Current Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03732-5

The dark and light of human nature: Spanish adaptation of the light
triad scale and its relationship with psychological well-being
Maria Stavraki1  · Edgar Artacho-Mata2 · Miriam Bajo1  · Darío Díaz1

Accepted: 31 August 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Against the negative conception of human nature employed by the Dark Triad, another instrument was recently developed
to evaluate positive traits, the Light Triad Scale. Our first objective was to apply the same approach of bifactorial models
of mental health, which argue that the absence of psychopathology does not necessarily indicate the presence of positive
health, to the evaluation of personality. In this sense, we expected that the Light Triad and the Dark Triad are two distinct
but interrelated domains of personality, and not just two opposite poles of the same spectrum. Moreover, we examined
the relationship of both the Light Triad Scale and the Dark Triad Scale with well-being. To do it, we first adapted this
instrument to Spanish and studied its factorial validity, factor invariance for age and gender, and reliability. A total of
1158 participants from Spain completed the Light Triad Scale, the Short Dark Triad Scale and Psychological Well-Being
Scales. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the Spanish adaptation of the Light Triad Scale showed an adequate
fit to the data and scalar invariance across gender and age. Parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis confirmed
the bifactorial model of positive-negative personality traits. Finally, the results showed a positive relation between Light
Triad and well-being. The Spanish adaptation of the Light Triad is a useful instrument to assess positive personality traits,
independently of the negative personality characteristics assessed by the Dark Triad. In closing, the Light Triad seems to
be a core component of positive psychological functioning.

Keywords  Light Triad · Dark Triad · Well-being · Measurement

Introduction level (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). However, the number of

Human nature is composed by both a dark and a light side
(Zimbardo, 2018). Traditionally, most research adopted a
negative conception of human nature focusing on the study
of the “dark traits” and its relation to ethically, morally, and
socially aversive beliefs and behaviors (see Moshagen et al.,
2018). One of the most widely used constructs is the Dark
Triad that comprises of Machiavellianism (i.e., a personality
characterized by interpersonal manipulation), Narcissism
(i.e., a feeling of greatness about oneself) and Psychopa-
thy (i.e., interpersonal manipulation traits, affective deficits,
and an antisocial and parasitic lifestyle) in a subclinical
Maria Stavraki
maria.stavraki@uclm.es
1
Psychology Department, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha,
Ciudad Real, Spain
2
Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, Logroño, Spain
dimensions of this construct has been questioned. For exam-
ple, some researchers argue that the Dark Triad is composed
of two factors (Dark Dyad): Psychopathy and Machiavel-
lianism load in one factor and Narcissism in the other (e.g.,
Rogoza & Cieciuch, 2020). Another proposal considers a
Dark Tetrad, adding everyday Sadism to the original Dark
Triad dimensions (Paulhus, 2014).
Despite controversy about Dark Triad structure, many
researchers have examined the consequences of these traits
on aversive psychosocial outcomes, such as aggression and
violence (e.g., Knight et al., 2018), empathy (e.g., Schim-
menti et al., 2019), infidelity in intimate relations (e.g.,
Unrau & Morry 2017), high-approach low-avoidance tem-
perament (Wlodarska, et al., 2021), or antisocial online
behavior (March & Marrington, 2021). In the field of posi-
tive psychology, previous research indicates that Narcissism
is positively related to eudaimonic and hedonic well-being,
Psychopathy is negatively related to both constructs of well-
being, and Machiavellianism is unrelated to well-being

13

(Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015). Moreover, positive mood,
a core component of hedonic well-being, is negatively
related to Machiavellianism and Psychopathy, and unrelated
to Narcissism (Egan et al., 2014).
Although it is necessary to continue studying the rela-
tionship between Dark Triad and well-being, it is also essen-
tial to go further and measure positive traits, strengths, and
virtues since positive characteristics are important for opti-
mal psychological functioning (Sheldon & King, 2001). As
a consequence of the interest in seeking the positive side of
human nature, a new construct emerged, named the Light
Triad, which has been proposed to measure human positive
traits related to a loving and beneficent orientation toward
others (Kaufman et al., 2019). Interestingly, previous empir-
ical evidence showed that the Light Triad is a unique con-
struct, distinct to other personality dimensions, such as the
Big Five and the Honesty-Humility tendency (Kaufman et
al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). The Light Triad is composed
by three distinct dimensions: Faith in Humanity, Humanism
and Kantianism. The first factor, Faith in Humanity, refers
to a way of thinking and acting that is based on the belief
that there is innate goodness in all human beings. Human-
ism refers to valuing the dignity and worth of each person,
and Kantianism to treating people without seeking an end
or utility. Interestingly, the Light Triad is related to several
positive functioning outcomes, such as prosocial (March &
Marrington, 2021) and helping behavior (Ruel et al., 2022),
increased kindness (Gerymski & Krok, 2019), selfishness
and compassion (Kaufman et al., 2019).
Due to the importance of the Light Triad in positive
psychology, our first objective was to examine the relation
between the Light Triad and the Dark Triad, using the same
approach of bifactorial models of mental health (e.g., the
Complete State Model of Health; Keyes, 2005). That is, we
hypothesized (H1) that the Light Triad and the Dark Triad
are two distinct, but interrelated domains of human nature.
Put differently, the absence of Dark Triad characteristics
does not necessarily imply the presence of Light Triad ones.
Second, to the best of our knowledge, there is no previ-
ous research concerning the relation of the Light Triad with
well-being. For this reason, we aimed to examine the rela-
tionship of the Light Triad with well-being. We expected that
the Light Triad would be positively correlated to well-being
(H2). Specifically, we expect moderate correlations indicat-
ing that there is no overlap between the two constructs.
Finally, our third objective was to examine the relation-
ship of the Dark Triad with well-being. Following previous
results, we expected a positive relationship between Nar-
cissism and well-being (H3a) and a negative relationship
between Psychopathy, Machiavelianism and well-being
(H3b) (e.g., Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Egan et al.,
2014).
13
Current Psychology
As a complementary objective we pretend to adapt the
instrument proposed by Kaufman and colleagues (2019)
to Spanish population. We intend to maintain the original
items as close as possible to the original scale and examine
factorial validity and reliability. Finally, we aim to examine,
for the first time, the scale factorial invariance across age
and gender.
Method
Participants
In this study, 1190 people from the Spanish general popu-
lation participated voluntarily and without any compensa-
tion. Thirty-two participants did not answer to all scales and
were excluded from the study. Thus, the final sample was
composed by 1158, 919 female (79.3%), 220 male (19%)
and 20 (1.7%) not identified with one of the two genders,
aged between 18 and 81 years (M = 25.62, SD = 8.03). Spe-
cifically, the age distribution was as follows: 759 partici-
pants were between 18 and 24 years old (65.54%), 282 were
between 25 and 34 years old (24.35%), 57 were between 35
and 44 (4.93%), 44 were aged between 45 and 54 years old
(3,80%), and 16 were older than 55 years old (1,38%).
Instruments
Light Triad. To measure positive personality traits, we trans-
lated in Spanish the Light Triad Scale (LTS; Kaufman et
al., 2019). To adapt the items, we followed the international
instructions for translating and adapting tests (International
Test Commission, 2017; Muñiz & Fonseca-Pedrero, 2019).
Two bilingual experts in positive psychology translated the
items of the original scale (Kaufman et al., 2019). Later,
another bilingual psychologist translated back the Spanish
version of the scale and compared it to the original. The
differences found were resolved through discussion, arriv-
ing to the final version of the scale through consensus. The
instrument consists of 12 self-report items, that participants
had to answer on a 6 points Likert-scale, ranging from 1
(Completely disagree) to 6 (Completely agree). For exam-
ple, one of the items to measure Humanism was “I tend to
applaud the successes of other people”, to evaluate Faith
in Humanity was “I tend to see the best in people” and to
measure Kantianism was “I prefer to be authentic even if it
may damage my reputation”.
Dark Triad. To measure negative personality traits, we
used the Spanish version of the Short Dark Triad Scale (SD3;
Jones & Paulhus, 2014; adapted to Spanish by Pineda et al.,
2020). The measure consists of 27 self-report items that
measure Machiavellianism, Psychopathy and Narcissism.
Current Psychology
Participants answered the items on 5-point scales, anchored
at 1 (Completely disagree) to 5 (Completely agree). For
example, one of the items to measure Machiavellianism was
“It is not wise to tell your secrets”, to evaluate Psychopathy
was “People often say I am out of control” and to measure
Narcissism was “I know that I am special because everyone
keeps telling me so”. In the current study, Cronbach’s α for
the SD3 score was 0.79, for Machiavellianism was 0.72, for
Psychopathy was 0.64 and for Narcissism was 0.65 (moder-
ate correlations for these subscales were also found in previ-
ous research, see for example Kaufman et al., 2019; Pineda
et al., 2020; item-total correlations for subscales: Machia-
vellianism > 0.24, Psychopathy > 0.20, Narcissism > 0.25).
Psychological Well-being Scales. To measure Psycho-
logical Well-Being (Ryff, 1989) we used the Psychologi-
cal Well-being Scales (PWBS; adapted in Spanish by Díaz
et al., 2006). This instrument consists of 29 self-reported
items that measure the 6 dimensions proposed by Ryff
(1989): Self-acceptance (e.g., “In general, I feel confident
and positive about myself”), Positive Relations with Others
(e.g., “I know that I can trust my friends, and they know
that they can trust me”), Autonomy (e.g., “I am not afraid
to voice my opinions, even when they are in opposition to
the opinions of most people”), Environmental Mastery (e.g.,
“In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I
live”), Purpose in Life (e.g., “I enjoy making plans for the
future and working to make them a reality”) and Personal
Growth (e.g., “For me, life has been a continuous process of
learning, changing, and growth”). Participants answered a 6
points Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (Completely disagree) to
6 (Completely agree). In the present study, Cronbach’s α for
PWBS was 0.92, for Self-acceptance was 0.88, for Positive
Relations with Others was 0.79, for Autonomy was 0.76, for
Environmental Mastery was 0.71, for Purpose in Life was
0.86, and for Personal Growth was. 71.
Procedure
The study was conducted from February 2nd, 2020 until
May 31st, 2020, as a part of a research project funded by the
Spanish Ministry of Science and was approved by the ethics
committee of the “Universidad de Castilla - La Mancha”
(UCLM) and the HGUCR (“Comité Ético de Investigación
Clínica HGUCR-UCLM”, No. 01/2020/C-305). It was pre-
sented as a research project on personality traits, beliefs,
and attitudes. Participants from Spanish general population
were invited to take part at the study through social media
and were informed that collected data would be voluntary
and anonymous. No payments were made for participation.
An online study format was used to collect data. Partici-
pants answered a questionnaire containing, in this order, the
Light Triad Scale, the Short Dark Triad Scale, and the Psy-
chological Well-Being Scales.
Data Analysis
To test the factorial validity of the LTS we employed a
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with a robust maxi-
mum likelihood estimation using MPLUS 8.5. The standard
goodness-of fit indices used for testing the acceptability of
the model were: χ2, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), compara-
tive fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) and the root mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA). As a general rule, it can be said that TLI and CFI
values greater than 0.95, and values of the SRMR less than
0.08, and values of RMSEA less than 0.06 indicate good
model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The measurement invari-
ance by gender and age was tested through multi-group CFA
estimation. First, configural invariance was tested where the
factorial structure is constrained to be the same for both
groups (male-female; younger or equal to 25 – older than
25). Then, we checked metric invariance (the magnitude
of all factor loadings was constrained to be the same for
both gender and age groups). Finally, the scalar invari-
ance was tested constraining the intercepts of items to be
the same across gender and age groups. Once the factorial
validity has been analyzed, we tested internal consistency
through Cronbach’s α and corrected total-item correlations.
Pearson correlations were used to examine the relation-
ships between the LTS, the SD3 and PWBS. Since no prior
published studies have examined the bifactorial model of
light-dark personality, we employed an exploratory factor
analysis (Gerbing & Hamilton, 1996) using Factor program
10.10.03 edition. Suitability of the matrix for conducting the
EFA was tested using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test
and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. According to our objective,
one of the most critical methodological decisions regard-
ing EFA is the number of factors to retain. Following vari-
ous authors’ recommendations (e.g., Hayton et al., 2004) to
estimate the number of factors to maintain we conducted a
classical parallel analysis. We employed robust unweighted
least squares as factor extraction method.
Results
Dimensionality and factor structure
Table1 presents Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness and
Kurtosis of all LTS items. The data for Skewness ranged
from − 2.00 to − 0.14, and Kurtosis ranged from − 1.11 to
5.26. According to Finney and DiStefano (2013) criteria
(maximums of 2 for Skewness and 7 for Kurtosis), the LTS
13

Table 1  Means, Standard Deviations (SD), Skewness and Kurtosis for
LTS items. [In italic the translation in English.]
Mean SD
Faith in Humanity 3.97
Tiendo a ver lo mejor a los
demás
[I tend to see the best in
people]
Tiendo a confiar en que los 3.79
demás serán justos conmigo
[I tend to trust that other
people will see the best in
me]
Creo que la gente es buena 3.50
[I think that people are
mostly good]
Perdono rápido a quienes 3.14
me han herido
[I’m quick to forgive people
who have hurt me]
Humanism 4.53
Disfruto escuchando a
personas de toda condición
social
[I enjoy listening to people
from all walks in life]
Tiendo a celebrar el éxito 4.45
de los demás
[I tend to applaud the suc-
cess of other people]
Tiendo a valorar a las 4.65
personas
[I tend to treat others as
valuable]
Suelo admirar a los demás 4.07
[I tend to admire others]
Kantianism 4.33
No me siento cómodo
manipulando a los demás
para que hagan lo que
quiero
[I don’t feel comfortable
overtly manipulating people
to do something I want]
Prefiero la honestidad al 4.70
encanto superficial
[I prefer honesty over
charm]
Prefiero ser auténtico, 4.00
aunque pueda dañar mi
reputación
[I would like to be authentic
even if it may damage my
reputation]
Cuando hablo con los 4.05
demás rara vez pienso en lo
que quiero de ellos
[When I talk to people, I am
rarely thinking about what I
want from them]
13
Current Psychology
items follow a normal distribution. Mardia’s multivari-
ate skewness and kurtosis coefficients of these items were
Skewness Kurtosis
25.46 and 219.54, indicating a non-normal multivariate
0.98 − 0.80 0.11
distribution. For this reason, to test the factorial validity
of the LTS, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis
with a robust maximum likelihood estimation. Precisely, we
tested the original three-factor structure (Faith in Human-
1.14 -69 − 0.44 ity, Humanism, and Kantianism; 12 items, 4 per dimension)
proposed by Kauffman et al. (2019), and the two-factor
structure (Light Diad: Faith in Humanity and Humanism;
8 items, 4 per dimension) presented by Gerymski and Krok
1.05 − 0.30 − 0.45 (2019). As shown in Table 2, both solutions had a relatively
good fit, with values of TLI and CFI ≥ 0.94 and values of
SRMR < 0.08 and RMSEA < 0.06, although the two-factor
1.30 − 0.14 -1.11
model fit better the data (χ2 diff = 137.92, df diff = 32, p < .01).
0.77 -1.94 4.14 Measurement invariance
The next step was tested invariance across gender (Male
vs. Female) through multi-group CFA estimation. Both the
three-factor and two-factor configural models, which do
0.76 -1.53 2.68 not constrain any parameters, showed a relatively good fit
to data (Table 2). The metric invariance for both models,
where factor loads are constrained to be equal, also showed
an adequate fit to data. Fit comparison between both config-
0.61 -1.99 4.75
ural and metric models indicated metric invariance (three-
factor model χ2 diff = 15.57, df diff = 9, p = .08, △TLI ≤ 0.01,
△CFI ≤ 0.01, △SRMR ≤ 0.1; △RMSEA ≤ 0.1; two-fac-
0.95 − 0.94 0.52 tor model χ2 diff = 8.03, df diff = 6, p = .24, △TLI ≤ 0.01,
△CFI ≤ 0.01, △SRMR ≤ 0.1; △RMSEA ≤ 0.1) (Chen,
1.01 -1.62 2.01 2007). Once full metric invariance is supported, the next step
is to test for scalar invariance. Scalar invariance is tested by
constraining loadings and item intercepts to be equivalent
in the two groups. These models also showed an adequate
fit to data. Also, fit comparison between metric and scalar
models supported scalar invariance (three-factor models χ2
diff = 16.53, df diff = 9, p = .06, △TLI ≤ 0.01, △CFI ≤ 0.01,
0.60 -2.00 5.26
△SRMR ≤ 0.1; △RMSEA ≤  0.1; two-factor models χ2
diff = 11.92, df diff = 6, p = .06, △TLI ≤ 0.01, △CFI ≤ 0.01,
△SRMR ≤ 0.1; △RMSEA ≤ 0.1).
0.93 − 0.77 0.21 To test invariance across age (< 25 years old vs. >25 years
old) we conducted another multi-group CFA estimation. The
configural and metric models showed an acceptable fit to data
(Table  2). Also, comparison between both configural and
metric models indicated no relevant fit indices differences,
1.07 -1.05 0.37 although in this case the change in χ2 was significant for the
two-factor models (three-factor models χ2 diff = 13.70, df
diff = 9, p = .13, △TLI ≤ 0.01, △CFI ≤ 0.01, △SRMR ≤ 0.1;
△RMSEA ≤  0.1; two-factor models χ2 diff = 14.17, df
diff = 6, p = .03, △TLI ≤ 0.01, △CFI ≤ 0.01, △SRMR ≤ 0.1;
△RMSEA ≤ 0.1). However, focusing on TLI, CFI, SRMR
Current Psychology

Table 2  Goodness of Fit Indexes and Invariance across Gender Age of the Three and the Two-Factor Solutions
Models χ2 df p TLI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Three-Factor Model 227.25 51 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.04 0.05
Gender
Configural invariance 303.50 102 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.06 0.04
Metric invariance 319.07 111 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.07 0.04
Scalar invariance 335.60 120 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.07 0.04
Age
Configural invariance 291.43 102 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.05 0.04
Metric invariance 305.13 111 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.05 0.04
Scalar invariance 314.11 120 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.05 0.04
Two-Factor Model 89.33 19 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.04 0.05
Gender
Configural invariance 120.00 38 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.05 0.04
Metric invariance 128.03 44 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.05 0.04
Scalar invariance 139.95 50 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.05 0.04
Age
Configural invariance 109.17 38 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.05 0.04
Metric invariance 123.34 44 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.05 0.04
Scalar invariance 127.84 50 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.05 0.04

and RMSEA differences (vs. χ2 difference) is a better crite-
rion of comparison between models (Chen, 2007; Cheung &
Rensvold, 2002; French & Finch, 2006; Meade et al., 2008).
Finally, the scalar invariance model showed an acceptable
fit to data. Fit comparison between metric and scalar mod-
els supported scalar invariance (three-factor models χ2
diff = 13.70, df diff = 9, p = .13, △TLI ≤ 0.01, △CFI ≤ 0.01,
△SRMR ≤ 0.1; △RMSEA ≤  0.1; two-factor models χ2
diff = 14.17, df diff = 6, p = .03, △TLI ≤ 0.01, △CFI ≤ 0.01,
△SRMR ≤ 0.1; △RMSEA ≤ 0.1).
Reliability
Internal consistency analysis revealed an adequate value
for the global LTS (α = 0.77 for both models). Specifically,
The Faith in Humanity and Humanism showed a good
internal consistency (α = 0.72; α = 0.69, respectively). How-
ever, similarly to Gerymski and Krok (2019) and Lukić and
Živanović (2021) results, the Kantianism scale had a lower
reliability (α = 0.50). Also, the items showed low to medium
item – total correlation, ranging from 0.27 to 0.53.
Light Triad vs. Dark Triad: testing the two-
dimensional model of positive-negative
traits
Table 3 presents Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson
correlation coefficients among all scales. In order to test the
two-dimensional model of positive-negative traits we first
conducted a PA. Only the first and second eigenvalues of
the real dataset (i.e., 2.56, 1.13) exceeded mean random
values (i.e., 1.10, 1.05). In the first analysis, six variables
were introduced into the EFA, the three LTS subscales and
the three SD3 subscales. The N:p ratio was 193, higher than
those generally recommended in the literature to yield fac-
tors’ good recovery (e.g., Gorsuch, 1983). The KMO test
gave a result of 0.75 and Bartlett’s sphericity test was sig-
nificant (χ2 = 1326.03, p < .000), indicating that EFA was
adequate for this sample. All subscales shown a Skewness
ranged from − 1.28 to 1.08, and Kurtosis ranged from 0.06
to 2.00. Mardia’s multivariate skewness and kurtosis coef-
ficients of these six subscales were 4.56 and 58.20. For this
reason, we employed robust unweighted least squares as
factor extraction method. As shown in Table 4, all items of
the Dark Triad essentially loaded on the first factor, explain-
ing 42% of variance. All Light Triad items loaded on the
second factor, explaining 19% of the variance, however
Kantianism loaded on both factors, and mainly in the first
one. These results support the existence of two different uni-
polar dimensions: negative personality characteristics (Dark
Triad; factor 1) and positive personality characteristics
(Light Triad; factor 2). Correlation between the two factors
was − 0.41, which is a first indicator of the strong existing
relationship between positive and negative traits.
In the second analysis only five variables were intro-
duced into the EFA, the two LTS subscales and the three
SD3 subscales. PA indicated that only the first and second
eigenvalues of the real dataset (i.e., 2.15, 1.13) exceeded
mean random values (i.e., 1.08, 1.04). Mardia’s multivariate
skewness and kurtosis coefficients of these five subscales
were 3.55 and 42.16. We also employed robust unweighted
least squares as factor extraction method. As shown in

13
 Current Psychology

Table 3  Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson’s correlations of all scales

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Light Triad 3-factors 4.10 0.51 0.94** 0.82** 0.79** 0.69** − 0.41** − 0.41** − 0.40** − 0.11**
2. Light Triad 2-factors 4.01 0.60 0.91** 0.79** 0.40** − 0.32** − 0.33** − 0.34** − 0.04
3. Faith in Humanity 3.60 0.82 0.47** 0.28 ** − 0.27 ** − 0.28** − 0.29** − 0.03
4. Humanism 4.43 0.57 0.44** − 0.28** − 0.29** − 0.30** − 0.05
5. Kantianism 4.27 0.58 − 0.42** − 0.41** − 0.35** − 0.19**
6. Dark Triad 2.23 0.44 0.80** 0.76** 0.69**
7. Machiavellianism 2.61 0.64 0.49** 0.28**
8. Psychopathy 1.77 0.53 0.28**
9. Narcissism 2.34 0.59
10. Psychological Well-being 4.23 0.77 0.31** 0.30** 0.25** 0.27** 0.20** 0.00 − 0.18** − 0.17** 0.35**
11. Self-acceptance 4.26 1.15 0.26** 0.27** 0.26** 0.20** 0.12** 0.05 − 0.10** − 0.16** 0.35**
12. Positive relationships 4.48 1.09 0.35** 0.35** 0.29** 0.32** 0.20** -,11** − 0.23** − 0.18** 0.18**
13. Autonomy 3.83 0.98 0.04 − 0.03 − 0.06* 0.03 0.15** 0.05 − 0.13** 0.02 0.24**
14. Environmental mastery 3.88 0.96 0.26** 0.27** 0.25** 0.21** 0.13** − 0.00 − 0.12** − 0.18** 0.28**
15. Personal growth 5.02 0.91 0.27** 0.25** 0.19** 0.24** 0.20** − 0.03 − 0.15** − 0.14** 0.22**
16. Purpose in life 4.15 1.12 0.26** 0.26** 0.23** 0.22** 0.13** 0.03 − 0.08** − 0.16** 0.30**
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Table 4  Exploratory factor analysis of Three-Factor/Two-Factor Light related to LTS subscales with the strongest correlation
Triad Scale and Dark Triad Scale
appearing between Machiavellianism and Kantianism.
Three-Factor Two-Factor
Finally, Narcissism was only significantly related to Kan-
1 2 1 2
Faith in Humanity 0.51 0.69
tianism, while correlations with the other LTS subscales
Humanism 0.92 0.69 were not significant.
Kantianism − 0.54 0.47 * *
Maquiavellianism 0.73 0.69
Narcissism 0.40 0.42 Light Triad - Dark Triad relationships with
Psychopathy 0.67 0.70 Psychological Well-Being
% Variance 42 19 43 23
Note. Presented is the structure matrix. Table3 also shows correlations of LTS - SD3 with PSBW.
Tables presents only loadings factors higher than 0.40.
First, LTS positively correlated with PSBW, while the rela-
*Kantianism not included in the Two-Factor Scale
tionship between SD3 and PSBW was not significant.
All LTS subscales correlated with PSBW subscales,
Table  4, all items of the Dark Triad essentially loaded on except for Humanism that was not related to Autonomy.
the first factor, explaining 43% of variance. All Light Triad However, the relation between Faith in Humanity and
items loaded on the second factor, explaining 23% of the Autonomy, though significant, was negative. This is prob-
variance. Again, the results support the existence of two ably due to the component of individualism that is included
different unipolar dimensions: negative personality char- in Autonomy. The strongest relationship appeared between
acteristics (Dark Triad; factor 1) and positive personality Humanism and Positive relations with others, indicating the
characteristics (Light Triad; factor 2). Correlation between interpersonal character of Humanism.
the two factors was − 0.32, which once more supports the Concerning SD3 subscales, Machiavellianism and Psy-
existing relationship between positive and negative traits as chopathy were negatively related to all PBSW subscales,
two independent but related dimensions. apart from Psychopathy that was not related to Autonomy.
Within the LTS, Faith in Humanity and Humanism The strongest relation appeared between Machiavellianism
presented the strongest correlation (Table 3). Kantianism and Positive relations with others. In contrast, Narcissism
showed a significant relation with Humanism, and the weak- was positively related to all PSWB subscales, indicating
est one with Faith in Humanity. Within SD3, the strongest that a subclinical level of Narcissism could not disrupt psy-
relation was between Machiavellianism and Psychopathy, chological positive functioning.
while Narcissism showed the weakest relation with both
Machiavellianism and Psychopathy.
Concerning the correlation among the LTS y SD3 sub-
scales, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy were negatively

13
Current Psychology
Discussion
During the last fifteen years, substantial research has
explored the negative aspects of personality and their effect
on ethically, morally, and socially aversive beliefs and
behaviors (e.g., Moshagen et al., 2018). The construct that
is more widely used to measure this dark and malevolent
side of human nature is the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams,
2002; Pineda et al., 2020). While there is no doubt for the
existence of negative traits, humans also have a beneficent
and positive side (Sheldon & King, 2001). To measure these
traits, a new instrument was proposed recently called the
Light Triad Scale (Kaufman et al., 2019).
The main goal of the present research was to extend the
complete state model of health to the evaluation of personal-
ity positive-negative traits. In line with the Complete State
Model of Health (Keyes, 2005) that proposes the existence
of two different dimensions in mental health evaluation, one
positive (i.e., presence of well-being indicators) and one
negative (i.e., presence of psychopathological symptoms),
we expected the existence of a bifactorial model of positive
traits-negative traits of personality (H1). Our results verified
this two-dimensional Light Triad – Dark Triad hypothesis.
As expected, PA and EFA indicated that the LTS and the
SD3 loaded on separate but correlated factors. This result is
especially relevant because as positive and negative human
traits constitute two unipolar dimensions, to comprehen-
sively evaluate personality we need to assess the presence/
absence of both positive and negative characteristics. In this
sense, in clinical applications, psychological treatments and
interventions should not only be based on reducing dark
characteristics (i.e., Psychopathy; see Lewis, 2018), but
also focus on luminous characteristics promotion, using for
example moral elevation-based interventions that promote
love for our fellow human and inspire us to be better people
(Thomson & Siegel, 2017).
Examining with more detail the relation between LTS
and SD3, one interesting finding is that Kantianism showed
higher load in the Dark Triad than in the Light Triad factor.
Also, Kantianism is the Light Triad subscale that presented
the highest correlation with SD3, though, as expected, this
relation was negative. Precisely, it presented a strong cor-
relation with Machiavellianism. This finding could indicate
that Kantianism could be an opposite pole to Machiavel-
lianism (i.e., treating people as ends unto themselves vs.
manipulation of others).
Further examining the distinct dimensions of the Dark
Triad, Narcissism is not related to Faith in Humanity and
Humanism, and it is only weakly related to Kantianism.
Previous research indicates that narcissism is the dimen-
sion less related to negative interpersonal relationships
and can even have some prosocial aspects (e.g., March &
Marrington, 2021). For this reason, some researchers advo-
cate in favor of the Dark Dyad, that includes Machiavellian-
ism and Psychopathy, and see Narcissism as a correlated but
independent dimension (Egan et al., 2014).
The second objective of the current research was to exam-
ine the relation between the Light and Dark Triad and well-
being. The results confirmed our hypothesis (H2) showing a
positive relation between Psychological Well-being and the
Light Triad (but not with the Dark Triad), a fact that argues
in favor of the role of positive personality characteristics on
positive functioning (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). That is, the
Light Triad was significantly correlated with all well-being
dimensions apart from Autonomy, that represents people’s
intentions to be themselves and maintain their opinions
despite social pressure (Ryff, 1989). Interestingly, Posi-
tive relations with others is the dimension that was more
strongly related to the Light Triad in general and to Human-
ism in particular. These findings can be easily understood
because, on the one hand, Humanism is defined as seeing
the best in others, a fact that, according to the results, posi-
tively affects interpersonal relationships. On the other hand,
when thinking on their autonomy, people are probably cen-
tered more to the self and don’t consider whether valuing
others, seeing the best in them and treat them as ends (and
not mere means), a fact that reduces the relation of Auton-
omy with luminous personality traits. Personal growth was
also highly related to the Light Triad, probably because for
a person to improve oneself overtime and develop one’s true
potential, they must have positive opinions of human nature
and generate optimistic thoughts about others.
Concerning our third hypothesis, we expected and found
a positive relation between Narcissism and well-being
(H3a). Specifically, the subscales of Self-acceptance and
Purpose in life showed the highest correlations with Narcis-
sism. According to previous research, a subclinical narcis-
sistic personality not always has negative consequences for
the person (e.g., March & Marrington, 2021) and can be
useful for living a good, autonomous, and full functioning
life (Aghababaei & Blanchnio, 2015). As a possible expla-
nation, Narcissism not only has negative forms of expres-
sion, but it also has a positive part: the confidence associated
with self-pride may be linked to a positive self-concept,
clear priorities, and purposeful goals about life. In the same
way that Narcissism can have positive consequences about
the self, its consequences for others tend to be less negative
than the consequences of Psychopathy-Machiavellianism,
also known as manipulative-callous dark core (see also,
Egan et al., 2014).
Indeed, our findings confirm that Psychopathy and
Machiavellianism have a negative relationship with well-
being (H3b), especially with the subscale Positive relations
with others. Treating people with callousness or as mere
13

means to one’s own ends, which is the case of Psychopathy
and Machiavellianism respectively (Egan et al., 2014), is
negative for interpersonal relations and may reduce well-
being. From a macro-perspective, the General factor of SD3
was not related to Psychological Well-being General factor.
However, as mentioned, a closer look of the results shows
that the Psychopathy-Machiavellianism was negatively
related to the dimension of Positive relations with others,
indicating that these negative personality characteristics
disrupt interpersonal relations. That is, humans do not live
isolated from their environment and social relations are
important for positive functioning (Blanco & Díaz, 2005).
In other words, although traditionally the Dark Triad has
been considered as a vulnerability factor for well-being,
since a warm and close social network can be important
for positive mental health (e.g., Blanco & Díaz, 2005), our
findings indicate that this only happens for Psychopathy and
Machiavellianism (see also Egan et al., 2014). Narcissism,
however, can even act as a protection factor.
Importantly, a complementary objective of the present
research was to adapt the Light Triad Scale (Kaufman et al.,
2019) to Spanish population. Concerning the psychometric
properties of the LTS, confirmatory factor analyses indicated
that both structures proposed in the literature (three-factor:
Kaufman et al., 2019; two-factor Light Diad: Gerymski &
Krok, 2019) adequately fit the data. Previous research has
confirmed the three-factor structure in Serbian population,
although some fit indicators are outside standard recom-
mended values (CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90; Lukić & Živanović,
2021). As a novel contribution, we tested scalar invariance
for gender and age, that, to the best of our knowledge, is
examined for the first time in relation to this scale. Our
results confirmed both gender and age scalar invariance.
Concerning reliability, Faith in Humanity and Human-
ism subscales showed good internal consistency. However,
the internal consistency of the third dimension (i.e., Kan-
tianism) was not adequate. Previous results also showed the
lack of internal consistency in Kantianism subscale (Lukić
& Živanović, 2021). For example, Gerymski and Krok
(2019) argue that in their research, low reliability may be
due to cultural differences in understanding the items in
Polish population compared to North American popula-
tion (Kaufman et al., 2019). Precisely, Polish participants
could interpret the Kantianism items “I prefer honesty over
charm” and “I would like to be authentic even if it may dam-
age my reputation” equivocally, either as treating people as
an end or as being honest and faithful to oneself (Gerymski
& Krok, 2019).
Consequently, differences in interpreting the items, a
common problem in cross-cultural adaptation of question-
naires (Epstein et al., 2015) may have affected answers of
Polish (in the study by Gerymski & Krok, 2019), Serbian
13
Current Psychology
(in the study by Lukić & Živanović, 2021) and Spanish
participants. However, apart from showing a low internal
consistency, the Kantianism subscale also presented the
lowest inter-correlations with the other two subscales. Since
these results are similar for the three adaptations (i.e., Span-
ish, Polish and Serbian), reliability and validity problems
could derive from the original scale proposed by Kaufman
and colleagues (2019). Thus, future research could further
examine the Kantianism subscale’s reliability and validity
with American population.
Also, some differences in interpreting Kantianism could
be found even within cultures, since education and lan-
guage proficiency might impact some items understand-
ing (Haynes et al., 1995). For example, the item “I prefer
honesty over charm” could be understood as I prefer to be
treated honestly, or I prefer to behave this way. In sum, the
two-factor solution (Light Dyad) that excludes Kantianism
seems more psychometrically appropriate. This structure
fitted significantly better to our data and may resolve the
low reliability problem of the Kantianism subscale. Finally,
Cronbach’s Alpha of the 12-items LTS general factor (i.e.,
Faith in Humanity, Humanism, Kantianism) was very simi-
lar to the 8-items version of the scale (i.e., Faith in Human-
ity, Humanism), despite reduced test length (Schmitt, 1996).
In spite of the findings described above, the present
research has some limitations, such as the fact that our study
was only composed by a convenience sample of Spanish
participants which may limit the generalizability of the
results. Future research could include other Spanish speak-
ing populations such as participants from Latin America
countries that might differ in various ways, such as having a
collectivist focus (Smith et al., 1998).
To conclude, our findings indicate that the Spanish ver-
sion of the Light Triad Scale showed adequate factorial
validity, scale invariance across gender and age, and ade-
quate reliability (except for Kantianism subscale), suggest-
ing that it can be a useful instrument for the study of positive
personality traits. Moreover, the Light Triad Scale and the
Dark Triad Scale loaded on separate but correlated factors,
thus constituting two unipolar dimensions measuring the
presence/absence of positive and negative characteristics.
On the one hand, the Light Triad is positively related to Psy-
chological Well-being, a fact that argues in favor of positive
personality traits as a key component of positive function-
ing (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Schimmack & Kim, 2020).
On the other hand, Psychopathy-Machiavellianism disrupt
well-being, except for Narcissism that could even be a pro-
tective factor of positive functioning.
Author contribution All authors contributed to the study conception
and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed
by Edgar Artacho Mata and Miriam Bajo. Data analyses were per-
formed by Maria Stavraki and Darío Díaz. The first draft of the manu-
Current Psychology
script was written by Maria Stavraki and all authors commented on
previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the
final manuscript.
Funding  This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and In-
novation in Spain (grant number: PID2020-116651GB-C32).
Declarations
Ethics approval  The study was approved by the ethics committee of
the “Universidad de Castilla - La Mancha” (UCLM) and the Hospital
General Universitario de Ciudad Real (“Comité Ético de Investigación
Clínica HGUCR-UCLM”, No. 01/2020/C-305). It was performed in
accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Dec-
laration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards.
Declaration of interests The authors have no competing interests to
declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
References
Aghababaei, N., & Błachnio, A. (2015). Well-being and the Dark Triad.
Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 365–368. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.043
Blanco, A., & Díaz, D. (2005). El bienestar social: Su concepto y
medición [Social well-being: Theoretical structure and measure-
ment]. Psicothema, 17, 582–589.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack
of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Model-
ing: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-
of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15328007SEM0902_5
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A
meta-analysis of 137 personality trauts and subjective well-
being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197
Díaz, D., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Blanco, A., Moreno-Jiménez, B.,
Gallardo, I., Valle, C., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2006). Adap-
tación española de las escalas de bienestar psicológico de Ryff.
Psicothema, 18, 572–577.
Egan, V., Chan, S., & Shorter, G. W. (2014). The Dark Triad, happi-
ness and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 67, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.004
Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guide-
lines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not
bring out a consensus. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 68, 435–
441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021
Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2013). Nonnormal and categorical data
in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock, & R. O. Muel-
ler (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp.
439–492). IAP Information Age Publishing.
French, B. F., & Finch, W. H. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Ana-
lytic Procedures for the Determination of Measurement Invari-
ance. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 378–402. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15328007sem1303_3
Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of explor-
atory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor
analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 62–72. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10705519609540030
Gerymski, R., & Krok, D. (2019). Psychometric properties and val-
idation of the Polish adaptation of the Light Triad Scale. Cur-
rent Issues in Personality Psychology, 7, 341–354. https://doi.
org/10.5144/cipp.2019.92960
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D.C.S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content
Validity in Psychological Assessment: A Functional Approach to
Concepts and Methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238–247.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor Retention
Decisions in Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Tutorial on Parallel
Analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off Criteria for Fit Indexes
in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus
New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
International Test Commission (2017). The ITC guidelines for trans-
lating and adapting Tests (Second edition). https://www.intes-
tcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf
Jonanson, P. K., & Schmitt, D. P. (2012). What Have You Done For
Me Lately? Friendship-Selection in the Shadow of the Dark
Triad Traits. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 400–421. https://doi.
org/10.1177/147470491201000303
Jonason, P. K., Strosser, G. L., Kroll, C. H., Duineveld, J. J., & Baruffi,
S. A. (2015). Valuing myself over others: The Dark Triad traits
and moral and social values. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 81, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.045
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad
(SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21,
28–41. 10.1177%2F1073191113514105
Kaufman, S. B., Yaden, D. B., Hyde, E., & Tsukayama, E. (2019). The
Light vs. Dark Triad of personality: Contrasting two very differ-
ent profiles of human nature. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 467.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00467
Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Inves-
tigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539
Knight, N. M., Dahlen, E. R., Bullock-Yowell, E., & Madson, M. B.
(2018). The HEXACO model of personality and Dark Triad in
relational aggression. Personality and Individual Differences,
122, 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.016
Lewis, M. (2018). Treatment of psychopathy: a conceptual and empiri-
cal review. Journal of Criminological Research Policy and Prac-
tice, 4, 186–198.
Lukić, P., & Živanović, M. (2021). Shedding light on the Light Triad:
Further evidence on structural, construct, and predictive validity
of the Light Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 178,
110876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110876
March, E., & Marrington, J. Z. (2021). Antisocial and Prosocial online
behaviour: Exploring the roles of the Dark and Light Triads. Cur-
rent Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01552-7
Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sen-
sitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invari-
ance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568–592. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2018). The dark core of per-
sonality. Psychological review, 125, 656. https://doi.org/10.1037/
rev0000111
Muñiz, J., & Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2019). Diez pasos para la construc-
ción de un test [Ten steps for test development]. Psicothema, 31,
7–16. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.291
Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 421–426.
10.1177%2F0963721414547737
13

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personal-
ity: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of
Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Pineda, D., Sandín, B., & Muris, P. (2020). Psychometrics properties
of the Spanish version of two dark triad scales: the dirty dozen
and the short dark triad. Current Psychology, 39, 1873–1881.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9888-5
Rogoza, R., & Cieciuch, J. (2020). Dark Triad traits and their structure:
An empirical approach. Current Psychology, 39, 1287–1302.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9834-6
Ruel, M. K., De’Jesús, A. R., Cristo, M., Cristo, M., Nolan, K., Stew-
art-Hill, S. A., DeBonis, A. M., Goldstein, A., Frederick, M.,
Geher, G., Alijaj, N., Elyukin, N., Huppert, S., Kruchowy, D.,
Maerer, E., Santos, A., Spackman, B. C., Villegas, A., Widrick,
K., Wojszynski, C., & Zezula, V. (2022). Why Should I Help
You? A Study of Betrayal and Helping. Current Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02954-x
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations
on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha.
Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350
Schimmack, U., & Kim, H. (2020). An integrated model of social
psychological and personality psychological perspectives on per-
sonality and wellbeing. Journal of Research in Personality, 84,
103888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103888
Schimmenti, A., Jonason, P. K., Passanisi, A., La Marca, L., Di Dio,
N., & Gervasi, A., M (2019). Exploring the Dark Side of Person-
ality: Emotional Awareness, Empathy, and the Dark Triad Traits
in an Italian Sample. Current Psychology, 38, 100–109. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9588-6
Sheldon, K. M., & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology
is necessary. American Psychologist, 56, 216. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.216
13
Current Psychology
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., Peterson, A. F., & Leung, W. (1998). Indi-
vidualism: Collectivism and the handling of disagreement. A 23
country study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
22, 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00012-1
Thomson, A. L., & Siegel, J. T. (2017). Elevation: A review of scholar-
ship on a moral and other-praising emotion. The Journal of Posi-
tive Psychology, 12, 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760
.2016.1269184
Unrau, A. M., & Morry, M. M. (2017). The subclinical psycho-
path in love: mediating effects of attachment styles. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 421–449. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265407517734068
Włodarska, K. A., Zyskowska, E., Terebus, M. K., & Rogoza, R.
(2021). The Dark Triad and BIS/BAS: a Meta-Analysis. Cur-
rent Psychology, 40, 5349–5357. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-019-00467-8
Zhang, J., Ziegler, M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2020). Development and
evaluation of the short Dark Triad – Chinese version (SD3-C).
Current Psychology, 39, 1161–1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-019-00272-3
Zimbardo, P. (2018). Exploring human nature and inspiring heroic
social action. Diversity in unity: Perspectives from psychology
and behavioral sciences, 3–11.
Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this arti-
cle is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.