THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 1

The “Core” of the Dark Triad: A Test of Competing Hypotheses

Colin E. Vize

Katherine L. Collison

Purdue University

Joshua D. Miller

University of Georgia

Donald R. Lynam

Purdue University

Manuscript Accepted for Publication

Citation: Vize, C.E., Collison, K. L., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (in press). The “core” of the
Dark Triad: A test of competing hypotheses. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Treatment.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Colin E. Vize, Department of

Psychology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Email: cvize@purdue.edu
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 2

Abstract

As research on the Dark Triad (DT; the interrelated constructs of Machiavellianism, narcissism,

and psychopathy) has accumulated, a subset of this research has focused on explicating what

traits may account for the overlap among the DT members. Various candidate traits have been

investigated, with evidence supporting several of them including Antagonism (vs.

Agreeableness), Honesty-Humility, and Callousness and Interpersonal Manipulation (the latter

two as a set). The present study sought to test the leading candidates against one another in their

ability to account for the shared variance among the DT members. Using a pre-registered

analytical plan, we found that Agreeableness (as measured by the IPIP-NEO-120), Honesty-

Humility from the HEXACO, and the SRP-III subscales of Callous Affect and Interpersonal

Manipulation accounted for all or nearly all of the shared variance among the DT members. BFI-

based measures of Agreeableness (BFI and BFI-2) accounted for notably less variance in most

cases. The results were consistent across two large samples (Ns of 627 and 628), and across

various DT measurement approaches. We argue that the most parsimonious explanation for

findings on the core of the DT is that such traits all fall under the umbrella of Antagonism.

Keywords: Dark Triad; Antagonism; Honesty-Humility; Five-Factor Model; Agreeableness

THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 3

The “Core” of the Dark Triad: A Test of Competing Hypotheses

The Dark Triad (DT) is a constellation of three interrelated personality constructs

comprising Machiavellianism, narcissism1, and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

Although antagonistic personality traits are common to each DT construct, each DT construct is

purported to possess traits that serve to distinguish each component from the others. Narcissism

has been shown to contain significantly more Extraversion-related content compared to

psychopathy and Machiavellianism (e.g., Vize, Collison, Miller, & Lynam, 2018). In theory,

psychopathy is distinguished from the other two members of the DT by its inclusion of

disinhibitory traits, and research has shown that it is also most strongly related to Antagonism-

aligned traits (Muris, Merckelbach, Otgaar, & Meijer, 2017). It has been argued that its inclusion

of disinhibitory traits in addition to Antagonistic traits are the reasons that psychopathy tends to

show the most robust relations with various antisocial outcomes (Vize, Miller, & Lynam, 2018).

Machiavellianism is thought to differ from narcissism and psychopathy to the extent that

Machiavellian individuals are more strategic and planful in their deployment of antisocial tactics

(Jones & Paulhus, 2017). Though the theoretical profile of Machiavellianism serves to

differentiate it from the other two DT components, the empirical profile of Machiavellianism

suggests that popular measures of Machiavellianism do not capture the features of

Machiavellianism that would distinguish the construct from psychopathy (Miller et al., 2017;

McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998; Vize, Lynam, Collison, & Miller, 2018).

Research focusing on the simultaneous assessment of the DT constructs has grown

rapidly since the introduction of the practice in 2002. The present study is focused on a

subdomain of DT research which has sought to elucidate the traits that serve as the “core” of the

1
Throughout the manuscript, when we refer to narcissism we are referring to the grandiose variant since itis
typically the focus of DT research.
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 4

DT. More specifically, a handful of researchers have aimed to explicitly identify which traits

account for the positive correlations observed among the DT constructs. Various candidate

constructs have been examined in this literature area. Because these candidates are closely

related to one another, it is not clear whether any of the proposed constructs are better in

explaining the shared variance among the DT or if all perform equally well. Additionally, there

has not been a consistent methodology used in this research area, making comparisons across

studies somewhat difficult. Thus, we aim to consolidate this area of DT research, and directly

compare previously proposed candidates against one another in hopes of providing a more

parsimonious understanding of what traits can explain the communality among the DT

constructs.

Examining the Core of the Dark Triad

A number of related constructs have been hypothesized to account for the overlap among

the DT. These candidates include Agreeableness as assessed by the Big Five Inventory (BFI;

Goldberg, 1999) (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), Agreeableness (vs. Antagonism) as assessed by

the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Stead, Fekken,

Kay, & McDermott, 2012), Honesty-Humility from the HEXACO model of personality (Lee &

Ashton, 2004; Book et al., 2016; Hodson et al., 2018), traits related to interpersonal manipulation

and callousness (Jones & Figueredo, 2013; Marcus, Preszler, & Zeigler-Hill, 2018), and an

exploitative, fast life history strategy which has direct ties to evolutionary theory (Jonason,

Kaufman, Webster, & Geher, 2013; Jonason, Koenig, & Tost, 2010). There has been evidence

provided for each of these candidates, though the evidence for the fast life history strategy as the

individual difference that unites the DT constructs is less compelling as the DT constructs are

less strongly related to measures of fast life strategy than to other candidates such as Honesty-
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 5

Humility and Agreeableness (Muris et al., 2017). In addition, fast life strategies do not clearly

map onto the theoretical content of Machiavellianism, where the construct is purportedly made

up of some traits that are not in line with a fast life strategy (e.g., being calculating and planful).

Specific features of Antagonism, typically callousness and interpersonal manipulation as

assessed by their respective subscales within the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP; Williams,

Paulhus, & Hare, 2007), have been shown to be strongly related to all DT constructs. For

example, Jones and Figueredo (2013) first estimated a latent DT factor and then examined

whether specific subscales from the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall,

1979), SRP, and MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970) could account for the largest amount of

variance in the latent DT factor. The Callous Affect and Interpersonal Manipulation subscales

from the SRP outperformed all other subscale combinations, accounting for 79% of the variance

in the latent DT factor compared to other subscales (average R2 = .55). Using network analyses in

two large samples, Marcus, Preszler, and Zeigler-Hill (2018) found that the Callousness and

Interpersonal Manipulation subscales were the most central nodes among DT subscales,

complementing the results of Jones and Figueredo (2013). Relatedly, when attempting to

estimate a latent DT factor, Glenn & Sellbom (2015) found that the latent factor could not be

estimated because the entirety of the shared variance among the DT constructs was already

attributed to psychopathy.

Other work has focused on manipulativeness/arrogance (i.e., the opposite of Honesty-

Humility traits) as comprising the core of the DT. Using canonical correlations across two

samples, Book, Visser, and Volk (2015) found that the HEXACO model accounted for a

significantly larger amount of variance in the DT measures compared to a BFI-based Big Five

model and also a fast life history model. The results also showed that adding the Callous Affect
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 6

subscale of the SRP into the model with the HEXACO did not improve performance. Using the

same methodological approach in a separate study, a similar pattern of findings emerged (i.e., the

HEXACO model was superior to other models) even when including sadism with the other DT

members (Book et al., 2016).

In a separate approach, Hodson et al. (2018) leveraged meta-analytic data to estimate a

latent DT factor from subscales of the Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) and a

latent Honesty-Humility factor from the facet scales of Sincerity, Fairness, Greed Avoidance,

and Modesty. The latent correlation between the factors was nearly perfectly inverse (r = -.95)

and this strong inverse relation was also observed when relying on peer-reports in smaller

samples.

In sum, various researchers have attempted to investigate which traits can explain the

overlap among DT constructs. There is evidence that can be drawn on to support many of the

candidates as accounting for the core of the DT. In cases where candidates are tested against one

another (e.g., Honesty-Humility vs. Agreeableness; Callousness/Interpersonal Manipulation vs.

Agreeableness), the tests have often focused on Agreeableness as assessed by the BFI, which

likely biases the test against Agreeableness given that the BFI contains significantly less content

related to honesty and modesty (Miller, Gaughan, Maples, & Price, 2011). Indeed, Vize, Miller,

and Lynam (2019) found that the amount of overlap accounted for by Agreeableness among the

DT components is dependent on whether the BFI or a NEO-based measure of Agreeableness is

used.

The Current Study

Given that there is evidence that various traits can account for the communality among

the DT, it is necessary to more directly test competing hypotheses against one another. Thus,
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 7

there are three primary questions the current study seeks to answer. First, when using the same

methodology, is there a specific set of traits that consistently outperforms other traits in

accounting for the shared variance of the DT? Second, in regard to assessments of

Agreeableness, does the assessment of Agreeableness matter (i.e., BFI instruments vs. NEO

instruments) when trying to account for the maximum amount of variance in the DT? Last, does

the assessment approach of the DT influence results on what traits can account for the

interrelations among the DT? This last question has received little attention despite the fact that

research has shown important differences among popular assessments of the DT (Miller et al.,

2012).

Method

Participants and Procedure

All study procedures (i.e., participant inclusion/exclusion criteria and planned analyses)

were preregistered using the AsPredicted.org template. The preregistered protocol can be found

here: https://osf.io/xhbqg. The protocol was preregistered before data collection occurred.

We planned to recruit 1400 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk)

platform. After the initial posting of the HIT, a total of 230 participants’ work was rejected based

on our exclusion criteria (i.e., completion time, attention checks, and re-captcha items). The HIT

was made available again, and 22 out of the 230 participants’ work was rejected based on our

exclusion criteria resulting in N=1,378. Participants were paid $2.00 for completing the protocol.

Participant data were then inspected for invalid responding using preregistered cutoff scores on

the Infrequency and Too Good to Be True validity scales of the Elemental Psychopathy

Assessment (EPA; Lynam et al., 2013). An additional 123 participants were excluded resulting

in a final sample of N=1,255. The average age in the final sample was 38.95 yrs. old (SD=11.88)
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 8

and the sample was predominantly Euro American (79.3%). The sample was 41% male. As

planned in the study preregistration, the final sample was then split randomly into two samples

(Sample 1 N = 627; Sample 2 N = 628) so that all analyses could be replicated across samples.

Measures

Short Dark Triad (SD3). The SD3 (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) is a 27-item self-report

measure of the Dark Triad. Nine-item subscales assess each construct within the Dark Triad

(Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy). Each item was rated along a 5-point scale

ranging from 1-“Strongly Disagree” to 5-“Strongly Agree”. The internal consistency of the

subscales was similar in both samples (Sample 1 α range = .82 to .85; Sample 2 α range = .80

to .83).

Dirty Dozen (DD). The DD (Jonason & Webster, 2010) is a 12-item measure of the Dark

Triad designed to efficiently assess each component of the DT. Each DT construct is measured

by 4-item subscales using a 5-point scale (1-“Strongly Disagree” to 5-“Strongly Agree”). The

internal consistency of the DD subscales was adequate in both samples (Sample 1 α range = .68

to .79; Sample 2 α range = .70 to .77).

MACH-IV. The MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970) is a 20-item self-report measure

designed to assess the core traits related to Machiavellianism. Although researchers have made

use of factor analyses to empirically identify subscales within the MACH-IV (e.g., Miller, Smart,

& Rechner, 2015), we only make use of the total score in the present study. The internal

consistency of the total score was adequate in both Sample 1 (α = .84) and Sample 2 (α = .82).

Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-40). The NPI-40 (Raskin & Terry, 1979) is a

40-item forced choice self-report assessment instrument that primarily assesses the grandiose

variant of narcissism (Miller, Gaughan, Pryor, Kamen, & Campbell, 2009). Similar to the
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 9

MACH-IV, subscales of the NPI have been empirically identified (Ackerman et al., 2011) but we

only make use of the total score in the present study. The internal consistency of the NPI total

score was .91 in both samples.

Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III). The SRP-III (Williams & Paulhus, 2003) is a

64-item self-report assessment of psychopathy that was developed out of the conceptualization of

psychopathy operationalized in the family of instruments related to the Psychopathy Checklist-

Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). The SRP-III is composed of four subscales: Interpersonal

Manipulation, Callousness, Erratic Lifestyle, and Antisocial Behavior. The internal consistency

of the total score was excellent in both samples (Sample 1 and 2 α = .94) and the SRP subscales

also showed high internal consistency (Sample 1 α range = .81 to .87; Sample 2 α range = .82

to .87).

HEXACO-100-Honesty Humility. The HEXACO-100 is a 100-item self-report

instrument that assesses the six domains of the HEXACO model of personality. In addition to the

domain scales, each domain includes four facet scales. In the present study, we only

administered the 16 items assessing the Honesty-Humility domain. The internal consistency of

the domain scores in both samples was adequate (Sample 1 α = .87; Sample 2 α = .88) as were

the four facet scales of Sincerity, Fairness, Greed-avoidance, and Modesty (Sample 1 α range

= .71 to .80; Sample 2 α range = .75 to .83).

International Personality Item Pool-NEO-120 (IPIP-NEO-120). The IPIP-NEO-120

(Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014) is a freely available, 120-item self-report measure

assessing the five domains of the Five-factor Model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1987). The

IPIP-NEO-120 also allows for six facet scales to be computed for each domain. Although the

entire IPIP-NEO-120 was administered to the sample, we only make use of the Agreeableness
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 10

domain/facet scales in the present study. The internal consistency of the domain scores in both

samples was adequate (Sample 1 and 2 α = .87) as were the six Agreeableness facet scales of

Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, and Tendermindedness (Sample 1 α

range = .76 to .90; Sample 2 α range = .74 to .89).

Big Five Inventory (BFI). The BFI (Goldberg, 1999) is a 44-item self-report measure

that assesses each of the Big Five domains. Only the Agreeableness items (nine total) were

administered in the present study. The internal consistency of the Agreeableness total score was

adequate in both samples (Sample 1 α = .84; Sample 2 α = .85).

Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2). The BFI-2 (Soto & John, 2017) is an expanded version of

the BFI, including a total of 60 items to assess each domain of the Big Five. In addition, the BFI-

2 includes three facet scales for each domain. We only administered the 12 Agreeableness items

from the BFI-2, which allows for a total domain score and three facet scales (Compassion,

Respectfulness, Trust) to be computed. The domain showed adequate internal consistency in

both samples (Sample 1 and 2 α = .86) as did the three facet scales (Sample 1 α range = .69

to .76; Sample 2 α range = .71 to .77).

Preregistered Analyses

We planned to estimate a total of 18 separate structural equation models to test the

relation between latent DT factors (estimated from either the SD3 subscales, the DD subscales,

or the MACH-IV/NPI/SRP-III scales) and latent factors estimated from subscales of the various

candidate traits purported to account for the core of the DT (i.e., Honesty-Humility, IPIP-

Agreeableness, BFI Agreeableness, BFI-2 Agreeableness, and the SRP-III subscales of

Callousness and Interpersonal Manipulation). A representative graphical model is shown for the

model involving Honesty-Humility facets and the SD3 subscales in Figure 1. Our primary
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 11

outcome of interest was the latent correlation and variance accounted for in the latent DT factors

by the respective candidate traits. The primary reason for making use of structural equation

methods to test for which traits best account for the overlap among the DT is because it is the

most straightforward and applicable test for our primary research question and is commonly used

to test such questions in this research area (e.g., Hodson et al., 2018; Jones & Figueredo, 2013).

Importantly, we also report a deviation from our preregistered analyses. In the

preregistered analyses focusing on IPIP Agreeableness, we reported that we would first estimate

the correlation between the latent DT factor and a latent Agreeableness factor estimated from the

six IPIP-NEO Agreeableness facets. Next, we reported that we would estimate the same model,

but also include paths between the residuals of the Straightforwardness and Modesty facets of the

IPIP-NEO Agreeableness domain. Our goal in including this additional specification was to

determine whether additional variance in the latent DT factor could be determined by the content

unique to those specific facets given their theoretical overlap with the dishonest, manipulative

nature of DT constructs. However, a more appropriate analysis2 was substituted for these

preregistered analyses in which a latent Agreeableness factor was estimated from four

Agreeableness facet scales, excluding the Straightforwardness and Modesty facets. Next, a latent

Agreeableness factor was estimated using all facet scales to examine the contribution

Straightforwardness and Modesty add to accounting for the variance in the latent DT factor.

Even though the latter analyses were more appropriate for our research questions, code and

results for the originally planned analyses are available on the OSF page for the project.

Exploratory Analyses

2
Specifically, our preregistered analyses did not actually provide the estimates that tested our primary research
question. Thus, we undertook a revised analysis that allowed for us to examine the change in variance accounted for
in the latent DT factor when Straightforwardness and Modesty were added to the model as a different means of
testing the same research question.
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 12

Though a variety of studies have been conducted on the core of the DT, little work has

explored the degree to which item overlap between DT measures and candidate measures (e.g.,

HEXACO-Honesty Humility and NPI narcissism) may inflate the relations between constructs.

Thus, we sought to more thoroughly explore how much influence item overlap may have on the

relations between the latent DT factors and latent factors of Honesty-Humility, IPIP-

Agreeableness, BFI-Agreeableness, BFI-2 Agreeableness, and SRP-Callousness/Interpersonal

Manipulation. These analyses were exploratory in nature and not preregistered.

Preregistered Hypotheses

We had four primary hypotheses for the present study based on previous research in this

area and past work that has examined the personality content of the various candidate traits. We

note that Hypothesis 1b is no longer applicable given the changes to our preregistered analyses,

but it is included below for the sake of transparency.

Hypothesis 1a. A latent factor estimated from the HEXACO-HH facets will show a near

perfect correlation (i.e., | r >.90 |) with a latent DT factor. A similar model will be tested using a

latent factor estimated from IPIP-NEO-A facet scales. We expect the IPIP-NEO-A latent model

to be strongly related to the latent DT factor (i.e., | r > .60 |), but it will account for a smaller

amount of variance in the latent DT factor compared to the variance accounted for in the latent

DT factor by latent H/H.

Hypotheses 1b. An additional model will be estimated using the IPIP-NEO-A facets, but

will also include two estimated paths between the residuals of the Straightforwardness and

Modesty facets to the latent DT factor. Using this model, we expect that the total variance

accounted for in the latent DT factor will be comparable to the variance accounted for in the

latent DT factor by the H/H latent factor.

THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 13

Hypothesis 2. The latent correlation between the latent DT factor and latent BFI-

Agreeableness and BFI-2-Agreeableness factors (estimated in separate models) will be notably

smaller than the latent correlations observed for the latent H/H and IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness

factors. This will be due to the BFI instruments containing very little content that explicitly

assesses tendencies to be honest and humble.

Hypothesis 3: The latent correlation between the latent DT factor and latent SRP-Factor,

estimated using the two subscales of Interpersonal Manipulation and Callousness, will be large

(i.e., r >.60) but smaller than the latent correlations observed for IPIP-NEO-A and HEXACO-

HH due to the latter latent factors including more breadth of agreeableness-related traits.

Results

All data and R code needed to reproduce the results can be found at the OSF page for the

project, along with all supplementary materials: https://osf.io/xey8h. Descriptive statistics

(means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of primary study variables) can also be

found on the OSF page. The ‘lavaan’ package (Rosseel, 2012) was used to conduct all primary

analyses.3 All models were estimated using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard

errors and Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistics. Although not of primary interest given our

research questions, fit indices for the models can be attained using the R code provided on the

OSF page.

All indicator loadings for each of the latent factors are presented in Supplemental

Materials (Tables S1 and S2). Across both samples, standardized loadings for the DT latent

factors ranged from .47 - .94 (SD-3), .87 - .90 (Dirty Dozen), and .52 - .93 (single construct

measures). For the HEXACO-H/H, factor loadings ranged from .59 - .77. For the IPIP-NEO-
3
We note that our original preregistered analyses involving IPIP-Agreeableness could not be estimated in lavaan,
but could be estimated in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). Mplus syntax to estimate the preregistered models is
available on the OSF page, along with R code to estimate the models using the ‘MplusAutomation’ package
(Hallquist & Wiley, 2018).
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 14

Agreeableness factor without Straightforwardness and Modesty, loadings ranged from .36 - .87.

When all facets were included as indicators, factor loadings for the latent IPIP-NEO-

Agreeableness factor ranged from .27 - .88. Factor loadings ranged from .48 - .70 and .60 - .84

for the BFI-Agreeableness and BFI-2-Agreeableness factors, respectively. For the SRP latent

factor, factor loadings ranged from .76 - .92. Tucker’s congruence coefficient (Lorenzo-Seva &

ten Berge, 2006), which indexes the similarity of factor loadings between two samples, was

calculated for all of the factor loadings from all 18 SEM models across Sample 1 and Sample 2.

The coefficient (TCC = .999) indicated near perfect congruence in factor loadings across the

samples.

Correlations between latent factors in Samples 1 and 2 are presented in Table 1. Profile

similarity coefficients, which index the similarity of correlations between the latent factors,

indicate that the correlational profiles for each of the latent DT core factors was identical across

samples (ranging from .996 - .999). The HEXACO-H/H latent factor was highly negatively

correlated with all three latent DT factors, with rs ranging from -.83 to -.99. In both samples, the

HEXACO-H/H was most strongly related to the latent DT factor comprising the SD-3 scales,

followed by single construct latent factor and then by the Dirty Dozen latent factor. The IPIP-

NEO-Agreeableness latent factor was similarly highly negatively correlated with all three DT

factors; these correlations were even higher than those observed for HEXACO-HH. Latent rs

ranged from -.89 to -1.00, with the SD-3 and single construct DT factors bearing the strongest

relations to the IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness factor in each sample.4

An additional model estimating an IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness factor that excluded the

Straightforwardness and Modesty facets tended to yield smaller relations with DT factors, but

4
In some cases, the estimated latent correlation was slightly above 1 (e.g., 1.04). Despite this, no model
convergence issues arose. We denote in Table 1 the three cases in which the latent correlations were outside the
boundary of 1.00 to -1.00.
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 15

not always (e.g., when the latent DT factor was estimated from Single Construct scales). The

latent rs ranged from -.56 to -.97. Similar to the results of the model that included all IPIP-NEO-

Agreeableness facets, this modified IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness factor bore the smallest relations

to the Dirty Dozen latent DT factor.

Correlations between the latent DT factors and latent BFI-Agreeableness and BFI-2-

Agreeableness factors were more modest than the latent correlations observed for the latent

HEXACO-H/H and IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness factors. For BFI-Agreeableness, rs ranged from

-.64 to -.76 across samples. For BFI-2-Agreeableness, rs ranged from -.72 to -.87. In both cases,

the largest relations were found with the DT latent factor comprised of the single construct

measures.

The SRP latent factor accounted for all the variance in the SD-3 latent DT factors in

Samples 1 and 2. Latent correlations between the SRP latent factor and the Dirty Dozen factor

were also high (r = .88 in Sample 1 and r = .87 in Sample 2).

Results of Exploratory Analyses

In order to examine the influence of item overlap on the relations between latent factors,

we correlated all specific items of the DT measures (SD3, DD, and SC) with the specific items

from the candidate constructs (Honesty-Humility, IPIP-Agreeableness, BFI-Agreeableness, BFI-

2-Agreeableness, and the SRP subscales of Callousness and Interpersonal Manipulation). All

item correlations are available on the OSF page for the project. An inspection of the item

correlations showed that the largest item-level correlation was -.71. We adopted an empirical

cut-off of r = |.60| as our indicator of item overlap. All overlapping items at or above the cutoff

value were then dropped from the indicators.

THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 16

Across all scales, a total of 37 item correlations greater than or equal to |.60| were

identified.5 We dropped items in such a way that no single scale was inordinately affected in any

analyses. For example, if there were two items from the IPIP-A-Modesty facet scale that were

correlated above |.60| with two items from the DD-Psychopathy subscale, one item would be

dropped from the Modesty facet while the other would be dropped from the DD-Psychopathy

subscale. After dropping overlapping items, the SEM analyses were re-run in order to examine

the influence of item overlap on the latent correlations. The results showed very little change in

the latent correlations (See Table S3 in Supplementary Material)—across all latent correlations,

the largest change was a decrease of .05 with most latent correlations being only slightly reduced

(in the .01 to .03 range). Thus, item overlap appeared to have very little influence on the original

latent correlations.

Discussion

The present study tested whether any of the previously proposed candidates for the core

of the DT outperformed the other candidates in accounting for the shared variance among the DT

constructs. The results showed that IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness, HEXACO-Honesty-Humility, and

the Callousness and Interpersonal Manipulation subscales of the SRP-III outperformed BFI-

Agreeableness and BFI-2 Agreeableness. The differences were more pronounced for the BFI

compared to the BFI-2. Exploratory analyses showed that the large observed latent correlations

were not attributable to item overlap among the DT and candidate measures.

Most preregistered hypotheses were supported by the data, with some important caveats.

Hypothesis 1a was partially supported, as the results for Honesty-Humility were extremely

similar to previous work that has examined Honesty-Humility as the core of the DT (Hodson et

5
An Excel file that includes all item correlations is available on the OSF page for the project, and all correlations
greater than or equal to |.60| have been highlighted.
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 17

al., 2018). However, the correlation between latent IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness and the latent DT

factors was larger than hypothesized, and in most cases slightly larger than the latent correlation

between the Honesty-Humility factor and the latent DT factors. Interestingly, there were some

cases in which the latent IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness latent factor performed similarly to the

Honesty-Humility latent factor in accounting for variance in the DT factor even when the

Straightforwardness and Modesty facets were not included as indicators (e.g., when the latent DT

factor was estimated from the Single Construct measures and the SD3 subscales). Hypothesis 2

was also supported—the BFI-Agreeableness factors performed less well compared to the other

candidate factors. Notably, the BFI-2-Agreeableness latent factor accounted for more variance in

the DT factors compared to BFI-Agreeableness. However, in some cases (e.g., when the DT

factor was estimated from the Single Construct scales), the BFI-2 accounted for similar amounts

of variance in the DT factor compared to Honesty-Humility and IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness

factors. Last, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Though we expected a large latent factor

correlation (i.e., r >.60), we hypothesized that the latent SRP-Callousness/Interpersonal

Manipulation factor would not account for as much variance in the DT latent factors compared to

the Honesty-Humility and IPIP-Agreeableness factors. However, the

SRP-Callousness/Interpersonal Manipulation factor consistently accounted for nearly all the

variance in the latent DT factors estimated from the DD and SD3 scales. The present results have

important implications for DT research but also personality research focused on antagonism-

related traits more broadly.

One research question we sought to address was whether different measures of the DT

yielded different results in regard to how much shared variance among DT components could be

accounted for by the various candidates. Our results suggest that the choice of DT measures does
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 18

have an effect on the observed relations between latent factors, with the DT factor estimated

from the Dirty Dozen subscales showing smaller relations with the candidate personality factors

compared to models in which the latent DT factor was estimated from the SD3 subscales or the

Single Construct scales. Thus, the use of the Dirty Dozen scales results in an underestimation of

the overlap between the core of the DT and the candidates. This is likely due to the limited

breadth of the Dirty Dozen scales, which assess each DT construct with four items each.

Research has shown that the Dirty Dozen subscales produces attenuated relations with relevant

outcomes (Maples, Lamkin, & Miller, 2014; Miller et al., 2012) compared to other DT measures.

However, the rank-ordering of the candidate traits in their ability to account for the shared

variance among the DT constructs was relatively consistent across the DT measurement

approaches. These findings suggest that the candidate traits that outperform the others in

accounting for the shared variance among the DT components is not highly dependent on a

particular measure of the DT.

BFI Assessment of Agreeableness

Past research has highlighted that the BFI does not explicitly include content related to

the tendency to value honesty or to act humbly—this exclusion likely attenuates the relations

BFI-Agreeableness demonstrates with certain outcomes compared to other measures of

Agreeableness (Miller et al., 2011). One goal regarding the recent development of the BFI-2

(Soto & John, 2017) was to increase the content breadth of each Big Five domain. In regard to

Agreeableness, the facet scales of Compassion, Respectfulness, and Trust were designed to

capture the affective, behavioral, and cognitive elements of Agreeableness, respectively. Our

results show that the BFI-2 does outperform the original BFI in terms of capturing the shared
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 19

variance among personality constructs with robust ties to antagonism, suggesting that the aim of

increasing the breadth of the Agreeableness domain was successful.

Despite this notable improvement, the BFI-2 still did not capture as much of the shared

variance in the DT as compared to IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness, Honesty-Humility, and the SRP

subscales of Callousness and Interpersonal Manipulation. This is likely due to the lack of explicit

inclusion of content related to honesty and humility within the BFI-2. However, recent work

focused on empirically identifying the hierarchical structure of Agreeableness suggests that even

though traits related to honesty and humility are not included in BFI scales of Agreeableness,

they cohere well with the other traits within the domain. Specifically, Crowe, Lynam, & Miller

(2019) identified 5 factors that underlie the broader domain using 22 self-report Agreeableness

scales (initial item pool of N=131). The results showed that five factors (named Compassion,

Morality, Modesty, Affability, and Trust) emerged at the final level of the hierarchy where the

factors remained interpretable and contained relatively homogenous content. These factors

aligned strongly with the conceptual facets of the NEO PI-R, with the exception that the

Altruism and Tendermindedness facets of the NEO PI-R were subsumed within the Compassion

factor. Despite the inclusion of 11 Honesty-Humility items from the HEXACO-100, as well as

many other relevant items from various measures, no distinct Honesty-Humility factor emerged

from the “bass-ackwards” (Goldberg, 2006) solution.

It is also important to consider the presence of reverse-coded items when comparing the

measures of Agreeableness-related traits. For example, the IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness scale

contains items like “Cheat to get ahead”, both the BFI and BFI-2 Agreeableness scales contain

the item, “Is sometimes rude to others”, and the HEXACO-H/H scale contains items like “I think

that I am entitled to more respect than the average person is.” However, in the case of the BFI
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 20

and BFI-2, both scales contain fewer reverse-coded items compared to the IPIP-Agreeableness

and HEXACO-H/H scales. Regarding BFI-Agreeableness items, 4/9 items are reverse coded

while 6/12 BFI-2 items are reverse coded. However, most of the items for IPIP-Agreeableness

and HEXACO-H/H are reverse coded, with 15/24 items being reverse coded for the IPIP-

Agreeableness scale and 10/16 items being reverse coded for the HEXACO-H/H scale. Given

that the various DT scales contain many items keyed in the antagonism direction, differences in

the number of reverse-scored items across the Agreeableness and H/H scales may have also

influenced latent correlations, in addition to the BFI instruments lacking specific content related

to honesty and humility.

Ultimately, for researchers interested in using general personality measures to capture

some of the core traits of antagonism-related constructs (e.g., the DT), NEO-based measures of

Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility from the HEXACO are the best candidates as they assess

important aspects of Agreeableness that are not covered by existing BFI instruments. Attenuated

relations are likely to be observed for the BFI-2 and BFI, though our results suggest the

attenuation will be more notable for the BFI.

Theoretical Considerations

Empirically, the present results show there is little difference among IPIP-NEO-

Agreeableness, H/H, and the SRP-III subscales of Callousness and Interpersonal Manipulation in

their ability to account for the shared variance among the DT components. In addition, more

specific features of Agreeableness, namely modesty and honesty, appear to be sufficient in

accounting for the shared variance among the DT components. Indeed, the present results offer a

few pieces of evidence in support of this view. First are the strong negative relations between the

Honesty-Humility factor and the latent DT factors. Because Honesty-Humility is narrower in

THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 21

scope compared to IPIP-NEO-Agreeableness, it suggests that the more specific traits within

Honesty-Humility can account for nearly all the shared variance among the DT. Second, when

including the Modesty and Straightforwardness facets as indicators of latent Agreeableness, there

were consistent increases in the variance accounted for in the latent DT factors. When

considering the SRP-III subscale of Interpersonal Manipulation, it has been shown to be

negatively related to all facets of Agreeableness, but most strongly negatively related to the facet

of Straightforwardness of the NEO-PI-R (e.g., Lynam & Miller, 2015). Indeed, in both samples

of the current study, the relations between the Interpersonal Manipulation subscale and

Straightforwardness were also very large (rs of -.78 and -.80). Related factors in other

psychopathy measures (e.g., the Grandiose/Manipulative factor of the Youth Psychopathic Traits

Inventory; Andershed, Ker, Stattin, & Levander, 2002) also show that although there is a

negative manifold between these psychopathic traits and Agreeableness facets, the strongest

negative relations are with the Straightforwardness and Modesty facets (Sherman, Lynam, &

Heyde, 2014). Last, BFI measures of Agreeableness, which differ from the other candidates in

their lack of content focused on honesty and humility, accounted for smaller amounts of variance

compared to the other candidates.

These points notwithstanding, the results highlight that there is still substantial shared

variance among the DT components that is accounted for by the shared variance among

Agreeableness-related scales more broadly, and not solely scales assessing honesty and humility.

For example, latent DT factors estimated from the SD3 subscales and the Single Construct

measures were strongly related to the latent IPIP-Agreeableness factor that did not include the

facets of Straightforwardness and Modesty as indicators.

THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 22

Given that multiple candidate traits are empirically equivalent in accounting for the

shared variance among the DT constructs, other factors may help decide which candidate should

be taken to be the best explanation as to what traits underlie the DT. Our view is that the most

parsimonious account of the core of the DT is that it is Antagonism (vs. Agreeableness) from the

Five-factor Model. This perspective offers a straightforward account of current findings on the

DT core and can accommodate all previous findings. Specifically, all traits that have been

investigated as different candidates can be thought of as various tests of related traits that fall

under the broader umbrella of Agreeableness (e.g., Honesty-Humility) vs. Antagonism (e.g.,

SRP-III subscales). There are also practical reasons for adopting a view that what underlies the

shared variance of the DT is Antagonism. Primarily, it connects DT research to the much broader

personality research on the Five-factor Model and Antagonism, where antagonism is seen as the

opposite end of Agreeableness.

Many advancements in personality research, particularly that that has focused on

Agreeableness, can be brought to bear on research on the DT. This research spans multiple areas

that are likely of interest to DT researchers, including developmental research (e.g., Cumberland-

li, Eisenberg, & Reiser, 2004; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002), research on antisocial behavior

(e.g., Vize, Miller, & Lynam, 2018), and the neurobiological underpinnings of personality traits

including Agreeableness (e.g., DeYoung et al., 2010). Additionally, with regard to Antagonism,

research focused on the Section III model of personality disorders within the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2011) can be

brought to bear on DT-related research, with a focus on the Antagonistic (vs. Agreeableness)

traits within Section III which include manipulativeness, deceitfulness, grandiosity, attention

seeking, callousness, and hostility. Hierarchical frameworks developed for clinical nosology,
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 23

such as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) have also highlighted an

antagonistic externalizing domain, which can be separated from a disinhibited externalizing

domain. These two subdomains characterize the broader domain of externalizing

psychopathology (Kotov et al., 2017). The FFM conceptualization of antagonism serves as a

useful connection across these research domains.

Last, given the clinical implications of the work on the DT, reframing “dark traits” or

“dark factors” of personality as simply manifestations of Antagonism offers a less pejorative way

to think about such traits. The use of the term “dark” ultimately serves to do relatively little to

explicate the nature of these constructs while inadvertently stigmatizing antagonistic individuals

who may seek out treatment.

Limitations

A few limitations are worthy of mention. First, as previously noted, our analytical

strategy is not the only analytical strategy that has been used to try and account for the core of

the DT. Though the strategy used in the current paper is a straightforward test of the main

research question in this literature area (i.e., which traits account for the core of the DT) other

analytical strategies are also defensible and may offer additional insights not offered by the

methods employed in the present paper.

Second, our analyses focused solely on the three DT components that are most commonly

studied. There has been less work that has expanded the scope of the DT to include constructs

like vulnerable narcissism and sadism; the inclusion of the latter alongside the DT has been

termed the dark tetrad (Book et al., 2016; Paulhus, 2014). Work that has taken a broader

approach to antagonism-related constructs has provided meaningful insights into various

constructs with robust ties to antagonism (e.g., Moshagen, Hilbig, & Zettler, 2018).
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 24

Conclusion and Future Directions

The present results suggest that the traits that best explain the overlap among the DT

constructs fall under the umbrella of Antagonistic traits, with the more specific traits of

manipulativeness and arrogance being central to the DT constructs. In fact, when considering the

overlap among the DT components, these latter traits appear to be sufficient in accounting for

DT overlap. Broader measures of Agreeableness that contain sufficient content related to these

traits appear to capture all of the overlapping variance among the DT constructs. Importantly, not

all measures of Agreeableness appear to adequately capture some of the core features of the DT

components—BFI instruments, particularly the original BFI, lack important content that is

central to the DT constructs. Additionally, given that the relations varied somewhat by DT

measure, these findings suggest that DT researchers should be thoughtful when choosing a scale

to operationalize the DT constructs. Moving forward, understanding the core of the DT as

Antagonism can help connect DT research to the broader personality literature that has explicitly

focused on Antagonism.
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 25

References

Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy,

D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure? Assessment,

18, 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110382845

American Psychiatric Association. (2011). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(5th edition). Washington, DC: Author

Andershed, H., Ker, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in non- referred

youths: A new assessment tool. In E. Blaauw & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psychopaths: Current

International Perspectives (pp. 131– 158). The Hague, Netherlands: Elsevier.

Book, A., Visser, B. A., Blais, J., Hosker-Field, A., Methot-Jones, T., Gauthier, N. Y., …

D’Agata, M. T. (2016). Unpacking more “evil”: What is at the core of the dark tetrad?

Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 269–272.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.009

Book, A., Visser, B. a, & Volk, A. a. (2015). Unpacking ‘“ evil ”’: Claiming the core of the Dark

Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 29–38.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.016

Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press,

Inc.

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, 1401-1407. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000637

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual: revised NEO personality inventory

(NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa FL Psychological

THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 26

Assessment Resources.

Crowe, M. L., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2017). Uncovering the Structure of Agreeableness

from Self-Report Measures. Journal of Personality, 86, 771-787.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12358

Cumberland-li, A., Eisenberg, N., & Reiser, M. (2004). Relations of Young Children’s

Agreeableness and Resiliency to Effortful Control and Impulsivity. Social Development, 13,

193–212.

DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R.

(2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience. Brain structure and the big five.

Psychological Science, 21, 820–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610370159

Glenn, A. L., & Sellbom, M. (2015). Theoretical and empirical concerns regarding the Dark

Triad as a construct. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29, 360–377.

https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_162

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the

lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7-28.

Goldberg, L. R. (2006). Doing it all Bass-Ackwards: The development of hierarchical factor

structures from the top down. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 347–358.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.01.001

Hallquist, M. N., & Wiley, J. F. (2018). MplusAutomation: An R Package for Facilitating Large-

Scale Latent Variable Analyses in M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 25, 621-638. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2017.1402334

Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised. Muliti-Health Systems.

Hodson, G., Book, A., Visser, B. A., Volk, A. A., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2018). Is the Dark
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 27

Triad common factor distinct from low Honesty-Humility? Journal of Research in

Personality, 73, 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRP.2017.11.012

Jensen-campbell, L. A., Rosselli, M., Workman, K. A., Santisi, M., Rios, J. D., & Bojan, D.

(2002). Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and effortful control processes. Journal of

Research in Personality, 36, 476–489.

Jonason, P. K., Kaufman, S. B., Webster, G. D., & Geher, G. (2013). What lies beneath the Dark

Triad Dirty Dozen: Varied relations with the Big Five. Individual Differences Research, 11,

81–90.

Jonason, P. K., Koenig, B. L., & Tost, J. (2010). Living a fast life: The Dark Triad and Life

History Theory. Human Nature, 21, 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-010-9102-4

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad.

Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265

Jones, Daniel N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2017). Duplicity among the dark triad: Three faces of deceit.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 329–342.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000139

Jones, Daniel N, & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short Dark Triad (SD3): a brief

measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105

Jones, Daniel Nelson, & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The Core of Darkness: Uncovering the Heart of

the Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27, 521–531.

https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1893

Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., ... &

Eaton, N. R. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): a

THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 28

dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126,

454-477.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality

Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902Lorenzo-Seva, U., & ten Berge, J. M. F. (2006).

Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2,

57–64. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57

Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Psychopathy from a basic trait perspective: The utility of a

five-factor model approach. Journal of Personality, 83, 611–626.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12132

Lynam, D. R., Sherman, E. D., Samuel, D., Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2013).

Development of a short form of the elemental psychopathy assessment. Assessment, 20,

659–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113502072

Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of the international

personality item pool representation of the revised NEO personality inventory and

development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. Psychological

Assessment, 26, 1070–1084. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000004

Maples, J. L., Lamkin, J., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of two brief measures of the dark triad:

The Dirty Dozen and Short Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 26, 326–331.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035084

Marcus, D. K., Preszler, J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2018). A network of dark personality traits: What

lies at the heart of darkness? Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 56–62. https://doi.org/

10.1016/J.JRP.2017.11.003
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 29

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81

Miller, B. K., Smart, D. L., & Rechner, P. L. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the

Machiavellian Personality Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 120–124.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.022

Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., Pryor, L. R., Kamen, C., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). Is research

using the narcissistic personality inventory relevant for understanding narcissistic

personality disorder? Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 482–488.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.001

Miller, Joshua D., Few, L. R., Seibert, L. A., Watts, A., Zeichner, A., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). an

examination of the Dirty Dozen measure of psychopathy: A cautionary tale about the costs

of brief measures. Psychological Assessment, 24, 1048-1053.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028583

Miller, Joshua D., Hyatt, C. S., Maples-Keller, J. L., Carter, N. T., & Lynam, D. R. (2017).

Psychopathy and Machiavellianism: A distinction without a difference? Journal of

Personality, 85, 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12251

Miller, Joshua D, Gaughan, E. T., Maples, J., & Price, J. (2011). A Comparison of

Agreeableness Scores From the Big Five Inventory and the NEO PI-R: Consequences for

the Study of Narcissism and Psychopathy. Assessment, 18, 335–339.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411671

Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2018). The dark core of personality. Psychological

Review, 125, 656–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000111

THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 30

Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The Malevolent Side of Human

Nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the Dark Triad (narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 183–204.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070

Muthén, L. K.., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus User's Guide (Sixth Edition). Los Angeles, CA:

Muthén & Muthén.

Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a Taxonomy of Dark Personalities. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 23, 421–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547737

Paulhus, Delroy L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports,

45, 590. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590

Rosseel, Y. (2012). “lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of

Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/

Sherman, E. D., Lynam, D. R., & Heyde, B. (2014). Agreeableness accounts for the factor

structure of the youth psychopathic traits inventory. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28,

262–280. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_124

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next big five inventory (BFI-2). Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 113, 117–143. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.170.6.9609152

Stead, R., Cynthia Fekken, G., Kay, A., & McDermott, K. (2012). Conceptualizing the Dark

Triad of personality: Links to social symptomatology. Personality and Individual

Differences, 53, 1023–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.021

Vize, C. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2019). Antagonism in the Dark Triad. In Miller, J. D.,
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 31

& Lynam, D. R. (Eds.), The Handbook of Antagonism: Conceptualizations, Assessment,

Consequences, and Treatment of the Low End of Agreeableness. Elsevier.

Vize, C.E., Collison, K. L., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2018). Examining the effects of

controlling for shared variance among the dark triad using meta-analytic structural equation

modelling. European Journal of Personality, 32, 46-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2137

Vize, C. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2018). FFM facets and their relations with different

forms of antisocial behavior: An expanded meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57,

67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.04.004

Vize, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Collison, K. L., & Miller, J. D. (2018). Differences among Dark Triad

components: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and

Treatment, 9, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000222

Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2003). Factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy scale

(SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.004

Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure of

psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 205–

219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268074
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 32

Figure 1

Graphical Illustration of Model Used to Test Latent Correlation Between SD3-DT Factor and
HEXACO-Honesty Humility Factor

Note: DT=Dark Triad; SD3-M=Short Dark Triad-Machiavellianism; SD3-N= Short Dark Triad-
Narcissism; SD3-P=Short Dark Triad-Psychopathy; H-H=Honesty-Humility; HH-Sinc=Honesty-
Humility-Sincerity Facet; HH-Fair=Honesty-Humility-Fairness Facet; HH-Greed=Honesty-
Humility-Greed Avoidance Facet; HH-Modes=Honesty-Humility-Modesty Facet.
THE CORE OF THE DARK TRIAD 33

Table 1

Latent Correlations in Samples 1 and 2

Sample 1 Sample 2
SD3 DD Single SD3 DD Single
Construct Construct
HEXACO-HH -.96* -.83* -.93* -.99* -.85* -.92*
IPIP-NEO A (without -.91* -.56* -.97* -.87* -.67* -.89*
Straightforwardness
and Modesty)
IPIP-NEO A < -1.00*† -.92* < -1.00*† -.98* -.89* -1.00*
BFI A -.68* -.64* -.76* -.65* -.66* -.73*
BFI-2 A -.78* -.72* -.87* -.77* -.76* -.82*
SRP-CA & IPM > 1.00*† .88* NA 1.00* .87* NA
Note: *=latent correlation is significant at p < .01; †=latent correlation was estimated to be
greater than 1, or less than -1; SD3=Short Dark Triad latent factor; DD=Dirty Dozen latent
factor; Single Construct=Dark Triad latent factor is assessed by independent measures (SRP-III,
NPI, and MACH-IV); HEXACO-HH=HEXACO-Honesty Humility latent factor; IPIP-NEO-
A=IPIP-NEO-120-Agreeableness latent factor; BFI-A=Big Five Inventory latent factor; BFI-2-
A=Big Five Inventory-2 Agreeableness latent factor; SRP-CA & IPM =Self-Report Psychopathy
Callous Affect and Interpersonal Manipulation latent factor.