Current Psychology (2021) 40:5430–5444

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00527-z

Dark personality features and workplace outcomes: The mediating

role of difficulties in personality functioning
Virgil Zeigler-Hill 1 & Avi Besser 2

Published online: 7 November 2019

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Darker aspect of personality (e.g., narcissism, psychopathy) have been shown to be associated with a wide range of workplace
outcomes. However, relatively little is known about the psychological mechanisms that may explain these associations. The
purpose of the present study was to examine whether the associations that dark personality features had with workplace outcomes
were explained, at least in part, by difficulties in self-functioning (i.e., identity, self-direction) and interpersonal functioning (i.e.,
empathy, intimacy) in an Israeli community sample. Our results revealed that difficulties in self-functioning often mediated the
associations that dark personality features had with workplace outcomes. More specifically, difficulties with self-direction
mediated the associations that psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness had with task performance and contextual performance,
whereas difficulties with identity mediated the associations that Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness had
with counter-productive work behaviors. Although Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness were strongly
associated with difficulties with empathy and intimacy, these difficulties with interpersonal functioning were not associated with
workplace outcomes. Discussion focuses on the role that difficulties in self-functioning and identity may play in the connections
between dark personality features and workplace outcomes.

Keywords Dark triad . Narcissism . Psychopathy . Machiavellianism . Personality functioning . Workplace outcomes

Personality traits have been shown to be reasonable predictors
of workplace outcomes (e.g., Barrick and Mount 1991). In
recent years, there has been growing interest in the connec-
tions that the darker aspects of personality (e.g., narcissism,
psychopathy) have with workplace outcomes such as job per-
formance, job satisfaction, leadership, and counter-productive
work behaviors (e.g., Grijalva and Newman 2015; Harms
et al. 2011; Kopelman and Mullins 1992; O’Boyle et al.
2012; Soyer et al. 1999; see Spain and Harms 2018, for a
review). This is important because these darker aspects of
personality often involve motives, goals, interests, and strate-
gies that are not easily explained by models of normal
* Virgil Zeigler-Hill
zeiglerh@oakland.edu
* Avi Besser
avibe@hac.ac.il
1
Department of Psychology, Oakland University, 212A Pryale Hall,
Rochester, MI 48309, USA
2
Interdisciplinary School for Sciences, Health and Society,
Department of Communication Disorders, Hadassah Academic
College, 37 Hanevi’im St., 9101001 Jerusalem, Israel
personality such as the Big Five dimensions of personality
(see Spain et al. 2014, for a review) even though there is
considerable overlap between Big Five personality dimen-
sions and these darker aspects of personality (e.g., O’Boyle
et al. 2015).
Interest in the darker aspects of personality has greatly ex-
panded during the past two decades (see Zeigler-Hill and
Marcus 2016, for a review) with much of this interest stem-
ming from the identification of narcissism (i.e., behaviors as-
sociated with feelings of entitlement, perceived superiority,
and a grandiose identity), Machiavellianism (i.e., the use of
manipulative and deceitful behaviors intended to undermine
others and achieve long-term goals), and psychopathy (i.e.,
malevolent behaviors associated with a lack of empathy and
impulsivity) as constituting a constellation of dark personality
features referred to as the Dark Triad (Paulhus and Williams
2002). The Dark Triad personality features are characterized
by a willingness to exploit and manipulate others, callousness,
disagreeableness, deceitfulness, egocentrism, lack of honesty-
humility, empathy deficits, and a focus on agentic goals (e.g.,
Jones and Paulhus 2011). These personality features have
been found to predict a wide array of behaviors and interper-
sonal tendencies (see Furnham et al. 2013, for a review).
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444
Although originally conceptualized as a triad, researchers
(e.g., Marcus and Zeigler-Hill 2015; Zeigler-Hill and Marcus
2016) have suggested expanding the list of “dark” personality
features to include other characteristics such as sadism (i.e.,
enjoyment of the suffering of others; Buckels et al. 2013) and
spitefulness (i.e., willingness to incur costs in order to inflict
harm on others; Marcus et al. 2014). Both sadism (Paulhus
and Dutton 2016) and spitefulness (Marcus and Norris 2016)
have been receiving increased levels of empirical attention
during recent years and sadism is even sometimes included
with narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy as part
of the “Dark Tetrad” (Chabrol et al. 2009). There have also
been studies showing that these dark personality features share
certain essential features (e.g., interpersonal manipulation and
callousness; Marcus et al. 2018) and there have been recent
attempts to argue that these various dark personality features
are actually specific manifestations of a common “Dark Factor
of Personality” (Moshagen et al. 2018).
Dark personality features are usually viewed as undesirable
qualities but it has been argued that these personality features
may actually represent specialized psychological adaptations
that allow individuals to exploit particular niches within soci-
ety in order to solve evolutionary problems such as gaining
status, securing one’s place in the social environment, and
gaining access to potential mates (e.g., Jonason et al. 2009;
Zeigler-Hill et al. 2018). More specifically, these dark person-
ality features seem to reflect agentic but exploitative strategies
that promote the extraction of resources for the individual at
the expense of the broader social environment which may
explain why characteristics such as interpersonal manipula-
tion and callousness seem to be at the core of these dark
personality features (Jones and Figueredo 2013; Marcus
et al. 2018). This view of dark personality features is impor-
tant because it suggests that individuals who possess these
qualities are likely to be motivated by personal goals that
may lead them to engage in behaviors that will undermine
the patterns of social exchange that tend to enhance organiza-
tional functioning (e.g., O’Boyle et al. 2012). For example,
employees provide their skills, knowledge, and labor to orga-
nizations in exchange for direct rewards (e.g., pay, benefits) as
well as indirect rewards (e.g., status, admiration, sense of
belonging; Settoon et al. 1996). Although little is known about
the connections that sadism and spitefulness have with work-
place outcomes, individuals with high levels of narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy have been shown to be
more likely to violate this social exchange process by engag-
ing in unethical activities in the workplace (e.g., Jones and
Kavanagh 1996; Kessler et al. 2010) and it is possible that
the unique aspects of these dark personality features may al-
low them to exploit particular “dark niches” in employment
settings.
Previous studies have considered the connections between
dark personality features and workplace outcomes (e.g., Spain
5431
and Harms 2018) but relatively little attention has been devot-
ed to the mechanisms that allow dark personality features to
actually “get outside the skin” (Hampson 2012) and produce
particular patterns of behaviors and attitudes in the workplace.
We decided to focus on the difficulties in personality function-
ing that were introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]; American
Psychiatric Association 2013) as potential mechanisms that
may link these darker aspects of personality with workplace
outcomes. Difficulties in personality functioning – along with
the introduction of pathological personality traits (i.e., nega-
tive affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and
psychoticism) – are part of a new approach for conceptualiz-
ing and assessing personality pathology that is outlined in
Section III (“Emerging Measures and Models” in need of
further study). The pathological personality traits outlined in
DSM-5 have received a great deal of empirical attention (see
Wright and Krueger 2018, for a review) but the difficulties in
personality functioning have received far less attention. The
basic idea underlying the difficulties in personality function-
ing is that there are two broad areas of potential impairment:
self-functioning and interpersonal functioning. Further, im-
pairments in self-functioning can be divided into difficulties
with identity and those concerning self-direction, whereas im-
pairments in interpersonal functioning can be divided into
difficulties with empathy and those concerning intimacy
(e.g., Morey 2017). These impairments in self-functioning
and interpersonal functioning are considered to be essential
features of personality pathology and past research has shown
that dark personality features are often associated with similar
difficulties. For example, dark personality features have often
been found to be associated with deficits in understanding the
mental states of others (e.g., Ewing et al. 2016; Vonk et al.
2015) or empathizing with them (e.g., Wai and Tiliopoulos
2012). As a result, we were interested in the possibility that
the difficulties in personality functioning outlined in the DSM-
5 may provide at least a partial explanation for the associations
that dark personality features have with workplace outcomes.
Overview and Predictions
The purpose of the present study was to examine whether
difficulties in personality functioning would mediate the asso-
ciations that dark personality features had with workplace out-
comes in an Israeli community sample. That is, we expected
the connections that dark personality features had with work-
place outcomes to be due, at least in part, to particular diffi-
culties in self-functioning (i.e., identity, self-direction) and
interpersonal functioning (i.e., empathy, intimacy). The under-
lying rationale for this idea was that difficulties in personality
functioning capture issues that are essential for navigating
various aspects of life (e.g., managing stressful or unpleasant
5432
events) and may play a central role in accounting for the con-
nections between dark personality features and workplace
outcomes that have been observed in previous studies. In
essence, we were interested in the possibility that these
difficulties in personality functioning may provide a more
nuanced view of the psychological processes linking dark
personality features with workplace outcomes. Our decision
to examine whether difficulties in personality functioning
potentially mediate the associations that dark personality
features had with workplace outcomes is consistent with the
recommendations of Cohen (2016) who argued that the iden-
tification of mediating variables may clarify the nature of the
associations that dark personality features have with work-
place outcomes such as counter-productive work behaviors.
Based on this underlying rationale, we developed the fol-
lowing hypotheses for the present study:
& Hypothesis 1: We expected that psychopathy, sadism, and
spitefulness would be negatively associated with job per-
formance (i.e., the proficiency with which individuals
perform core aspects of their jobs; Campbell 1990). The
rationale for this prediction was that individuals with these
dark personality features may be characterized by a lack of
diligence and a tendency to disregard deadlines and re-
sponsibilities which are often incompatible with success
in most employment settings. This prediction is consistent
with the results of past studies which have shown that
some dark personality features (e.g., psychopathy) have
at least moderate negative associations with job perfor-
mance (e.g., O’Boyle et al. 2012). We did not have clear
predictions regarding the associations that narcissism and
Machiavellianism would have with job performance be-
cause both personality features have been shown to have
inconsistent connections with job performance in past re-
search (e.g., Campbell et al. 2011; Zettler and Solga
2013).
& Hypothesis 2: We expected that Machiavellianism, psy-
chopathy, sadism, and spitefulness would be negatively
associated with contextual performance (i.e., behaviors
that support the social and psychological environment of
the organization such as demonstrating effort, facilitating
team performance, and cooperating with fellow
employees; Borman and Motowidlo 1993). The underly-
ing rationale for this prediction was that contextual perfor-
mance is often motivated by prosocial intentions which
tend to be negatively associated with certain dark person-
ality features (e.g., Zeigler-Hill et al. 2014). This predic-
tion is consistent with the results of past studies showing
that dark personality features are associated with behav-
iors that tend to be detrimental to organizations such as the
use of aversive influence strategies (Jonason et al. 2012).
We were less certain with regard to our prediction for
narcissism because studies have found it to have no
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444
association with self-reported contextual performance
(Judge et al. 2006) but a relatively strong negative associ-
ation with ratings of contextual performance provided by
supervisors (Blair et al. 2008; Judge et al. 2006).
& Hypothesis 3: We expected that each of the dark per-
sonality features would be positively associated with
counter-productive work behaviors (i.e., behaviors that
harm the well-being of the organization such as exces-
sive absenteeism, off-task behavior, and theft; Rotundo
and Sackett 2002). The rationale for this prediction was
that the lack of accountability and difficulties with im-
pulse control that often characterize these dark person-
ality features would contribute to the likelihood that
individuals who possess these dark personality features
would engage in counter-productive work behaviors.
This prediction is consistent with the results of past
studies which have shown that dark personality fea-
tures (e.g., narcissism, psychopathy) are associated
with counter-productive work behaviors (e.g.,
Grijalva and Newman 2015; O’Boyle et al. 2012).
& Hypothesis 4: We expected the associations that dark per-
sonality features had with job performance, contextual
performance, and counter-productive work behavior
would be mediated by difficulties in self-functioning
(i.e., identity and self-direction). That is, we thought these
difficulties in self-functioning would serve as mechanisms
that would explain, at least in part, the associations that
these dark personality features had with workplace out-
comes. This prediction is consistent with the results of
previous research showing that individuals with dark per-
sonality features often have difficulties with certain as-
pects of identity (e.g., Barlett and Barlett 2015) and self-
direction (e.g., Jonason and Tost 2010) as well as studies
showing that difficulties in self-functioning are often
linked with negative workplace outcomes (e.g.,
Bechtoldt et al. 2007).
& Hypothesis 5: We expected the associations that dark per-
sonality features had with job performance, contextual
performance, and counter-productive work behavior
would be mediated by difficulties in interpersonal func-
tioning (i.e., empathy and intimacy). That is, we thought
these difficulties in interpersonal functioning would at
least partially explain the connections that these dark per-
sonality features had with workplace outcomes. This pre-
diction is consistent with the results of previous research
showing that dark personality features are associated with
difficulties in understanding the emotional or mental states
of others (e.g., Ewing et al. 2016; Vonk et al. 2015) and
developing intimate connections with others (e.g., Ali and
Chamorro-Premuzic 2010) as well as studies showing that
difficulties in interpersonal functioning (e.g., low levels of
empathy) are often linked with problems in the workplace
(e.g., Kellett et al. 2002).
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were a sample of 1307 Israeli community mem-
bers who responded to requests asking for volunteers to take
part in a study concerning “personality and work perfor-
mance.” The appropriate sample size for this study was deter-
mined to be at least 250 based on a power analysis (> .80) for
the average effect size in social-personality psychology
(r ≈ .21; Richard et al. 2003) in conjunction with the guide-
lines for reducing estimation error in social-personality psy-
chology (N > 250; Schönbrodt and Perugini 2013) but
oversampling was deliberately employed in an effort to in-
crease the statistical power of the study. Participants complet-
ed measures of their dark personality features (i.e., narcissism,
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness),
difficulties in personality functioning, and workplace out-
comes via a secure website. All of the questionnaires used in
the present study were administered in Hebrew after being
translated from the original English versions using the back-
translation method. Data were excluded for 71 participants for
being univariate outliers. The final 1236 participants (535
men, 701 women) had a mean age of 31.00 years (SD =
10.79) and their mean number of years of formal education
was 13.26 (SD = 2.22). The participants were predominantly
Jewish (97%) and heterosexual (92%). The self-reported cur-
rent economic status of the participants was 10% “very good,”
47% “good,” 36% “moderate,” 6% “not good,” and 1% “very
bad.” The employment areas of the participants were 14%
service industry, 13% education, 10% manufacturing, 9%
food industry, 7% technology, 4% financial, and 43% other.
The average number of years that participants had been in
their current position was 4.95 years (SD = 7.43).
We focused on an Israeli sample for the present study be-
cause much of the existing research concerning the connec-
tions between dark personality features and workplace out-
comes has focused on North American samples (e.g.,
Jonason et al. 2012). It is important to consider cultures out-
side of North America in order to gain a better understanding
of whether similar associations would emerge in these differ-
ent contexts. We believed that Israel had the potential to be a
particularly interesting context for the present research be-
cause it is often considered to be W.E.I.R.D. (i.e., Western,
educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic; see Henrich
et al. 2010, for a review) but there are important factors that
distinguish Israel from other W.E.I.R.D. countries including
its blend of individualism and collectivism (e.g., Sagy et al.
2001), high levels of uncertainty avoidance (e.g., Merkin
2006), and its intractable conflict with the Palestinians (e.g.,
Rouhana and Bar-Tal 1998). Further, there is an existing body
of research concerning workplace behaviors in Israel (e.g.,
Cohen and Abedallah 2015; Cohen and Diamant 2017) even
5433
though little attention has been given to the connections that
dark personality features may have with these workplace
outcomes.
Measures
Dark Triad The 27-item Short Dark Triad (Jones and Paulhus
2014) was used to measure individual differences in narcis-
sism (9 items; e.g., “I know that I am special because everyone
keeps telling me so” [α = .71]), Machiavellianism (9 items;
e.g., “I like to use clever manipulation to get my way”
[α = .70]), and psychopathy (9 items; e.g., “People who mess
with me always regret it” [α = .72]). Participants provided
their level of agreement with each statement using scales that
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Sadism Sadism was measured using the Assessment of
Sadistic Personality (ASP; Plouffe et al. 2017). The ASP is a
9-item instrument that captures subclinical levels of sadistic
personality features that involve engaging in or thinking about
engaging in cruel, demeaning, or aggressive behaviors for
pleasure or to subjugate others (e.g., “Being mean to others
can be exciting” [α = .82]). Participants were asked to rate
their level of agreement with each statement using scales rang-
ing from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Spitefulness Spitefulness was assessed with the Spitefulness
Scale (Marcus et al. 2014), which is a 17-item instrument
designed to assess the willingness of participants to engage
in behaviors that would harm another individual but that
would also entail harm to oneself. This harm could be social,
financial, physical, or an inconvenience (e.g., “It is sometimes
worth a little suffering on my part to see others receive the
punishment they deserve” [α = .84]). Participants were asked
to rate their level of agreement with each statement using
scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Difficulties in Personality Functioning Difficulties in person-
ality functioning were captured using the self-report version of
the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (Morey 2017)
which is an 80-item instrument used to measure difficulties
with identity (23 items; e.g., “I can’t always tell the difference
between what is my opinion, and what is the way other people
want me to think” [α = .83]), self-direction (21 items; e.g., “I
have difficulty setting and completing goals” [α = .85]),
empathy (16 items; e.g., “I don’t pay much attention to, or
care very much about, the effect I have on other people”
[α = .72]), and intimacy (20 items; e.g., “Although I try, I can’t
seem to keep any successful, lasting relationships” [α = .82]).
Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each state-
ment was true for them using scales ranging from 0 (totally
false, not at all true) to 3 (very true).
5434 Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444

Workplace Outcomes Workplace outcomes were captured
using the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire
(Koopmans et al. 2014) which is an 18-item instrument used
to measure task performance (5 items; e.g., “I was able to
carry out my work efficiently” [α = .80]), contextual
performance (8 items; e.g., “On my own initiative, I started
new tasks when my old tasks were completed” [α = .86]), and
counter-productive work behavior (5 items; e.g., “I talked to
people outside the organization about the negative aspects of
my work” [α = .79]). Participants were asked to rate how of-
ten they engaged in each behavior using scales ranging from 1
(seldom/never) to 5 (always/often).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for the dark
personality features, difficulties in personality functioning,
and workplace outcomes are presented in Table 1. Due to the
relatively large sample size and the large number of associa-
tions that were estimated in our analyses, we decided to employ
a more conservative level of statistical significance for all of our
analyses (i.e., α < .001). The dark personality features had
significant positive correlations with each other.
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness each
had significant positive zero-order correlations with the diffi-
culties in personality functioning, whereas narcissism was not
associated with the difficulties in personality functioning.
Psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness each had significant neg-
ative zero-order correlations with task performance but these
associations were not significant for narcissism and
Machiavellianism. Narcissism had a positive zero-order corre-
lation with contextual performance, whereas sadism and spite-
fulness had negative zero-order correlations with contextual
performance. Machiavellianism and psychopathy were not cor-
related with contextual performance. Machiavellianism, psy-
chopathy, sadism, and spitefulness each had significant positive
zero-order correlations with counter-productive work behaviors
but this association was not significant for narcissism.
Parallel Multiple Mediation Analyses
The hypotheses for the present study were consistent with an
indirect effects model such that the associations that the dark
personality features had with workplace outcomes were be-
lieved to be due, at least in part, to difficulties in personality
functioning. More specifically, separate parallel multiple me-
diation analyses were conducted for each workplace outcome
(i.e., task performance, contextual performance, and counter-
productive work behavior). These analyses included the dark
personality features (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psy-
chopathy, sadism, and spitefulness) as predictors along with
the difficulties in personality functioning (i.e., difficulties with
identity, difficulties with self-direction, difficulties with empa-
thy, and difficulties with intimacy) as potential mediators. We
were interested in considering models that only involved ob-
served variables (i.e., there were no latent variables included
in our analyses) so we analyzed our data using model four of
the PROCESS macro for SPSS that was developed by Hayes
(2013). These analyses estimated direct and indirect effects
using a bootstrap resampling process that was repeated
10,000 times to generate 95% bias-corrected confidence inter-
vals (CI). Indirect effects were considered to be significant if
the CIs did not contain zero. That is, CIs that did not contain

Table 1 Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Narcissism –
2. Machiavellianism .29* –
3. Psychopathy .33* .46* –
4. Sadism .14* .33* .53* –
5. Spitefulness .13* .29* .52* .54* –
6. Difficulties with identity .03 .32* .41* .46* .42* –
7. Difficulties with self-direction .00 .21 *
.39* .50* .49* .75* –
8. Difficulties with empathy .05 .30* .41* .45* .47* .70* .75* –
9. Difficulties with intimacy .06 .31* .44* .51* .48* .72* .74* .74* –
10. Task performance .06 −.07 −.15* −.18* −.24* −.25* −.30* −.24* −.23* –
11. Contextual performance .20* −.09 −.06 −.12* −.15* −.18* −.23* −.16* −.17* .47* –
12. Counter-productive work behavior .05 .20 *
.30* .25* .27* .35* .27* .24* .29* −.17* −.14* –
Mean 2.85 2.84 1.94 1.52 1.43 38.40 20.18 18.04 25.99 3.02 2.58 1.30
Standard deviation 0.58 0.68 0.60 0.61 0.44 20.66 16.80 11.82 17.87 0.66 0.82 0.70
*
p < .001
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444 5435

zero indicated significant mediation. The use of bootstrap re-
sampling is particularly helpful for mediational analyses be-
cause some of the statistics involved in these analyses have
irregular sampling distributions which can make it difficult to
properly interpret these effects using other methods (Hayes
et al. 2017; Shrout and Bolger 2002). All of the variables in
these analyses were standardized in order to enhance the in-
terpretability of the coefficients.
Task Performance The results of the analysis for task perfor-
mance are presented in Fig. 1. The analysis revealed that nar-
cissism did not have significant associations with any of the
difficulties in personality functioning. Machiavellianism was
positively associated with difficulties with identity, empathy,
and intimacy but it was not associated with difficulties with
self-direction. Psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness were
positively associated with each of the difficulties in personal-
ity functioning. In turn, difficulties with self-direction was the
only indicator of personality functioning to have a unique
association with task performance. Although psychopathy, sa-
dism, and spitefulness each had negative zero-order correla-
tions with task performance, spitefulness was the only dark
personality feature to have a unique direct association with
task performance when the other dark personality features
and difficulties with personality functioning were included
in the same model. Tests of mediation found that psychopathy
(a 3,2 b 2 = −0.04, SE = 0.01, z = −3.36, p < .001, 95% CI
[−0.07, −0.02]), sadism (a4,2b2 = −0.04, SE = 0.01, z = −3.51,

Fig. 1 The results of the multiple mediation analysis for task performance. Note. The solid black arrows represent significant positive associations. The
dashed black arrows represent significant negative associations. The dotted grey lines represent nonsignificant associations. *p < .001
5436
p < .001, 95% CI [−0.06, −0.02]), and spitefulness (a5,2b2 =
−0.07, SE = 0.02, z = −4.00, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.11, −0.04])
had negative indirect associations with task performance
through difficulties with self-direction. Narcissism and
Machiavellianism did not have indirect associations with task
performance through difficulties with self-direction. None of
the dark personality features had indirect associations with
task performance through the other indicators of personality
functioning. Taken together, these results revealed partial sup-
port for Hypothesis 1 (only spitefulness had a unique negative
association with task performance) and Hypothesis 4 (difficul-
ties with self-direction provided at least a partial explanation
for the negative associations that psychopathy, sadism, and
spitefulness had with task performance) but no support for
Hypothesis 5 (difficulties in interpersonal functioning did
not mediate the associations that the dark personality features
had with task performance).
Contextual Performance The results of the analysis for contex-
tual performance are presented in Fig. 2. Narcissism, sadism,
and spitefulness each had significant zero-order correlations
with contextual performance but sadism and spitefulness did
not have direct associations with contextual performance when
the other dark personality features and difficulties with person-
ality functioning were included in the same model. However,
the positive association that narcissism had with contextual
performance persisted when the other variables were included
in the model and a negative direct association between
Machiavellianism and contextual performance emerged when
the other variables were included in the model. As with the
analysis for task performance, this analysis found that difficul-
ties in self-direction was the only indicator of personality func-
tioning to be associated with contextual performance. Tests of
mediation for contextual performance were highly consistent
with the results for task performance such that psychopathy
(a 3,2 b 2 = −0.04, SE = 0.01, z = −3.29, p = .001, 95% CI
[−0.06, −0.02]), sadism (a4,2b2 = −0.04, SE = 0.01, z = −3.43,
p < .001, 95% CI [−0.06, −0.02]), and spitefulness (a5,2b2 =
−0.07, SE = 0.02, z = −3.89, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.11, −0.04])
had negative indirect associations with contextual performance
through difficulties with self-direction, whereas narcissism and
Machiavellianism did not have indirect associations with con-
textual performance through difficulties with self-direction.
None of the dark personality features had indirect associations
with contextual performance through the other indicators of
personality functioning. Taken together, these results revealed
partial support for Hypothesis 2 (Machiavellianism had a
unique negative association with contextual performance,
whereas narcissism had an unexpected positive association
with contextual performance) and Hypothesis 4 (difficulties
with self-direction provided at least a partial explanation for
the negative associations that psychopathy, sadism, and spite-
fulness had with contextual performance) but no support for
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444
Hypothesis 5 (difficulties in interpersonal functioning did not
mediate the associations that the dark personality features had
with contextual performance).
Counter-Productive Work Behavior The results of the analysis
for counter-productive work behaviors are presented in Fig. 3.
Although Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and spite-
fulness each had positive zero-order correlations with counter-
productive work behavior, psychopathy was the only dark
personality feature to have a unique direct association with
counter-productive work behavior when the other dark per-
sonality features and difficulties with personality functioning
were included in the same model. Difficulties with identity
was the only indicator of personality functioning to be asso-
ciated with counter-productive work behavior. Tests of medi-
ation found that Machiavellianism (a2,2b1 = 0.04, SE = 0.01,
z = 4.07, p < .001, 95% CI [0.03, 0.07]), psychopathy
(a3,2b1 = 0.06, SE = 0.01, z = 4.36, p < .001, 95% CI [0.03,
0.08]), sadism (a4,2b1 = 0.05, SE = 0.01, z = 4.58, p < .001,
95% CI [0.03, 0.08]), and spitefulness (a5,2b1 = 0.06, SE =
0.01, z = 4.83, p < .001, 95% CI [0.04, 0.09]) had positive
indirect associations with counter-productive work behaviors
through difficulties with identity, whereas narcissism did not
have an indirect association with counter-productive work be-
havior through difficulties with identity. None of the dark
personality features had indirect associations with counter-
productive work behaviors through the other indicators of
personality functioning. Taken together, these results revealed
partial support for Hypothesis 3 (only psychopathy had a
unique positive association with counter-productive work be-
havior) and Hypothesis 4 (difficulties with identity provided at
least a partial explanation for the positive associations that
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness
had with counter-productive work behavior) but no support
for Hypothesis 5 (difficulties in interpersonal functioning did
not mediate the associations that the dark personality features
had with counter-productive work behavior).1
1
We also conducted a series of supplementary analyses in which each dark
personality trait was entered as a predictor in separate mediational models due
to concerns that having correlated predictor variables in the same model may
lead to difficulty interpreting the associations that the residualized versions of
the dark personality traits had with the other variables (e.g., Lynam et al. 2006;
Sleep et al. 2017). In addition, separate analyses were conducted for each
mediator due to concerns that including each of the difficulties with personality
functioning in the same analysis may make it difficult to interpret the associ-
ations that residualized versions of the mediators had with workplace out-
comes. These supplementary mediational analyses found similar results for
narcissism such that it did not have significant indirect associations with work-
place outcomes through any of the indicators of personality functioning when
evaluated in these simple models. However, these supplementary analyses
revealed that the other dark personality features (i.e., Machiavellianism, psy-
chopathy, sadism, and spitefulness) had indirect associations with the work-
place outcomes through each of the indicators of personality functioning in
these simple models. The differences in the results between these two analytic
strategies highlight the considerable difficulty that is involved in identifying
unique associations in relatively complex models.
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444 5437

Fig. 2 The results of the multiple mediation analysis for contextual performance. Note. The solid black arrows represent significant positive associations.
The dashed black arrows represent significant negative associations. The dotted grey lines represent nonsignificant associations. *p < .001

Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine whether the
associations that dark personality features had with workplace
outcomes were mediated by difficulties in personality func-
tioning. The results were somewhat consistent with our hy-
potheses. As expected, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sa-
dism, and spitefulness had positive zero-order correlations
with each of the difficulties in personality functioning. The
similarities in these associations are consistent with the argu-
ment that these dark personality features share certain essen-
tial features (e.g., interpersonal manipulation and callousness;
Marcus et al. 2018) or may be specific manifestations of a
common Dark Factor of Personality (Moshagen et al. 2018).
These associations largely persisted even when the other dark
personality features were included in the same analysis sug-
gesting that these positive associations were unique. The only
exception was that the association between Machiavellianism
and difficulties with self-direction was not significant when
the other variables were included in the analysis. In contrast,
narcissism was not associated with any of the difficulties in
personality functioning which is consistent with previous ob-
servations that narcissism is often not quite as “dark” as
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness
(see Zeigler-Hill and Marcus 2019, for an extended discus-
sion). This general pattern suggests that sadism and spiteful-
ness were similar to the Dark Triad personality features but
were not completely redundant with them.
5438 Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444

Fig. 3 The results of the multiple mediation analysis for counter-productive work behavior. Note. The solid black arrows represent significant positive
associations. The dashed black arrows represent significant negative associations. The dotted grey lines represent nonsignificant associations. *p < .001

The results of the mediational analyses revealed that the
difficulties in self-functioning – but not difficulties in interper-
sonal functioning – sometimes mediated the associations that
dark personality features had with workplace outcomes. This
suggests that difficulties in self-functioning may be important
mechanisms for understanding how dark personality features
actually produce particular patterns of behaviors and attitudes
in the workplace. More specifically, difficulties with self-
direction mediated the associations that psychopathy, sadism,
and spitefulness had with task performance and contextual
performance, whereas difficulties with identity mediated the
associations that Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and
spitefulness had with counter-productive work behaviors.
Although difficulties with empathy and intimacy did not
mediate the associations that dark personality features had
with workplace outcomes, it is quite possible that these diffi-
culties in interpersonal functioning would play important roles
in the connections that dark personality features have with
outcomes in other life domains (e.g., romantic relationship
functioning).
Future research should consider the extent to which con-
textual factors may moderate the associations that dark per-
sonality features have with workplace outcomes (see O’Boyle
et al. 2012, for an extended discussion of the importance of
contextual factors). Although dark personality features are
often associated with negative workplace outcomes, they
may actually be advantageous in particular organizational
contexts (e.g., Smith et al. 2018; Unger-Aviram et al. 2018).
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444
For example, there is often a negative association between
narcissism and job satisfaction (Kopelman and Mullins
1992) but individuals with high levels of narcissism actually
report higher levels of job satisfaction than others when they
work in sales positions (Soyer et al. 1999) or jobs that provide
them with autonomy and prestige (Jonason et al. 2015). It is
also possible that the amount of time that an individual has
spent in a particular employment setting may be important.
One possibility is that dark personality features may be less
detrimental during the early phases of employment because
colleagues and supervisors may have more difficulty detecting
the self-serving and manipulative behavioral patterns that
characterize these individuals. Another possibility is that indi-
viduals may actually benefit from more time in particular or-
ganizational environments because they need time to under-
stand how to navigate the organization. However, studies that
have examined the possibility that the amount of time that an
individual has been with a particular organization moderates
the associations that dark personality features have with work
outcomes have revealed somewhat inconsistent results (e.g.,
Dahling et al. 2009; Zettler and Solga 2013).2 Another con-
textual feature that may be important to consider in future
research is perceived organizational support because Palmer
et al. (2017) recently found that individuals with high levels of
Dark Triad personality features engaged in fewer counter-
productive work behaviors when they perceived their organi-
zations to be supportive. This pattern is consistent with the
idea that contextual factors such as perceived organizational
support may attenuate or inhibit the expression of behaviors
associated with certain personality features (i.e., trait
activation theory; Tett and Burnett 2003).
Another interesting possibility for future research is that
curvilinear associations may exist between dark personality
features and workplace outcomes. That is, intermediate
levels of these dark personality features may actually be
beneficial in certain contexts including occupational settings.
Consistent with this possibility, Zettler and Solga (2013)
found that Machiavellianism and job performance had an
inverted-U-shaped association such that moderate levels of
Machiavellianism predicted better job performance than either
low levels of Machiavellianism or high levels of
Machiavellianism. However, it is important to note that there
was an asymmetry to this inverted-U-shaped association such
that individuals with moderate levels of Machiavellianism
2
We collected information concerning the amount of time that participants
had been employed in their current positions. Preliminary analyses included
the amount of time participants had been employed in their current positions as
a potential moderator of the mediational associations that the dark personality
features had with workplace outcomes through the difficulties in personality
functioning but this variable did not moderate the results reported above (i.e.,
there was no evidence of moderated mediation). We decided not to include
these analyses in the interest of parsimony.
5439
reported only slightly better job performance than individuals
with low levels of Machiavellianism but individuals with both
low and moderate levels of Machiavellianism reported much
better job performance than those with high levels of
Machiavellianism. This suggests the intriguing possibility that
dark personality features may be beneficial in moderate
amounts but that “too much” or “too little” may be problem-
atic (see Grant and Schwartz 2011, for an extended discussion
of nonmonotonic effects in psychology).3
It would also be beneficial for future research to consider
the role that other individual differences may play in moder-
ating the associations that dark personality features have with
workplace outcomes. For example, it has been argued that
individuals with dark personality features are most likely to
be successful with enacting their agendas when they also pos-
sess characteristics such as high levels of intelligence (e.g.,
Powell and Gifford 2017). Similarly, it has been shown that
characteristics such as socio-emotional intelligence (Nagler
et al. 2014) and political skills (Baloch et al. 2017) play im-
portant roles in how successfully individuals with dark per-
sonality features navigate their social environments. Further, it
would be helpful to gain a better understanding of the exact
motives and perceptions that underlie the connections that
dark personality features have with workplace outcomes. For
example, narcissism is associated with the motivation to attain
status (e.g., Zeigler-Hill et al. 2018, 2019) which may provide
at least a partial explanation for its association with contextual
performance. This is potentially important because there is
growing recognition that personality traits may often function
as something akin to “channels” for the expression of partic-
ular motives (e.g., Spain et al. 2014).
Work performance indicators – such as task performance,
contextual performance and counter-productive work behav-
ior – are major concerns in contemporary organizations that
contend with multiple and dynamic challenges (Cummings
and Worley 2014). Our results revealed a variety of associa-
tions between the dark personality features and work perfor-
mance indicators. These results may have important implica-
tions for organizations that are interested in improving em-
ployee performance. Organizations typically invest significant
resources in human resource management, including training
and development (Noe et al. 2016). Our results suggest that it
may be helpful for these sorts of training and development
activities to be geared more specifically to employees based
on their particular personality features and difficulties in per-
sonality functioning. For example, training and development
activities that focus on helping employees who experience
difficulties with self-direction to enhance these abilities may
be highly beneficial. Further, our results may contribute to a
3
We conducted exploratory curvilinear analyses but we did not find any
evidence that the dark personality features had curvilinear associations with
the difficulties in personality functioning or the workplace outcomes.
5440
deeper understanding of the links between the personality
traits of employees and problematic organizational phenome-
na that are typically understood in terms of macro-level con-
cepts such as organizational culture. Position holders in con-
temporary labor markets should be aware of the potential im-
portance that personality traits in general – and dark person-
ality features in particular – may have for decision making
processes regarding human resource management. In addi-
tion, given that managers themselves are influenced by their
own personality features, it follows that managerial behavior
may be less rationalistic than is typically assumed (see
Tengblad 2012, for an extended discussion). Although diffi-
culties with empathy and intimacy did not mediate the asso-
ciations that dark personality features had with the workplace
outcomes examined in the present study, it is quite possible
that these difficulties in interpersonal functioning could play
vital roles in the connections that dark personality features
have with other workplace outcomes such as those concerning
team performance, perceived leadership potential, and work-
place morale.
The present study had a number of strengths (e.g., a large
sample, a broad view of dark personality features) but it is
important to acknowledge some of its potential limitations.
The first limitation is that the direction of causality between
the dark personality features, difficulties in personality func-
tioning, and workplace outcomes is unclear due to the corre-
lational nature of the data. We assumed that dark personality
features would lead to difficulties in personality functioning
that, in turn, would influence particular workplace outcomes.
However, this causal sequence cannot be established using the
present cross-sectional data (see Maxwell and Cole 2007, for
an extended discussion of the limitations of cross-sectional
mediation). For example, it is possible that workplace out-
comes may actually precede the development of particular
dark personality features rather than dark personality features
leading to workplace outcomes. Future research should at-
tempt to gain a better understanding of the causal links be-
tween dark personality features, difficulties in personality
functioning, and workplace outcomes by using experimental
designs or longitudinal studies.
The second limitation of this study concerns the diffi-
culties that are inherent with analytic approaches that at-
tempt to identify the unique associations that correlated
variables have with each other (see Lynam et al. 2006 or
Sleep et al. 2017, for extended discussions of this “perils of
partialling” issue). For example, our primary analyses re-
vealed that difficulties with self-direction was the only in-
dicator of personality functioning to have unique associa-
tions with task performance and contextual performance,
whereas difficulties with identity was the only indicator of
personality functioning to have a unique association with
counter-productive work behavior. However, supplementa-
ry analyses that involved separate analyses for each
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444
indicator of personality functioning found that each of
these potential mediators was associated with workplace
outcomes (see Footnote 1). Although it can certainly be
beneficial to use data analytic strategies that control for
the influence of other related variables, there are also con-
cerns associated with the use of residualized variables in
these analyses (e.g., how should the residualized version of
difficulties with self-direction be interpreted after remov-
ing the overlapping variance it shares with the other indi-
cators of personality functioning?). This is an important
issue that deserves additional consideration in future
research.
The third limitation is that the present study relied exclu-
sively on self-report measures of dark personality features,
difficulties in personality functioning, and workplace out-
comes which raises the possibility that these findings may
have been influenced to at least some extent by socially desir-
able responding. For example, it is possible that some individ-
uals may have been reluctant to acknowledge their dark per-
sonality features due to concerns about self-presentation or
may have had limited insight into the difficulties they experi-
ence in certain areas of personality functioning. Future re-
search would benefit from utilizing strategies that are designed
to capture dark personality features, difficulties in personality
functioning, and workplace outcomes that are not completely
reliant on self-report (e.g., observer ratings made by fellow
employees or supervisors, objective indicators of workplace
outcomes).
The fourth limitation is that the present study focused on
unidimensional conceptualizations of the dark personality
features even though some of these features are almost
certainly multidimensional. For example, there has been
considerable debate concerning the dimensionality of nar-
cissism. These debates have dealt with issues such as the
existence of both grandiose and vulnerable forms of nar-
cissism (e.g., Miller et al. 2011) as well as the possibility
that there may be agentic and antagonistic expressions of
grandiose narcissism (e.g., Back et al. 2013). The dimen-
sionality of these dark personality features is potentially
important because some studies have found different facets
of the same dark personality feature to have divergent as-
sociations with workplace outcomes (e.g., Grijalva and
Newman 2015). A related concern is that the instrument
we used to capture difficulties in personality functioning is
relatively new and has yet to develop a substantial research
base. It is important for future research to continue exam-
ining the psychometric properties of this instrument (e.g.,
its factor structure) as well as its connections with the dark
personality features examined in the present study.
The fifth limitation of the present study is that the general-
izability of the present results is unknown due to our reliance
on participants from a single culture (i.e., Israel). It is unclear,
for example, whether similar associations between dark
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444
personality features, difficulties in personality functioning,
and workplace outcomes would emerge in other cultures or
if this pattern is specific to Israelis. Given the conceptual sim-
ilarity to previous studies examining the connections between
dark personality features and workplace outcomes in other
cultures (e.g., Spain and Harms 2018), it seems likely that
these results would emerge in other cultures such as the
United States but this is an open empirical question that
should be addressed in future studies. However, we have no
reason to believe that the results depend on other characteris-
tics of the participants, materials, or context (Simons et al.
2017). Despite these limitations, we believe the present study
expands our knowledge about the role that difficulties in per-
sonality functioning may play in the connections that dark
personality features have with workplace outcomes.
Conclusion
The results of the present study revealed that
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness
were often associated with difficulties in personality function-
ing concerning impairments in self-functioning (i.e., difficul-
ties with identity, difficulties with self-direction) and interper-
sonal functioning (i.e., difficulties with empathy, difficulties
with intimacy). As expected, the difficulties in personality
functioning often mediated the associations that the dark per-
sonality features had with workplace outcomes. More specif-
ically, difficulties with self-direction mediated the associations
that psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness had with task per-
formance and contextual performance, whereas difficulties
with identity mediated the associations that
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness
had with counter-productive work behaviors. Taken together,
these results are consistent with the possibility that difficulties
with identity and self-direction may be two of the mechanisms
that allow dark personality features to actually “get outside the
skin” (Hampson 2012) and produce particular patterns of be-
haviors and attitudes in the workplace.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical Statement All procedures performed in studies involving hu-
man participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the
institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical stan-
dards. All materials and procedures for this research were approved by the
Institutional Review Board of Sapir Academic College.
Conflict of Interests On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
5441
References
Ali, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). The dark side of love and life
satisfaction: Associations with intimate relationships, psychopathy
and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48,
228–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.016.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Publishing.
Back, M. D., Küfner, A. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F.,
& Denissen, J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry:
Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013–1037. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0034431.
Baloch, M. A., Meng, F., Xu, Z., Cepeda-Carrion, I., & Bari, M. W.
(2017). Dark triad, perceptions of organizational politics and coun-
terproductive work behaviors: The moderating effect of political
skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1972. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.01972.
Barlett, C. P., & Barlett, N. D. (2015). The young and the restless:
Examining the relationships between age, emerging adulthood var-
iables, and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences,
86, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.024.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimen-
sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology,
44, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.
Bechtoldt, M. N., Welk, C., Zapf, D., & Hartig, J. (2007). Main and
moderating effects of self-control, organizational justice, and emo-
tional labour on counterproductive behaviour at work. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 479–500.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701662618.
Blair, C. A., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. R. (2008). Narcissism in
organizations: A multisource appraisal reflects different perspec-
tives. Human Performance, 21, 254–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08959280802137705.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N.
Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in
organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Behavioral confir-
mation of everyday sadism. Psychological Science, 24, 2201–2209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613490749.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in
industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L.
M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 687–732). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G.
(2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource
Management Review, 21, 268–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.
2010.10.007.
Chabrol, H., Van Leeuwen, N., Rodgers, R., & Séjourné, N. (2009).
Contributions of psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sa-
distic personality traits to juvenile delinquency. Personality and
Individual Differences, 47, 734–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2009.06.020.
Cohen, A. (2016). Are they among us? A conceptual framework of the
relationship between the dark triad personality and counterproduc-
tive work behaviors (CWBs). Human Resource Management
Review, 26, 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.07.003.
Cohen, A., & Abedallah, M. (2015). The mediating role of burnout on the
relationship of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy with OCB
and performance. Management Research Review, 38, 2–28. https://
doi.org/10.1108/MRR-10-2013-0238.
5442
Cohen, A., & Diamant, A. (2017). The role of justice perceptions in
determining counterproductive work behaviors. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09585192.2017.1340321.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. (2014). Organization development and
change (10th ed.). Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development
and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of
M a n a g e m e n t , 3 5 , 2 1 9 – 2 5 7 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 11 7 7 /
0149206308318618.
Ewing, D., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Vonk, J. (2016). Spitefulness and deficits in
the social-perceptual and social-cognitive components of theory of
mind. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 7–13. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.050.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of
personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 7, 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018.
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The
challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1745691610393523.
Grijalva, E., & Newman, D. A. (2015). Narcissism and counterproductive
work behavior (CWB): Meta-analysis and consideration of collec-
tivist culture, big five personality, and narcissism’s facet structure.
Applied Psychology, 64, 93–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.
12025.
Hampson, S. E. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which
personality traits “get outside the skin”. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
120710-100419.
Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development
and the dark side of personality. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 495–509.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.007.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York:
Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F., Montoya, A. K., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). The analysis of
mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural
equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25, 76–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people
in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.
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. https://doi.org/10.
1002/per.698.
Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The dark triad at work:
How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 449–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.
008.
Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The dark
triad and self-control. Personality and Individual Differences, 49,
611–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.031.
Jonason, P. K., Wee, S., & Li, N. P. (2015). Competition, autonomy, and
prestige: Mechanisms through which the dark triad predict job sat-
isfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 112–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.026.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1893.
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, re-
search, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 249–268).
New York: Wiley.
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad
(SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21,
28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105.
Jones, G. E., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1996). An experimental examination of
the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical behav-
ioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 15,
511–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_33.
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abun-
dantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self-and other
perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contex-
tual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and
complex task performance: Two routes to leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)
00142-X.
Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., Nelson, C.
E., & Penney, L. M. (2010). Re-examining Machiavelli: A three-
dimensional model of Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1868–1896. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00643.x.
Koopmans, L., Bemaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., van Buuren, S., van
der Beek, A. J., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2014). Improving the individual
work performance questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Journal of
Applied Measurement, 15, 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-
2013-101717.51.
Kopelman, R. E., & Mullins, L. S. (1992). Is narcissism inversely related
to satisfaction? An examination of data from two US samples.
Journal of Psychology, 126, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223980.1992.10543346.
Lynam, D. R., Hoyle, R. H., & Newman, J. P. (2006). The perils of
partialling: Cautionary tales from aggression and psychopathy.
A s s e s s m e n t , 1 3 , 3 2 8 – 3 4 1 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 11 7 7 /
1073191106290562.
Marcus, D. K., & Norris, A. L. (2016). Spite. In V. Zeigler-Hill & D. K.
Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality: Science and practice in
social, personality, and clinical psychology (pp. 121–133).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Marcus, D. K., Preszler, J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2018). A network of dark
personality traits: What lies at the heart of darkness? Journal of
Research in Personality, 73, 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.
2017.11.003.
Marcus, D. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). A big tent of dark personality
traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 434–446.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12185.
Marcus, D. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mercer, S., & Norris, A. L. (2014). The
psychology of spite and the measurement of spitefulness.
Psychological Assessment, 26, 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0036039.
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of
longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23–44. https://
doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.12.1.23.
Merkin, R. S. (2006). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test of the
Hofstede model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
30, 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.08.001.
Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., &
Keith Campbell, W. (2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A
nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79, 1013–
1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x.
Morey, L. C. (2017). Development and initial evaluation of a self-report
form of the DSM-5 level of personality functioning scale.
Psychological Assessment, 29, 1302–1308. https://doi.org/10.
1037/pas0000450.
Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2018). The dark core of
personality. Psychological Review, 125, 656–688. https://doi.org/
10.1037/rev0000111.
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444
Nagler, U. K., Reiter, K. J., Furtner, M. R., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2014). Is
there a “dark intelligence”? Emotional intelligence is used by dark
personalities to emotionally manipulate others. Personality and
Individual Differences, 65, 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2014.01.025.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2016).
Human resource management (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Education.
O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012).
A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social ex-
change perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679.
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 five-factor model of personality. Journal of
Personality, 83, 644–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12126.
Palmer, J. C., Komarraju, M., Carter, M. Z., & Karau, S. J. (2017). Angel
on one shoulder: Can perceived organizational support moderate the
relationship between the dark triad traits and counterproductive
work behavior? Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 31–
37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.018.
Paulhus, D. L., & Dutton, D. G. (2016). Everyday sadism. In V. Zeigler-
Hill & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality: Science
and practice in social, personality, and clinical psychology (pp.
109–120). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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.
Plouffe, R. A., Saklofske, D. H., & Smith, M. M. (2017). The assessment
of sadistic personality: Preliminary psychometric evidence for a new
measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 166–171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.043.
Powell, M., & Gifford, J. (2017). Machiavellian intelligence: How to
survive and rise in the modern corporation. New York: LID
Publishing.
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred
years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of
General Psychology, 7, 331–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-
2680.7.4.331.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of
performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.66.
Rouhana, N. N., & Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Psychological dynamics of intrac-
table enthnonational conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian case.
American Psychologist, 53, 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066X.53.7.761.
Sagy, S., Orr, E., Bar-On, D., & Awwad, E. (2001). Individualism and
collectivism in two conflicted societies: Comparing Israeli-Jewish
and Palestinian-Arab high school students. Youth and Society, 33, 3–
30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X01033001001.
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do corre-
lations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in
organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member ex-
change, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 219–227. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2406773.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-
experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
5443
Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037//
1082-989X.7.4.422.
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on gener-
ality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 1123–1128. https://doi.
org/10.31234/osf.io/w9e3r.
Sleep, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Miller, J. D. (2017). Perils of
partialing redux: The case of the dark triad. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 126, 939–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000278.
Smith, M. B., Hill, A. D., Wallace, J. C., Recendes, T., & Judge, T. A.
(2018). Upsides to dark and downsides to bright personality: A
multidomain review and future research agenda. Journal of
M a n a g e m e n t , 4 4 , 1 9 1 – 2 1 7 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 11 7 7 /
0149206317733511.
Soyer, R. B., Rovenpor, J. L., & Kopelman, R. E. (1999). Narcissism and
achievement motivation as related to three facets of the sales role:
Attraction, satisfaction and performance. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 14, 285–304.
Spain, S. M., & Harms, P. D. (2018). Dark personality features of em-
ployment. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of personality and individual differences, Applications of
personality and individual differences (Vol. 3, pp. 518–536).
London: SAGE.
Spain, S. M., Harms, P. D., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). The dark side of
personality at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 41–60.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1894.
Tengblad, S. (2012). Overcoming the rationalistic fallacy in management
research. In S. Tengblad (Ed.), The work of managers: Towards a
practice theory of management (pp. 3–17). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based
interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 500–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.
500.
Unger-Aviram, E., Zeigler-Hill, V., Barina, M., & Besser, A. (2018).
Narcissism, collective efficacy, and satisfaction in self-managed
teams: The moderating role of team goal orientation. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 22, 172–186. https://
doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000089.
Vonk, J., Zeigler-Hill, V., Ewing, D., Mercer, S., & Noser, A. E. (2015).
Mindreading in the dark: Dark personality features and theory of
mind. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 50–54. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.025.
Wai, M., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic
nature of the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 794–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.
008.
Wright, Z. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2018). Pathological personality traits:
The movement toward dimensional approaches to psychopathology.
In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE handbook
of personality and individual differences, The science of personality
and individual differences (Vol. 1, pp. 409–438). London: SAGE.
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Marcus, D. K. (2016). The dark side of personality:
Science and practice in social, personality, and clinical psychology.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Marcus, D. K. (2019). The dark side of personality:
Building on Paulhus and Williams (2002). In P. J. Corr (Ed.),
Personality and individual differences: Revisiting the classic studies
(pp. 245–262). London: SAGE.
Zeigler-Hill, V., McCabe, G. A., Vrabel, J. K., Raby, C. M., & Cronin, S.
(2018). The narcissistic pursuit of status. In A. D. Hermann, A. B.
Brunell, & J. D. Foster (Eds.), The handbook of trait narcissism: Key
5444
advances, research methods, and controversies (pp. 299–306). New
York: Springer.
Zeigler-Hill, V., Southard, A. C., & Besser, A. (2014). Resource control
strategies and personality traits. Personality and Individual
Differences, 66, 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.037.
Zettler, I., & Solga, M. (2013). Not enough of a ‘dark’ trait? Linking
Machiavellianism to job performance. European Journal of
Personality, 27, 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1912.
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:5430–5444
Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., McCabe, G. A., Cosby, C. A., Traeder, C.
K., Hobbs, K. A., & Southard, A. C. (2019). Narcissism and the
pursuit of status. Journal of Personality, 87, 310–327. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jopy.12392.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Current Psychology is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved.