Mediating Effect of Dark Triad Personality Traits on the Relationship Between Parental Emotional Warmth and Aggression

Abstract

Previous research has indicated that positive parenting practices, such as parental emotional warmth, are associated with less negative outcomes in children. These negative outcomes can present during adolescence and during emerging adulthood. One negative consequence can be aggression, a problematic outcome with its own myriad consequences. The current study aimed to examine the effect of parental emotional warmth on adolescent and young adult aggression and the mediating effect of Dark Triad personality traits (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism) on this relationship. The sample included 530 Chinese student participants who completed an online questionnaire survey: 241 adolescents aged 15 to 18 years (M = 17.24, SD = 1.00) and 289 young adults aged 19 to 23 years (M = 20.12, SD = 1.03). The results revealed that the association between parental emotional warmth and aggression was fully mediated by Machiavellianism and psychopathy, and the mediating effects of Machiavellianism and psychopathy had no age differences between adolescents and young adults. These results may clinically suggest that paying attention to parental emotional warmth, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy in adolescents and young adults could yield a better understanding of their current and continuous functioning, especially for aggression.

Keywords

family issues and mediators youth violence anything related to domestic violence

Introduction

The prevalence of aggression today is a social problem worthy of global attention (Kabasakal & Baş, 2010). Aggression refers to behavior that is carried out with proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm to another individual (C. A. Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Parenting style has been found to play an important role in an individual’s aggression (Chang, 2014; Llorca, Richaud, & Malonda, 2017). There are individual differences in children’s experiences of parenting styles. Researchers have characterized parenting styles as emotional warmth, rejection, overprotection, and favoritism (Perris, Jacobsson, Linndström, von Knorring, & Perris, 1980). Parental emotional warmth (PEW), an important parenting style element, refers to “the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s needs and demands” (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62; Wu, Zhang, Cheng, Hu, & Rost, 2015, p. 133). A meta-analysis showed that PEW has a significant negative influence on aggression in children and adolescents (Khaleque, 2013). However, there has been little empirical research on the underlying mechanisms explaining this association through Dark Triad personality traits, which are closely related to aggression. Therefore, in this study, we empirically tested the possible mediating effect of Dark Triad personality traits on the relationship between PEW and aggression.

The Dark Triad is composed of subclinical levels of three intercorrelated, yet conceptually separate, personality constructs: Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Machiavellianism characterizes an individual who is manipulative, callous, superficial, and strategic (rather than impulsive; Akram et al., 2018; Jonason, Jones, & Lyons, 2013). Conversely, individuals high in psychopathy (in nonclinical samples) lack self-control, are highly impulsive and adventurous, and present deficits in affect (i.e., callousness) and interpersonal antagonism (Akram et al., 2018; Palmer, Komarraju, Carter, & Karau, 2017). Finally, narcissism includes characteristics such as entitlement, dominance, exaggerated self-love, perceived superiority, and egocentrism (Jonason, Lyons, Bethell, & Ross, 2013; Sabouri et al., 2016).

Research has demonstrated that Dark Triad personality traits can influence an individual’s adaptation in diverse ways. For example, some studies have shown that these traits are associated with prejudice (J. Anderson & Cheers, 2018) and empathy (Szabó & Bereczkei, 2017). Concretely, Dark Triad personality traits can influence prejudice through ideology and group threat perceptions (Hodson, Hogg, & MacInnis, 2009); the link between the Dark Triad and limited empathy might primarily be through narcissism in women but psychopathy in men (Jonason et al., 2013). While other studies have observed a positive relationship with aggression (Dinić & Wertag, 2018; Lau & Marsee, 2013; Pabian, De Backer, & Vandebosch, 2015), in another study, Barlett (2016) demonstrated that Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism significantly positively predict reactive aggression; psychopathy and narcissism significantly positively predict proactive aggression; and Machiavellianism is marginally related to proactive aggression. Moreover, studies have shown that the Dark Triad personality traits are correlated with the Big Five personality traits, and both sets of traits are related to traditional bullying and cyberbullying behaviors in adolescents and adults (van Geel, Goemans, Toprak, & Vedder, 2017).

Different research approaches and theoretical perspectives have examined how different variables correlate with the Dark Triad personality traits. Life history theory (Gadgil & Bossert, 1970; MacArthur & Wilson, 1967), which is a mid-level selectionist theory derived from general evolutionary theory, holds that the life process and cycle of an organism are the result of natural selection. To win the competition of survival and reproduction, an organism establishes its own life strategy (fast or slow life strategy) according to the environment to balance its biological energy and material resources. Although researchers originally used life history theory to account for species-level differences, this theory has proven useful in understanding within-species differences for many taxa, including humans (Rushton, 2004). In humans, we refer to systematic, within-species differences as personality traits or individual differences (Jonason, Koenig, & Tost, 2010).

Individual differences in personality present a recurring and unresolved theoretical problem for evolutionary psychology (Figueredo et al., 2005). From the perspective of life history theory, the formation of personality traits is not random but has evolved in the process of adaptation to the environment. Therefore, personality traits are consistent with individual life history strategies (Figueredo, Vásquez, Brumbach, & Schneider, 2007; Figueredo et al., 2005), and studies have empirically proven that Dark Triad personality traits are linked to life history strategy (Figueredo et al., 2005; Jonason et al., 2010). Specifically, life history theory emphasizes the long-term role of the environment in shaping personality; thus, the Dark Triad is no longer a group of personality traits of “maladjustment” and “need for treatment” but the result of an individual’s active adaptation to the environment (Qin & Xu, 2013).

Indeed, research has shown that the Dark Triad personality traits can at least partially develop due to environmental causes (Barlett, 2016; Qin & Xu, 2013). Family is the principal environment in which human development takes place and has been shown to influence Dark Triad personality traits. For example, Jonason, Lyons, and Bethell (2014) demonstrated that the quality of the parent–child relationship influences the development of Dark Triad personality traits among children, and path modeling suggests that the quality of parental care is negatively associated with different aspects of the Dark Triad. Families’ alienation and detachment can give rise to early maladaptive schemas from the “Disconnection and Rejection” schema domain (Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003). Children with these schemas have the expectation that others will hurt, cheat, lie, and manipulate; the children themselves also feel isolated and dismiss attachment (Láng & Birkás, 2014). Moreover, poor and vague family communication can be perceived by children as a form of involuntary deceit, and their deceitful behavior can be learned via observational social learning (Láng & Birkás, 2014). Therefore, the disconnection and rejection family context will lead to early maladaptive schemas, dismissal of attachment, and deceitful behavior social learning, which in turn will lead to children’s development of Dark Triad personality traits. Accordingly, PEW, as an important environmental factor, can provide a positive emotional climate in which parents raise their children (Spera, 2005). Therefore, children who perceive a high level of PEW likely have more understanding, encouraging and supportive parents and in turn are less likely to have Dark Triad personality traits. In contrast, children who perceive a low level of PEW likely receive less warmth and positive feedback from their parents and in turn are more likely to have Dark Triad personality traits. In sum, PEW may be negatively related to Dark Triad personality traits.

In conclusion, the current study aimed to examine whether PEW affects aggression through Dark Triad personality traits and ultimately reveal how PEW affects aggression. This study not only further clarifies the effect of PEW on aggression and its underlying mechanism but also provides theoretical guidance and an empirical basis for follow-up prevention and intervention of aggression. Moreover, previous research has found that age is closely related to the development of Dark Triad personality traits (Geng et al., 2018; Kavanagh, Signal, & Taylor, 2013). However, age differences have seldom been explicitly studied in the Dark Triad personality traits field (Carter, Campbell, Muncer, & Carter, 2015). Adolescence and emerging adulthood are key stages for aggression development (Jessor, 2017; Nelson, Springer, Nelson, & Bean, 2008), which has been shown to change over time (Loeber, Capaldi, & Costello, 2013). Therefore, we also examine age differences among these variables in the current study.

Based on the above literature review, we predicted that PEW would be negatively related to Dark Triad personality traits (Hypothesis 1) and that Dark Triad personality traits would be positively related to aggression (Hypothesis 2). Finally, we predicted that Dark Triad personality traits would mediate the association between PEW and aggression (Hypothesis 3).

Method

Sample and Procedure

We used a cross-sectional online questionnaire comprising questions designed to assess the relationship between the PEW, Dark Triad personality traits, and aggression. Our university academic ethics committee approved the study.

The sample was a convenience sample recruited by a researcher in charge of the data collection, and all participants were students. Prior to testing, all participants were fully informed about the general scope of the study and provided informed consent. Participants were given a link that opened the online consent form describing their rights as research participants. Only if they agreed to participate did the online survey appear. For those who declined to participate, the survey ended. For all others, the survey began with questions regarding demographics (e.g., age), followed by questions on PEW, the three personality traits of the Dark Triad, and aggression. The final sample comprised 530 student participants, including 241 adolescents (78.0% females) aged between 15 and 18 years (M = 17.24, SD = 1.00) and 289 young adults (85.8% females) aged between 19 and 23 years (M = 20.12, SD = 1.03).

Measures

PEW

PEW was assessed with the Short-Egma Minnen av Bardndosnauppforstran–Chinese (s-EMBU-C; Jiang, Lu, Jiang, & Xu, 2010), which was translated and revised from the Short-Egma Minnen av Bardndosnauppforstran (s-EMBU; Arrindell et al., 1999). The s-EMBU-C is reliable and has good construct-related and criterion-related validity (Jiang et al., 2010). PEW is one of the s-EMBU-C subscales. The PEW subscale consists of 14 self-report items, with seven items each for paternal and maternal emotional warmth (example item: I feel there is a warm, thoughtful and intimate feeling with my father/mother), which are answered using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (most of the time). The final score for PEW is calculated by averaging the item scores, with higher scores indicating higher levels of PEW. In the present study, the correlation between the two subscales was .83 (p < .001), and Cronbach’s alphas were .94 for PEW, .90 for paternal subscale, and .89 for maternal subscale.

Dark Triad

We assessed Dark Triad personality traits using the 12-item Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD; Jonason & Webster, 2010; translated into Chinese by Geng, Sun, Huang, Zhu, & Han, 2015) with four items for each subscale (example items from the Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism subscales, respectively: “I tend to manipulate others to get my way,” “I tend to lack remorse,” and “I tend to seek prestige or status”). Items designed to assess each trait are scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The final score for each subscale is calculated by averaging the item scores, with higher scores indicating higher levels of Dark Triad personality traits. The initial validation of the scale determined a clear factor structure and good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .90 for Machiavellianism, .76 for psychopathy, and .85 for narcissism; Geng et al., 2015). In the present study, Cronbach’s alphas were .78 for Machiavellianism, .71 for psychopathy, and .81 for narcissism.

Aggression

We assessed aggression using the Brief Aggression Questionnaire (BAQ; Webster et al., 2014; translated into Chinese by Teng, Nie, Pan, Liu, & Guo, 2017). This questionnaire includes four subscales describing individual differences in thoughts (e.g., hostility), emotions (e.g., anger), and behavior (e.g., verbal and physical aggression) that are intended to harm another person (Webster et al., 2014). The questionnaire consists of 12 items, with three items for each subscale (respective example items from the physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility subscales are “There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows,” “I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them,” “I have trouble controlling my temper,” and “Other people always seem to get the breaks”), which are answered on a 5-point Likert-type questionnaire from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The final score for each subscale and the total score are calculated by averaging the item scores, with higher scores indicating higher levels of aggression. This scale has a clear factor structure and good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α for the total scale was .81; Teng et al., 2017). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was .75.

Statistical Analyses

First, we summarized the correlations among the variables in our study. Then, structural equation model (SEM) analyses were performed with SPSS 22.0 to examine the relationships between PEW, Dark Triad personality traits, and aggression. The software package MPLUS 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012) was used to fit the proposed model to the data. SEM analyses were performed using the robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimator to account for the identified nonnormality of the data.

To control for possible inflation of measurement errors resulting from the use of multiple items to examine the latent variable, we adopted the internal consistency approach (Bandalos, 2008) to create separate item parcels for PEW and aggression according to its multidimensional structure. In brief, paternal and maternal emotional warmth were used as indicators of the PEW latent variable, and physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility were used as indicators of the aggression latent variable. Moreover, because the use of items as indicators would bring a higher level of error and place a higher proportion of error in specific areas of the model, we adopted random assignment (Matsunaga, 2008) to create separate item parcels for the single-dimensional variables of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism to obtain two indicators for each latent variable.

We used the following indices to evaluate the model’s data fit: the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The following values indicated a good model fit: >0.90 for the CFI and TLI, <0.06 for the RMSEA, and <0.08 for the SRMR (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among the Variables

Table 1 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables, which were calculated prior to the SEM analysis. Pearson’s correlations showed that there was no significant association between PEW and narcissism (p > .05).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables (N = 530).

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
PEW
Machiavellianism	−.19***
Psychopathy	−.18***	.41***
Narcissism	−.06	.26***	.17***
Aggression	−.13**	.39***	.32***	.20***
Physical aggression	−.11*	.37***	.27***	.14**	.75***
Verbal aggression	.08	.11*	.07	.05	.59***	.36***
Anger	−.14**	.27***	.26***	.11*	.71***	.36***	.17***
Hostility	−.17***	.32***	.26***	.23***	.75***	.43***	.22***	.39***
Age	−.02	.01	−.10*	.15**	−.12**	−.08	−.07	−.02	−.17***
Sex^a	−.02	−.06	−.03	−.03	−.02	−.15***	−.01	.15***	−.06	.10*
M	2.57	1.85	1.97	3.97	2.61	2.17	2.87	2.58	2.81	18.81
SD	0.68	1.03	1.10	1.48	0.55	0.73	0.68	0.86	0.85	1.76
Range	1-4	1-7	1-7	1-7	1-5	1-5	1-5	1-5	1-5	15-23

Note. PEW = parental emotional warmth.

Male = 0, female = 1.

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

Measurement Model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the data fit of the measurement model. This model included four latent variables (PEW, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and aggression) and 10 observed variables, and it showed a good data fit: χ²(29) = 74.58 (p < .001), χ²/df = 2.57, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05 (90% confidence interval [CI] = [0.04, 0.07]), SRMR = 0.04. All factor loadings for the indicators of the latent variables were significant (p < .001), indicating that all latent factors were well represented by their respective indicators.

Structural Model

The latent variable SEM was established to test the mediating roles of Machiavellianism and psychopathy in the relationship between PEW and aggression. In the whole process of data analysis, we incorporated gender as a control variable into the model because females were predominant in this study and there were significant correlations between gender and physical aggression and anger (see Table 1). We examined the model’s fit to determine whether the sample data we used were appropriate for the hypothesized model, and the fit indices indicated a good model fit: χ²(38) = 113.79 (p < .001), χ²/df = 2.99, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI = [0.05, 0.07]), SRMR = 0.05.

PEW significantly negatively predicted Machiavellianism (β = −0.23, p < .001) and psychopathy (β = −0.22, p < .001). Machiavellianism (β = 0.39, p < .001) and psychopathy (β = 0.24, p < .001) significantly positively predicted aggression, and the direct effect of PEW on aggression was not significant (β = −0.04, p > .05). Therefore, tests of the indirect effects indicated that Machiavellianism (β = −0.09, p < .001) and psychopathy (β = −0.05, p < .05) fully mediated the relationship between PEW and aggression. Then, bootstrapping tests (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) indicated that the mediating effects were significant (95% CI = [−0.15, −0.05] for Machiavellianism and 95% CI = [−0.11, −0.02] for psychopathy; see Figure 1 and Table 2).

Figure 1.

The structural equation model analysis performed to examine the pathways among PEW, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and aggression (N = 530).

Table 2.

Standardized Indirect Effects From PEW to Aggression (N = 530).

Indirect Effect	β (Standardized Indirect Effect)	SE	p	95% CI Standardized Indirect Effect
From PEW to aggression	−0.14	0.03	<.001	[−0.21, −0.09]
Via Machiavellianism	(−0.23) × (0.39) = −0.09	0.03	<.001	[−0.15, −0.05]
Via psychopathy	(−0.22) × (0.24) = −0.05	0.02	.010	[−0.11, −0.02]

Note. The narcissism was not included because there was no significant association between PEW and narcissism (see Table 1). PEW = parental emotional warmth; CI = confidence interval.

Finally, we used the “Model Constraint” commands to set auxiliary variables and limit the corresponding parameters to be equal (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012) to further examine the age difference (adolescents and young adults) in the mediation model. The model with all constraints released also yielded a good fit to the data: χ²(92) = 179.66 (p < .001), χ²/df = 1.95, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI = [0.05, 0.07]), SRMR = 0.06. The results showed that the mediating effects of Machiavellianism and psychopathy had no differences between the two age groups: Wald χ²(1) = 0.001, p = .97.

Discussion

In the current study, we found that PEW was significantly negatively related to Machiavellianism and psychopathy but not narcissism. Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism were positively related to aggression. More importantly, we found that the effect of PEW on aggression was fully mediated by Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Moreover, the mediating effects of Machiavellianism and psychopathy had no age differences between adolescents and young adults.

The finding that PEW was negatively related to Machiavellianism and psychopathy supports Hypothesis 1. The results suggest that PEW is an important environmental factor that influences individual personality development and support life history theory. Previous research has suggested that Machiavellianism is the Dark Triad trait most influenced by environmental variance (Jonason et al., 2014; Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008) and is largely learned from the family environment (Qin & Xu, 2013). As the main source of the antisocial nature of the Dark Triad, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism has common factors, such as callousness and ignoring traditional morality; this suggests that psychopathy is affected by PEW. Taken together, individuals who perceive a high level of PEW may have low Machiavellianism and psychopathy, whereas individuals who perceive low levels of PEW may have high Machiavellianism and psychopathy.

The results indicating that Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism were positively related to aggression provide support for Hypothesis 2. This result is consistent with previous findings (Dinić & Wertag, 2018; Lau & Marsee, 2013; Pabian et al., 2015). Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism are all antisocial personality traits that are independent and intertwined (Stellwagen, 2011). Therefore, the behavioral characteristics of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism have some commonalities, including self-righteousness, ruthlessness, inconsistency, and aggressiveness (Qin & Xu, 2013). In addition, according to the life history theory (Gadgil & Bossert, 1970; MacArthur & Wilson, 1967), the Dark Triad personality traits are linked to the life history strategy (Jonason et al., 2010). Among the Dark Triad personality traits, psychopathy best reflects the fast life strategy, which is expressed as risk taking, a lack of foresight, a need for quick rewards and satisfaction, and indulgence in tobacco, alcohol, and drugs (Jonason et al., 2010). Machiavellianism is also closely related to the fast life strategy; only narcissism is weakly correlated with the fast life strategy (Figueredo et al., 2005; Jonason et al., 2010). Taken together, individuals with high Dark Triad personality traits (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism) display more aggression, whereas those with low Dark Triad personality traits display less aggression.

The fact that Machiavellianism and psychopathy fully mediate the association between PEW and aggression supports Hypothesis 3. Possible explanations for this result are as follows. Individuals from a positive emotional climate in which parents raise their children (Spera, 2005) generally perceive a high level of PEW, which means that they perceive more emotional understanding, encouragement, and support from their parents. Thus, a high level of PEW helps reduce Machiavellianism characteristics, such as manipulative, callous, and superficial (Akram et al., 2018; Jonason, Jones, & Lyons, 2013), and psychopathy characteristics, such as lacking self-control, impulsive, adventurous, and callous (Akram et al., 2018; Palmer et al., 2017). Thus, for adolescents and young adults, lower Machiavellianism and psychopathy characteristics reduce aggression and in turn support adaptation. In contrast, individuals with low PEW receive less warmth and positive feedback from their parents, resulting in high Machiavellianism and psychopathy and in turn higher aggression.

Moreover, a notable finding was that the mediating effects of Machiavellianism and psychopathy had no age differences between adolescents and young adults. Participant age was significantly negatively correlated with aggression, which is consistent with the finding of a previous study (Barlett, 2016). Therefore, we tested age differences in the mediation model and found that the mediating model showed no significant age differences. The results indicated that the contributions of PEW, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy to aggression remain similar across adolescents and young adults.

This study has important implications for the prevention or intervention of aggression. First, the results advocate parents use positive parenting practices (i.e., PEW) to educate children, even young adults. Second, school administrators and teachers, especially school psychologists, should pay attention to the effects of PEW and Dark Triad personality traits on adolescent and young adult aggression. Finally, it is important to promote cooperation between the home and schools and conduct joint preventions or interventions of aggression to reduce or eliminate aggression by improving the level of PEW and reducing the level of Machiavellianism and psychopathy.

The current study has two main strengths. First, it expands our understanding of how PEW is related to aggression by highlighting the roles of Machiavellianism and psychopathy, which clinically suggests that paying attention to PEW, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy in adolescents and young adults could yield a better understanding of their current and continuous functioning, especially aggression. Second, previous studies on Dark Triad personality traits (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism) have mostly been carried out in the context of Western culture. In the current study, we tested Chinese adolescents and young adults and confirmed, to a certain degree, the cross-cultural applicability of the Dark Triad personality traits.

There are also some limitations that deserve discussion. First, we performed a cross-sectional study; therefore, a causal relationship could not be established, for example, higher the Dark Triad traits may influence how a child views his or her parents. Further longitudinal or experimental studies are needed to replicate the findings. Second, we used self-reported measures for all variables. Future studies could use multiple methods, such as parent reports to measure PEW as perceived PEW may be quite different from the actual behaviors or characteristics of the parents themselves, and teacher or peer reports to measure Dark Triad personality traits and aggression. Third, the participants were predominantly females. Even if the gender variable was controlled, caution would be required in generalizing the results of this study to males. Future research could test sufficient numbers of both genders to be able to examine them separately. Finally, the finding of the association between PEW and narcissism was inconsistent with the findings of previous similar studies (Jonason et al., 2014; Winner & Nicholson, 2018). A possible explanation is that the understanding of the narcissism items may differ across cultures. For example, the item of “I tend to seek prestige or status” is consistent with the connotation of “People go up, water flows down” in Chinese culture, that is, it is quite possible a positive description in Chinese culture, which may make individuals with low narcissistic show their pursuit of prestige and status. Thus, future research should improve the narcissism items or use other instruments to assess narcissism.

Conclusion

PEW is significantly negatively related to aggression among Chinese adolescents and young adults, and Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent one mechanism underlying this relationship. Moreover, the mediating model showed no significant age differences between adolescents and young adults. The results suggest that PEW, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy are important predictive factors for adolescents’ and young adults’ aggression.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Guangzeng Liu and Yayun Meng are both the first authors as they contributed equally to this article.

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.

ORCID iD

Dajun Zhang

Author Biographies

Guangzeng Liu is a Doctoral Student in the Faculty of Psychology & Research Center of Mental Health Education at Southwest University. His research focuses on mental health of children and adolescents.

Yayun Meng is a teacher of psychology in the Hechi University. His research focuses on mental health of children and adolescents.

Yangu Pan is a PhD in the Research Institute of Social Development at Southwestern University of Finance and Economics. His research focuses on attachment and mental health of children and adolescents.

Yuanxiao Ma is a Doctoral Student in the Faculty of Psychology at Southwest University. His research focuses on attachment and mental health of adults.

Dajun Zhang is a Professor in the Faculty of Psychology & Research Center of Mental Health Education at Southwest University. His research focuses on mental health of children and adolescents, and teaching psychology.

References

Akram

Allen

McCarty

Gardani

Tan

Villarreal

. . . Mills

(2018). The relationship between insomnia symptoms and the Dark Triad personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 212-215.

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 296-323.

Anderson

Cheers

(2018). Does the Dark Triad predict prejudice? The role of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism in explaining negativity toward asylum seekers. Australian Psychologist, 53, 271-281.

Arrindell

W. A.

Sanavio

Aguilar

Sica

Hatzichristou

Eisemann

. . . Kállai

(1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU: Its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 613-628.

Bandalos

D. L.

(2008). Is parceling really necessary? A comparison of results from item parceling and categorical variable methodology. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 211-240.

Barlett

C. P.

(2016). Exploring the correlations between emerging adulthood, Dark Triad traits, and aggressive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 293-298.

Baumrind

(1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.

Carter

G. L.

Campbell

A. C.

Muncer

Carter

K. A.

(2015). A Mokken analysis of the Dark Triad “Dirty Dozen”: Sex and age differences in scale structures, and issues with individual items. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 185-191.

Chang

Y. O.

(2014). Associations between adolescent-perceived parenting styles and aggressive behavior. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 21, 313-341.

10.

Dinić

B. M.

Wertag

(2018). Effects of Dark Triad and HEXACO traits on reactive/proactive aggression: Exploring the gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 44-49.

11.

Figueredo

A. J.

Vásquez

Brumbach

B. H.

Schneider

S. M.

(2007). The K-factor, covitality, and personality. Human Nature, 18, 47-73.

12.

Figueredo

A. J.

Vásquez

Brumbach

B. H.

Sefcek

J. A.

Kirsner

B. R.

Jacobs

W. J.

(2005). The K-factor: Individual differences in life history strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1349-1360.

13.

Gadgil

Bossert

W. H.

(1970). Life historical consequences of natural selection. The American Naturalist, 104, 1-24.

14.

Geng

Y. G.

Guo

W. W.

Wang

C. D.

Yang

Z. H.

Yan

F. Y.

Fan

W. J.

Sai

X. Y.

(2018). The effects of forgiveness on aggression: The roles of psychopathy and narcissism. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 294-298.

15.

Geng

Y. G.

Sun

Q. B.

Huang

J. Y.

Zhu

Y. Z.

Han

X. H.

(2015). Dirty dozen and short Dark Triad: A Chinese validation of two brief measures of the Dark Triad. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 246-250.

16.

Hodson

Hogg

S. M.

MacInnis

C. C.

(2009). The role of “dark personalities” (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 686-690.

17.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

18.

Jessor

(2017). Problem behavior theory and adolescent health. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

19.

Jiang

Z. R.

Jiang

B. J.

(2010). Revision of the short-form Egna Minnen av Barndoms Uppfostran for Chinese. Psychological Development and Education, 26, 94-99.

20.

Jonason

P. K.

Jones

Lyons

(2013). Creatures of the night: Chronotypes and the Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 538-541.

21.

Jonason

P. K.

Koenig

B. L.

Tost

(2010). Living a fast life. Human Nature, 21, 428-442.

22.

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.

23.

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.

24.

Jonason

P. K.

Webster

G. D.

(2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420-432.

25.

Kabasakal

Baş

A. U.

(2010). A research on some variables regarding the frequency of violent and aggressive behaviors among elementary school students and their families. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 582-586.

26.

Kavanagh

P. S.

Signal

T. D.

Taylor

(2013). The Dark Triad and animal cruelty: Dark personalities, dark attitudes, and dark behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 666-670.

27.

Khaleque

(2013). Perceived parental warmth, and children’s psychological adjustment, and personality dispositions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 297-306.

28.

Láng

Birkás

(2014). Machiavellianism and perceived family functioning in adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 69-74.

29.

Lau

K. S.

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.

30.

Llorca

Richaud

M. C.

Malonda

(2017). Parenting styles, prosocial, and aggressive behavior: The role of emotions in offender and non-offender adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1246.

31.

Loeber

Capaldi

D. M.

Costello

(2013). Gender and the development of aggression, disruptive behavior, and delinquency from childhood to early adulthood. In Tolan

P. H.

Leventhal

B. L.

(Eds.), Disruptive behavior disorders (pp. 137-160). New York, NY: Springer.

32.

MacArthur

R. H.

Wilson

E. O.

(1967). The theory of island geography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

33.

Matsunaga

(2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2, 260-293.

34.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

35.

Nelson

D. A.

Springer

M. M.

Nelson

L. J.

Bean

N. H.

(2008). Normative beliefs regarding aggression in emerging adulthood. Social Development, 17, 638-660.

36.

Pabian

De Backer

C. J.

Vandebosch

(2015). Dark Triad personality traits and adolescent cyber-aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 41-46.

37.

Palmer

J. C.

Komarraju

Carter

M. Z.

Karau

S. J.

(2017). Angel on one shoulder: Can perceived organizational support moderate the relationship between the Dark Triad traits and counterproductive work behavior? Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 31-37.

38.

Paulhus

D. L.

Williams

K. M.

(2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563.

39.

Perris

Jacobsson

Linndström

von Knorring

Perris

(1980). Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 61, 265-274.

40.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.

41.

Qin

(2013). Review on the studies of the Dark Triad. Advances in Psychological Science, 21, 1248-1261.

42.

Rushton

J. P.

(2004). Placing intelligence into an evolutionary framework or how g fits into the r–K matrix of life-history traits including longevity. Intelligence, 32, 321-328.

43.

Sabouri

Gerber

Lemola

Becker

S. P.

Shamsi

Shakouri

. . . Brand

(2016). Examining Dark Triad traits in relation to sleep disturbances, anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty in young adults. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 68, 103-110.

44.

Spera

(2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125-146.

45.

Stellwagen

K. K.

(2011). Psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism: Distinct yet intertwining personality constructs. In Barry

C. T.

Kerig

P. K.

Stellwagen

K. K.

Barry

T. D.

(Eds.), Narcissism and Machiavellianism in youth: Implications for the development of adaptive and maladaptive behavior (pp. 25-45). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

46.

Szabó

Bereczkei

(2017). Different paths to different strategies? Unique associations among facets of the Dark Triad, empathy, and trait emotional intelligence. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13, 306-313.

47.

Teng

Nie

Pan

Liu

Guo

(2017). A cross-lagged model of the relationship between violent video game exposure and moral disengagement in middle school and high school students. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 117-123.

48.

Van 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 Differences, 106, 231-235.

49.

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.

50.

Webster

G. D.

DeWall

C. N.

Pond

R. S.

Jr. Deckman

Jonason

P. K.

B. M.

. . . Smith

C. V.

(2014). The brief aggression questionnaire: Psychometric and behavioral evidence for an efficient measure of trait aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 120-139.

51.

Winner

N. A.

Nicholson

B. C.

(2018). Overparenting and narcissism in young adults: The mediating role of psychological control. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 3650-3657.

52.

Zhang

Cheng

Rost

D. H.

(2015). Parental emotional warmth and psychological Suzhi as mediators between socioeconomic status and problem behaviours in Chinese children. Children and Youth Services Review, 59, 132-138.

53.

Young

J. E.

Klosko

J. S.

Weishaar

M. E.

(2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.