Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Dark Side of the Affective Profiles: Differences and Similarities in Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism

The Dark Side of the Affective Profiles: Differences and Similarities in Psychopathy,... The affective profiles model is based on the combination of individuals’ experience of high/low positive affect and high/low negative affect: self-fulfilling, high affective, low affective, and self-destructive. We used the profiles as the backdrop for the investigation of individual differences in malevolent character traits (i.e., the Dark Triad: psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism). A total of 1,000 participants (age: M = 31.50 SD = 10.27, 667 males and 333 females), recruited through Amazons’ Mechanical Turk (MTurk), responded to the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule and the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. Individuals with a high affective profile reported higher degree of narcissism than those with any other profile, and together with individuals with a self-destructive profile, also higher degree of Machiavellianism and psychopathy than individuals with a low affective and self-fulfilling profile. Males scored higher in Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Together with earlier findings, our results show that while individuals in both the self-fulfilling and high affective profiles are extrovert and self-directed, only those in the high affective profile express an immature and malevolent character (i.e., high levels of all Dark Triad traits). Conversely, individuals in the self-fulfilling profile have earlier reported higher levels of cooperativeness and faith. More importantly, the unique association between high levels of positive emotions and narcissism and the unified association between negative emotions to both psychopathy and Machiavellianism imply a dyad rather than a triad of malevolent character traits. Keywords affective profiles model, Dark Triad, Machiavellianism, narcissism, negative affect, personality, positive affect, psychopathy, unification argument, uniqueness argument Positive and negative affect are easily seen as opposite ends pleasant disengagement (e.g., calm and serene; Watson & of a single continuum (i.e., as being unidimensional). A unidi- Clark, 1994; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Nevertheless, mensional model, with well-being at one pole and ill-being at there is evidence that rather than being completely indepen- the other, however, presents qualitative differences between dent, the two affectivity dimensions might be interrelated in a individuals who are high compared with low in both dimen- two-dimensional circumplex model containing not only sions (Ito & Cacciopo, 1998). Indeed, there is extensive evi- arousal (vertical axis) but also a valence dimension (horizon- dence that positive and negative affect are best thought as two tal axis; Russell, 1980). independent dimensions of the affective system (for a review, In the context of personality, positive and negative affect see Garcia, 2011; cf. MacLeod & Moore, 2000). The Broaden- dimensions are strongly associated with extraversion and and-Build Theory (Fredrickson, 1998, 2006), for example, posits that the function of positive affect is related to approach- Blekinge Center of Competence, Karlskrona, Sweden related behavior, which builds an individual’s resources for University of Gothenburg, Sweden survival and well-being, while negative affect inhibits behav- Network for Empowerment and Well-Being, Sweden ior that might lead to pain or punishment. Positive affect is a University of Borås, Sweden dimension that varies from pleasant engagement (e.g., enthu- Corresponding Author: siastic and active) to unpleasant disengagement (e.g., sad and Danilo Garcia, Network for Empowerment and Well-Being, Axel W. bored). The negative affect dimension, on the other hand, Anderssons Väg 8A, SE 371 62 Lyckeby, Sweden. moves from unpleasant engagement (e.g., anger and fear) to Email: danilo.garcia@icloud.com Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open neuroticism, respectively. For example, individuals who affective profile model provides the advantage of studying score high on extraversion attend and react more intensely to multidimensional profiles of specific combinations of traits, positive stimuli than individuals with low levels of positive because it allows the understanding of the experience in an affect (i.e., introverts). In contrast, individuals who score individual who is “adapting within his or her biopsychosocial high on neuroticism attend and react more intensely to nega- context” (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011, p. 25; see also Cloninger tive stimuli than individuals with low levels of negative & Garcia, 2015; Garcia & Rosenberg, 2015). affect (i.e., emotionally stable individuals; Larsen & Ketelaar, More recently, researchers (e.g., Garcia, 2012; Garcia, 1991). However, sensitivity to negative stimuli is best pre- Kerekes, Andersson-Arntén, & Archer, 2012; Garcia, Schütz, dicted by measures of being a neurotic introvert (i.e., being & Archer, 2015; Jimmefors et al., 2014) have focused on dif- high in harm avoidance or high in neuroticism and low in ferences between profiles with regard to personality mea- novelty seeking or low in extraversion), whereas sensitivity sures using models such as the Big Five model (Costa & to positive stimuli is best predicted by being a stable extra- McCrae, 1992) and Cloninger’s psychobiological model vert (i.e., being high in novelty seeking or high in extraver- (Temperament and Character Inventory; Cloninger, Svrakic, sion and low in harm voidance or low in neuroticism; Corr, & Przybeck, 1993). As hypothesized by these researchers, Kumari, Wilson, Checkley, & Gray, 1997; Corr et al., 1995). individuals with a self-fulfilling profile scored high in self- Hence, positive and negative affect represent general biobe- directedness, high in cooperativeness, high in persistence, havioral systems: positive affect is related to the Behavioral high in extraversion, high in self-regulatory strategies Activation System (BAS) or sensitivity to reward as well as defined as locomotion or a “just-do-it” mentality, and happi- approach motivation, while negative affect is related to the ness-increasing strategies related to agency (e.g., frequently Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) or sensitivity to signals exercising, active leisure, goal-pursuit), communion (e.g., of punishment as well as avoidance motivation (Gray, 1981; helping others, receiving help from others), and spirituality Watson, 2002; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999). (e.g., seek support in faith). In contrast, individuals with a Following this line of thinking, Archer and colleagues self-destructive profile scored high in reward dependence, have developed four affective profiles: self-fulfilling (high high in neuroticism, high in self-regulatory strategies defined positive affect, low negative affect), high affective (high posi- as assessment or inaction, and happiness-increasing strate- tive affect, high negative affect), low affective (low positive gies focused on suppression and rumination (e.g., suppres- affect, low negative affect), and self-destructive (low positive sion of negative thoughts, rumination of negative affect, high negative affect; see for example, Adrianson, experiences). Moreover, individuals with a high affective Ancok, Ramdhani, & Archer, 2013; Archer, Adolfsson, & profile were higher in reward dependence, higher in self- Karlsson, 2008; Archer, Adrianson, Plancak, & Karlsson, transcendence, higher in self-directedness, high in persis- 2007; Bood, Archer, & Norlander, 2004; Norlander, Bood, & tence, high in extraversion, and high in both locomotion and Archer, 2002; Norlander, Johansson, & Bood, 2005; Palomo, assessment. In contrast, individuals with a low affective pro- Beninger, Kostrzewa, & Archer, 2008; Palomo, Kostrzewa, file were high in self-directedness, high in harm avoidance, Beninger, & Archer, 2007). A person with a self-fulfilling and high in the self-regulatory strategy of assessment. profile shows high self-acceptance, high autonomy, purpose Taken together, these results suggest that individuals with in life, high energy, and internal locus of control (i.e., agency), a high positive affect profile (i.e., self-fulfilling and high positive relations with others, and helpful behavior (i.e., com- affective) share certain personality features, but that individ- munion), and also seek support in faith (i.e., spirituality), uals with a high affective profile also share features with while a person with a self-destructive profile experiences low individuals with a self-destructive profile. For example, indi- levels in all these variables (e.g., Archer & Garcia, 2014, viduals with a high affective profile are goal-directed, hard 2015; Garcia, Nima, & Kjell, 2014; Rapp Ricciardi et al., working, and agentic (i.e., high in self-directedness, high in 2014; Schütz, Sailer, et al., 2013). These variables are all pre- persistence) as individuals with a self-fulfilling profile, but dictors of well-being or what Cloninger (2004, 2006, 2013) as individuals with a self-destructive profile they are also defines as feeling good (i.e., happiness), doing good (i.e., low in autonomy (i.e., one aspect of agency), pessimistic and mature and actively virtuous living), physical health (i.e., tend to worry (i.e., high in neuroticism), are highly depen- absence of disease or infirmity), and prosperity (i.e., success, dent on external appraisal (i.e., high in reward dependence), good fortune, and flourishing). As the affective profile model and ruminate about their ability to achieve goals (i.e., high in is person-centered (Garcia, 2015; Garcia, MacDonald, & assessment). Other important differences between the indi- Archer, 2015), it is possible to discern differences between viduals with a self-fulfilling and those with a high affective profiles at the extreme ends of the model (i.e., self-destructive profile are, for example, that individuals with a high affec- vs. self-fulfilling, low affective vs. high affective), but also tive profile do not score high in helpful behavior, tolerance within individuals that differ in one affectivity dimension and toward others, and empathy (i.e., communion and coopera- are similar in the other (i.e., self-destructive vs. high affective, tive traits). Individuals with a self-fulfilling profile are, for self-destructive vs. low affective, low affective vs. self-fulfill- instance, the only ones who report that they seek support in ing, and high affective vs. self-fulfilling). In other words, the faith as one strategy in their own pursue of the happy life Garcia et al. 3 (Garcia, Schütz, & Archer, 2015; Schütz, Sailer, et al., 2013). over others, and are manipulative toward others yet they However, individuals with a high affective profile score have a fragile sense of the self (Ames, Rose, & Anderson, higher than individuals with low negative affect profiles (i.e., 2006). They show vanity to an extreme, are constantly seek- low affective and self-destructive) in self-transcendence (i.e., ing attention, and harbor feelings of entitlement they do not a spiritual trait partially defined as the ability to sense a unity deserve (Lee & Ashton, 2005). In other words, these traits with something bigger than the self; Cloninger, 2004; Garcia, are at the conceptual level different from each other (i.e., the 2012). uniqueness argument). Nevertheless, previous research has To expand the personality constructs that define each of showed that the three traits have low to moderate correla- the affective profiles, the present study aims to investigate tions with one another (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Lee & differences between profiles in Dark Triad traits (i.e., psy- Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Paulhus and chopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism). The Dark Williams, for example, reported positive intercorrelations Triad traits are, for instance, suggested to expand the Big between narcissism and psychopathy, and between Five personality model (Veselka, Scherme, & Vernon, 2012), Machiavellianism and psychopathy. There was also a low that is, one of the personality models in which we have dis- intercorrelation between narcissism and Machiavellianism. cerned differences between affective profiles. Thus, differ- Although these results have been replicated in some studies ences among profiles in their level of Dark Triad traits will (e.g., Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006), they have not been repli- also expand the current understanding of the affective pro- cated in others (e.g., Vernon et al., 2008). In addition, some files model. In addition, the affective profiles differ in per- studies report stronger correlations between the dark traits, sonality traits using Cloninger’s psychobiological model, while others report weaker correlations (e.g., Jakobwitz & which is related to the Big Five model but yet a distinctive Egan, 2006; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; model of personality that measures character traits (Garcia, Vernon et al., 2008). Hence, there is a wide range of mixed Anckarsäter, et al., 2015). To the best of our knowledge, results on how interrelated the dark traits actually are. Cloninger’s psychobiological model has not been used in In line with the uniqueness argument, however, individu- conjunction with the Dark Triad. Hence, using the affective als high in narcissism stand apart by their high scores on self- profiles model to map the Dark Triad traits in conjunction enhancement (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Jones & with earlier discerned personality differences among affec- Paulhus, 2011). Self-enhancement, for instance, has been tive profiles in two different personality models might con- associated with extrinsic spiritual behavior (Sedikides & tribute to the debate of the Dark Triad as three distinctive Gebauer, 2010), that is, spiritual behavior adopted as a means traits (i.e., uniqueness argument; for example, Jones & to an end (Allport & Ross, 1967). Individuals high in psy- Paulhus, 2011; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013; Vernon, Villani, chopathy, on the other hand, are different from individuals Vickers, & Harris, 2008) or as one global trait (i.e., unifica- scoring high in the others Dark Triad traits because they also tion argument; for example, Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010; score high on impulsivity (Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009; Jonason & Webster, Nevertheless, individuals high in levels of each of the Dark 2010; Jones & Figueredo, 2013). Before discussing our Triad traits share also high levels of agency and low levels of expectations and the implications of these relationships in communion (Jones & Paulhus, 2011; Paulhus & Abild, the context of Cloninger’s biopsychosocial model of person- 2011), which supports the unification argument. ality, we briefly present the Dark Triad and how individuals’ Indeed, research on the Dark Triad shows these traits cor- Big Five personality traits are related to their malevolent relate with aggression, bullying, and racism, that is, antago- traits. nistic behaviors in interpersonal situations (i.e., low communion). High levels of psychopathy, for example, are positively related to direct (i.e., physical or verbal) and indi- The Dark Triad: Psychopathy, rect aggression (i.e., gossiping, spreading rumors; Douglas, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism Bore, & Munro, 2012; Muris, Meester, & Timmermans, Paulhus and Williams (2002) coined the term Dark Triad 2013), high levels of Machiavellianism are positively associ- when they identified three clusters of personality traits at a ated with both forms of aggression but more strongly to indi- subclinical level within the normal population: psychopathy, rect aggression, and narcissism is positively linked to direct Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Psychopathy refers to forms of aggression (Kerig & Stellwagen, 2010; Lau & high impulsivity, thrill-seeking, and low empathy and anxi- Marsee, 2013). With regard to bullying, psychopathy is the ety (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The Machiavellian person- one dark trait most strongly related to bullying, followed by ality includes manipulative behaviors and deception for Machiavellianism and narcissism (Baughman, Dearing, self-benefit (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). Individuals high in Giammarco, & Vernon, 2012). It is important to point out that Machiavellianism are cynical, misanthropic, cold, prag- bully/victims score significantly higher than non-bully/non- matic, and show immoral beliefs, and detached affect victims on psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism (Rauthmann & Will, 2011). Individuals high in narcissism (Linton & Power, 2013). The Dark triad is positively corre- show exaggeration of self-worth and importance, superiority lated with out-group threat perceptions, anti-immigrant 4 SAGE Open prejudice (Hodson, Hogg, & McInnes, 2009), and different as antisocial, autocratic, selfish, stubborn, demanding, head- forms of racism (Jones, 2013). High levels of Machiavellianism strong, impatient, intolerant, outspoken, hard-hearted, argumenta- predict modern racism (i.e., specific types of inequality rather tive, and aggressive (cf. low cooperativeness; Cloninger, 2004). than negative responses to minorities in general), whereas Hence, it is clear why individuals with high levels in any of the high levels of psychopathy predict old-fashioned racism dark traits always score lowest in agreeableness and are less likely (embedded in opposition of any form of racial equality). In to help other people (Furnham et al., 2013; Jonason, Li, & Buss, sum, the three dark traits seem to share a non-cooperative 2010; Lannin, Guyll, Krizan, Madon, & Cornish, 2014; Veselka core, but with different nuances of non-cooperative behavior. et al., 2012; White, 2014). Agreeableness is, indeed, considered as This suggests a one global trait structure (i.e., unification the core trait contributing to prosocial behavior (Aghababaei, argument) rather than a ternary structure (i.e., uniqueness Wasserman, & Nannini, 2014; Carlo, Okun, Knight, & de argument). In this context, researchers have turned to one of Guzman, 2005; Lee & Ashton, 2005). However, although a per- the most common and reliable model of personality, the Big son high in the Dark Triad traits is predominantly disagreeable, Five, to discern differences and similarities between individu- she or he is also low in conscientiousness, stable, and extravert als who express these malevolent traits. (Furnham, Richard, Rangel, & Jones, 2014). A Dyad of Personality Models: The The Present Study Dark Triad and the Big Five Model The aim of this study was to investigate differences between As it could be expected, individuals who score high in any of affective profiles in the Dark Triad traits. To the best of our the three Dark Triad traits score low in agreeableness as well. knowledge, no other studies have investigated these differ- Individuals who score high in psychopathy and narcissism ences. We expect this to expand the research on differences in score also high on extraversion and openness. Those high in personality between affective profiles because the Dark Triad Machiavellianism and psychopathy score low in conscien- traits are suggested to expand the Big Five personality model tiousness, while individuals high in psychopathy also score (Veselka et al., 2012), which is one of the personality models low in neuroticism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). As with the already studied using the affective profiles model. Research relationships within the triad, relationships between the triad on the Dark Triad has a fairly detailed picture of which of the and the Big Five traits have been replicated in some studies Big Five personality traits help to discern diferences (i.e., (Lee & Ashton, 2005) but not in others (Jakobwitz & Egan, uniqueness argument) and commonalities (i.e., unification 2006). Yet other studies report correlations between each of argument) among the Dark Triad traits. This is, however, not the Dark Triad traits and several of the Big Five traits, for the case for Cloninger’s model of personality, which has example, high psychopathy with low agreeableness and low already been used to discern differences in personality conscientiousness, and high narcissism with high extraver- between affective profiles. Hence, using the affective profiles sion, high openness, and low agreeableness (Vernon et al., model as the framework for differences in malevolent tenden- 2008). Thus, even if there are some correlations between the cies, in conjunction with earlier discerned personality differ- Dark Triad and the Big Five, these are neither large nor consis- ences among profiles, might contribute to the debate of the tent and this indicates that the two models represent overlap- Dark Triad as one global trait (i.e., unification argument) or ping but distinct clusters of personality (Vernon et al., 2008). three distinctive traits (i.e., uniqueness argument). The most consistent finding is that individuals who In the context of affectivity, psychopathy seems to be express high levels in any of the Dark Triad traits also score associated with high levels of negative affect (Love & low in agreeableness (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Jonason & Holder, 2014), which is a marker for neuroticism and harm Webster, 2010; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, avoidance. In contrast, psychopathy is associated with low 2002). Importantly, agreeableness is positively related to the levels of positive affect (Love & Holder, 2014), which is a character trait of cooperativeness in Cloninger’s model (De marker for low levels of extraversion and self-directedness. Fruyt, Van De Wiele, & Van Heeringen, 2000, 2006, Garcia, Thus, suggesting that individuals with a self-destructive 2012; Garcia, Anckarsäter, et al., 2015). For instance, while profile (low positive affect/high negative affect) can be the Dark Triad as one global construct (i.e., the sum of all expected to be high in psychopathy. In this line, individuals three traits) is related to low levels of agreeableness, high with a self-fulfilling profile (high positive affect, low nega- levels of extraversion, high levels of openness, low levels of tive affect) have been depicted as more cooperative and tol- neuroticism, and low levels of conscientiousness, the only erant to others, more stable, and conscious, whereas common correlate for each unique dark trait is low levels of individuals with a high negative affect profile (i.e., high agreeableness (Jonason et al., 2010). This does, as discussed affective and self-destructive) are depicted as less agree- earlier, suggest a common uncooperative core for the three able (Garcia, 2012; Garcia et al., 2014). These earlier find- dark traits (i.e., unification argument). ings suggest that individuals with a high affective or a Individuals who are agreeable are described as interested in self-destructive profile should score higher in the Dark social harmony, whereas those who are disagreeable are described Triad traits. Nevertheless, one obvious difference between Garcia et al. 5 individuals with a high affective and those with a self- Instruments destructive profile is that individuals with a high affective Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule. The instrument profile experience high positive affect, which is positively (Watson et al., 1988) instructs participants to rate to what related to extraversion (see, for example, Garcia’s [2012] extent they generally have experienced 20 different feelings study, in which individuals with a high affective profile or emotions (10 positive affect and 10 negative affect) during score higher in extraversion compared with individuals the last weeks, using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very with a self-destructive profile). Extraversion is, for instance, slightly, 5 = extremely). The 10-item positive affect scale positively related to narcissism (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, includes adjectives such as strong, proud, and interested. The 2002; Vernon et al., 2008). Therefore, we expected indi- 10-item negative affect scale includes adjectives such as viduals with a high affective and a self-destructive profile afraid, ashamed, and nervous. We averaged together the to be higher in both psychopathy and Machiavellianism responses to each item to create an index of each scale. compared with individuals with a self-fulfilling or a low affective profile, but this two high negative affect profiles The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. The instrument (Jonason & Web- (i.e., self-destructive and high affective) were expected ster, 2010) is composed of 12 items (Likert-type scale: 1 = to differ in narcissism—the individuals with a high affec- not at all; 7 = very much), four for each Dark Triad trait: tive profile being the ones expected to score higher in psychopathy (e.g., “I tend to lack remorse”), Machiavellian- narcissism. ism (e.g., “I have used deceit or lied to get my way”), and narcissism (e.g., “I tend to want others to admire me”). We Method averaged together the responses to each item to create an index of each trait. Ethics Statement The review board of the Network for Empowerment and Statistical Treatment Well-Being approved the research protocol, which was found to comply with the law concerning research involving humans Participants’ positive and negative affect scores were divided and requiring only informed consent from the participants. into high and low using the median as reference and then Participants, workers from the crowdsourcing platform combined to create the four affective profiles (cutoff points Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), provided their consent in the present study: high positive affect = 3.20 or above; low by simply accepting the task (or HIT as it is called in MTurk) positive affect = 3.10 or less, or above; high negative and then answering the survey. This acceptance is recorded affect = 1.90 or above; low negative affect = 1.80 or less). electronically together with the participants’ answers. This resulted in 281 individuals with a self-fulfilling profile, 216 with a low affective profile, 198 with a high affective profile, and 305 individuals with a self-destructive profile. Participants and Procedure The distribution of the participants over the profiles showed The participants (N = 1,000, age M = 31.50 SD. = 10.27; 667 that the number of individuals in the low affective and high males and 333 females) were recruited through MTurk affective profiles were about the same. Similarly, about the (https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome). MTurk allows same number of participants was allocated to the self- data collectors to recruit participants (workers) online for destructive and self-fulfilling profiles (see Table 1). A completing different tasks in exchange for wages. This Shapiro–Wilkes test for normality showed that the affective method for data collection online has become more common profiles scores on the Dark Triad, except for high affective during recent years and it is an empirical tested valid tool for individual’s scores on Machiavellianism, deviated from the conducting research in the social sciences (see Buhrmester, normal distribution. Nevertheless, the Central Limit Theorem Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Participants were recruited by the suggests that, with sufficiently large sample sizes, it is plau- following criteria: being U.S. resident and being able to sible to assume that sampling distributions of means are nor- speak and read fluent in English. Participants were paid a mally distributed regardless of the distributions of the wage of .20 cents of American dollars for completing the variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Moreover, there were task and informed that the study was anonymous and volun- no significant results on Levene’s test for homogeneity of tary. The participants were presented with a battery of self- variance with the profiles as the independent variable. reports comprising the affect and Dark Triad measures, as To check for the validity of the profiling of the partici- well as demographic questions (e.g., age, sex). We included pants, we contacted an independent researcher who has two validity check items to control for random responding worked with k-means analyses as the method for the person- (“In this question, please answer either agree or disagree”). A oriented approach on individual differences. Our data were total of 52 individuals out of 1,052 (i.e., 5.20%) were dropped submitted to this analysis. Specifically, Ward’s hierarchical from the final analysis because they answered erroneously to cluster analysis was used to divide the sample into four one or both validity check items. groups, and k-means cluster analysis used the starting points 6 SAGE Open Table 1. Sex Distribution Among Affective Profiles. The affective profiles differed in Machiavellianism as well, F(3, 992) = 10.18, p = .001, η = .03. A post hoc test using Affective profile Male % (n) Female % (n) Total % (n) Bonferroni correction to the alpha level showed that individu- Self-destructive 25.3 (169) 40.8 (136) 30.5 (305) als with a high affective profile (M = 3.68, SD = 1.35) and Low affective 22.2 (148) 20.4 (68) 21.6 (216) individuals with a self-destructive profile (M = 3.54, SD = High affective 20.7 (138) 18.0 (60) 19.8 (198) 1.30) scored higher on Machiavellianism compared with indi- Self-fulfilling 31.8 (212) 20.8 (69) 28.1 (281) viduals with a low affective profile (M = 3.14, SD = 0.97) and individuals with a self-fulfilling profile (M = 3.15, SD = 1.34). Note. χ (3) = 28.3, p = .001. Furthermore, the profiles also differed in narcissism, F(3, 992) = 12.26, p = .001, η = .04. A post hoc test using from this analysis to investigate whether individuals actually Bonferroni correction to the alpha level showed that individu- ended up in a group most similar to their affective profile. als with a high affective profile (M = 4.25, SD = 1.27) scored The weighed mean of clusters homogeneity coefficient was higher on narcissism compared with individuals with a self- .73. Suggesting a good model fit and that the participants in destructive profile (M = 3.88, SD = 1.26) and individuals with the present study were categorized in four profiles using their a self-fulfilling profile (M = 3.77, SD = 1.38). Individuals combination of self-reported affect (S. MacDonald, personal with a low affective profile scored lower on narcissism (M = communication on January the 2nd, 2015). Part of the data in 3.43, SD = 1.29) compared with all profiles but the self-ful- the present study was used in a study in which we address filling. For a summary of the differences, see also Figure 1. methodological questions regarding the median split and There was a main effect of sex on Dark Triad traits, cluster approaches (see Garcia, MacDonald, & Archer, F(3, 990) = 14.11, p = .001, Wilks’s λ = .96, η = .04. Males 2015). (M = 2.91, SD = 1.31) scored higher in psychopathy, F(1, 992) = 41.12, p = .001, η = .04, compared with women (M = 2.39, SD = 1.15). Males (M = 3.44, SD = 1.36) scored Results also slightly higher in Machiavellianism, F(1, 992) = 6.19, Pearson correlations between psychopathy, Machiavellianism, p = .013 η = .006, compared with females (M = 3.24, SD = and narcissism were positive and significant showing moder- 1.32). There were no significant mean differences between ate correlations for Machiavellianism and psychopathy (r = the sexes with regard to narcissism (men: M = 3.88, SD = .49, df = 998, p < .001) and Machiavellianism and narcissism 1.33; women: M = 3.71, SD = 1.32). There were no signifi- (r = .43, df = 998, p < .001) but a less strong relation between cant interaction effects between affective profiles and sex. psychopathy and narcissism (r = .21, df = 998, p < .001). Negative affect was positively and significantly related to Discussion psychopathy (r = .15, df = 998, p < .001), Machiavellianism (r = .20, df = 998, p < .001), and narcissism (r = .20, df = 998, The research on affective profiles has a 10-year long history, p < .001). Positive affect was positively and significantly while the number of studies on the Dark Triad has increased related to narcissism (r = .12, df = 998, p < .01) and negatively fast during the last years. To expand earlier findings that show correlated to psychopathy (r = −.10, df = 998, p < .01). All differences in personality traits between individuals with dif- relations between affect and the Dark Triad traits were, how- ferent affective profiles, were we interested in differences ever, weak (see Ferguson, 2009, who recommends r = .20 as between profiles in the Dark Triad traits. The Dark Triad traits minimum effect size representing a practically significant show, for instance, significant phenotypic, genetic, and envi- effect for social science data). Table 2 shows the correlations, ronmental correlations to measures of personality traits that means and standard deviations (SD), and Cronbach’s α for all are distinct to those measured in the Big Five model (Veselka variables in the present study. et al., 2012), thus, making these dark traits non-explored ter- A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was cal- ritory in the context of the affective profiles model. Moreover, culated with affective profiles and sex as the independent if individuals with different affective profiles varied in their variables and the Dark Triad traits as the dependent variables. Dark Triad traits, this was expected to shed some light into the Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations (±) for the debate of unification versus uniqueness of these malevolent different profiles and across sex. There was a significant main traits. After all, individuals with different affective profiles effect of the affective profiles on the Dark Triad traits, have shown variance in personality traits commonly (i.e., the F(9, 2409.55) = 6.45, p = .001, Wilks’s λ = .94, η = .02. The Big Five model) and non-earlier (i.e., Cloninger’s psychobio- profiles differed in psychopathy, F(3, 992) = 5.78, p = .001, logical model) used to investigate associations to the dark η = .02. A post hoc test using Bonferroni correction to the trait. The most important findings were that (a) individuals alpha level showed that individuals with a self-destructive with a high affective profile reported higher degree of narcis- (M = 2.86, SD = 1.25) and a high affective (M = 2.90, SD = sism than individuals with any of the other profiles, and they 1.37) profile scored higher on psychopathy compared with also reported higher levels of Machiavellianism and psychop- individuals with a self-fulfilling profile (M = 2.49, SD = 1.20). athy than individuals with a low affective or a self-fulfilling Garcia et al. 7 Table 2. Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations (SD), and Cronbach’s Alpha (in Diagonal Dark Cells) for All Variables in the Present Study. M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Psychopathy 2.74 1.28 .76 2. Machiavellianism 3.37 1.35 .49*** .78 3. Narcissism 3.82 1.33 .21*** .43*** .77 4. Positive affect 3.08 0.74 −.10*** .01 .12*** .86 5. Negative affect 2.00 0.75 .15*** .20*** .20*** −.21*** .88 6. Sex N/A N/A −.19*** −.07** −.06** −.12*** .12*** N/A Note. N/A = not applicable. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations (SD = ±) in Dark Triad Traits Among Affective Profiles and Sex. Sex Self- Low High Self- destructive affective affective fulfilling Male Female F F ♂ Psychopathy 2.86 ± 1.25 2.74 ± 1.31 2.90 ± 1.37 2.49 ± 1.20 2.91 ± 1.31 2.39 ± 1.15 F, L F, L ♂ Machiavellianism 3.54 ± 1.30 3.13 ± 1.35 3.68 ± 1.35 3.15 ± 1.34 3.44 ± 1.36 3.24 ± 1.32 L F, L, D Narcissism 3.88 ± 1.26 3.42 ± 1.29 4.24 ± 1.27 3.77 ± 1.38 3.88 ± 1.33 3.71 ± 1.32 Note. F = higher when compared with individuals with a self-fulfilling profile; L = higher when compared with individuals with a low affective profile; D = higher when compared with individuals with a self-destructive profile; ♂ = higher than females. All significant at p < .01. profile and that (b) individuals with a self-destructive profile Dark Triad traits is predominantly disagreeable, but also an also were higher on Machiavellianism and psychopathy com- extravert (Furnham et al., 2014). Indeed, individuals with a pared with individuals with a low affective or a self-fulfilling high affective profile, compared with those with a low posi- profile. For a summary of the differences in the present study, tive affect profile (i.e., low affective and self-destructive), see Figure 1. are high in extraversion (Garcia, 2012; see Figure 2). Earlier findings show that individuals with a self-fulfilling Nevertheless, individuals with a high affective profile have or a high affective profile share high levels of agentic traits, been found to be high in neuroticism, as those with a self- such as self-directedness (i.e., goal-directedness, self-accep- destructive profile, but low in harm avoidance, as those indi- tance, etcetera) and persistence (i.e., a personality trait viduals with a self-fulfilling profile. In other words, all these describing an individual who is perfectionist and hard work- three profiles (i.e., high affective, low affective, and self- ing; see among others Garcia, 2012; Garcia et al., 2012). The destructive; see Figure 2) are rather emotionally unstable present results, however, show that despite the fact that indi- compared with the self-fulfilling profile (Garcia, 2012). viduals with any of these two profiles might be defined as However, individuals with a high affective profile show, at high in agentic traits, individuals with a self-fulfilling profile the same time, a tendency to be fearless, carefree, coura- scored lower in the Dark Triad traits, while individuals with a geous, energetic, outgoing, and optimistic even in situations high affective profile scored high in these malevolent traits. that worry most people (i.e., low harm avoidance). That is, high levels in the malevolent triad are associated with Psychopathy is, indeed, negatively associated with harm positive affect when negative affect is high (see Figure 1). In avoidance (Fowles & Dindo, 2006). In other words, individ- this context, earlier results show that, compared with the other uals with a high affective profile seem to be high in agentic profiles, including the high affective, the self-fulfilling scores traits (i.e., self-directedness, persistence, extraversion), low the highest in communal traits (i.e., cooperativeness); traits in communal traits (i.e., cooperativeness, agreeableness), that comprise tolerance toward others and empathic and help- high in the dark traits (i.e., psychopathy, Machiavellianism, ful behavior (Garcia, 2012; see Figure 2). Accordingly, indi- narcissism), and low in harm avoidance, but high in neuroti- viduals who score high in levels of each of the Dark Triad cism. In contrast, individuals with a self-destructive profile traits share also high levels of agency and low levels of com- are low in agentic traits, low in communal traits, and high in munion (Jones & Paulhus, 2011; Paulhus & Abild, 2011). dark traits, but high in both harm avoidance and neuroticism Nevertheless, others have suggested that it is not correct (see Figure 2). to dismiss the Dark Triad as simply low in communal traits Nevertheless, our finding linking psychopathy to the self- (e.g., agreeableness, cooperativeness)—a person high in the destructive profile, a profile in turn linked to high neurotic 8 SAGE Open Figure 1. Differences found between individuals with affective profiles that are at their extremes: self-destructive versus self-fulfilling (low-high positive affect, high-low negative affect) and low affective versus high affective (low-high positive affect, low-high negative affect). Differences found when individuals were matched in one affective dimension, and differed in the other (i.e., within differences): self-destructive versus high affective (matching: high-high negative affect, differing: low-high positive affect), self-destructive versus low affective (matching: low-low positive affect, differing: high-low negative affect), high affective versus self-fulfilling (matching: high-high positive affect, differing: high-low negative affect), and low affective versus self-fulfilling (matching: low-low negative affect, differing: low- high positive affect). Note. Reprinted with permission from Well-Being and Human Performance Sweden AB. and high in harm avoidant behavior, is at first sight counter- (self-destructive vs. low affective, see Figure 1), within pro- intuitive. Psychopathy has after all been found to correlate files with high negative affect that vary in their positive negatively to neuroticism (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002) affect levels (self-destructive vs. high affective, Figure 1), or and negative affect (Love & Holder, 2014), which is almost within profiles with low negative affect that vary in their synonymous with neuroticism (e.g., Tellegen, 1993; Watson positive affect levels (low affective vs. self-fulfilling, Figure et al., 1988). Nevertheless, some studies have not replicated 1). Furthermore, Machiavellianism differed between profiles the link high psychopathy-low neuroticism (Veselka et al., at both extreme ends of the model (high affective vs. low 2012). The findings presented here, however, suggest that affective and self-destructive vs. self-fulfilling, Figure 1), both high and low neuroticism (emotional stability being the but also within profiles low in positive affect that vary in opposite end of neuroticism) might be found in individuals their levels of negative affect (self-destructive vs. low affec- high in psychopathy, hence suggesting the probability of tive, see Figure 1) and within profiles high in positive affect both a emotionally stable (tentatively high in affectivity: that vary in their levels of negative affect (high affective vs. high affective) and a emotionally instable psychopath (tenta- self-fulfilling, see Figure 1). tively low in positive affect and high in negative affect: self- Moreover, individuals with a high affective profile scored destructive). Importantly, psychopathy was only higher when higher in narcissism compared with all profiles, even com- profiles at one extreme end of the model where compared pared with individuals with a self-destructive profile. This (i.e., self-destructive vs. self-fulfilling, see Figure 1) or was expected because individuals with a high affective pro- within profiles high in positive affect that vary in negative file score higher in extraversion compared with individuals affect (high affective vs. self-fulfilling, see Figure 1). Hence, with a self-destructive profile—extraversion is after all posi- psychopathy does not seem to be higher within profiles low tively related to narcissism (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002; in positive affect that vary in their negative affect levels Vernon et al., 2008). The matched comparisons, however, Garcia et al. 9 Figure 2. Summary of the personality trait differences between affective profiles in the present and other studies (e.g., Garcia, 2012; Garcia, Kerekes, Andersson-Arntén, & Archer, 2012). Note. The black ring points to traits that are shared by individuals with high levels of psychopathy and Machiavellianism in the present study. Reprinted with permission from Well-Being and Human Performance Sweden AB. suggest a complex picture for narcissism. This dark trait dif- (Schütz, Sailer, et al., 2013). We argue that this suggests that fered between individuals at one extreme end of the affective individuals with a high affective profile have a more means profile model (low affective vs. high affective), but also to an end approach to their spirituality/self-transcendence. within profiles that were high in negative affect and varied in The high affective profile is for instance depicted using their levels of positive affect (self-destructive vs. high affec- Cloninger’s model of personality, as high in self-directed- tive, see Figure 1), within profiles that were low in positive ness, low in cooperativeness, and high in self-transcendence affect and varied in their levels of negative affect (self- (Garcia, 2012; Garcia et al., 2012). Cloninger labels this spe- destructive vs. low affective, see Figure 1), and within pro- cific character combination as “fanatical” (e.g., Cloninger & files that were high in positive affect and varied in their Zohar, 2011). Individuals with this character combination levels of negative affect (high affective vs. self-fulfilling, see are prone to depression but also paranoid (Cloninger, 2004; Figure 1). Moreover, in relation to earlier research, individu- Josefsson, Merjonen, Jokela, Pulkki-Råback, & Keltikangas- als high in narcissism stand apart by being high in self- Järvinen, 2011). That is, our findings suggest that narcissism enhancement (Furnham et al., 2013; Jones & Paulhus, 2011), should be associated with these types of disorders. which is in turn associated with extrinsic spiritual behavior Nevertheless, this is a question for future research that should (Sedikides & Gebauer, 2010). Extrinsic spiritual behavior is include measures of character and the Dark Triad traits along adopted as a means to an end (Allport & Ross, 1967). In this the affective profile model. context, individuals with a high affective profile score high Finally, we found that men scored higher in psychopathy in spiritual traits (i.e., self-transcendence) compared with and slightly higher in Machiavellianism compared with individuals with a low affective and self-destructive profile women. This is accordingly to earlier research showing that (Garcia, 2012; see Figure 2). Nevertheless, only individuals men score higher than women in all three Dark Triad traits with a self-fulfilling profile report seeking support in faith (Jonason et al., 2010; Jonason et al., 2009; Jonason & 10 SAGE Open Webster, 2010). However, narcissism did not differed just-above and just-below the median become high and low between men and women in the present study and the differ- by fiat, not by reality (Garcia, MacDonald, & Archer, 2015; ences in Machiavellianism were rather small. This is, none- Schütz, Archer, & Garcia, 2013). To avoid this problem, theless, also in line with other studies (Jones & Paulhus, some studies have used larger samples as reference to create 2014; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Our results also replicated the profiles of smaller samples (e.g., Rapp Ricciardi et al., those findings suggesting positive correlations between 2014), others have opted to use the cutoff points found in the Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, original study (i.e., Norlander et al., 2002), and yet others 2002) and correlations between Machiavellianism and nar- have used aged-based cutoff points (e.g., Garcia, 2011). cissism (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). This last finding is, how- Nevertheless, using more sophisticated approaches (e.g., ever, contradictory to that from other studies (e.g., Paulhus & k-means cluster analysis) to allocate individuals in profiles, Williams, 2002). based on self-reported affect, also arrives to a four profiles solution as theorized by Archer (e.g., Garcia, MacDonald, & Archer, 2015; MacDonald & Kormi-Nouri, 2013). This was Limitations and Strengths of the Present Study also the case for the sample used here. To the best of our It is plausible to point out some potential issues with the knowledge, no study has established which of the methods choice of using MTurk to gather the data: for example, work- (median split vs. cluster analysis) construe the profiles more ers’ attention levels, cross-talk between participants, and the statistically accurate or has analyzed whether there are dif- fact that participants get remuneration for their answers ferences in the results depending on the approach being used. (Buhrmester et al., 2011). Nevertheless, a large quantity of Importantly, the categorization is based on the theoretical studies show that data on personality scales collected through framework of the affective system as being composed of MTurk meet academic standards and it is demographically independent dimensions. Hence, the affective profiles model diverse (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Horton, Rand, & goes beyond the view of affect as two separate systems and Zeckhauser, 2011; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010). takes into account the interaction of both dispositions and Moreover, data on health measures collected through MTurk also observations of two-system theories suggesting that, show satisfactory internal as well as test–retest reliability when using dichotomous features, combinations must be (Shapiro, Chandler, & Mueller, 2013). In addition, the ruled out (for a point of view on two-system theories, see amount of payment does not seem to affect data quality, Garcia, 2011; Keren & Schul, 2009). In other words, while remuneration is usually small, and workers report being there are differences between individuals in positive and/or intrinsically motivated (e.g., for enjoyment) to take part in negative affect, these two components of the affective sys- surveys (Buhrmester et al., 2011). tem exist within each individual. On the basis of this inde- With regard to the Dark Triad measure used here (i.e., pendent coexistence of self-regulation (i.e., approach Dark Triad Dirty Dozen; Jonason & Webster, 2010), it is behavior vs. avoidance behavior), it is plausible to assume important to point out that while some researchers find it as that there exist differences within the individual as well— an appropriate measure of these malevolent traits, others some experiencing high positive affect but low negative have criticized its validity (e.g., Lee et al., 2012; Miller & affect or any combination in-between. Lynam, 2012; Paulhus & Jones, 2014). For sake of brevity Our findings using the affective profile model suggest Jonason and Webster’s (2010) Dirty Dozen only comprises that the description of an individual high in the Dark Triad 12 items (four for each trait), while other measures, such as, traits is complex and that, as suggested by Furnham and col- Jones and Paulhus’ (2014) the Short Dark Triad comprises 27 leagues (2013), studies comparing the dark traits with other items (seven for each trait). For instance, the Dark Triad personality traits might need to investigate differences at the Dirty Dozen has demonstrated less predictive power (e.g., subscale level. For instance, individuals with a high affective Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Lee et al., 2012) compared with the profile have scored lower than individuals with a self-fulfill- measure developed by Jones and Paulhus (2014; the Short ing profile in the agentic trait of autonomy (Garcia et al., Dark Triad). In addition, although we opted to use a 7-point 2014). In other words, although both the self-fulfilling and Likert-type scale, as in Jonason and Luévano’s (2013) study, the high affective are high in agentic traits, such as, self- some studies have used a 5-point Likert-type scale (e.g., directedness they might differ in aspects of self-directedness Jonason, Li, & Czarna, 2013; Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, describing self-discipline and self-control, which are nega- 2012) or a 9-point Likert-type scale (e.g., Jonason & Webster, tively associated with the Dark Triad traits (Jonason & Tost, 2010). Hence, it is difficult to compare samples and our find- 2010). ings need to be replicated using more reliable measures of the Dark Triad. Conclusion and Final Remarks Finally, the allocation of the participants to different pro- files using median splits has some methodological problems In sum, the affective profiles model allows the comparison (Garcia, MacDonald, & Archer, 2015). For instance, median between individuals taking into account the different combi- splits distort the meaning of high and low because scores nations of individuals’ affective experience. The strength of Garcia et al. 11 the model is that comparisons take into consideration that Our results suggest that individuals who score high in individuals can be diametrically different (low affective vs. the Dark Triad traits might have lesser of the attributes high affective and self-destructive vs. self-fulfilling) or equal linked to the self-fulfilling profile: agency (i.e., self-accep- in one aspect of their affective experience and at the same tance, autonomy, goal-directedness), communion (i.e., time different in the other (i.e., high affective vs. self-fulfill- cooperation, helpfulness, empathy), and intrinsic spiritual- ing, low affective vs. self-fulfilling, self-destructive vs. low ity (i.e., seeking support from faith). These attributes affective, and self-destructive vs. high affective; see Figure together form a creative character and are all necessary for 1). In light of the results presented here, some suggestions well-being or what Cloninger (2004, 2006, 2013) defines as and predictions are warranted in regard to the unification feeling good (i.e., happiness), doing good (i.e., mature and versus uniqueness Dark Triad traits’ debate. First, we suggest actively virtuous living), physical health (i.e., absence of that narcissism is uniquely different from the other three dark disease or infirmity), and prosperity (i.e., success, good for- traits because it is the only dark trait to be associated with tune, and flourishing) (see also Falhgren, Nima, Archer, & high positive affect when negative affectivity is high (self- Garcia, 2015). In contrast to individuals with a high affec- destructive vs. high affective). A direct translation of the tive profile and who are also high in some agentic and some findings to other models of personality could be that, while spiritual traits, individuals with a self-fulfilling profile are narcissism shares low levels of agreeable and cooperative not self-centered, manipulative, or malevolent. For instance, behavior with the other dark traits, narcissism is positively self-fulfilling individuals with a creative character, such as, related to extrovert behavior (e.g., high positive affect, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King (Cloninger, socializing) only when the individual is also high in neurotic 2004), have imposed important changes for humanity behavior (e.g., high negative affect, emotionally unstable). using, for example, civil disobedience (Thoreau, 2009). This is accordingly to the description of a narcissistic person- This behavior has led their oppressors to see them as vil- ality as involving a grandiose yet fragile sense of the self lains. The difference between a hero and a villain might be (Ames et al., 2006). that the hero pursue communal values in an agentic and At a first look, psychopathy and Machiavellianism seem to spiritual manner, while the villain is all about agency and mostly be associated with negative affect, both the high affec- manipulation of communal and spiritual values (for recent tive and self-destructed profiles scored high in these malevo- research on the difference between agentic/communal val- lent traits. However, Machiavellianism was associated with ues and agentic/communal traits showing important effects high levels of negative affect when positive affect was high on happiness, see Abele, 2014). (high affective vs. self-fulfilling, Figure 1) and low (self- In the end, my kingdom was united not by a hero or a villain, as destructive vs. low affective, Figure 1) or when profiles at legend had predicted, but by one who was both hero and villain. both extreme ends of the model were compared. Psychopathy And her name was Maleficent. (From the movie Maleficent, on the other hand was associated with high negative affect 2014) only in two instances: when profiles at one extreme end of the model were compared (self-destructive vs. self-fulfilling) and Acknowledgments when positive affect was high (high affective vs. self-fulfill- ing, Figure 1). In other words, while Machiavellianism is gen- We would like to thank Dr. Shane Macdonald for his advice on erally associated with high levels of negative affect, k-mean analysis. We are also thankful to Sophia Izabella Garcia Rosenberg and Linnéa Mercedes Garcia Rosenberg for their help psychopathy has a unique association with high negative developing the figures. affect only when positive affect is high at the same time. This also suggests that psychopathy should be positively related to Declaration of Conflicting Interests extrovert behavior (e.g., high positive affect, socializing) only when the individual is high in neurotic behavior (e.g., high The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect negative affect, emotional stable). But psychopathy should to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. also be positively related to the opposite of extrovert behav- ior, that is, introvert behavior (e.g., low positive affect, being Funding reserved and a loner), under the same premises (i.e., high in The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or neurotic behavior). At the end, however, psychopathy and authorship of this article. Machiavellianism seem to have more similarities than differ- ences, at least when it comes to affectivity (see Figure 1). References Thus, our study suggests that there are two unique traits in the Abele, A. E. (2014). Pursuit of communal values in an agentic man- triad, narcissism being one of them, because it is uniquely ner: A way to happiness? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1320. associated with positive affect when negative affect is high. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01320 The other is probably a global antisocial trait composed of Adrianson, L., Ancok, A., Ramdhani, N., & Archer, T. (2013). psychopathy and Machiavellianism that is related to negative Cultural influences upon health, affect, self-esteem and impul- affect in general. siveness: An Indonesian-Swedish comparison. International 12 SAGE Open Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 2(3), 25-44. Corr, P. J., Kumari, V., Wilson, G. D., Checkley, S., & Gray, J. A. doi:10.5861/ijrsp.2013.228 (1997). Harm avoidance and affective modulation of the startle Aghababaei, N., Wasserman, J. A., & Nannini, D. (2014). The reflex: A replication. Personality and Individual Differences, religious person revisited: Cross-cultural evidence from the 22, 591-593. HEXACO model of personality structure. Mental Health, Corr, P. J., Wilson, G. D., Fotiadou, M., Gray, N. S., Checkley, S., Religion & Culture, 17, 24-29. & Gray, J. A. (1995). Personality and affective modulation of Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation the startle reflex. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 543-553. 5, 432-443. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Personality, 40, 440-450. Assessment Resources. Archer, T., Adolfsson, B., & Karlsson, E. (2008). Affective per- De Fruyt, F., Van De Wiele, L., & Van Heeringen, C. (2000). sonality as cognitive-emotional presymptom profiles regula- Cloninger’s psychobiological model of temperament and the tory for self-reported health predispositions. Neurotoxicity five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Research, 14, 21-44. Difference, 29, 441-452. Archer, T., Adrianson, L., Plancak, A., & Karlsson, E. (2007). De Fruyt, F., Van De Wiele, L., & Van Heeringen, C. (2006). The Influence of affective personality on cognitive-mediated emo- validity of Cloninger’s psychobiological model versus the tional processing: Need for empowerment. European Journal five-factor model to predict DSM-IV personality disorders in a of Psychiatry, 21, 21-44. heterogeneous psychiatric sample: Facet and residualized facet Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2014). Physical exercise influences aca- descriptions. Journal of Personality, 74, 479-510. demic performance and well-being in children and adolescents. Douglas, H., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2012). Distinguishing the International Journal of School and Cognitive Psychology, 1, Dark Triad: Evidence from the five-factor model and the e102. doi:10.4172/1234-3425.1000e102 Hogan Development Survey. Scientific Research, 3, 237-242. Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2015). Empowerment components that doi:10.4236/psych.2012.33033 endower resilience through positive affect: Character (hope Falhgren, E., Nima, A. A., Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2015). Person- and love), intrinsic motivation (agency), and locomotion (goal- centered osteopathic practice: Patients’ personality (body, pathway) [Manuscript submitted for publication]. mind, and soul) and health (ill-being and well-being). PeerJ, 3, Baughman, H. M., Dearing, S., Giammarco, E., & Vernon, P. A. e1349. doi:10.7717/peerj.1349 (2012). Relationships between bullying behaviours and the Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clini- Dark Triad: A study with adults. Personality and Individual cians and researchers. Professional Psychology, Research and Differences, 52, 571-575. Practice, 40, 532-538. Bood, S. Å., Archer, T., & Norlander, T. (2004). Affective person- Fowles, D. C., & Dindo, L. (2006). A dual deficit model of psy- ality in relation to general personality, self-reported stress, cop- chopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy ing and optimism. Individual Differences Research, 2, 26-37. (pp. 14-34). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high- Review of General Psychology, 2, 300-319. doi:10.1037/1089- quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. 2680.2.3.300 Carlo, G., Okun, M. A., Knight, G. P., Rosario, M., & de Guzman, Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). The broaden-and-build theory of posi- T. (2005). The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: tive emotions. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi Agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation. (Eds.), A life worth living: Contributions to positive psychology Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1293-1305. (pp. 85-103). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cloninger, C. R. (2004). Feeling good: The science of well-being. Furnham, A., Richards, S., & Paulhus, D. (2013). The Dark Triad: A New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Cloninger, C. R. (2006). Fostering spirituality and well-being in 7, 199-215. clinical practice. Psychiatric Annals, 36, 1-6. Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, R., & Jones, D. L. (2014). Cloninger, C. R. (2013). What makes people healthy, happy, and Measuring malevolence: Quantitative issues surrounding fulfilled in the face of current world challenges? Mens Sana the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Monographs, 1, 16-24. Differences, 67, 114-121. Cloninger, C. R., & Garcia, D. (2015). The heritability and devel- Garcia, D. (2011). Adolescents’ happiness: The role of the affective opment of positive affect and emotionality. In M. Pluess (Ed.), temperament model on memory and apprehension of events, Genetics of psychological well-being: The role of heritability subjective well-being, and psychological well-being (Doctoral and genetics in positive psychology (pp. 97-113). New York, thesis). University of Gothenburg, Sweden. NY: Oxford University Press. Garcia, D. (2012). The affective temperaments: Differences Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psy- between adolescents in the Big Five Model and Cloninger’s chobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of psychobiological model of personality. Journal of Happiness General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990. Studies, 13, 999-1017. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9303-5 Cloninger, C. R., & Zohar, A. H. (2011). Personality and the per- Garcia, D. (2015). The affective profile model: A person- ception of health and happiness. Journal of Affect Disorder, centered model of the affective system. Manuscript submit- 128(1-2), 24-32. ted for publication. Garcia et al. 13 Garcia, D., Anckarsäter, H., Kjell, O. N. E., Archer, T., Rosenberg, Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: P., Cloninger, C. R., & Sikström, S. (2015). Agentic, commu- The Dark Triad and self-control. Personality and Individual nal, and spiritual traits are related to the semantic representa- Differences, 49, 611-615. tion of written narratives of positive and negative life events. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A con- Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 5, cise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, Article 8. doi:10.1186/s13612-015-0035-x 420-432. Garcia, D., Kerekes, N., Andersson-Arntén, A.-C., & Archer, T. Jones, D. N. (2013). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism predict (2012). Temperament, character, and adolescents’ depres- differences in racially motivated attitudes and their affiliations. sive symptoms: Focusing on affect. Depression Research and Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 367-378. Treatment, 2012, Article 925372. doi:10.1155/2012/925372 Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Garcia, D., MacDonald, S., & Archer, T. (2015). Two differ- Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. European Journal of ent approaches to the affective profiles model: Median splits Personality, 27, 521-531. (variable-oriented) and cluster analysis (person-oriented). Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). Differentiating the Dark PeerJ, 3, e1380. doi:10.7717/peerj.1380 Triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz Garcia, D., Nima, A. A., & Kjell, O. N. E. (2014). The affective pro- & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: files, psychological well-being, and harmony: Environmental Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions mastery and self-acceptance predict the sense of a harmonious (pp. 249-268). New York, NY: Wiley. life. PeerJ, 2, e259. doi:10.7717/peerj.259 Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Garcia, D., & Rosenberg, P. (2015). The dark cube: Dark and ligth Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personalities. Assessment, character profiles [Manuscript submitted for publication]. 21, 28-42. Garcia, D., Schütz, E., & Archer, T. (2015). Differences in hap- Josefsson, K., Merjonen, P., Jokela, M., Pulkki-Råback, L., & piness-increasing strategies between and within affective pro- Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2011). Personality profiles iden- files. Manuscript submitted for publication. tify depressive symptoms over ten years? A population-based Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. study. Depression Research and Treatment, 2011, Article In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 246-276). 431314. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on ‘‘dark personalities’’ (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychop- Psychological Science, 4, 533-550. athy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining Kerig, P. K., & Stellwagen, K. K. (2010). Roles of callous-unemo- prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 686-690. tional traits, narcissism, and Machiavellianism in childhood Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online aggression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Assessment, 32, 343-352. Experimental Economics, 14, 399-425. Lannin, D. G., Guyll, M., Krizan, Z., Madon, S., & Cornish, M. Ito, T. A., & Cacciopo, J. T. (1998). Representations of the contours (2014). When are grandiose and vulnerable narcissists least of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 43-48. helpful? Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 127-132. Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The Dark Triad and normal per- Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to sonality. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331-339. positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality Jimmefors, A., Garcia, D., Rosenberg, P., Mousavi, F., Adrianson, and Social Psychology, 61, 132-140. L., & Archer, T. (2014). Locomotion (empowering) and Lau, K. S. L., & Marsee, M. A. (2013). Exploring narcissism, psy- assessment (disempowering), self-regulatory dimensions chopathy, and Machiavellianism in youth: Examination of as a function of affective profile in high school students. associations with antisocial behavior and aggression. Journal International Journal of School and Cognitive Psychology, 2, of Child and Family Studies, 22, 355-367. 103. doi:10.4172/1234-3425.1000103 Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Buss, D. M. (2010). The costs and and narcissism in the Five-Factor model and the HEXACO benefits of the Dark Triad: Implications for mate poaching and model of personality structure. Personality and Individual mate retention tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, Differences, 38, 1571-1582. 48, 373-378. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Czarna, A. Z. (2013). Quick and dirty: A., & Gallucci, A. (2013). Sex, power and money. European Some psychosocial costs associated with the Dark Triad in Journal of Personality, 27, 169-184. three countries. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 172-185. Linton, D. K., & Power, J. L. (2013). The personality traits of work- Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. W., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). place bullies are often shared by their victims: Is there a dark side The Dark Triad: Facilitating short-term mating in men. to victims? Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 738-743. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5-18. Love, A., & Holder, M. D. (2014). Psychopathy and subjective well- Jonason, P. K., & Luévano, V. X. (2013). Walking the thin line being. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 112-117. between efficiency and accuracy: Validity and structural MacDonald, S., & Kormi-Nouri, R. (2013). The affective person- properties of the Dirty Dozen. Personality and Individual ality, sleep, and autobiographical memories. The Journal of Differences, 55, 76-81. Positive Psychology, 8, 305-313. Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad MacLeod, A., & Moore, R. (2000). Positive thinking revised: at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Positive cognitions, well-being and mental health. Clinical Individual Differences, 52, 449-453. Psychology & Psychotherapy, 7, 1-10. 14 SAGE Open Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using Psychopathic Personality Inventory’s nomological network: Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Psychological Science, 1, 213-220. Research, and Treatment, 3, 305-326. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statis- Muris, P., Meester, C., & Timmermans, A. (2013). Some youths tics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. have a gloomy side: Correlates of the Dark Triad personality Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of traits in non-clinical adolescents. Child Psychiatry & Human personality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry, 4, Development, 44, 658-665. doi:10.1007/s10578-013-0359-9 122-130. Norlander, T., Bood, S.-Å., & Archer, T. (2002). Performance dur- Thoreau, H. D. (2009). Civil disobedience. New York, NY: Classic ing stress: Affective personality age, and regularity of physical Books America. exercise. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 495-508. Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). Norlander, T., Johansson, Å., & Bood, S.-Å. (2005). The affec- A behavioral genetic investigation of humour styles and their tive personality: Its relation to quality of sleep, well-being and correlations with the Big-5 personality dimensions. Personality stress. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 709-722. and Individual Differences, 44, 1116-1125. Palomo, T., Beninger, R. J., Kostrzewa, R. M., & Archer, T. (2008). Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). The Dark Focusing on symptoms rather than diagnoses in brain dysfunc- Triad and an expanded framework of personality. Personality tion: Conscious and nonconscious expression in impulsiveness and Individual Differences, 53, 417-425. and decision making. Neurotoxicity Research, 14, 1-20. Watson, D. (2002). Positive affectivity: The disposition to expe- Palomo, T., Kostrzewa, R. M., Beninger, R. J., & Archer, T. (2007). rience pleasurable emotional states. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Treatment consideration and manifest complexity in comorbid Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 106-119). neuropsychiatric disorders. Neurotoxicity Research, 12, 43-60. New York, UK: Oxford University Press. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running exper- Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the iments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision positive and negative affect schedule—Expanded form. Boise: Making, 5, 411-419. University of Iowa Press. Paulhus, D. L., & Abild, M. L. (2011). Values matter: Casting the Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and House characters onto the interpersonal circumplex. In L. L. validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The Martin & E. Cascio (Eds.), House and psychology. New York, PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, NY: Wiley. 54, 1063-1070. Paulhus, D. L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring dark personali- Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two ties. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolu- Measures of personality and social psychological constructs tionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal (pp. 445-451). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820-838. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. (2002). The Dark Triad of personal- White, B. A. (2014). Who cares when nobody is watching? ity: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal Psychopathic traits and empathy in prosocial behaviors. of Research in Personality, 36, 556-568. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 116-121. Rapp Ricciardi, M., Åkerman, J., Eerikäinen, P., Ambjörnsson, A., Andersson-Arntén, A.-C., Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2014). Author Biographies Understanding Group and Leader (UGL) trainers’ personality Danilo Garcia, PhD, is an associate professor at the University of characteristics and affective profiles. Frontiers in Psychology, Gothenburg. He is currently the director of the Blekinge Center of 5, 1191. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01191 Competence in Sweden, which focuses in education, research, and Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2013). Positioning the Dark Triad development of public health and healthcare. He is, together with in the interpersonal circumplex: The friendly-dominant narcissist, Professor Trevor Archer and Doctor Max Rapp Ricciardi, the founder hostile-submissive Machiavellian, and hostile-dominant psycho- and lead researcher of the Network for Empowerment and Well-Being. path? Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 622-627. Lillemor Adrianson, PhD, is a researcher and lecturer at University Rauthmann, J. F., & Will, T. (2011). Proposing a multidimensional of Borås. Machiavellianism conceptualization. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 391-404. Trevor Archer is a professor in biological psychology at the Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of University of Gothenburg, currently writing about epigenetics in Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178. neuropsychiatry, the influence of physical exercise in Parkinson’s, Schütz, E., Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2013). Character profiles and Alzheimer’s, mood disorders, neuro-immune functioning, attention adolescents’ self-reported affect. Personality and Individual deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and traumatic brain function. His Differences, 54, 841-844. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.020 studies in psychology are presently focused on personal attributes Schütz, E., Sailer, U., Nima, A., Rosenberg, P., Andersson-Arntén, and profiles associated with health and well-being. The outcomes of A.-C., Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2013). The affective profiles in prevention and intervention methods and concepts present an area the USA: Happiness, depression, life satisfaction, and happiness- of considerable interest not least in lab studies. increasing strategies. PeerJ, 1, e156. doi:10.7717/peerj.156 Sedikides, C., & Gebauer, J. E. (2010). Religiosity as self- Patricia Rosenberg has been a high school teacher for 12 years. enhancement: A meta-analysis of the relation between socially Her main interests lie at the interface of religion and psychology. desirable responding and religiosity. Personality and Social Her other interests are the use of taboo words in common language Psychology Bulletin, 14, 17-36. and also well-being coaching among youth. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

The Dark Side of the Affective Profiles: Differences and Similarities in Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism

Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/the-dark-side-of-the-affective-profiles-differences-and-similarities-WYXYZhZuL3

References (103)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244015615167
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The affective profiles model is based on the combination of individuals’ experience of high/low positive affect and high/low negative affect: self-fulfilling, high affective, low affective, and self-destructive. We used the profiles as the backdrop for the investigation of individual differences in malevolent character traits (i.e., the Dark Triad: psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism). A total of 1,000 participants (age: M = 31.50 SD = 10.27, 667 males and 333 females), recruited through Amazons’ Mechanical Turk (MTurk), responded to the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule and the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. Individuals with a high affective profile reported higher degree of narcissism than those with any other profile, and together with individuals with a self-destructive profile, also higher degree of Machiavellianism and psychopathy than individuals with a low affective and self-fulfilling profile. Males scored higher in Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Together with earlier findings, our results show that while individuals in both the self-fulfilling and high affective profiles are extrovert and self-directed, only those in the high affective profile express an immature and malevolent character (i.e., high levels of all Dark Triad traits). Conversely, individuals in the self-fulfilling profile have earlier reported higher levels of cooperativeness and faith. More importantly, the unique association between high levels of positive emotions and narcissism and the unified association between negative emotions to both psychopathy and Machiavellianism imply a dyad rather than a triad of malevolent character traits. Keywords affective profiles model, Dark Triad, Machiavellianism, narcissism, negative affect, personality, positive affect, psychopathy, unification argument, uniqueness argument Positive and negative affect are easily seen as opposite ends pleasant disengagement (e.g., calm and serene; Watson & of a single continuum (i.e., as being unidimensional). A unidi- Clark, 1994; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Nevertheless, mensional model, with well-being at one pole and ill-being at there is evidence that rather than being completely indepen- the other, however, presents qualitative differences between dent, the two affectivity dimensions might be interrelated in a individuals who are high compared with low in both dimen- two-dimensional circumplex model containing not only sions (Ito & Cacciopo, 1998). Indeed, there is extensive evi- arousal (vertical axis) but also a valence dimension (horizon- dence that positive and negative affect are best thought as two tal axis; Russell, 1980). independent dimensions of the affective system (for a review, In the context of personality, positive and negative affect see Garcia, 2011; cf. MacLeod & Moore, 2000). The Broaden- dimensions are strongly associated with extraversion and and-Build Theory (Fredrickson, 1998, 2006), for example, posits that the function of positive affect is related to approach- Blekinge Center of Competence, Karlskrona, Sweden related behavior, which builds an individual’s resources for University of Gothenburg, Sweden survival and well-being, while negative affect inhibits behav- Network for Empowerment and Well-Being, Sweden ior that might lead to pain or punishment. Positive affect is a University of Borås, Sweden dimension that varies from pleasant engagement (e.g., enthu- Corresponding Author: siastic and active) to unpleasant disengagement (e.g., sad and Danilo Garcia, Network for Empowerment and Well-Being, Axel W. bored). The negative affect dimension, on the other hand, Anderssons Väg 8A, SE 371 62 Lyckeby, Sweden. moves from unpleasant engagement (e.g., anger and fear) to Email: danilo.garcia@icloud.com Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open neuroticism, respectively. For example, individuals who affective profile model provides the advantage of studying score high on extraversion attend and react more intensely to multidimensional profiles of specific combinations of traits, positive stimuli than individuals with low levels of positive because it allows the understanding of the experience in an affect (i.e., introverts). In contrast, individuals who score individual who is “adapting within his or her biopsychosocial high on neuroticism attend and react more intensely to nega- context” (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011, p. 25; see also Cloninger tive stimuli than individuals with low levels of negative & Garcia, 2015; Garcia & Rosenberg, 2015). affect (i.e., emotionally stable individuals; Larsen & Ketelaar, More recently, researchers (e.g., Garcia, 2012; Garcia, 1991). However, sensitivity to negative stimuli is best pre- Kerekes, Andersson-Arntén, & Archer, 2012; Garcia, Schütz, dicted by measures of being a neurotic introvert (i.e., being & Archer, 2015; Jimmefors et al., 2014) have focused on dif- high in harm avoidance or high in neuroticism and low in ferences between profiles with regard to personality mea- novelty seeking or low in extraversion), whereas sensitivity sures using models such as the Big Five model (Costa & to positive stimuli is best predicted by being a stable extra- McCrae, 1992) and Cloninger’s psychobiological model vert (i.e., being high in novelty seeking or high in extraver- (Temperament and Character Inventory; Cloninger, Svrakic, sion and low in harm voidance or low in neuroticism; Corr, & Przybeck, 1993). As hypothesized by these researchers, Kumari, Wilson, Checkley, & Gray, 1997; Corr et al., 1995). individuals with a self-fulfilling profile scored high in self- Hence, positive and negative affect represent general biobe- directedness, high in cooperativeness, high in persistence, havioral systems: positive affect is related to the Behavioral high in extraversion, high in self-regulatory strategies Activation System (BAS) or sensitivity to reward as well as defined as locomotion or a “just-do-it” mentality, and happi- approach motivation, while negative affect is related to the ness-increasing strategies related to agency (e.g., frequently Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) or sensitivity to signals exercising, active leisure, goal-pursuit), communion (e.g., of punishment as well as avoidance motivation (Gray, 1981; helping others, receiving help from others), and spirituality Watson, 2002; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999). (e.g., seek support in faith). In contrast, individuals with a Following this line of thinking, Archer and colleagues self-destructive profile scored high in reward dependence, have developed four affective profiles: self-fulfilling (high high in neuroticism, high in self-regulatory strategies defined positive affect, low negative affect), high affective (high posi- as assessment or inaction, and happiness-increasing strate- tive affect, high negative affect), low affective (low positive gies focused on suppression and rumination (e.g., suppres- affect, low negative affect), and self-destructive (low positive sion of negative thoughts, rumination of negative affect, high negative affect; see for example, Adrianson, experiences). Moreover, individuals with a high affective Ancok, Ramdhani, & Archer, 2013; Archer, Adolfsson, & profile were higher in reward dependence, higher in self- Karlsson, 2008; Archer, Adrianson, Plancak, & Karlsson, transcendence, higher in self-directedness, high in persis- 2007; Bood, Archer, & Norlander, 2004; Norlander, Bood, & tence, high in extraversion, and high in both locomotion and Archer, 2002; Norlander, Johansson, & Bood, 2005; Palomo, assessment. In contrast, individuals with a low affective pro- Beninger, Kostrzewa, & Archer, 2008; Palomo, Kostrzewa, file were high in self-directedness, high in harm avoidance, Beninger, & Archer, 2007). A person with a self-fulfilling and high in the self-regulatory strategy of assessment. profile shows high self-acceptance, high autonomy, purpose Taken together, these results suggest that individuals with in life, high energy, and internal locus of control (i.e., agency), a high positive affect profile (i.e., self-fulfilling and high positive relations with others, and helpful behavior (i.e., com- affective) share certain personality features, but that individ- munion), and also seek support in faith (i.e., spirituality), uals with a high affective profile also share features with while a person with a self-destructive profile experiences low individuals with a self-destructive profile. For example, indi- levels in all these variables (e.g., Archer & Garcia, 2014, viduals with a high affective profile are goal-directed, hard 2015; Garcia, Nima, & Kjell, 2014; Rapp Ricciardi et al., working, and agentic (i.e., high in self-directedness, high in 2014; Schütz, Sailer, et al., 2013). These variables are all pre- persistence) as individuals with a self-fulfilling profile, but dictors of well-being or what Cloninger (2004, 2006, 2013) as individuals with a self-destructive profile they are also defines as feeling good (i.e., happiness), doing good (i.e., low in autonomy (i.e., one aspect of agency), pessimistic and mature and actively virtuous living), physical health (i.e., tend to worry (i.e., high in neuroticism), are highly depen- absence of disease or infirmity), and prosperity (i.e., success, dent on external appraisal (i.e., high in reward dependence), good fortune, and flourishing). As the affective profile model and ruminate about their ability to achieve goals (i.e., high in is person-centered (Garcia, 2015; Garcia, MacDonald, & assessment). Other important differences between the indi- Archer, 2015), it is possible to discern differences between viduals with a self-fulfilling and those with a high affective profiles at the extreme ends of the model (i.e., self-destructive profile are, for example, that individuals with a high affec- vs. self-fulfilling, low affective vs. high affective), but also tive profile do not score high in helpful behavior, tolerance within individuals that differ in one affectivity dimension and toward others, and empathy (i.e., communion and coopera- are similar in the other (i.e., self-destructive vs. high affective, tive traits). Individuals with a self-fulfilling profile are, for self-destructive vs. low affective, low affective vs. self-fulfill- instance, the only ones who report that they seek support in ing, and high affective vs. self-fulfilling). In other words, the faith as one strategy in their own pursue of the happy life Garcia et al. 3 (Garcia, Schütz, & Archer, 2015; Schütz, Sailer, et al., 2013). over others, and are manipulative toward others yet they However, individuals with a high affective profile score have a fragile sense of the self (Ames, Rose, & Anderson, higher than individuals with low negative affect profiles (i.e., 2006). They show vanity to an extreme, are constantly seek- low affective and self-destructive) in self-transcendence (i.e., ing attention, and harbor feelings of entitlement they do not a spiritual trait partially defined as the ability to sense a unity deserve (Lee & Ashton, 2005). In other words, these traits with something bigger than the self; Cloninger, 2004; Garcia, are at the conceptual level different from each other (i.e., the 2012). uniqueness argument). Nevertheless, previous research has To expand the personality constructs that define each of showed that the three traits have low to moderate correla- the affective profiles, the present study aims to investigate tions with one another (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Lee & differences between profiles in Dark Triad traits (i.e., psy- Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Paulhus and chopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism). The Dark Williams, for example, reported positive intercorrelations Triad traits are, for instance, suggested to expand the Big between narcissism and psychopathy, and between Five personality model (Veselka, Scherme, & Vernon, 2012), Machiavellianism and psychopathy. There was also a low that is, one of the personality models in which we have dis- intercorrelation between narcissism and Machiavellianism. cerned differences between affective profiles. Thus, differ- Although these results have been replicated in some studies ences among profiles in their level of Dark Triad traits will (e.g., Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006), they have not been repli- also expand the current understanding of the affective pro- cated in others (e.g., Vernon et al., 2008). In addition, some files model. In addition, the affective profiles differ in per- studies report stronger correlations between the dark traits, sonality traits using Cloninger’s psychobiological model, while others report weaker correlations (e.g., Jakobwitz & which is related to the Big Five model but yet a distinctive Egan, 2006; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; model of personality that measures character traits (Garcia, Vernon et al., 2008). Hence, there is a wide range of mixed Anckarsäter, et al., 2015). To the best of our knowledge, results on how interrelated the dark traits actually are. Cloninger’s psychobiological model has not been used in In line with the uniqueness argument, however, individu- conjunction with the Dark Triad. Hence, using the affective als high in narcissism stand apart by their high scores on self- profiles model to map the Dark Triad traits in conjunction enhancement (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Jones & with earlier discerned personality differences among affec- Paulhus, 2011). Self-enhancement, for instance, has been tive profiles in two different personality models might con- associated with extrinsic spiritual behavior (Sedikides & tribute to the debate of the Dark Triad as three distinctive Gebauer, 2010), that is, spiritual behavior adopted as a means traits (i.e., uniqueness argument; for example, Jones & to an end (Allport & Ross, 1967). Individuals high in psy- Paulhus, 2011; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013; Vernon, Villani, chopathy, on the other hand, are different from individuals Vickers, & Harris, 2008) or as one global trait (i.e., unifica- scoring high in the others Dark Triad traits because they also tion argument; for example, Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010; score high on impulsivity (Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009; Jonason & Webster, Nevertheless, individuals high in levels of each of the Dark 2010; Jones & Figueredo, 2013). Before discussing our Triad traits share also high levels of agency and low levels of expectations and the implications of these relationships in communion (Jones & Paulhus, 2011; Paulhus & Abild, the context of Cloninger’s biopsychosocial model of person- 2011), which supports the unification argument. ality, we briefly present the Dark Triad and how individuals’ Indeed, research on the Dark Triad shows these traits cor- Big Five personality traits are related to their malevolent relate with aggression, bullying, and racism, that is, antago- traits. nistic behaviors in interpersonal situations (i.e., low communion). High levels of psychopathy, for example, are positively related to direct (i.e., physical or verbal) and indi- The Dark Triad: Psychopathy, rect aggression (i.e., gossiping, spreading rumors; Douglas, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism Bore, & Munro, 2012; Muris, Meester, & Timmermans, Paulhus and Williams (2002) coined the term Dark Triad 2013), high levels of Machiavellianism are positively associ- when they identified three clusters of personality traits at a ated with both forms of aggression but more strongly to indi- subclinical level within the normal population: psychopathy, rect aggression, and narcissism is positively linked to direct Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Psychopathy refers to forms of aggression (Kerig & Stellwagen, 2010; Lau & high impulsivity, thrill-seeking, and low empathy and anxi- Marsee, 2013). With regard to bullying, psychopathy is the ety (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The Machiavellian person- one dark trait most strongly related to bullying, followed by ality includes manipulative behaviors and deception for Machiavellianism and narcissism (Baughman, Dearing, self-benefit (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). Individuals high in Giammarco, & Vernon, 2012). It is important to point out that Machiavellianism are cynical, misanthropic, cold, prag- bully/victims score significantly higher than non-bully/non- matic, and show immoral beliefs, and detached affect victims on psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism (Rauthmann & Will, 2011). Individuals high in narcissism (Linton & Power, 2013). The Dark triad is positively corre- show exaggeration of self-worth and importance, superiority lated with out-group threat perceptions, anti-immigrant 4 SAGE Open prejudice (Hodson, Hogg, & McInnes, 2009), and different as antisocial, autocratic, selfish, stubborn, demanding, head- forms of racism (Jones, 2013). High levels of Machiavellianism strong, impatient, intolerant, outspoken, hard-hearted, argumenta- predict modern racism (i.e., specific types of inequality rather tive, and aggressive (cf. low cooperativeness; Cloninger, 2004). than negative responses to minorities in general), whereas Hence, it is clear why individuals with high levels in any of the high levels of psychopathy predict old-fashioned racism dark traits always score lowest in agreeableness and are less likely (embedded in opposition of any form of racial equality). In to help other people (Furnham et al., 2013; Jonason, Li, & Buss, sum, the three dark traits seem to share a non-cooperative 2010; Lannin, Guyll, Krizan, Madon, & Cornish, 2014; Veselka core, but with different nuances of non-cooperative behavior. et al., 2012; White, 2014). Agreeableness is, indeed, considered as This suggests a one global trait structure (i.e., unification the core trait contributing to prosocial behavior (Aghababaei, argument) rather than a ternary structure (i.e., uniqueness Wasserman, & Nannini, 2014; Carlo, Okun, Knight, & de argument). In this context, researchers have turned to one of Guzman, 2005; Lee & Ashton, 2005). However, although a per- the most common and reliable model of personality, the Big son high in the Dark Triad traits is predominantly disagreeable, Five, to discern differences and similarities between individu- she or he is also low in conscientiousness, stable, and extravert als who express these malevolent traits. (Furnham, Richard, Rangel, & Jones, 2014). A Dyad of Personality Models: The The Present Study Dark Triad and the Big Five Model The aim of this study was to investigate differences between As it could be expected, individuals who score high in any of affective profiles in the Dark Triad traits. To the best of our the three Dark Triad traits score low in agreeableness as well. knowledge, no other studies have investigated these differ- Individuals who score high in psychopathy and narcissism ences. We expect this to expand the research on differences in score also high on extraversion and openness. Those high in personality between affective profiles because the Dark Triad Machiavellianism and psychopathy score low in conscien- traits are suggested to expand the Big Five personality model tiousness, while individuals high in psychopathy also score (Veselka et al., 2012), which is one of the personality models low in neuroticism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). As with the already studied using the affective profiles model. Research relationships within the triad, relationships between the triad on the Dark Triad has a fairly detailed picture of which of the and the Big Five traits have been replicated in some studies Big Five personality traits help to discern diferences (i.e., (Lee & Ashton, 2005) but not in others (Jakobwitz & Egan, uniqueness argument) and commonalities (i.e., unification 2006). Yet other studies report correlations between each of argument) among the Dark Triad traits. This is, however, not the Dark Triad traits and several of the Big Five traits, for the case for Cloninger’s model of personality, which has example, high psychopathy with low agreeableness and low already been used to discern differences in personality conscientiousness, and high narcissism with high extraver- between affective profiles. Hence, using the affective profiles sion, high openness, and low agreeableness (Vernon et al., model as the framework for differences in malevolent tenden- 2008). Thus, even if there are some correlations between the cies, in conjunction with earlier discerned personality differ- Dark Triad and the Big Five, these are neither large nor consis- ences among profiles, might contribute to the debate of the tent and this indicates that the two models represent overlap- Dark Triad as one global trait (i.e., unification argument) or ping but distinct clusters of personality (Vernon et al., 2008). three distinctive traits (i.e., uniqueness argument). The most consistent finding is that individuals who In the context of affectivity, psychopathy seems to be express high levels in any of the Dark Triad traits also score associated with high levels of negative affect (Love & low in agreeableness (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Jonason & Holder, 2014), which is a marker for neuroticism and harm Webster, 2010; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, avoidance. In contrast, psychopathy is associated with low 2002). Importantly, agreeableness is positively related to the levels of positive affect (Love & Holder, 2014), which is a character trait of cooperativeness in Cloninger’s model (De marker for low levels of extraversion and self-directedness. Fruyt, Van De Wiele, & Van Heeringen, 2000, 2006, Garcia, Thus, suggesting that individuals with a self-destructive 2012; Garcia, Anckarsäter, et al., 2015). For instance, while profile (low positive affect/high negative affect) can be the Dark Triad as one global construct (i.e., the sum of all expected to be high in psychopathy. In this line, individuals three traits) is related to low levels of agreeableness, high with a self-fulfilling profile (high positive affect, low nega- levels of extraversion, high levels of openness, low levels of tive affect) have been depicted as more cooperative and tol- neuroticism, and low levels of conscientiousness, the only erant to others, more stable, and conscious, whereas common correlate for each unique dark trait is low levels of individuals with a high negative affect profile (i.e., high agreeableness (Jonason et al., 2010). This does, as discussed affective and self-destructive) are depicted as less agree- earlier, suggest a common uncooperative core for the three able (Garcia, 2012; Garcia et al., 2014). These earlier find- dark traits (i.e., unification argument). ings suggest that individuals with a high affective or a Individuals who are agreeable are described as interested in self-destructive profile should score higher in the Dark social harmony, whereas those who are disagreeable are described Triad traits. Nevertheless, one obvious difference between Garcia et al. 5 individuals with a high affective and those with a self- Instruments destructive profile is that individuals with a high affective Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule. The instrument profile experience high positive affect, which is positively (Watson et al., 1988) instructs participants to rate to what related to extraversion (see, for example, Garcia’s [2012] extent they generally have experienced 20 different feelings study, in which individuals with a high affective profile or emotions (10 positive affect and 10 negative affect) during score higher in extraversion compared with individuals the last weeks, using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very with a self-destructive profile). Extraversion is, for instance, slightly, 5 = extremely). The 10-item positive affect scale positively related to narcissism (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, includes adjectives such as strong, proud, and interested. The 2002; Vernon et al., 2008). Therefore, we expected indi- 10-item negative affect scale includes adjectives such as viduals with a high affective and a self-destructive profile afraid, ashamed, and nervous. We averaged together the to be higher in both psychopathy and Machiavellianism responses to each item to create an index of each scale. compared with individuals with a self-fulfilling or a low affective profile, but this two high negative affect profiles The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. The instrument (Jonason & Web- (i.e., self-destructive and high affective) were expected ster, 2010) is composed of 12 items (Likert-type scale: 1 = to differ in narcissism—the individuals with a high affec- not at all; 7 = very much), four for each Dark Triad trait: tive profile being the ones expected to score higher in psychopathy (e.g., “I tend to lack remorse”), Machiavellian- narcissism. ism (e.g., “I have used deceit or lied to get my way”), and narcissism (e.g., “I tend to want others to admire me”). We Method averaged together the responses to each item to create an index of each trait. Ethics Statement The review board of the Network for Empowerment and Statistical Treatment Well-Being approved the research protocol, which was found to comply with the law concerning research involving humans Participants’ positive and negative affect scores were divided and requiring only informed consent from the participants. into high and low using the median as reference and then Participants, workers from the crowdsourcing platform combined to create the four affective profiles (cutoff points Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), provided their consent in the present study: high positive affect = 3.20 or above; low by simply accepting the task (or HIT as it is called in MTurk) positive affect = 3.10 or less, or above; high negative and then answering the survey. This acceptance is recorded affect = 1.90 or above; low negative affect = 1.80 or less). electronically together with the participants’ answers. This resulted in 281 individuals with a self-fulfilling profile, 216 with a low affective profile, 198 with a high affective profile, and 305 individuals with a self-destructive profile. Participants and Procedure The distribution of the participants over the profiles showed The participants (N = 1,000, age M = 31.50 SD. = 10.27; 667 that the number of individuals in the low affective and high males and 333 females) were recruited through MTurk affective profiles were about the same. Similarly, about the (https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome). MTurk allows same number of participants was allocated to the self- data collectors to recruit participants (workers) online for destructive and self-fulfilling profiles (see Table 1). A completing different tasks in exchange for wages. This Shapiro–Wilkes test for normality showed that the affective method for data collection online has become more common profiles scores on the Dark Triad, except for high affective during recent years and it is an empirical tested valid tool for individual’s scores on Machiavellianism, deviated from the conducting research in the social sciences (see Buhrmester, normal distribution. Nevertheless, the Central Limit Theorem Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Participants were recruited by the suggests that, with sufficiently large sample sizes, it is plau- following criteria: being U.S. resident and being able to sible to assume that sampling distributions of means are nor- speak and read fluent in English. Participants were paid a mally distributed regardless of the distributions of the wage of .20 cents of American dollars for completing the variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Moreover, there were task and informed that the study was anonymous and volun- no significant results on Levene’s test for homogeneity of tary. The participants were presented with a battery of self- variance with the profiles as the independent variable. reports comprising the affect and Dark Triad measures, as To check for the validity of the profiling of the partici- well as demographic questions (e.g., age, sex). We included pants, we contacted an independent researcher who has two validity check items to control for random responding worked with k-means analyses as the method for the person- (“In this question, please answer either agree or disagree”). A oriented approach on individual differences. Our data were total of 52 individuals out of 1,052 (i.e., 5.20%) were dropped submitted to this analysis. Specifically, Ward’s hierarchical from the final analysis because they answered erroneously to cluster analysis was used to divide the sample into four one or both validity check items. groups, and k-means cluster analysis used the starting points 6 SAGE Open Table 1. Sex Distribution Among Affective Profiles. The affective profiles differed in Machiavellianism as well, F(3, 992) = 10.18, p = .001, η = .03. A post hoc test using Affective profile Male % (n) Female % (n) Total % (n) Bonferroni correction to the alpha level showed that individu- Self-destructive 25.3 (169) 40.8 (136) 30.5 (305) als with a high affective profile (M = 3.68, SD = 1.35) and Low affective 22.2 (148) 20.4 (68) 21.6 (216) individuals with a self-destructive profile (M = 3.54, SD = High affective 20.7 (138) 18.0 (60) 19.8 (198) 1.30) scored higher on Machiavellianism compared with indi- Self-fulfilling 31.8 (212) 20.8 (69) 28.1 (281) viduals with a low affective profile (M = 3.14, SD = 0.97) and individuals with a self-fulfilling profile (M = 3.15, SD = 1.34). Note. χ (3) = 28.3, p = .001. Furthermore, the profiles also differed in narcissism, F(3, 992) = 12.26, p = .001, η = .04. A post hoc test using from this analysis to investigate whether individuals actually Bonferroni correction to the alpha level showed that individu- ended up in a group most similar to their affective profile. als with a high affective profile (M = 4.25, SD = 1.27) scored The weighed mean of clusters homogeneity coefficient was higher on narcissism compared with individuals with a self- .73. Suggesting a good model fit and that the participants in destructive profile (M = 3.88, SD = 1.26) and individuals with the present study were categorized in four profiles using their a self-fulfilling profile (M = 3.77, SD = 1.38). Individuals combination of self-reported affect (S. MacDonald, personal with a low affective profile scored lower on narcissism (M = communication on January the 2nd, 2015). Part of the data in 3.43, SD = 1.29) compared with all profiles but the self-ful- the present study was used in a study in which we address filling. For a summary of the differences, see also Figure 1. methodological questions regarding the median split and There was a main effect of sex on Dark Triad traits, cluster approaches (see Garcia, MacDonald, & Archer, F(3, 990) = 14.11, p = .001, Wilks’s λ = .96, η = .04. Males 2015). (M = 2.91, SD = 1.31) scored higher in psychopathy, F(1, 992) = 41.12, p = .001, η = .04, compared with women (M = 2.39, SD = 1.15). Males (M = 3.44, SD = 1.36) scored Results also slightly higher in Machiavellianism, F(1, 992) = 6.19, Pearson correlations between psychopathy, Machiavellianism, p = .013 η = .006, compared with females (M = 3.24, SD = and narcissism were positive and significant showing moder- 1.32). There were no significant mean differences between ate correlations for Machiavellianism and psychopathy (r = the sexes with regard to narcissism (men: M = 3.88, SD = .49, df = 998, p < .001) and Machiavellianism and narcissism 1.33; women: M = 3.71, SD = 1.32). There were no signifi- (r = .43, df = 998, p < .001) but a less strong relation between cant interaction effects between affective profiles and sex. psychopathy and narcissism (r = .21, df = 998, p < .001). Negative affect was positively and significantly related to Discussion psychopathy (r = .15, df = 998, p < .001), Machiavellianism (r = .20, df = 998, p < .001), and narcissism (r = .20, df = 998, The research on affective profiles has a 10-year long history, p < .001). Positive affect was positively and significantly while the number of studies on the Dark Triad has increased related to narcissism (r = .12, df = 998, p < .01) and negatively fast during the last years. To expand earlier findings that show correlated to psychopathy (r = −.10, df = 998, p < .01). All differences in personality traits between individuals with dif- relations between affect and the Dark Triad traits were, how- ferent affective profiles, were we interested in differences ever, weak (see Ferguson, 2009, who recommends r = .20 as between profiles in the Dark Triad traits. The Dark Triad traits minimum effect size representing a practically significant show, for instance, significant phenotypic, genetic, and envi- effect for social science data). Table 2 shows the correlations, ronmental correlations to measures of personality traits that means and standard deviations (SD), and Cronbach’s α for all are distinct to those measured in the Big Five model (Veselka variables in the present study. et al., 2012), thus, making these dark traits non-explored ter- A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was cal- ritory in the context of the affective profiles model. Moreover, culated with affective profiles and sex as the independent if individuals with different affective profiles varied in their variables and the Dark Triad traits as the dependent variables. Dark Triad traits, this was expected to shed some light into the Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations (±) for the debate of unification versus uniqueness of these malevolent different profiles and across sex. There was a significant main traits. After all, individuals with different affective profiles effect of the affective profiles on the Dark Triad traits, have shown variance in personality traits commonly (i.e., the F(9, 2409.55) = 6.45, p = .001, Wilks’s λ = .94, η = .02. The Big Five model) and non-earlier (i.e., Cloninger’s psychobio- profiles differed in psychopathy, F(3, 992) = 5.78, p = .001, logical model) used to investigate associations to the dark η = .02. A post hoc test using Bonferroni correction to the trait. The most important findings were that (a) individuals alpha level showed that individuals with a self-destructive with a high affective profile reported higher degree of narcis- (M = 2.86, SD = 1.25) and a high affective (M = 2.90, SD = sism than individuals with any of the other profiles, and they 1.37) profile scored higher on psychopathy compared with also reported higher levels of Machiavellianism and psychop- individuals with a self-fulfilling profile (M = 2.49, SD = 1.20). athy than individuals with a low affective or a self-fulfilling Garcia et al. 7 Table 2. Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations (SD), and Cronbach’s Alpha (in Diagonal Dark Cells) for All Variables in the Present Study. M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Psychopathy 2.74 1.28 .76 2. Machiavellianism 3.37 1.35 .49*** .78 3. Narcissism 3.82 1.33 .21*** .43*** .77 4. Positive affect 3.08 0.74 −.10*** .01 .12*** .86 5. Negative affect 2.00 0.75 .15*** .20*** .20*** −.21*** .88 6. Sex N/A N/A −.19*** −.07** −.06** −.12*** .12*** N/A Note. N/A = not applicable. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations (SD = ±) in Dark Triad Traits Among Affective Profiles and Sex. Sex Self- Low High Self- destructive affective affective fulfilling Male Female F F ♂ Psychopathy 2.86 ± 1.25 2.74 ± 1.31 2.90 ± 1.37 2.49 ± 1.20 2.91 ± 1.31 2.39 ± 1.15 F, L F, L ♂ Machiavellianism 3.54 ± 1.30 3.13 ± 1.35 3.68 ± 1.35 3.15 ± 1.34 3.44 ± 1.36 3.24 ± 1.32 L F, L, D Narcissism 3.88 ± 1.26 3.42 ± 1.29 4.24 ± 1.27 3.77 ± 1.38 3.88 ± 1.33 3.71 ± 1.32 Note. F = higher when compared with individuals with a self-fulfilling profile; L = higher when compared with individuals with a low affective profile; D = higher when compared with individuals with a self-destructive profile; ♂ = higher than females. All significant at p < .01. profile and that (b) individuals with a self-destructive profile Dark Triad traits is predominantly disagreeable, but also an also were higher on Machiavellianism and psychopathy com- extravert (Furnham et al., 2014). Indeed, individuals with a pared with individuals with a low affective or a self-fulfilling high affective profile, compared with those with a low posi- profile. For a summary of the differences in the present study, tive affect profile (i.e., low affective and self-destructive), see Figure 1. are high in extraversion (Garcia, 2012; see Figure 2). Earlier findings show that individuals with a self-fulfilling Nevertheless, individuals with a high affective profile have or a high affective profile share high levels of agentic traits, been found to be high in neuroticism, as those with a self- such as self-directedness (i.e., goal-directedness, self-accep- destructive profile, but low in harm avoidance, as those indi- tance, etcetera) and persistence (i.e., a personality trait viduals with a self-fulfilling profile. In other words, all these describing an individual who is perfectionist and hard work- three profiles (i.e., high affective, low affective, and self- ing; see among others Garcia, 2012; Garcia et al., 2012). The destructive; see Figure 2) are rather emotionally unstable present results, however, show that despite the fact that indi- compared with the self-fulfilling profile (Garcia, 2012). viduals with any of these two profiles might be defined as However, individuals with a high affective profile show, at high in agentic traits, individuals with a self-fulfilling profile the same time, a tendency to be fearless, carefree, coura- scored lower in the Dark Triad traits, while individuals with a geous, energetic, outgoing, and optimistic even in situations high affective profile scored high in these malevolent traits. that worry most people (i.e., low harm avoidance). That is, high levels in the malevolent triad are associated with Psychopathy is, indeed, negatively associated with harm positive affect when negative affect is high (see Figure 1). In avoidance (Fowles & Dindo, 2006). In other words, individ- this context, earlier results show that, compared with the other uals with a high affective profile seem to be high in agentic profiles, including the high affective, the self-fulfilling scores traits (i.e., self-directedness, persistence, extraversion), low the highest in communal traits (i.e., cooperativeness); traits in communal traits (i.e., cooperativeness, agreeableness), that comprise tolerance toward others and empathic and help- high in the dark traits (i.e., psychopathy, Machiavellianism, ful behavior (Garcia, 2012; see Figure 2). Accordingly, indi- narcissism), and low in harm avoidance, but high in neuroti- viduals who score high in levels of each of the Dark Triad cism. In contrast, individuals with a self-destructive profile traits share also high levels of agency and low levels of com- are low in agentic traits, low in communal traits, and high in munion (Jones & Paulhus, 2011; Paulhus & Abild, 2011). dark traits, but high in both harm avoidance and neuroticism Nevertheless, others have suggested that it is not correct (see Figure 2). to dismiss the Dark Triad as simply low in communal traits Nevertheless, our finding linking psychopathy to the self- (e.g., agreeableness, cooperativeness)—a person high in the destructive profile, a profile in turn linked to high neurotic 8 SAGE Open Figure 1. Differences found between individuals with affective profiles that are at their extremes: self-destructive versus self-fulfilling (low-high positive affect, high-low negative affect) and low affective versus high affective (low-high positive affect, low-high negative affect). Differences found when individuals were matched in one affective dimension, and differed in the other (i.e., within differences): self-destructive versus high affective (matching: high-high negative affect, differing: low-high positive affect), self-destructive versus low affective (matching: low-low positive affect, differing: high-low negative affect), high affective versus self-fulfilling (matching: high-high positive affect, differing: high-low negative affect), and low affective versus self-fulfilling (matching: low-low negative affect, differing: low- high positive affect). Note. Reprinted with permission from Well-Being and Human Performance Sweden AB. and high in harm avoidant behavior, is at first sight counter- (self-destructive vs. low affective, see Figure 1), within pro- intuitive. Psychopathy has after all been found to correlate files with high negative affect that vary in their positive negatively to neuroticism (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002) affect levels (self-destructive vs. high affective, Figure 1), or and negative affect (Love & Holder, 2014), which is almost within profiles with low negative affect that vary in their synonymous with neuroticism (e.g., Tellegen, 1993; Watson positive affect levels (low affective vs. self-fulfilling, Figure et al., 1988). Nevertheless, some studies have not replicated 1). Furthermore, Machiavellianism differed between profiles the link high psychopathy-low neuroticism (Veselka et al., at both extreme ends of the model (high affective vs. low 2012). The findings presented here, however, suggest that affective and self-destructive vs. self-fulfilling, Figure 1), both high and low neuroticism (emotional stability being the but also within profiles low in positive affect that vary in opposite end of neuroticism) might be found in individuals their levels of negative affect (self-destructive vs. low affec- high in psychopathy, hence suggesting the probability of tive, see Figure 1) and within profiles high in positive affect both a emotionally stable (tentatively high in affectivity: that vary in their levels of negative affect (high affective vs. high affective) and a emotionally instable psychopath (tenta- self-fulfilling, see Figure 1). tively low in positive affect and high in negative affect: self- Moreover, individuals with a high affective profile scored destructive). Importantly, psychopathy was only higher when higher in narcissism compared with all profiles, even com- profiles at one extreme end of the model where compared pared with individuals with a self-destructive profile. This (i.e., self-destructive vs. self-fulfilling, see Figure 1) or was expected because individuals with a high affective pro- within profiles high in positive affect that vary in negative file score higher in extraversion compared with individuals affect (high affective vs. self-fulfilling, see Figure 1). Hence, with a self-destructive profile—extraversion is after all posi- psychopathy does not seem to be higher within profiles low tively related to narcissism (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002; in positive affect that vary in their negative affect levels Vernon et al., 2008). The matched comparisons, however, Garcia et al. 9 Figure 2. Summary of the personality trait differences between affective profiles in the present and other studies (e.g., Garcia, 2012; Garcia, Kerekes, Andersson-Arntén, & Archer, 2012). Note. The black ring points to traits that are shared by individuals with high levels of psychopathy and Machiavellianism in the present study. Reprinted with permission from Well-Being and Human Performance Sweden AB. suggest a complex picture for narcissism. This dark trait dif- (Schütz, Sailer, et al., 2013). We argue that this suggests that fered between individuals at one extreme end of the affective individuals with a high affective profile have a more means profile model (low affective vs. high affective), but also to an end approach to their spirituality/self-transcendence. within profiles that were high in negative affect and varied in The high affective profile is for instance depicted using their levels of positive affect (self-destructive vs. high affec- Cloninger’s model of personality, as high in self-directed- tive, see Figure 1), within profiles that were low in positive ness, low in cooperativeness, and high in self-transcendence affect and varied in their levels of negative affect (self- (Garcia, 2012; Garcia et al., 2012). Cloninger labels this spe- destructive vs. low affective, see Figure 1), and within pro- cific character combination as “fanatical” (e.g., Cloninger & files that were high in positive affect and varied in their Zohar, 2011). Individuals with this character combination levels of negative affect (high affective vs. self-fulfilling, see are prone to depression but also paranoid (Cloninger, 2004; Figure 1). Moreover, in relation to earlier research, individu- Josefsson, Merjonen, Jokela, Pulkki-Råback, & Keltikangas- als high in narcissism stand apart by being high in self- Järvinen, 2011). That is, our findings suggest that narcissism enhancement (Furnham et al., 2013; Jones & Paulhus, 2011), should be associated with these types of disorders. which is in turn associated with extrinsic spiritual behavior Nevertheless, this is a question for future research that should (Sedikides & Gebauer, 2010). Extrinsic spiritual behavior is include measures of character and the Dark Triad traits along adopted as a means to an end (Allport & Ross, 1967). In this the affective profile model. context, individuals with a high affective profile score high Finally, we found that men scored higher in psychopathy in spiritual traits (i.e., self-transcendence) compared with and slightly higher in Machiavellianism compared with individuals with a low affective and self-destructive profile women. This is accordingly to earlier research showing that (Garcia, 2012; see Figure 2). Nevertheless, only individuals men score higher than women in all three Dark Triad traits with a self-fulfilling profile report seeking support in faith (Jonason et al., 2010; Jonason et al., 2009; Jonason & 10 SAGE Open Webster, 2010). However, narcissism did not differed just-above and just-below the median become high and low between men and women in the present study and the differ- by fiat, not by reality (Garcia, MacDonald, & Archer, 2015; ences in Machiavellianism were rather small. This is, none- Schütz, Archer, & Garcia, 2013). To avoid this problem, theless, also in line with other studies (Jones & Paulhus, some studies have used larger samples as reference to create 2014; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Our results also replicated the profiles of smaller samples (e.g., Rapp Ricciardi et al., those findings suggesting positive correlations between 2014), others have opted to use the cutoff points found in the Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, original study (i.e., Norlander et al., 2002), and yet others 2002) and correlations between Machiavellianism and nar- have used aged-based cutoff points (e.g., Garcia, 2011). cissism (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). This last finding is, how- Nevertheless, using more sophisticated approaches (e.g., ever, contradictory to that from other studies (e.g., Paulhus & k-means cluster analysis) to allocate individuals in profiles, Williams, 2002). based on self-reported affect, also arrives to a four profiles solution as theorized by Archer (e.g., Garcia, MacDonald, & Archer, 2015; MacDonald & Kormi-Nouri, 2013). This was Limitations and Strengths of the Present Study also the case for the sample used here. To the best of our It is plausible to point out some potential issues with the knowledge, no study has established which of the methods choice of using MTurk to gather the data: for example, work- (median split vs. cluster analysis) construe the profiles more ers’ attention levels, cross-talk between participants, and the statistically accurate or has analyzed whether there are dif- fact that participants get remuneration for their answers ferences in the results depending on the approach being used. (Buhrmester et al., 2011). Nevertheless, a large quantity of Importantly, the categorization is based on the theoretical studies show that data on personality scales collected through framework of the affective system as being composed of MTurk meet academic standards and it is demographically independent dimensions. Hence, the affective profiles model diverse (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Horton, Rand, & goes beyond the view of affect as two separate systems and Zeckhauser, 2011; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010). takes into account the interaction of both dispositions and Moreover, data on health measures collected through MTurk also observations of two-system theories suggesting that, show satisfactory internal as well as test–retest reliability when using dichotomous features, combinations must be (Shapiro, Chandler, & Mueller, 2013). In addition, the ruled out (for a point of view on two-system theories, see amount of payment does not seem to affect data quality, Garcia, 2011; Keren & Schul, 2009). In other words, while remuneration is usually small, and workers report being there are differences between individuals in positive and/or intrinsically motivated (e.g., for enjoyment) to take part in negative affect, these two components of the affective sys- surveys (Buhrmester et al., 2011). tem exist within each individual. On the basis of this inde- With regard to the Dark Triad measure used here (i.e., pendent coexistence of self-regulation (i.e., approach Dark Triad Dirty Dozen; Jonason & Webster, 2010), it is behavior vs. avoidance behavior), it is plausible to assume important to point out that while some researchers find it as that there exist differences within the individual as well— an appropriate measure of these malevolent traits, others some experiencing high positive affect but low negative have criticized its validity (e.g., Lee et al., 2012; Miller & affect or any combination in-between. Lynam, 2012; Paulhus & Jones, 2014). For sake of brevity Our findings using the affective profile model suggest Jonason and Webster’s (2010) Dirty Dozen only comprises that the description of an individual high in the Dark Triad 12 items (four for each trait), while other measures, such as, traits is complex and that, as suggested by Furnham and col- Jones and Paulhus’ (2014) the Short Dark Triad comprises 27 leagues (2013), studies comparing the dark traits with other items (seven for each trait). For instance, the Dark Triad personality traits might need to investigate differences at the Dirty Dozen has demonstrated less predictive power (e.g., subscale level. For instance, individuals with a high affective Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Lee et al., 2012) compared with the profile have scored lower than individuals with a self-fulfill- measure developed by Jones and Paulhus (2014; the Short ing profile in the agentic trait of autonomy (Garcia et al., Dark Triad). In addition, although we opted to use a 7-point 2014). In other words, although both the self-fulfilling and Likert-type scale, as in Jonason and Luévano’s (2013) study, the high affective are high in agentic traits, such as, self- some studies have used a 5-point Likert-type scale (e.g., directedness they might differ in aspects of self-directedness Jonason, Li, & Czarna, 2013; Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, describing self-discipline and self-control, which are nega- 2012) or a 9-point Likert-type scale (e.g., Jonason & Webster, tively associated with the Dark Triad traits (Jonason & Tost, 2010). Hence, it is difficult to compare samples and our find- 2010). ings need to be replicated using more reliable measures of the Dark Triad. Conclusion and Final Remarks Finally, the allocation of the participants to different pro- files using median splits has some methodological problems In sum, the affective profiles model allows the comparison (Garcia, MacDonald, & Archer, 2015). For instance, median between individuals taking into account the different combi- splits distort the meaning of high and low because scores nations of individuals’ affective experience. The strength of Garcia et al. 11 the model is that comparisons take into consideration that Our results suggest that individuals who score high in individuals can be diametrically different (low affective vs. the Dark Triad traits might have lesser of the attributes high affective and self-destructive vs. self-fulfilling) or equal linked to the self-fulfilling profile: agency (i.e., self-accep- in one aspect of their affective experience and at the same tance, autonomy, goal-directedness), communion (i.e., time different in the other (i.e., high affective vs. self-fulfill- cooperation, helpfulness, empathy), and intrinsic spiritual- ing, low affective vs. self-fulfilling, self-destructive vs. low ity (i.e., seeking support from faith). These attributes affective, and self-destructive vs. high affective; see Figure together form a creative character and are all necessary for 1). In light of the results presented here, some suggestions well-being or what Cloninger (2004, 2006, 2013) defines as and predictions are warranted in regard to the unification feeling good (i.e., happiness), doing good (i.e., mature and versus uniqueness Dark Triad traits’ debate. First, we suggest actively virtuous living), physical health (i.e., absence of that narcissism is uniquely different from the other three dark disease or infirmity), and prosperity (i.e., success, good for- traits because it is the only dark trait to be associated with tune, and flourishing) (see also Falhgren, Nima, Archer, & high positive affect when negative affectivity is high (self- Garcia, 2015). In contrast to individuals with a high affec- destructive vs. high affective). A direct translation of the tive profile and who are also high in some agentic and some findings to other models of personality could be that, while spiritual traits, individuals with a self-fulfilling profile are narcissism shares low levels of agreeable and cooperative not self-centered, manipulative, or malevolent. For instance, behavior with the other dark traits, narcissism is positively self-fulfilling individuals with a creative character, such as, related to extrovert behavior (e.g., high positive affect, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King (Cloninger, socializing) only when the individual is also high in neurotic 2004), have imposed important changes for humanity behavior (e.g., high negative affect, emotionally unstable). using, for example, civil disobedience (Thoreau, 2009). This is accordingly to the description of a narcissistic person- This behavior has led their oppressors to see them as vil- ality as involving a grandiose yet fragile sense of the self lains. The difference between a hero and a villain might be (Ames et al., 2006). that the hero pursue communal values in an agentic and At a first look, psychopathy and Machiavellianism seem to spiritual manner, while the villain is all about agency and mostly be associated with negative affect, both the high affec- manipulation of communal and spiritual values (for recent tive and self-destructed profiles scored high in these malevo- research on the difference between agentic/communal val- lent traits. However, Machiavellianism was associated with ues and agentic/communal traits showing important effects high levels of negative affect when positive affect was high on happiness, see Abele, 2014). (high affective vs. self-fulfilling, Figure 1) and low (self- In the end, my kingdom was united not by a hero or a villain, as destructive vs. low affective, Figure 1) or when profiles at legend had predicted, but by one who was both hero and villain. both extreme ends of the model were compared. Psychopathy And her name was Maleficent. (From the movie Maleficent, on the other hand was associated with high negative affect 2014) only in two instances: when profiles at one extreme end of the model were compared (self-destructive vs. self-fulfilling) and Acknowledgments when positive affect was high (high affective vs. self-fulfill- ing, Figure 1). In other words, while Machiavellianism is gen- We would like to thank Dr. Shane Macdonald for his advice on erally associated with high levels of negative affect, k-mean analysis. We are also thankful to Sophia Izabella Garcia Rosenberg and Linnéa Mercedes Garcia Rosenberg for their help psychopathy has a unique association with high negative developing the figures. affect only when positive affect is high at the same time. This also suggests that psychopathy should be positively related to Declaration of Conflicting Interests extrovert behavior (e.g., high positive affect, socializing) only when the individual is high in neurotic behavior (e.g., high The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect negative affect, emotional stable). But psychopathy should to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. also be positively related to the opposite of extrovert behav- ior, that is, introvert behavior (e.g., low positive affect, being Funding reserved and a loner), under the same premises (i.e., high in The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or neurotic behavior). At the end, however, psychopathy and authorship of this article. Machiavellianism seem to have more similarities than differ- ences, at least when it comes to affectivity (see Figure 1). References Thus, our study suggests that there are two unique traits in the Abele, A. E. (2014). Pursuit of communal values in an agentic man- triad, narcissism being one of them, because it is uniquely ner: A way to happiness? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1320. associated with positive affect when negative affect is high. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01320 The other is probably a global antisocial trait composed of Adrianson, L., Ancok, A., Ramdhani, N., & Archer, T. (2013). psychopathy and Machiavellianism that is related to negative Cultural influences upon health, affect, self-esteem and impul- affect in general. siveness: An Indonesian-Swedish comparison. International 12 SAGE Open Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 2(3), 25-44. Corr, P. J., Kumari, V., Wilson, G. D., Checkley, S., & Gray, J. A. doi:10.5861/ijrsp.2013.228 (1997). Harm avoidance and affective modulation of the startle Aghababaei, N., Wasserman, J. A., & Nannini, D. (2014). The reflex: A replication. Personality and Individual Differences, religious person revisited: Cross-cultural evidence from the 22, 591-593. HEXACO model of personality structure. Mental Health, Corr, P. J., Wilson, G. D., Fotiadou, M., Gray, N. S., Checkley, S., Religion & Culture, 17, 24-29. & Gray, J. A. (1995). Personality and affective modulation of Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation the startle reflex. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 543-553. 5, 432-443. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Personality, 40, 440-450. Assessment Resources. Archer, T., Adolfsson, B., & Karlsson, E. (2008). Affective per- De Fruyt, F., Van De Wiele, L., & Van Heeringen, C. (2000). sonality as cognitive-emotional presymptom profiles regula- Cloninger’s psychobiological model of temperament and the tory for self-reported health predispositions. Neurotoxicity five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Research, 14, 21-44. Difference, 29, 441-452. Archer, T., Adrianson, L., Plancak, A., & Karlsson, E. (2007). De Fruyt, F., Van De Wiele, L., & Van Heeringen, C. (2006). The Influence of affective personality on cognitive-mediated emo- validity of Cloninger’s psychobiological model versus the tional processing: Need for empowerment. European Journal five-factor model to predict DSM-IV personality disorders in a of Psychiatry, 21, 21-44. heterogeneous psychiatric sample: Facet and residualized facet Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2014). Physical exercise influences aca- descriptions. Journal of Personality, 74, 479-510. demic performance and well-being in children and adolescents. Douglas, H., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2012). Distinguishing the International Journal of School and Cognitive Psychology, 1, Dark Triad: Evidence from the five-factor model and the e102. doi:10.4172/1234-3425.1000e102 Hogan Development Survey. Scientific Research, 3, 237-242. Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2015). Empowerment components that doi:10.4236/psych.2012.33033 endower resilience through positive affect: Character (hope Falhgren, E., Nima, A. A., Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2015). Person- and love), intrinsic motivation (agency), and locomotion (goal- centered osteopathic practice: Patients’ personality (body, pathway) [Manuscript submitted for publication]. mind, and soul) and health (ill-being and well-being). PeerJ, 3, Baughman, H. M., Dearing, S., Giammarco, E., & Vernon, P. A. e1349. doi:10.7717/peerj.1349 (2012). Relationships between bullying behaviours and the Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clini- Dark Triad: A study with adults. Personality and Individual cians and researchers. Professional Psychology, Research and Differences, 52, 571-575. Practice, 40, 532-538. Bood, S. Å., Archer, T., & Norlander, T. (2004). Affective person- Fowles, D. C., & Dindo, L. (2006). A dual deficit model of psy- ality in relation to general personality, self-reported stress, cop- chopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy ing and optimism. Individual Differences Research, 2, 26-37. (pp. 14-34). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high- Review of General Psychology, 2, 300-319. doi:10.1037/1089- quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. 2680.2.3.300 Carlo, G., Okun, M. A., Knight, G. P., Rosario, M., & de Guzman, Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). The broaden-and-build theory of posi- T. (2005). The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: tive emotions. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi Agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation. (Eds.), A life worth living: Contributions to positive psychology Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1293-1305. (pp. 85-103). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cloninger, C. R. (2004). Feeling good: The science of well-being. Furnham, A., Richards, S., & Paulhus, D. (2013). The Dark Triad: A New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Cloninger, C. R. (2006). Fostering spirituality and well-being in 7, 199-215. clinical practice. Psychiatric Annals, 36, 1-6. Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, R., & Jones, D. L. (2014). Cloninger, C. R. (2013). What makes people healthy, happy, and Measuring malevolence: Quantitative issues surrounding fulfilled in the face of current world challenges? Mens Sana the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Monographs, 1, 16-24. Differences, 67, 114-121. Cloninger, C. R., & Garcia, D. (2015). The heritability and devel- Garcia, D. (2011). Adolescents’ happiness: The role of the affective opment of positive affect and emotionality. In M. Pluess (Ed.), temperament model on memory and apprehension of events, Genetics of psychological well-being: The role of heritability subjective well-being, and psychological well-being (Doctoral and genetics in positive psychology (pp. 97-113). New York, thesis). University of Gothenburg, Sweden. NY: Oxford University Press. Garcia, D. (2012). The affective temperaments: Differences Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psy- between adolescents in the Big Five Model and Cloninger’s chobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of psychobiological model of personality. Journal of Happiness General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990. Studies, 13, 999-1017. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9303-5 Cloninger, C. R., & Zohar, A. H. (2011). Personality and the per- Garcia, D. (2015). The affective profile model: A person- ception of health and happiness. Journal of Affect Disorder, centered model of the affective system. Manuscript submit- 128(1-2), 24-32. ted for publication. Garcia et al. 13 Garcia, D., Anckarsäter, H., Kjell, O. N. E., Archer, T., Rosenberg, Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: P., Cloninger, C. R., & Sikström, S. (2015). Agentic, commu- The Dark Triad and self-control. Personality and Individual nal, and spiritual traits are related to the semantic representa- Differences, 49, 611-615. tion of written narratives of positive and negative life events. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A con- Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 5, cise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, Article 8. doi:10.1186/s13612-015-0035-x 420-432. Garcia, D., Kerekes, N., Andersson-Arntén, A.-C., & Archer, T. Jones, D. N. (2013). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism predict (2012). Temperament, character, and adolescents’ depres- differences in racially motivated attitudes and their affiliations. sive symptoms: Focusing on affect. Depression Research and Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 367-378. Treatment, 2012, Article 925372. doi:10.1155/2012/925372 Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Garcia, D., MacDonald, S., & Archer, T. (2015). Two differ- Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. European Journal of ent approaches to the affective profiles model: Median splits Personality, 27, 521-531. (variable-oriented) and cluster analysis (person-oriented). Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). Differentiating the Dark PeerJ, 3, e1380. doi:10.7717/peerj.1380 Triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz Garcia, D., Nima, A. A., & Kjell, O. N. E. (2014). The affective pro- & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: files, psychological well-being, and harmony: Environmental Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions mastery and self-acceptance predict the sense of a harmonious (pp. 249-268). New York, NY: Wiley. life. PeerJ, 2, e259. doi:10.7717/peerj.259 Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Garcia, D., & Rosenberg, P. (2015). The dark cube: Dark and ligth Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personalities. Assessment, character profiles [Manuscript submitted for publication]. 21, 28-42. Garcia, D., Schütz, E., & Archer, T. (2015). Differences in hap- Josefsson, K., Merjonen, P., Jokela, M., Pulkki-Råback, L., & piness-increasing strategies between and within affective pro- Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2011). Personality profiles iden- files. Manuscript submitted for publication. tify depressive symptoms over ten years? A population-based Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. study. Depression Research and Treatment, 2011, Article In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 246-276). 431314. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on ‘‘dark personalities’’ (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychop- Psychological Science, 4, 533-550. athy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining Kerig, P. K., & Stellwagen, K. K. (2010). Roles of callous-unemo- prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 686-690. tional traits, narcissism, and Machiavellianism in childhood Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online aggression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Assessment, 32, 343-352. Experimental Economics, 14, 399-425. Lannin, D. G., Guyll, M., Krizan, Z., Madon, S., & Cornish, M. Ito, T. A., & Cacciopo, J. T. (1998). Representations of the contours (2014). When are grandiose and vulnerable narcissists least of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 43-48. helpful? Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 127-132. Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The Dark Triad and normal per- Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to sonality. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331-339. positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality Jimmefors, A., Garcia, D., Rosenberg, P., Mousavi, F., Adrianson, and Social Psychology, 61, 132-140. L., & Archer, T. (2014). Locomotion (empowering) and Lau, K. S. L., & Marsee, M. A. (2013). Exploring narcissism, psy- assessment (disempowering), self-regulatory dimensions chopathy, and Machiavellianism in youth: Examination of as a function of affective profile in high school students. associations with antisocial behavior and aggression. Journal International Journal of School and Cognitive Psychology, 2, of Child and Family Studies, 22, 355-367. 103. doi:10.4172/1234-3425.1000103 Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Buss, D. M. (2010). The costs and and narcissism in the Five-Factor model and the HEXACO benefits of the Dark Triad: Implications for mate poaching and model of personality structure. Personality and Individual mate retention tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, Differences, 38, 1571-1582. 48, 373-378. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Czarna, A. Z. (2013). Quick and dirty: A., & Gallucci, A. (2013). Sex, power and money. European Some psychosocial costs associated with the Dark Triad in Journal of Personality, 27, 169-184. three countries. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 172-185. Linton, D. K., & Power, J. L. (2013). The personality traits of work- Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. W., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). place bullies are often shared by their victims: Is there a dark side The Dark Triad: Facilitating short-term mating in men. to victims? Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 738-743. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5-18. Love, A., & Holder, M. D. (2014). Psychopathy and subjective well- Jonason, P. K., & Luévano, V. X. (2013). Walking the thin line being. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 112-117. between efficiency and accuracy: Validity and structural MacDonald, S., & Kormi-Nouri, R. (2013). The affective person- properties of the Dirty Dozen. Personality and Individual ality, sleep, and autobiographical memories. The Journal of Differences, 55, 76-81. Positive Psychology, 8, 305-313. Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad MacLeod, A., & Moore, R. (2000). Positive thinking revised: at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Positive cognitions, well-being and mental health. Clinical Individual Differences, 52, 449-453. Psychology & Psychotherapy, 7, 1-10. 14 SAGE Open Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using Psychopathic Personality Inventory’s nomological network: Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Psychological Science, 1, 213-220. Research, and Treatment, 3, 305-326. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statis- Muris, P., Meester, C., & Timmermans, A. (2013). Some youths tics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. have a gloomy side: Correlates of the Dark Triad personality Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of traits in non-clinical adolescents. Child Psychiatry & Human personality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry, 4, Development, 44, 658-665. doi:10.1007/s10578-013-0359-9 122-130. Norlander, T., Bood, S.-Å., & Archer, T. (2002). Performance dur- Thoreau, H. D. (2009). Civil disobedience. New York, NY: Classic ing stress: Affective personality age, and regularity of physical Books America. exercise. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 495-508. Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). Norlander, T., Johansson, Å., & Bood, S.-Å. (2005). The affec- A behavioral genetic investigation of humour styles and their tive personality: Its relation to quality of sleep, well-being and correlations with the Big-5 personality dimensions. Personality stress. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 709-722. and Individual Differences, 44, 1116-1125. Palomo, T., Beninger, R. J., Kostrzewa, R. M., & Archer, T. (2008). Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). The Dark Focusing on symptoms rather than diagnoses in brain dysfunc- Triad and an expanded framework of personality. Personality tion: Conscious and nonconscious expression in impulsiveness and Individual Differences, 53, 417-425. and decision making. Neurotoxicity Research, 14, 1-20. Watson, D. (2002). Positive affectivity: The disposition to expe- Palomo, T., Kostrzewa, R. M., Beninger, R. J., & Archer, T. (2007). rience pleasurable emotional states. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Treatment consideration and manifest complexity in comorbid Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 106-119). neuropsychiatric disorders. Neurotoxicity Research, 12, 43-60. New York, UK: Oxford University Press. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running exper- Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the iments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision positive and negative affect schedule—Expanded form. Boise: Making, 5, 411-419. University of Iowa Press. Paulhus, D. L., & Abild, M. L. (2011). Values matter: Casting the Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and House characters onto the interpersonal circumplex. In L. L. validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The Martin & E. Cascio (Eds.), House and psychology. New York, PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, NY: Wiley. 54, 1063-1070. Paulhus, D. L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring dark personali- Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two ties. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolu- Measures of personality and social psychological constructs tionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal (pp. 445-451). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820-838. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. (2002). The Dark Triad of personal- White, B. A. (2014). Who cares when nobody is watching? ity: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal Psychopathic traits and empathy in prosocial behaviors. of Research in Personality, 36, 556-568. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 116-121. Rapp Ricciardi, M., Åkerman, J., Eerikäinen, P., Ambjörnsson, A., Andersson-Arntén, A.-C., Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2014). Author Biographies Understanding Group and Leader (UGL) trainers’ personality Danilo Garcia, PhD, is an associate professor at the University of characteristics and affective profiles. Frontiers in Psychology, Gothenburg. He is currently the director of the Blekinge Center of 5, 1191. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01191 Competence in Sweden, which focuses in education, research, and Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2013). Positioning the Dark Triad development of public health and healthcare. He is, together with in the interpersonal circumplex: The friendly-dominant narcissist, Professor Trevor Archer and Doctor Max Rapp Ricciardi, the founder hostile-submissive Machiavellian, and hostile-dominant psycho- and lead researcher of the Network for Empowerment and Well-Being. path? Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 622-627. Lillemor Adrianson, PhD, is a researcher and lecturer at University Rauthmann, J. F., & Will, T. (2011). Proposing a multidimensional of Borås. Machiavellianism conceptualization. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 391-404. Trevor Archer is a professor in biological psychology at the Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of University of Gothenburg, currently writing about epigenetics in Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178. neuropsychiatry, the influence of physical exercise in Parkinson’s, Schütz, E., Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2013). Character profiles and Alzheimer’s, mood disorders, neuro-immune functioning, attention adolescents’ self-reported affect. Personality and Individual deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and traumatic brain function. His Differences, 54, 841-844. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.020 studies in psychology are presently focused on personal attributes Schütz, E., Sailer, U., Nima, A., Rosenberg, P., Andersson-Arntén, and profiles associated with health and well-being. The outcomes of A.-C., Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2013). The affective profiles in prevention and intervention methods and concepts present an area the USA: Happiness, depression, life satisfaction, and happiness- of considerable interest not least in lab studies. increasing strategies. PeerJ, 1, e156. doi:10.7717/peerj.156 Sedikides, C., & Gebauer, J. E. (2010). Religiosity as self- Patricia Rosenberg has been a high school teacher for 12 years. enhancement: A meta-analysis of the relation between socially Her main interests lie at the interface of religion and psychology. desirable responding and religiosity. Personality and Social Her other interests are the use of taboo words in common language Psychology Bulletin, 14, 17-36. and also well-being coaching among youth.

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: Dec 7, 2015

Keywords: affective profiles model; Dark Triad; Machiavellianism; narcissism; negative affect; personality; positive affect; psychopathy; unification argument; uniqueness argument

There are no references for this article.