	.018	−.043	.027
PC→LS
Total effect	−.082*	.038	−.155	−.004
Total indirect	−.041	.022	−.084	.004
PC→Ma→LS	−.006	.011	−.029	.017
PC→Nar→LS	.071**	.023	.031	.119
PC→Ps→LS	−.106***	.027	−.166	−.060
AS→PA
Total effect	.374***	.043	.289	.459
Total indirect	.113***	.020	.075	.154
AS→Ma→PA	−.003	.008	−.021	.010
AS→Nar→PA	.117***	.023	.077	.166
AS→Ps→PA	−.001	.006	−.017	.009
PC→NA
Total effect	.027	.040	−.047	.108
Total indirect	.008	.022	−.035	.053
PC→Ma→PA	−.032*	.014	−.063	−.009
PC→Nar→PA	.072**	.023	.032	.119
PC→Ps→PA	−.031	.022	−.076	.007
AS→NA
Total effect	−.096*	.043	−.173	−.007
Total indirect	−.033	.021	−.072	.009
AS→Ma→NA	.001	.003	−.006	.009
AS→Nar→NA	−.038*	.016	−.074	−.011
AS→Ps→NA	.005	.019	−.029	.046
PC→NA
Total effect	.196***	.044	.115	.284
Total indirect	.098***	.023	.057	.150
PC→Ma→NA	.007	.013	−.019	.034
PC→Nar→NA	−.024^†	.012	−.051	−.005
PC→Ps→NA	.114***	.031	.062	.184

Note. 95% CIs = 95% confidence intervals of bias-corrected bootstrapping, and all coefficients were standardized estimate. AS = Autonomy Support; LS = Life Satisfaction; Ma = Machiavellianism; Nar = Narcissism; Ps = Psychopathy; PC = Psychological Control; PA = Positive Affect.

†

p < .06. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Mediation model with standardized coefficients.

Furthermore, the results of multigroup analysis appear in Table S1 in the online supplement. The weak factorial invariance across gender held (ΔCFI = .001, ΔTLI = .002, RMSEA = .000), and the structural coefficients also held invariant (ΔCFI = .001, ΔTLI = .004, RMSEA = .001). Results suggested that the mediation model was invariant across gender; in other words, the potential moderating role of gender was not supported, and the coefficients between parenting and the Dark Triad traits and SWB were the same for boys and girls.

Besides the mediation model, the researchers also built LMS to eliminate the possibility that the Dark Triad traits may moderate instead of mediate the association between parenting and SWB. As shown in Table S2 in the online supplement, the direct model (Model 0) fit was acceptable, the moderation models were not significantly better than the fit of Model 0 (ps > .05), and the predictions of the interactions were also not significant (ps > .05). The moderation model was, therefore, not supported.

Person-Centered Approach: Two-Step Cluster

The fit indices of two-step cluster analysis appear in Table 3. The automatic determination of SPSS was the four-cluster solution, which had a lower level of AIC and BIC and a higher ratio of distance measures. Changes in AIC and BIC became gentle around the four-cluster solution; therefore, the four-cluster solution was finally adopted. These four groups significantly differed in the three traits (see Table 4 and Figure 2).

Table 3.

The Model Fit Results of Two-Step Cluster Analysis.

K	AIC	ΔAIC	BIC	ΔBIC	RDM	ASV	Cluster size
2	2,625.50	−572.78	2,689.52	−540.77	1.55	.40	.32/.68
3	2,260.09	−365.41	2,356.12	−333.40	1.30	.40	.27/.20/.53
4	1,981.54	−278.55	2,109.58	−246.54	1.77	.40	.25/.17/.27/.31
5	1,829.04	−152.50	1,989.09	−120.49	1.07	.30	.23/.16/.24/.15/.22
6	1,687.93	−141.11	1,879.99	−109.10	1.49	.30	.21/.14/.10/.15/.20/.19
7	1,597.18	−90.76	1,821.25	−58.75	1.06	.30	.11/.12/.15/.10/.14/.19/.18

Note. AIC = Akaike information criteria; ΔAIC = AIC changes from k – 1 clusters to k clusters; BIC = Bayesian information criteria; ΔBIC = BIC changes from k – 1 clusters to k clusters; RDM = ratio of distance measure; ASV = average silhouette value.

Table 4.

Comparing Three Traits Between Four Clusters.

	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	F(3, 1529)	$η_{p}^{2}$
n	266	406	476	385
Machiavellianism	3.69 (.54)	3.02 (.54)	2.91 (.47)	2.24 (.48)	446.15***	.47
Narcissism	3.22 (.55)	2.37 (.30)	3.13 (.35)	2.51 (.39)	452.42***	.47
Psychopathy	3.38 (.34)	2.88 (.32)	2.65 (.31)	2.23 (.30)	747.76***	.60
					F(3, 1525)	$η_{p}^{2}$	F(3, 1529)^#	$η_{p}^{2}$ ^#
Life satisfaction	3.16 (.50)^a	3.09 (.46)^a	3.33 (.43)^b	3.38 (.41)^b	20.90	.04	36.50	.07
Positive affect	3.15 (.57)^abc	3.07 (.51)^ad	3.27 (.49)^be	3.22 (.46)^cde	7.54	.02	13.24	.03
Negative affect	2.48 (.60)^a	2.53 (.62)^a	2.28 (.57)^b	2.15 (.60)^b	20.18	.04	32.17	.06

Note. ^#: The results of multivariate analysis of variance not controlled age, gender, autonomy support and control. All of other results controlled these variables. For the three dark traits, and the indicators of subjective well-being, superscripts represented the differences were significant at p < .05 level (Bonferroni). $η_{p}^{2}$ = partial eta squared.

***

p < .001.

Figure 2.

Standardized indicator scores of four Dark Triad groups.

Group 1 was characterized by the highest scores on the three traits and accounted for 17.35% of the whole sample. Group 2 was characterized by the third highest levels of Machiavellianism and psychopathy and the lowest level of narcissism; in addition, the proportion of this group was 26.48%. Adolescents in Group 3 presented moderate levels (i.e., the third highest and close to 0) of Machiavellianism and psychopathy and the second highest level of narcissism; this group accounted for the largest proportion (31.05%). Adolescents in Group 4 scored the lowest on Machiavellianism and psychopathy and the second lowest on narcissism, and the proportion of this group was 25.11%. The results supported H2a: Distinct personality groups in terms of the three Dark Triad traits were identified.

Results of multinomial logistic regression appear in Table 5. Older adolescents were more likely to fall into groups characterized by higher levels of the dark traits (especially Machiavellianism and psychopathy). Older adolescents presented higher possibilities of membership in Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 relative to Group 4; and they presented higher possibilities of membership in Group 1 and Group 2 relative to Group 3. Males had higher possibilities of membership in Group 1 relative to other groups and in Group 2 and Group 3 relative to Group 4. Parental autonomy support was negatively related to the possibility of membership in Group 2 relative to other groups, and positively related to the possibility of membership into Group 3 relative to Group 4. In contrast, parental psychological control was positively related to the possibility of belonging to groups with higher levels of Machiavellianism and psychopathy: Psychological control was positively related to the possibilities of membership in Group 1 relative to other groups and in Group 2 and Group 3 relative to Group 4. The results supported H2b: Autonomy support and psychological control were linked to the Dark Triad types.

Table 5.

The Results of Multinomial Logistic Regression.

	1 vs. 2			1 vs. 3			1 vs. 4
	β(SE)	OR	95% CI	β(SE)	OR	95% CI	β(SE)	OR	95% CI
Age	−.00(.05)a	1.00	[0.90, 1.11]	.10(.05)*	1.11	[1.00, 1.22]	.34(.06)***	1.40	[1.26, 1.56]
Gender	.47(.16)**	1.60	[1.17, 2.20]	.30(.16)	1.35	[0.99, 1.83]	.84(.17)***	2.31	[1.65, 3.22]
Autonomy support	.36(.11)***	1.43	[1.16, 1.76]	−.07(.11)	0.94	[0.76, 1.15]	.10(.12)	1.10	[0.88, 1.38]
Psychological control	.38(.11)***	1.47	[1.19, 1.82]	.43(.11)***	1.53	[1.25, 1.88]	.98(.12)***	2.66	[2.11, 3.35]
	2 vs. 3			2 vs. 4			3 vs. 4
	β(SE)	OR	95% CI	β(SE)	OR	95% CI	β(SE)	OR	95% CI
Age	.10(.05)*	1.11	[1.02, 1.21]	.34(.05)***	1.41	[1.28, 1.55]	.24(.05)***	1.27	[1.16, 1.39]
Gender	−.18(.14)	0.84	[0.64, 1.10]	.36(.15)*	1.44	[1.07, 1.94]	.54(.15)***	1.72	[1.29, 2.28]
Autonomy support	−.43(.09)***	0.65	[0.54, 0.78]	−.26(.10)**	0.77	[0.63, 0.94]	.17(.10)	1.18	[0.97, 1.44]
Psychological control	.04(.10)	1.04	[0.87, 1.26]	.59(.11)***	1.81	[1.47, 2.23]	.55(.10)***	1.74	[1.42, 2.12]

Note. For gender, female was reference category. The coefficients and OR indicated the influences of predictors on the likelihood of entering the first listed group compared with the second listed groups. CI = confidence interval; OR: odds ratio.

a = –.001.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Furthermore, those four groups showed significant differences in life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect (shown in Table 4). The mediation model above suggested that the direct effects of autonomy support and psychological control were statistically significant; therefore, they were involved as covariates when testing the differences between the Dark Triad groups in SWB. Group 3 and Group 4 had higher levels of life satisfaction and lower levels of negative affect relative to other two groups. For positive affect, Group 2 scored lower than Group 3 with higher narcissism. Results supported H2c: The Dark Triad types were linked to SWB.

Discussion

By investigating associations among parenting (i.e., autonomy support and psychological control), the Dark Triad traits, and SWB, we provided evidence for our hypothesis that parenting predicted the appearance of the Dark Triad traits and was in turn linked to adolescents’ SWB. From the variable-centered perspective, this study showed that the Dark Triad traits mediated the associations between autonomy support and psychological control and SWB, and the mediation model held invariant across gender. From the person-centered perspectives, the present study identified four meaningful Dark Triad groups among Chinese adolescents and revealed that these four groups were linked in different ways to parents’ autonomy support and psychological control and adolescents’ SWB.

Profiles of Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, and Narcissism

Consistent with Garcia and MacDonald (2017), the Dark Triad types labeled malevolent (with higher levels of the three Dark Triad traits) and benevolent (with lower levels of the three Dark Triad traits) were also identified in this study; moreover, we also identified two distinct groups—Group 3 and Group 2—that were not found in their study. Egan et al. (2014) identified four groups based on various indicators, including Big Five personality traits, the Dark Triad traits, intellect, and life satisfaction and happiness; their results were quite similar to ours. Previous studies have shown that the association between Machiavellianism and psychopathy is stronger than that between other traits (Furnham et al., 2013; Vize et al., 2016); therefore, they should exhibit a higher possibility to change simultaneously. Results drawn from adults (Egan et al., 2014) and adolescents (in this study) show that the personality type with relatively low in Machiavellianism and psychopathy and relatively high narcissism and the type with relatively high Machiavellianism and psychopathy and relatively low narcissism are quite common. In addition to the shape of the Dark Triad types (i.e., the levels of three traits within a specific group), Group 1 accounted for a smaller proportion of our sample, and Group 3 accounted for the largest part of the sample, consistent with Egan et al. (2014). The current study not only supported the tight connection between Machiavellianism and psychopathy but also distinguished these two traits by estimating their relations with parenting and SWB, which are discussed below.

Parents’ Autonomy Support and Psychological Control and the Dark Triad Traits

As predicted, perceived parenting is correlated to the Dark Triad traits (Branje et al., 2004; Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015; Jonason, Lyons, & Bethell, 2014). The results drawn from the variable-centered approach suggest that perceived autonomy support positively predicted only narcissism, whereas perceived psychological control positively predicted Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. The results of person-centered approach showed that adolescents who perceived higher autonomy support from parents were more likely to fall into Groups 1, 3, and 4 (as opposed to Group 2), all characterized by higher narcissism than Group 2. Perceived parental psychological control was related to the possibility of falling into these four groups. Although autonomy support and psychological control are always negatively related, they are not absolutely opposite (Costa et al., 2016; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). The results provide additional evidence of this view—that parental autonomy support and psychological control may contribute differently to outcomes (Costa et al., 2016).

Furthermore, these findings also support the tenets of SDT, which state that controlling and coercive environment may inspire natural aspects of humans; that is, in such an environment, adolescents may be uncooperative, prejudiced, and even malevolent (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In line with the life history theory, an insecure environment created by psychological control may foster the fast life history strategy in adolescents, which in turn facilitates Machiavellianism and psychopathy (B. Chen et al., 2017; Hurst & Kavanagh, 2017; Jonason, Lyons, & Bethell, 2014; Vernon et al., 2008). Because autonomy support and psychological control are two distinct concepts, these results highlight the importance of not only providing more autonomy support but also avoiding controlling parenting.

Moreover, building upon our findings, we conclude that autonomy support contributes more to narcissism, and psychological control plays important roles in all of the Dark Triad traits. Notably, narcissism in the current study was one component of personality instead of a clinical symptom. The current study showed that perceived autonomy support and psychological control positively predicted narcissism, perhaps suggesting that narcissism includes both adaptive and maladaptive components. Adaptive or healthy narcissism is related to positive traits like confidence; by contrast, maladaptive narcissism is linked to rating as pathological narcissism (Cramer, 2011).

Researchers have suggested that children with authoritative parenting (which is characterized by both responsive and demanding, e.g., parents consider from the children’s perspective) are more likely to develop healthy and adaptive narcissism (Cramer, 2011). When adolescents are provided with opportunities to make their own decisions instead of being forced to meet parents’ demands or expectations, they tend to have more positive self-evaluation; for example, they tend to experience higher self-esteem (Shen, 2011) and self-worth (Van Petegem, Brenning, Baudat, Beyers, & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2018). Narcissism is characterized by self-enhancement and entitlement, and thus shares similar components with self-esteem; consequently, individuals with higher self-esteem tend to have higher levels of narcissism (Hart, Richardson, & Breeden, 2019). The positive correlation between perceived parental autonomy support and adaptive narcissism is linked by self-esteem. On the contrary, psychological control may contribute to the maladaptive components of narcissism. For instance, Cramer (2011) found that when mothers practiced high authoritarian parenting (e.g., tendency to control and shape children’s behaviors to align with specific standards), the precursors of children’s early narcissism (e.g., trying to center others’ attention at 3/4 years old) served as a stronger prediction of their later maladaptive narcissism. The results also invite distinguishing adaptive from maladaptive narcissism in future studies.

The Dark Triad Traits and SWB

Based on the mediation model with latent variables, the current study shows the three Dark Triad traits have significant power to predict SWB; that is, high Machiavellianism and psychopathy have detrimental effects on SWB, but high narcissism has beneficial effects. Consistent results are also found by comparing the differences between the Dark Triad traits groups in SWB outcomes. In line with previous studies (Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Egan et al., 2014; Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015), nonclinical narcissism brought about positive outcomes like high levels of life satisfaction and positive affect. Machiavellianism was not statistically significantly related to life satisfaction and negative affect, and Group 3 and Group 4 experienced similar levels of life satisfaction and negative affect. These results may indicate that the contributions of low (high) narcissism and low (high) psychopathy may be offset. Furthermore, relative to other Dark Triad traits, narcissism plays a more important role when considering the contribution of parenting to SWB: Narcissism mediated the relations between the two indicators of parenting (i.e., autonomy support, psychological control) and the three components of SWB (i.e., life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect), whereas Machiavellianism and psychopathy mediated only several pathways.

Previous studies have shown that individuals with higher narcissism more easily exhibit positive state of mind (Veselka, Schermer, Martin, & Vernon, 2010), have higher levels of self-esteem (Kong et al., 2012), and are consequently happier because of their attractive images and tendency to maintain positive relations with others (Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015). In contrast, Machiavellianism and psychopathy are related to the use of various social influence tactics (e.g., coercion; Jonason & Webster, 2012). Individuals with higher Machiavellianism and psychopathy exhibit more negative states of mind (e.g., aggressive and self-defeating; Veselka et al., 2010) and have lower levels of empathy (Jonason, Lyons, Bethell, & Ross, 2013). Adolescents with higher Machiavellianism and psychopathy may, therefore, fail to build and maintain social relations, lowering their levels of well-being. Apart from that, the prominent power of narcissism to predict SWB may also be attributed to life history strategy. Slow life history strategy used by individuals with higher narcissism is linked to higher relationship satisfaction and psychological well-being (Dunkel et al., 2011; Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015; Olderbak & Figueredo, 2010).

The current study showed perceived parental autonomy support directly contributing to life satisfaction and positive affect and perceived psychological control directly predicting negative affect; moreover, the indirect effects of the Dark Triad traits were also observed. Consistent with previous studies, autonomy support is related to well-being, and psychological control is related to poor well-being and even ill-being (Costa et al., 2016; Ratelle et al., 2013; Shek, 2007). Furthermore, this study also deepens understanding of the mechanism between parenting and SWB from the perspective of children’s personality; for example, direct predictions of psychological control on life satisfaction and positive affect did not reach the statistical criteria after consideration of the Dark Triad traits. In line with other studies in Confusion culture, autonomy support and control as two important factors contribute to individuals’ well-being and ill-being (e.g., Lekes, Gingras, Philippe, Koestner, & Fang, 2010; Liu, Bartholomew, & Chung, 2017). SDT can apply to Chinese adolescents as well as Western adolescents: Parents’ practices benefit Chinese adolescents on their overall well-being by shaping their personality (Yu, Chen, Levesque-Bristol, & Vansteenkiste, 2016).

Limitations and Implications

When interpreting findings, several limitations must be considered. First, although the self-report measurement is appropriate to assess psychological features, such as perceptions of parenting and the Dark Triad traits, using other objective measurements could provide more comprehensive information and lead to more accurate results. Second, causal conclusions cannot be reached about parenting, personality, and well-being because of the cross-sectional design. Longitudinal design could not only clarify the causal relations but also provide more information about personality configurations. For instance, a longitudinal person-centered approach like latent transition analysis could be used to explore how individuals transfer from one group to another and the associations between external variables and transition probability. Third, the participants in this study were all Chinese adolescents; therefore, caution should be exercised before generalizing these findings to groups in other countries. For groups distinguished by cultural background and age, the Dark Triad traits configurations may differ. In addition, we investigated only limited predictors and outcomes of the Dark Triad configurations; but exploring other important predictors and outcomes like physical health, career success, and mating strategy is useful. The Dark Triad traits are linked to other variables, such as Big Five personality; therefore, future research may take more variables to peel off the unique contribution of the Dark Triad traits. The conclusions of this study were, furthermore, based on adolescents from a nonclinical sample; and additional study is needed on the Dark Triad configurations in the clinical context.

Despite these limitations, the current study still offers some implications. Parental autonomy support and psychological control contribute to adolescents’ SWB; The Dark Triad traits mediate these relationships, and narcissism is more important relative to the others. The study also identifies the natural configurations of the Dark Triad traits among adolescents and provides more conceptual description of associations among parenting, the Dark Triad traits, and SWB. In addition, the study involves a moderation model to provide evidence that the Dark Triad traits played mediating roles instead of moderating roles. Testing shows the potential difference between boys and girls, and results also suggest the invariance of the mediation model. These results remind parents that they should not only create autonomous environments but also avoid using control, which is associated with possibilities of becoming Machiavellian and psychopathic. The mediation model also suggests that educators may try to foster adaptive narcissism to evaluate adolescents’ well-being by providing more autonomy support.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary-20190612 – Supplemental material for Parent Autonomy Support and Psychological Control, Dark Triad, and Subjective Well-Being of Chinese Adolescents: Synergy of Variable- and Person-Centered Approaches

Supplemental material, Supplementary-20190612 for Parent Autonomy Support and Psychological Control, Dark Triad, and Subjective Well-Being of Chinese Adolescents: Synergy of Variable- and Person-Centered Approaches by Ruoxuan Li, Meilin Yao, Yunxiang Chen and Hongrui Liu in The Journal of Early Adolescence

Footnotes

Author Contributions

R.L. conceived of the study; participated in its design, interpretation of the data, and coordination; and drafted the manuscript. M.Y. participated in the design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. H.L. and Y.C. participated in its design, helped to analysis the data and draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

ORCID iDs

Ruoxuan Li

Yunxiang Chen

Author Biographies

Ruoxuan Li is a master’s graduate in the School of Psychology at Beijing Normal University, China. Her research interests focus on parental involvement, autonomy support, and students’ development.

Meilin Yao is a full professor in the School of Psychology at Beijing Normal University, China. Her research interest includes transferring, parental involvement, service learning, and volunteering service.

Yunxiang Chen is a master’s graduate in the School of Psychology at Beijing Normal University, China. His research interests focus on attachment in close relationships, interpersonal interaction, and satisfaction and frustration of relatedness needs.

Hongrui Liu is a doctoral candidate in the School of Psychology at Beijing Normal University, China. Her research interests focus on regulatory foci, academic development, and the relationships between teachers and students.

References

Aghababaei

Błachnio

(2015). Well-being and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 365-368. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.043

Bradburn

N. M.

(1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Branje

S. J. T.

van Lieshout

C. F. M.

van Aken

M. A. G.

(2004). Relations between Big Five personality characteristics and perceived support in adolescents’ families. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 615-628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.615

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bolen

Long

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chen

Shi

Sun

(2017). Life history strategy as a mediator between childhood environmental unpredictability and adulthood personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 215-219. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.032

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504.

Chen

Zhang

(2004). Factorial and construct validity of the Chinese positive and negative affect scale for student. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 18, 763-765.

Cheung

C. S.

Pomerantz

E. M.

(2011). Parents’ involvement in children’s learning in the United States and China: Implications for children’s academic and emotional adjustment. Child Development, 82, 932-950. doi:1467-8624.2011.01582.x

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

10.

Costa

Cuzzocrea

Gugliandolo

M. C.

Larcan

(2016). Associations between parental psychological control and autonomy support, and psychological outcomes in adolescents: The mediating role of need satisfaction and need frustration. Child Indicators Research, 9, 1059-1076. doi:10.1007/s12187-015-9353-z

11.

Cramer

(2011). Young adult narcissism: A 20 year longitudinal study of the contribution of parenting styles, preschool precursors of narcissism, and denial. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 19-28. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.004

12.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 37-41. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104

13.

Declercq

Markey

Vandist

Verhaeghe

(2009). The youth psychopathic trait inventory: Factor structure and antisocial behaviour in non-referred 12–17-year-olds. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20, 577-594. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2016.1239724

14.

Demir

Özdemir

Marum

K. P.

(2011). Perceived autonomy support, friendship maintenance, and happiness. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 145, 537-571. doi:10.1080/00223980.2011.607866

15.

Diener

Suh

E. M.

Lucas

R. E.

Smith

H. L.

(1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276

16.

Dunkel

C. S.

Mathes

Harbke

(2011). Life history strategy, identity consolidation, and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 34-38. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.005

17.

Dunkel

C. S.

Mathes

E. W.

Kesselring

S. N.

Decker

M. L.

Kelts

D. J.

(2015). Parenting influence on the development of life history strategy. Evolution & Human Behavior, 36, 374-378. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.02.006

18.

Egan

Chan

Shorter

G. W.

(2014). The Dark Triad, happiness and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 17-22. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.004

19.

Egan

Hughes

Palmer

E. J.

(2015). Moral disengagement, the dark triad, and unethical consumer attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 123-128. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.054

20.

Figueredo

A. J.

Vásquez

Brumbach

B. H.

Schneider

S. M. R.

Sefcek

J. A.

Tal

I. R.

. . . Jacobs

(2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26, 243-275. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002

21.

Furnham

Richards

S. C.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 199-216. doi:10.1111/spc3.12018

22.

Garcia

MacDonald

(2017). Dark personality profiles: Estimating the cluster structure of the Dark Triad. PsyCh Journal, 6, 239-224. doi:10.1002/pchj.175

23.

Geel

Goemans

Toprak

Vedder

(2017). Which personality traits are related to traditional bullying and cyberbullying? A study with the Big Five, Dark Triad and sadism. Personality and Individual Difference, 106, 231-235. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.063

24.

Grolnick

W. S.

Pomerantz

E. M.

(2009). Issues and challenges in studying parental control: Toward a new conceptualization. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 165-170. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00099.x

25.

Hart

Richardson

Breeden

C. J.

(2019). An interactive model of narcissism, self-esteem, and provocation extent on. Personality and Individual Differences, 145, 112-118. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.032

26.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/1070551990954011

27.

Huebner

E. S.

(1994). Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction scale for children. Psychological Assessment, 6, 149-158. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.2.149

28.

Hurst

J. E.

Kavanagh

P. S.

(2017). Life history strategies and psychopathology: The faster the life strategies, the more symptoms of psychopathology. Evolution & Human Behavior, 38(1), 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.06.001

29.

Jonason

P. K.

Baughman

H. M.

Carter

G. L.

Parker

(2015). Dorian Gray without his portrait: Psychological, social, and physical health costs associated with the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 5-13. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.008

30.

Jonason

P. K.

Krause

(2013). The emotional deficits associated with the Dark Triad traits: Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 532-537. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.027

31.

Jonason

P. K.

Lyons

Bethell

(2014). The making of Darth Vader: Parent–child care and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 30-34. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.006

32.

Jonason

P. K.

Lyons

Bethell

E. J.

Ross

(2013). Different routes to limited empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 572-576. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.009

33.

Jonason

P. K.

Tome

(2019). How happiness expectations relate to the Dark Triad traits. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159, 371-382. doi:10.1080/00224545.2018.1529652

34.

Jonason

P. K.

Webster

G. D.

(2012). A protean approach to social influence: Dark Triad personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 521-526. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.023

35.

Jonason

P. K.

Webster

G. D.

Schmitt

D. P.

N. P.

Crysel

(2012). The antihero in popular culture: Life history theory and the dark triad personality traits. Review of General Psychology, 16, 192-199. doi:10.1037/a0027914

36.

Jonason

P. K.

Wee

N. P.

(2015). Competition, autonomy, and prestige: Mechanisms through which the Dark Triad predict job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 112-116. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.026

37.

Jonason

P. K.

Wee

N. P.

Jackson

(2014). Occupational niches and the Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 119-123. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.024

38.

Jones

D. N.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28-41. doi:10.1177/1073191113514105

39.

Klein

Moosbrugger

(2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457-474. doi:10.1007/BF02296338

40.

Kong

Zhao

You

(2012). Self-esteem as mediator and moderator of the relationship between social support and subjective well-being among Chinese university students. Social Indicators Research, 112, 151-161. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0044-6

41.

La Guardia

J. G.

Ryan

R. M

. (2007). Why identities fluctuate: Variability in traits as a function of situational variations in autonomy support. Journal of Personality, 75, 1205-1228. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00473.x

42.

Lau

K. S. L.

Marsee

M. A.

(2013). Exploring narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism in youth: Examination of associations with antisocial behavior and aggression. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 355-367. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9586-0

43.

Lekes

Gingras

Philippe

F. L.

Koestner

Fang

(2010). Parental autonomy-support, intrinsic life goals, and well-being among adolescents in China and North America. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 858-869. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9451-7

44.

Litalien

Morin

A. J. S.

McInerney

D. M.

(2017). Generalizability of achievement goal profiles across five cultural groups: More similarities than differences. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 267-283. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.08.008

45.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

46.

Little

T. D.

Jorgensen

T. D.

Lang

K. M.

Moore

E. W. G.

(2013). On the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39, 151-162. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jst048

47.

Liu

Bartholomew

Chung

P. K.

(2017). Perceptions of teachers’ interpersonal styles and well-being and ill-being in secondary school physical education students: The role of need satisfaction and need frustration. School Mental Health, 9, 360-371. doi:10.1007/s12310-017-9223-6

48.

Love

A. B.

Holder

M. D.

(2016). Can romantic relationship quality mediate the relation between psychopathy and subjective bell-being? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 2407-2429. doi:10.1007/s10902-015-9700-2

49.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

Wen

(2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

50.

Maslowsky

Jager

Hemken

(2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39, 87-96. doi:10.1177/0165025414552301

51.

Muris

Meesters

Timmermans

(2013). Some youths have a gloomy side: Correlates of the dark triad personality traits in non-clinical adolescents. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 44, 658-665. doi:10.1007/s10578-013-0359-9

52.

Muris

Merckelbach

Otgaar

Meijer

(2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 183-204. doi:10.1177/1745691616666070

53.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2014). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

54.

H. K. S.

Cheung

R. Y. H.

Tam

K. P.

(2014). Unraveling the link between narcissism and psychological health: New evidence from coping flexibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 7-10. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.006

55.

Olderbak

S. G.

Figueredo

A. J.

(2010). Life history strategy as a longitudinal predictor of relationship satisfaction and dissolution. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 234-239. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.041

56.

Paulhus

D. L.

Williams

K. M.

(2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563. doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00505-6

57.

Peugh

J. L.

Enders

C. K.

(2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74, 525-556. doi:10.3102/00346543074004525

58.

Ratelle

C. F.

Simard

Guay

(2013). University students’ subjective well-being: The role of autonomy support from parents, friends, and the romantic partner. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 893-910. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9360-4

59.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the empirical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In Greenberg

Koole

S. L.

Pyszczynski

(Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 449-479). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

60.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation, learning, and well-being. In Wenzel

K. R.

Wigfield

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171-195). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. doi:10.4324/9780203879498

61.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

62.

Sardeshmukh

S. R.

Vandenberg

R. J.

(2017). Integrating moderation and mediation. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 721-745. doi:10.1177/1094428115621609

63.

Schlomer

G. L.

Bauman

Card

N. A.

(2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1-10. doi:10.1037/a0018082

64.

Shek

D. T. L.

(2007). A longitudinal study of perceived parental psychological control and psychological well-being in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, 1-22. doi:10.1002/jclp.20331

65.

Shen

(2011). Effects of Chinese parental practices on adolescent school outcomes mediated by conformity to parents, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 282-290. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.09.001

66.

Specht

Luhmann

B. M.

Geiser

(2014). On the consistency of personality types across adulthood: Latent profile analyses in two large-scale panel studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 540-556. doi:10.1037/a0036863

67.

Tian

Liu

(2005). Test of the Chinese version of multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19, 301-303.

68.

Van Petegem

Brenning

Baudat

Beyers

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J

. (2018). Intimacy development in late adolescence: Longitudinal associations with perceived parental autonomy support and adolescents’ self-worth. Journal of Adolescence, 65, 111-122. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.03.008

69.

Vansteenkiste

Ryan

R. M.

(2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263-280. doi:10.1037/a0032359

70.

Vernon

P. A.

Villani

V. C.

Vickers

L. C.

Harris

J. A.

(2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 445-452. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.007

71.

Veselka

Schermer

J. A.

Martin

R. A.

Vernon

P. A.

(2010). Relations between humor styles and the Dark Triad traits of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 772-774. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.017

72.

Vize

C. E.

Lynam

D. R.

Collison

K. L.

Miller

J. D.

(2016). Differences among Dark Triad components: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9, 101-111. doi:10.1037/per0000222

73.

Volmer

Koch

I. K.

Göritz

A. S.

(2016). The bright and dark sides of leaders’ dark triad traits: Effects on subordinates’ career success and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 413-418. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.027

74.

Wang

Pomerantz

E. M.

Chen

(2007). The role of parents’ control in early adolescents’ psychological functioning: A longitudinal investigation in the United States and China. Child Development, 78, 1592-1610. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01085.x

75.

Chen

Levesque-Bristol

Vansteenkiste

(2016). Chinese education examined via the lens of self-determination. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 177-214. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9395-x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.32 MB