Validation of the Five-Factor Model Antagonistic Triad Measure

Abstract

The personality constructs psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism, collectively described as the Dark Triad (DT), all reference socially aversive behavioral tendencies. Each construct is theorized to have features that differentiate it from others. Unfortunately, existing measures of the DT suffer from several problems. The present study compared newly developed measures of psychopathy (Super-Short Form of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment), narcissism (Super-Short Form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory), and Machiavellianism (Super-Short Form of the Five-Factor Machiavellianism Inventory [FFMI-SSF] based on the Five-Factor Model of personality)—collectively referred to as the Five-Factor Model Antagonistic Triad Measure—to existing DT inventories using a sample of undergraduate students (N = 516). As predicted, FFMI-SSF showed better divergence from measures of psychopathy and better convergence with the expert Five-Factor Model (FFM) Machiavellianism profile than did existing Machiavellianism measures. Results also demonstrated that the factors within each FFM assessment manifested differentiated correlational profiles, underscoring the utility of the multifaceted assessment of these three constructs. In addition, the use of the FFM as the basis for the new DT measures provides a pathway for the integration of DT research into the larger field of basic and clinical personality science.

Keywords

antagonism psychopathy narcissism Machiavellianism Dark Triad Five-Factor Model

The Dark Triad (DT) is the term coined by Paulhus and Williams (2002) to describe three related but putatively distinct personality constructs—psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Each is composed of a combination of traits, but all three include traits that can be socially aversive such as grandiosity, manipulativeness, and callousness (Paulhus and Williams, 2002). All three constructs are defined by antagonistic tendencies (low Agreeableness) that comprise their “core,” including interpersonal manipulativeness and arrogance (Vize et al., 2020). Despite these similarities (i.e., meta-analytic rs range from .35 for Machiavellianism and narcissism to .52 for Machiavellianism and psychopathy; Vize, Miller, & Lynam, 2018), the three constructs have been shown to be somewhat distinguishable (Paulhus and Williams, 2002), leading to an increased interest in research aimed at describing the similarities and differences among these constructs. For a variety of reasons (see Miller et al., 2019), we object to the use of the term “Dark” in this research area and believe it is sensationalistic, stigmatizing, and provides little to no guidance as to what constructs do and do not fall under its purview. We use it reluctantly here in accordance with the literature.

Psychopathy comprises traits related to self-centeredness, callousness, manipulativeness, superficial charm, impulsivity, and irresponsibility and demonstrates a robust link with antisocial behavior (Neumann et al., 2015). Although this construct was described in detail by Cleckley (1941), it became the focus of substantial empirical attention following Hare’s (1991, 2003) development of the Psychopathy Checklist and its revision. Since that time, multiple self-report inventories have been developed (e.g., Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; Patrick, 2010; Psychopathic Personality Inventory; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996), all of which assess two core domains dealing with interpersonal antagonism (e.g., callousness, selfishness, manipulative use of others) and poor impulse control (e.g., impulsivity, irresponsibility) and some of which also assess traits related to low anxiety and high social dominance (Miller & Lynam, 2015; Patrick et al., 2009).

Although overlapping with psychopathy in relation to grandiosity, selfishness, callousness, and a willingness to manipulate others, narcissism is generally unassociated with impulsivity, with the exception of a penchant for risk taking, and a gregarious and assertive interpersonal style. A prominent focus for Freud (1914/1957) and other psychodynamic scholars from a theoretical and case study approach, narcissism became a reasonably popular focus of empirical study (e.g., Campbell & Miller, 2011; Hermann et al., 2018 for edited handbooks) upon its inclusion in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association, 1980). Modern research has revealed that there are at least two dimensions of narcissism—grandiose and vulnerable—that are only modestly related and have substantially different nomological networks (Miller et al., 2011; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). Both narcissism dimensions involve a central feature of interpersonal antagonism. The quintessential (grandiose) narcissistic individual exhibits extraverted, attention-seeking, and egocentric behaviors as well as a drive for interpersonal dominance. Although grandiose narcissism is positively related to self-esteem, vulnerable narcissism is negatively related and is instead related to pervasive negative affectivity, introversion, and disinhibition, as well as egocentrism, callousness, and distrustfulness. As a clinical construct, narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) has been studied as it relates to antisocial behavior such as criminality as well as its comorbidity with DSM Axis I disorders such as substance use and bipolar disorders (e.g., Stinson et al., 2008).

Machiavellianism is defined as the tendency to behave in an interpersonally manipulative, self-serving manner, including the planful exploitation of others to achieve personal goals. This construct is based on the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian politician who endorsed cruel and inhumane acts to obtain and/or maintain power. Conceptually, Machiavellianism includes traits such as manipulativeness, deceitfulness, callousness, ambitiousness, planned behaviors (as opposed to impulsive behaviors), and the ability to withhold gratification. The construct is related to deception and lying, leadership and political skill, and emotional intelligence (e.g., Austin et al., 2007; Blickle et al., 2020; Geis & Moon, 1981; Jones & Paulhus, 2014).

Problems With Existing Inventories

The DT was initially assessed with three independent self-report inventories: the 64-item Self-report Psychopathy Scale III (SRP-III; Paulhus et al., in press), the 40-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988), and the 20-item MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970). For a variety of reasons (efficiency; copyright), several researchers created shorter, omnibus measures of the DT. There are currently two widely used inventories that assess all three DT constructs simultaneously, but they both suffer from two problems—lack of sufficient construct validity in the measurement of Machiavellianism and an assumption of unidimensionality for each DT construct. The Dirty Dozen (DD; Jonason & Webster, 2010) is a 12-item self-report. The Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) is a 27-item self-report. Both measures have been criticized for their lack of both discriminant validity (Vize, Lynam et al., 2018) and construct validity (Maples, Lamkin, et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012), although the problems are more pervasive for the DD (e.g., Schreiber & Marcus, 2020). In Vize et al.’s meta-analysis of the DT constructs, the nomological networks of psychopathy and Machiavellianism were so similar that none of the effect sizes for the various criteria differed significantly across them, although narcissism was relatively distinct. The reason for Machiavellianism and psychopathy’s largely identical nomological net is that current Machiavellianism measures assess a construct more akin to psychopathy than to Machiavellianism (Miller et al., 2017). For example, expert ratings of each of the three DT constructs on the 30 facets of the Five-Factor Model (FFM; Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Miller et al., 2001, 2017) reveal a clear theoretical distinction between Machiavellianism and psychopathy in relation to Conscientiousness (low in psychopathy; average in Machiavellianism); however, the existing self-report measures of Machiavellianism fail to capture these differences. When compared with external criteria, the empirical personality trait profiles generated by DD and SD3 Machiavellianism scales diverge from the theoretical definition of Machiavellianism and look nearly identical to psychopathy scales, resulting in DT inventories that, in our opinion, essentially contain one narcissism scale and two psychopathy scales.

A second substantial problem with these two omnibus measures is that, unlike their original measurement via the SRP-III, NPI, and MACH-IV, they only yield total scores for each construct. These constructs are not unidimensional. Psychopathy and narcissism are widely regarded as multidimensional in nature such that they are compilations of various traits or clusters of traits. For example, all major psychopathy measures have subscales for antagonism and disinhibition, with many containing additional subscales as well that tap low Neuroticism and high Extraversion (often labeled fearless dominance or boldness). There is emerging consensus that narcissism is better studied at the two- (grandiose and vulnerable) or three-factor (interpersonal antagonism, agentic extraversion, and neuroticism) levels (Crowe et al., 2018). For instance, grandiose narcissism, which is the form of narcissism targeted in DT research, comprises an extraversion/agency component (also called admiration; Back et al., 2013) and an antagonism component (also called rivalry), and the two have distinct nomological networks that are missed if combined. Although studied less frequently, Machiavellianism also appears to be multidimensional as well (Monaghan et al., 2020). Recognizing that the DT constructs are multidimensional provides the ability to break down each construct into its respective trait components so as to develop a more comprehensive and specific understanding of their individual correlates. This allows researchers to examine the shared and unshared elements, whereas giving only total scores ultimately limits the degree to which researchers can understand the similarities and differences between the constructs. A second advantage is that within each DT construct, one can ask which aspects of that construct give rise to which behaviors associated with the construct (e.g., for psychopathy, antagonism/meanness and disinhibition tend to be stronger correlates of externalizing behaviors than boldness (Sleep et al., 2019) and fearless dominance (Miller & Lynam, 2012).

Recently, work has addressed both of these issues by developing self-report inventories based on the traits of the FFM of personality for psychopathy (Elemental Psychopathy Assessment; Lynam et al., 2011), narcissism (Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory; Glover et al., 2012), and Machiavellianism (Five-Factor Machiavellianism Inventory; Collison et al., 2018). The FFM is a useful model for conceptualizing both normal-range personality and personality disorders (e.g., Widiger & Costa, 2013). The model is made up of five broad domains of personality: Agreeableness, Openness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Extraversion, with each domain further broken down into six distinct traits or facets. This hierarchical nature is ideal for deconstructing broad personality constructs into finer, more basic units and is well aligned with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-V; APA, 2013) Alternative Model of Personality Disorder as well as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP; Kotov et al., 2017).

The FFM inventories for the DT constructs were created using expert ratings on the 30 facets of the FFM (psychopathy: Miller et al., 2001; NPD: Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Machiavellianism: Miller et al., 2017). To create these inventories, items were written to assess more maladaptive or DT-specific variants of the traits, administered to a large sample, and subjected to final selection. Validation analyses provided support for the construct validity of each assessment, and factor analyses revealed the underlying multidimensional structure of each inventory. Super-short forms of each inventory were recently created for easier administration. Each super-short form inventory has three component pieces, corresponding to the three subscales for each. The Super-Short Form of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA-SSF) (Collison et al., 2016) contains subscales titled Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Emotional Stability. The Super-Short Form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI-SSF; Packer West et al., in press) contains subscales titled Antagonism, Neuroticism, and Agentic Extraversion and can also be scored into two conceptually-driven composites—Vulnerable and Grandiose Narcissism. Finally, the Super-Short Form of the Five-Factor Machiavellianism Inventory (FFMI-SSF; Du et al., 2021) contains the subscales Antagonism, Agency, and Planfulness. Together these three super short forms compose the Five-Factor Model Antagonistic Triad Measure (FFM ATM).

The goal of the present study is to compare the utility of the FFM ATM with two existing omnibus DT inventories—the DD and SD3. We first compare the FFM ATM to existing DT measures, expert FFM ratings for the individual constructs, and a variety of other criteria chosen to differentiate among the constructs (e.g., interpersonal style, impulsivity, aggression, antisocial behavior, and political skill). We hypothesized that (a) the FFM profiles and criterion measure profiles for FFNI-SSF and EPA-SSF will converge with the corresponding psychopathy and narcissism profiles from the existing DD and SD3 measures, (b) the FFM profile for the FFMI-SSF will more closely resemble experts’ FFM Machiavellianism profile than the FFM profiles of existing Machiavellianism inventories, (c) the external correlates of the FFMI-SSF will be less similar to the correlates of the psychopathy inventories than existing Machiavellianism measures and will more closely approximate theoretical descriptions, and (d) subscales within the FFM measures will diverge from one another in terms of their correlational profiles—highlighting the utility of working with lower-order scales.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants (N = 600) were undergraduates recruited from an introductory psychology course who received research credits in exchange for their participation. To rule out invalid responses, participant data were excluded if they exhibited an invalid response style on the EPA Infrequency (n = 3) and/or Virtue (n = 8) scales, incorrectly answered ≥3 out of 8 attention-check items (n = 24), answered in a single-response style (e.g., all 1s; n = 7), or completed the survey in an amount of time indicative of invalid responding (≤ 500 s; n = 42). After these exclusions were made, self-report data were available for 516 individuals (63% female; 72% White, 20% Asian, 3% Black; 6% Hispanic or Latino; 87% Straight or Heterosexual, 9% Bisexual, 1% Gay or Lesbian, 1% Other). Institutional review board approval was obtained for all aspects of the study, and the preregistration can be found at https://aspredicted.org/2qi6y.pdf.

Measures

DT and Construct Measures

The Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) consists of 27 items, nine items each for psychopathy (α = .74), narcissism (α = .68), and Machiavellianism (α = .76). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Dirty Dozen (DD; Jonason & Webster, 2010) is a 12-item measure of the DT that gives total scores for psychopathy (α = .78), narcissism (α = .82), and Machiavellianism (α = .81).

The FFM Antagonistic Traits Measure is composed of super-short form versions of three FFM assessments; the omnibus inventory may be obtained here: https://osf.io/2jvxb. The EPA-SSF (Collison et al., 2016) uses 18 items to assess psychopathy. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Disagree Strongly” to “Agree Strongly.” This inventory gives a total score (α = .70) as well as scores on each of three subscales: Antagonism (α = .61), Emotional Stability (α = .66), and Disinhibition (α = .68). The FFMI-SSF (Du et al., 2021) is a 15-item self-report measure of Machiavellianism that gives a total score (α=.51) as well as scores on each of three subscales: Antagonism (α = .56), Agency (α = .62), and Planning (α = .73). FFNI-SSF (Packer West et al., in press) is a 15 item self-report measure of narcissism that gives a total score (α = .55), scores for the Vulnerable (α= .52) and Grandiose (α = .64) narcissism composites, as well as scores for Antagonism (α = .72), Neuroticism (α = .64), and Agentic Extraversion subscales (α = .49).¹

Criterion Measures

The International Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO PI-R short form (IPIP 120; Maples, Guan, et al., 2014 is a 120-item measure of the 30 facets of the five domains of the FFM. (αs range = .65–.89)

The Crime and Analogous Behavior Scale (CAB; Miller & Lynam, 2003) is a 55-item self-report measure of externalizing behaviors and yields five composites: alcohol/drug use, property crime, violent crime, total crime, and risky sexual behavior.

The UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale (UPPS-P; Lynam et al., 2006) uses 59 items answered on a 4-point Likert-type scale to assess lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, sensation-seeking, and both positive and negative urgency. (αs range = .83–.94)

The Reactive and Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al., 2006) is a 23-item self-report measure of proactive (11 items; α = .80) and reactive aggression (12 items; α = .81).

The Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS)/Behavioral Activtation Sytem (BAS) Drive Scale (Carver & White, 1994) assesses two general motivational systems using 24 items. Three subscales comprised the BAS scale: Drive (α = .70), Fun-seeking (α = .64), and Reward Responsiveness (α = .63). There is only one BIS scale (α = .79).

The Aspiration Index (Kasser & Ryan, 1996) assesses extrinsic aspirations (i.e., wealth, fame, and image; α=.90) and intrinsic aspirations (i.e., meaningful relationships, personal growth, and community contributions; α=.85).

The Political Skill Inventory (Ferris et al., 2005) is a self-report measure of political skill and is measured using a 7-point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” It contains four subscales: Networking Ability (NA; α = .91), Interpersonal Influence (II; α = .82), Social Astuteness (SA; α = .79), and Apparent Sincerity (AS; α = .82).

The Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R; Wiggins et al., 1988) assesses the interpersonal dimensions of dominance and warmth by requiring participants to self-report how well each of 64 adjectives describes them on an eight-point scale ranging from “Extremely Inaccurate” to “Extremely Accurate” (α range = .73–.91).

Results

Total Score Results

Convergent and Divergent Correlations

First, we calculated correlations between each of the constructs as measured by the SD3, DD, and the FFM ATM² (see Table 1). Convergent correlations for psychopathy inventories ranged from .44 to .56. Convergence between FFM ATM Grandiose and SD3 narcissism was higher than the convergences of DD Narcissism with FFM ATM Grandiose and SD3 narcissism (i.e., .49 vs .34 and .29).³ As expected, the FFM ATM Machiavellianism correlated more weakly with SD3 and DD Machiavellianism than the latter two correlated with one another (i.e., .28 and .14 vs .47). Within inventory divergent, correlations were generally highest for the DD scales with DD Machiavellianism being strongly correlated with DD Psychopathy and Narcissism. The divergent correlation of .46 for SD3 Psychopathy and Machiavellianism was also high; it is the highest correlation obtained by SD3 Machiavellianism and the second highest obtained for SD3 Psychopathy. The FFM ATM scales showed better divergent validity than observed for the other two measures. The FFM ATM Psychopathy and Machiavellianism scales correlated at only .26. The correlation between the FFM ATM Psychopathy scale and Grandiose Narcissism scale was somewhat high (r = .44), it was still below both of the convergent correlations for the FFM ATM Psychopathy scale and below the convergent correlation of FFM ATM Grandiose Narcissism with DD Narcissism.

Table 1.

Correlations Between DT Construct Measures.

Criteria	FFM ATM Grandiose	FFM ATM MACH	SD3 PSY	SD3 NAR	SD3 MACH	DD PSY	DD NAR	DD MACH
FFM ATM PSY	.62	.26	.56	.33	.36	.52	.24	.40
FFM ATM Grandiose		.32	.49	.49	.46	.37	.34	.42
FFM ATM MACH			.06	.39	.28	.30	.03	.14
SD3 PSY				.25	.46	.44	.29	.43
SD3 NAR					.18	.07	.29	.13
SD3 MACH						.39	.30	.47
DD PSY							.29	.53
DD NAR								.47

Note. Bold values indicate convergent correlations, cell outlines indicate divergent correlations, and any correlation greater than .07 is statistically significant at p < .1, FFM ATM = Five-Factor Model Antagonistic Triad Measure; SD3 = Short Dark Triad; DD = Dirty Dozen; PSY = Psychopathy; NAR = Narcissism; MACH = Machiavellianism.

We conducted a series of regressions (not preregistered, so exploratory in nature; see Table 2) in which each inventory was regressed on to the other two inventories within a given construct. (e.g., DD Psychopathy regressed on SD3 and FFM ATM Psychopathy). This analysis provides information on the relative breadth of coverage provided by each inventory. For psychopathy, the FFM measure accounts for the most unique variance, followed by the SD3. Results are similar for narcissism, except that DD Narcissism overlaps less with the other two inventories compared with DD Psychopathy—the FFNI and SD3 Narcissism scales account for only 14% of the variance in DD narcissism. Results for Machiavellianism indicate that FFM Machiavellianism overlaps very little with the others, as expected; DD and SD3 Machiavellianism scales account for only 8% of the variance in the FFMI.

Table 2.

Regression of Single Inventory Onto Other Two Inventories Within a Given Construct.

Model	PSY		NAR		MACH
Model	R ²	SR²	R ²	SR²	R ²	SR ²
DV = FFM	.41		.28		.08
SD3		.13		.16		.06
DD		.10		.04		.00
DV = DD	.30		.14		.23
SD3		.03		.02		.21
FFM		.11		.05		.00
DV = SD3	.34		.25		.27
FFM		.15		.17		.05
DD		.03		.02		.19

Note. R² = proportion of variance accounted for in the DV by the other two scales. Sr² = proportion of variance accounted for by one of the scales over and above the other. FFM = Five-Factor Model; SD3 = Short Dark Triad; DD = Dirty Dozen; PSY = Psychopathy; NAR = Narcissism; MACH = Machiavellianism; DV = dependent variable.

IPIP Personality Profile Analyses

Next, we calculated correlations between each inventory and the 30 facets of the FFM as measured by the IPIP NEO-120 (see Table 3). Expert ratings for each construct are included in the last three columns. Although we will not describe these relations in any detail, preferring to discuss the similarities of these correlational profiles to one another and to the expert ratings, we note two general findings. First, all scales are generally negatively correlated with all facets of Agreeableness. Second, the FFMI-SSF is the only Machiavellianism scale associated with good impulse control as evidenced by its negative correlations with impulsiveness (N5) and positive correlations with all facets of Conscientiousness. In fact, the latter correlations for FFM Machiavellianism are all significantly different than those observed for DD Machiavellianism and SD3 Machiavellianism.

Table 3.

Correlations Between DT Construct Measures and FFM Facets With Profile Similarities.

FFM Facets	FFM ATM PSY	FFM ATMGrand	FFM ATMMACH	SD3 PSY	SD3 NAR	SD3 MACH	DD PSY	DD NAR	DD MACH	Expert PSY	Expert NAR	Expert MACH
Anxiety (N1)	−.40	−.21	−.39	−.06	−.24	.00	−.14	.15	.01	1.47	2.33	2.39
Anger (N2)	.11	.09	−.13	.18	.03	.09	.07	.13	.16	3.87	4.08	3.28
Depression (N3)	−.07	−.08	−.49	.16	−.38	.08	.09	.09	.12	1.40	2.42	2.94
Self-consciousness (N4)	−.40	−.33	−.45	−.07	−.41	−.06	−.11	.09	−.03	1.07	1.50	1.92
Impulsiveness (N5)	.08	.08	−.24	.18	−.08	.07	.09	.19	.14	4.53	3.17	2.08
Vulnerability (N6)	−.24	−.14	−.46	.09	−.24	.03	−.06	.17	.08	1.47	2.92	1.92
Warmth (E1)	.18	.18	.14	−.02	.41	−.09	−.15	.05	.01	1.73	1.42	2.06
Gregariousness (E2)	.23	.27	.05	.10	.39	−.01	−.10	.11	.07	3.67	3.83	3.39
Assertiveness (E3)	.27	.35	.41	.01	.51	.06	.01	.09	.07	4.47	4.67	4.14
Activity (E4)	.06	.12	.22	−.14	.21	−.09	−.09	−.05	−.01	3.67	3.67	3.78
Excitement (E5)	.44	.37	−.02	.27	.33	.01	.05	.16	.12	4.73	4.17	2.81
Positivity (E6)	.05	.12	.15	−.14	.39	−.18	−.26	−.02	−.11	2.53	3.33	2.72
Fantasy (O1)	.07	.–08	−.22	.13	−.04	.03	.04	.09	.09	3.07	3.75	2.28
Aesthetics (O2)	−.03	−.01	−.23	−.05	−.04	−.16	−.14	.00	−.03	2.33	3.25	2.77
Feelings (O3)	−.28	−.14	−.38	−.07	−.05	−.15	−.25	.06	−.05	1.80	1.92	3.31
Actions (O4)	.16	.08	.05	.06	.10	−.10	−.06	−.09	−.07	4.27	4.08	2.94
Ideas (O5)	.05	.02	−.01	.02	.05	−.08	.04	.00	.03	3.53	2.92	2.78
Values (O6)	−.04	−.11	−.22	.12	−.19	−.05	.00	−.01	.04	2.87	2.67	3.03
Trust (A1)	−.15	−.17	−.10	−.22	.07	−.36	−.31	−.05	−.19	1.73	1.42	1.42
Straightforwardness (A2)	−.53	−.50	−.17	−.55	−.23	−.51	−.47	−.39	−.61	1.13	1.83	1.28
Altruism (A3)	−.30	−.22	−.23	−.35	.04	−.35	−.48	−.14	−.22	1.33	1.00	1.28
Compliance (A4)	−.52	−.43	−.20	−.54	−.19	−.41	−.45	−.21	−.32	1.33	1.58	2.08
Modesty (A5)	−.37	−.45	−.50	−.24	−.54	−.29	−.25	−.34	−.29	1.00	1.08	1.89
Tendermindedness (A6)	−.36	−.33	−.40	−.26	−.20	−.36	−.38	−.07	−.14	1.27	1.50	1.36
Competence (C1)	−.03	.03	.44	−.29	.30	−.13	−.08	−.07	−.12	4.20	3.25	3.69
Order (C2)	−.18	−.11	.19	−.32	.09	−.16	−.23	−.10	−.18	2.60	2.92	3.97
Dutifulness (C3)	−.29	−.22	.12	−.42	.03	−.26	−.34	−.26	−.35	1.20	2.42	2.53
Achievement (C4)	−.11	.01	.32	−.30	.27	−.12	−.08	.01	−.11	3.07	3.92	3.86
Self-discipline (C5)	−.06	−.01	.38	−.26	.18	−.15	−.10	−.10	−.13	1.87	2.08	3.42
Deliberation (C6)	−.44	−.24	.32	−.41	−.05	−.06	−.16	−.10	−.17	1.60	2.25	3.78
Profile Similarities
FFM ATM PSY		.94	.39	.71	.61	.54	.62	.42	.63	.83	.74	.43
FFM ATM Grandiose			.49	.64	.74	.58	.58	.56	.68	.82	.78	.55
FFM ATM MACH				−.25	.76	.04	.07	−.10	−.07	.47	.45	.67
SD3 PSY					.03	.77	.78	.65	.86	.55	.53	.14
SD3 NAR						.05	.01	.18	.15	.61	.56	.51
SD3 MACH							.91	.63	.85	.55	.64	.51
DD PSY								.48	.77	.66	.66	.49
DD NAR									.86	.46	.48	.23
DD MACH										.56	.54	.34
Expert PSY											.85	.54
Expert NAR												.65

Note. Bold values indicate convergent correlations, bold cell outlines indicate divergent correlations, any correlation greater than .09 is statistically significant at p < .05, and any correlation greater than .11 is significant at p < .01. FFM ATM = Five-Factor Model Antagonistic Triad Measure; SD3 = Short Dark Triad; DD = Dirty Dozen; PSY = Psychopathy; NAR = Narcissism; MACH = Machiavellianism.

Profile similarity correlations, at the bottom of Table 3, indicate the degree of absolute similarity among the correlational profiles for each measure and with expert ratings (see McCrae, 2008 for a review of this approach).⁴ These similarity coefficients among measures are calculated as double-entry correlations, which capture similarity in both shape and magnitude; because they use different metrics, however, similarity coefficients for expert ratings are calculated as simple zero-order correlations. The psychopathy inventories showed reasonable convergent validity (ranging from .62 to .78). FFM ATM Grandiose Narcissism scale demonstrated good convergent validity with SD3 Narcissism but showed slightly stronger similarities to DD Psychopathy and DD Machiavellianism than DD Narcissism (.58 and .68 vs .56). The similarity between SD3 and DD Narcissism profiles is particularly low (.18). The FFM ATM Machiavellianism trait profile did not converge with SD3 Machiavellianism or DD Machiavellianism, but the latter two do converge with each other (.04 and −.07 vs .85). The FFM ATM within-inventory divergent similarities are good for the FFMI-SSF, but the similarity between the EPA-SSF and FFNI-SSF Grandiose Narcissism was problematically high (.94). As expected, SD3 Machiavellianism shows a troublesome similarity with SD3 Psychopathy (.77). The situation is even worse for DD Machiavellianism, which is very similar to both DD Psychopathy and DD Narcissism (.77 and .86, respectively).

Expert profile similarities indicate adequate validity for EPA-SSF, FFMI-SSF, SD3 Psychopathy, and DD Narcissism as these inventories demonstrated the strongest relation to expert profiles of the same construct and weaker relations to expert profiles of other constructs. FFNI-SSF Grandiose Narcissism evinced a slightly higher similarity with the expert psychopathy profile than with the expert narcissism profile (.82 vs .78);⁵ the pattern was the same for SD3 Narcissism (.61 vs .56). SD3 Machiavellianism’s FFM profile was more strongly correlated with both expert psychopathy and narcissism profiles than with expert Machiavellianism (.55 and .64 vs .51) and the same is true, but even more so, for DD Machiavellianism (.56 and .54 vs .34). Finally, DD Psychopathy’s profile manifested relations of equal strength to both expert psychopathy and narcissism profiles (.66).

Relations to External Criteria

Table 4 shows the correlations between DT measures and theoretically relevant criteria chosen to provide a reasonably comprehensive picture of their nomological networks. Although we will mostly focus on the profile similarities, there are a few findings to note. First, across the board, psychopathy is the construct most strongly correlated with antisocial behavior. Second, there are several instances in which FFMI-SSF displays differential relations to the criteria compared with other constructs and inventories. This is the case with the UPPS impulsivity-related traits; while the other measures show mostly positive correlations to these criteria, FFMI-SSF Total has mostly negative relations. For all UPPS scales except Sensation Seeking, the correlations obtained for FFM Machiavellianism are statistically significantly different than the correlations obtained for DD and SD3 Machiavellianism. The situation is similar for the Political Skill Inventory subscales, in which the FFMI-SSF shows, in general, more positive relations to these criteria than the other measures of Machiavellianism. The correlations with political skill for FFM Machiavellianism are significantly different than the correlations observed for SD3 and DD Machiavellianism, except for the correlation between DD and apparent sincerity (i.e., Pol Skill AS).

Table 4.

Correlations Between DT Construct Measures and External Criteria With Profile Similarities.

Criteria	FFM ATM PSY	FFM ATM Grand	FFM ATM MACH	SD3 PSY	SD3 NAR	SD3 MACH	DD PSY	DD NAR	DD MACH
Sex	.27	.19	.22	.21	.06	.20	.23	.02	.06
Gender	.25	.16	.17	.21	.05	.18	.21	.02	.05
IASR warmth	−.41	−.36	−.27	−.51	.02	−.43	−.58	−.11	−.37
IASR Dom	.44	.50	.42	.21	.60	.17	.11	.18	.22
UPPS NegUrg	.23	.23	−.33	.44	.03	.16	.16	.26	.27
UPPS_LackPer	.15	.05	−.35	.37	−.15	.09	.19	.14	.20
UPPS SS	.39	.30	.01	.20	.20	.00	−.01	.01	.01
UPPS LackPre	.41	.20	−.17	.41	.11	.00	.20	.08	.17
UPPS PosUrge	.39	.35	−.17	.51	.14	.18	.21	.18	.24
BAS drive	.26	.35	.25	.13	.38	.20	.05	.17	.13
BAS FS	.36	.26	−.10	.28	.23	.06	.01	.07	.09
BAS RR	−.10	.10	.02	−.12	.29	.00	−.27	.16	−.03
BIS Total	−.51	−.35	−.39	−.20	−.28	−.10	−.28	.10	−.08
CAB Life Sub	.21	.14	−.04	.29	.09	.06	.16	.07	.18
CAB Life NonVio	.28	.19	.01	.34	.07	.20	.24	.22	.26
CAB Life Vio	.35	.26	.13	.34	.09	.24	.23	.14	.21
CAB life ASB	.39	.27	.07	.43	.10	.27	.30	.24	.30
CAB Gambling	.20	.18	.09	.15	.12	.06	.09	.00	.07
RPQ Pro	.36	.30	.14	.43	.17	.27	.30	.15	.34
RPQ React	.21	.21	−.02	.35	.08	.23	.21	.19	.29
Pol Skill II	.06	.13	.22	−.17	.43	−.10	−.17	.02	−.02
Pol Skill SA	.12	.23	.21	−.02	.42	.03	−.11	.08	.05
Pol Skill AS	−.33	−.22	−.15	−.41	.06	−.24	−.35	−.05	−.19
Pol Skill NA	.19	.25	.23	.01	.48	.01	−.07	.05	.02
ASP Ext	.27	.41	.25	.23	.53	.26	.09	.49	.27
ASP Int	−.07	.01	.08	−.20	.33	−.22	−.27	.00	−.09
Profile similarities
FFM ATM PSY		.90	.30	.86	.32	.64	.71	.30	.69
FFM ATM Grand			.43	.70	.60	.66	.56	.45	.69
FFM ATM MACH				−.02	.55	.35	.22	.04	.13
SD3 PSY					−.08	.72	.84	.41	.80
SD3 NAR						.02	−.17	.14	.03
SD3 MACH							.86	.63	.89
DD PSY								.36	.81
DD NAR									0.71

Note. Bold values indicate convergent correlations, cell outlines indicate divergent correlations, any correlation greater than .09 is statistically significant at p < .05, and any correlation greater than .11 is statistically significant at p < .01. SD3 = Short Dark Triad; DD = Dirty Dozen; Dom = Dominance; Life Sub = lifetime substance abuse; Life NonVio = lifetime nonviolent delinquency; Life Vio = lifetime violent behavior; Life ASB = lifetime antisocial behavior; II = interpersonal influence; SA = social astuteness; AS = apparent sincerity; NA = networking Ability; Pro = proactive aggression; React = reactive aggression; Ext = extrinsic aspiration; Int = intrinsic aspiration; FS = fun seeking; RR = reward responsiveness; NegUrge = negative urgency; LackPer = lack of perseverance; SS = sensation seeking; LackPre = lack of premeditation; PosUrge = positive urgency.

Convergent validity for the psychopathy inventory profiles was very good (ranging from .71 to .86). FFNI-SSF Grandiose Narcissism converged better with SD3 and DD Narcissism than they did with each other (.60 and .45 vs .14). As expected, the FFMI-SSF shows less convergence with SD3 and DD Machiavellianism than they do with each other (.35 and .13 vs .89). As was the case in Table 3, the FFMI-SSF shows good divergent validity with the EPA-SSF and FFNI-SSF Grandiose Narcissism composite, but the EPA-SSF Psychopathy profile was again quite similar to the FFNI-SSF Grandiose Narcissism profile (r = .90). The SD3 within-inventory divergent similarities are good apart from the relation between SD3 Psychopathy and SD3 Machiavellianism, which is .72. The DD Machiavellianism inventory again demonstrated problematic divergent similarity, as it is similar to both DD Psychopathy and Narcissism (.81 and .71, respectively).

Subscale Analyses

Convergent and Divergent Correlations

Table 5 displays the zero-order correlations between subscales of the FFM inventories.⁶ The within-inventory correlations highlight the distinctiveness of the components; correlations among the three components within each are inventory range from .06 to .43 for EPA SSF, from −.16 to .11 for FFNI SSF, and from −.12 to .12 for FFMI SSF. Across inventory, correlations reveal good convergence for similar constructs. Each construct measure contains an Antagonism subscale (consistent with the idea that the “core” of the DT is Antagonism) and they showed good convergent validity with one another. In fact, the Antagonism subscales did not manifest any correlations stronger than the ones with each other. EPA-SSF Emotional Stability had a strong positive correlation with FFMI-SSF Agency (.54). EPA-SSF Disinhibition had a strong negative correlation with FFMI-SSF Planfulness (−.58).

Table 5.

Correlations Between FFM ATM Subscales.

	FFM ATM PSY			FFM ATM NAR			FFM ATM MACH
FFM ATM Subscales	ES	ANT	DIS	AGEXT	ANT	NEURO	PLAN	Agency	ANT
PSY Emotional Stability		.06	.07	.34	.14	−.43	−.05	.54	.08
PSY Antagonism			.43	−.03	.63	−.18	−.31	−.08	.59
PSY Disinhibition				.13	.43	−.04	−.58	−.02	.18
NAR Agentic Extraversion					.11	.00	−.05	.29	−.01
NAR Antagonism						−.16	−.30	−.05	.53
NAR Neuroticism							.09	−.34	−.19
MACH Planful								.12	−.12
MACH Agency									−.03

Note. Any correlation greater than .09 is statistically significant at p < .05, and any correlation greater than .11 is statistically significant at p < .01. ES = emotional stability; ANT = antagonism; DIS = disinhibition; AGEXT = agentic extraversion; NEURO = neuroticism; PLAN = planfulness.

Relations to FFM Facets

Table 6 displays the correlations between the FFM DT subscales and the facets of the FFM. Not surprisingly, the subscales correlate most strongly with the domains and facets that served as the bases for their development. Within psychopathy, Emotional Stability is strongly positively correlated with Extraversion and strongly negatively correlated with Neuroticism, Antagonism is strongly negatively correlated with Agreeableness, and Disinhibition is strongly negatively correlated with the deliberation facet of Conscientiousness. Within narcissism, Agentic Extraversion is moderate to strongly positively correlated with Extraversion, particularly the assertiveness facet, Antagonism is strongly negatively correlated with Agreeableness, and Neuroticism is strongly positively correlated with Neuroticism. Within Machiavellianism, Planfulness is moderate to strongly positively correlated with Conscientiousness, Agency is negatively correlated with Neuroticism and positively correlated with Extraversion, and Antagonism is strongly negatively correlated with Agreeableness. The similarity coefficients at the bottom of the table quantify the distinctiveness of the components within each measure. For the EPA SSF, similarity among its three components range from −.24 to .58; for the FFNI SSF, they range from −.76 to .05; and for the FFMI SSF they range from −.39 to .32. As with the zero-order correlations, similarities for the Antagonism scales across constructs were fairly high, ranging from .76 to .88.

Table 6.

Correlations Between FFM ATM Subscales and Facets of IPIP 120 With Profile Similarities.

	FFM ATM PSY			FFM ATM NAR			FFM ATM MACH
Facets	ES	ANT	DIS	AGEXT	ANT	NEURO	PLAN	Agency	ANT
Anxiety (N1)	−.68	−.11	−.02	−.08	−.07	.51	.09	−.48	−.09
Anger (N2)	−.26	.11	.37	.03	.18	.15	−.16	−.17	.07
Depression (N3)	−.52	.15	.21	−.17	.09	.37	−.17	−.56	−.03
Self-consciousness (N4)	−.68	−.04	−.11	−.33	−.07	.47	.06	−.61	−.02
Impulsiveness (N5)	−.14	.14	.17	.00	.17	.09	−.23	−.27	.05
Vulnerability (N6)	−.65	.02	.14	−.18	.07	.34	−.13	−.53	−.04
Warmth (E1)	.53	−.21	.06	.33	−.03	−.21	−.07	.35	−.17
Gregariousness (E2)	.42	−.10	.15	.36	.07	−.13	−.16	.26	−.14
Assertiveness (E3)	.56	−.07	.07	.49	.09	−.09	.09	.50	.01
Activity (E4)	.28	−.16	.00	.25	−.03	.03	.13	.34	−.12
Excitement (E5)	.34	.08	.49	.36	.20	−.09	−.42	.21	−.06
Positivity (E6)	.44	−.28	−.05	.34	−.11	−.17	.00	.41	−.26
Fantasy (O1)	−.09	.06	.16	.12	.04	.12	−.23	−.12	−.10
Aesthetics (O2)	−.03	−.11	.07	.09	−.09	.07	−.07	−.06	−.28
Feelings (O3)	−.37	−.25	.06	.04	−.12	.27	−.04	−.23	−.32
Actions (O4)	.22	.02	.08	.10	−.05	−.17	−.15	.23	−.12
Ideas (O5)	.11	−.03	.01	.13	−.13	−.02	−.05	.13	−.15
Values (O6)	−.22	.02	.11	−.13	−.03	.12	−.17	−.21	−.01
Trust (A1)	.19	−.36	−.12	.09	−.29	−.13	.01	.19	−.42
Straightforwardness (A2)	−.16	−.56	−.34	−.11	−.56	.15	.27	.01	−.44
Altruism (A3)	.09	−.55	−.14	.17	−.39	.18	.13	.13	−.61
Compliance (A4)	−.07	−.50	−.47	−.10	−.49	.17	.29	−.04	−.43
Modesty (A5)	−.37	−.29	−.11	−.25	−.37	.24	.04	−.36	−.41
Tendermindedness (A6)	−.26	−.39	−.08	−.05	−.35	.29	.06	−.12	−.56
Competence (C1)	.40	−.26	−.18	.24	−.16	−.06	.37	.53	−.11
Order (C2)	.15	−.30	−.21	.06	−.19	.03	.46	.19	−.16
Dutifulness (C3)	.12	−.48	−.21	.08	−.39	.06	.30	.27	−.30
Achievement (C4)	.23	−.30	−.15	.24	−.16	.09	.32	.43	−.18
Self-discipline (C5)	.30	−.21	−.20	.13	−.15	−.15	.33	.43	−.07
Deliberation (C6)	.00	−.26	−.63	−.08	−.28	.04	.76	.13	−.05
Profile similarities
PSY Emotional Stability		−.24	−.04
PSY Antagonism			.58		.88				.82
PSY Disinhibition
NAR Agentic Extraversion					.05	−.76
NAR Antagonism						−.30			.76
NAR Neuroticism
MACH Planful								.32	−.39
MACH Agency									−.21

Note. Bold values indicate convergent correlations, bold cell outlines indicate divergent correlations, any correlation greater than .09 is statistically significant at p < .05, and any correlation .12 or greater is statistically significant at p < .01, ES = emotional stability; ANT = antagonism; DIS = disinhibition; AGEXT = agentic extraversion; NEURO = neuroticism; PLAN = planfulness.

Relations to External Criteria

Table 7 displays the correlations between FFM DT subscales and external criteria. We included the DD and SD3 construct measures as additional criteria in this analysis. This inclusion revealed that the existing DT construct measures often fail to capture all three important elements in their respective constructs. For example, SD3 and DD Psychopathy correlate moderately with the Antagonism and Disinhibition subscales of the EPA-SSF (although the latter’s relation with Disinhibition is relatively smaller), but not the Emotional Stability subscale. Both the DD and SD3 Narcissism scales correlate with the Agentic Extraversion and Antagonism subscales of the FFNI SSF, consistent with their roots in grandiose narcissism, although the relations are somewhat smaller than one would expect. In terms of the FFMI-SSF subscales, both DD and SD3 Machiavellianism are positively correlated with Antagonism, but neither captures much Agency. Most germane to our hypotheses, neither capture Planfulness; SD3 shows essentially no relation to Planfulness (-.07), while DD Machiavellianism bears a negative correlation (−.16).

Table 7.

Correlations Between FFM ATM Subscales and External Criteria With Profile Similarities.

	FFM ATM PSY			FFM ATM NAR			FFM ATM MACH
Criteria	ES	ANT	DIS	AGEXT	ANT	NEURO	PLAN	Agency	ANT
SD3 PSY	.04	.55	.53	.08	.57	−.16	−.46	−.07	.42
SD3 NAR	.47	.08	.13	.45	.29	−.22	−.08	.42	.16
SD3 MACH	.04	.50	.18	.13	.50	−.02	−.07	−.02	.54
DD PSY	.12	.63	.30	−.02	.46	−.12	−.20	.07	.52
DD NAR	.03	.25	.21	.28	.35	.13	−.15	−.07	.23
DD MACH	.07	.44	.30	.10	.48	.04	−.16	−.04	.38
Sex	.20	.26	.08	.01	.15	−.24	−.10	.13	.26
Gender	.16	.24	.09	.01	.13	−.19	−.11	.11	.22
IASR Warmth	.08	−.66	−.25	.17	−.55	.15	.17	.09	−.65
IASR Dominance	.60	.08	.22	.54	.23	−.31	−.14	.55	.09
UPPS NegUrge	−.28	.26	.49	.01	.39	.15	−.46	−.31	.08
UPPS_LackPer	−.30	.35	.24	−.22	.27	.01	−.44	−.43	.19
UPPS SS	.33	.08	.38	.28	.14	−.04	−.34	.19	−.04
UPPS LackPre	.12	.24	.46	−.02	.25	−.15	−.68	−.02	.11
UPPS PosUrge	.01	.35	.44	.01	.46	−.17	−.50	−.14	.15
BAS Drive	.29	.09	.15	.35	.20	−.09	−.06	.28	.11
BAS FS	.24	.09	.41	.25	.15	−.09	−.49	.10	−.02
BAS RR	.12	−.25	−.07	.30	−.03	.07	.05	.14	−.18
BIS Total	−.58	−.31	−.15	−.11	−.19	.52	.13	−.42	−.22
CAB Life Sub	.02	.15	.26	.07	.12	.01	−.24	−.03	.09
CAB Life NonVio	.05	.25	.28	.03	.22	.02	−.20	−.07	.20
CAB Life Vio	.11	.31	.29	.05	.26	−.13	−.16	.05	.24
CAB Life ASB	.09	.34	.36	.05	.30	−.05	−.23	−.03	.27
CAB Gambling	.12	.13	.16	.08	.17	−.12	−.11	.06	.15
RPQ Pro	.10	.34	.28	.00	.37	−.17	−.19	.02	.31
RPQ React	−.15	.18	.39	.07	.28	.06	−.20	−.06	.14
Pol Skill II	.47	−.29	−.06	.36	−.12	−.06	.11	.41	−.20
Pol Skill SA	.34	−.12	.01	.35	.04	.01	.07	.35	−.11
Pol Skill AS	−.01	−.50	−.15	.17	−.37	.31	.18	.10	−.48
Pol Skill NA	.48	−.12	.03	.36	.05	−.14	−.02	.38	−.07
Profile similarities
PSY Emotional Stability		−.13	−.14
PSY Antagonism			.71		.91				.96
PSY Disinhibition
NAR Agentic					−.20	−.43
Extraversion						−.56
NAR Antagonism									.87
NAR Neuroticism
MACH Planful								.12	−.60
MACH Agency									−.23

Note. Bold values indicate convergent correlations, bold cell outlines indicate divergent correlations, any correlation greater than .09 is statistically significant at p < .05, and any correlation greater than .11 is statistically significant at p < .01, ES = emotional stability; ANT = antagonism; DIS = disinhibition; AGEXT = agentic extraversion; NEURO = neuroticism; PLAN = planfulness.

FFM ATM MACH Agency	503	3.30	0.65	0.21	0.62
FFM ATM MACH PLAN	503	3.68	0.84	0.40	0.73

Note: FFM ATM = Five-Factor Model Antagonistic Triad Measure; PSY = psychopathy; NAR = Narcissism; MACH = Machiavellianism, SD3 = Short Dark Triad; DD = Dirty Dozen; Dom = Dominance; Life Sub = lifetime substance abuse; Life NonVio = lifetime nonviolent delinquency; Life Vio = lifetime violent behavior; Life ASB = lifetime antisocial behavior; II = interpersonal influence; SA = social astuteness; AS = apparent sincerity; NA = networking ability; Pro = proactive aggression; React = reactive aggression; Ext = extrinsic aspiration; Int = intrinsic aspiration; FS = fun seeking; RR = reward responsiveness; NegUrge = negative urgency; LackPer = lack of perseverance; SS = sensation seeking; LackPre = lack of premeditation; PosUrge = positive urgency.

Examination of these correlations reveals both the distinctiveness of the subscales and the utility of working at this level. Within psychopathy, Emotional Stability is uniquely positively related to interpersonal dominance and political skill; in fact, the other two subscales are negatively related to political skill. Disinhibition is most strongly related to impulsivity whereas Antagonism is most strongly related to low interpersonal warmth; both are related to all forms of antisocial behavior while Emotional Stability is unrelated. Within narcissism, Agentic Extraversion is positively related to interpersonal dominance and political skill, whereas Antagonism is negatively related to interpersonal warmth and positively related to antisocial behavior and aggression. Within Machiavellianism, Planfulness is related to good impulse control, Agency is positively related to interpersonal dominance and political skill, and Antagonism is related to low levels of interpersonal warmth and high levels of aggression and antisocial behavior.

Results of profile similarity calculations again quantify the distinctiveness of the subscales in their relations to criteria. For the EPA-SSF, similarities of the correlational profiles with criteria range from −.14 to .71; for the FFNI-SSF they range from −.56 to −.20; and for the FFMI-SSF, they range from −.60 to .12. An examination of the nature of the divergences is useful. For example, whereas, Planfulness on the FFMI SSF is generally related to positive outcomes (e.g., good impulse control, the absence of antisocial behavior and aggression, and political skill), the relations for Antagonism are opposite (i.e., positively related to impulsivity and antisocial behavior/aggression). Again, these same similarity coefficients indicate very good convergent validity for the Antagonism subscales ranging from .87 to .96.

Discussion

This article examined the validity of a newly developed measure of the so-called Dark Triad, the FFM-ATM, created by combining super-short form assessments of each of the three constructs derived from the FFM of personality. This measure was developed to overcome two shortcomings of existing DT measures (e.g., Miller et al., 2019)—the problematic construct validity of their Machiavellianism scales and the forced reliance on total scores for each of the three DT constructs, contrary to existing evidence. In the current paper, we examined the convergence and divergence between the FFM-ATM and two other omnibus measures of the DT in terms of zero-order correlations and relations to external criteria. In addition, we also examined the relations of the subscales within each FFM measure to one another and to external criteria. Results generally support the validity of the new measure.

FFM ATM Psychopathy and Narcissism

In terms of psychopathy and narcissism, the FFM-ATM Psychopathy showed good convergence with the other psychopathy scales, as did the FFM ATM Grandiose Narcissism composite with its narcissism counterparts. Results for the IPIP NEO-120 were similar with psychopathy and narcissism scales showing generally high convergent similar trait profiles. Finally, results were similar for the correlational profiles with additional external criteria. The only unexpected finding for the FFM ATM had to do with the high correlations and profile similarities between the ATM Psychopathy and Grandiose Narcissism scales. Much of the overlap is likely due to our use of the grandiose narcissism composite rather than the FFNI-SSF Total score. In terms of the trifurcated model of narcissism, general narcissism and its two characteristic presentations (i.e., grandiose and vulnerable) can be understood by reference to three more basic personality elements—interpersonal antagonism, agentic extraversion, and neuroticism. Total or general narcissism includes all three elements. Grandiose narcissism is characterized by interpersonal antagonism and agentic extraversion, whereas vulnerable narcissism is characterized by interpersonal antagonism and neuroticism. In this way, consistent with arguments by Glenn and Sellbom (2015), grandiose narcissism appears to be contained within psychopathy, which consists of antagonism, low conscientiousness, low neuroticism, and high extraversion. In fact, the expert ratings for NPD and psychopathy are highly similar (i.e., r = .85), suggesting this overlap is to be expected given that they are quite similar with the exception of some differences in relation to conscientiousness (in fact, successful psychopathy’s expert profile mirrors the expert profile for NPD to a substantial extent; Mullins-Sweatt et al., 2010).

FFM ATM Machiavellianism

Importantly, the FFMI-SSF acted as predicted. As expected, the FFM ATM Machiavellianism scale did not correlate substantially with the other two Machiavellianism scales or with the psychopathy scales. In contrast, the other two Machiavellianism scales correlated highly with one another and with all psychopathy scales; in fact, the correlations with psychopathy scales were as high as the correlations between the two Machiavellianism scales. In terms of NEO IPIP-120 profiles, the SD3 and DD Machiavellianism scales yielded IPIP personality profiles that were as highly similar to one another as they were to the profiles for the psychopathy scales. The FFM ATM Machiavellianism scale, however, showed IPIP NEO-120 personality relations that were relatively dissimilar to other Machiavellianism scales and psychopathy scales. Importantly, the IPIP personality profile for the FFM ATM Machiavellianism scale was the most similar to the expert FFM Machiavellianism profile of the three Machiavellianism scales and was the only Machiavellianism scale whose similarity was higher for the expert Machiavellianism profile than it was for the expert psychopathy and narcissism ratings. The other two Machiavellianism scales had personality profiles that were more similar to expert ratings for psychopathy and narcissism than to the expert rating for Machiavellianism. In terms of specific relations, the FFM ATM Machiavellianism scale was also the only Machiavellianism scale to show positive relations to the facets of Conscientiousness.

Results were the same for correlations with other criteria. The FFM ATM Machiavellianism scale correlational profile bore low similarities to all other profiles. The other two Machiavellianism scales had correlational profiles that were as similar to one another as they were to the profiles for the psychopathy scales. In terms of content, FFM ATM Machiavellianism scale was the only scale to be negatively related to impulsivity and positively related to political skill, consistent with original descriptions of the construct. In addition, it bore the smallest relations of all scales to antisocial behavior and aggression. In general, Machiavellianism from the FFM ATM Machiavellianism scale performed more consistently with theoretical expectations than the other two Machiavellianism scales.

A More Articulated Assessment

Beyond providing a measure of Machiavellianism that is more distinct from psychopathy and more consistent with theoretical conceptualizations of Machiavellianism, the FFM ATM was created to provide more articulated assessments of each of the three constructs. Each FFM ATM construct can be broken into three subcomponents, consistent with stand-alone conceptions of each construct. Each construct includes antagonism consistent with research and theory indicating that antagonism is the core of the DT (Lynam & Miller, 2019; Vize, Lynam, et al., 2020). Importantly, although derived independently, the three antagonism subscales showed good convergence (rs range from .53 to .63) and similar personality profiles (intraclass rs range from .76 to .88) and relations to criteria (intraclass rs range from .87 to .96). In addition to antagonism, psychopathy includes scales assessing disinhibition and emotional stability, narcissism includes scales assessing agentic extraversion and neuroticism, and Machiavellianism includes scales assessing agency and planfulness. Current results suggest that the subscales within each measure are generally unrelated to one another and have different nomological networks surrounding them as assessed by the IPIP NEO 120 and other criterion variables.

The latter analyses also reveal shortcomings with the existing unidimensional assessment of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. SD3 Psychopathy does not assess emotional stability, which some see as prototypical of psychopathy (e.g., Cleckley, 1941; Patrick et al., 2009) and combines both antagonism and disinhibition. DD Psychopathy also fails to assess emotional stability and primarily assesses antagonism with relatively little disinhibition (e.g., Miller et al., 2012). In terms of narcissism, SD3 primarily captures agentic extraversion, while DD captures small amounts of both agentic extraversion and antagonism. In terms of Machiavellianism, both SD3 and DD primarily capture antagonism and bear small negative relations to planfulness, explaining the difficulty these measures have in distinguishing between Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Miller et al., 2012).

The ability to break each construct down into its components parts has many advantages. First, it is truer to theoretical conceptions of the constructs. It is widely accepted in psychopathy and narcissism research that these constructs are multidimensional; the only arguments in these fields concern which elements should be included in descriptions (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2012; Miller & Lynam, 2012). Second, by breaking these broader constructs into more basic components, one is able to leverage findings from basic personality science to help understand these more complex clinical constructs. Third, breaking these constructs into their components allows one to see which traits are most specifically related to behavioral outcomes of interest. For example, the interpersonal coldness of psychopathy is due to antagonism, impulsivity due to disinhibition, and lack of psychological distress due to emotional stability. For narcissism, interpersonal dominance is due to agentic extraversion while aggression is driven by antagonism. For Machiavellianism, planfulness provides good impulse control, whereas agency accounts for political adroitness.

Additional Advantages of the FFM ATM

One additional advantage to the FFM ATM is its ability to tie back to the FFM itself. The three antagonism subscales, psychopathic disinhibition, narcissism agentic extraversion, and neuroticism, and Machiavellianism planning all relate strongly to single FFM domains. Psychopathic emotional stability and Machiavellian agency relate to two domains (extraversion and neuroticism). The FFM was derived from basic research in personality and continues to be a focus in that field. Much is known about the development and continuity of FFM traits over time (e.g., Caspi et al., 2005; De Clercq & De Fruyt, 2012), as well as their distribution as a function of gender, age, and culture (e.g., Allik & McCrae, 2004; Soto & John, 2012). Studies have investigated the genetic underpinnings of both domains (Jang et al., 2002) and facets (Briley & Tucker-Drob, 2012). Similarly, a number of researchers have used this model to study the processes underlying and outcomes attributable to specific domains within the FFM, such as the basic processes underlying Agreeableness (e.g., Graziano & Tobin, 2002). Understanding psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism from the FFM framework allows this massive body of basic research to be brought to bear on research to inform assessment, etiology, course, and treatment.

This approach (i.e., deconstructing broader personality constructs into more specific personality elements) also serves as one of the foundational components for the alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) in Section III of the fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-V; APA, 2013). In the AMPD, personality disorder is diagnosed on the basis of the presence of personality dysfunction (Criterion A) and pathological personality traits (Criterion B); moreover, various trait combinations comprise specific disorders. Basic traits also serve as high-level factors in the recently proposed HiTOP (Kotov et al., 2017). The use of the FFM ATM thus allows researchers interested in studying the Antagonistic Triad constructs to situate their findings in a larger psychiatric construct and help flesh out the important but oft-neglected domain of antagonism in psychiatric nosologies (e.g., Lynam & Miller, 2019). That is, antagonism—whether paired with extraversion as in the case of narcissism or disinhibition as in the case of psychopathy—is the strongest personality correlate of most forms of externalizing behaviors including antisocial behavior and aggression (Hyatt et al., 2019; Vize, Miller, et al., 2018), bullying (Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias, 2015), and counterproductive work behavior (Grijalva & Newman, 2015). Similarly, antagonism is the core shared component of particularly problematic psychiatric constructs like psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism (Vize et al., 2020). This measure makes that clear in its assessment and title and may help nudge the field move away from a “dark” terminology that we believe has little utility and brings heat but little light.

Limitations and Conclusions

The FFM ATM is a promising new omnibus measure of the DT that provides multifaceted scores for each construct, a Machiavellianism score more aligned with theoretical and expert descriptions, and is constructed from a well-validated model of personality. At 48 items, the FFM ATM is only 21 items longer than the SD3 and 36 items longer than the DD. Given the time, it generally takes to respond to personality items (e.g., Sleep et al., 2021; roughly 3 s per item), the FFM ATM should take less than 180 s compared with 90 s for the SD3 and 30 to 40 s for the DD, making all three measures easy and efficient to be given alone or together in most research settings. The current study has important limitations including the lack of diversity of age, ethnicity, and race in the current sample and the reliance on cross-sectional and self-report data. Moving forward, the FFM ATM should be investigated in more diverse samples and with more diverse array of data (e.g., in relation to interview, informant, and behavioral data). Similarly, the substantial overlap in empirical profiles for the FFM ATM psychopathy and (grandiose) narcissism variables requires further study to test if this is specific to the current sample or a larger, replicable phenomenon.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-asm-10.1177_10731911211068083 – Supplemental material for Validation of the Five-Factor Model Antagonistic Triad Measure

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-asm-10.1177_10731911211068083 for Validation of the Five-Factor Model Antagonistic Triad Measure by Leigha Rose, Joshua D. Miller and Donald R. Lynam in Assessment

Footnotes

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 iDs

Joshua D. Miller

Donald R. Lynam

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Allik

McCrae

R. R.

(2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 13–28.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.).

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Austin

E. J.

Farrelly

Black

Moore

(2007). Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.019

Back

M. D.

Küfner

A. C.

Dufner

Gerlach

T. M.

Rauthmann

J. F.

Denissen

J. J.

(2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037.

Blickle

Kückelhaus

Kranefeld

Schütte

Genau

Gansen-Ammann

D.-N.

Wihler

(2020, February 13). Political skill camouflages Machiavellianism: Career role performance and organizational misbehavior at short and long tenure. Journal of Vocational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f6t4g

Briley

D. A.

Tucker-Drob

E. M.

(2012). Broad bandwidth or high fidelity? Evidence from the structure of genetic and environmental effects on the facets of the Five Factor Model. Behavior Genetics, 42(5), 743–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-012-9548-8

Campbell

W. K.

Miller

J. D.

(2011). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments. Wiley.

Carver

C. S.

White

T. L.

(1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319

10.

Caspi

Roberts

B. W.

Shiner

R. L.

(2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.

11.

Christie

Geis

(1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.

12.

Cleckley

H. M.

(1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality. Mosby.

13.

Collison

K. L.

Miller

J. D.

Gaughan

E. T.

Widiger

T. A.

Lynam

D. R.

(2016). Development and validation of the super-short form of the elemental psychopathy assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.09.002

14.

Collison

K. L.

Vize

C. E.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2018). Supplemental material for development and preliminary validation of a Five Factor Model measure of Machiavellianism. Psychological Assessment, 30(10), 1401–1407. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000637.supp

15.

Crowe

M. L.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

(2018). Uncovering the structure of agreeableness from self-report measures. Journal of Personality, 86, 771–787.

16.

De Clercq

De Fruyt

. (2012). A five-factor model framework for understanding childhood personality disorder antecedents. Journal of Personality, 80, 1534–1563.

17.

T. V.

Collison

K. L.

Vize

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2021). Development and validation of the super-short form of the Five Factor Machiavellianism Inventory (FFMI-SSF). Journal of Personality Assessment, 103(6), 732–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1878525

18.

Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Kacmar

C. J.

Douglas

Frink

D. D.

(2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31(1), 126–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271386

19.

Freud

(1957). On narcissism: An introduction. In Strachey

(Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 67–102). Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis. (Original work published 1914).

20.

Geis

F. L.

Moon

T. H.

(1981). Machiavellianism and deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 766–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.4.766

21.

Glenn

Sellbom

(2015). Theoretical and empirical concerns regarding the Dark Triad as a construct. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29, 360–377.

22.

Glover

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Crego

Widiger

T. A.

(2012). The five-factor narcissism inventory: A five factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.670680

23.

Graziano

W. G.

Tobin

R. M.

(2002). Agreeableness: Dimension of personality or social desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70(5), 695–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05021

24.

Grijalva

Newman

D. A.

(2015). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): Meta-analysis and consideration of collectivist culture, Big Five personality, and narcissism's facet structure. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 93–126.

25.

Hare

R. D.

(1991). Manual for the Pychopathy Checklist-Revised. Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

26.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.

27.

Hermann

A. D.

Brunell

A. B.

Foster

J. D.

(Eds.). (2018). Handbook of trait narcissism: Key advances, research methods, and controversies. Springer.

28.

Hyatt

C. S.

Zeichner

Miller

J. D.

(2019). Laboratory aggression and personality traits: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Violence, 9, 675–689.

29.

Jang

K. L.

Livesley

W. J.

Angleitner

Riemann

Vernon

P. A.

(2002). Genetic and environmental influences on the covariance of facets defining the domains of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00137-4

30.

Jonason

P. K.

Webster

G. D.

(2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265

31.

Jones

D. N.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3). Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105

32.

Kasser

Ryan

R. M.

(1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280–287.

33.

Kotov

Krueger

R. F.

Watson

Achenbach

T. M.

Althoff

R. R.

Bagby

R. M.

Brown

T. A.

Carpenter

W. T.

Caspi

Clark

L. A.

Eaton

N. R.

Forbes

M. K.

Forbush

K. T.

Goldberg

Hasin

Hyman

S. E.

Ivanova

M. Y.

Lynam

D. R.

Markon

. . .Zimmerman

(2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 454–477.

34.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Andrews

B. P.

(1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488–524.

35.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Patrick

C. J.

Benning

S. D.

Berg

Sellbom

Edens

J. F.

(2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders, 3, 327–340.

36.

Lynam

D. R.

Gaughan

E. T.

Miller

J. D.

Mullins-Sweatt

Widiger

T. A.

(2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: Development and validation of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 108–124.

37.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

(2019). The basic trait of Antagonism: An unfortunately underappreciated construct. Journal of Research in Personoality, 81, 118–126.

38.

Lynam

D. R.

Smith

G. T.

Whiteside

S. P.

Cyders

M. A.

(2006). The UPPS-P: Assessing five personality pathways to impulsive behavior. Purdue University.

39.

Lynam

D. R.

Widiger

T. A.

(2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(3), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.110.3.401

40.

Maples

J. L.

Guan

Carter

N. T.

Miller

J. D.

(2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1070–1084.

41.

Maples

J. L.

Lamkin

Miller

J. D.

(2014). A test of two brief measures of the dark triad: The dirty dozen and short dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 326–331.

42.

McCrae

R. R.

(2008). A note on some measures of profile agreement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 105–109.

43.

Miller

J. D.

Few

L. R.

Seibert

L. A.

Watts

Zeichner

Lynam

D. R.

(2012). An examination of the Dirty Dozen measure of psychopathy: A cautionary tale about the costs of brief measures. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 1048–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028583

44.

Miller

J. D.

Hoffman

B. J.

Gaughan

E. T.

Gentile

Maples

Campbell

W. K.

(2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79(5), 1013–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x

45.

Miller

J. D.

Hyatt

C. S.

Maples-Keller

J. L.

Carter

N. T.

Lynam

D. R.

(2017). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism: A distinction without a difference? Journal of Personality, 85, 439–453.

46.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2003). Psychopathy and the five-factor model of personality: A replication and extension. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8102_08

47.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2012). An examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 305–326.

48.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2015). Psychopathy and personality: Advances and debates. Journal of Personality, 83, 585–592.

49.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Widiger

T. A.

Leukefeld

(2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the Five Factor Model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69(2), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00144

50.

Miller

J. D.

Vize

Crowe

M. L.

Lynam

D. R.

(2019). A critical appraisal of the dark-triad literature and suggestions for moving forward. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mbkr8

51.

Mitsopoulou

Giovazolias

(2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behavior: A meta-analytic approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 61–72.

52.

Monaghan

Bizumic

Williams

Sellbom

(2020). Two-dimensional Machiavellianism: Conceptualization, theory, and measurement of the views and tactics dimensions. Psychological Assessment, 32, 277–293.

53.

Mullins-Sweatt

S. N.

Glover

N. G.

Derefinko

K. J.

Miller

J. D.

Widiger

T. A.

(2010). The search for the successful psychopath. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 554–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.010

54.

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

Pardini

D. A.

(2015). Antisociality and the construct of psychopathy: Data from across the globe. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 678–692.

55.

Packer West

Miller

J. D.

Weiss

Spencer

C. C.

Crowe

M. L.

Campbell

W. K.

Lynam

D. R

. (in press). Development and validation of the super-short form of the five-factor narcissism inventory (FFNI-SSF). Personality and Individual Differences.

56.

Patrick

C. J.

(2010). Operationalizing the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Preliminary description of brief scales for assessment of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. Unpublished test manual, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.

57.

Patrick

C. J.

Fowles

D. C.

Krueger

R. F.

(2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913–938.

58.

Paulhus

D. L.

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

(in press). Manual for the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy scale. Multi-Health Systems.

59.

Paulhus

D. L.

Williams

K. M.

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

60.

Pincus

A. L.

Lukowitsky

M. R.

(2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 421–446.

61.

Raine

Dodge

Loeber

Gatzke-Kopp

Lynam

Reynolds

Stouthamer-Loeber

Liu

(2006). The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20115

62.

Raskin

Terry

(1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890

63.

Schreiber

Marcus

(2020). The place of the “Dark Triad” in general models of personality: Some meta-analytic clarification. Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 1021–1041. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000299

64.

Sleep

C. E.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

(2021). A comparison of the validity of very brief measures of the Big Five/Five-Factor Model of personality. Assessment, 28, 739–758.

65.

Sleep

C. E.

Miller

Lynam

Weiss

(2019). An examination of the triarchic model of psychopathy’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 71, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vcxmp

66.

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

(2012). Development of Big Five domains and facets in adulthood: Mean-level age trends and broadly versus narrowly acting mechanisms. Journal of Personality, 80, 881–914.

67.

Steiger

J. H.

(1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.

68.

Stinson

F. S.

Dawson

D. A.

Goldstein

R. B.

Chou

S. P.

Huang

Smith

S. M.

Grant

B. F.

(2008). Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV narcissistic personality disorder: Results from the wave 2 national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69(7), 1033–1045.

69.

Vize

C. E.

Lynam

Collison

Miller

(2020). The “Core” of the Dark Triad: A test of competing hypotheses. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 11, 91–99.

70.

Vize

C. E.

Lynam

D. R.

Collison

K. L.

Miller

J. D.

(2018). Differences among dark triad components: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9, 101–111.

71.

Vize

C. E.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2018). FFM facets and their relations with different forms of antisocial behavior: An expanded meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.04.004

72.

Widiger

T. A.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. (2013). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. American Psychological Association.

73.

Wiggins

J. S.

Trapnell

Phillips

(1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(4), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2304_8

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

0.02 MB