Normal Personality Trait and Dark Triad

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 331–339

The dark triad and normal personality traits

Sharon Jakobwitz, Vincent Egan *

Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, Scotland

Received 18 April 2005; received in revised form 1 July 2005; accepted 26 July 2005Available online 8 September 2005

Abstract

Machiavellianism, Narcissism and Psychopathy are often referred to as the �dark triad� of personality.We examined the degree to which these constructs could be identified in 82 persons recruited from the gen-eral population, predicting that the dark triad would emerge as a single dimension denoting the cardinalinterpersonal elements of primary psychopathy. We expected the primary psychopathy dimension to cor-relate negatively with Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C), whereas secondary psychopathy wouldbe associated with Neuroticism (N). The negative correlation was found between primary psychopathy andA, but not with C. While the predicted correlation between secondary psychopathy and N was found,N was also positively associated with primary psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Factor analysis revealedthat all measures of the dark triad loaded positively on the same factor, upon which A loaded negatively.Secondary psychopathy loaded positively on a second factor, together with N and (negatively) with C.These findings reiterate the distinguishing properties of secondary psychopathy, impulsivity and anti-socialbehaviour relative to primary psychopathy. Thus, even in the general population, the dark dimension ofpersonality can be described in terms of low A, whereas much of the anti-social behaviour in normal per-sons appears underpinned by high N and low C.� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Psychopathy; Narcissism; Machiavellianism; Dark triad; Personality; Big five; Agreeableness; Conscien-tiousness; Neuroticism

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 141 331 3037; fax: +44 141 331 3636.E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Egan).

mailto:[email protected]

332 S. Jakobwitz, V. Egan / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 331–339

1. Introduction

The term �Dark Triad of Personality� refers to three interrelated higher-order personality con-structs—psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The majo-rity of work conducted on psychopathy builds upon observations by Cleckley (1941/1988),operationalised in Hare�s revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R; Hare, 1991). The PCL-R andsimilar measures (e.g., Levenson�s self-report measure of psychopathy (LSRP; Levenson, Kiehl,& Fitzpatrick, 1995)) measure two facets of psychopathy. Factor 1 reflects primary psychopathy(e.g., selfishness, callousness, lack of interpersonal affect, superficial charm and remorselessness),factor 2 measures anti-social lifestyle and behaviours, and is akin to secondary psychopathy. Itshould be noted that researchers now propose three facets to core psychopathy; an arrogantand deceitful interpersonal style, deficient affective experience, and an impulsive and irresponsiblebehavioural style (Cooke & Michie, 2001).

Most research into psychopathy involves forensic populations such as prisoners and mentallydisordered offenders. However, not all persons with primary and secondary psychopathy arein custody, and a literature has gradually emerged examining psychopathy-like traits in thegeneral population (Board & Fritzon, 2005; Ross, Lutz, & Bailley, 2004). This suggests that if psy-chopathy is a trait, it should be apparent in non-offenders, and that it may even confer some kindof social advantage (Levenson, 1992). Examining psychopathy in the general population over-comes the sample bias of only seeing persons from prison settings, who are essentially homoge-nous regarding socio-economic background and who are competitively disadvantagedintellectually, socially, and interpersonally. It is probable that the majority of institutionalisedoffenders are more inclined to secondary than primary psychopathy, with different dispositionalmechanisms driving their transgressive behaviour (Lykken, 1995; McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto,1998).

Machiavellianism (MACH) refers to interpersonal strategies that advocate self-interest, decep-tion and manipulation. Christie and Geis (1970) examined the extent to which people use qualitiessuch as deceit, flattery and emotional detachment to manipulate social and interpersonal interac-tions. While high MACHS are perceived to be more intelligent and attractive by their peers (Cher-ulnik, Way, Ames, & Hutto, 1981), MACH does not correlate with intelligence or measures ofsuccess in modern life such as income or status (Ames & Kidd, 1979; Hunt & Chonto, 1984).In experimental settings high MACHS frequently outperform low MACHS, whether this be bar-gaining and alliance forming (Christie & Geis, 1970), or assuming leadership in group situations(Cherulnik et al., 1981). As persons high in MACH are likely to exploit others and less likely to beconcerned about other people beyond their own self-interest, MACH is predictably negativelycorrelated with empathy (Barnett & Thompson, 1985). Given these findings, one would expecta relationship between MACH and primary psychopathy.

The concept of narcissism derives from the psychodynamic formulations such as a pathologicalform of self-love (Freud, 1914), or personality development, whereby ‘‘narcissistic wounds’’ sus-tained in childhood may lead to an arrest in development and increased shame-driven rage(Kohut, 1977). It has been argued that the construct of narcissism is compromised by the contrastbetween vague psychoanalytic terminology and theory, and more observable elements of the con-cept (Bradlee & Emmons, 1991; Watson & Morris, 1991). However as a means of encapsulating

S. Jakobwitz, V. Egan / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 331–339 333

the behavioural grandiosity and perceived entitlement of an individual, the concept of narcissismis a very useful concept. One commonly used scale to assess narcissism is the Narcisssistic Person-ality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979). The NPI measures persistent attention seeking,extreme vanity, excessive self-focus, and exploitativeness in interpersonal relationships (Millon& Davis, 1996), and comprises four factors: Exploitativeness/Entitlement, Leadership/Authority,Superiority/Arrogance and Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration (Emmons, 1984).

The constructs of the dark triad correlate with each another singularly and in combination;(Hare, 1991; Skinner, 1988; Smith & Griffith, 1978; McHoskey, 1995). Such findings led McHos-key et al. (1998) to argue that for the general population MACH is a global measure of psycho-pathy comparable to primary and secondary psychopathy, this comparability being confoundeddue to the different paradigms and theoretical orientations of clinical and differential psychology.McHoskey et al. found that when secondary psychopathy was controlled for, primary psychop-athy remained associated with narcissism (r = 0.46). Paulhus and Williams (2002) also investi-gated the dark triad in the general population and found considerable overlap between theconstructs, although the scale used to measure psychopathy (the SRP-III; Hare, 1985) did notdistinguish between primary and secondary psychopathy. The scales of the dark triad werecorrelated with Agreeableness, and revealed negative correlations of �0.36, �0.47 and �0.25for narcissism, psychopathy and MACH, respectively. No other dimension of the Big Fivecaptured the constructs of the dark triad. This is perhaps surprising, as MACH is typically neg-atively correlated with anxiety (Wiggins & Pincus, 1989), as is primary psychopathy (Fehr,Samson, & Paulhus, 1992), so one would expect Neuroticism (N) to be a negative associate ofthe construct.

The current study investigated to what extent MACH, primary psychopathy, secondarypsychopathy and narcissism reflect the same underlying construct, and to examine the extent towhich normal dimensions of personality indexed by a brief measure of the Big Five could capturethe constructs of the dark triad. We expected to find low A and low C associated with higherscores on each of the dark triad dimensions, and to load on a single dark triad factor. We expectedN to be unrelated to the core traits of psychopathy, but to be associated with secondarypsychopathy.

2. Method

2.1. Sample and procedure

The sample in this study were recruited opportunistically from the general population using a�snowball� system, whereby a starter sample were further asked recruit people from their environ-ment who would be willing to take part in this study. Although this meant that not all participantswere in direct contact with the researcher, this form of recruitment ensured that a diverse selectionof the general population, was enlisted. Eighty-two persons were recruited, their mean age being29; of the cohort 37% were men (N = 30), 63% (N = 52) women. Questionnaires were answeredanonymously and participants filled out a consent form before taking part in the study. The studywas a correlational within-subjects design.


3. Measures

3.1. The revised NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI-R; McCrae & Costa, 2004)

The NEO-FFI-R is a revised version of the NEO-FFI, in which 14 items of the NEO-FFI werechanged. This was done to increase the correlation between the shortened version of the scale andoverall NEO-PI-R scores, diversify item content by selecting items from underrepresented facets,and to increase the intelligibility of the items. This modification was required following the discov-ery that not all scales of the NEO-FFI had equally stable structures (e.g. Egan, Deary, & Austin,2000). The NEO-FFI-R consists of 60 items that yield scores on five personality dimensions: Neu-roticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C). Inresponding to the NEO, subjects report the extent to which they agree or disagree in regard tohow each item applies to them by rating themselves on a 5-point Likert scale. Internal reliabilitycoefficients of the NEO-FFI-R scales range from 0.75 to 0.82.

3.2. The MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970)

The original MACH scale consisted of 71 items in three categories: (1) interpersonal tactics; (2)views of human nature; and (3) abstract or generalised morality. The scale was subsequently re-duced to 60 meaningful items, from which the 10 highest-related items worded in the Machiavel-lian direction were selected into the scale along with the 10 highest-related items worded in theopposite direction to produce the MACH-IV. Responses are given to items on a 6-point Likertscale, ranging from �strongly disagree� to �strongly agree�. Although the reliability of the scalehas been questioned (Ray, 1983) more recent studies have found good reliabilities, with split-halfreliabilities based on several samples averaging 0.79 (Hansen & Hansen, 1991; Wrightsman, 1991)and the MACH-IV is now the most widely used tool to measure the construct (McHoskey et al.,1998).

3.3. The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Levenson et al., 1995)

The LSRP is based on the two-factor interpretation of the PCL-R structure and is designed tomeasure psychopathy in the general population. Responses are given on a 4-point Likert scale.The 16-item primary psychopathy scale measures callous, selfish and manipulative interpersonalattitudes, while the 10-item secondary psychopathy scale assesses impulsivity and a self-defeatinglifestyle. Rather than examine criminal activity typical of the person high on the second dimensionof the PCL-R, the LSRP elicits information about behaviours more typical of community lifewhich may be morally offensive but are not illegal. Cronbach�s a is 0.82 for primary psychopathy,0.63 for secondary psychopathy. The scale is valid and reliable (Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, & New-man, 2001; Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999; McHoskey et al., 1998).

3.4. Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979)

The NPI is a 40-item forced choice instrument, used to measure narcissism in non-clinical pop-ulations. Responses are scored positively; thus, the higher the score, the greater the narcissism


shown by the subject. Of the various instruments that measure narcissism, the NPI has receivedthe most rigorous scrutiny for its psychometric properties. Construct validity has been demon-strated for the instrument with other measures of narcissism (Emmons, 1984; Raskin & Terry,1988), and the inventory has high internal consistency, with alphas ranging from 0.82 to 0.84.

4. Statistical analysis

Correlations were calculated between scores on the dark triad measures and the NEO-FFI-R.The reliability of these measures was calculated using Cronbach�s alpha. To simplify the relation-ships between measures of personality and the dark triad, and to examine whether all three scalesof the dark triad reflected the same underlying construct, principal components analysis withVarimax rotation of the derived factors was calculated.

5. Results

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and internal reliabilities for the measures used inthe study. Reliabilities were adequate to good, but some measures clearly had greater internal reli-ability than others (e.g. N and narcissism vs. secondary psychopathy). While not a main hypoth-esis, independent sample t-tests examined whether there were any sex differences for the measures.Results showed that males were higher than women for C (t(79) = 2.79; p < 0.05), whereas femaleswere significantly higher than males for E (t(79) = �3.37; p < 0.05), and A (t(79) = �2.56;p < 0.05).

Table 2 presents the correlations between all measures in the study. The subscales of the NEO-FFI-R were much less correlated when the NEO-FFI was used as a short-form of the Big Five.Even though the negative correlations between O and A, and N and C were statistically signifi-cant, they were modest in magnitude. The MACH-IV correlated strongly with primary psychop-athy and secondary psychopathy, and moderately with narcissism. Primary psychopathyand narcissism also correlated positively. To test the claim that MACH is a global measureof psychopathy (McHoskey et al., 1998), a partial correlation between MACH and secondary

Table 1Descriptive statistics and reliabilities of scales used in study

Mean SD Cronbach�s a

Neuroticism 24.8 8.4 .85Extraversion 28.6 5.1 .60Openness 32.3 6.3 .71Agreeableness 27.6 5.7 .65Conscientiousness 29.5 6.5 .79Primary psychopathy 31.4 6.7 .80Secondary psychopathy 22.0 3.8 .60Machiavellianism 55.9 7.7 .69Narcissism 16.4 6.8 .85

Table 2Correlations for the dark triad and NEO-FFI-R subscales (n = 82)

E O A C PP SP M Nar

Neuroticism �.04 .11 �.02 �.27* .30** .47** .38** �.10Extraversion (E) �.01 .15 �.19 .08 .04 �.13 .10Openness (O) �.23* .15 �.21 �.21 �.17 .10Agreeableness (A) .08 �.43** �.23* �.41** �.43**

Conscientiousness (C) �.21 �.19 �.27* �.24*

P. Psychopathy (PP) – .49** .70** .40**

S. Psychopathy (SP) – – .52** .18Machiavellianism (M) – – – .36**

Narcissism (Nar) – – – –

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).


psychopathy was calculated, controlling for the effects of primary psychopathy. This correlationwas found to be only .28, suggesting that the correlation of 0.52 found between the MACH-IVand secondary psychopathy is largely attributable to shared variance between primary and sec-ondary psychopathy. Finally, significant negative correlations were found between the MACH-IV, primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy, narcissism and A, and significant positivecorrelations between primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy, the MACH-IV and N. LowerC was associated with higher scores on the MACH-IV and narcissism. In contrast to previousfindings (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002), none of the dark triad constructs was significantly cor-related to either O or E.

Finally, in order to clarify the relationship patterns found in the correlations between the NEO-FFI-R and the measures of the dark triad and to identify possible latent constructs total scores ofthe nine scales were subjected to a factor analysis, using varimax rotation. Four factors with anEigenvalue greater than 1 were extracted, with convergence occurring in nine iterations. Table 3

Table 3Principal components analysis (with Varimax rotation; loadings less than 0.4 suppressed)

F1 F2 F3 F4

Agreeableness �.69Primary Psychopathy .80Secondary Psychopathy .54 .52Machiavellianism .77Narcissism .76Neuroticism .80Conscientiousness �.71Openness .96Extraversion .98

Eigenvalue 2.6 2.6 1.2 1.1Variance (%) 29.9 19.9 13.7 12.2

Total variance = 74.7%


shows loadings for each scale on the relevant factor as well as the variance explained by the factor.Together, these factors account for 74.7% of the variance. The first rotated factor contained all themeasures of the dark triad, as well as A, confirming our hypothesis. The second factor contrasteda high positive loading for secondary psychopathy (which also had a split loading on the first fac-tor) and N, and a high negative loading for C. O and E both loaded on separate factors and werefound to be entirely unrelated to any of the constructs underlying the measures of the dark triad.These findings suggest that the dark triad is essentially unitary and associated with low A, whereassecondary psychopathy has unique variance unrelated to the constructs underlying the dark triad,and is associated with high N and low C.

6. Discussion

The current study examined the relationship between the constructs of the dark triad and howthey fitted into the five factor space of personality. Previous studies indicated that there is consid-erable overlap between MACH-IV, primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy and narcissism,and that more specifically that MACH-IV is a global measure of psychopathy (McHoskey et al.,1998). This could reflect the varied nature of the MACH-IV, which contains items measuring dis-positions as well as behaviours, thus perhaps over-integrating the two factors of psychopathy.While McHoskey et al. found support for their argument their findings were not replicated bythe current study which had a more differentiated measure of psychopathy. A correlation betweenthe MACH-IV and secondary psychopathy, controlling for the effects of primary psychopathyproduced a much weaker correlation (0.28), suggesting that the initial correlation could be attrib-uted to the shared variance between primary and secondary psychopathy, rather than that sharedbetween MACH and secondary psychopathy.

As predicted, we found the dark triad reduces to a large general factor and a secondary factorassociated with secondary psychopathy, high N and low C. Also as predicted, there were signi-ficant and systematic correlations between the scales of the dark triad and the A dimension ofthe NEO-FFI-R. Comparable with conceptions of secondary psychopaths as essentially criminal,neurotic and disorganised (Blackburn, 1975; Levenson et al., 1995), we found secondary psychop-athy correlated positively with N and negatively with C. Predictions made about a negative cor-relation between C and the dark triad were not upheld, perhaps because, at least in normalsamples, C is more associated with secondary psychopathy. These findings are comparable withthose found by Ross et al. (2004).

It must be emphasised that these findings reflect participants recruited from the general com-munity, and not from criminal or psychiatric settings. As such, the results suggest that patternsof association seen in more exclusively forensic or mentally disordered populations can also befound in normal samples, vindicating the view that pathology associated with personality isdimensional, and the extreme of normal characteristics, with no obvious discontinuity (Egan,Austin, Elliot, Patel, & Charlesworth, 2003).

Moreover it suggests that studies into psychopathy are valid for non-offender samples, expedi-ting researchers who do not have access to specialist samples. We found neither O or E contrib-uted significantly to any aspect of the dark triad, and provide further negative evidence for thelong-hypothesised but often erratic contributory influence of E on anti-social behaviour.


Secondary psychopathy had a split loading with the other variables in the study, and this mayreflect the fact that although it fits into the �dark dimension of personality�, it indexes anti-socialattitudes and lifestyle at a behavioural rather than philosophical or dispositional level. High Nand low C tap into this behaviour, as they reflect a more changeable and impulsive nature. Wespeculate that anti-social behaviour—legal or illegal—results from a lack of impulse controland a lack of planning as well as a sense of entitlement, which demands immediate gratificationof needs, no matter what the consequences are, and that low A is a contributory (but not cardinal)dimension directing secondary psychopathy.

Our sample was relatively small, and from the general population. While these can be raised ascriticisms of the study, our findings are quite unambiguous and reflect, replicate and extend otherfindings using similar paradigms. One interesting and novel finding is that our mean scores on theMACH-IV were higher than for studies 20–25 years ago (e.g. Nigro & Galli, 1985; Smith & Grif-fith, 1978). Recent scores were consistently high and uninfluenced by sample size. We speculatethat modern western society is much more competitive and materialistic than even 20 yearsago, and some degree of apparent psychopathy may be necessary to succeed in this type of society.Anonymity leads to a diminished sense of communal responsibility and as long as the concept ofhurting another is abstract (i.e. society) vs. specific (i.e. my neighbour or colleague) persons mightmore readily be prepared to behave in such a way (Gupta, 1986; Okanes & Murray, 1982).

In sum, the current study shows that the dark triad of personality—psychopathy, Machiavel-lianism and narcissism—reflect an essentially unitary construct, and that the division of psychop-athy into primary and secondary psychopathy usefully differentiates normal personality traitsassociated with the more unpleasant features of the self. This differentiation could be made inan unselected sample of persons from the general population. Our study contributes to the viewthat it is perhaps unhelpful to overly differentiate the elements for the dark triad when they soclosely overlap with one-another.

References

Ames, M., & Kidd, A. H. (1979). Machiavellianism and women�s grade point average. Psychological Reports, 44,223–228.

Barnett, M. A., & Thompson, S. (1985). The role of perspective taking and empathy in children�s Machiavellianism,prosocial behaviour and motive for helping. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146, 295–305.

Blackburn, R. (1975). An empirical classification of psychopathic personality. British Journal of Psychiatry, 127,456–460.

Board, B. J., & Fritzon, K. (2005). Disordered personalities at work. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11, 17–32.Bradlee, P. M., & Emmons, R. A. (1991). Locating narcissism within the personal circumplex and the five factor model.

Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 821–830.Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Construct validation of a self-report

psychopathy scale: Does Levenson�s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as Hare�sPsychopathy Checklist-Revised?. Personality and Individual Differences 31, 1021–1038.

Cherulnik, P. D., Way, J. H., Ames, S., & Hutto, D. B. (1981). Impressions of high and low Machiavellian men. Journalof Personality, 49, 388–400.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.Cleckley, H. (1988). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). Augusta, GA: Emily S. Cleckley (Original work published 1941).Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopath: towards a hierarchical model. Psychological

Assessment, 13, 171–188.


Egan, V., Austin, E., Elliot, D., Patel, D., & Charlesworth, P. (2003). Personality traits, personality disorders andsensational interests in mentally disordered offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 51–62.

Egan, V., Deary, I., & Austin, E. (2000). The NEO-FFI: emerging British norms and an item-level analysis suggest N, Aand C are more reliable than E and O. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 907–920.

Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic personality inventory. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 48, 291–305.

Fehr, B., Samson, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: twenty years later. In C. D.Spielberger & J. M. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Freud, S. (1914). On Narcissism: an introduction. In Complete psychological works (pp. 30–59). London: Hogarth Press.Gupta, M. D. (1986). Effects of age and family structure on Machiavellianism. Indian Journal of Current Psychological

Research, 32, 95–100.Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1991). Constructing personality and social reality through music: individual

differences among fans. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 35, 335–350.Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 53, 7–16.Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare psychopathy checklist revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Hunt, S. D., & Chonto, L. B. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism. Journal of Marketing, 48, 30–42.Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press.Levenson, M. R. (1992). Rethinking psychopathy. Theory and Psychology, 2, 51–71.Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalised

population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158.Lykken, D. T. (1995). Antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: a validation study. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 73, 110–132.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO five factor inventory. Personality and

Individual Differences, 36, 587–596.McHoskey, J. (1995). Narcissism and Machiavellianism. Psychological Reports, 77, 757–759.McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74, 192–210.Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM-IV and beyond. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Nigro, G., & Galli, I. (1985). On the relationship between Machiavellianism and anxiety among Italian undergraduates.

Psychological Reports, 56, 1081–1082.Okanes, M. M., & Murray, L. W. (1982). Machiavellianism and achievement orientations among foreign and American

masters students of business administration. Psychological Reports, 46, 783–785.Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: narcissism, Machiavellianism and

psychopathy. Journal of Research in personality, 36, 556–563.Raskin, R., & Hall, T. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590.Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further

evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902.Ray, J. J. (1983). Defective validity of the Machiavelianism scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 291–292.Ross, S. R., Lutz, C. J., & Bailley, S. E. (2004). Psychopathy and the five factor model in a noninstitutionalized sample:

a domain and facet level analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 213–223.Skinner, N. F. (1988). Personality correlates of Machiavellianism and psychopaths. Social Behavior and Personality, 16,

33–37.Smith, R. J., & Griffith, J. E. (1978). Psychopathy, the Machiavellian and Anomie. Psychological Reports, 42, 258.Watson, P. J., & Morris, R. J. (1991). Narcissism, empathy and social desirability. Personality and Individual

Differences, 12, 575–579.Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, L. A. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorders and dimensions of personality.

Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Assessment, 1, 305–316.Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward human nature. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L.

S. Wrightsman (Eds.),Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 373–412). San Diego: AcademicPress.

Documents

Normal Personality Trait and Dark Triad