Accepted Manuscript

Full Length Article

Is the Dark Triad Common Factor Distinct from low Honesty-Humility?

Gordon Hodson, Angela Book, Beth A. Visser, Anthony A. Volk, Michael C.

Ashton, Kibeom Lee

PII: S0092-6566(17)30115-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.012
Reference: YJRPE 3687

To appear in: Journal of Research in Personality

Received Date: 27 September 2017

Revised Date: 16 November 2017
Accepted Date: 25 November 2017

Please cite this article as: Hodson, G., Book, A., Visser, B.A., Volk, A.A., Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., Is the Dark Triad
Common Factor Distinct from low Honesty-Humility?, Journal of Research in Personality (2017), doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.012

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 1

Running head: IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON

Is the Dark Triad Common Factor Distinct from low Honesty-Humility?

Gordon Hodson1

Angela Book1

Beth A. Visser2

Anthony A. Volk1

Michael C. Ashton1

Kibeom Lee3

1 = Brock University; 2 = Lakehead University (Orillia); 3 = University of Calgary

Correspondence should be addressed to Gordon Hodson, Department of Psychology, Brock

University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1

ghodson@brocku.ca
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 2

Running head: IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON

Is the Dark Triad Common Factor Distinct from low Honesty-Humility?

IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 3

Abstract

There is interest in the psychological meaning of the variance shared among the “Dark Triad”

variables (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy). Unknown is the degree to which this

common variance is distinct from that of the basic personality dimensions. We test the extent to

which the latent Dark Triad overlaps with the low pole of the HEXACO Honesty-Humility factor

(traits of sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty). Using meta-analytic estimates from

self-report data (N = 1402, k = 4) we find a near-complete overlap (latent correlation -.95). Peer

report data show a similar pattern. The latent Dark Triad corresponds almost completely with the

opposite pole of Honesty-Humility, contrary to assertions that the common Dark Triad variance

is distinct from other personality constructs.

KEYWORDS: Dark Triad, Honesty-Humility, HEXACO, concept creep.

IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 4
Is the Dark Triad Common Factor Distinct from low Honesty-Humility?

In a recent article, Muris, Merckelbach, Otgaar, and Meijer (2017) provided a valuable

conceptual review and meta-analysis on the three personality variables collectively known as the

“Dark Triad” (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy). Their efforts have successfully

synthesized past research findings and will serve to stimulate discussion concerning the

conceptualization of the Dark Triad and its status in relation to other personality constructs. A

point of contention, at present, is whether the underlying Dark Triad common factor contains

personality variance outside of the space of the major personality factors. In this article we

examine its statistical overlap with Honesty-Humility, one of the basic factors of the HEXACO

personality model (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2007), to see how far this single factor alone can explain

covariance among Dark Triad components. Given recent concerns with “concept creep”

(Haslam, 2016), we here examine whether the latent Dark Triad construct demonstrates any

statistical uniqueness. Evidence of near-perfect statistical overlap with a core personality factor

(such as Honesty-Humility) would suggest that future research on the covariation among the

Dark Triad’s subscales is unwarranted.

The Dark Triad

The Dark Triad consists of three related constructs. Narcissism reflects the pursuit of

vanity and an overblown self-admiration. Machiavellianism reflects a “cynical disregard for

morality” with an emphasis on “self-interest and personal gain” (Muris et al., 2017, p.184)

marked by duplicity and deceit. Psychopathy is generally considered an individual difference

characterized by callous affect, low empathy, antisocial behavior, and reckless lifestyle choices.

For further details see reviews by Furnham, Richards, and Paulhus (2013), Paulhus and Williams

(2002), Paulhus (2014), and Muris et al. (2017).

IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 5
In coining the term “Dark Triad,” Paulhus and Williams (2002) made several important

theoretical and conceptual points. First, these “subclinical” constructs are derived conceptually

from similar clinical (and maladaptive) constructs, but describe meaningful inter-individual

differences within general population samples. Second, although important in their own right

(i.e., independently), these constructs covary in ways that are psychologically meaningful.

Colorful language is used to reflect this covariation, including “latent supertrait of malevolence”

or an “overlapping constellation” of “dark personalities” or a “callous constellation” (e.g., Jones

& Paulhus, 2014; Paulhus, 2014; Muris et al., 2017). Others have described the Dark Triad traits

as a “bundle” (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009), a “cluster of personality traits” (Jonason

& Kavanagh, 2010), or an “antisocial trinity” (Veselka, Schermer, Martin, & Vernon, 2010).

Others refer to the Dark Triad as “an orientation”, “an exploitative social style” (Jonason et al.,

2009), or even as a “strategy” (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010; Jonason & Webster, 2010; Jonason

& Tost 2010) or a “coordinated system” (Jonason, Girgis, & Milne-Home, 2017) for exploitation

and cheating. Common to these descriptions is the explicit or implicit understanding that these

specific traits “go together” for a reason.

This position implies that what these traits share in common (as a latent construct) is

important and presumably distinct from other personality dimensions. Although some

covariation between some Dark Triad measures may represent item-content overlap (Muris et al.,

2017), the covariation itself could be psychologically meaningful. For example, Paulhus (2014,

p.422) observed that a “positive manifold of negative traits… suggest[s] a common component

that may have psychological significance in its own right” [italics added]. Paulhus and Williams

(2002) have also suggested that three traits “share a common core” and describe it as a “root” of

the triad’s negativity (p. 561). As an example, Jones and Neria (2015) modeled a latent Dark
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 6
Triad variable and found that it strongly predicted a latent Aggression variable (r = .64). Indeed,

research has successfully conceptualized the Dark Triad as a latent construct (e.g., Bertl,

Pietschnig, Tran, Steiger, & Voracek, 2017; Jonason & Webster, 2010). Jonason and colleagues

(2017) go so far as to say that without the shared or common variance among the triad variables,

the leftover variances are “shadows” (p. 698) of themselves and of questionable value in

predicting outcomes (such as, in their study, rape attitudes). Relatedly, Jones and Figueredo

(2013) found that the “Dark Core” of the Dark Triad is captured by Hare’s Factor 1 (callous

manipulation), with Dark Triad residuals showing little correlation after accounting for this

common element.

Thus, in research on the Dark Triad variables, a common core is generally posited and

confirmed. Researchers differ primarily in terms of how to interpret this covariance (see e.g.,

Furnham, Richards, Rangel, & Jones, 2014), not whether it exists. Even those researchers

primarily arguing that the triad traits are distinct and worthy of study in their own right (e.g.,

Jones & Paulhus, 2011, 2017) nonetheless speak of these constructs as though a latent factor

underpins them. Indeed, in the words of its founder: “To warrant membership in the dark

constellation…candidates must share the callousness that unites the others” (Paulhus, 2014, p.

424). (For a fuller list of quotations where authors imply or state that there is a common or latent

core to the Dark Triad, see Supplemental Table 1.)

The Dark Triad variables clearly covary, with meta-analytic correlations in the .34 to .58

range (Muris et al., 2017, Figure 3). We seek to examine whether the Dark Triad covariation can

be accounted for by basic personality dimensions. We pay special attention to Honesty-

Humility, one of the six dimensions of the HEXACO model of personality structure. As

operationalized in the HEXACO Personality Inventory—Revised (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2009; Lee
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 7
& Ashton, 2004, in press), Honesty-Humility is defined by four facet-level traits called Sincerity,

Fairness, Greed Avoidance, and Modesty (see Table 1; see also descriptions at

http://hexaco.org/scaledescriptions/).

As noted by others (e.g., Jones & Paulhus, 2017; Muris et al., 2017; Paulhus, 2014),

Honesty-Humility facets are conceptually related to the Dark Triad components (see Table 1 for

comparisons). The Honesty-Humility facets are also empirically related to the individual Dark

Triad subscales, with meta-analytic correlations in the -.09 to -.56 range (averaging -.36) (see

Muris et al., 2017, Table 3). This raises the question of whether the Dark Triad overlaps almost

completely with the low pole of Honesty-Humility from the HEXACO personality space, when

the two constructs are considered as latent factors. Paulhus (2014) has explicitly considered a

similar possibility, stating that “… one intriguing possibility for future research would involve

measuring both positive and dark personality traits in the same people. We suspect that they are

not polar opposites” (p. 424). Here we take up this suggestion with an empirical approach,

expecting that the underlying “light” and “dark factors will in fact be polar opposites (i.e., two

ends of a common dimension). That is, for those interested in the shared variance among the

Dark Triad traits, it would be of value to consider the degree to which this covariance is

essentially the opposite of Honesty-Humility. Our purpose therefore is to quantify the previously

observed conceptual overlap between the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility (e.g., Book et al.,

2015; Lee & Ashton, 2005, 2014; Lee et al., 2013; Muris et al., 2017; Paulhus, 2014).

The Present Analysis

Whether or not the Dark Triad latent factor can be accounted for by basic personality

factors such as Honesty-Humility is an empirical question. In light of the meta-analytic results

presented by Muris et al. (2017), we anticipate a great deal of overlap, with little remaining
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 8
variance after modeling the relation between these constructs. Past research has illustrated the

value in such an approach. For example, the link between psychological essentialism and

racism, or between generalized authoritarianism and generalized prejudice, doubles when

measured at the latent level, often approaching a perfect correlation (i.e., unity) (Hodson &

Skorska, 2015; Hodson, MacInnis, & Busseri, 2017). Within the Dark Triad domain, researchers

have modelled its common variance to represent a Dark Triad latent variable (e.g., Bertl et al.,

2017; Hodson, Hogg, & MacInnis, 2009; Jones & Neria, 2015), an approach we employ here.

Despite modest correlations between the Dark Triad facets and the Honesty-Humility

facets (average r = -.36 in Muris et al., 2017), correlations between Dark Triad and Honesty-

Humility composite scores could be much stronger, and at the latent level the correlation could

even be perfect1. To illustrate, suppose that the correlations of Dark Triad facets with Honesty-

Humility facets all equal -.36, and that the correlations between Dark Triad facets, and the

correlations between Honesty-Humility facets, also all equal .36 (see Figure 1). The correlation

between the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility would be strong (-.66) at the composite-variable

level (assuming equal SDs for facet-level variables; see Nunnally, 1979, pp. 163-168). But this

association is limited by the unique variance associated with the facet variables making up each

composite; the latent factors for Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility—each representing the

common variance of its facets—would show a perfect negative correlation (see Figure 1).2 This

would be the case regardless of the Dark Triad scales used, providing they produce

intercorrelations in this range.

Next we show that these hypothetical data are in fact a close approximation to reality.

We first model the structural relations using meta-analytic estimates from four datasets (N ≈

1400) containing the relevant variables as assessed through self-report. We then consider peer
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 9
report data in a re-analysis of Lee et al. (2013); peer analyses can address whether laypeople

implicitly treat these constructs as redundant when providing character descriptions of close

others. We anticipate that latent factors for the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility are correlated

near perfectly (negatively) for both self-report and peer report data.

Method

We used data from four previously published papers (Book et al., 2015, Study 1, n = 355;

Book et al., 2015, Study 2, n = 325; Book et al., 2016, n = 490; Lee et al., 2013, Sample 1, n =

232) (i.e., N = 1402, k = 4)). Each dataset was based on undergraduate respondents and contained

measures of (a) the Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014), with nine-item subscales for

each of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, and (b) the HEXACO-60 (Ashton &

Lee, 2009) Honesty-Humility facets of sincerity, fairness, (rejection of) greed, and modesty, each

consisting of two or three items.3 For further details please consult the original sources. Note

that the SD3 scales have been found to be comparable to those measured by their original

counterpart scales as shown by the pattern of convergent and divergent correlations (Jones &

Paulhus, 2014) and of scale intercorrelations (Furnham et al., 2014).

Meta-analytic estimates were weighted by sample size. Pairwise relations were utilized

and missing data were minimal (two samples contained no missing scores, with less than 1.4%

missing from the others). Meta-analytic correlations (see Table 2) were submitted to AMOS v24

software to test structural relations (see Kline, 2011). We report analyses based on random-

effects models given our focus on generalizability (Card, 2012).4

IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 10
Results

Empirical Relations Between Constructs (Self-Report Data, Meta-Analyzed)

First we note that the relation between a composite SD3 Dark Triad scale and the

HEXACO-60 Honesty-Humility (composite) scale was sizeable, mean r = -.65 [95% CI: -.68, -

.62], p < .001.5 This matches the composite-level correlation derived from the hypothetical

correlation matrix (see Figure 1). Thus, the composite variables share approximately 42% of

their variance. Our principal analyses, however, focus on latent-level relations. Based on the

meta-analytic relations (Table 2), we modelled narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy

as indicators of a latent Dark Triad factor, and modelled Honesty-Humility facets as indicators of

a latent Honesty-Humility factor. The latent factors were then set to covary, so that we could

examine their overlap. Also, given the conceptual similarities between narcissism and (low)

modesty, we hypothesized a residual correlation between these variables.6 (This negative

residual path attenuates the association between the latent factors).

As shown in Figure 2, the standardized meta-analytic relation between latent Dark Triad

and Honesty-Humility was near perfect (-.95), with 95% CIs ranging from -.99 to -.91 and

comparable to our hypothetical analysis (Figure 1).7 The residual correlation between narcissism

and modesty was significant (-.28, p < .001), with the model showing the following fit: χ2(12) =

110.83, p < .001; CFI = .957; RMSEA = .077; SRMR = .033. The amount of variance explained

thus reached 90%, more than twice that of the composite-level relations. (Note that without

allowing the narcissism/modesty residual link, the relation between latent Dark Triad and

Honesty-Humility reaches -.98 [95% CI: -1.02, -.94], with model fit, χ2(13) = 197.20, p < .001;

CFI = .920; RMSEA = .101; SRMR = .045.)

IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 11
The near-perfect inverse relation between Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility at the latent

level suggests that these constructs are essentially opposites. Indeed, using the meta-analytic data

to model a single-factor model, including the correlated residual included previously, all

indicators had absolute loadings in the .42 to .68 range, with the residual correlating significantly

(-.26, p < .001) and model fit (χ2(13) = 117.92, p < .001; CFI = .954; RMSEA = .076; SRMR =

.034) approaching that of the two-factor model. (Without modelling the correlated residual,

absolute factor loadings ranged from .46 to .68, with only slightly worse fit, χ2(14) = 197.87, p <

.001; CFI = .920; RMSEA = .097; SRMR = .045.)

Empirical Relations Between Constructs (Peer-Report Data)

Muris and colleagues (2017) also considered peer-report data involving Dark Triad

variables, although very little exist in the literature. Not included in the analysis by Muris and

colleagues was the investigation by Lee et al. (2013), where two samples (each n ≥ 200)

contained Dark Triad data from peer reports (i.e., from a closely acquainted person known for at

least one year). Of interest to our present analysis, their Sample 1 (whose self-report data are

included in our meta-analytic structural model above) also contained peer reports (n = 232) using

the SD3 (subscales for narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) and HEXACO-60 Honesty-

Humility facets. We next tested the latent model (as per Figure 2) using the peer (not self-)

reported data.

In a model including a correlated residual between narcissism and modesty, the

standardized path between latent peer Dark Triad and latent peer Honesty-Humility was very

large: -.96 [95% CI -1.04, -.88]. The narcissism/modesty residual correlation was significant, r =

-.37, p < .001, with model fit indices as follows: χ2(12) = 39.08, p < .001; CFI = .945; RMSEA =

.099; SRMR = .046. (Modelled without the correlated residual, the path between Dark Triad and
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 12
Honesty Humility became near perfect at -.99 [95% CI -1.08, -.90] but with less ideal fit, x2(13)

= 68.82, p < .001; CFI = .886; RMSEA = .136; SRMR = .064.) As with the self-report data, a

near-perfect relation suggests the viability of a single factor. Modelling a single factor, including

the correlated residual (r = -.36, p < .001), resulted in absolute factor loadings in the .40 to .79

range. This model exhibited fit indices (χ2(13) = 40.12, p < .001; CFI = .945; RMSEA = .095;

SRMR = .046) about the same as those of the two-factor model with the same correlated residual

term. (Modelled without the correlated residual term, the indicators exhibited absolute loadings

in the .46 to .77 range, but fit was less ideal, χ2(14) = 68.85, p < .001; CFI = .888; RMSEA =

.130; SRMR = .064.) These peer-report data largely mirror those of the self-report analyses, with

the association between latent Dark Triad and latent Honesty-Humility near perfectly inverse.

General Discussion

As the review by Muris and colleagues (2017) highlights, Dark Triad research has

exploded in popularity. Moreover, prominent theorists argue that the covariation of these “dark

personality” variables is meaningful. But the patterns of correlations from this literature ought to

be cause for concern, as illustrated by our analysis of hypothetical data using typical values

(Figure 1). There is need to clarify whether the Dark Triad, operationalized as the covariation of

narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, is distinct from the major dimensions of

personality (see, e.g., Book et al., 2015, 2016; Lee & Ashton, 2014; Lee et al., 2013; Miller,

Gaughan, Maples, & Price, 2011; Miller, Hyatt, Maples-Keller, Carter, & Lynam, in press;

Muris et al., 2017).

Tests of the meta-analytic estimates from the self-report data confirmed a near-perfect

negative correlation between the Dark Triad and low Honesty-Humility as latent factors. We

note that previous research has at times relied on composite scores for one or both constructs; in
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 13
the present case the mean correlation between brief composite measures was large (-.65).

However, when both constructs were modeled as latent factors their shared variance doubled and

their association was nearly perfect. Indeed, there was comparably high model fit when all seven

indicators allowed to load on a single factor. Moreover, the re-analysis of peer-reported

personality delivered the same result. Whether based on self-report data or peer-report data the

results are consistent and clear: The common factors underlying the Dark Triad and Honesty-

Humility are nearly polar opposites, contrary to predictions that so-called “dark” and “light”

personalities might be distinct (see Paulhus, 2014).

To be clear, our main argument is that labelling these three specific variables

(psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism) “the Dark Triad”, and referring to them as a

constellation, supertrait, cluster, or bundle, strongly suggests that:

1. These constructs covary.

2. This covariance is important.

3. This covariance exists outside of the basic personality space.

Point 1 is unquestionably true and supported with meta-analytic evidence (see Muris et

al., 2017). We also do not dispute Point 2; this covariation presumably reflects substantive

personality variance for the most part. If any Dark Triad researchers were to respond that the

covariance is not actually important, then we would ask why they focus on these three specific

traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy)? (We elaborate on this point later). In

contrast to such a position, we consider the covariation of the four Honesty-Humility facets

(sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, modesty) to be important and in fact the main reason why

one would examine those four facets jointly. However, our findings suggest that Point 3 is
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 14
untenable. A near-perfect negative overlap with Honesty-Humility indicates that the Dark Triad

latent factor can essentially be fully understood in terms of the basic dimensions of personality.

In our analysis, we have considered scales designed to assess the “subclinical” aspects of

personality describe more normal, day-to-day variation among people (e.g., Paulhus & Williams,

2002). There have been interesting debates (e.g., Saulsman & Page, 2004; Stepp & Trull, 2007;

Widiger & Costa, 2001) concerning the overlap between various personality disorders and the

more normal range personality space (such as the Big Five) that lie beyond our present scope. It

is of some interest, however, to consider whether the present findings involving Honesty-

Humility would generalize to the Agreeableness factor of five-dimensional personality models.

(Note that the various versions of five-dimensional Agreeableness differ from HEXACO

Agreeableness, whose low pole emphasizes anger-related traits.) The answer probably depends

on the variant of five-dimensional Agreeableness considered. At one extreme, many measures of

the “classic” Big Five Agreeableness include little (if any) Honesty-Humility content; such

measures would show modest observed associations with the SD3 Dark Triad measures and

considerably less-than-perfect latent-level associations. At the other extreme, the Antagonism

scale of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, &

Skodol, 2012), generally viewed as a measure of low five-dimensional Agreeableness, is defined

mainly by low Honesty-Humility content and would likely show strong observed associations

with the SD3 variables and even stronger latent associations. (Note, however, that such

associations might be inflated by self-report response styles prominent in the PID-5 scales; see

Ashton, de Vries, & Lee, 2017.) In addition, measures of five-factor model Agreeableness,

particularly that of the NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae,

1992), are also likely to show strong observed associations with SD3 variables (e.g., Miller et al.,
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 15
in press). These associations would be attributable in part to the two “facets” of NEO-PI-R

Agreeableness that are mainly markers of HEXACO Honesty-Humility, namely,

Straightforwardness and Modesty (Ashton & Lee, 2005; see also Miller et al., 2011).8 For a

meta-analytic synthesis of the Big Five factors (and facets) with Dark Triad scales (but not latent

factor), we refer the reader to O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, Story, and White (2015).

As pointed out by Muris et al. (2017), research on the Dark Triad has generated a

considerable body of data but has neglected conceptual issues (see also O’Boyle et al., 2015).

Our results suggest that very little conceptualization is now necessary – the common element of

the Dark Triad is almost fully captured by Honesty-Humility, a construct whose theoretical

interpretation has been examined in detail and within the context of the broader personality space

(e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2001, 2007; Ashton, Lee, & de Vries, 2014).

So why has there been so much interest in the Dark Triad? One reason concerns the

reliance on Big Five personality scales—particularly measures of the classic Big Five, whose

lack of an Honesty-Humility factor leaves an important gap that could be filled with the Dark

Triad (see Miller et al., 2011, for contrasts between the BFI and NEO-PI-R). Alternatively, it

may simply be more “fascinating” to think about “dark” personalities than about low levels of

non-dark personalities (see Paulhus, 2014). But it is important to keep in mind that personality

constructs exist on a continuum, and we study inter-individual variation across a spectrum. When

speaking of Honesty-Humility, it is understood that deceitfulness and conceitedness lie at the

other pole. The same is true for the dark personality constellations – we might label it the Dark

Triad but must recognize that its opposite pole is defined by traits such as honesty and humility.

In this sense, the present work continues in the tradition of research that has sought to understand

personality disorders—including psychopathy and narcissism—as extreme levels of normal

IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 16
personality characteristics (e.g., Widiger & Lynam, 1998). With this dimension of Honesty-

Humility (vs. Dark Triad) being approximately normally distributed there is little reason to

consider either pole as inherently more interesting.

However, there may well be research contexts for which the consideration of

Machiavellianism, psychopathy, or narcissism individually would prove valuable. 9 Consider new

research by Jones and Paulhus (2017) examining the differences between narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy in terms of behavioral expression. For instance, only those

higher in psychopathy cheated at a task in the presence of punishments (i.e., a risky context);

those higher in Machiavellianism did so only after mental inhibition exercises (i.e., ego-

depletion). But the researcher who is considering research with the Dark Triad should first

consider why she is interested in the unique aspects of these particular three variables, rather than

in the unique aspects of any other variables involving antisocial or selfish tendencies (e.g.,

aggression, callousness, egotism, entitlement, manipulation, moral disengagement, spitefulness,

etc.).

We recognize that some might ask why we conclude that the Dark Triad latent factor is

redundant with low Honesty-Humility and not the converse? The main reason is that Honesty-

Humility is part of a larger structural model of the entire personality domain, whereas the Dark

Triad is not: the HEXACO personality factors (including Honesty-Humility) emerged from

cross-culturally replicated analyses of lexically-derived variable sets representing the entire

personality domain, whereas the Dark Triad was identified by considering various “socially

aversive” traits in isolation. In addition, explanations of the evolutionarily adaptive costs and

benefits of both poles of Honesty-Humility are integrated with those for the other five HEXACO

factors (Ashton & Lee, 2007; de Vries, Tybur, Pollet, & van Vugt, 2016).
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 17
Other reasons to favor Honesty-Humility involve measurement concerns. For example,

although the latent factors for Honesty-Humility and the Dark Triad are essentially equivalent, a

composite Honesty-Humility scale shows weaker relations with other HEXACO scales than a

composite Dark Triad scale shows with Big Five scales (Lee & Ashton, 2014). As a

consequence, measures of the HEXACO factors collectively account for more variance than do

ad-hoc combinations of the Big Five and Dark Triad. Moreover, correlations between the

subcomponents of the Triad are “lopsided”, with psychopathy and Machiavellianism showing

stronger correlation than either with narcissism (see Miller et al., in press; Visser, Pozzebon, &

Reina-Tamayo, 2014). Consider also that the Honesty-Humility items are balanced in terms of

pro- and con-trait items, in contrast to the SD3 scale (where 0 of 9 Machiavellianism items are

reversed, 3 of 9 narcissism items are reversed, and 2 of 9 psychopathy items are reversed) (Jones

& Paulhus, 2014). Imbalanced response-formatting can artificially inflate correlations between

Dark Triad constructs. From both theoretical and practical perspectives, if one is interested in the

common variance among these types of traits, it is more defensible to utilize measures of

Honesty-Humility (and flip the scores if interested in “dark” personality).

Concluding Remarks

Writings about “…warrant[ing] membership in the dark constellation” (Paulhus, 2014, p.

424) make it very clear that this particular grouping is considered a select club of very specific

variables. If so, presumably their covariation is not irrelevant. Our results indicate that this Dark

Triad latent covariation almost fully overlaps with the low pole of Honesty-Humility from the

basic personality space. Although the overall Dark Triad enterprise has raised the profile of such

socially aversive characteristics in personality research, we share concerns voiced by Muris and

colleagues (2017) in their meta-analytic review:

IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 18
These results suggest that the dark triad concept is redundant and has little to add to

traditional personality models, although it is clear that more research is needed on

forensic populations, experimental situations, and behavioral outcomes for investigators

to draw a more definitive conclusion’ (p.196; emphasis added).

Our findings corroborate the growing scepticism about the incremental value in the Dark Triad,

at least as a latent “constellation.” Being mindful of concept creep (Haslam, 2016), our main

thrust has been to examine overlap to determine whether this problem applies to the Dark Triad.

We have provided a quantitative answer to the issue raised by Muris and colleagues, revealing

almost complete redundancy with Honesty-Humility alone. Considering the Dark Triad and

Honesty-Humility side by side, there is little daylight between them. The Dark Triad may thus be

one “creepy” construct that nicely illustrates the concern with concept creep.
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 19
References

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality.

European Journal of Personality, 15, 327-353. DOI: 10.1002/per.417

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-Humility, the Big Five, and the Five-Factor Model.

Journal of Personality, 73, 1321-1353. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00351.x

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the

HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11,

150-166. DOI: 10.1177/1088868306294907

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions

of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340-345. DOI:

10.1080/00223890902935878

Ashton, M. C., De Vries, R. E., & Lee, K. (2017). Trait variance and response style variance in

the scales of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Journal of Personality

Assessment, 99, 192-203. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2016.1208210

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility,

Agreeableness, and Emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 18, 139-152. DOI: 10.1177/1088868314523838

Bertl, B., Pietschnig, J.., Tran, U.S., Steiger, S., & Voracek, M. (2017). More or less than the

sum of its parts? Mapping the Dark Triad of personality into a single Dark Core. Personality

and Individual Differences, 114, 140-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.002

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

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.016
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 20
Book, A.B., Visser, B.A., Blais, J., Hosker-Field, A., Methot-Jones, T., Gauthier, N.Y., Volk, A.,

Holden, R.R., & D’Agata, M.T. (2016). Unpacking more “evil”: What is at the core of the

dark tetrad? Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 269-272.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.009

Card, N.A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, US: Guilford

Press.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

De Vries, R. E., Tybur, J. M., Pollet, T. V., & van Vugt, M. (2016). Evolution, situational

affordances, and the HEXACO model of personality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37,

407-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.001

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10-year

review. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199–216. DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12018

Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, L., & Jones, D.N. (2014). Measuring malevolence:

Quantitative issues surrounding the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual

Differences, 67, 114-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.001

Haslam, N. (2016). Concept creep: Psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology.

Psychological Inquiry, 27, 1-17. DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2016.1082418

Hodson, G., & Skorska, M.N. (2015). Tapping generalized essentialism to predict outgroup

prejudices. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 371-382. DOI:10.1111/bjso.12083

IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 21
Hodson, G., MacInnis, C.C., & Busseri, M.A. (2017). Bowing and kicking: Rediscovering the

fundamental link between generalized authoritarianism and generalized prejudice.

Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 243-251. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.018

Jonason, P.K., Girgis, M., & Milne-Home, J. (2017). The exploitative mating strategy of the

Dark Triad traits: Tests of rape-enabling attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 697-706.

DOI 10.1007/s10508-017-0937-1

Jonason, P.K., & Kavanagh, P. (2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the Dark Triad.

Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 606-610. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.030

Jonason, P.K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The Dark Triad and self-control.

Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 611-615. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.031

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the

Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420-432. DOI: 10.1037/a0019265

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P.,Webster, G. D.,& Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a

short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.

Jones, D.N., & Figueredo, A.J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark

Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27, 521-531. DOI: 10.1002/per.1893

Jones, D.N., & Neria, A.L. (2015). The Dark Triad and dispositional aggression. Personality and

Individual Differences, 86, 360-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.021

Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2011). Differentiating the Dark Triad within the interpersonal

circumplex. In L.M. Horowitz & S.Strack (Eds), Handbook of interpersonal psychology:

Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp.249-269). New York: Wiley

& Sons.
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 22
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure

of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41. DOI: 10.1177/1073191113514105

Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2017). Duplicity among the Dark Triad: Three faces of deceit.

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000139

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New

York: Guilford Press.

Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial

construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5.

Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879-1890. doi:10.1017/S0033291711002674

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

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-

Factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual

Differences, 38, 1571-1582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2014). The Dark Triad, the Big Five, and the HEXACO model.

Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.048

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (in press). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment.

DOI: 10.1177/1073191116659134

Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., Gallucci, A. (2013). Sex,

power, and money: Prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility. European

Journal of Personality, 27, 169-184. DOI: 10.1002/per.1860

IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 23
Miller, J.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. DOI: 10.1177/1073191111411671

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

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

Personality. DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12251

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

Nunnally, J. C. (1979). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

O’Boyle, E.H., Forsyth, D.R., Banks, G.C., Story, P.A., & White, C.D. (2015). A meta-analytic

test of redundancy and relative importance of the Dark Triad and the Five-Factor model of

personality. Journal of Personality, 83, 644-664. DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12126

Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 23, 421–426. DOI: 10.1177/0963721414547737

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

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

Saulsman, L., & Page, A. (2004). The five factor model and personality disorder empirical

literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055-1085.

doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2002.09.001
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 24
Sleep, C.E., Lynam, D.R., Hyatt, C.S., & Miller, J.D. (in press). Perils of partialing redux: The

case of the Dark Triad. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

Stepp, S., & Trull, T. (2007). Predictive validity of the five factor model prototype scores for

antisocial and borderline personality disorders. Personality and Mental Health, 1, 27-39.

DOI: 10.1002/pmh.3

Visser, B. A., Pozzebon, J. A., & Reina-Tamayo, A. M. (2014). Status-driven risk taking:

Another “dark” personality? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 46, 485-496.

Widiger, R., & Costa, P. T. (2001). Five factor model personality disorder research. In P. T.

Costa, & T. A. Widiger (Eds). Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality

(2nd ed., pp. 59 – 87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Widiger, T.A., & Lynam, D.R. (1998). Psychopathy from the perspective of the five-factor

model of personality. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R.D. Davis (Eds.),

Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behaviors (pp. 171-187). New York: Guilford.

Veselka, L., Schermer, J.A., Martin, R.A., & Vernon, P.A. (2010). Relations between humor

styles and the Dark Triad traits of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 48,

772-774. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.017
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 25
Footnotes

1
Recall that a latent variable does not “collapse” across trait indicators. Rather, a latent factor

(e.g., general intelligence, g) draws on the common variance among indicators (e.g., verbal

ability; spatial ability; mathematical ability). But when a composite score is computed across

several variables that strongly define a common factor, that composite (e.g., an IQ score) will

chiefly consist of common factor variance (e.g., g).

2
Factor loadings of the indicators of the respective latent factors would differ depending on the

degree of correlation between facets within a factor. For example, if within-construct variables

are correlated .20 you get loadings of .45 (i.e., √.20), if correlated .40 you get loadings of .63, if

correlated .60 you get loadings of .77). In each case, the degree of association between latent

factors (X-Y correlation) would remain unchanged and perfectly correlated inversely, providing

that the correlation of facet scales within a factor (e.g., X1-X2 correlation) are comparable in

magnitude to their correlation with facets from the other factor (e.g., X1-Y1 correlation).
3
In Lee et al. (2013) the HEXACO-100 was employed, but for consistency with other studies in

our meta-analytic summary, scores in this analysis are based on the 60-item version. Note that

the brevity of the Honesty-Humility facet scales used in this report will tend to limit the loadings

of those facets on a latent factor but not the correlation between latent factors.
4
Relations based on fixed-effects models produced very similar results. Table 2 provides these

values for those interested in reproducing these effects.

5
Within samples rs ranged from -.55 to -.72.
6
Likewise, Jones and Neria (2015) modelled latent Dark Triad, set to predict latent Aggression,

but allowed residuals between variables (e.g, between psychopathy and physical aggression).
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 26

7
Within studies the standardized paths were -.99 (Lee et al., 2013), -.88 (Book et al., 2015, Study

1), -.98 (Book et al., 2015, Study 2), and -.96 (Book et al., 2016).
8
For each five-dimensional Agreeableness measure mentioned, some overlap with the Dark

Triad would likely be due to variance shared with HEXACO Agreeableness and Emotionality,

which would likely have some small incremental associations with the Dark Triad beyond

Honesty-Humility. See Ashton et al. (2014) for discussion of the associations of five-

dimensional Agreeableness with the HEXACO factors.

9
If the three Dark Triad variables are examined together as predictors of a given outcome,

reliance on residualized regression coefficients is not recommended (see Sleep, Lynam, Hyatt, &

Miller, in press).
 e e e e e e e

x1 x2 x3 y1 y2 y3 y4

.60 .60 .60 .60 .60 .60 .60

Factor Factor
X Y
-1.00

Figure 1. Facet-level correlations for hypothetical dataset, with corresponding composite correlations (top portion)
and latent factor correlations (bottom portion).
 -.28

e e e e e e e

H- H- H- H-
Narc Mach Psy
sinc fair gree mode

.42 .68 .70 .58 .68 .47 .60

Dark Honesty
Triad Humility

-.95

Figure 2. Meta-analytic (N = 1402) test of latent-level relation between Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility. Narc = narcissism,
Mach = Machiavellianism; Psych = Psychopathy; sinc = sincerity; fair = fairness; gree = greed avoidance; mode = modesty.
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 1

Table 1

Characteristic features of Dark Triad components and Honesty-Humility facets

Dark Triad components

Narcissism the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic
admiration of one’s own attributes

Machiavellianism a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical disregard for

morality, and a focus on self-interest and personal gain

Psychopathy a personality trait characterized by enduring antisocial

behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited
or bold behavior

Honesty-Humility facets
Sincerity
a tendency to be genuine in interpersonal relations. Low
scorers will flatter others or pretend to like them in order to
obtain favors, whereas high scorers are unwilling to
manipulate others

Fairness a tendency to avoid fraud and corruption. Low scorers are

willing to gain by cheating or stealing, whereas high scorers
are unwilling to take advantage of other individuals or of
society at large

Greed avoidance a tendency to be uninterested in possessing lavish wealth,

luxury goods, and signs of high social status. Low scorers
want to enjoy and to display wealth and privilege, whereas
high scorers are not especially motivated by monetary or
social-status considerations.

Modesty a tendency to be modest and unassuming. Low scorers

consider themselves as superior and as entitled to privileges
that others do not have, whereas high scorers view
themselves as ordinary people without any claim to special
treatment.

Note. Dark Triad text drawn verbatim from Muris et al. (2017, Table 1); HEXACO text drawn
verbatim from http://hexaco.org/scaledescriptions/
IS THE DARK TRIAD COMMON 2
Table 2

Meta-analytic zero-order correlations between Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility facets

Mach Narc Psyc H-sinc H-fair H-gree H-mode

Mach .267 .490 -.399 -.413 -.355 -.406
Narc .260 .332 -.265 -.212 -.218 -.449
Psyc .472 .332 -.343 -.499 -.238 -.434
H-sinc -.383 -.265 -.327 .448 .265 .340
H-fair -.407 -.212 -.495 .445 .317 .365
H-gree -.355 -.218 -.238 .265 .317 .320
H-mode -.400 -.441 -.434 .340 .365 .320

Note: random/fixed-effects in lower/upper half of table. Narc = narcissism, Mach =

Machiavellianism; Psyc = Psychopathy; sinc = sincerity; fair = fairness; gree = greed avoidance;
mode = modesty. N = 1,402 (k = 4). All ps < .001.