lileyesus, T., Swahn, M., &07). Differences in frequencyd reported injury betweenth reciprocal and nonrecipro­ner violence. American JOU171QJ

17,941-947.

Hamerschlag, S. J. (2005).minants in intimate partner,ion and Violent Behavior, 10,

,e,1. H. (2005). Patterns of vic­i, psychological distress, andm in a national sample oimenRoles, 52, 771-784.ender differences in the inten­aggressive action at home

,lace. Aggressive Behavior, 32,

15DIFFERENTIATING THEDARK TRIAD WITHIN THEINTERPERSONAL CIRCUMPLEX

Daniel N. Jones

Delroy L. Paulhus

he why and what of intimatethe partners' divergent per­

l aggression. Journal a/Family168.oward an interactional per­ate partner violence. Aggres­,havior, 12, 348-363.Is, Z. (2008). Motives and)ry conflicts in intimate Rela­n and Youth Services Review,

sson, D. M., & Horwood, L.J.elationships of young peopleld adolescent onset antisocial<s. Journal of Abnonnal Child-243.(1988). Feminist perspectives

ely Hills: Sage.

influential distinctionpart of a general pat­

on stemming from stableracteristics of the peepe­as patriarchal or intimafetutual lower-level rrVdyadic and situational~o as common couple vio­l the same limitations.

INTRODUCTION

The Dark Triad of personality consists ofthree conceptually distinct, but empiricallyoverlapping constructs: Machiavellianism,narcissism, and psychopathy (Paullius &Williams, 2002). Psychopathy is a personal­itytrait characterized by callousness, impul­sive thrill-seeking, and criminal behavior.Narcissism, on the other hand, is associatedwith grandiosity, egocentrism, and a senseof personal entitlement. Machiavellianismis marked by strategic manipulation. Al­though conceptually distinct, all threeproject onto Quadrant 2 of the interpersonalcircumplex. In this chapter, we investigatewhich aspects of the dark personalities canbe captured witilin interpersonal space andwhich cannot. We conclude that additionalmoderating variables are necessary to eluci­date the distinctive behavioral style of theDark Triad members.

To begin, we examine and then refutethe notion that these three personalities arethe same construct. Our refutation drawsOn a review of recent empirical evidenceshOwing key differences. To determinethe fundamental roots of these differences,

249

we return to the seminal theorists of eachconstruct and uncover two systematic mod­erators: temporal orientation and identityneed. We go on to discuss in detail severalnew studies supporting the efficacy ofthese two moderators for differentiating theDark Triad. We conclude with an attemptto integrate the two moderators withininterpersonal theory.

If successful, this approach will permit usto predict the distinct behavioral patterns ofthe Dark Triad without losing sight of theiroverlapping nature. At a broader level, weseek to articulate what it may mean forpersonality variables to share sinlilar inter­personal space while displaying differentbehavioral manifestations.

UNIFICATIONIST THEORIES

Not all researchers agree that it is worth­while to discriminate the Dark Triad. Evi­dence for that unificationist position canbe organized into three sources: circumplexresearch, trait research, and evolutionaryarguments. In each of the three subsectionsbelow, we provide the strongest case for theunificationist position.

250 HANDBOOK OF INTERPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15 • DlFFERENTIA

Evidence From Circumplex Research

In terms popularized by Bakan (1966), twobasic themes trnderlie social interactions:agency (getting ahead) and communion(getting along). When positioned as the axesof a two-dimensional space, agency andcommunion provide a powerful frameworkfor representing individual differences inboth normal and abnormal behavior (Leary,1957). A plot of all possible blends of thetwo tendencies maps out a circular patternnow known as the interpersonal circumplex(e.g., Wiggins, 1979). The same circular pat­tern emerges whether the plotted variablesare trait adjectives (Gurtman, & Pincus,2000; Wiggins & Broughton, 1985), traitstatements (P. M. Markey & Markey, 2009),motives (Locke, 2000), values (Trapnell& Paulhus, in press), or interpersonalproblems (Horowitz, Alden, Wiggins, &Pincus, 2000). The blends are held tocapture more than the weighted sum ofthe two motives: Each quadrant representsa unique interpersonal perspective (for arecent review, seeHorowitz, 2004a).

For example, Quadrant 2 of the inter­personal circumplex (Le., high-agency low­communion) is inhabited by individualsvariously characterized as arrogant, calcu­lating, callous, and manipulative. Anotherlabel, unmitigated agency, highlights theemphasis on personal achievement to theneglect of interpersonal connectedness. Asindicated in Figure 15.1, circumplex pro­jections invariably land the Dark Triad ofpersonalities in Quadrant 2.

To date, only a handful of studies havesimultaneously projected all three of theDark Triad onto the circumplex (Paulhus,2001, August). Those studies confirmedthe location of the Dark Triad as depictedin Figure 15.1. Many other studies haveincluded one or two of the Dark Triad inthe context of the circumplex. We discussthe evidence for each triad member one ata time.

Psychupathy. As a rule, personality dis­orders with antisocial implications tend tofall in Quadrant 2 of the circumplex (e.g.,

Dominant

Indifferent 1----...,1-----1 Nurturant

Submissive

FIGURE 15.1 Typical Location of the Dark Triad onthe Interpersonal Circumplex N = narcissism; P =psychopathy; M = Machiavellianism.

Pincus, 2006; Ruiz, Dickinson, & Pincus,2002; Strack & Lorr, 1994). This pattern holdsforseli-reportmeasuresofpsychopathyco~

lected onnormal samples, that is, subclinicalpsychopathy (Blackburn & Maybury, 1985;Hicklin & Widiger, 2005; Salekin, Trobst, &Krioukova, 2001). The same pattern holdswhether the circumplex is represented interms of traits, values, or motives. Thissame circumplex location has even beenfotrnd in adolescent psychopaths (Salekin,Leistico, Trobst, Schrum, & Lochman, 2005)suggesting a developmental continuity ofpsychopathic traits.

Machiavellianism. The same circumplexpattern has been fotrnd for Machiavellian­ism (see Jones & Paulhus, 2009). Measuresof the construct are invariably positivelycorrelated with agency and negativelycorrelated with commtrnion, thus locatingthem in Quadrant 2 of the interpersonal cir­cumplex of traits (Gurtrnan, 1992; Wiggins& Broughton, 1985) or values (Trapnell &Paulhus, in press).

Narcissism. Finally, narcissism (as mea~

sured with the Narcissistic PersonalityInventory) shows the same pattern ofassociations with agency and communion(Bradlee & Emmons, 1992; Emmons, 1987;Ruiz, Smith, & Rhodewalt, 2001). Theoverall pattern was partially corroboratedby Rhodewalt and Morf (1995), who found

that total NFl score,with communion, butwith agency.J Surruthe relevant researdnarcissism is associatweakly) with commtwith agency. Again, i1of the interpersonal cr

Summary. It is evidthat the circumplex Iavellianism and psyclidentical. Narcissism:loads more positivelycommunion. Nonethesage is that the Dar]fall in Quadrant 2 ofcumplex. This locatiolcircumplex is meaSUI

goals, values, or psycl

Evolutionary Psycholog

Several evolutionary t

that the Dark Triad ptive for the same r<

can be subsumed wilMealey (1995), for e>exploitative tendenciEpoint. A given populalimited number of subecause the advantagthem decreases as theIn making these argthe term psychopathyMachiavellianism.

Another evolutiolNear, and Miller (19(the notion that Machof a variety of societacolleagues argued tha society of noncheat'themselves to short-tafter which they rthey will be detectErepercussions will erof their actions (WilSI

A third group, BOIarticulated how indexploitative strategieboth impulsive aggJ

15 • DIFFERENTIATING mE DARK TRIAD WITHIN mE INTERPERSONAL CIRCUMPLEX 251

Dominant

N

-+-----1 NUrlurant

ubmissive

Location of the Dark Triad onumplex N = narcissism; P ::=

hiavellianisrn.

" Dickinson, & Pincus,1994). This pattern holdsures ofpsychopathy col­mples, that is, subclinical:burn & Maybury, 1985;2005; Salekin, Trobst, &[he same pattern holds1plex is represented inlues, or motives. ThisDcation has even beent psychopaths (Salekin,rum, & Lochman, 2005))pmental continuity of

The same circumplexund for Machiavellian­ulhus, 2009). Measures, invariably positively;ency and negativelymunion, thus locating)f the interpersonal cir­urtrnan, 1992; Wigginsor values (Trapnell &

" narcissism (as mea­lfcissistic Personalityhe same pattern ofmcy and communion1992; Emmons, 1987;

odewalt, 2001). TheJartially corroboratedorf (1995), who found

that total NFl scores were uncorrelatedwith communion, but positively associatedwith agency.! Sununarizing across allthe relevant research, we conclude thatnarcissism is associated negatively (albeitweakly) with communion and positivelywith agency. Again, it lands in Quadrant 2of the interpersonal circumplex.

Summary. It is evident from Figure 15.1that the circumplex projections of Machi­avellianism and psychopathy are virtuallyidentical. Narcissism is nearby, although itloads more positively on both agency andcommunion. Nonetheless, the overall mes­sage is that the Dark Triad members allfall in Quadrant 2 of the interpersonal cir­curnplex. This location applies whether thecircumplex is measured in terms of traits,goals, values, or psychological problems.

Evolutionary Psychology

Several evolutionary theorists have impliedthat the Dark Triad personalities are adap­tive for the same reason and, therefore,can be subsumed within a single concept.Mealey (1995), for example, detailed howexploitative tendencies can flourish up to apoint. A given population can sustain only alimited number of such chronic"cheaters"because the advantage conferred on each ofthem decreases as their frequency increases.In making these arguments, Mealey usesthe term psychopathy interchangeably withMachiavellianism.

Another evolutionary group, Wilson,Near, and Miller (1996), further reinforcedthe notion that Machiavellians are but oneof a variety of societal cheaters. Wilson andcolleagues argued that those who cheat ina society of noncheaters would best restrictthemselves to short-term social interaction,after which they move on. Otherwise,they will be detected and reported, andrepercussions will ensue as a consequenceof their actions (Wilson et. aI., 1996, p. 4).

A third group, Book and Quinsey (2004)articulated how individuals who pursueexploitative strategies have benefited fromboth in1pulsive aggression and a laclc of

empathy: the adaptiveness of this style hascreated and sustained psychopathy. Theauthors draw the distinction between theexploitative "cheater" and the impulsive"aggressor" (i.e., warrior-hawk). But theyconclude that the two would naturally havecoevolved to create a deceptive, aggressive,and in1pulsive character.

Other researchers have drawn on evolu­tionary theories to explain sin1ilar correlatesobtained with measures of the Dark Triad.Jonason, Li, Webster, and Schmitt (2009),for example, reported that all three of theDark Triad members were high in short­term mating. This finding is consistent witha previous report of similar (positive) cor­relations between Dark Triad members andrates of sexual activity (Harms, Williams,and Paulhus, 2001; Reise & Wright, 1996).The latter writers, however, argued thatthese similar associations ensued from dif­ferent strategies and motivations.

Jonason and colleagues also reported nocorrelation between each member of theDark Triad and long-term mating. Morerecent research has not supported thesefindings, suggesting instead that the DarkTriad members actually have very differentlong-term mating strategies as well as othersexual behaviors Gones & Paulhus, 2010c).

The Jonason data found modest cor­relations among the Dark Triad (.28, .39,.20)-values that are similar to those fromother studies. Surprisingly, Jonason andcolleagues concluded that these modestassociations provided evidence that theDark Triad are interchangeable.

Evidence From Trait Approaches

Other researchers have been led by traitresearch to conclude that members of theDark Triad are simply three labels for pre­viously established personality constructs.

For example, in a series of studies,McHoskey, Worzel, and Szyarto (1998)compared various members of the DarkTriad to a variety of personality correlates.Dark Triad measures overlapped substan­tially and shared similar relationships to

252 HANDBOOK OF INTERPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15 • DlFFERENTIATING 1

variables such as disinhibition, forcefulness,self-reported antisocial behavior, prosocialbehavior, and cooperativeness. All threewere negatively related to impression man­agement. McHoskey and colleagues con­cluded that Machiavellianism is nothingmore than a mild form of psychopathy.

Evidence for unifying the Dark Triadcan also be found in Big Five research.The most common finding is that all threemembers score low on agreeableness (Egan,2009; ]akobwitz & Egan, 2006; Paulhus,2001; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Vernon,Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008; Widiger &Lynam, 1998). Although other personalitycorrelates have been found, the correlationbetween the Dark Triad and disagreeable­ness is robust and consistent.

Interestingly, the relation of the DarkTriad to fundamental personality traitsappears to shift under the six-factor model(Ashton et a!., 2004). Subsequent factor ana­lytic work by these researchers showed thatmeasures of the Dark Triad can jointly bedefined by a sixth personality factor calledhonesty-humility (Lee & Ashton, 2005). Theconvergence of the Dark Triad could not beexplained with the Big Five alone. Thus theconvergence of the Dark Triad memberson their sixth factor helped advance theauthors' "Big Six" model of personality(Lee & Ashton, 2005). InCidentally, theirfindings also support the unificationistview of the Dark Triad.

Summary

Research based on the interpersonalcircumplex appears to support the unifi­cationist position. All three members ofthe Dark Triad locate in Quadrant 2: Inother words, they score high on agencyand low on communion. In Big Five traitterms, they share a common element of dis­agreeableness. Finally, research within anevolutionary framework supports the uni­ficationist claim in that all three of the DarkTriad have a sexually promiscuous matingstyle. In sum, the unificationist argumentsoutlined in this section appear to justify

the allegation: Personality psycholOgistshave unwittingly been referring to the same(dark) wine in three different bottles 2

CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE:YES, THEY DO DIFFER!

We will dispute the unificationist claim bypointing to several key studies. Becauseof their overlap, The Dark Triad membersshould often show the same correlates. If,however, they show some distinctive corre­lates, that evidence should suffice to indicatethat the Dark Triad constructs require sepa­rate measurement.3

Even in the original paper, Paulhus andWilliams (2002) provided evidence thatthe Dark Triad members have distinctivecorrelates. For example, narcissism wasassociated with openness and extraversion,whereas the other two were not. Machiavel­lianism and psychopathy were negativelycorrelated with conscientiousness whereasnarcissism was not. ]akobowitz and Egan(2006) also showed differential correlatesamong the Dark Triad, although they werenot entirely consistent with those found byPaulhus and Williams (2002).

Differences in associations with self­enhancement were also evident in theoriginal Paulhus and Williams data. Nar­cissisism was associated with higherscores on two objective measures of self­enhancement. A small association wasobserved with psychopathy but no asso­ciation emerged for Machiavellianism.Interestingly, there were differences incognitive functioning as well: Those highin Machiavellianism and psychopathyhad higher than average verbal-nonverbaldiscrepancy scores, and those high innarcissism scored the highest on global1Q(Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

Dark Triad differences have alsoemerged with respect to antisocial behav­ior. Whereas psychopathy is a robustpredictor of delinquency, Machiavellianismand narcissism are not (Williams & Paul­hus, 2004). Psychopathy also is uniquely

associated with violent and atamment (Williams, McAlHarmS & Paulhus, 2001) anepiercings and tattoos (Natha& Williams, 2006a).

In relation to aggressionhas been established as a ,dictor across a range of conburn & Maybury, 1985; Pipolich, 1998; Reidy, Zeichm2008). This indiscriminant atrasts with research on Ma,which shows no overall asaggression, revenge, or violl& & Paulhus, 2004). Narcissibut only after provocation (B,ley, Benjamin, & Valentine, 2

Differences among the D,also emerged in work on betMachiaveIlianism has a sub'environment component wsism and psychopathy werealmost entirely by genetic ,environmental factors (VeVickers, & Harris, 2008).environment componentindividuals acquire Machiover time, and possess enouplasticity to adjust to their elcontrast, results with the oththe Dark Triad suggest a gen

The same research teamline of research in an eve]study addressing the origin'son (Campbell, Shermer, VillVernon, 2009). Machiavellia,chopathy share a positive pgenetic correlation with themoral development-that b,sonal interest schema" (e.g.do what benefits the self). Bychopathy was the only memlTriad correlated (negativelystages of abstract moral nfinding suggests that those tavellianism, unlilce those hig]thy, are not impaired in tlreason through moral dilemsee others' perspectives, bunonetheless.

15 • DIFFERENTIATING THE DARK TRIAD WITHIN THE INTERPERSONAL CIRCUMPLEX 253

nality psychologistsreferring to the samefferent bottles2

DENCE:

nificationist claim by:ey studies. BecauseDark Triad members~ same correlates. H,Ime distinctive carre­uld suffice to indicatelStructs require sepa-

paper, Paulhus andided evidence thatlers have distinctive,Ie, narcissism was~ss and extraversion,were not. Machiavel­thy were negatively~ntiousness whereaslkobowitz and Eganifferential correlates,although they werewith those found by[2002).leiations with self­Iso evident in theWilliams data. Nar­iated with higher'e measures of self­tIl association waspathy but no asso-

Machiavellianism.lere differences in"-S well: Those highand psychopathy

ge verbal-nonverbal,nd those high inrighest on global IQ002).rences have alsoto antisocial behav­,athy is a robusty, Machiavellianism, (Williams & Paul­ly also is uniquely

associated with viole,nt and antisocial enter­tainment (Williams, McAndrew, Learn,Barms & Paullms, 2001) and with sportingpiercings and tattoos (Nathanson, Paulhus,& Williams, 2006a).

In relation to aggression, psychopathyhas been established as a consistent pre­dictor across a range of conditions (Black­burn & Maybury, 1985; Patrick & Zem­polich, 1998; Reidy, Zeichner, & Martinez,2008). This indiscrinlinant aggression con­trasts with research on Machiavellianism,which shows no overall association withaggression, revenge, or violence (Williams& & Paulhus, 2004). Narcissists do aggress,but only after provocation (Bettencourt, Tal­ley, Benjanrin, & Valentine, 2006)4

Differences among the Dark Triad havealso emerged in work on behavior genetics.Machiavellianism has a substantial shared­environment component whereas narcis­sism and psychopathy were accounted foralmost entirely by genetic and nonsharedenvironmental factors (Vernon, Villani,Vickers, & Harris, 2008). The shared­environment component suggests thatindividuals acquire Machiavellian traitsOver time, and possess enough phenotypicplasticity to adjust to their environment. Incontrast, results with the other members ofthe Dark Triad suggest a genetic etiology.

The same research team extended thisline of research in an even more recentstudy addressing the origins of moral rea­Son (Campbell, Shermer, Villani, Vickers, &Vernon, 2009). Machiavellianism and psy­chopathy share a positive phenotypic andgenetic correlation with the lowest level ofmoral development-that based on a "per­sonal interest schema" (e.g., it is right todo what benefits the self). By contrast, psy­chopathy was the only member of the DarkTriad correlated (negatively) with higherstages of abstract moral reasoning. Thisfinding suggests that those high on Machi­avellianism, unlike those high in psychopa­thy, are not impaired in their ability toreason through moral dilemmas; they cansee others' perspectives, but act selfishlynonetheless.

Taken together, the studies in this sectionindicate that-contrary to the unificationistc1ainl-the Dark Triad members differ ininlportant ways. While helpful, those stud­ies do not specify the precise nature of thosedifferences.

Note that we are not arguing the DarkTriad members are entirely different-someoverlap does exist. Indeed, the range of datacited under the unificationist section abovepoints to substantial overlap. But what char­acteristics overlap? And what characteris­tics are distinct? To tease apart the array ofsimilarities and differences, we must returnto the conceptual roots of each Dark Triadmember.

A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW:GUIDED BY THE MASTERS

Our original rationale for studying narcis­sism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianismas a triad was their conceptual sinrilarity(Paulhus & Williams, 2002). All three showan indifference to the harm they cause toothers in the course of achieving their goals.We will sUlllffiarize this common behav­iora� style under the label "exploitative,"that is, agentic striving at the expense ofcommunal welfare.

This shared exploitativeness is consistentwith the notion of convergent evolution: Itis the process whereby selective pressuresculminate in similar behaviors in differentorganisms, despite unique evolutionaryroots (e.g., Buss, 1994). The concept hasrecently been addressed with respect toindividual differences in humans (Fraley,Brumbaugh, & Marks, 2005). Applying thenotion to the Dark Triad, we note the possi­bility that some behavioral sinlilarities haveemerged despite different evolutionaryadaptations. That is, the exploitativenesscommon to the Dark Triad members mayoriginate in three different personalitydynanrics.

Our review of the empirical literatureabove, however, leaves us with the task oftracking down the systematic differences

254 HANDBOOK OF INTERPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15 • DIFFEREN

among the Dark Triad members. To clarifythe nature of these differences, it is necessaryto delve into the seminal works on each ofthe triad. Ideally we will be able to pinpointcardinal features that distinguish the three.

Machiavellianism (Accordingto Machiavelli and Sun Tzu)

Machiavellianism, as expounded and mea­sured by Christie and Geis (1970), was basedalmost entirely on the 16th-century writingsof Niccolo Machiavelli. The most recentreview Gones & Paulhus, 2009), however,reaches further back in intellectual history toinclude the writings of the Chinese philoso­pher Sun Tzu.

Originally written in 500 B.c., Sun Tzu'sArt of War predates Machiavelli's (1513)advice to use duplicitous tactics. Sun Tzuplaced special importance on strategicplanning. Below we detail a number ofstrategies subsumed by this broad theme:long-term goals, planning and preparation,impulse control, situational adaptation,alliance building, and reputation mainte­nance. Because Machiavelli and Sun Tzuoffered similar profiles for success, we willallude to their ideal characters more-or-lessinterchangeably and refer to them asMachiavellians.

Long-term goals. POSSibly of greatestimportance in characterizing Machiavel­lianism is his emphasis on long-termachievement through any means necessary(e.g., " ... a prince who wishes to remain inpower is often forced to be other than good";Machiavelli, p. 75). Both Machiavelli andSun Tzu consistently emphasized the avoid­ance of any behavior that might impair therealization of the long-term goal. Sun Tzuspecified five such pitfalls: Recklessness,cowardice, a hot temper, pride, overconcernfor his soldiers (i.e., empathy). To win in thelong-term, one must be pragmatic, cautious,slow to anger, self-aware, and callous.

Planning and preparation. The advantageof preparatory work is also discussed byboth master writers (e.g.," ... never submitto idleness in time of peace, but ratherendeavor to turn such time to advantages

so as to profit from it in adversity. Thuswhen fortune turns against him, he willbe prepared to resist it" (Machiavelli,p. 61). In short, Machiavellians employlong-term preparations and planning inorder to accomplish their goals. By contrast,Cleckley (1976) characterizes the psycho­pathic character by a dearth of preparation,planning, and strategy. These writers donot address the degree of planning bynarcissists.

Impulse control. Both masters emphaSizedimpulse control as key to victory. A com­mander should keep outright warfare to aminimum because of the toll it can takeon morale (e.g., "No nation has ever bene­fited from protracted war"; Sun Tzu, p.10).Tempting the enemy to make that mistakeis ideal (e.g., "He causes the enemy to makea move and awaits him with full force"; SunTzu, p. 29).

A cautious style helps facilitate a ratio­nal cost-benefit analysis: "The wise leaderin his deliberations always blends consider­ation of gain and harm" (Sun Tzu, p. 48).Similarly, Machiavelli recommended that aleader should take risks only when well­calculated. For example, one should cheator aggress only when there is little cost orrisk involved or the payoffs are sufficient(e.g., "Prudence lies in knowing how todistinguish between degrees of danger andin choosing the least danger as the best";Machiavelli, p. 86).

Situational adaptation. Unlike the psycho­pathic individual who is rigidly locked intoshort-term orientation, Machiavelli and SunTzu (similar to Machiavelli) suggested thatleaders should be able to adapt to the situa­tion and be flexible in applying tactics bothin the short-term and long-term. Long-termstrategies need to be executed skillfully andinclude honesty as well as outright decep­tion. Accordingly, Machiavellian tactics cantake the form ofalternating ruthlessness andbenevolence (e.g., Machiavelli:" ... he muststick to the good so long as he can, but, beingcompelled by necessity, he must be readyto take the way of evil"; Machiavelli, p. 69;Sun Tzu: "victory belongs to the man who

can master the strat.the straight"; p. 43)

Alliance building.ers can be especiacallous individual'one can exploit tIselfish. Hence, bolone should dividebuild alliances: "Pand divide the spcdistribute the profil

Reputation. BothTzu elucidated theoptimal reputatiopersuasive messaggarnering supportMachiavellian theoof excessive force bEill-will, and poor mmay help you laterone ought to considbe obligated to in£]

inflict them all at 0

quent repetition ofp. 42) and "The slthe enemy withoutTzu, p. 16). Such aa psychopath who'brakes on temptatilgratification (CieckJ

Summary. Based,the masters-Sun "key theme has erMachiavellian muslegies that incorpor<flexible execution. (great asset becausetion of deceptive aluseful in the serviC!ever, criminal activpriate only when tImaladaptive respOIto be eschewed. j

expect only select kior (financial fraud,exhibited by Machshould be typifiedprobability of detec

Of course, the faleal figures offered

15 • DIFFERENTIATING THE DARK TRIAD WITHIN THE INTERPERSONAL CIRCUMPLEX 255

1 adversity. Thusinst him, he wi.lIit" (Machiavelliavellians emp10;and planning in~oals. By contrast:izes the psych~th of preparationThese writers d~of planning by

.sters emphasized, victory. A com­ight warfare to a, toll it can takem has ever bene­'; Sun Tzu, p. 10).Lake that mistakeLe enemy to makeh full force"; Sun

facilitate a ratio­The wise leaderblends consider­:Sun Tzu, p. 48).,mmended that amly when well­,ne should cheate is little cost orffs are sufficientnOwing how to2S of danger and~er as the best";

ilike the psycho­;idly locked into:hiavelli and Sun) suggested thatlapt to the situa­ying tactics both:erm. Long-termed skillfully andoutright decep­ellian tactics can:uthlessness and,lli: " ... he muste can, but, beingmust be ready

lchiavelli, p. 69;:0 the man who

cill1master the stratagem of the crooked andthe straight"; p. 43).Y Alliance building. Accumulating support­ers can be especially challenging for theCallous individual bent on selfishness. Butone can exploit the fact that others are·~lfish. Hence, both masters argued thatone should divide the spoils judiciously tobuild alliances: "Plunder the countrySideand divide the spoil; extend territory anddistribute the profits" (Sun Tzu, p. 42),

Reputation. Both Machiavelli and SunTzu elucidated the complexities of creatingoptimal reputations. Inspirational andj>ersuasive messages can be effective ingarnering support or raising fear. ButMachiavellian theory discourages the useof excessive force because it creates distrust,ill-will, and poor morale among those whomay help you later (" ... in seizing a state,one ought to consider all the injuries he willbe obligated to inflict and then proceed toinflict them all at once so as to avoid a fre­quent repetition of such acts" (Machiavelli,p. 42) and "The skillful strategist defeatsthe enemy without ever doing battle" (SunTzu, p. 16). Such advice would be lost ona psychopath who has no ability to put thebrakes on temptation and seeks immediategratification (Cleckley, 1976).

Summary. Based on insights gleaned fromthe masters-Sun Tzu and Machiavelli-akey theme has emerged: The successfulMachiavellian must exploit long-term strat­egies that incorporate careful planning andflexible execution. Cold instrumentality is agreat asset because it facilitates the applica­tion of deceptive and manipulative tactics,useful in the service of greater goals. How­ever, criminal activity or coercion is appro­priate only when the payoffs are sufficient;maladaptive responses such as revenge areto be eschewed. As a result, we wouldexpect only select kinds of antisocial behav­ior(financial fraud, white-collar crinle) to beexhibited by Machiavellians: Such crimesshould be typified by high gain and lowprobability of detection.

Of course, the fact that these two histor­ical figures offered such recommendations

does not guarantee their existence in con­temporary societies. Nonetheless, they areabundant and they can be diagnosed viastandard measures such as the Mach NOones & Paullms, 2009).

Psychopathy (According to Cleckley)

Cleckley's seminal work continues to influ­ence how psychopathy is defined. Alongwith the exploitativeness common to theDark Triad, Cleckley pointed to a uniquefeature of psychopaths, namely, their inlpul­sive and inconsistent behavior (Cleckley,1976). This maladaptive behavior is so per­vasive that it seems to imply a self-sabotagedynamic. Although they practice lying, psy­chopaths fail to coordinate their duplicitousbehaviors in such a way that would allowthem to reap the benefits. Lacking impulsecontrol, they appear to show no concern forreputation.

The result is a wide variety of maladap­tive behaviors ranging from violence tocasual irresponsibility and erratic incon­sistency. A hair-trigger aggression is partof a reckless and hot-tempered profile. Inseeking to obtain a goal through coercion,those high in psychopathy often strike forlittle benefit at high-risk times (e.g., "Hewill commit theft, forgery, adultery, fraud,and other deeds for astonishingly smallstakes and under much greater risks ofbeing discovered than will the ordinaryscoundrel. He will, in fact, commit suchdeeds in the absence of any apparent goalat all"; Cleckley, p. 390).

Psychopaths are also theorized to berigid in their tactics, seemingly unableto learn from mistakes (Cleckley, 1976).This rigidity makes sense insofar as thepsychopath never feels regret, and doesnot engage in long-term planning. Thereexists little to no inlpulse control in thepsychopath: Rather than the right time, theystrike at any time. Unable to adjust, psy­chopaths are seemingly locked into a short­term frame of mind.

In sum, Cleckley argued that psy­chopaths are driven by impulsive

256 HANDBOOK OF INTERPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15 • DIFFERENTIATING T

gratification: that is, getting what theywant and getting it now. Interestinglypsychopaths seem to break several basicrules of the Machiavellian philosophy: theyare reckless, impulsive, and hot-tempered.Of key importance to this chapter is the factthat a similar profile is evident in subclinicalpsychopaths (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996;Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007).

Narcissism (Accordingto Kernberg and Kohut)

The two writers most associated with the­oretical conceptions of narcissism are OttoKernberg and Heinz Kohut. Although thereare subtle differences in their approaches,their contributions are typically citedtogether and interchangeably (e.g., Mollon,1986; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). We willfollow suit.

The masters concur that narcissism ischaracterized primarily by the presence ofgrandiosity in self-perception. As articu­lated by Kernberg (1975), "The main char­acteristics of these narcissistic personalitiesare grandiosity, extreme self-centeredness,and remarkable absence of interest in andempathy for others in spite of the fact thatthey are so very eager to obtain admirationand approval from other people" (p. 228).Grandiosity is driven ultimately by fragilityof self (Kohut, 1951, p. 28).

According to both writers, there arestrong identity elements to narcissism. Intraditional psychoanalytic language, thenarcissistic identity involves object relations(Kernberg, 1975, p. 29). The vuInerability ofthe grandiose self requires symbolic objectsfor confirmation (p. 43). Because the egois insatiable in its need for continual rein­forcement, the behavioral manifestationsare chronic. One reason offered by Kohutand Kemberg is that narcissists remainpsychologically tethered to long-past par­ental conflicts.

Consider how concern with one's iden­tity might relate to exploitativeness of thosein Quadrant 2. The subset high on iden­tity need must come up with a satisfying

interpretation of their exploitativeness. Agrandiose self-image would provide theidentity that they seek. After all, if one istruly superior to others, it is quite appropri­ate to exploit them and ignore their feelings.Narcissists feel entitled to take what theywant, and can rationalize it; the ensuinggrandiosity then feeds back into their senseof entitlement (Kernberg, 1975, p. 17).

Narcissists will also praise those Whoprovide them with narcissistic reinforce­ment, but shun, avoid, or openly derogatethose who cease (or refuse) to do so (e.g.," ... They envy others, tend to idealize somepeople from whom they expect narcissisticsupplies and to depreciate and treat withcontempt those from whom they do notexpect anything (often their former idols)"(1975, p. 17). This rigid strategy involving alofty elusive goal runs in stark contrast tothe Machiavellian strategy. It even contrastswith that of the psychopath, who is moti­vated by more pedestrian, short-term goals.

Summary. For reasons offered above, thegrandiose identity of narcissists providesa symbolic satisfaction of their motives.They seize any opportunity that would rein­force (and strike out at any threat to) theiridentity. Narcissists rarely engage in crimi­nality per se, perhaps because such behaviorbrings about only practical or instrumentalgoals; it rarely helps to reinforce the ego.

Although they share exploitativenesswith the other members of the Dark Triad,the etiology is different: Narcissists are cal­lous and manipulative because their gran­diosity and sense of entitlement lead to adisregard for others. The grandiose iden­tity ensues from their attempt to extractmeaning from knowledge of their exploita­tive interpersonal style: The only sensibleinterpretation is that they are indeedsuperior individuals and entitled to suchinterpersonal liberties.

Summary and Moderator Extraction

We have gleaned two major themes fromOUf review of the seminal writers.5 Thefirst theme concerns a set of behavioral

tendencies that distinguish:ism from the other two mDark Triad: They are plarution, flexibility, impulse congoals, and reputation. Togegest a long-term strategist. VIwith exploitativeness, they ylent but cautious character.

It is this long-term andtation that distinguishes Mastands in sharp contrast "term tactics associated witland narcissisism. This indivivariable moderates the lin!cumplex location and beh,henceforth be referred to a!entation.

A second theme that emmasters has to do with th,the goals pursued by the nDark Triad. Those high iland Machiavellianism focLgoals such as sex and mone}however, involves the pur::an abstract level. The reingrandiose identity is the conof these individuals. In sunthe necessity of a second ov,erator that distinguishes nanrefer to this moderator as id,

EXPLICATING THE MODERA

Moderator 1: Temporal Orient

The first moderator is caphfable contrasting the ant witper. Some people more clo",grasshopper (short-term fo,ant (long-term focused). Somay sacrifice the long-terrrgain and some will not. Vdistinction as temporal orthat the long-term strategyknown constructs such as j

and delay of gratification,beyond them. Italso includeibility, and reputation-build

In evolutionary terms, sltation (STO) may be adapti

15 • DIFFERENTIATlNG THE DARK TRIAD WITHIN THE INTERPERSONAL CIRCUMPLEX 257

r exploitativeness. Awould provide the

,k. After all, if one is:8, it is quite appropri_i ignore their feelings.ed to take what they.alize it; the ensuing; back into their sense~rg, 1975, p. 17).so praise those who.1arcissistic reinforce­i, or openly derogate:efuse) to do so (e.g.,. tend to idealize someley expect narcissisticeciate and treat withwhom they do not

1 their former idols)"i strategy involving as in stark contrast totegy. It even contrasts10path, who is moli­ian, short-term goals.,ns offered above, thenarcissists provides

m of their motives.mity that would rein­Lt any threat to) theirrely engage in crimi­lecause such behavior,tical or instrumental, reinforce the ego.are exploitativeness'rs of the Dark Triad,It: Narcissists are cal­, because their gran­,ntitlement lead to aThe grandiose iden­r attempt to extractdge of their exploita­e: The only sensiblet they are indeedmd entitled to such

r Extraction

major themes fromminal writers.s Thea set of behavioral

tendencies that distinguish Machiavellian­ism from the other two members of theDark Triad: They are planning, prepara­tion, flexibility, inlpulse control, long-termgoals, and reputation. Together they sug­gest a long-term strategist. When combinedwith exploitativeness, they yield a malevo­lent but cautious character.

it is this long-term and flexible orien­talion that distinguishes Machiavellians. Itstands in sharp contrast with the short­lenn tactics associated with psychopathyand narcissisism. This individual differencevariable moderates the link between cir­cumplex location and behavior and willhenceforth be referred to as temporal ori­entation.

A second theme that emerges from themasters has to do with the tangibility ofthe goals pursued by the members of theDark Triad. Those high in psychopathyand Machiavellianism focus on concretegoals such as sex and money. Narcissisism,however, involves the pursuit of goals atan abstract level. The reinforcement of agrandiose identity is the consuming motiveof these individuals. In sum, we argue forthe necessity of a second overarching mod­erator that distinguishes narcissism: We willrefer to this moderator as identity need.

EXPLICATING THE MODERATORS

Moderator 1: Temporal Orientation

The first moderator is captured in Aesop'sfable contrasting the ant with the grasshop­per. Some people more closely resemble thegrasshopper (short-term focused) than theant (long-term focused). Some individualsmay sacrifice the long-term for short-termgain and some will not. We refer to thisdistinction as temporal orientation. Notethat the long-term strategy subsumes well­known constructs such as inlpulse controland delay of gratification, but goes wellbeyond them. Italso includes planning, flex­ibility, and reputation-building.

In evolutionary terms, short-term orien­tation (STO) may be adaptive in situations

where cues to appropriate behavior are notreliable or where life expectancy is short.Otherwise, in social species like humans,a long-term orientation (LTO) tends to bemore adaptive (Figueredo et aI., 2009).

Let's apply this notion to the interper­sonal circumplex. The behavioral display ofagency and communion should vary withthe temporal orientation of the individual.Differences on this moderator shouldpredict the different tactics to achieve theirends.

Key to our argument is that Quadrant2 inhabitants differ along this dimension.Machiavellian individuals, in particular,are distinctive. Their exploitativeness isplayed out over time and in the service oflong-term, higher order goals. By contrast,psychopathic and narcissistic individualsexhibit their exploitativeness with littleregard for the future consequences.

To incorporate this moderator geo­metrically, a third dimension needs to beappended to the circumplex. Geometrically,this new dinlension is represented by thevertical axis in Figure 15.2. Therefore,the similar locations of the Dark Triad inthe interpersonal circumplex mask theirdistinct locations in three-dimensionalspace.

Long-Term

Short-Term

FIGURE 15.2 Interpersonal Circumplex Plus Moder­ator 1

Identity Strengti (High)

Agency

(Low)

FIGURE 15.3 Interpersonal C ator 2

Abstract goals included identity, whereas concr( the attainment of goods o example may be found i communication theorist. (1979) included a highe labeled "identity makin{ others labeled "instrurn tional" (e.g., Clark & Del to say, instrumental and sions map onto the agen motives of the interper respectively. The identit ∎ sponds to our identity TIE

Experimental work fi social psychology corrc vational power of mean porarily undermining anxiety, which then mo tion of new meaning f (Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, individuals who encoun event are motivated to their situation. Consiste psychologists such as meaning-making quells iety of everyday life.

Application to persoi researchers deal with n the level of identity (see by Singer, 2004). Indes he defined as the creatioi of an abstract integration of information about the

258 HANDBOOK OF INTERPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15 • DIFFERENTIATII,

Recent Research

Recently, we have conducted several stud-ies expressly designed to evaluate the mod-erating power of temporal orientation. The first example applied the distinction to aca-demic dishonesty (Nathanson, Paulhus, & Williams, 2006b; Williams, Nathanson, & Paulhus, in press). Although both Machi-avellianism and psychopathy were linked with academic dishonesty, they differed with respect to the preferred behavioral strategies. Impulsively driven "opportunis-tic" cheating (e.g., copying someone's mul-tiple choice answers), was predicted by psy-chopathy scores (Williams et al., in press). Machiavellianism did not predict this risky and impulsive cheating strategy. By con-trast, planned dishonesty (e.g., plagiarism on term papers) was predicted by Machi-avellianism (Nathanson et al., 2006b).

A second study showed how temporal orientation influences behavioral tactics in the domain of sexual and romantic rela-tionships. Jones and Paulhus (2010c) used a new and improved measure of sociosex-uality that assesses both long-term as well as short-term mating orientation (Jackson & Kirkpatrick, 2007). Results showed that psychopathy was the only one of the Dark Triad associated with an exclusively short-term profile: They are sexually promiscu-ous, short-term focused, and strongly averse to any long-term romantic commitment. Psychopaths also have an abundance of casual sex, lifetime partners, and act unfaith-fully.

A third study showed that Machiavel-lians adjust their mate retention tactics according to the type of relationship they are pursuing (long-term vs. short-term), whereas the other two personality types do not. For example, mate retention tactics, which are often coercive and ultimately destructive to a relationship, may serve the short-term benefit of keeping a partner from straying, even if it leads to the dissolution of the relationship in the future. Jones and Paulhus (2010c) showed that all three members of the Dark Triad engage in

similar mate retention tactics for short-term relationships, but only Machiavellianism was associated with a mitigation of tho se

tactics when a long-term relationship was the goal.

A fourth study by Jones and Paulhus (2010b) directly contrasted the Dark Triad with respect to measures of impulsivity. Overall, psychopathy showed the strongest association. The correlation with narcissism was in the same direction, but weaker. Machiavellianism was either neutral or neg-atively associated with all forms of impul-sivity. Interestingly, narcissism was exclu-sively associated with "functional" impul-sivity or confidence, whereas psychopathy was exclusively associated with "dysfunc-tional" impulsivity (Dickman, 1990).

Summary

We have detailed the need for a modera-tor variable to differentiate Machiavellians from the other two Dark Triad members. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that Machiavellians are long-term oriented whereas the other two members are short-term in orientation. Although exploitative like other members of the Dark Triad, Machi-avellians have long-term relationships, are behaviorally flexible, are less impulsive, and cheat in a calculated fashion.

Moderator 2: Identity Need

We now turn to a second moderator variable—identity need—which helps dis-tinguish narcissism from the other two Dark Triad members. This construct captures the distinction between (a) goals of a concrete, instrumental nature, and (b) goals of an abstract, symbolic nature. 6 The latter goals involve making subjective meaning out of (often chaotic) objective life events (Frankl, 1968; May, 1953).

This distinction was anticipated in the social exchange theory of U. G. Foa and Foa (1974). They laid out an exchange dimen -sion ranging from concrete to abstract.

15 • DIFFERENTIATING THE DARK TRIAD WITHIN THE INTERPERSONAL CIRCUMPLEX 259

:actics for short-termy Machiavellianismmitigation of those

rID relationship was

Jones and Paulhussted the Dark TriadHes of impulsivity.howed the strongesttian with narcissism~ction, but weaker.,ither neutral or neg­all forms of impul.

Lrcissism was exclu-"functional" impul­hereas psychopathy,ted with "dysfunc­ekman, 1990).

need for a modera­tiate Machiavelliansuk Triad members.ence to suggest that.Dng-term orientedmembers are short­though exploitativee DarkTriad, Machi­m relationships, areare less impulsive,d fashion.

'd

second moderatorI-which helps dis­n the other two Darknstruct captures thegoals of a concrete,nd (b) goals of anre.6 The latter goalsive meaning out of, life events (Frankl,

; anticipated in the)f U. G. Foa and Foan exchange dimen­ncrete to abstract.

Identity Strength(High)

(Low)

FIGURE 15.3 Interpersonal Circumplex Plus Moder­ator 2

Abstract goals included status, esteem, andidentity, whereas concrete goals includedthe attainment of goods or services. Anotherexample may be found in the literature oncommunication theorists: Clark and Delia(1979) included a higher order dimensionlabeled "identity making," along with twoothers labeled "instrumental" and "rela­tional" (e.g., Clark & Delia, 1979). Needlessto say, instrumental and relational dimen­sions map onto the agentic and communalmotives of the interpersonal circumplex,respectively. The identity dimension corre­sponds to our identity need moderator.

Experimental work from contemporarysocial psychology corroborates the moti­vational power of meaning-making: Tem­porarily undermining meaning createsanxiety, which then motivates the extrac­tion of new meaning from the situation(Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006). For example,individuals who encounter an inexplicableevent are motivated to find meaning intheir situation. Consistent with existentialpsychologists such as Frankl and May,meaning-making quells the inevitable anx­iety of everyday life.

Application to personality. Personalityresearchers deal with meaning-making atthe level of identity (see special issue editedby Singer, 2004). Indeed, personality canbe defined as the creation and maintenanceof an abstract integration of a broad rangeof information about the self (Baumeister,

1986; McAdams, 1985). Included in one'sidentity are historical narratives as well asstatic traits (Singer, 2004). To Hogan andSmither (2001), identity-seeking representsa third motive on equal footing withthe circumplex axes of "getting ahead"(agency) and "getting along" (communion).Figure 15.3 shows a third dimension alongwith communion and agency; this dimen­sion concerns the strength of a motive toaffirm one's identity.

Only recently have social scientists calledfor empirical attention to individual dif­ferences in identity need. Ryff (1989), forexample, showed that concepts such as pur­pose in life and personal growth are missingfrom common conceptions of health, andare a dimension that must be exploredwhen considering human goals (Ryff &Singer, 1998). Horowitz (2004b) describedhow strength of self-image has repercus­sions for psychopathology.

The proposition that the identity pro­cess has an interpersonal basis is not a newone. As the symbolic interactionists arguedmany years ago, identity emerges primar­ily from information inferred from others'reactions to the self (Cooley, 1956). Feedbackfrom interactions is continually integratedinto the self-concept and, if consistent, cre­ates a strong identity (Singer, 2004).

In sum, identity need is a second individ­ual difference variable that moderates therelation between circumplex location andobservable behavior. We have argued thatthe concept is espeCially apt for articulat­ing the process of turning meaning-makinginward, that is, interpreting ongoing behav­ior and events in relation to the self. As such,it provides the moderator necessary for dis­tinguishing narcissism from the other twomembers of the Dark Triad.

Narcissism: A strong and positive identity.This moderator of identity need explainswhere narcissists part company from sub­clinical psychopaths and Machiavellians.Whereas the latter two pursue functionalgoals such as sex/ money, or status, nar­cissistic goals are abstract in nature. Forthe narcissist, the desired identity is clear:'1 am a superior and entitled individual."

260 HANDBOOK OF INTERPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15 • DIFFERENTIATING

Attaining this identity requires status, admi­ration, and respect rather than tangibleresources or outcomes (Kernberg, 1975).

In searching for an identity that justifiestheir dispositions, narcissistic individualsface the difficult task of incorporating lowcommunion into a positive identity. Astrong sense of superiority and entitlementis necessary to justify their indifferent dom­inance of others. Moreover, the narcissisticneed for maintaining this positive identityis a never-ending pursuit (Brown & Bosson,2001).

By contrast, neither Machiavellians norpsychopaths appear to have the continualself-enhancement needs of the narcissisticindividual. Without a strong identity need,these personalities remain unconcernedabout their self-concept and focus on theinstrumental benefits of their behavior.

Our aggression study. Recently, wedesigned an experiment that directlyaddresses the role that identity need playsin triggering aggression (Jones & Paulhus,201Oa). We drew on previous researchindicating that narcissists aggress whentheir egos are threatened (e.g., Bushman& Baumeister, 1998; Twenge & Campbell,2003). Our rationale was that interferencewith the identity need process (via egothreat) should upset narcissistic individualsbut not Machiavellians or psychopathicindividuals.

Two forms of provocation were manipu­lated: Participants were randomly assignedto be threatened with an abstract ego threat(an insult or no insult to an essay theywrote). Their aggression was also measuredbefore and after a physical threat (a blast ofwhite noise). Results indicated that only thenarcissists responded to the symbolic threatwhereas only psychopaths responded to thephysical threat. Machiavellians respondedto neither threat.

Narcissists' identity as superior wasthreatened by the insult: At an abstractlevel it represented an identity threat (Yohs& Heatherton, 2001). Psychopaths didnot respond to the insult; however, theydid respond to a direct phySical threat.

Although not on a par with other forms ofphysical threat (Le., a punch in the face),a blast of white noise fits the definitionof physical aggression because it is an actintended to do physical harm to another.

Also as predicted, Machiavellianism didnot predict aggression under either provo­cation. Under the proper conditions, Wesuspect, Machiavellianism could be relatedto aggression: But such aggression Wouldonly occur for those high in Machiavellian_ism when the context was one of high profitand low risk (see Jones & Paulhus, 2009).

Summary

We have called for a second moderatorvariable to differentiate narcissists from theother two Dark Triad members. Exploitativeindividuals (those in Quadrant 2), trying tointerpret their own behavior and traits, findidentity in a narcissistic self. For them, thequestion is: "Why am 1indifferent to otherpeople's feelings and want to manipulatethem?" ... and the answer is: "I am a supe­rior person who is entitled to do so."7

INTEGRATION

Our challenge was to reconcile the distinc­tiveness of the Dark Triad within a commonframework of the interpersonal circumplex.Although the three exploitative personali­ties project into the same quadrant in inter­personal space, their overt behavior oftendiffers.

Our solution was to undo the knot withtwo twists-that is, two conceptual moder­ators. The first moderator is temporal ori­entation. An individual's interpersonal pre­dispositions can be played out strategicallyin the long-term or impulsively in the short­term. Compared to the other two inhab­itants of Quadrant 2, Machiavellians aremore long-term in the pursuit of their goals.

A second conceptual moderator honorsindividual differences in identity need. Self­construals mayor may not be transformedinto a meaningful identity. In Quadrant 2,individuals high in identity need develop

the grandiose self-imagenarcissists. That choicenecessary to explain a comlpersonal motives that app'By contrast, Machiavelliapaths may be aware ofbehaviors but have no nethem as an identity.

In sum, we combinedvariables with the two-dplane to form a four-dimWe believe that it has appour goal of reconcilingvariables.

Beyond Quadrant 2

Our two-moderator mCexplain the behavioral tacbin any quadrant of thethe first moderator: tempBehaviors typically associ,rant 1 can be short-term (example, one could exprEcally communal) values ~

such as street protests forshort-term tactic. Alternalmanifest these values 1political movement, a long

Similar to temporal orietity need distinction is notrant 2 of the circumplex(indifferent and submisshmight differentiate two .Those high in identity nean identity of "alienatedthose low on the moderaacknowledge their negativ4 (submissive and commudifferentiated by the idenator. Those high on the :create an identity out ofwith others, whereas othe:Awn, Paris, & Aron, 1995:

We do not argue thatcircumplex research neecated with respect to theseFor one thing, much interis concerned with self-'structure of self-reported

15 • DIFFERENTIATING THE DARK TRIAD WITHIN THE INTERPERSONAL ClRCUMPLEX 261

with other forms ofpunch in the face)

fits the definitio~because it is an actharm to another.achiavellianism didmder either provo­?er conditions, we;m could be relatedl aggression wouldh in Machiavellian_IS One of high profit"' Paulhus, 2009).

second moderatornarcissists from thembers. Exploitativetadrant 2), trying tovior and traits, findself. For them, the

indifferent to otherrant to manipulateer is: ''lam a supe­ed to do so."7

concile the distinc­d within a Common~rsonal circumplex.loitative personali­, quadrant in inter­'ert behavior often

mdo the knot withconceptual moder­or is temporal ori­; interpersonal pre­ed out strategicallyIsively in the short-other two inhab­

v1achiavellians are.rsuit of their goals.moderator honorsidentity need. Self­lOt be transformedty. In Quadrant 2,ltity need develop

the grandiose self-inlage characteristic ofriarcissists. That choice of identities isnecessary to explain a combination of inter­I'i'rsonal motives that appears exploitative.By contrast, Machiavellians and psycho­paths may be aware of their traits andbebaviors but bave no need to formulatethem as an identity.

In sum, we combined two moderatorvariables with the two-dimensional IPCplane to form a four-dinlensional system.We believe that it has applications beyondour goal of reconciling the Dark Triadvariables.

Beyond Quadrant 2

Our two-moderator model may' helpexplain the behavioral tactics of individualsin any quadrant of the IPC. Considerthe first moderator: temporal orientation.Behaviors typically associated with Quad­rant 1 can be short-term or long-term. Forexample, one could express these (agenti­cally communal) values through activitiessuch as street protests for the homeless, ashort-term tactic. Alternatively, one couldmanifest these values by fashioning apolitical movement, a long-term tactic.

Sinillar to temporal orientation, the iden­tity need distinction is not limited to Quad­rant 2 of the circumplex. In Quadrant 3(indifferent and submissive), identity needmight differentiate two other characters.Those high in identity need might invokean identity of "alienated victim" whereasthose low on the moderator might simplyacknowledge their negative traits. Quadrant4 (submissive and communal) could also bedifferentiated by the identity need moder­ator. Those high on the moderator mightcreate an identity out of their connectionswith others, whereas others might not (e.g.,Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995).

We do not argue that every finding incircumplex research needs to be reevalu­ated with respect to these two moderators.For one thing, much interpersonal researchis concerned with self-perceptions: Thestructure of self-reported traits or values

can usefully be analyzed independentlyof observed behavior. Even behavioralanalyses are likely to show that similarlocations in the circumplex are matched bysimilar behavioral tactics. In some cases,there are no striking phenotypic differencesto be explained. In the case of Quadrant 2, itseems impossible to understand our threeexploitative personalities without the twomoderators.

Nor should the addition of moderatorsbe limited to our two offerings. Other mod­erators are likely to be necessary to dealwith other sets of variables that project adja­cently on the IPC. Tracey and colleagues,for example, have demonstrated the con­ceptual richness of adding moderators suchas anxiety and self-esteem (Tracey, Rounds,& Gurtman, 1996). They went further toevaluate the sbape of the IPC at differentlevels of the moderators.

Our two moderators were derived fromseminal writers with the explicit purpose ofclarifying three distinct personalities thatare all associated with high agency andlow communion. Although the circumplexis powerful on its own, moderators mayhelp to disentangle apparently overlappingconstructs that are actually distinct in otherimportant ways. Left on the agenda is theexamination of the shape of the lPC withinvarious levels of the IPC (Tracey, Rounds,& Gurtman, 1996).

Underlying Personality Processes

From a process point of view, the IPC con­fluence ofthe Dark Triad members in Quad­rant 2 may seem misleading. It is likely thattheir common tendency to be exploitativejuxtaposes them in Quadrant 2. However,the underlying psychological mechanismsthat led Machiavellians, psychopaths, andnarcissists to exhibit these predispositionsmay differ substantially. Without clarifyingthe underlying motivations, it is difficultto fully understand personality constructs(Horowitz et aI., 2006).

In fact, the IPC location of the DarkTriad may not jibe with the necessity to

262 HANDBOOK OF INTERPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15 • DIFFERENTIA11

use interpersonal theory for distinguish­ing them. A fully noninterpersonal inter­pretation is worth considering (d. Shecht­man & Horowitz, 2006). First is the case ofnarcissism.s That personality can be man­ifested without the involvement of otherpeople (e.g., gazing into the mirror). Theexploitation of others may simply be aside effect ofself-centeredness. Other narcis­sistic behaviors, such as self-enhancement,derogation, and self-handicapping, are alsoconsistent with this overriding egocentrism.

For psychopaths, exploitation of othersmay simply be a side effect of poor impulse­control. Assumingthattheir temptations aresimilar to nonpsychopaths, psychopathicindividuals will cause more harm to morepeople. As their inadvertent harm to oth­ers accumulates, their callousness hardensmuch as a physical callus forms from con­sistent use (Blair, 2005).

Similarly, Machiavellian individualsmay be motivated by goals similar to non­Machiavellians. If other people interferewith their goals, their indifference (lackof empathy) will play a role. Others areno different from inanimate pawns to bemaneuvered. But Machiavellians oftenmanifest their exploitativeness in nonin­terpersonal domains: For example, on taxreturns they attempt to cheat businesses orsociety as a whole. In none of these cases isit necessary to engage directly with anotherperson. In sum, the strong IPC projectionof the Dark Triad may be misleading inimplying that the Dark Triad behaviors areintrinsically interpersonal.

Two Interpersonal Views?

Finally, we reflect on the Dark Triad interms of interpersonal theory in the Sulli­vanian sense (e.g., Carson, 1969; Sullivan,1953). All three of the variables can beconstrued as fundamentally interpersonal.Consider narcissism: It can be construedas an interpersonal trait to the extent thatnarcissists require others' praise to countertheir underlying insecurity. According toMorf and Rhodewalt (2001), narcissistsreport that others' praise is more important

than personal accomplishments. One canalso argue that Machiavellians requireothers to manipulate: Without others, theycannot satisfy their motivation for dupingdelight (Ekman, 1980). Finally, psychopa_thy may be interpersonal to the degreethat psychopaths need someone to hurt.Their exploitation of others may reflect anintrinsic motivation to see others suffer.

Interestingly, these conjectures appear toundennine the claim that the low end ofcommunion is indifference. Instead, lowcommunion scores may entail an intrinsicmotivation to exploit others. For example,some degree of interpersonal connectionis required to explain such behaviors asaggression, hostility, mate-poaching, mat­ing interference, cruelty, and torture. Theygo well beyond detachment; they are consis­tent with studies locating aggression as thepolar opposite of communion (Hopwood,Koonce, & Morey, in press).

Yet we hesitate to dismiss the indifferenceinterpretation because it has a solid theoret­ical and empirical basis (Horowitz, Wilson,Turan, Zolotsev, Constantino, & Hender­son, 2006). Instead, a reconciliation of theinterpersonal circumplex and interpersonaltheory may require yet another moderatorvariable-one that distinguishes hot versuscold versions of low communion. Such anorthogonal moderator would help explainwhy many studies of the circumplex havelanded variables such as hostile and coldadjacent to each other on the circumplex(e.g., Horowitz et aI., 2006; Wiggins & Pin­cus, 1992).

Resolving these issues is well beyond thescope of the current chapter. A great dealof further empirical and theoretical work isrequired. One pOSSible approach to deter­mining the interpersonal saturation of theDark Triad is to apply techniques developedby Shechtman and Horowitz (2006).

CONCLUSION

The interpersonal circumplex harbors awealth of information about interpersonalvalues, goals, motives, and traits. For the

most part, evaluation I

does not require the mchere; the attributes areby the circumplex alonErespect to the Dark Tri'captures perfectly their (high agency and low cc •of their common exploit,

An accurate evaluatiotactics of the Dark Triad,both the circumplex loc<cation of one or both oftemporal orientation anthe moderators prove ecother quadrants, a morelion with the circumplex

References

Aron, A" Paris, M" & Aronin love: Prospective stchange. Journal of Persech%gy, 69, 1102-1112.

Ashton, M .c., Lee, K., Pende Vries, K E., & Di BI<(2004). A six-factor 8mdescriptive adjectives:holexical studies in sevePersonality and Social PSJ!

Bakan, D. (1966). The dualiIsolation and communion iBeacon Press.

Baumeisler,R. F. (1986). ldentthe struggle for t>~ 'f. New

Bettencourt, B. A., Tn ley, j

Valentine, J. (2006).•'ers,

behavior under provoil:ditions: A meta-analytitBulletin, 132, 751-m.

Blackburn, K, & Maybury, C.psychopath: The relatioJto the interpersonal deIndividual Differences, 6, ~

Blair, K J. K (2005). Respond

others: Dissociating fomthe study of typical antions. Consciousness and (

Book, A. 5., & Quinsey, V. L

cheaters or warrior-hawlvidual Differences, 36, 33­

Bradlee, P. M., & Emmons,narcissism within the int

15 • DIFFERENTIATING THE DARK TRIAD WITHIN THE INTERPERSONAL CIRCUMFLEX 263

,mplishments. One canMachiavellians requirete: Without others, theymotivation for duping

180). Finally, psychopa-lersonal to the degreeleed someone to hurt.,f others may reflect anto see others suffer.

se conjectures appear tom that the low end ofifference. Instead, lowmay entail an intrinsicit others. For example,t\. ~personal connectionain ~uch behaviors as" mace-poaching, mat­.elty, and torture. They:hment; they are consis­ating aggression as thelmmunion (Hopwood,.press).:lisrniss the indifference,e it has a solid theoret­Isis (Horowitz, Wilson,Instantino, & Hender­a reconciliation of theplex and interpersonalyet another moderatoristinguishes hot versuscommunion. Such an

lr would help explainf the circumplex haveh as hostile and cold,er on the circumplex2006; Wiggins & Pin-

ues is well beyond thechapter. A great dealnd theoretical work is,Ie approach to deter­)nal saturation of thetechniques developedlrowitz (2006).

rcumplex harbors a1 about interpersonals, and traits. For the

part, evaluation of these attributesnot require the moderators proposedthe attributes are fully characterized

the circumplex alone. Specifically withrespect to the Dark Triad, the circumplexcaptures perfectly their overlap: they are allhigh agency and low communion becauseof their common exploitative tendencies.

An accurate evaluation of the behavioraltactics of the Dark Triad, however, requiresIJoth the circumplex location and a specifi­cation of one or both of the moderators­temporal orientation and identity need. Ifthe moderators prove equally useful in theother quadrants, a more wholesale integra­tion with the circumplex might be in order.

References

Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Fallingin love: Prospective studies of self-conceptchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psy­chology, 69, 1102-1112.

Ashton, M .c., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P.,de Vries, R. E., & Di BIas, L., ... De Raad, B.(2004). A six-factor structure of personality­descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psyc­holexical studies in seven languages. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 86, 356-366.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence:Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston:Beacon Press.

Baumeister, R F. (1986). Identity: Cultural change andthe struggle for self. New York: Oxford Books.

Bettencourt, B. A, Talley, A, Benjamin, A J., &Valentine,]. (2006). Personality and aggressivebehavior under provoking and neutral con­ditions: A meta-analytic review. PsychologicalBulletin, 132,751-777.

Blackburn, R, & Maybury, C (1985). Identifying thepsychopath: The relation of Cleckley's criteriato the interpersonal domain. Personality andIndividual Differences, 6, 375-386.

Blair, R. ]. R (2005). Responding to the emotions of

others: Dissociating forms of empathy throughthe study of typical and psychiatric popula­tions. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 698-718.

Book, AS., & Quinsey, V. L. (2004). Psychopaths:cheaters or warrior-hawks? Personalityand Indi­vidual Differences, 36, 33-45.

Bradlee, P. M., & Emmons, R A. (1992). Locatingnarcissism within the interpersonal circumplex

and the five-factor model. Personality and Indi­vidual Differences, 13, 821-830.

Brown, R P., & Bosson, ]. K. (2001). Narcissusmeets Sisyphus; Self-love, self-loathing, andthe never-ending pursuit of self-worth. Psycho­logical Inquiry, 12,210-213.

Bushman, B. L & Baumeister, R F. (1998). Threat­ened egotism, narcissism, self esteem, and

direct and displaced aggression: Does sel£­love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229.

Campbell, L Schermer, J. A, Villani, V. C,Nguyen, 8., Vickers, L., & Vernon, P. A. (2009).A behavioral genetic study of the Dark Triadof personality and moral development. TwinResearch and Human Genetics, 12, 132-136.

Carson, R. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality.Chicago: Aldine Press.

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

Clark, R A., & Delia, J. G. (1979). Topoi and rhetori­cal competence. The Quarterly Journal ofSpeech,65,187-206.

Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St.Louis, MO: Mosby.

Cooley, C. H. (1956). Human nature and the socialorder. New York: Free Press.

Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Inter­personal analysis of grandiose and vulnerablenarcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17,188-203.

Dickman, S. J. (1990). Functional and dysfunctionalimpulsivity: Personality and cognitive corre­lates. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,58,95-102.

Egan, V. (2009, July). The main predictors of aggres­sion: Low A, low A, and low A? Paper presented

at meeting of the International Society for theStudy of Individual Differences, Evanston, illi­

nois.Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and

measurement. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 52, 11-17.

Figueredo, A. J., Wolf, P. S. A Gladden, P. R,Olderbak, S. G, Andrzejczak, D. J., & Jacobs,W. J. (2009). Ecoiogicai approaches to personal­ity. tn Buss, D. M., & Hawley, P. H., (Eds.), Theevolution ofpersonality and individual differences.New York: Oxford University Press.

Faa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures ofthe mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Fraley, C R, Brumbaugh, C C, & Marks, M. J.(2005). The evolution and function of adult

264 HANDBOOK OF INTERPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15 • DIFFERENTIATI

attachment: A comparative and phylogeneticanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psy­chology, 89, 731-746.

Frankl, V. (1968). Man's search for meaning. NewYork: Washington Square Press.

Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Trust, distrust, and inter­personal problems: A circumplex analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,989-1002.

Gurbnan, M. B., & Pincus, A. (2000). interpersonaladjective scales: Confirmation of circumplexstructure from multiple perspectives. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 26, 374-384.

Harms, P. D., Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L.(2001). Predictors of love-proneness VB. lust­proneness. Poster presented at the 109th annualconvention of the American PsychologicalAssociation, San Francisco.

Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). TheMeaning Maintenance Model: On the coher­ence ofsocial motivations. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 10, 88-110.

Hicklin, J., & Widiger, T. A. (2005). Similarities anddifferences among antisocial and psychopathicself-report inventories from the perspective ofgeneral personality functioning. European Jour­nal ofPersonality, 19,325-342.

Hogan, R, & Smither, R (2001). Personality: Theoriesand applications. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hopwood, C. ]., Koonce, E. A., & Morey, L. C.(in press). An exploratory study of integrativepersonality pathology systems and the inter­personal circumplex. Journal ofPsychopathologyand Behavioral Assessment.

Horowitz, L. M. (2004a). Interpersonal foundationsof psychopathology. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Horowitz, L. M., (2004b). The self-image andinterpersonal processes. In L. M. Horowitz,Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology(pp. 81-100). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Horowitz, L. M., Alden, L. E., Wiggins, ]. 5., &Pincus, A. L. (2000). Inventory of interpersonalproblems. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Cor­poration.

Horowitz, L. M., Wilson, Kelly, R, Turan, B.,Zolotsev, P., Constantino, M. J., & Henderson,L. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarifythe meaning of interpersonal behavior: Arevised circumplex model. Personality andSocial Psychology Review, 10,67---86.

Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. (2007). The structureand measurement of human mating strategi~

Toward a multidimensional model of socio­sexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28,382-391.

Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad

and normal personality traits. Personality andIndividual Differences, 40, 331-339.

]anason, P. K., ti, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt,D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad: Facilitating a

short-term mating strategy in men. EuropeanJournal ofPersonality, 23, 5-18.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavel­

lianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.),Handbook ofindividual differences in social behav­ior (pp. 102-120). New York: Guilford Press.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010a). Differen­tial provocations trigger aggression in psy­chopaths and narcissists. Social Psychologicaland Personality Science, 1, 33-45.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (201Ob). How bnpul­sivity differentiates the Dark Triad. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (201Oc). MatingStrategies among the Dark Triad: Retention,infidelity, and short- vs.long-tenn relationshipfocus. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and patho­logical narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson.

Kohut, H. (1951). "The function of the analyst inthe therapeutic process" by Samuel D. Lipton.In P. H. Ornstein (Ed.) (1978), The search for theself: Selected writings ofHeinz Kohut: 1950-1978(pp. I: 159-166). New York: International Uni­versities Press.

Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis ofpersonoJ­ity. New York: Ronald Press.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy,Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five­Factor Model and the HEXACO model ofpersonality structure. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 38, 1571-1582.

Lilienfeld, S. 0., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Devel­opment and preliminary validation of a self­report measure of psychopathic personalitytraits in non-criminal populations. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 66, 488-524.

Locke, K. D. (2000). Circumplex scales of interper­sonal values: Reliability, validity, and applica­bility to interpersonal problems and personal­ity disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment,7S,249-267.

Machiavelli, N. (1513/1981).Bantam Classics.

Markey, P. M., & Markey,assessment of the inte"Assessment, 16,352-361.

May, R. (1953). Man's search.Norton.

McAdams, D. P. (1985). Pow,story: Personological inquYork: Guilford.

McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, WMachiavellianism and pPersonality and Social Psy

Mealey, L. (1995). The sociolAn integrated evolutiorand Brain Sciences, 18, 52

Moilon, P. (1986). An apprais;tion to the understandin.Journal ofPsychotherapy,.

Morl, C. c., & Rhodewalt,the paradoxes of narself-regulatory processinInquiry, 12, 177-196.

Nathanson, c., Paulhus, D.(2006a). Personality andof body modificationdeviance markers. /0Personality, 40, 779-802.

Nathanson, c., Paulhus, D. 1(2006b). Predictors of aof scholastic cheating: ]petence but not demogJEducational PsycholOgy, 3;

Patrick, C. J., & . ~~mpolich, j

and aggressinl in the p~

ity. Aggression and Violrn~

Paulhus, D. L. (2001). Nonminimalist accounts. Ps.228-230.

Paulhus, D. L. (August, 2001light on the Dark Triad ofat the meeting of the AnAssociation convention, ~

Paulhus, D. L, & Williams, Ktriad of personality: Nalianism, and psychopathin Personality, 36, 556-56~

Pincus, A. (2006). A contempopersonal theory of persorF. Lensenweger & J. F. 1

theories of personality distYork: Guilford Press.

15 • DIFFERENTIATING THE DARK TRIAD WITHIN THE INTERPERSONAL CIRCUMPLEX 265

· L. (2007). The structure

uman mating strategies:lSionai model of socia­1d Human Behavior, 28,

(2006). The dark triadty traits. Personality and0,331-339.

'bster, G. D., & Schmitt,rk Triad: Facilitating a3.tegy in men. European3,5-18.

>. L. (2009). Machiavel_y & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.),iifferences in social behau­York: Guilford Press.). L. (20IOa). Differen­

~er aggression in psy­.sts. Social Psychological1,33-45.

L. (20IOb). How impul­Dark Triad. ManuscriptIon.

D. L. (20IOc). MatingDark Triad: Retention,.. long-term relationshipnitted for publication.ine conditions and patho~

York: Jason Aronson.lction of the analyst ini" by Samuel D. Lipton.(1978), The search for theHeinz Kohut: 1950-1978(ork: International Uni-

mal diagnosis ofpersonal­Press.

· (2005). Psychopathy,narcissism in the Five­

e HEXACO model of'ersonality and IndividW1152.'5, B. P. (1996). Devel­

ry validation of a self­ychopathic personalitypopulations. Journal of56,488-524.plex scales of interper~

" validity, and appIica­)foblems and personal-

·Personality Assessment,

Machiavelli, N. (1513/1981). The prince. New York:

Bantam Classics.Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2009). A brief

assessment of the interpersonal circumplex.

Assessment, 16, 352-361.May, R. (1953). Man's search for himself. New York:

Norton.McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life

story: Personological inquiries into identity. New

York; Guilford.McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998).

Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 74, 192-210.

Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy:An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioraland Brain Sciences, 18,523-599.

Mollon, P. (1986). An appraisal of Kohut's contribu­tion to the understanding of narcissism. Britishfournal ofPsychotherapy, 3, 151-161.

Morl, C. c., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unravelingthe paradoxes of narcissism; A dynamiCself-regulatory processing model. PsychologicalInquiry, 12, 177-196.

Nathanson, c., Paulhus, D. L. & Williams, K. M.(2006a). Personality and misconduct correlatesof body modification and other culturaldeviance markers. Journal of Research inPersonality, 40, 779-802.

Nathanson, c., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M.(2006b). Predictors of a behavioral measureof scholastic cheating: Personality and com­petence but not demographics. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 31, 97-122.

Patrick, C. J., & Zempolich, K. A (1998). Emotion

and aggression in the psychopathic personal­ity. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 303-338.

Paulhus, D. L. (2001). Normal narcissism: Twominimalist accounts. Psychological Inquiry, 8,228-230.

Paulhus, D. L. (August, 2001). Shedding conceptuallight on the Dark Triad of personality. Presentedat the meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation convention, San Francisco.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The darktriad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavel­

lianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Researchin Personality, 36,556-563.

Pincus, A. (2006). A contemporary integrative inter­personal theory of personality disorders. In M.

F. Lensenweger & J. F. Clarkin (Eds.), Majortheories of personality disorder (2nd ed.). New

York: Guilford Press.

Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Martinez, M. A (2008).

Effects of psychopathy traits on unprovoked

aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 319-328.Reise,S. P.,& Wright, T.M. (1996). Personality traits,

cluster B personality disorders, and sociosex­

uality. Journal of Research in Personality, 3D,128-136.

RhodewaIt, F., & Morf, c.c. (1995). Self and inter­

personal correlates of the narcissistic person­ality inventory: A review and new findings.

Journal ofResearch in Personality, 29, 1-23.Ruiz, M. A, Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A L. (2002).

Concurrent validity of the Personality Assess­

ment Inventory Alcohol Problems (ALC) Scalein a college student sample. Assessment, 9,261-270.

Ruiz, f. M., Smith, T. W., & RhodewaIt, F. (2001).

Distinguishing narcissism and hostility: Sim­

ilarities and differences in interpersonal cir­cumplex and five-factor correlates. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 76, 537-555.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is

it? Explorations on the meaning of psycholog­ical well-being. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 57, 1069-1081.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours ofpositive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9,1-28.

Salekin, R. T., Leistico, A. M. R.,- Trobst, K. K.,

Schrum, C. L., & Lochman,f. E. (2005). Adoles­

cent psychopathy and personality theory: Theinterpersonal circumplex: Expanding evidence

of a nomological net. Journal ofAbnormal ChildPsychology, 33, 445-460.

Salekin, R. T., Trobst, K. K., Krioukova, M. (2001).

Construct validity of psychopathy in a com­

munity sample: A nomological net approach.Journal ofPersonality Disorders, 15, 425-441.

Shechtman, N., & Horowitz, L. M. (2006). Interper­

sonal and noninterpersonal interactions, inter­

personal motives, and the effect of frustratedmotives. Personality and Social Psychology Bul­letin, 32, pp. 1126-1139.

Singer, J. A. (Ed.) (2004). Special Issue: Narrativeidentity and meaning-making across the adult

lifespan. Journal ofPersonality, 72, 437-658.Strack,S., & Lorr, M. (Eds.) (1994). Differentiat­

ing normal and abnormal personality. New York:

Springer.Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of

psychiatry. New York: Norton.

266 HANDBOOK OF INTERPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15 • DIFFERE

Sun Tzu (1998). The art ofwar (Y. Shibing & J. J. L.Duyvendak, Trans.). New York: Wordsworth.

Tracey, T. j. G., Rounds, J., & Gurtman, M.

(1996). Examination of the general factorwith the interpersonal circumplex structure:Application to the Inventory of Interpersonal

Problems. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31,36-44.

Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (in press). Agentic

and communal values. Journal of Research inPersonality.

Twenge,J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). "lsn'tit funto get the respect that we are going to deserve?"

Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,261-272.

Vemon, P. A., Villani, V.c., Vickers,L. C.,& Harris,

J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic investigation

of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality andIndividual Differences, 44, 445-452.

Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self­

esteem and threats to self: Implications forself-construals and interpersonal perceptions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8t1103-1118.

Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (1998). Psychopathyas a variant of common personality traits:Implications for diagnosis, etiology, andpathology. In T. Millon (Ed.), Psychopathy:Antisocial. criminal, and violent behavior (pp.171-187). New York: Guilford Press.

Williams, K M., McAndrew, A., Learn, T., Hanns,P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2001). The Dark Triadreturns: Antisocial behavior and entertainmentpreferences among narcissists, Machiavellians, andpsychopaths. Poster presented at the meeting ofthe American Psychological Association, SanFrancisco

Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor

structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy scale(SRP II) in nonforensic samples. Personality andIndividual Differences, 37, 765-778.

Williams, K. M., Nathanson, c., & Paulhus, D. L.(in press). Identifying and profiling scholasticcheaters: Their personality, cognitive ability,and motivation. Journal ofExperimental Psychol­ogy: Applied.

Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R D.(2007). The four facet structure of psychopathy

in non-forensic samples. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 88, 118-129.

Wilson, D. S., Near, D. c., & Miller, R. R. (1996).Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolu_tionary and psychological literatures. Psycho­logical Bulletin, 119,285-299.

Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomyof trait-deSCriptive tenns: The interpersonaldomain. Journal of Personality and Social Psy_chology, 37, 395-412.

Wiggins, j. S., & Broughton, R. (1985). The interper­sonal circle: A structural model for the inte.­gration of personality research. In R. Hogan, &W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality(Vol. 1, pp. 1-47). Greenwich, CT: IN Press.

Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. (1992). Agency and com­munion as conceptual coordinates for under·standing and measurement of interpersonalbehsvior.1n P. T. Costa & T. A W,diger (Eds.),Personality disorders and the fivefactor model atpersonality (pp. 73-93). Washington, DC: Amer­ican Psychological Association.

NOTES

1. Most similar in location to the other DarkTriad members is the NPI facet labeled"exploitative-entitled."

2. Convinced by the unificationist argu­ments, Lilienfeld has concretized theunificationist position in his influen­tial measure of antisocial behavior. ThePsychopathic Personality Inventory (PPJ)subsumes aU three Dark Triad mem'bers under one label, "psychopathy"(Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996).

3. Later in this chapter, we detail severalother studies designed specificaUy toexplain this distinctiveness withinmoderated circumplex.

4. Our most recent research on this issue isdetailed in the moderator section later inthis chapter.

5. We acknowledge that other impo:rlaJlt,writers on these topics take ratherent theoretical positions.

6. The notion of meaning-makingstrong philosophical roots. In thetentialliterature, the creation of symc,o!Jicy,\representations out of mundane hUiIIl,m,'!!events was central to the writings

philosophers sNietzsche, ancFrankl and 1\example, argUEwas a motive thsystems and coargued that exbchaos of life is ninevitable anxie

7. We must ackngrandiosity asmoderator dbinsecurity, for

IS • DIFFERENTIATING THE DARK TRIAD WITHIN THE INTERPERSONAL CIRCUMPLEX 267

I< Miller, R. R. (1996).nthesis of the evolu­:al literatures. Psycho­299.

rchological taxonomy

15: The interpersonal'nality and Social Psy_

.. (1985). The interpe....I model for the inte­earch. In R. Hogan, &pectives in personalityvich, CT: JAI Press.92). Agency and com­

'ordinates for under­lent of interpersonal, T. A Widiger (Eds.),he fivejactor model of[shington, DC: Amer­ation.

to the other Dark\!PI facet labeled

ificationist argu­concretized thein his influen-

ial behavior. They Inventory (PPI)Irk Triad mem-

"psychopathy"1996).'e detail severall specifically toeness within a

h on this issue is.r section later in

other importantIke rather differ-

ng-making has)ts. In the exis­tion of symbolic'undane humanthe writings of

philosophers such as Kierkegaard andNietzsche, and psychologists such asFrankl and May. Frankl (1968), forexample, argued that meaning-makingwas a motive that transcended biologicalsystems and concrete goals. May (1953)argued that extracting meaning from thechaos of life is necessary to overcome theinevitable anxieties of life.We must acknowledge alternatives tograndiosity as the key element of thismoderator dimension. Fundamentalinsecurity, for example, may be the

psychological mechanism that distin­guishes narcissists from the other DarkTriad members. May (1953), for example,argued that anxiety drives a funda­mental search for meaning, which atthe personality level creates an identityneed.

8. A less explored variant, vulnerablenarcissism, entails an even more complexprocess model (Dickinson & Pincus,2003). It also falls in Quadrant 2, butmay require another moderator­neuroticism, perhaps.