Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 1–6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The Dark Triad's inverse relations with cognitive and emotional empathy: T
High-powered tests with multiple measures
⁎
Imani N. Turnera, , Joshua D. Fosterb, Gregory D. Webstera
a
University of Florida, USA
b
University of South Alabama, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Low empathy is a key feature of the Dark Triad traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.
Empathy Nevertheless, prior research, which has used mostly small samples with single measures of each construct, has
Narcissism produced mixed findings. The present study tested associations between Dark Triad traits and empathy using (a)
Dark Triad a large sample (N = 1035), (b) multiple measures of each construct, and (c) structural equation modeling. Dark
Machiavellianism
Triad traits, modeled as latent variables using three indicator measures each, were regressed onto two dimen-
Psychopathy
Structural equation modeling
sions of empathy—emotional (feeling what others feel) and cognitive (knowing what others think)—which were
Multiple measures also modeled as latent variables using three indicator measures each. The model fit the data well. All three Dark
Latent variables Triad traits were associated with low emotional empathy, but the association with narcissism was significantly
weaker than associations with psychopathy or Machiavellianism. Psychopathy was unrelated to cognitive em-
pathy, whereas narcissism and Machiavellianism were both positively related to cognitive empathy. The present
findings provide a more nuanced and comprehensive theoretical contribution to the links between empathy and
the Dark Triad traits.

1. Introduction 2001). Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulativeness, cun-

A general consensus, and defining feature of Dark Triad traits
(narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) relate to a lack of
empathy. While the relationship between Dark Triad traits and empathy
has been previously explored, there are existing discrepancies in the
Dark Triad literature. This study addresses inconsistencies by differ-
entiating between cognitive and emotional empathy, and including
multiple measures of each personality trait and empathy dimension.
1.1. The Dark Triad
The Dark Triad consists of three related and interpersonally mala-
daptive personality traits: subclinical narcissism, Machiavellianism, and
subclinical psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Narcissism is
characterized by a grandiose self-concept, an excessive sense of self-
importance and self-worth, and a general lack of caring for others
(Vonk, Zeigler-Hill, Mayhew, & Mercer, 2013). Narcissists also crave
attention and seek admiration from others (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).
Although narcissists have an over-inflated sense of self, some theories
maintain that they hold a vulnerable self-concept that requires constant
validation and reinforcement from outside sources (Morf & Rhodewalt,
ningness, and use of deception for their own personal gain (Esperger &
Bereczkei, 2012). Machiavellianism is also associated with long-term
and strategic planning, less prosocial behavior, and can be described as
power-seeking (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). Major features of psycho-
pathy include cold-heartedness, a tendency toward thrill-seeking be-
haviors, and impulsivity (Brankley & Rule, 2014). Psychopaths also
tend to exhibit impulsive, pleasure-seeking, and antisocial behaviors
(Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012), and are generally callous and emotionally
cold toward others. Notably, the callous and unemotional nature of
psychopaths makes them particularly prone to aggression (Baughman,
Dearing, Giammarco, & Vernon, 2012). There is significant overlap
among the Dark Triad traits. For example, each trait is associated with
an egotistic bias, deceptiveness, self-promoting behaviors, aggressive-
ness, and emotional distance from others; however, effect sizes vary for
each trait (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).
1.2. Empathy and the Dark Triad
Empathy is a complex, multidimensional concept that reflects un-
derstanding the emotions of others (Shamay-Tsoory, Aharon-Peretz, &
Perry, 2009). Wispé (1986) defined empathy as the attempt to actively

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Florida, P.O. Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250, USA.
E-mail address: inturner@ufl.edu (I.N. Turner).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.030
Received 23 July 2018; Received in revised form 18 October 2018; Accepted 22 October 2018
Available online 02 November 2018
0191-8869/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
I.N. Turner et al.
understand the positive and negative experiences of others. Empathy
research led to the eventual development and differentiation of two
types of empathy: cognitive and emotional. Cognitive empathy is the
ability to understand and identify others' emotions, whereas emotional
empathy is the ability to be aware of and experience others' emotions
(Lockwood, Seara-Cardoso, & Viding, 2014). Empathy is a positive
predictor of moral development and prosocial behavior (Jolliffe &
Farrington, 2006). Multiple studies show that empathy negatively
correlates with aggression and antisocial behavior (Butean, Costescu, &
Dobrean, 2014; Lockwood et al., 2014).
Relatedly, emotional deficits underlie narcissism, Machiavellianism,
and psychopathy (Jonason, Lyons, Bethell, & Ross, 2013; Paulhus &
Williams, 2002). In particular, the Dark Triad traits negatively correlate
with empathy (Jonason et al., 2013). This may explain why people who
exhibit the Dark Triad traits engage in one-sided, short-term relation-
ships (Jonason et al., 2013); however, other research presents dis-
crepancies in the literature regarding empathy and the Dark Triad
traits.
Prior research suggests that The Dark Triad traits are correlated
with decreased levels of cognitive empathy. Relatedly, Machiavellianism
and psychopathy were correlated with lower levels of emotional em-
pathy; however, narcissism was the only trait that did not have a sig-
nificant correlation with emotional empathy (Jonason & Krause, 2013).
The same study also found that psychopathy was the only trait of the
three to predict both cognitive and affective empathy. This finding
suggests that, although narcissists may understand the emotions of
others, they may have trouble experiencing others' emotions. Conse-
quently, they detach themselves from feeling others' emotions to pursue
personal goals by exploitation, or perhaps they lack motivation to ex-
perience others' emotions. Similar research found no associations
linking empathy with narcissism (Watson, Grisham, Trotter, &
Biderman, 1984). Nevertheless, people with higher pathological
grandiosity scores showed more emotional intelligence and empathy
(Vonk, Zeigler-Hill, Mayhew, & Mercer, 2013). Vonk et al. (2013) also
found that the Grandiose Exhibitionism subscale of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI) was negatively correlated with empathetic
concern and empathizing, but positively correlated with personal dis-
tress. These findings may suggest that narcissists are uncomfortable
with other people's negative emotions.
In other work, Machiavellianism correlated with externally-focused
thinking style (associated with having limited access to inner feelings)
and narcissism related to difficulty describing and identifying feelings;
however, psychopathy possessed the strongest associations with emo-
tional deficiencies (Jonason & Krause, 2013). Higher Machiavellianism
scores associated with lower empathy levels and high affective per-
spective-taking in children, where affective perspective-taking reflected
one's ability to recognize and make conclusions about others' emotional
states (Barnett & Thompson, 1985).
Psychopathy also negatively relates to empathy scores, including a
decreased level of cognitive empathy (Jonason & Krause, 2013). Psy-
chopathy appears to be the only Dark Triad trait that relates to (a)
lower rates of cognitive and emotional empathy and (b) having trouble
with externally-focused thinking and describing feelings (Jonason &
Krause, 2013).
1.3. The present study
Inevitable discrepancies in the Dark Triad literature exist regarding
empathy. The abovementioned studies used multiple empathy and Dark
Triad measures. Although aspects of the present study are a replication,
our aims were to resolve discrepancies in prior research while better
understanding the links between empathy and Dark Triad traits.
Previous studies that have explored this realm of research focus on
global traits rather than the individual dimensions of each trait. The
current research also focuses on global Dark Triad traits. The purpose of
the present work was to use multiple measures of empathy and the Dark
2
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 1–6
Triad in conjunction with structural equation modeling (SEM) to reduce
measurement error, and consequently address or resolve some incon-
sistencies in the literature (which may be rooted in measurement error
or variability). We hypothesized that the Dark Triad traits would cor-
relate negatively with cognitive and emotional empathy because ne-
gative (vs. positive) links have been more common in the research lit-
erature. We made no specific predictions regarding possible differences
in the strengths of those correlations among the three traits.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants and procedure
Participants were 1396 introductory psychology students from a
large public university in the southeast United States. They completed
online measures of Dark Triad traits and emotional/cognitive empathy
(see next section for descriptions of measures) in exchange for class
credit. Participants with missing responses were excluded, resulting in a
final sample size of 1035 participants (684 women, 351 men).
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 53 (M = 19.66, SD = 3.36).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. The Dark Triad
2.2.1.1. Short Dark Triad. The Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus,
2014) is a 27-item measure of narcissism (e.g., “People see me as a
natural leader,” α = 0.71), Machiavellianism (e.g., “I like to use clever
manipulation to get my way,” α = 0.77), and psychopathy (e.g., “I like
to get revenge on authorities,” α = 0.80). Participants respond using a
five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
2.2.2. Narcissism
2.2.2.1. Narcissistic Personality Inventory. The NPI (Raskin & Hall,
1979) is a 40-pair-item measure that assesses grandiose narcissism
(α = 0.83). Example items included “I am not sure if I would make a
good leader” and “I will usually show off if I get the chance.”
Participants respond by choosing one of the two attributes with
which they most agree. We focused on the overall narcissism score
rather than individual subscales.
2.2.2.2. Grandiose Narcissism Scale. The Grandiose Narcissism Scale
(GNS; Foster, McCain, Hibbert, Brunell, & Johnson, 2014) is a 35-item
measure that assesses grandiose narcissism (α = 0.91). Example items
included “I naturally take charge in situations” and “I care about how
good I look.” Participants responded using six-point Likert scales from 1
(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). We calculated an overall
narcissism score, with higher scores reflecting greater narcissism.
2.2.3. Machiavellianism
2.2.3.1. Machiavellianism Scale. The MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970)
is a 20-item measure assessing the Machiavellianism personality trait
(α = 0.82). Participants used five-point Likert scales from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to indicate the degree to which they agree
with statements such as “Never tell anyone the real reason you did
something unless it is useful to do so” and “It is wise to flatter important
people.” After averaging across items, higher scores reflected more
Machiavellianism.
2.2.3.2. Machiavellianism Personality Scale. The Machiavellianism
Personality Scale (MPS; Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009) is a 16-
item measure that assesses the Machiavellianism personality trait
(α = 0.82). Participants indicated the degree to which they agreed
with statements using seven-point Likert scales from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items included, “I am willing to
be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed” and “I would cheat if
there was a low chance of getting caught.”
I.N. Turner et al.
2.2.4. Psychopathy
2.2.4.1. Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. The Levenson Self-
Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick,
1995) is a 26-item measure that assesses a score for psychopathy
(α = 0.84). Sample items included “For me, what's right is whatever I
can get away with” and “Looking out for myself is my top priority.”
Participants respond using four-point Likert scales from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Overall psychopathy scores were used for
analysis.
2.2.4.2. Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. The Self-Report Psychopathy
Scale (SRP-III; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, 2009) is a 64-item
measure of psychopathy (α = 0.90). Participants respond using five-
point Likert scales from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Sample
items included “I've done something dangerous just for the thrill of it”
and “I am an impulsive person.” The present study used overall
psychopathy scores. Because of a design error, the SRP was
administered to only a portion of the sample (N = 365). Missing SRP
scores were accommodated in the latent variable modeling by the use of
full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation. Notably, the
results attained from FIML were not different than results attained
when listwise deletion was employed (which reduced the entire sample
to 365).
2.2.5. Empathy
2.2.5.1. Empathy Quotient. The Empathy Quotient (EQ; Baron-Cohen &
Wheelwright, 2004) is a 60-item measure designed to measure
cognitive and emotional empathy (α = 0.92). Participants use four-
point Likert scales from 1 (definitely disagree) to 4 (definitely agree) to
respond to statements including “I really enjoy caring for people” and “I
find it easy to put myself in somebody else's shoes.”
2.2.5.2. Basic Empathy Scale. The Basic Empathy Scale (BES; Jolliffe &
Farrington, 2006) is a 20-item measure that assesses cognitive
(α = 0.79) and emotional empathy (α = 0.85). The cognitive subscale
focuses on the ability to comprehend the reason underlying a specific
emotion (e.g., “I can often understand how people are feeling before
they tell me”). The affective subscale focuses on the ability to feel
another person's emotional state (e.g., “I tend to feel scared when I am
with friends who are afraid”). Participants respond using four-point
Likert scales from 1 (definitely disagree) to 4 (definitely agree).
2.2.5.3. How I Feel in Different Situations Scale. The How I Feel in
Different Situations Scale (HIFDS; Bonino, Lo Coco, & Tani, 1998;
Feshbach et al., 1991) is a 12-item measure designed to assess cognitive
(α = 0.73) and affective empathy (α = 0.79). The affective subscale
consists of seven statements such as “When my friend is disappointed, I
feel disappointed too” and “Seeing a child being spanked upsets me.”
The cognitive subscale consists of five statements such as “I can sense
how my friends feel from the way they behave” and “I am able to
understand how other people react to things that I do.” Participants
respond using four-point Likert scales from 1 (never true) to 4 (always
true).
3. Results
Table 1 shows the correlations and descriptive statistics for all 15
measures. Personality measures were positively and significantly in-
tercorrelated. Corresponding trait measures showed the strongest re-
lationships. Empathy measures were also positively and significantly
intercorrelated. Corresponding empathy subscales had the strongest
relationships.
Fig. 1 shows the SEM we assessed using Mplus 8 (Muthén and
Muthén, 1998–2017). Specifically, we modeled the Dark Triad traits
and affective and cognitive empathy as latent variables with three ob-
served measures each (e.g., latent narcissism was modeled with the
3
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 1–6
observed narcissism measures: SD3-Narcissism, NPI, & GNS). An initial
test of this measurement model revealed relatively poor fit
(χ280 = 1081.04, p < .001; CFI = 0.89; TLI = 0.86; RMSEA = 0.110,
90% CI [0.104, 0.116]; SRMR = 0.069). This was not surprising be-
cause multiple within-construct measures exhibited high degree of
content and syntactic similarity. Likewise, empathy subtypes were
measured using items from the same scales, as were Dark Triad traits
measured with the SD3, which may have allowed response sets to in-
flate cross-construct correlation. All of this had the potential to in-
troduce error into the measurement model in the form of correlated
residuals.
We examined modification indices (MI) and identified several ex-
amples where this appeared to be the case. For example, affective and
cognitive empathy measures stemming from the same scales all ex-
hibited substantial correlated residuals (MIs > 20). Likewise, residuals
from the SD3-Narcissism and SD3-Psychopathy measures exhibited
substantial correlation with residuals from the NPI and SRP, respec-
tively (MIs > 51). Finally, there was one very large correlated residual
between the affective empathy subcales of the HIFDS and BES
(MI = 164). Because these observed variables either came from the
same scales or from scales that exhibited high levels of content/syn-
tactic similarity, we thought it reasonable to relax the constraint that
their residuals be uncorrelated. These six modifications resulted in
significant improvement to model fit (Δχ26 = 509.82, p < .001) and an
overall acceptable fitting measurement model (χ274 = 571.22,
p < .001; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.081, 90% CI [0.074,
0.087]; SRMR = 0.064).
Next, we added structural paths to the measurement model linking
affective and cognitive empathy to each of the Dark Triad traits. As
shown in Fig. 1, emotional empathy negatively related to all three Dark
Triad traits. These results suggest that people high in the Dark Triad
traits experienced deficits in affective empathy. Comparisons among
the strengths of the three structural paths, however, revealed that the
path connecting emotional empathy to narcissism was significantly
weaker than paths linking emotional empathy to either psychopathy
(z = 5.41, p < .001) or Machiavellianism (z = 5.29, p < .001). Paths
connecting emotional empathy to psychopathy and Machiavellianism
were equivalent (z = 1.06, p = .29). In sum, all three Dark Triad traits
exhibited relatively low levels of emotional empathy, but this effect was
most pronounced in psychopathy and Machiavellianism.
Unlike emotional empathy, which was negatively related to all three
Dark Triad traits, cognitive empathy was unrelated to psychopathy and
positively related to narcissism and Machiavellianism (Fig. 1). Path
comparisons revealed that narcissism and Machiavellianism were both
more strongly and positively linked to cognitive empathy than was
psychopathy (zs > 7.24, ps < 0.001). Narcissism and Machia-
vellianism were related to cognitive empathy equivalently to one an-
other (z = 1.62, p = .11). In sum, whereas psychopathy was unrelated
to cognitive empathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism were both re-
lated to higher than average levels of cognitive empathy.1
To investigate gender differences, we conducted an analysis that
compared the six structural paths representing all combinations of as-
sociations between the three Dark Triad traits and two empathy con-
structs between men and women. Of these six unplanned comparisons,
only one was statistically significant. The significant finding was the
comparison involving the link between psychopathy and cognitive
1
In response to a reviewer suggestion, we also tested structural paths using
the original (unmodified) poor-fitting measurement model. The only difference
observed was that the path linking cognitive empathy and psychopathy was
significant and positive (β = 0.16, p < .001) when the original measurement
model was used, whereas it was non-significant when the modified measure-
ment model was used (β = 0.06, p = .13). Notably, however, the link between
cognitive empathy and psychopathy was still significantly weaker than were
links between cognitive empathy and either narcissism (β = 0.48, p < .001) or
Machiavellianism (β = 0.38, p < .001), zs > 5.83, ps < 0.001.
I.N. Turner et al. Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 1–6

Table 1
Correlations and descriptive statistics.
Measure α Mean SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Narcissism
1. SD3 0.76 2.96 0.61 0.73 0.66 0.42 0.19 0.50 0.41 0.32 0.41 −0.15 −0.20 −0.07 0.21 0.00 0.12
2. NPI 0.85 15.16 6.94 0.68 0.37 0.22 0.47 0.45 0.38 0.46 −0.19 −0.26 −0.10 0.18 −0.08 0.09
3. GNS 0.93 112.65 23.58 0.58 0.34 0.67 0.49 0.47 0.54 −0.24 −0.22 −0.11 0.20 0.00 0.10

Machiavellianism
4. SD3 0.77 2.91 0.65 0.61 0.71 0.62 0.64 0.63 −0.40 −0.31 −0.21 0.09 −0.07 −0.01
5. MACH-IV 0.74 2.64 0.43 0.56 0.52 0.60 0.58 −0.43 −0.31 −0.28 −0.09 −0.21 −0.17
6. MPS 0.87 56.92 14.95 0.60 0.68 0.64 −0.36 −0.31 −0.16 0.09 −0.12 −0.01

Psychopathy
7. SD3 0.73 2.20 0.63 0.72 0.81 −0.48 −0.39 −0.24 −0.06 −0.24 −0.13
8. LSRP 0.86 52.61 10.02 0.72 −0.53 −0.40 −0.24 −0.14 −0.33 −0.19
9. SRP 0.93 2.25 0.49 −0.51 −0.47 −0.30 0.06 −0.20 −0.11

Affective empathy
10. EQ 0.79 10.74 4.52 0.69 0.56 0.42 0.49 0.38
11. BES 0.84 38.62 7.36 0.66 0.21 0.41 0.23
12. HIFDS 0.75 16.99 3.52 0.26 0.34 0.41

Cognitive empathy
13. EQ 0.88 11.68 4.87 0.58 0.61
14. BES 0.80 33.43 4.17 0.53
15. HIFDS 0.75 16.19 2.55

Note. See Measures section (Section 2.2) for full measure names and descriptions. Significant correlations are bolded, p < .01 (based on two-tailed bivariate
correlations).

Fig. 1. SEM of affective and cognitive empathy predicting the Dark Triad traits (standardized estimates). See text for scale details. *p < .05.

empathy, which was stronger for women (β = 0.17, p = .002) than men
(β = −0.03, p = .62), z = 2.34, p = .02. Men and women were
equivalent in terms of links between psychopathy and affective em-
pathy (z = 1.26, p = .21), narcissism and affective empathy (z = 0.42,
p = .67), narcissism and cognitive empathy (z = 1.53, p = .13),
Machiavellianism and affective empathy (z = 0.14, p = .89), and
Machiavellianism and cognitive empathy (z = 1.01, p = .31). There
were minimal differences in overall model fit for men
(χ2(274) = 248.99, p < .001; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.92;
RMSEA = 0.082, 90% CI [0.071, 0.093]; SRMR = 0.072) and women
(χ2(274) = 394.17, p < .001; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.92;
RMSEA = 0.080, 90% CI [0.073, 0.087]; SRMR = 0.065). It is im-
portant to note that although the chi-square value was higher for
women compared to men, this was likely caused by a greater number of
women (vs. men) because chi-square values positively correlate with
sample size. Given the unplanned nature of the comparisons, that only
one of the six comparisons was significant, and the relatively small
difference observed in the significant comparison, we conclude from
these comparisons that Dark Triad traits and cognitive/affective em-
pathy are similarly related for men and women.

4
I.N. Turner et al.
4. Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to date to investigate links
among empathetic abilities and the Dark Triad traits using a large
sample and latent variable modeling. The results indicate that all three
Dark Triad traits inversely relate to emotional empathy. People with
high levels of psychopathy showed the strongest deficits in emotional
empathy, followed by Machiavellianism and narcissism. In contrast, the
results suggest that narcissism and Machiavellianism are linked to
higher than average levels of cognitive empathy, with psychopathy
being unrelated to cognitive empathy. That is, narcissists and
Machiavellians appear to be better than average at identifying and re-
cognizing other people's feelings (which could be used to their ad-
vantage in manipulating others). Psychopathy was unrelated to cogni-
tive empathy, which may suggest that people high in psychopathy use
strategies to manipulate others that rely less on cognitive empathy,
such as use of force.
The present study's findings were in many respects consistent with
those of prior research (Barnett & Thompson, 1985; Jonason & Krause,
2013; Vonk et al., 2013; Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984);
however, some discrepancies did arise. For example, one prior study
showed that psychopathy inversely correlated with cognitive empathy,
but did not correlate significantly with affective empathy (Jonason &
Krause, 2013). The current study yielded essentially the opposite re-
sults: psychopathy related to lower levels of affective empathy and had
no relationship with cognitive empathy. Additionally, this same prior
study found that narcissism was associated with lower levels of cogni-
tive empathy (Jonason & Krause, 2013), whereas the present study
found that narcissism was linked with higher levels of cognitive em-
pathy. Although more research needs to be done on this topic, we think
that the large sample and latent variable modeling used in our study
increases the chances that our findings will replicate in future attempts
to study links between Dark Triad traits and empathy.
Previous research asserts that an overarching feature of Dark Triad
traits is lack of empathy (Book, Visser, & Volk, 2015; Jonason et al.,
2013; Jones & Paulhus, 2011; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). When making
this assertion, it is important to specify the type of empathy—emotional
or cognitive. The present findings seem to align with the idea that Dark
Triad traits are associated with decreased levels of emotional empathy,
which is consistent with prior research. Notably, the present research
suggests that those high in narcissism and Machiavellianism have the
ability to comprehend what people are feeling. This finding is poten-
tially important because it provides some insight regarding how people
with Dark Triad traits may be able to manipulate and deceive others.
The current findings suggest that people scoring high on narcissism and
Machiavellianism are able to understand others' emotions. People high
in these traits may then choose to use this knowledge to manipulate
others without being burdened with the emotional consequences of
their actions (e.g., guilt, shame). We also found that psychopathy was
unrelated to cognitive empathy. As suggested by other researchers,
perhaps those high in psychopathy may use other strategies, such as
intimidation or seduction, to get what they want (Jonason & Webster,
2012).
4.1. Limitations
Because affective and cognitive empathy appeared to be mutually
suppressive in the same model—the structural paths of interest were
often stronger than what would be expected given the pattern of zero-
order correlations—these finds should be interpreted with caution and
warrant future replication. We also acknowledge the usual caveats that
relate to self-report measures (e.g., acquiescence bias; Paulhus & Vazire,
2007) and the lack of causal relations that can be gleaned from corre-
lational data (Kenny, 1979). We also acknowledge that inabilities to
experience empathy may be necessary, but not sufficient, to produce
the observed patterns of associations linking empathy to Dark Triad
5
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 1–6
traits, and that a functional fields approach to mapping these links is
warranted (Wood, Lowman, Harms, & Spain, 2017).
4.2. Conclusions
This study showed that empathetic abilities covary with Dark Triad
traits: Empathy–Dark Triad links were negative for affective empathy,
but positive for cognitive empathy, except for psychopathy.
Additionally, our findings suggested that people higher in narcissism
and Machiavellianism have the strongest cognitive empathetic skill set.
People high in psychopathy are particularly dark, and lack cognitive
empathetic skills. Finally, these results suggest that future research may
benefit from investigating how those high in psychopathy are often able
to manipulate others successfully.
References
Barnett, M. A., & Thompson, S. (1985). The role of perspective taking and empathy in
children's Machiavellianism, prosocial behavior, and motive for helping. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 146(3), 295–305.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of
adults with Asperger Syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differ-
ences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175.
Baughman, H. M., Dearing, S., Giammarco, E., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). Relationships
between bullying behaviours and the Dark Triad: A study with adults. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 571–575.
Bonino, S., Lo Coco, A., & Tani, F. (1998). Empatia. Processi di condivisione delle emozioni
[Empathy: Processes of sharing emotions]. Florence, Italy: Giunti.
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.
Brankley, A. E., & Rule, N. O. (2014). Threat perception: How psychopathy and
Machiavellianism relate to social perceptions during competition. Personality and
Individual Differences, 71, 103–107.
Butean, I., Costescu, C., & Dobrean, A. (2014). Differences between empathetic responses
in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and typically developing children. Journal
of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 14(2), 197–209.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a
new Machiavellianism Scale. Journal of Management. 35(2), 219–257.
Esperger, Z., & Bereczkei, T. (2012). Machiavellianism and spontaneous mentalization:
One step ahead of others. European Journal of Personality, 26, 580–587.
Feshbach, N. D., Caprara, G. V., Lo Coco, A., Pastorelli, C., Manna, G., & Menzres, J.
(1991). Empathy and its correlates: Cross cultural data from Italy. Eleventh biennal
meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Minneapolis.
Foster, J. D., McCain, J. L., Hibbert, M., Brunell, A. B., & Johnson, R. B. (2014). The
Grandiose Narcissism Scale: A global and facet-level measure of grandiose narcissism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 12–16.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy
Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 589–611.
Jonason, P. K., & Krause, L. (2013). The emotional deficits associated with the Dark Triad
traits: Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Personality and
Individual Differences, 55, 532–537.
Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Bethell, E. J., & Ross, R. (2013). Different routes to limited
empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and empathy.
Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 572–576.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2012). A protean approach to social influence: Dark
Triad personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual Differences,
52, 521–526.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). Differentiating the Dark Triad within the inter-
personal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz, & S. Strack (Eds.). Handbook of interpersonal
psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 249–268).
New York: Wiley.
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.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley1979.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attri-
butes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68(1), 151–158.
Lockwood, P. L., Seara-Cardoso, A., & Viding, E. (2014). Emotion regulation moderates
the association between empathy and prosocial behavior. PLoS One, 9(5), 1–6.
Morf, C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-
regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2009). Manual for the self-report psychopathy
scale.
Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. Handbook of research methods
in personality psychology. 1. Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp.
224–239).
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
I.N. Turner et al.
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.
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, 884–889.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two systems for empathy: A
double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal
gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132(3), 617–627.
Vonk, J., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mayhew, P., & Mercer, S. (2013). Mirror mirror on the wall,
which form of narcissist know self and others best of all. Personality and Individual
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 1–6
Differences, 54, 396–401.
Watson, P. J., Grisham, S., Trotter, M., & Biderman, M. (1984). Narcissism and empathy:
Validity evidence for the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 48(3), 301–305.
Wispé, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept,
a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 314–321.
Wood, D., Lowman, G. H., Harms, P. D., & Spain, S. M. (2017). Using functional fields to
formally represent the meaning and logic of behavior: A worked example using Dark
Triad-related actions. Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2017.09.002.