Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6
and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401 – 406 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Psychopathy rather than Machiavellianism or narcissism

Psychopathy rather than Machiavellianism or narcissism facilitates intimate partner violence via fast life strategy

Satoru Kiire

Graduate School of Humanities, Hosei University, Boissonade Tower 11F, 2-17-1 Fujimi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8160, Japan

Tower 11F, 2-17-1 Fujimi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8160, Japan article info Article history: Received 22 June 2016

article info

Article history:

Received 22 June 2016 Received in revised form 26 August 2016 Accepted 28 August 2016 Available online xxxx

Keywords:

Dark triad Machiavellianism Narcissism Psychopathy Intimate partner violence (IPV) Life history strategy (LHS)

abstract

The dark triad traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) are socially aversive and relate to an- tisocial behavior and violence. These behaviors may facilitate intimate partner violence (IPV) in couple relation- ships. IPV risk factors may be correlated with the dark triad traits. Life history strategy (LHS) may be able to account for IPV risk factors including the dark triad traits. This research therefore tested if possession of dark triad traits predicts IPV perpetration, and if LHS mediates any such relationship. Each dark triad trait directly pos- itively affected IPV perpetration in a sample of Japanese undergraduate students (N = 344; M = 19.0 years; SD = 1.25; 182 females); however, only psychopathy uniquely predicted IPV perpetration. Among males, LHS partially mediated psychopathy's prediction of IPV, and mediated an indirect negative effect of Machiavellianism on IPV. LHS may account for the dark triad traits' effect on IPV in males. Directions of future research examining IPV and the present research's limitations are discussed.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy comprise the dark triad personality traits; these traits are socially aversive (e.g., Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Jonason, Webster, Schmitt, Li, & Crysel, 2012; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The dark triad traits predict a range of antisocial behaviors (e.g., Baughman, Dearing, Giammarco, & Vernon, 2012; Jonason, Strosser, Kroll, Duineveld & Baruf , 2015; Jones & Paulhus, 2010; Pailing, Boon, & Egan, 2014). This study exam- ined the dark triad traits' relationship with intimate partner violence (IPV), which is a serious public health problem (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2008), using life history strategy theory (Figueredo et al., 2005, 2006).

1.1. The dark triad

Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy are associated with the following characteristics: interpersonal manipulation and callous- ness (e.g., Jones & Figueredo, 2013; Paulhus, 2014), low agreeableness (e.g., Furnham, Richards, Rangel, & Jones, 2014; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), and agency but not communion in interpersonal attitudes (e.g., Kajonius, Persson, & Jonason, 2015; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). In con- sequence, these traits have been termed the dark triad and extensively examined both collectively and in isolation from one another (Furnham et al., 2013; Campbell et al., 2009; Garcia & Rosenberg, 2016; Jonason et al., 2012; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). For example, low conscientiousness,

E-mail address: s.kiire0518@gmail.com.

0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

high extraversion, and high openness with low conscientiousness have been identied as uniquely related to Machiavellianism, narcis- sism, and psychopathy, respectively (e.g., Furnham et al., 2014; Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008). Similarly, agency is characteris- tic of dark triad trait possession; however, narcissism is correlated with high communion and high agency, psychopathy is correlated with low communion, and Machiavellianism is not explicitly correlated with agency or communion, when controlling for the other dark triad traits (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). In this context, each dark triad trait's un- derlying mechanism may differ from the others', although many out- comes are common between two or three traits. That is, common dark triad characteristics may reect self-exhibition, impulsiveness or sensa- tion seeking, and cynical world view in narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, respectively (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). In sum, a differ- ent mechanism may underlie each behavioral pattern characteristic of dark triad trait possession.

1.2. Intimate partner violence (IPV)

IPV is a serious public problem (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2008). Previ- ous research has identied a range of IPV risk factors (see review, Vagi et al., 2013 ); for example, personality ( Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Weinstein, Gleason, & Oltmanns, 2012), risky behavior (Temple, Shorey, Fite, Stuart, & Le, 2013 ), parental relationships ( Miller, Gorman-Smith, Sullivan, Orpinas, & Simon, 2009 ), friendships ( McDonell, Ott, & Mitchell, 2010 ), and socioeconomic status ( Foshee et al., 2008 ). The dark triad traits overlap these risk factors and may therefore predict IPV. Furthermore, narcissism and psychopathy are

402

S. Kiire / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406

independently positively correlated with IPV ( Ryan, Weikel, & Sprechini, 2008; Swogger, Walsh, & Kosson, 2007 ); however, little is known about each dark triad traitunique effect on IPV when controlling for factors shared with other traits. This research therefore examined each dark triad trait's unique relationship with IPV.

1.3. Life history theory

Figueredo et al. describe life history theory (LHT) as a mid-level the- ory from evolutionary biology that describes the strategic allocation of bioenergetic and material resources among different components of t- ness(Figueredo et al., 2006, p. 244). The individual allocates bioenergy and resources to reproduction and survival based on his or her life his- tory strategy (LHS); these allocations are not consciously controlled (Buss, 2009). The balance of allocation of bioenergy and resources to re- production and survival varies depending on environmental cues and genetic factors (Figueredo et al., 2006). Individuals' life history strategies exist on a one-dimensional contin- uum ranging from fast to slow; their location on this continuum is mea- sured as the K-factor (Figueredo et al., 2006). LHS incorporates a range of life history traits (e.g., reproductive, parental, and social behaviors), and individuals' adopted strategy explains some subsequent behavior ( Figueredo et al., 2005, 2006; Sherman, Figueredo, & Funder, 2013; Wolf, van Doorn, Leimar, & Weissing, 2007). From a general and simpli- ed perspective, these strategies represent a tradeoff between current reproduction and parental survival (Buss, 2009). Fast LHS tend to prior- itize current reproduction; such strategies facilitate short-term relation- ships and pursue immediate bene ts. In contrast, slow LHS tend to prioritize parental survival; such strategies facilitate long-term relation- ships and pursue long-term benets. Slow LHS thus promote pro-social behavior and communion (e.g., cooperation), whereas fast LHS promote antisocial behavior and individual agency (e.g., exploitation). Human beings generally adopt slow LHS; however, the dark triad traits (or at least psychopathy) constitute a fast LHS ( Jonason, Baughman, Carter, & Parker, 2015; Jonason, Koenig, & Tost, 2010).

1.4. IPV and life history strategy

Parental uncertainty is an adaptive problem facing males ( Archer, 2013; Buss, 2009; Figueredo et al., 2006). Hence, males perform various mate retention behaviors (Buss, Shackelford, & McKibbin, 2008) to pre- vent partner in delity and consequent pregnancy ( Kaighobadi, Shackelford, & Goetz, 2009; Buss & Duntley, 2011 ). In this context, LHT may predict patterns of mate retention behavior. Individuals whose LHS is slow may use relatively gentle mate retention tactics due to higher valuation of the partner relationship (e.g., in order to pro- mote cooperation; Figueredo et al., 2006). In contrast, fast-LHS individ- uals may use more severe tactics due to lower valuation of the relationship and a tendency towards temporary sexual relationships rather than long-term relationships involving cooperation ( Figueredo et al., 2006 ). Speci cally, IPV is a severe mate retention behavior ( Archer, 2013; Buss & Duntley, 2011 ); therefore, it is expected that fast-LHS individuals will be more likely to use IPV to prevent partner indelity.

1.5. Hypotheses

This research tested the following hypotheses. First, each dark triad trait is positively correlated with IPV perpetration. Second, IPV perpe- tration is correlated with fast LHS. Finally, LHS mediates the dark triad tr aits' relationship with IPV perpetration. Previous research has as- sumed that IPV as a mate retention strategy is male-speci c ( Buss & Duntley, 2011 ); additionally, males more commonly possess strong dark triad traits (Furnham et al., 2013) and fast LHS (Figueredo et al., 2006; Kawamoto, 2015 ), although IPV perpetration is bidirectional

among males and females (Straus, 2008). Thus, the present research in- cluded female participants as an exploratory analysis.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were 467 university students from Tokyo, Japan. Some participants had never been in a romantic relationship. IPV assumes a partner relationship; therefore, these participants were excluded, leav- ing 344 participants who had been in or were presently in a relationship (182 females, 162 males, mean age = 19.0 years, SD = 1.25). Partici- pants were recruited through their university course. Participation was voluntary. All participants were Japanese. Participants were not asked if their partner was also participating in the study in order to pro- tect participant anonymity; therefore, some participants' partners may also have participated.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Short Dark Triad, Japanese version (SD3J)

The Short Dark Triad (SD3) is 27-item self-report questionnaire that measures dark triad trait possession; nine items examine each trait (Jones & Paulhus, 2014; e.g., It's not wise to tell your secretsfor Machi- avellianism, People see me as a natural leaderfor narcissism, I like to get revenge on authoritiesfor psychopathy). The validity of the Japa- nese version (SD3J) has been supported (Shimotsukasa, Hashimoto, & Oshio, 2015; Shimotsukasa & Oshio, 2015). Responses used a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree ,7= strongly agree ). Scores on items examining each trait were averaged to give separate trait scores; scores on all items were averaged to give an overall dark triad score. Fac- tor analysis replicated the factor structure identi ed in previous re- search. Internal reliability was acceptable regarding each subscale score and the overall score (Table 1).

2.2.2. Mini-K, Japanese version (Mini-K-J)

The Mini-K is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that measures LHS (as K-factor; e.g., I would rather have one than several sexual relation-

ships at a time,” “I am often in social contact with my friends); lower scores indicated faster LHS (Figueredo et al., 2006). The validity of the Japanese version (Mini-K-J) has been supported ( Kawamoto, 2015 ). Two items in this scale are unsuitable for use with Japanese undergrad- uate students (i.e., I have a close and warm relationship with my own childrenand I am closely connected to and involved in my religion); these items were removed in the present research, giving an 18-item scale. Factor analysis replicated the factor structure identied in previ- ous research. The resulting scale's internal consistency was good (Table 1).

2.2.3. Intimate partner violence scale (IPV scale)

The IPV scale was used to measure experiences of IPV victimization and perpetration (Kiire & Ochi, 2015). In this research, only perpetration scores were analyzed. This scale was originally composed in Japanese; it examines the following dimensions of IPV: direct violence (e.g., slap- ping), indirect violence (e.g., frightening their partner by beating or kicking a table or wall), control (e.g., sending e-mails or calling many times per day), verbal violence (e.g., talking condescendingly), sexual violence (e.g., engaging in unwanted sexual contact), economical vio- lence (e.g., refusal to return or relinquish borrowed things or money),

and stalking (e.g., unwanted social interaction). Three items measured each dimension; responses used a 5-point scale (1 = never ,5= often). This scale has been validated in the Japanese context. Conrma- tory factor analysis replicated the factor structure identied in previous research. The hypothetical model's data t was acceptable (χ 2 (168) = 542.89, p b 0.001; CFI = 0.850; RMSEA = 0.081, 90% CI = [0.073, 0.088]; SRMR = 0.060). Additionally, sample scores closely resembled

S. Kiire / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406

Table 1 Dark triad traits, K-factor, and IPV: descriptive statistics and sex differences.

403

 

Cronbach's α

Female

Male

t a

Hedges's g

 

M

(SD )

min

Max

M

(SD )

min

Max

Dark triad trait Mach Narc Psych comp K -factor IPV perpetration Direct Indirect Control Verbal Sexual Economic Stalking General IPV

0.74

4.72

(0.85)

2.33

6.89

4.75

(0.91)

1.00

6.67

0.32 2.54 1.57 2.02 3.49

0.03

0.73

3.24

(0.90)

1.44

6.22

3.48

(0.88)

1.33

6.33

0.27

0.63

3.27

(0.82)

1.67

6.11

3.41

(0.89)

1.56

6.33

0.17

0.80

3.74

(0.66)

2.19

5.85

3.88

(0.62)

1.92

5.44

0.22

0.81

5.03

(0.61)

2.50

6.39

4.73

(0.96)

1.00

6.33

0.39

0.68

1.10

(0.31)

1.00

3.33

1.16

(0.43)

1.00

3.67

1.47 0.68 0.04 0.47 5.87 4.50 2.67 1.04

0.16

0.70

1.19

(0.44)

1.00

4.67

1.23

(0.52)

1.00

4.00

0.07

0.59

1.81

(0.83)

1.00

5.00

1.81

(0.79)

1.00

4.67

0.004

0.61

1.52

(0.62)

1.00

4.00

1.56

(0.69)

1.00

4.00

0.05

0.78

1.07

(0.23)

1.00

2.33

1.43

(0.75)

1.00

5.00

0.66

0.67

1.60

(0.78)

1.00

5.00

1.28

(0.51)

1.00

4.00

0.47

0.63

1.23

(0.43)

1.00

3.00

1.37

(0.57)

1.00

3.67

0.29

0.85

1.36

(0.37)

1.00

3.57

1.41

(0.43)

1.00

3.35

0.11

Note. Mach = Machiavellianism, Narc = narcissism, Psych = psychopathy, D3 comp = dark triad composite. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001. ⁎⁎ p b 0.0.1

p b 0.05.

p b 0.10.

a Welch's t-tests (two-tailed).

the general sample score pattern (Supplemental Table S1). Scores on items examining each dimension were averaged to give subscale scores. Each IPV dimension was highly correlated; therefore, scores on all items were averaged to give a general IPV score. This measure's internal con- sistency was acceptable considering the small number of items examin- ing each dimension (Table 1).

2.3. Procedure

A survey was administered in psychology, astronomy, computer learning, and climatology classes. Participants answered individually and simultaneously, responded to all measures in full, and completed demographics questionnaires. All procedures were approved by the ethics committee of [institution blinded for review].

2.4. Data analysis

From an evolutionary perspective, sex and age differences require careful interpretation. The researcher considered it likely that sex differ- ences would become apparent; therefore, both genders were included separately in all analyses. Moreover, all analyses considered partici- pants' age as a control variable. First, Pearson's correlation coefcients were calculated between participants' dark triad, K-factor, and IPV di- mension scores in order to test hypotheses 1 and 2. Second, multivariate multiple regression analysis was used to examine each dark triad trait's unique effect on each IPV dimension (i.e., to further test hypothesis 1). Additionally, univariate multiple regression analysis was used to regress general IPV scores for each dark triad trait. Finally, mediation analysis was used to test if LHS explained the identied associations between each dark triad trait and general IPV (5000 bootstraps).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics and sex differences

Table 1 presents participants' mean scores for the dark triad traits, K- factor, and IPV, stratied by gender. Males scored higher for narcissism and composite dark triad trait possession and lower on the K -factor; these results support previous studies (e.g., Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). No signicant sex differences were found re- garding Machiavellianism or psychopathy. Some IPV types varied

signicantly but weakly by gender, supporting previous research (e.g., Straus, 2008).

3.2. Correlations and regression analysis

Table 2 presents Pearson's coefcients of correlation between dark triad traits, K-factor, and IPV. Among males, psychopathy was positively correlated with IPV, supporting previous research (Ryan et al., 2008); additionally, narcissism was weakly correlated with IPV. Machiavellian- ism was not correlated with IPV except regarding sexual IPV. Dark triad composite scores correlated with IPV although the dark triad traits showed varying correlation patterns, partially supporting hypothesis

1. K-factor was negatively correlated with IPV, supporting hypothesis

2. Among females, all dark triad traits and dark triad composite scores

were positively correlated with IPV. In contrast, K-factor was not corre- lated with IPV. These ndings suggest that psychopathy is specically correlated with IPV in males, whereas all dark triad traits are correlated with IPV in female. Moreover, K-factor and IPV scores were negatively correlated in males only. The multivariate model was signi cant in a multivariate test (fe- males: R 2 = 0.22, F(28, 696) = 1.56, p b 0.05; males: R 2 = 0.30, F(28, 616) = 1.95, p b 0.01; including participants age). Sensitivity analysis did not indicate multicollinearity (Supplemental Table S2). Each dark triad trait explained each IPV dimension; however, only psychopathy was mainly signi cantly uniquely effective on each IPV dimension (Table 3). Each dark triad trait explained variance in participants' gener- al IPV score; however, only psychopathy signicantly uniquely affected participants' general IPV score (Table 3). In summary, only psychopathy uniquely affected IPV.

3.3. Mediation analysis

Among females, psychopathy signicantly directly affected IPV and K -factor; its other direct and indirect effects were not signi cant. Among males, psychopathy signicantly directly and indirectly affected IPV; in contrast, Machiavellianism only indirectly affected IPV (Table 4). Narcissism was not signicantly correlated with IPV or LHS. LHS partial- ly mediated psychopathy's correlation with IPV and fully mediated Machiavellianism's correlation with IPV, although K-factor had a non- signicant effect on IPV. On this point, K-factor negatively affected IPV in both females and males; therefore, their data were combined and retested by mediation analysis. In this analysis, psychopathy signicant

404

S. Kiire / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406

Table 2 Correlations between dark triad traits, K-factor score, and IPV.

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1. Mach 2. Narc 3. Psych 4. D3 comp

0.32

0.43

0.75

0.10

0.10

0.17

0.23

0.16

0.05

0.27

0.17

0.27

0.03

0.44

0.77

0.04

0.18

0.23

0.20

0.16

0.06

0.25

0.13

0.27

0.20

0.47

0.79

0.24 0.12

0.21

0.25

0.23

0.19

0.16

0.28

0.26

0.33

0.59

0.71

0.80 0.20

0.21

0.28

0.28

0.22

0.12

0.34 0.20

0.24 0.13

0.37

5.

K-factor

0.21

0.19

0.10

0.01

0.07

0.11

0.04

0.12

0.08

IPV perpetration

 

6. Direct

0.03

0.03

0.19

0.09

0.22 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.22

0.62

0.24

0.48

0.25

0.29

0.31

0.58

7. Indirect

0.02

0.10

0.33

0.22

0.63

0.46

0.70

0.28

0.48

0.44

0.80

8. Control

0.07

0.06

0.14

0.13

0.32

0.38

0.38

0.23

0.37

0.43

0.72

9. Verbal

0.06

0.18

0.29

0.25

0.45

0.59

0.30

0.30

0.50

0.30

0.76

10. Sexual

0.18

0.16

0.37

0.34

0.31

0.34

0.34

0.44

0.33

0.38

0.47

11.

Economic

0.01

0.14

0.20

0.16

0.37

0.49

0.26

0.41

0.46

0.49

0.77

12.

Stalking

0.03

0.12

0.26

0.16

0.55

0.48

0.61

0.36

0.50

0.43

0.67

13. General IPV

0.07

0.16

0.36

0.28

0.67

0.76

0.69

0.71

0.71

0.66

0.79

Notes. Mach = Machiavellianism, Narc = narcissism, Psych = psychopathy, D3 comp = dark triad composite. The lower and higher triangles represent correlations for male and female participants, respectively. Participant's age was controlled for. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

p b 0.05.

p b 0.10.

indirectly affected IPV ( b indirect = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.003, 0.05]) and K- factor directly affected IPV ( b direct = 0.07, 95% CI = [ 0.13, 0.005]). These results support hypothesis 3; additionally, the non-sig- nicant path from K-factor to IPV among male participants may be due to insufcient sample size.

4. Discussion

This article examined the relationship between the dark triad traits, LHS, and IPV. Each dark triad trait was correlated with general IPV and IPV dimensions, particularly among female participants, supporting previous research examining psychopathy ( Swogger et al., 2007) and narcissism ( Ryan et al., 2008 ). Machiavellianism shares factors with psychopathy and narcissism; therefore, Machiavellianism may also be correlated with IPV (although this correlation may only obtain among females).

Table 3 Regression of IPV depending on each dark triad trait a .

Only psychopathy had a unique main effect on general IPV and each IPV dimension. Psychopathy is characterized by impulsivity and sensa- tion seeking when it controls the other dark triad traits; these character- istics facilitate antisocial behavior (Jones, 2013; Jones & Paulhus, 2011). The present ndings support this relationship. In contrast, Machiavel- lianism is characterized by an orientation towards strategic calculation and the avoidance of behaviors that might harm one's reputation (Jones & Paulhus, 2014); this may explain the present nding that Ma- chiavellianism did not uniquely affect IPV. In contrast, narcissism is characterized by attention seeking and administration; this leads nar- cissism to promote communion (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). IPV is like- ly to aggravate this relationship; this may explain the present nding that narcissism did not uniquely affect IPV. Among male participants, LHS mediated Machiavellianism and psychopathy's relationship with general IPV; this suggests that male psychopathy may underlie fast LHS ( Jonason et al., 2010; Jonason,

 

Machiavellianism

 

Narcissism

Psychopathy

 

95% CI

95% CI

95% CI

 

B

LL

UL

b*

B

LL

UL

b*

B

LL

UL

b*

R 2

Female (N = 182) Direct Indirect Control Verbal Sexual Economic Stalking General IPV b Male (N = 162) Direct Indirect Control Verbal Sexual Economic Stalking General IPV b

0.001

[ 0.06, [ 0.05, [ 0.02, [ 0.05, [ 0.05,

0.06]

0.00

0.04

[0.02,

0.09]

0.11

0.06

[ 0.001, 0.12] [0.001, 0.18]

0.16

0.06

0.03

0.11]

0.06

0.07

[0.01,

0.15]

0.14

0.09

0.17

0.09

0.13

0.29]

0.14

0.09

[0.06,

0.23]

0.10

0.13

[ 0.03, [ 0.04,

0.30]

0.13

0.09

0.06

0.18]

0.09

0.06

[0.06,

0.17]

0.08

0.09

0.21]

0.12

0.05

0.01

0.04]

0.02

0.003

[0.04,

0.04]

0.01

0.05

[0.002, 0.10] [ 0.002, 0.30] [0.03, 0.20] [0.03, 0.17]

0.17

0.05

0.14

[0.003, 0.28]

0.16

0.11

[0.02,

0.24]

0.13

0.15

0.16

0.12

0.04

[ 0.04, [ 0.01,

0.11]

0.07

0.01

[0.07,

0.08]

0.01

0.12

0.23

0.08

0.06

0.12]

0.13

0.05

[0.01,

0.11]

0.13

0.10

0.22

0.14

0.04

[ 0.11, [ 0.11, [ 0.10, [ 0.11, [ 0.03, [ 0.11, [ 0.15, [ 0.07,

0.04]

0.08

0.04

[0.13,

0.04]

0.09

0.12

[0.04, 0.20] [0.12, 0.32] [ 0.04, 0.27] [0.08, 0.34] [0.15, 0.43] [0.002, 0.20] [0.07, 0.29] [0.10, 0.26]

0.25

0.05

0.03

0.06]

0.05

0.04

[0.14,

0.05]

0.07

0.22

0.37

0.13

0.04

0.18]

0.05

0.004

[0.16,

0.15]

0.01

0.12

0.13

0.02

0.01

0.12]

0.01

0.04

[0.09,

0.17]

0.05

0.21

0.27

0.09

0.09

0.21]

0.11

0.01

[0.14,

0.13]

0.01

0.29

0.35

0.16

0.03

0.06]

0.05

0.04

[0.07,

0.13]

0.06

0.10

0.18

0.06

0.06

0.04]

0.09

0.01

[0.12,

0.10]

0.02

0.18

0.28

0.09

0.00

0.07]

0.00

0.004

[0.08,

0.08]

0.01

0.18

0.36

0.14

Note. b* = standardized partial regression coefcient. Signicant effects (p b 0.05) were shown by bold face. Age was controlled; however, age correlation results are not presented for clarity. ⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎

p b 0.001. p b 0.01.

p b 0.05.

p b 0.10.

a In analysis of each trait, the other two were controlled for.

b Univariate multiple regression analysis examining only general IPV.

S. Kiire / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406

405

Table 4 Mediation of K-factor between the dark triad and IPV.

Female

Male

95% CI (5000 bootstraps) 95% CI (5000 bootstraps)

 

b

LL

UL

b

LL

UL

Direct effects General IPV Machiavellianism Narcissism Psychopathy K -factor K-factor Machiavellianism Narcissism Psychopathy Indirect effects

0.06

[ 0.001, 0.12] [ 0.02, 0.14] [0.02, 0.18]

0.03

[0.07,

0.11]

0.05

0.03

[0.11,

0.17]

0.10

0.13

[0.01, 0.27] [0.18, 0.004]

0.01

[ 0.10,

0.09]

0.09

0.02

[ 0.13,

0.10]

0.31

[0.09, 0.52]

0.13

[0.01, 0.27]

0.43

[0.27, 0.61]

0.23

[0.37, 0.09] 0.48

[0.68,

0.28]

GIPV

K-factor

Mach 0.00

[ 0.01,

0.01]

0.03

[0.08,

0.002]

GIPV

K-factor

Narc

0.002 [ 0.02,

0.01]

0.04

[0.08,

0.00]

GIPV K-factor Psych 0.003

[ 0.02,

0.03]

0.04

[0.002, 0.09]

Notes. Mach= Machiavellianism, Narc = narcissism, Psych = psychopathy. Signicant ef- fects (p b 0.05) are shown in bold. Age was controlled; however, age correlation results are not presented for clarity.

Baughman et al., 2015). Psychopathy's unique direct effect on IPV may re ect psychopathy's impulsive and antisocial aspects. Interestingly, Machiavellianism indirectly negatively affected general IPV (Table 4), although Machiavellianism partial regression coef cient for general IPV was not signicant in the regression analysis (Table 3). Machiavel- lianism may promote slow LHS and thereby diminish IPV (Furnham et al., 2013), potentially explaining this nding. Nonetheless, this research found a non-signicant regression coefcient regarding Machiavellian- ism and general IPV, which does not support this inference. In females, LHS did not mediate psychopathy's relationship with general IPV; this suggests that psychopathy, rather than LHS, may cause IPV in females. In summary, the present research found that the dark triad traits, and particularly psychopathy, are associated with IPV. Additionally, LHS mediated these relationships in males. Extensive research has iden- tied numerous factors that raise IPV risk, and the dark triad traits may underlie some of these factors; however, no integrative explanation of these factors' effect is immediately apparent. In contrast, LHS may be able to integrate and explain these factors and their effect. The origins of the dark triad and its link to IPV present one such possible explana- tion. Nonetheless, this research addressed only the dark triad traits' re- lationship with LHS. Moreover, IPV is too complex for bivariate analysis to be informative. Additionally, genetic factors appear to affect the var- iables examined in this research (i.e., the dark triad, LHS, and IPV; e.g., Vernon et al., 2008 regarding the dark triad; Figueredo et al., 2006 re- garding LHS; Barnes, TenEyck, Boutwell, & Beaver, 2013 regarding IPV). Accordingly, future research should further integrate and explain IPV risk factors by addressing their relationship with genetics.

4.1. Limitations

This research has the following limitations. First, social desirability and other false-report biases were not controlled; this may have led to under-reporting of dark triad traits and IPV, diminishing statistical power and potentially obscuring signi cant correlations. Nonetheless, self-report examination is supported as adequately reliable ( Jones & Paulhus, 2014), supporting the present ndings. Notably, this research measured participant's sex and age; however, it did not address socio- economic status, cognitive ability, or other potential covariates. Future research should control for such variables. Second, two items were removed from the Mini-K-J in order to ac- commodate the sample. In this context, future research should test the present ndings in a more diverse sample that nonetheless includes

adolescents, as IPV is relevant among adolescents as well as older people (O'Leary & Slep, 2003). Third, this research did not examine correlations between IPV and the traits of both partners in couples that had experienced IPV. Combi- nations of traits in couples may importantly affect IPV risk (e.g., Giordano, Soto, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Straus, 2008). Future re- search should therefore examine possible interactions between LHS pairings and IPV. Finally, although this research suggested the possibility that IPV risk factors may reect an underlying evolutionary mechanism in males, this may also be the case in females, following Archer (2013) . Future re- search should explore evolutionary mechanisms and other possible ex- planations of IPV in females.

4.2. Conclusions

The present research supports a relationship between the dark triad, LHS, and IPV. The dark triad traits, and particularly psychopathy, affect IPV among both males and females. LHS appears to partly mediate these relationships among males. The present ndings support previous research and the uniqueness of each dark triad trait's effect. However, as this research examined only the dark triad and LHS among numerous IPV risk factors, future research should address IPV's relationship with other important IPV risk factors.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.

References

Archer, J. (2013). Can evolutionary principles explain patterns of family violence? Psychological Bulletin, 139, 403440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029114. Barnes, J. C., TenEyck, M., Boutwell, B. B., & Beaver, K. M. (2013). Indicators of domestic/ intimate partner violence are structured by genetic and nonshared environmental in- uences. Journal of Psychiatric Research , 47 , 371 376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

Baughman, H. M., Dearing, S., Giammarco, E., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). Relationships be- tween bullying behaviours and the Dark Triad: A study with adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 571575. Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359366. http://dx.doi.

Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2011). The evolution of intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 411419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.015. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., & McKibbin, W. F. (2008). The mate retention inventory-

short form (MRI-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 322 334. http://dx.

Campbell, J., Schermer, J. A., Villani, V. C., Nguyen, B., Vickers, L., & Vernon, P. A. (2009). A behavioral genetic study of the Dark Triad of personality and moral development. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 12, 132136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/twin.12.

Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Schneider, S. M., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R., Jacobs, W. J. (2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to repro- ductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26, 243275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.

Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Sefcek, J. A., Kirsner, B. R., & Jacobs, W. J. (2005). The K-factor: Individual differences in life history strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 13491360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009. Foshee, V. A., Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Bauman, K. E.,

& Beneeld, T. S. (2008). What accounts for demographic differences in trajectories of adolescent dating violence? An examination of intrapersonal and contextual media- tors. Journal of Adolescent Health , 42 , 596 604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199216. http://dx.doi.

Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring malevolence: Quan- titative issues surrounding the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 114121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.001. Garcia, D., & Rosenberg, P. (2016). The dark cube: Dark and light character proles. PeerJ, 4, e1675. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1675. Giordano, P. C., Soto, D. A., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2010). The characteristics of romantic relationships associated with teen dating violence. Social Science Research, 39, 863874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.009.

406

S. Kiire / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three sub- types and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476497. http://

Jonason, P. K., Baughman, H. M., Carter, G. L., & Parker, P. (2015). Dorian Gray without his portrait: Psychological, social, and physical health costs associated with the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences , 78 , 5 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

Jonason, P. K., Koenig, B. L., & Tost, J. (2010). Living a fast life. Human Nature, 21, 428442.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12110-010-9102-4.

Jonason, P. K., Strosser, G. L., Kroll, C. H., Duineveld, J. J., & Baruf, S. A. (2015). Valuing my- self over others: The Dark Triad traits and moral and social values. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 102106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.045. Jonason, P. K., Webster, G. D., Schmitt, D. P., Li, N. P., & Crysel, L. (2012). The antihero in popular culture: Life history theory and the dark triad personality traits. Review of General Psychology, 16, 192199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027914. Jones, D. N. (2013). What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine: The Dark Triad and gambling with your neighbor's money. Journal of Research in Personality , 47 , 563571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.005. Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27, 521531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcis- sists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science , 1, 1218. http://

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personal- ity. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 679682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief mea- sure of dark personality traits. Assess ment , 21 , 28 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2009). From mate retention to murder:

Evolutionary psychological perspectives on men's partner-directed violence. Review of General Psychology, 13, 327334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017254. Kajonius, P. J., Persson, B. N., & Jonason, P. K. (2015). Hedonism, achievement, and power:

Universal values that characterize the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 173178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.055. Kawamoto, T. (2015). The translation and validation of the Mini-K scale in Japanese.

Japanese Psychological Research, 57, 254267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12083. Kiire, S., & Ochi, K. (2015, October). Houkatsu teki na date violence/harassment syakudo no kaihatsu [Development of the comprehensive scale of dating violence/harass- ment]. Proceedings of the 56th Conference on Japanese Society of Social Psychology. 186, (In Japanese, translated by the author of this article.). Miller, S., Gorman-Smith, D., Sullivan, T., Orpinas, P., & Simon, T. R. (2009). Parent and peer predictors of physical dating violence perpetration in early adolescence: Tests of moderation and gender differences. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 538550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374410902976270. McDonell, J., Ott, J., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Predicting dating violence victimization and perpetration among middle and high school students in a rural southern community. Children and Youth Services Review , 32 , 1458 1463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

O'Leary, K. D., & Slep, A. M. S. (2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology , 32, 314 327. http://

Pailing, A., Boon, J., & Egan, V. (2014). Personality, the Dark Triad and violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 8186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.018. Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 421426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547737. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: narcissism, machi- avellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556563. http://

Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2013). Positioning the Dark Triad in the interpersonal circumplex: The friendly-dominant narcissist, hostile-submissive Machiavellian, and hostile-dominant psychopath? Personality and Individual Differences , 54 , 622627.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.021.

Ryan, K. M., Weikel, K., & Sprechini, G. (2008). Gender differences in narcissism and court- ship violence in dating couples. Sex Roles, 58, 802 813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

Sherman, R. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Funder, D. C. (2013). The behavioral correlates of overall and distinctive life history strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 873888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033772. Shimotsukasa, T., & Oshio, A. (2015). Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Short Dark Triad (SD3-J). Poster presented at the ISSID 2015 (International Society for the Study of Individual Differences) London, Ontario, Canada. Shimotsukasa, T., Hashimoto, Y., & Oshio, A. (2015, September). Nihonngo ban Short Dark Triad (SD3-J) no saranaru datousei kensyo [Further veri cation of validity of the Short Dark Triad Japanese version]. Proceedings of the 79th Conference of the Japanese Association of Psychology, 53. Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252275.

Swogger, M. T., Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2007). Domestic violence and psychopathic traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other antisocial offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20185. Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Fite, P., Stuart, G. L., & Le, V. D. (2013). Substance use as a lon- gitudinal predictor of the perpetration of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 596606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9877-1. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating vio- lence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 633649. http://dx.doi.org/

Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic inves- tigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences , 44 , 445452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.007. Weinstein, Y., Gleason, M. E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2012). Borderline but not antisocial per- sonality disorder symptoms are related to self-reported partner aggression in late middle-age. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 121 , 692 698. http://dx.doi.org/10.

Wolf, M., van Doorn, G., Leimar, O., & Weissing, F. J. (2007). Life-history trade-offs favour the evolution of animal personalities. Nature , 447 , 581 584. http://dx.doi.org/10.

Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Ruggiero, K. J., Danielson, C. K., Resnick, H. S., Hanson, R. F., Smith, D. W., & Saunders, B. E. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a na- tional sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 755762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e318172ef5f.

Оценить