The instrument has had its critics ( Brown & Tamborski, 2011 ) as well as its supporters ( Miller & Campbell,
2011 ). A major source of debate has centered on the factor structure. Estimates of the number of factors have ran-
ged from two to seven ( Corry, Merritt, Mrug, & Pamp, 2008; Kubarych et al., 2004 ). As noted earlier, the instru-
ment does not capture the vulnerable component assumed in the clinical literature (see Hendin & Cheek, 1997;
Miller et al., 2010; Pincus et al., 2009 ).
3. SRP
Three self-report measures of psychopathy are in popular use: (1) the 64-item Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP)
scale ( Paulhus et al., 2014; Neal & Sellbom, 2012; Williams et al., 2007 ), (2) the 180-item Psychopathic Personality
Index ( Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996 ), and (3) the 26-item Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale ( Levenson,
Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995 ). According to Hicklin and Widiger (2005) , total scores on the SRP and PPI measure
similar constructs whereas the LSRP has more in common with measures of antisocial personality. Most recent is
the Psychopathy Resemblance Index ( Miller et al., 2001 ). However, it requires the entire set of NEO-PI items to
calculate the respondent’s similarity to the psychopath template.
Although the manual did not appear until 2014, the SRP scale was in use much earlier (e.g., Williams et al.,
2007 ) and has been the standard measure in most Dark Triad research. The LSRP has also been used a few times,
but, as far as we know, the PPI and PRI have never been used in any Dark Triad studies (see review by Furnham
et al., 2013 ). Sample SRP items include the following: ‘I have threatened people into giving me money, clothes, or
makeup’; ‘I rarely follow the rules’; ‘I have attacked someone with the idea of injuring them’; ‘Some people say I
have a cold personality’; ‘I have assaulted a law enforcement official or social worker’; ‘I’ve often done something
dangerous just for the thrill of it’.
A serious problem with the standard measures is their length. Even the shortest versions of the SRP (29),
Mach (20), and NPI (16) add up to 65 items. Lack of sufficient administration time or space has deterred many
researchers from using them. Consequently, recent research has turned to the use of shorter combination mea-
sures that distinguish the triad members ( Jonason & Webster, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2014 ).
B. Combination Measures of the Dark Triad
There are only four instruments designed to capture all three of the Dark Triad. Most widely-used are the
Short Dark Triad (SD3) inventory ( Jones & Paulhus, 2014 ) and the Dirty Dozen ( Jonason & Webster, 2010 ). Two
other measures have not yet been followed up: (a) Dark Triad Screen ( MacNeil, Whaley, & Holden, 2007 ); and
(b) the Mini-Markers of Evil ( Harms, Roberts, & Kuncel, 2004 ).
1. Dirty Dozen (DD)
(Jonason & Webster, 2010 ).
Variable
Jonason and colleagues have argued that the triad members converge on a specific evolutionary adaptation
(e.g., Jonason, Koenig, & Tost, 2010 ), and that all three capture an impulsive, short-term mating strategy
(Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009; Jonason & Tost, 2010 ). For many purposes, the authors argue, the three
variables can be combined into an overall Dark Triad composite ( Jonason et al., 2011 ).
Description
The DD is a 12-item questionnaire comprising three 4-item subscales with the usual Dark Triad labels: narcis-
sism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy. Responses are collected on 5 or 9-point Likert scales. The 3-factor structure
emerged from exploratory factor analyses of a 22-item pool ( Jonason & Webster, 2010 ).
Sample
The original samples consisted of 273 and 246 undergraduate students ( Jonason & Webster, 2010 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the two original samples were as follows: narcissism (.87 and .85),
Machiavellianism (.67 and .72), and psychopathy (.62 and .66) ( Jonason & Webster, 2010 ).566 20. MEASURES OF DARK PERSONALITIES
V. VICES AND VIRTUES