CHAPTER
20
Measures of Dark Personalities
Delroy L. Paulhus1and Daniel N. Jones2
1University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
2University of Texas, El Paso, TX, USA
This chapter reviews measures of socially aversive personalities. Although aversive, such personalities do not
rise to the clinical or criminal level and can even flourish in everyday society. In attempting to organize the litera-
ture on such aversive (but subclinical) personalities, Paulhus and Williams (2002) concluded that narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy had the broadest treatment. Because they were found to overlap both theo-
retically and psychometrically, these three variables came to be known as the ‘Dark Triad’. At least two reviews
are now available ( Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Jones & Paulhus, 2011a ). Because the Dark Triad frame-
work anchors this chapter both historically and psychometrically, we begin by updating those three literatures.
Machiavellianism
In introducing the construct into the personality literature, Christie and Geis (1970) were primarily influenced
by the writings of political strategist, Niccolo Machiavelli. As a result, the items on their personality scales cap-
ture themes such as cynical worldview, lack of morality, and manipulativeness (see review by Fehr, Samsom, &
Paulhus, 1992 ). The more recent review by Jones and Paulhus (2009) added elements drawn from a neglected
predecessor, namely, the first century military strategist-philosopher, Sun Tzu (translated 1998). Along with
themes similar to Machiavelli’s, Sun Tzu added planning, coalition-formation, and reputation-building. The latter
qualities turn out to be important in distinguishing among the Dark Triad constructs. Whereas psychopaths pay
little attention to the impact of their behaviors ( Hare & Neumann, 2008 ), Machiavellians plan ahead, build
alliances, and try to maintain a positive reputation. By integrating Machiavelli’s precepts with those of Sun-Tzu,
Jones and Paulhus concluded that the elements best defining Machiavellianism are (a) strategic manipulation;
(b) callous affect; and (c) alliance building. Ignoring this last element has led some writers to confuse
Machiavellianism with psychopathy.
Psychopathy
Modern conceptions of psychopathy originate in the work of Cleckley (1941) . He postulated a self-control defi-
cit that, along with callousness, has remained central to criminal conceptions ( Hare & Neumann, 2008 ) as well as
non-criminal conceptions of psychopathy ( Hall & Benning, 2006; Lebreton, Binning, & Adorno, 2006 ). At least as
callous as Machiavellians, psychopaths act out in a reckless fashion ( Jones & Paulhus, 2011b ). When extreme, this
combination of callous manipulation and impulsivity predisposes a ‘grab and run’ tactic that eventuates in a life-
time of criminal behavior ( Hare & Neumann, 2008 ).
Self-report measures of psychopathy are aimed at the non-criminal variant. As outlined by Hall and Benning
(2006) , the avoidance of criminal sanctions can be explained in three ways. First is the notion that non-criminal
psychopathy is simply less extreme than the criminal version. The second is the moderator case: When accompa-
nied by some socially attractive attribute (e.g., intelligence, attractiveness, athletic ability), psychopathic behavior
may take on a less virulent form. Third is the case where individuals possess only a subset of the psychopathic
profile, possibly the more adaptive aspects. Although we emphasize the continuity of a single core dimension of
psychopathy, there is merit in all three notions for explaining non-criminal cases.
562Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00020-6 ©2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.