personality and individual differences Flashcards
what is the dark triad
narcissism
psychopathy
machiavellianism
n+p are established clinical disorders
why was dark triad formed
Paulhus and Willams (2002)
to explore maladaptive personality traits but still within normal range of functioning
myth of narcissus
man known for beauty and cold heart
nemesis punished him when he fell in love with his own reflection thinking it was a water spirit
then he wasted away because he couldn’t tear himself away from his reflection and died of starvation and thirst
narcissistic personality
grandiose, yet fragile, sense of self and preoccupation with success and demands for admiration
- excessively self centred - entitled
- preoccupied with success
- require excessive admiration
- believe they are special
- associate only with “high-status” people
- root in deep set feelings of inferiority and envy of others - so diminish others successes
niccolo machiavelli
Italian diplomat - wrote The Prince → tactics rulers and leaders should employ to maintain power and achieve political goals
argued it is necessary for leaders to be ruthless and cunning and use any means to achieve authority and power
machiavellian personality
strategy of social conduct that involves manipulating others for personal gain against others self interest
- manipulative - deliberately for personal gain
- unethical and counterproductive behaviours e.g. lying, theft, sabotage
- cynical view of human nature
- little concern for welfare of others above their own
psychopathy
drive to engage in impulsive or antisocial behaviour without empathy, anxiety, or remorse
- impulsive and thrill seeking
- risky behaviours without considering consequences
- callous and lack empathy
- lack emotional bonds
- don’t feel guilt or remorse
the psychopath test - Jon Ronson - summary
book exploring psychopaths and CEOs → there are more subclinical ones than you realise
CEOs and politicians as subclinical psychopaths
measuring narcissism - and issues with this measure
narcissistic personality inventory (NPi) (Raskin and Hall, 1979)
40 forced choice items → e.g. i only associate with high class people OR i don’t care about a persons social status
narcissists are quite good at identifying themselves
overreliance on this measure → 77% of studies of narcissism use this → it mostly focuses on grandiose aspect of narcissism
measuring machiavellianism - and issues with this measure
mach IV (Christie and Geis, 1970)
20 items marked on 7 point likert scale
e.g. “the best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear”
- psychometric issues with this scale → lack of agreement on number of subscales comprising this measure
- shows poor internal consistency
- some research suggests removing half of the items
measuring psychopathy - and issues with this measure
self-report psychopathy scale (SPR) (Hare, 1985)
updated to SRP-III (Paulhus et al., 2014)
64 items on a 5 point likert scale
e.g. I purposely tried to hit someone with the vehicle I was driving
lack of consensus concerning what subclinical psychopathy refers to and how it differs from clinical psychopathy
issues with measuring dark triad traits in general
too many questions - cannot be done easily in one study
120 questions between the 3 measures
dirty dozen measure of dark triad + evaluation
Jonason and Webster, 2020
12 items - 4 for each dimension
to measure general population more
only 4 items for each trait - doesn’t capture nuances
convergent validity was assessed by comparing DD subscales with established measures → found SRP-III correlated more strongly with machiavellianism score on the dirty dozen than the DD subscle
so maybe it loses the nuances between the 3 traits
short dark triad measure - and evaluation
27 items - 9 for each dimension
more items in each subscale - better than dirty dozen - better representation
factor analysis studies fail to reproduce a three-factor structure → machiavellianism and psychopathy often cluster into a single factor
increase in narcissism with generations
Twenge et al (2008)
how narcissism scores changed over time in college students
increase in narcissism since 1982 → 30% higher in most recent cohort compared to first
2 potential reasons for increase in narcissism with time
social media:
* higher amounts of social media use associated with higher levels of narcissism
* 25% increase in those posting lots of photos and selfies
* relationship only found with visual forms of social media
parenting style changes:
* Brummelman et al (2015)
* monitored parents and children over 2 year period
* parent overvaluation of child predicted narcissism - not self-esteem
* parental warmth predicted self-esteem but not narcissism
correlates with big 5 and dark triad
all negatively associated with agreeableness (largest with psychopathy
all negatively associated with conscientiousness (largest with machiavellianism)
narcissism positively associated with extraversion and openness
criticisms of dark triad (2)
debate about whether traits are independent or represent a single construct:
* unification hypothesis - traits show strong positive intercorrelations and have been found to load onto the same factor in factor analysis
* uniqueness hypothesis - three traits have different patterns of associations with other traits and outcome variables
three traits aren’t enough to capture dark side of human nature:
* subclinical sadism should be added
* proneness to feel pleasant emotions while hurting others or watching others in pain
what is in the light triad
humanism:
valuing dignity and worth of each individual
kantianism:
treating people as ends unto themselves - not mere means
faith in humanity:
belief in fundamental goodness of humans
light triad scale
12 items - 4 for each dimension
developed scale when thinking of conceptual opposites of each dark triad trait and also items related to forgiveness, trust, honesty, caring, and acceptance
from this found the 3 traits forming the light triad
light triad scale - limitations (2)
social desirability bias
new scale - lacks evidence for cross-cultural validity → mostly western cultures tested
correlations between dark and light triads
light is negatively correlated with dark triad
only moderate correlation
not just the inverse of the other
are people more good or bad
light vs dark triad balance score by subtracting score on dark from score on light
mean balance score of sample was 1.3 → suggests average person is tipped more towards light triad
extreme dark traits are rarer than extreme light traits
nomological network of dark and light triad (2 validities to assess)
network of traits, qualities, and outcomes you would expect to be associated with a trait to demonstrate it is a valid construct
establish measure has construct validity
assess by:
* convergent validity → correlate with measures you expect to be highly correlated
* discriminate validity → correlate with measures you expect to not be correlated
* explore whether traits correlate or predict outcomes in line with expected hypothesis
correlations with dark/light triads and big 5
openness → pos with light, nothing with dark
conscientiousness → pos with light, neg with dark
extraversion → pos with both - not predictive
agreeableness → very pos with light, neg with dark
negative emotions → neg with light, neutral with dark
correlations with dark/light triad and world view
partial correlations controlled for contributions of compassion, respectfulness, and acceptance from agreeableness dimension of Big 5
dark triad correlates (12)
- younger, male
- motivated by power, sex, achievement
- high childhood unpredictability
- high selfishness
- high self-enhancement values
- low life satisfaction
- low compassion, empathy
- low belief that others are good
- low belief that one’s own self is good
- more casual sexual partners
- greater creativity
- higher bravery, assertiveness, and leadership
light triad correlates (12)
- older, female
- spirituality
- high childhood stability
- high acceptance of others
- high compassion, empathy
- high life satisfaction
- high positive enthusiasm
- high belief that others are good
- high belief that one’s own self is good
- weaker motives for achievement and self enhancement
- proclivity for interpersonal guilt
- excessive trust and compassion could leave you open to exploitation
2 origins of personality differences
nature/nurture
genetics and behavioural genetics
heritability of personality (+ intelligence as example)
heritability estimate (HE) = percentage of variability in a trait across individuals that is due to genes
behavioural genetics
gives percentage across population - not particular people
e.g. intelligence
0.45 → 45% due to genes
therefore 55% is due to environment
behavioural genetics and personality
identifies genetic and non-genetic determinants of individual differences in personality and behaviour
genetic effects:
* inherited from parents
environmental
shared:
* shared by family members e.g. parenting styles, family environment, school, neighbourhood
non-shared:
* environmental effects unique to individual and not shared with family e.g. illness, friends, teachers, differential treatment by parents
behavioural genetics research - 3 types
family studies
adoption studies
twin studies
behavioural genetics research - family studies
bio parent → genes and environment
can confound each other - don’t know which causes it
compare 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree relatives:
1st = 50% e.g. siblings, parents
2nd = 25% e.g. grandparents, half-siblings
3rd = 12.5% e.g. great-grandparents, cousins
higher concordance in 1st degree than 2 or 3 means its likely genetic
e.g. high concordance with genes in SZ
behavioural genetics research - adoption studies + example with crime rates
bio parent → genes
adoptive parent → environment
find which has biggest effect
results are more valid if there is info about bio parents to compare concordance rates with adoptive and bio parents
e.g. Mednick et al (1987)
criminal tendencies in 14,000 adoptees
highest concordance with biological → suggests higher genetic influence
behavioural genetics research - twin studies
bio parent → genes and environment
depends on MZ or DZ twins
provides genetic evidence
MZ = 100% genes
DZ = 50% genes
e.g. Genain quadruplets → born 1930s → all got SZ suggesting genetic component
still difficult to determine precise impact of genes on personality as they often share environmental things too
twins studies - intelligence (1) and personality (2) examples
intelligence
** Bouchard and McGue (1981)**
IQ tests to MZ and DZ twins who grew up together or apart and looked at concordance
MZ together = 86%
MZ apart = 76%
DZ together = 55%
DZ apart = 35%
conclude strong genetic and less strong environmental
personality
Tellegen et al (1988)
multidimensional personality questionnaire
done on MZ and DZ twins who grew up together and apart
more genetic than environment in most traits
Zuckerman (1991)
* used big 5
* substantial genetic influence on most dimensions
* non-shared environmental influences have greater impact on personality traits than shared environments
what are concordance rates
% to show degree of similarity between 2 people on a trait or behaviour
can see whether this relates genetically or environmentally
