The Complicated Relationship Between the Dark Triad and Emotional Intelligence: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The study of emotional intelligence (EI) and its relationship with the dark triad has emerged as a popular research area. However, the complex nature of the dark triad and EI, including multiple measures for assessment, has led to inconsistent findings. A systematic review was conducted to focus on the multifaceted nature of the dark triad traits. Included studies must have been conducted with adult samples using standardized EI and dark triad measures. Forty-eight studies were identified; all bar one reported overall negative associations between the dark triad and EI. These associations were more complicated than expected. Further examination found these relationships significantly differed when examined at the facet level. Our results highlight that future research requires more than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Keywords

dark triad emotional intelligence Machiavellianism narcissism psychopathy

There has been a recent surge of interest in the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and the dark triad (Muris et al., 2017). EI rose to popularity in the research (Mayer & Salovey, 1990) and lay fields (Goleman, 1995) in the 1990s, while the dark triad was introduced in 2002 (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Dark triad traits have been linked to success in the workplace, sexual pursuits, and attaining leadership positions (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010; Jonason et al., 2009; Lilienfeld et al., 2012; Spurk et al., 2016). Considering the apparent success of those high in dark triad traits coupled with the reported role of EI in successful life outcomes, it is not surprising there has been growing interest in exploring the emotional competencies of individuals with high levels of dark triad traits. That is, individuals with high EI know how to act to achieve social, personal, and professional goals. Interest has grown over the past decade into how positive life outcomes and interpersonal success in individuals with high EI interact with the darker personality traits (i.e., the dark triad). The combination of high dark triad trait levels combined with high EI levels has given rise to the concept of a dark EI (Austin & O’Donnell, 2013). Systematically reviewing the association between EI and the dark triad enhances the understanding of the complexities of manipulation and interpersonal exploitation.

To date, there have been two recent meta-analyses looking at these relationships. The first (Megías et al., 2018) reviewed the relationship between total psychopathy and ability EI, finding a negative association between psychopathy and EI. The second meta-analysis (Miao et al., 2019) reviewed the associations between narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and both ability and trait EI. Miao et al. found a negative relationship between trait and ability EI with both psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Narcissism was unrelated to either ability or trait EI. Notably, neither of these meta-analyses considered the multifaceted nature of the dark triad traits. Understanding the relationship between the dark triad traits and other constructs requires examining the potentially divergent association patterns at the facet level of these traits. As such, this systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive investigation of the relationship between the dark triad and EI at the facet level. An examination of the existing literature in the following sections describes key elements and theories of the dark triad and EI to justify an expected pattern of results between the dark triad and EI. Further, this review provides a timely overview of a rapidly growing area of research interest.

Emotional Intelligence

EI was popularized in 1995 with Daniel Goleman’s book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. This sudden rise in popularity in research and industry led to researchers developing a myriad of theories and assessments. Following a call for clarity in this rapidly expanding field, a distinction was made between ability and self-report measurement of EI (Mayer et al., 2000). EI has been linked to various outcomes, including academic success (Ashkanasy & Dasborough, 2003; MacCann & Roberts, 2008). A recent meta-analysis found that higher EI students tend to have better academic performance, with a greater relationship for ability EI than trait EI (MacCann et al., 2020). EI has also been linked to improved mental health and well-being (Schutte et al., 2007). Further, individuals high in EI are more successful in social situations than their less emotionally intelligent peers (Mavroveli et al., 2009). A 2014 meta-analysis also found higher romantic and marital relationship success for couples with higher EI levels (Furnham et al., 2012; Malouff et al., 2014).

Ability Emotional Intelligence

Ability EI (AEI) is defined as a set of abilities measured with tests of maximum performance and positively correlated with intelligence (Mayer et al., 2004). The most commonly used AEI measure is the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2004). AEI is based on a hierarchical four-branch model introduced by Mayer and Salovey (1997), comprising (a) perceiving emotions, (b) using emotions, (c) understanding emotions, and (d) managing emotions. Perceiving emotions is understood as the ability to identify emotionally salient visual and auditory information in others and oneself while accurately perceiving one’s own emotions. Using emotions relates to the ability to use the information one has identified to guide one’s decision-making and problem-solving approach. Understanding emotions is understood as integrating knowledge about emotions such as emotional vocabulary, the evolution of emotions over time, or understanding the impact of one’s emotions on others. Finally, managing emotions is understood as the ability to manage the emotions of others and oneself to achieve a desired outcome (Mayer et al., 2011). While the four-branch model is the currently accepted model of AEI, there have been concerns raised about the theoretical model structure as measured by the MSCEIT (Maul, 2012). These concerns largely relate to the perceived lack of causal explanations of item responses (Maul, 2012) and the inability to discriminate EI at the upper end of the trait (Fiori et al., 2014). Regardless, the MSCEIT remains the foremost measure of AEI.

Trait Emotional Intelligence

Trait EI (TEI) is operationalized by self-report measures, positively correlated with personality traits (Petrides et al., 2004), and often understood as an emotion-relevant personality trait (Bucich & MacCann, 2018). TEI is considered a collection of self-perceptions about one’s behavior, dispositions, and self-perceived emotional abilities (Petrides et al., 2004). Furnham and Petrides (2003) argue that emotional experience is inherently subjective, with TEI measures thought to capture this subjective experience more thoroughly than AEI. TEI has been positively linked to substantial happiness (Furnham & Petrides, 2003) and the size of one’s social group, but not to the quality of social group interactions, life satisfaction, or health (Austin et al., 2005).

The Dark Triad

The dark triad is an umbrella term referring to a constellation of three socially aversive personality traits comprised of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). These traits are associated with ethical, moral, and socially deviant behavior. There are overlapping characteristics shared among these traits, though debate remains about the presence of a common core. Despite this ongoing debate, it is becoming more widely accepted that antagonism is the common core connecting narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Jones & Figueredo, 2013; Jones & Neria, 2015; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Furthermore, there is a shared exploitative demeanor across the three traits enabling the goal-focused manipulation of others’ emotions.

Jonason et al. (2012) found the dark triad traits predicted a preference for short-term sexual relationships over long-term commitments. Further, Jonason et al. (2009) found the dark triad facilitated exploitative behavior in men’s short-term mating behavior. These studies support the notion that exploitative behaviors link the dark triad traits. In contrast, workplace relationships appear more complex. A recent meta-analysis of workplace behavior found individuals higher in dark triad traits engaged in counter-productive workplace behaviors, such as bullying and stealing, more frequently than those with lower dark triad scores (O’Boyle et al., 2012).

However, the dark triad traits have also influenced career success. Individuals with higher narcissism scores reported receiving higher salaries, while those with higher Machiavellianism scores attained more influential leadership positions than individuals with lower levels of narcissism and Machiavellianism (Spurk et al., 2016). Additionally, Volmer et al. (2016) found that leaders high in narcissism provided employees with a pathway to achieving subjectively positive, short-term career goals and advancement opportunities.

Narcissism

Traditionally recognized as a personality disorder, narcissism’s subclinical characteristics have been found in the broader population on a spectrum of mild to extreme (Raskin & Hall, 1979; Samuel & Widiger, 2008). As such, narcissism is commonly regarded and investigated as a personality trait (Miller & Campbell, 2008). Narcissism is widely understood as patterns of behaviors and attitudes aligned with grandiosity, self-importance, and desire for admiration (Krizan & Herlache, 2017). More succinctly, Krizan and Herlache (2017) defined narcissism as possessing entitled self-importance. Additionally, narcissism has been characterized by a desire to appear socially desirable and interpersonally manipulative (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003).

Narcissism comprises two distinct but related factors: grandiose and vulnerable narcissism (Besser & Priel, 2010; Grijalva et al., 2015; Krizan & Herlache, 2018; Miller et al., 2011; Rohmann et al., 2012; Wink, 1991). Though grandiose and vulnerable narcissism share several core characteristics such as an aggressive interpersonal style, self-importance, entitlement, and hypersensitivity to criticism (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Krizan & Herlache, 2018; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012; Weiss et al., 2019), the diversity between these traits is evident in the manifestation of these characteristics (Krizan & Herlache, 2017; Miller et al., 2018). For example, individuals high in grandiose (or overt) narcissism are characterized by grandiosity, self-confidence, exploitation of others, and reliance on self/internal validation. When threatened, individuals high in grandiose narcissism tend to blame and devalue others while denying their own weaknesses (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Zhang et al., 2017). Individuals high in grandiose narcissism have been found to reappraise negative situations to maintain self-confidence (Walker, Gorodezki et al., 2021). Prior research indicates that reappraisal requires an individual to perceive, use, understand, and regulate emotions adequately (Megías-Robles et al., 2019; Smieja et al., 2011). Therefore, it is expected that grandiose narcissism would be positively associated with EI. Comparatively, vulnerable narcissism tends to rely on external validation. It is also characterized by grandiose fantasies that tend to oscillate between self-love and self-loathing, thereby exhibiting fragile self-esteem, defensiveness, and resentment (Weiss et al., 2019). Individuals high in vulnerable narcissism are hypersensitive to negative feedback and tend to act aggressively when their sense of self is threatened (Wink, 1991). Additionally, it has been argued that vulnerable narcissism is more a disorder of neuroticism characterized by distinct differences in the experience of distress between vulnerable and grandiose narcissism (Miller et al., 2018). Based on difficulties with emotional expression and management, it is expected that vulnerable narcissism will be negatively associated with EI.

Machiavellianism

Unlike narcissism and psychopathy, Machiavellianism is most commonly understood as a unidimensional construct characterized by goal-focused manipulative and callous social interactions (Christie & Geis, 1970). Individuals high in Machiavellianism tend to be viewed as strategic, capable of delaying gratification for bigger and better rewards in the future, possessing low moral commitment, and engaging in long-term strategic planning with a cold and cynical world view (Christie & Geis, 1970; Furnham et al., 2013). Machiavellianism was derived by Christie and Geis (1970) from the writing of Niccolo Machiavelli, a political advisor to the Medici family in 16th-century Firenze. Machiavelli’s ideas were captured in his seminal work Il Principe (1513). Il Principe contains advice to rulers about successful governance, mainly through others’ fortune and power (Machiavelli, 1891). Specifically, Machiavelli asserts that the use of manipulation and cunning is more successful than truthfulness.

Very little is understood about the underlying mechanisms driving the development of Machiavellianism as a personality trait. There is substantially less empirical work in the Machiavellianism literature than either in the literature on narcissism or psychopathy. Additionally, theoretical development has been minimal since Christie and Geis’s theoretical and empirical work in the 1970s. The limited empirical work may be due, in part, to the problematically high intercorrelations between psychopathy and Machiavellianism (Miller et al., 2017). A recent meta-analysis found the corrected Machiavellianism–psychopathy correlation to be .59 (O’Boyle et al., 2012). These high intercorrelations make it challenging to ascertain how much the relationship between Machiavellianism and other constructs is influenced by psychopathy. Current Machiavellianism and psychopathy scales appear to be measuring the same construct despite theoretical distinctions (Miller et al., 2017). Recent findings suggest the intercorrelations are reduced by revising existing measurement tools (Collison et al., 2018). Collison et al.’s (2018) development of the Five-Factor Machiavellianism Inventory has provided a timely reevaluation of Machiavellianism’s theory and measurement.

The current debate surrounding accurate measurement and existing empirical evidence makes it difficult to effectively predict the type of relationship expected between Machiavellianism and EI. From a theoretical perspective, we might expect to see a strong positive relationship between Machiavellianism and EI. However, based on the empirical work in the literature to date and the aforementioned measurement issues, we expect a negative association between Machiavellianism and EI.

Psychopathy

Psychopathy has been typified by interpersonal, affective, and behavioral characteristics, including superficial charm, pathological lying, and lack of empathy/conscience/remorse (Cleckley, 1941; Hare, 1991, 2003). Often confused with antisocial personality disorder, the subclinical characteristics of psychopathy, like narcissism, have been found in the broader population on a continuum (Berg et al., 2013). Based on Karpman’s (1941) work, enduring classifications of psychopathy distinguish between two subtypes differing on their etiology and symptomology. Hare (1991, 2003) expanded on earlier work, developing a model of psychopathy distinguishing primary and secondary psychopathy. Both facets of psychopathy involve affective elements suggesting some indifference to their own and others’ emotions, with each underpinned by an antagonistic interpersonal style (Miller & Lynam, 2012). It is generally understood psychopathy lies on a continuum. However, individuals may manifest both primary and secondary psychopathy, with one dominating facet providing a better description of an individual’s pattern of psychopathic personality (Karpman, 1941).

Primary psychopathy is characterized by (a) a lack of guilt and remorse, with elevated levels of callousness, manipulation, and socially desirable behavior (Hare, 1991, 2003), (b) having superficial affect (Casey et al., 2013), and (c) deficits in affective empathy (Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012). Primary psychopathy is also associated with lower levels of fear (Patrick et al., 1993) and lower indications of repentance (Hare, 2003; Lee & Salekin, 2010) than seen in nonpsychopaths. In contrast, secondary psychopathy is characterized by higher levels of antisocial behaviors such as aggressiveness, impulsivity, and anxiety (Levenson et al., 1995). These characteristics are potentially a result of experiencing strong emotions, which individuals cannot regulate effectively (Hare, 2003). Additionally, individuals high on secondary psychopathy have been shown to possess guilt and fear responses not typically observed in individuals high in primary psychopathy (Lykken, 1995).

Primary psychopathy is considered affective and interpersonal (Cleckley, 1941) with goal-directed interest in maintaining social desirability (Hare, 1991, 2003). Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that an individual high on primary psychopathy should possess the ability to identify and understand others’ emotions to manage them. As such, it is expected that there will be a positive relationship between primary psychopathy and EI. In contrast, secondary psychopathy comprises antisocial and impulsive behaviors that tend toward aggressive outbursts (Hare, 1990, 2003). That is, those with high levels of secondary psychopathy exhibit a lack of emotional awareness coupled with excessive emotional reactions. Therefore, it is expected that there will be a negative association between secondary psychopathy and EI.

Method

Literature Search

A search was conducted in August 2018 and updated in August 2020. The search terms (“dark triad” or “narciss*” or “psychopathy” or “Machiavellian”) AND (“emotional intelligence” or “EI”) yielded 1,249 results from the databases PsychInfo, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and Scopus. The search was limited to English language studies. Additionally, reference searches were conducted to identify potential studies that may have been missed in the initial search. The database and reference searches yielded a total of 122 studies that progressed to full-text review to check for specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The overall literature search resulted in 42 studies containing 48 samples fitting our inclusion criteria (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Quorum chart of articles included in the review.

Coding

The coding procedure was developed based on Cochrane collaboration standards (Higgins & Green, 2006). Study characteristics comprising author, date, sample size percentage of female participants, mean age, EI instrument, dark triad instrument, EI type (trait vs. ability), dark triad trait, Cronbach’s alpha, and Pearson correlations were extracted and coded into a worksheet. The method and results are presented according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2015). Before beginning this review, a protocol was developed to guide the search data extraction.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined for eligibility of studies to ensure only studies that adequately addressed the research questions were included: (a) a dark triad measure and EI measure, both of which must have either a publication manual, a previous journal article, or an academic book chapter providing validity information; (b) effect size information relating to the association between the dark triad trait and EI; (c) only adult samples (18 years and over) were included; and (d) only English language articles were considered. Theoretical articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded.

Results and Discussion

Our search identified 48 studies in total (42 articles). See Table 1 for a complete list of all studies included. Fifteen studies assessed AEI, 37 assessed TEI, and four used both AEI and TEI measures. Seven studies used a forensic sample, 17 used a community sample, and 24 used undergraduate samples, for a total of 14,029 participants. The mean age range of participants was between 18.59 and 58.08 years. Reviewed studies were grouped into two sections: AEI and self-report TEI. A summary of the main results obtained with each measure can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Included studies and study characteristics for the systematic review of the relationship between emotional intelligence and the dark triad of personality.

Author(s) and year	Sample demographics			Participant profile	Measures		Summary of results
Author(s) and year	N	N female	Mean age		EI tool	DT tool	Summary of results
Ability emotional intelligence
Austin et al. (2007, Study 1)	199	137	21.14	Undergraduate	MSCEIT	Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.22** Facilitate/Mach = −.18* Manage/Mach = −.30***
Baytalskaya (2008)	176	97	20.20	Undergraduate	STEM	Mach-IV	Manage/Mach = −.19*
					STEU	Mach-IV	Understand/Mach = .03
Copestake et al. (2013)	57	0	38.00	Forensic	MSCEIT	PCL-R	Total/TP = .06Perceive/TP = .26Understand/TP = −.10Manage/TP = −.08
					MSCEIT	PPI-R	Total/TP = −.06Total/PP = .27Total/SP = −.20Perceive/TP = .07Perceive/PP = .33* Perceive/SP = −.12Understand/TP = −.03Understand/PP = .23Understand/SP = −.14Manage/TP = −.17Manage/PP = .16Manage/SP = −.29*
Côté et al. (2011)	252	184	39.29	Community	MSCEIT	Mach-IV	Manage/Mach = −.28***
Curci et al. (2017)	33	0	42.38	Forensic	MSCEIT	PCL-R	Total/TP = .23
Ermer et al. (2012)	374	0	34.20	Forensic	MSCEIT	PCL-R	Total/TP = −.07Total/PP = −.01Total/SP = −.10Understanding/PP = .01Understand/SP = −.13* Manage/SP = −.13* Understand/SP = −.13*
Howe et al. (2014)	55	16	37.87	Community	MSCEIT	PPI-R	Total/TP = −.40 Total/PP = .12Total/SP = −.52 Perceive/TP = −.29* Perceive/PP = .14Perceive/SP = −.44 Manage/TP = −.37 Manage/PP = .02Manage/SP = −.41**
Jauk et al. (2016)	399	399	23.84	Undergraduate	MSCEIT	DD	Total/TN = −.26** Total/Mach = −.20* Total/TP = −.13
	141	0	26.76	Undergraduate	MSCEIT	DD	Total/TN = −.11* Total/Mach = .17* Total/TP = −.24**
Ling et al. (2018)	156	0	35.72	Community	MSCEIT	PCL-R	Total/TP = −.28** Total/PP = −.23* Total/SP = −.27*
Lishner et al. (2011)	144	79	18.98	Undergraduate	MSCEIT	SRP-III	Total/TP = −.34** Total/PP = −.37* Total/SP = −.23* Perceive/TP = −.23* Perceive/PP = −.27* Perceive/SP = −.14Manage/TP = −.39* Manage/PP = −.41* Manage/SP = −.29*
Vidal et al. (2010)	188	0	19.90	Undergraduate	MSCEIT	PPI-R	Total/TP = −.21** Total/PP = .13Total/SP = −.30* Facilitate/PP = .19* Facilitate/SP = −.17* Understand/PP = .07Understand/SP = −.23 Manage/PP = .10Manage/SP = −.38
Visser et al. (2010)	254	254	20.48	Undergraduate	MSCEIT	SRP-III	Total/TP = −.30 Perceive/TP = .18Manage/TP = −.31
	175	0	20.48	Undergraduate	MSCEIT	SRP-III	Total/TP = −.40 Perceive/TP = −.34 Manage/TP = −.39**
Vonk et al. (2015)	902	764	20.40	Undergraduate	STEM	Mach-IV	Manage/Mach = −.32***
						PNI	Manage/GN = .10* Manage/VN = −.16***
						LSRP	Manage/PP = −.47* Manage/SP = −.39*
					STEU	Mach-IV	Understand/Mach = −.19***
						PNI	Understand/GN = −.05Understand/VN = −.15***
						LSRP	Understand/PP = −.40* Understand/SP = −.30*
Yocum (2007)	114	0	np	Undergraduate	MSCEIT	NPI	Perceive/GN = .05Understand/GN = −.28* Facilitate/GN = −.12Manage/GN = −.08
Zajenkowski et al. (2018)	249	174	22.67	Undergraduate	TIE	NPI	Total/GN = −.11
						HSNS	Total/VN = −.12
Trait emotional intelligence
Ali et al. (2009)	84	67	20.7	Undergraduate	TEIQue-SF	LSRP	Total/PP = −.17Total/SP = −.48**
						Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.23*
Austin et al. (2007, Study 1)	199	137	21.14	Undergraduate	EQi	Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.33 Interpersonal/Mach = −.46* Intrapersonal/Mach = −.11Stress mgt/Mach = −.22**
Austin et al. (2007, Study 2)	341	232	40.00	Community	TEIQue-SF	Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.25***
Austin et al. (2014, Study 1)	369	246	18.63	Undergraduate	TEIQue-SF	NPI-SFHSNS	Total/GN = .21***
						NPI-SFHSNS	Total/VN = −.48***
						Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.33***
						LSRP	Total/PP = −.25 Total/SP = −.57*
Austin et al. (2014, Study 2)	432	327	22.25	Community	TEIQue-SF	NPI-SF	Total/GN = .06
						HSNS	Total/VN = −.44***
						Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.37***
						LSRP	Total/PP = −.31* Total/SP = −.58*
Casale et al. (2019)	583	np	22.61	Undergraduate	EQi	HSNS	General Mood/VN = −.50 Adaptability/VN = −.48 Intrapersonal/VN = −.52 Interpersonal/VN = −.39 Stress mgt/VN = −.42**
						GNS	General mood/GN = .39 Adaptability/GN = .13 Intrapersonal/GN = .44 Interpersonal/GN = .07Stress mgt/GN = .14
Copestake et al. (2013)	57	0	38.00	Forensic	TMMS	PPI-R	Total/TP = .30* Total/PP = −.14Total/SP = .39**
						PCL-R	Total/TP = .27Total/PP = .20 to .21Total/SP = .20 to .27
Fix et al. (2015)	38	0	20.58	Undergraduate	EQi	PPI-R	General mood/TP = −.18Adaptability/TP = −.07Intrapersonal/TP = −.04Interpersonal/TP = .39 Stress mgt/TP = .26
Garofalo et al. (2020)	578	0	29.24	Forensic	TMMS	PPI-R	Total/TP = −.23***
						PCL-R	Total/TP = −.09*
Grieve and Mahar (2010, Study 1)	73	58	23.96	Undergraduate	SREIS	LSRP	Total/PP = −.12Total/SP = −.26*
Grieve and Mahar (2010, Study 2)	82	0	23.53	Undergraduate	SREIS	LSRP	Total/PP = .02Total/SP = −.35**
	170	170	23.53	Undergraduate	SREIS	LSRP	Total/PP = −.29 Total/SP = −.34
Grieve and Panebianco (2013)	87	0	34.34	Community	EIS	LSRP	Total/PP = −.15Total/SP = −.40***
	152	152	34.34	Community	EIS	LSRP	Total/PP = −.20* Total/SP = −.41***
Grieve et al. (2014, Sample 1)	71	np	33.27	Community	EIS	LSRP	Total/PP = −.06Total/SP = −.66***
Grieve et al. (2014, Sample 2)	122	np	33.27	Community	EIS	LSRP	Total/PP = −.17Total/SP = −.46***
Hyde and Grieve (2014)	234	193	32.16	Community	SREIS	LSRP	Total/PP = −.18 Total/SP = −.40
Hyde et al. (2020)	184	0	28.04	Community	SREIS	DD	Total/TN = .07Total/Mach = −.60Total/TP = −.31***
	581	581	28.04	Community	SREIS	DD	Total/TN = .09* Total/Mach = −.03Total/TP = −.15***
Jauk et al. (2016)	141	0	26.76	Undergraduate	TEIQue	DD	Total/TN = −.09Total/Mach = .04Total/TP = −.20*
	399	399	23.84	Undergraduate	TEIQue	DD	Total/TN = −.06Total/Mach = −.12* Total/TP = −.30**
Link and Bailey (2010)	158	np	20.64	Undergraduate	EIS	NPI-SF	Total/GN = .28***
Malterer et al. (2008)	439	0	30.28	Forensic	TMMS	PCL-R	Attention/TP = −.10* Repair/TP = −.14** Clarity/TP = −.12Attention/PP = −.10* Repair/PP = −.08Clarity/PP = .04Attention/SP = −.06Repair/SP = −.16** Clarity/SP = −.08
O’Connor and Athota (2013)	884	589	30.28	Community	SREIS	Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.32* Manage/Mach = −.34*
Owens et al. (2018)	51	35	20.86	Undergraduate	AES	SRP-III	Total/TP = .01
Petrides et al. (2011, Sample 1)	214	131	41.17	Community	TEIQue	NPI	Total/TN = .20*
Petrides et al. (2011, Sample 1)						Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.37*
						SRP-III	Total/TP = −.21*
Petrides et al. (2011, Sample 2)	214	131	41.17	Community	TEIQue	NPI	Total/TN = .22*
Petrides et al. (2011, Sample 2)						Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.29*
						SRP-III	Total/TP = −.24*
Pham et al. (2010)	39	0	40.89	Forensic	TEIQue	PCL-R	Total/TP = .29Total/PP = .31Total/SP = .21
Plouffe et al. (2017, Study 1)	199	88	18.74	Undergraduate	TEiQue-SF	SD3	Total/TN = .38*** Total/Mach = −.15* Total/TP = −.23**
Plouffe et al. (2017, Study 2)	202	148	18.59	Undergraduate	TEiQue-SF	SD3	Total/TN = .32* Total/Mach = −.11Total/TP = −.25*
Porter et al. (2011)	100	75	20.78	Undergraduate	TEIQue-SF	SRP-IV	Total/TP = −.29*
Ray et al. (2011)	92	28	28.50	Forensic	WLEIS	PPI	Total/TP = −.28Total/PP = −.06Total/SP = −.33
						PPI-R	Total/TP = −.20Total/PP = −.04Total/SP = −.19
Sacco et al. (2016, Study 1)	150	75	33.56	Community	TEIQue-SF	PPI-SF	Total/PP = .55* Total/SP = −.43*
Sacco et al. (2016, Study 2)	151	64	32.81	Community	TEIQue-SF	PPI-SF	Total/PP = .56* Total/SP = −.47*
Saklofske et al. (2016)	277	224	21.02	Undergraduate	TEIQue-SF	DD	Total/TN = .08Total/Mach = −.09Total/TP = −.41*
Srivastava et al. (2020)	260	110	np	Community	WLEIS	HSNS	Total/VN = −.46**
Stead and Fekken (2014)	548	384	32.05	Community	TEIQue-SF	NPI-SF	Total/TN = .20**
						Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.42**
						SRP-III	Total/TP = −.20**
Szabo and Bereczkei (2017)	143	103	21.89	Undergraduate	SREIS	NPI	Total/GN = .29***
						Mach-IV	Total/Mach = −.13
						LSRP	Total/PP = −.12Total/SP = −.38***
Vonk et al. (2013)	386	278	30.28	Undergraduate	EIS	PNI	Total/GN = .14 Total/VN = −.19*
Watts et al. (2016)	1,257	880	19.32	Undergraduate	EQi	PPI-R	Total/TP = −.28*** to −.01
Zacher et al. (2014)	75	11	58.08	Community	WLEIS	NPI-SF	Total/GN = .09
Zajenkowski et al. (2018)	249	174	22.67	Undergraduate	TEIQue-SF	NPI	Total/GN = .49***
						HSNS	Total/VN = −.55***

Note. EI (emotional intelligence) tools: AES = Assessing Emotions Scale (Schutte et al., 1998); EQi = Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On & Parker, 2000); MSCEIT = Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer, 2002); STEM = Situational Test of Emotion Management (MacCann & Roberts, 2008); STEU = Situational Test of Emotion Understanding (MacCann & Roberts, 2008); TEIQue = Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Petrides et al., 2006); TIE = Test of Emotional Intelligence (Śmieja et al., 2014); TMMS = Trait Meta Mood Scale (Salovey et al., 1995); EIS/SREIS = Emotional Intelligence Scale (Schutte et al., 1998); WLEIS = Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (Wong & Law, 2002).

DT (dark triad) tools: DD = Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010); GNS = Grandiose Narcissism Scale (Foster et al., 2015); HSNS = Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (Hendin & Cheek, 1997); LSRP = Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Levenson et al., 1995); Mach-IV = Machiavellianism Scale (Christie & Geis, 1970); NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979); PCL-R = Psychopathy Check List-Revised (Hare, 1991, 2003); PNI = Pathological Narcissism Inventory (Pincus et al., 2009); PPI = Psychopathic Personality Inventory (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996); SD3 = Short Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014); SRP-III/SRP-IV = Self-Report Psychopathy III/IV Scale (Paulhus et al., 2012).

Perceive, Facilitate, Manage, and Understand = Branches 1–4 of the MSCEIT; Interpersonal, Stress mgt = facets from the EQi; Attention and Repair = attention, and repair facets from the TMMS; Mach = Machiavellianism; TP = total psychopathy; PP = primary psychopathy; SP = secondary psychopathy; GN = grandiose narcissism; VN = vulnerable narcissism; TN = total narcissism; EI = emotional intelligence; np = not provided.

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

The results are presented alongside the discussion separately for each of the dark triad traits. A General Discussion section will follow this combined Results and Discussion section. The purpose of presenting the results and discussion for each of the dark triad traits together is to help the reader interpret each construct’s results.

Narcissism

Eighteen studies measured the relationship between narcissism and EI. Of these studies, nine used the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Austin et al., 2014; Link & Bailey, 2010; Petrides et al., 2011; Stead & Fekken, 2014; Szabó & Bereczkei, 2017; Yocum, 2007; Zacher et al., 2014; Zajenkowski et al., 2018), two used the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI; Vonk et al., 2013, 2015), two used the Short Dark Triad (Plouffe et al., 2017), five used Hendin and Cheek’s (1997) Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (Austin et al., 2014; Casale et al., 2019; Srivastava et al., 2020; Zajenkowski et al., 2018), one used Foster et al.,’s (2015) Grandiose Narcissism Scale (Casale et al., 2019), and three used the Dirty Dozen (Hyde et al., 2020; Jauk et al., 2016; Saklofske et al., 2016). Of the 18 studies, four studies used AEI measures (Jauk et al., 2016; Vonk et al., 2015; Yocum, 2007; Zajenkowski et al., 2018), with correlations ranging from −.26 to .10. Seventeen studies (Austin et al., 2014; Casale et al., 2019; Hyde et al., 2020; Jauk et al., 2016; Link & Bailey, 2010; Petrides et al., 2011; Plouffe et al., 2017; Saklofske et al., 2016; Srivastava et al., 2020; Stead & Fekken, 2014; Szabó & Bereczkei, 2017; Vonk et al., 2013; Zacher et al., 2014; Zajenkowski et al., 2018) used TEI measures, with correlations ranging from −.55 to .49.

The dual nature of narcissism is well established in the literature (Pincus et al., 2009; Rohmann et al., 2012). As such, it is not surprising there were divergent relationships at the facet level found in this review. As expected, grandiose narcissism was positively related to AEI and TEI, while vulnerable narcissism was negatively related to AEI and TEI, though there were three exceptions. The first exception, Zajenkowski et al. (2018), measured the relationship between narcissism facets using both AEI and TEI scales. While Zajenkowski et al. reported a positive correlation of .49 between TEI and grandiose narcissism, and a negative correlation of −.55 between TEI and vulnerable narcissism, these differed from the AEI relationships. A correlation of −.11 was reported for AEI and grandiose narcissism, and a correlation of −.12 was reported for AEI and vulnerable narcissism, though these did not reach significance. Closer examination revealed that vulnerable narcissism was positively related to the understanding branch of AEI, correlating at .10. In contrast, grandiose narcissism was negatively related to the understanding branch of AEI, correlating at −.15.

The second exception was Vonk et al. (2015), who used the Situational Test of Emotion Understanding (STEU; MacCann & Roberts, 2008) to measure AEI. Similarly, they found a small negative correlation of −.05 between understanding and grandiose narcissism. However, in contrast to Zajenkowski et al. (2018), Vonk et al. found a negative correlation of −.05 between understanding and vulnerable narcissism. Similarly, Zajenkowski et al. found grandiose and vulnerable narcissism were negatively related to the managing branch of the MSCEIT, whereas Vonk et al. found an inverse relationship between the two using the Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM; MacCann & Roberts, 2008). That is, Vonk et al. found that vulnerable narcissism was negatively related to management, while grandiose narcissism was positively related to management. While only two studies presented results across both AEI and TEI measures, it is unclear whether these differences are due to something systematically different between the measures of AEI or narcissism, or whether there are specific emotional competency differences found at the facet level of narcissism and the branch level of AEI. The final exception was Yocum (2007), who used the MSCEIT to measure the four-branch model of AEI and grandiose narcissism. The only significant association reported was a correlation of −.28 between the understanding branch of AEI and grandiose narcissism.

EI results range from −.55 to .49, with grandiose narcissism consistently positively related to TEI, and vulnerable narcissism consistently negatively related to TEI. These differences between AEI and TEI echo the idea that TEI measures reflect self-knowledge and significantly correlate with personality (Petrides et al., 2007). However, the extent to which self-knowledge is accurate for individuals high in narcissism is unclear. Carlson et al. (2011) found that individuals high in narcissism were somewhat aware of how others perceived them. Furthermore, John and Robins (1994) found that individuals high in narcissism tended to evaluate themselves more positively than others perceive them. Petrides (2010) hypothesized that the positive association between grandiose narcissism and TEI may be no more than hubris (Petrides, 2010), which warrants questioning the prevalence of socially desirable responding among those high in self-reported narcissism. Neither Carlson et al. nor John and Robbins examined their findings at the facet level to determine how self-knowledge differed between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

Measurement concerns

There are important differences between the scales used to measure narcissism. For example, studies examining the Dirty Dozen’s psychometric properties show the scale captures a mix of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism items, though it is not possible to differentiate between these facets (Maples et al., 2014; Savard et al., 2017). Two of the three studies using the Dirty Dozen found trivial, positive correlations between narcissism and EI (Hyde et al., 2020; Saklofske et al., 2016), which is possibly due to the Dirty Dozen total scores consisting of grandiose and vulnerable items. In contrast, the Short Dark Triad predominately measures grandiose/entitlement traits (Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Maples et al., 2014). As a result, the two studies using the Short Dark Triad reported a significant, moderate positive correlation between narcissism and EI (Plouffe et al., 2017). These findings provide further evidence that the practice of collapsing into a total narcissism score can provide a misleading account of the relationship between narcissism and other constructs.

Further, we identified several general issues within the empirical literature. First, 60% of participants across all studies of narcissism were female, and 11 of the 18 total reviewed studies used university samples. A meta-analysis by Grijalva et al. (2015) found significant evidence of gender differences, with males scoring higher on grandiose narcissism than females. Additionally, they found that narcissism tends to decline after young adulthood, which is an important consideration for future studies of narcissism and EI when using university samples. In this review, only Jauk et al. (2016) reported gender differences but found no differences between male and female university students.

Further, researchers commonly collapse grandiose and vulnerable narcissism into a total narcissism score. This assumes the two facets measure the same thing. However, while only a few studies measured both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, grandiose narcissism tends to have a small positive relationship with EI, and vulnerable narcissism tends to have a substantial negative relationship with EI. These results provide additional evidence that grandiose and vulnerable narcissism should be considered separately rather than combined into a total score.

Finally, researchers sometimes measure only one facet of narcissism yet report their findings on narcissism instead of reporting their findings on either grandiose or vulnerable narcissism specifically. This tendency goes against the predominant theory of narcissism, which includes both facets as sharing underlying characteristics but being distinct from each other (Wink, 1991). Furthermore, collapsing grandiose and vulnerable narcissism scores into a total score does not accurately represent the relationships with other constructs. Doing so removes the opportunity to investigate the important outcome differences of each facet. It appears that the complex relationship between EI and narcissism requires further investigation along with careful methodological consideration coupled with a strong theoretical foundation.

Machiavellianism

Eighteen studies measured the relationship between Machiavellianism and EI. Of these 18 studies, five used AEI measures (Austin et al., 2007; Baytalskaya, 2008; Côté et al., 2011; Jauk et al., 2016; Vonk et al., 2015), with correlations ranging from −.32 to .03. Fifteen studies (Ali et al., 2009; Austin et al., 2007, 2014; Hyde et al., 2020; Jauk et al., 2016; O’Connor & Athota, 2013; Petrides et al., 2011; Plouffe et al., 2017; Saklofske et al., 2016; Stead & Fekken, 2014; Szabo & Bereczkei, 2017) used TEI measures, with correlations ranging from −.60 to .04. Two studies used both AEI and TEI measures. Thirteen of 18 studies measured Machiavellianism using the Mach-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), three used the Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010), and two used the Short Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). As expected, Machiavellianism was negatively associated with EI across 14 of the 18 studies, with correlations ranging from −.60 to −.03. Jauk et al. presented a positive but not significant association of .04 between Machiavellianism and TEI. Baytalskaya also presented a positive but not significant association of .03 between Machiavellianism and AEI.

Unfortunately, only two of the included studies reported their findings on sex differences (Austin et al., 2007; Jauk et al., 2016), and one on age differences (Austin et al., 2007). Their results were consistent with prior research. Females had higher levels of AEI, males had higher levels of Machiavellianism and nonsignificantly higher TEI levels, and students had higher levels of Machiavellianism compared to a community sample. However, given there were so few studies, the degree to which this review can provide a cohesive overview of sex and age differences in Machiavellianism is limited.

An area in which Machiavellianism research is growing is within the dark EI literature. The dark EI concept posits that EI has a dark side, whereby individuals with high levels of emotional manipulation can successfully achieve personal goals through the emotional manipulation of others (Austin et al., 2007). This concept moves away from the typical positive conceptualization of EI, instead offering an additional perspective on the interpersonal impact of high EI, particularly when combined with morally dubious attitudes and behavior.

A core characteristic of Machiavellianism is the manipulation of others for personal gain. Indeed, it has been suggested that in order for manipulation to be successful, a certain level of EI is required (Austin et al., 2007; Côté et al., 2011). The pattern of results in this review presents a convincing strong negative association between EI and Machiavellianism. Austin et al. suggest this may be due to the inherently positive elements of existing EI scales, which do not tap into some of the darker attitudes and behaviors associated with EI (i.e., interpersonal manipulation). Presently, it is unclear what underlies the degree to which interpersonal emotionally manipulative behavior is successful.

Measurement concerns

Like for narcissism, there are distinct differences between AEI and TEI measures and their association with Machiavellianism. The relationship between total AEI and Machiavellianism sits around −.20, whereas total TEI and Machiavellianism have a much wider range of correlations between −.60 and .04. This variability seems to revolve around the use of short dark triad combination measures. Specifically, studies that used Jonason and Webster’s (2010) Dirty Dozen (Hyde et al., 2020; Jauk et al., 2016; Saklofske et al., 2016) and Jones and Paulhus’s (2014) Short Dark Triad (Plouffe et al., 2017) revealed nonsignificant, small negative correlations between Machiavellianism and TEI. By comparison, studies using the Mach-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970) show less variability among studies, with correlations ranging from −.23 to −.42. The only exception to this was Szabo and Bereczkei (2017), which reported a −.13 association between Machiavellianism and TEI using the Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Scale (SREIS; Schutte et al., 1998). This anomaly may be due to the limited set of TEI facets measured by the SREIS, which is based on an earlier model of AEI (Gardner & Qualter, 2010; Mayer & Salovey, 1990). Without the full coverage of TEI facets, the SREIS may not be measuring the association with Machiavellianism as precisely as the other TEI measures.

Psychopathy

Thirty-six studies measured the relationship between psychopathy and EI. Of these 36 studies, 10 used AEI measures (Copestake et al., 2013; Curci et al., 2017; Ermer et al., 2012; Howe et al., 2014; Jauk et al., 2016; Ling et al., 2018; Lishner et al., 2011; Vidal et al., 2010; Visser and Bereczkei, 2010; Vonk et al., 2015), with correlations ranging from −.52 to .33. Twenty-nine studies used TEI measures, with correlations ranging from −.66 to .56 (Ali et al., 2009; Austin et al., 2007, 2014; Copestake et al., 2013; Fix et al., 2015; Garofalo et al., 2020; Grieve & Mahar, 2010; Grieve & Panebianco, 2013; Grieve et al., 2014; Hyde & Grieve, 2014; Hyde et al., 2020; Jauk et al., 2016; Malterer et al., 2008; Owens et al., 2018; Petrides et al., 2011; Pham et al., 2010; Plouffe et al., 2017; Porter et al., 2011; Ray et al., 2011; Sacco et al., 2016; Saklofske et al., 2016; Stead & Fekken, 2014; Szabo and Bereczkei, 2017; Watts et al., 2016).

Eleven of the 36 studies measuring the relationship between psychopathy and EI used Levenson et al.’s (1995) Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Ali et al., 2009; Austin et al., 2014; Grieve & Mahar, 2010; Grieve & Panebianco, 2013; Grieve et al., 2014; Hyde and Grieve, 2014; Szabo and Bereczkei, 2017; Vonk et al., 2015), nine used Lilienfeld and Andrews’s (1996) Psychopathy Personality Inventory-Revised or short form (PPI-R; Copestake et al., 2013; Fix et al., 2015; Garofalo et al., 2020; Howe et al., 2014; Ray et al., 2011; Sacco et al., 2016; Vidal et al., 2010; Watts et al., 2016), five used Paulhus et al.’s (2012) Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III (SRP-III; Lishner et al., 2011; Owens et al., 2018; Petrides et al., 2011; Stead & Fekken, 2014; Visser et al., 2010), seven used Hare’s (2003) Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Copestake et al., 2013; Curci et al., 2017; Ermer et al., 2012; Garofalo et al., 2020; Ling et al., 2018; Malterer et al., 2008; Pham et al., 2010), two used Jones and Paulhus’s (2014) Short Dark Triad (SDT; Plouffe et al., 2017), one study used Paulhus et al.’s (2016) Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-IV (SRP-IV; Porter et al., 2011), and three used Jonason and Webster’s (2010) Dirty Dozen (DD; Hyde et al., 2020; Jauk et al., 2016; Saklofske et al., 2016).

Eighteen studies reported negative correlations ranging from −.41 to −.03 between total psychopathy and EI (Copestake et al., 2013; Ermer et al., 2012; Fix et al., 2015; Garofalo et al., 2020; Howe et al., 2014; Hyde et al., 2020; Ling et al., 2018; Lishner et al., 2011; Malterer et al., 2008; Petrides et al., 2011; Plouffe et al., 2017; Porter et al., 2011; Ray et al., 2011; Saklofske et al., 2016; Stead & Fekken, 2014; Vidal et al., 2010; Visser et al., 2010). These negative correlations were spread across both AEI and TEI, with total AEI displaying slightly larger negative correlations with total psychopathy than total TEI. This may be due to individuals overstating their emotional competencies on self-report measures of EI to make themselves appear more emotionally intelligent (Petrides, 2011). It does not appear that sample characteristics drove these results.

A more complex pattern begins to emerge when examining psychopathy at the facet level. As expected, there were positive correlations ranging from .05 to .33 between total AEI and primary psychopathy, but only when the PPI-R was used to measure psychopathy. However, when the SRP, LSRP, or PCL-R were used, there were negative correlations with AEI ranging from −.47 to −.01. Also, as expected, secondary psychopathy was consistently negatively related to total AEI across all measures of psychopathy, ranging from −.52 to −.10.

Examining the branch level of AEI, primary psychopathy was positively related to perceiving emotions when psychopathy was measured using the PPI-R or the PCL-R, but negatively related when using the SRP-III. The relationship between secondary psychopathy and perceiving emotions was more straightforward, with negative correlations across the studies. A similar pattern emerged for understanding emotions, which was positively associated with primary psychopathy when measured using the PPI-R and PCL-R, but negatively associated with primary psychopathy when measured using either the SRP-III or LSRP. This same pattern emerged for both the facilitation and managing branches of AEI, and their relationship with primary psychopathy. Secondary psychopathy was negatively related to the facilitation and managing branches of AEI.

While levels of secondary psychopathy found in male and female samples were negatively related to AEI, there was a stronger negative relationship found for males than females. In contrast, the negative relationship between primary psychopathy and AEI was substantially larger for females than males (Ermer et al., 2012; Grieve et al., 2014; Grieve & Mahar, 2010; Jauk et al., 2016), suggesting females with higher levels of primary psychopathy exhibited lower levels of EI than males. These findings highlight the importance of considering gender differences in the EI–psychopathy relationship to enhance our understanding of what underlies interpersonal manipulation.

The relationship between TEI and the facets of psychopathy is significantly more variable than with AEI. Across the reviewed studies, there are both positive and negative correlations between total TEI and primary psychopathy, ranging from −.31 to .56. Six studies report a positive correlation between primary psychopathy and total TEI across undergraduate, community, and forensic samples (Copestake et al., 2013; Grieve & Mahar, 2010; Malterer et al., 2008; Pham et al., 2010, Study 1; Sacco et al., 2016, Studies 1 and 2). A similar pattern emerges for secondary psychopathy and total TEI, whereby secondary psychopathy is generally negatively related to total TEI across the board, ranging from −.66 to −.19. However, Pham et al. (2010) and Copestake et al. (2013) used forensic male-only samples, reporting that secondary psychopathy was positively related to total TEI, with correlations of .21 and .39, respectively. By comparison, Howe et al. (2014) using a mixed-gender community sample and Copestake et al. found equally significant moderate negative correlations between secondary psychopathy and EI. These results are consistent with the impulsive and aggressive behavior associated with secondary psychopathy, which is more likely found in forensic than community samples (Falkenbach et al., 2008). Additionally, Copestake et al. used both AEI and TEI measures, reporting opposite results between the two. AEI was negatively related to secondary psychopathy and TEI was positively related to secondary psychopathy. These findings are consistent with prior research demonstrating AEI and TEI are distinct constructs.

With such large variation between and within studies, it is vital to investigate whether results are driven by deceptive responding or whether individuals high in primary and/or secondary psychopathic traits are inhibited by impaired self-reflection. Carlson et al. (2011) found that individuals high in narcissistic traits were more likely to be at least somewhat self-aware of their narcissistic tendencies. Although Lilienfeld and Fowler (2006) discuss the lack of insight and limited realistic self-evaluation of individuals high in psychopathic traits, there does not appear to be an equivalent study to that of Carlson et al. for psychopathy.

Additionally, these results appear to be consistent across samples and genders, although results appear to be influenced by age. Undergraduate samples (mean age of 19.78, collapsed across studies) presented moderate negative correlations (range −.47 to .10) between the managing emotions branch of AEI and primary psychopathy, compared to community/forensic samples reporting small nonsignificant correlations (range −.05 to .16). Differences in EI across the lifespan may explain these findings. Atkins and Stough (2005) found a positive relationship between age and both TEI and AEI, while Kafetsios (2004) found age particularly influenced scores on the managing emotions branch of AEI.

Prior research found that theory of mind was not impaired in individuals exhibiting high levels of psychopathic traits (Richell et al., 2003). This suggests that the capacity to extrapolate another individual’s goals and intentions is intact in high psychopathic individuals. Additionally, a recent meta-analysis reported that primary psychopathy was positively related to cognitive empathy, and secondary psychopathy was negatively related to both cognitive and affective empathy (Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012). Considering these prior findings relating to theory of mind and empathy, the somewhat inconsistent findings between the relationship of EI with primary and secondary psychopathy are unsurprising. While EI and empathy are separate constructs, they remain somewhat related. As such, these findings similarly lend credence to the importance of exploring the relationship of psychopathy and EI at the facet level of psychopathy rather than collapsing across facets into a total psychopathy score.

The implications of these findings for the study of psychopathy within a forensic setting merit comment. Seven of the included studies used forensic samples incorporating a mix of AEI and TEI measures, and either the PCL-R (Hare, 1991, 2003) or Lilienfeld and Andrews’ (1996) PPI-R (Copestake et al., 2013; Curci et al., 2017; Ermer et al., 2012; Garofalo et al., 2020; Malterer et al., 2008; Pham et al., 2010; Ray et al., 2011). The pattern of results demonstrates a negative association between secondary psychopathy and EI when AEI measures are used, and generally a positive association when TEI measures are used. On the other hand, primary psychopathy is in general consistently positively associated with both AEI and TEI. This association seems consistent whether the psychopathy measure used is the PCL-R or the PPI-R, suggesting that TEI measures may be particularly vulnerable to socially desirable responding. Importantly, these seven studies predominantly tested males, with only Ray et al. (2011) including females in their study, thus limiting generalizability within a forensic context. Taken together, these findings indicate that the use of these measures in a forensic setting should be balanced with a consideration of the impact of socially desirable responding on the validity of results. Researchers might consider using additional measures, such as lie scales or specific statistical approaches, to mitigate the impact of socially desirable responding and improve the validity of their findings.

Measurement concerns

Discrepancies found across the psychopathy measures may reflect the nature of measurement combined with inherent differences between scales. For example, the PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) measures central characteristics of psychopathy rather than representing highly discriminative items at each end of the scale (Tsang et al., 2017). In contrast, the SRP (Paulhus et al., 2012) and LSRP (Levenson et al., 1995) were developed to more closely parallel the two-factor model measured by the PCL (Hare, 1991). Examination of the psychometric properties of the SRP and LSRP shows support for a two-factor model capable of discriminating at extreme ends of the scale. When considering the pattern of results presented in this review, it may be that when collapsing the facets of the PPI-R, SRP, and LSRP into a total score, the meaning of those total scores is slightly different between scales.

Additionally, the pattern of results in this review shows that primary psychopathy relates both positively and negatively to EI, while secondary psychopathy is consistently negatively related to EI. As psychopathy theory continues to develop, so too will scales that more adequately capture the entire domain. Previous comparison studies of psychopathy scales suggest that it is necessary to use a multimeasure approach when measuring psychopathy to ensure coverage of the full domain (Tsang et al., 2017).

General Discussion

This systematic review shows that dark triad traits are negatively associated with EI at the domain level. In other words, people with high scores on narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy have lower EI scores. These patterns were consistent across AEI and TEI. More importantly, these findings provide a unique perspective by exploring the facet-level associations between dark triad traits and EI. That is, on the surface, the pattern of results in this review reinforces prior meta-analytic findings that psychopathy (Megías et al., 2018; Miao et al., 2019), narcissism, and Machiavellianism are negatively related to EI (Miao et al., 2019). However, on closer examination of the studies, the relationship between the dark triad and EI is more complicated than typically portrayed. While each of the dark traits appears to be negatively related to EI, results at the facet level of narcissism and psychopathy tell a different story. Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism were differentially related, such that grandiose narcissism was generally positively related to EI, while vulnerable narcissism was negatively related. The total narcissism score was also negatively related to EI, suggesting this negative association is driven by vulnerable narcissism.

Similarly, primary and secondary psychopathy were differentially related. Unlike narcissism, the positive association between primary psychopathy and EI seems to be a function of the scale used rather than the construct. Again, the total psychopathy score seems largely driven by the negative association between secondary psychopathy and EI. This complexity appears to be due to the limited reporting at the facet level of both the dark triad and EI indices, suggesting these relationships are neither accurately nor adequately explained by collapsing the facet scores into a total score.

Perhaps more concerning is that by collapsing the facets into a total score, it is impossible to discern the differences between the facets and their relationships with other constructs. For example, vulnerable narcissism is considered to have properties relating to poor self-esteem and positively correlates with neuroticism (Clarke et al., 2015; Pincus et al., 2009; Wink, 1991). Both poor self-esteem and neuroticism have been shown to negatively relate to performance on EI tests (Hjalmarsson & Daderman, 2020; Schutte et al., 2002). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect to see important differences between dark triad traits and other constructs, in this case with EI, when exploring the data at the facet level.

While this review includes several studies investigating the dark triad at the facet level, existing studies exploring the relationships between facet-level dark triad traits and other constructs are limited (Tran et al., 2018). Instead, facet-level investigations seem to be tagged onto the end of domain-level studies rather than presenting theoretically grounded interpretations for the differences between dark triad facets. Understandably, this can give the impression that facet-level interpretations have not been well considered (Dane et al., 2018). However, with a theoretical approach underlying interpretation of these findings, it is becoming clear that collapsing results across the dark triad facets presents a misleading analysis of the relationship between the dark triad and EI.

Future Research Directions

Given that the relationship between the dark triad and EI is complex, relying on simple correlations without considering mediators and moderators may be misleading. Though zero-order correlations are often reported as indicators of the association between the dark triad and EI, they capture only a simple linear relationship. They do not, by definition, well represent the nuanced nature of both constructs. Mediation and moderation begin to address these issues. The faceted approach to the conceptualization and measurement of the dark triad and EI may help to uncover this nuance.

Additionally, the development of personality, dark or otherwise (Roberts et al., 2006), and EI (Kafetsios, 2004) over the lifespan may mean that the prevalence of undergraduate samples that have rather narrow age diversity in the studies reviewed makes generalization difficult. This homogeneity is particularly important because prior research has found that young adulthood is a time of significant personality development, coupled with a decline of negative emotionality (Roberts et al., 2006). As such, this may further adversely impact the generalizability of these findings to a wider population.

Additionally, the use of self-report measures of dark triad traits warrants consideration. Though this review did not examine response distortion among the included studies, the high TEI scores in forensic samples suggest there may be an element of impression management worth further investigation. Although contentious, it is well supported that individuals may underreport negative traits and behaviors to appear socially desirable (Muris et al., 2017; Paulhus & Vazire, 2007; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Response distortion is especially true for persons high in dark triad traits, which is problematic as self-report measures are developed to rely on the respondent’s accurate self-reflection and honest self-assessment (Muris et al., 2017). In fact, a recent meta-analysis found measures of the dark triad were susceptible to faking when participants were instructed to present themselves in either a favorable or unfavorable way (Walker, Double, Birney & MacCann, 2021). These findings were consistent with similar meta-analytic findings using Big Five measures (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999).

Furthermore, as the core characteristics of the dark triad traits involve impression management and manipulation, self-report measures alone may not be sufficient. A multimethod approach may provide less opportunity for deception. In conjunction with self-report measures, the use of observer ratings, the development and use of measures less susceptible to socially desirable responding such as situational judgement tests, and experience sampling methods provide a few examples of how researchers may choose to gather information beyond the use of traditional self-report measures. Finally, scales such as the Paulhus Deception Scale (Paulhus, 2012) should be used to capture the faceted nature of impression management and self-deception, providing additional checks for response bias when measuring the dark triad.

Importantly, our review shows that there are currently a limited number of studies reporting facet-level relationships between the dark triad and EI. Thus, while a meta-analysis would have been preferable in order to provide quantitative analyses at the facet level, the small sample of studies and inconsistencies in approaches used would limit the reliability of conclusions that might be drawn. Until further empirical research is conducted focusing on a facet-level analysis of the dark triad–EI relationship, a systematic review of the literature is the most appropriate method. Despite this limitation, our work highlights emerging trends in the existing body of literature and the value of pursuing a facet-level approach.

Conclusion

The relationship between EI and the dark triad is complicated and requires more than a one-size-fits-all approach. Our work highlights key differences between facets of dark triad traits and their relationships with facets of EI. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of having a firm theoretical foundation on which to base facet-level research. The state of the field could be clarified by substantial additional research including factors that moderate EI–dark triad facet-level relationships, followed by a meta-analysis. It is hoped that this review’s overall findings will provide the impetus for such research.

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 authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sarah A. Walker

References

Ali

Amorim

I. S.

Chamorro-Premuzic

(2009). Empathy deficits and trait emotional intelligence in psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(7), 758–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.016

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Dasborough

M. T.

(2003). Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320309599082

Atkins

Stough

(2005, April 6–7). Does emotional intelligence change with age? [Paper presentation]. Society for Research in Adult Development Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.

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

Austin

E. J.

O’Donnell

M. M.

(2013). Development and preliminary validation of a scale to assess managing the emotions of others. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 834–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.005

Austin

E. J.

Saklofske

D. H.

Egan

(2005). Personality, well-being and health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(3), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.009

Austin

E. J.

Saklofske

D. H.

Smith

Tohver

(2014). Associations of the Managing the Emotions of Others (MEOS) Scale with personality, the dark triad and trait EI. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid/2014.01.060

Bar-On

R. E.

Parker

J. D.

(2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace. Jossey-Bass.

Baytalskaya

(2008). The effects of Machiavellianism, perspective taking, and emotional intelligence components on negotiation strategies and outcomes. [Master’s thesis, The Pennsylvania State University]. PennState Electronic Theses and Dissertations for Graduate School. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/8158

10.

Berg

J. M.

Smith

S. F.

Watts

A. L.

Ammirati

Green

S. E.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2013). Misconceptions regarding psychopathic personality: Implications for clinical practice and research. Neuropsychiatry, 3(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.2217/npy.12.69

11.

Besser

Priel

(2010). Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism in threatening situations: Emotional reactions to achievement failure and interpersonal rejection. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(8), 874–902. https://doi.org/10.152/jscp.2010.29.8.874

12.

Bucich

MacCann

(2018). Emotional intelligence research in Australia: Past contributions and future directions. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12231

13.

Carlson

E. N.

Vazire

Oltmanns

T. F.

(2011). You probably think this paper’s about you: Narcissists’ perceptions of their personality and reputation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023781

14.

Casale

Rugai

Giangrasso

Fioravanti

(2019). Trait-emotional intelligence and the tendency to emotionally manipulate others among grandiose and vulnerable narcissists. The Journal of Psychology, 153(4), 402–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1564229

15.

Casey

Rogers

R. D.

Burns

Yiend

(2013). Emotion regulation in psychopathy. Biological Psychology, 92(3), 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.06.011

16.

Christie

Geis

F. L.

(1970). Machiavellianism. Academic Press.

17.

Clarke

I. E.

Karlov

Neale

N. J.

(2015). The many faces of narcissism: Narcissism factors and their predictive utility. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 90–95.

18.

Cleckley

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

19.

Collison

K. L.

Vize

C. E.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2018). Development and preliminary validation of a five factor model measure of Machiavellianism. Psychological Assessment, 30(10), 1401. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000637

20.

Copestake

Gray

N. S.

Snowden

R. J.

(2013). Emotional intelligence and psychopathy: A comparison of trait and ability measures. Emotion, 13(4), 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/10031746

21.

Côté

DeCelles

K. A.

McCarthy

J. M.

van Kleef

G. A.

Hideg

(2011). The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: Emotion-regulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior. Psychological Science, 22(8), 1073–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611416251

22.

Curci

Cabras

Lanciano

Soleti

Raccis

(2017). What is over and above psychopathy? The role of ability emotional intelligence in predicting criminal behavior. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(1), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1196642

23.

Dane

L. K.

Jonason

P. K.

McCaffrey

(2018). Physiological tests of the cheater hypothesis for the dark triad traits: Testosterone, cortisol, and a social stressor. Personality and Individual Differences, 121, 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.010

24.

Dickinson

K. A.

Pincus

A. L.

(2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17(3), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.3.188.22146

25.

Ermer

Kahn

R. E.

Salovey

Kiehl

K. A.

(2012). Emotional intelligence in incarcerated men with psychopathic traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027328

26.

Falkenbach

Poythress

Creevy

(2008). The exploration of subclinical psychopathic subtypes and the relationship with types of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.012

27.

Fiori

Antonietti

J. P.

Mikolajczak

Luminet

Hansenne

Rossier

(2014). What is the Ability Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) good for? An evaluation using item response theory. PLoS One, 9(6), Article e98827. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098827

28.

Fix

R. L.

Fix

S. T.

(2015). Trait psychopathy, emotional intelligence, and criminal thinking: Predicting illegal behavior among college students. International journal of law and psychiatry, 42, 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.024

29.

Foster

J. D.

McCain

J. L.

Hibberts

M. F.

Brunell

A. B.

Johnson

R. B.

(2015). The Grandiose Narcissism Scale: A global and facet-level measure of grandiose narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.042

30.

Furnham

McClelland

Mansi

(2012). Selecting your boss: Sex, age, IQ and EQ factors. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 552–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.005

31.

Furnham

Richards

S. C.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018

32.

Gardner

K. J.

Qualter

(2010). Concurrent and incremental validity of three trait emotional intelligence measures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530903312857

33.

Garofalo

Neumann

C. S.

Mark

(2020). Associations between psychopathy and the trait meta-mood scale in incarcerated males: A combined latent variable-and person-centered approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(3), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819891460

34.

Goleman

(1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.

35.

Grieve

Mahar

(2010). The emotional manipulation–psychopathy nexus: Relationships with emotional intelligence, alexithymia and ethical position. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 945–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.028

36.

Grieve

Panebianco

(2013). Assessing the role of aggression, empathy, and self-serving cognitive distortions in trait emotional manipulation. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9536.2012.00059.x

37.

Grieve

Witteveen

Tolan

G. A.

(2014). Social media as a tool for data collection: Examining equivalence of socially value-laden constructs. Current Psychology, 33(4), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9227-4

38.

Grijalva

Newman

D. A.

Tay

Donnellan

M. B.

Harms

P. D.

Robins

R. W.

Yan

(2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 261–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028231

39.

Hare

R. D.

(1991). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Multi-Health Systems.

40.

Hare

R. D.

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

41.

Hendin

H. M.

Cheek

J. M.

(1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray’s Narcissism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(4), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2204

42.

Higgins

J. P.

Green

(2006). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons.

43.

Hjalmarsson

A. K.

Dåderman

A. M.

(2020). Relationship between emotional intelligence, personality, and self-perceived individual work performance: A cross-sectional study on the Swedish version of TEIQue-SF. Current Psychology, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00753-w

44.

Howe

Falkenbach

Massey

(2014). The relationship among psychopathy, emotional intelligence, and professional success in finance. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(4), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.951103

45.

Hyde

Grieve

(2014). Able and willing: Refining the measurement of emotional manipulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.036

46.

Hyde

Grieve

Norris

Kemp

(2020). The dark side of emotional intelligence: the role of gender and the Dark Triad in emotional manipulation at work. Australian Journal of Psychology, 72(4), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12294

47.

Jauk

Freudenthaler

H. H.

Neubauer

A. C.

(2016). The dark triad and trait versus ability emotional intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000195

48.

John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

(1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 206–219.

49.

Jonason

P. K.

Kavanagh

(2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 606–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.030

50.

Jonason

P. K.

N. P.

Webster

G. D.

Schmitt

D. P.

(2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.698

51.

Jonason

P. K.

Luevano

V. X.

Adams

H. M.

(2012). How the dark triad traits predict relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.007

52.

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

53.

Jones

D. N.

Figueredo

A. J.

(2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the dark triad. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1893

54.

Jones

D. N.

Neria

A. L.

(2015). The dark triad and dispositional aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 360–364.

55.

Jones

D. N.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105

56.

Kafetsios

(2004). Attachment and emotional intelligence abilities across the life course. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.006

57.

Karpman

(1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types: the symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, 3, 112–137

58.

Krizan

Herlache

A. D.

(2017). The narcissism spectrum model: A synthetic view of narcissistic personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316685018

59.

Lee

Salekin

R. T.

(2010). Psychopathy in a noninstitutional sample: Differences in primary and secondary subtypes. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1(3), 153. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019269

60.

Levenson

M. R.

Kiehl

K. A.

Fitzpatrick

C. M.

(1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalised population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.68.1.151

61.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Andrews

B. P.

(1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488–524. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3

62.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Fowler

K. A.

(2006). The Self-Report Assessment of Psychopathy: Problems, Pitfalls, and Promises. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (p. 107–132). The Guilford Press.

63.

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: Theory, Research and Treatment, 3(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026987

64.

Ling

Raine

Gao

Schug

(2018). The mediating role of emotional intelligence on the autonomic functioning–Psychopathy relationship. Biological Psychology, 136, 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.05.012

65.

Link

Bailey

(2010). Narcissism, relationship satisfaction, and emotional intelligence among female college students. Discovery. The Student Journal of Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences, 11(1), 27–32.

66.

Lishner

D. A.

Swim

E. R.

Hong

P. Y.

Vitacco

M. J.

(2011). Psychopathy and ability emotional intelligence: Widespread or limited association among facets? Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7), 1029–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.018

67.

Lykken

(1995). The antisocial personalities. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

68.

MacCann

Jiang

Brown

L. E.

Double

K. S.

Bucich

Minbashian

(2020). Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 150–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000219

69.

MacCann

Roberts

R. D.

(2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8(4), 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012746

70.

Machiavelli

, In Burd

L. A.

Acton

J. E. E. D. A

. (1891). Il principe. Clarendon Press.

71.

Malouff

J. M.

Schutte

N. S.

Thorsteinsson

E. B.

(2014). Trait emotional intelligence and romantic relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2012.748549

72.

Malterer

M. B.

Glass

S. J.

Newman

J. P.

(2008). Psychopathy and trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 735–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.007

73.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035084

74.

Maul

(2012). Higher standards of validity evidence are needed in the measurement of emotional intelligence. Emotion Review, 4, 411–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912446357

75.

Mavroveli

Petrides

K. V.

Sangareau

Furnham

(2009). Exploring the relationships between trait emotional intelligence and objective socio-emotional outcomes in childhood. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X368848

76.

Mayer

J. D.

(2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), Version 2.0. Multi-Health Systems.

77.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

D. R.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2000). Emotional intelligence: Key readings on the Mayer and Salovey model, 81–119. Dude Publishing.

78.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

D. R.

(2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1503_020

79.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

D. R.

Cherkasskiy

(2011). Emotional intelligence. In Sternberg

R. J.

Kaufman

S. B.

(Eds.), Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (p. 528–549). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977244.027

80.

Megías

Gómez-Leal

Gutiérrez-Cobo

M. J.

Cabello

Fernández-Berrocal

(2018). The relationship between trait psychopathy and emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 84, 198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.12.003

81.

Megías-Robles

Gutiérrez-Cobo

M. J.

Gómez-Leal

Cabello

Gross

J. J.

Fernández-Berrocal

(2019). Emotionally intelligent people reappraise rather than suppress their emotions. PLoS One, 14(8), Article e0220688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220688

82.

Miao

Humphrey

R. H.

Qian

Pollack

J. M.

(2019). The relationship between emotional intelligence and the dark triad personality traits: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.12.004

83.

Miller

J. D.

Campbell

W. K.

(2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00492.x

84.

Miller

J. D.

Hoffman

B. J.

Gaughan

E. T.

Gentile

Maples

Keith Campbell

(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

85.

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(4), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12251

86.

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(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024567

87.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Vize

Crowe

Sleep

Maples-Keller

J. L.

Keith Campbell

(2018). Vulnerable narcissism is (mostly) a disorder of neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 86(2), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12303

88.

Moher

Shamseer

Clarke

Ghersi

Liberati

Petticrew

Shekelle

Stewart

L. A.

, & PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

89.

Muris

Merckelbach

Otgaar

Meijer

(2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070

90.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Jr. Forsyth

D. R.

Banks

G. C.

McDaniel

M. A.

(2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679

91.

O’Connor

P. J.

Athota

V. S.

(2013). The intervening role of agreeableness in the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and Machiavellianism: Reassessing the potential dark side of EI. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 750–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.006

92.

Owens

E. S.

McPharlin

F. W.

Brooks

Fritzon

(2018). The effects of empathy, emotional intelligence and psychopathy on interpersonal interactions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2017.1347936

93.

Patrick

C. J.

Bradley

M. M.

Lang

P. J.

(1993). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: startle reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.102.1.82

94.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2012). Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS). Multi-Health Systems.

95.

Paulhus

D. L.

Hemphill

J. F.

Hare

R. D.

(2012). Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III). Multi-Health Systems.

96.

Paulhus

D. L.

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

Williams

K. M.

Hemphill

J. F.

(2016). Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. 4th edition. Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.

97.

Paulhus

D. L.

Vazire

(2007). The self-report method. In Robins

R. W.

Fraley

R. C.

Krueger

R. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (p. 224–239). The Guilford Press.

98.

Paulhus

D. L.

Williams

K. M.

(2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

99.

Petrides

K. V.

(2010). Trait emotional intelligence theory. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 3(2), 136–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01213.x

100.

Petrides

K. V.

(2011). Ability and trait emotional intelligence. In Chamorro-Premuzic

von Stumm

Furnham

(Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbooks of personality and individual differences. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (p. 656–678). Wiley Blackwell.

101.

Petrides

K. V.

Frederickson

Furnham

(2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00084-9

102.

Petrides

K. V.

Furnham

(2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15(6), 425–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.416

103.

Petrides

K. V.

Pita

Kokkinaki

(2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X120618

104.

Petrides

K. V.

Vernon

P. A.

Schermer

J. A.

Veselka

(2011). Trait emotional intelligence and the dark triad traits of personality. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 14(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.14.1.35

105.

Pham

T. H.

Ducro

Luminet

(2010). Psychopathy, alexithymia and emotional intelligence in a forensic hospital. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2010.484641

106.

Pincus

A. L.

Ansell

E. B.

Pimentel

C. A.

Cain

N. M.

Wright

A. G.

Levy

K. N.

(2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016530

107.

Plouffe

R. A.

Saklofske

D. H.

Smith

M. M.

(2017). The assessment of sadistic personality: Preliminary psychometric evidence for a new measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.043

108.

Porter

ten Brinke

Baker

Wallace

(2011). Would I lie to you? “Leakage” in deceptive facial expressions relates to psychopathy and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.031

109.

Raskin

R. N.

Hall

C. S.

(1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45(2), 590. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590

110.

Rauthmann

J. F.

Kolar

G. P.

(2012). How “dark” are the dark triad traits? Examining the perceived darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 884–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.020

111.

Ray

J. V.

Weir

J. W.

Poythress

N. G.

Rickelm

(2011). Correspondence between the psychopathic personality inventory and the psychopathic personality inventory-revised: A look at self-reported personality traits. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(4), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811398178

112.

Richell

R. A.

Mitchell

D. G. V.

Newman

Leonard

Baron-Cohen

Blair

R. J. R.

(2003). Theory of mind and psychopathy: Can psychopathic individuals read the “language of the eyes”? Neuropsychologia, 41(5), 523–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00175-6

113.

Roberts

B. W.

Walton

K. E.

Viechtbauer

(2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1

114.

Rohmann

Neumann

Herner

M. J.

Bierhoff

H. W.

(2012). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. European Psychologist, 17(4), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000100

115.

Sacco

D. F.

Merold

S. J.

Lui

J. H.

Lustgraaf

C. J.

Barry

C. T.

(2016). Social and emotional intelligence moderate the relationship between psychopathy traits and social perception. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.031

116.

Saklofske

D. H.

Austin

E. J.

Yan

Smith

M. M.

(2016). Factor structure and correlates of the Mandarin version of the Managing the Emotions of Others (MEOS) scale. International Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12147

117.

Salovey

Mayer

J. D.

(1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG

118.

Salovey

Mayer

J. D.

Goldman

S. L.

Turvey

Palfai

T. P.

(1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In Pennebaker

J. W.

(Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, & health (p. 125–154). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10182-006

119.

Samuel

D. B.

Widiger

T. A.

(2008). Convergence of narcissism measures from the perspective of general personality functioning. Assessment, 15(3), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191108314278

120.

Savard

Simard

Jonason

P. K.

(2017). Psychometric properties of the French-Canadian version of the dark triad Dirty Dozen. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.044

121.

Schutte

N. S.

Malouff

J. M.

Hall

L. E.

Haggerty

D. J.

Cooper

J. T.

Golden

C. J.

Dornheim

(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4

122.

Schutte

N. S.

Malouff

J. M.

Simunek

McKenley

Hollander

(2002). Characteristic emotional intelligence and emotional wellbeing. Cognition & Emotion, 16(6), 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930143000482

123.

Schutte

N. S.

Malouff

J. M.

Thorsteinsson

E. B.

Bhullar

Rooke

S. E.

(2007). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 921–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.003

124.

Śmieja

Orzechowski

Stolarski

M. S.

(2014). TIE: An ability test of emotional intelligence. PLoS One, 9(7), Article e103484. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103484

125.

Śmieja

Mrozowicz-Wrońska

Kobylińska

(2011). Emotional intelligence and emotion regulation strategies. Studia Psychologiczne, 49(5), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10167-010-0040-x

126.

Spurk

Keller

A. C.

Hirschi

(2016). Do bad guys get ahead or fall behind? Relationships of the dark triad of personality with objective and subjective career success. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615609735

127.

Srivastava

Pathak

(2020). Impact of emotional intelligence on narcissism-satisfaction with life relationship: a study on Indian managers. International Journal of Management Practice, 13(2), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMP.2020.105667

128.

Stead

Fekken

G. C.

(2014). Agreeableness at the core of the dark triad of personality. Individual Differences Research, 12(4-A), 131–141.

129.

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(4), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0230-7

130.

Tran

U. S.

Bertl

Kossmeier

Pietschnig

Stieger

Voracek

(2018). “I’ll teach you differences”: Taxometric analysis of the dark triad, trait sadism, and the dark core of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 126, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.015

131.

Tsang

Salekin

R. T.

Coffey

C. A.

Cox

(2017). A comparison of self-report measures of psychopathy among nonforensic samples using item response theory analyses. Psychological Assessment, 30(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000481

132.

Vidal

Skeem

Camp

(2010). Emotional intelligence: Painting different paths for low-anxious and high-anxious psychopathic variants. Law and Human Behavior, 34(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9175-y

133.

Visser

B. A.

Bay

Cook

G. L.

Myburgh

(2010). Psychopathic and antisocial, but not emotionally intelligent. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(5), 644–648. https://doi.org/10/1016/j.paid.2010.01.003

134.

Viswesvaran

Ones

D. S.

(1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131649921969802

135.

Volmer

Koch

I. K.

Göritz

A. S.

(2016). The bright and dark sides of leaders’ dark triad traits: Effects on subordinates’ career success and wellbeing. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 413–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.046

136.

Vonk

Zeigler-Hill

Ewing

Mercer

Noser

A. E.

(2015). Mindreading in the dark: Dark personality features and theory of mind. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 50–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.025

137.

Vonk

Zeigler-Hill

Mayhew

Mercer

(2013). Mirror, mirror on the wall, which form of narcissist knows self and others best of all? Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 396–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.010

138.

Wai

Tiliopoulos

(2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(7), 794–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.008

139.

Walker

S.A.

Double

K.S.

Birney

D.P.

MacCann

(2021). How much can people fake on the dark triad? A meta-analysis and systematic review of instructed faking. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. School of Psychology, The University of Sydney.

140.

Walker

S. A.

Gorodezki

Zhang

Olderbak

MacCann

(2021). Emotion regulation and the dark triad: A meta-analysis. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. School of Psychology, The University of Sydney.

141.

Watts

A. L.

Salekin

R. T.

Harrison

Clark

Waldman

I. D.

Vitacco

M. J.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2016). Psychopathy: Relations with three conceptions of intelligence. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(3), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000183

142.

Weiss

Campbell

W. K.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

(2019). A trifurcated model of narcissism: On the pivotal role of trait antagonism. In Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(Eds.), The handbook of antagonism (pp. 221–235). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814627-9.00015-3

143.

Wink

(1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 590–597.

144.

Wong

C. S.

Law

K. S.

(2002). Development of an emotional intelligence instrument and an investigation of its relationship with leader and follower performance and attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(1), 1–32.

145.

Yocum

(2007). The moderating effects of narcissism on the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness, moral reasoning and managerial trust (Publication No. 304711868) [Doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

146.

Zacher

Pearce

L. K.

Rooney

McKenna

(2014). Leaders’ personal wisdom and leader–member exchange quality: The role of individualized consideration. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1692-4

147.

Zajenkowski

Maciantowicz

Szymaniak

Urban

(2018). Vulnerable and grandiose narcissism are differentially associated with ability and trait emotional intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01606

148.

Zhang

Luo

Zhao

Zhang

Wang

(2017). Differential relations of grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism to emotion dysregulation: Self-esteem matters. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 20(3–4), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12191