See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316469041

Aggression as a Trait: The Dark Tetrad

Alternative

Article in Current Opinion in Psychology April 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.007

CITATIONS READS

0 34

3 authors, including:

Delroy Paulhus Daniel Nelson Jones

University of British Columbia - Vancouver University of Texas at El Paso
117 PUBLICATIONS 13,198 CITATIONS 51 PUBLICATIONS 1,200 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Life History Strategies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Delroy Paulhus on 27 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Accepted Manuscript

Title: Aggression as a Trait: The Dark Tetrad

Alternative<!<RunningTitle>Aggression as a Trait: The
Dark Tetrad Alternative</RunningTitle>>

Authors: Delroy L. Paulhus, Shelby R. Curtis, Daniel N. Jones

PII: S2352-250X(17)30102-1
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.007
Reference: COPSYC 430

To appear in:

Please cite this article as: Delroy L.Paulhus, Shelby R.Curtis, Daniel
N.Jones, Aggression as a Trait: The Dark Tetrad Alternative (2010),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 1

Highlights

We challenge the assumption that aggression is a unitary trait construct.

We recommend working at the lower level of the Dark Tetrad traits.

The tetrad members aggress in response to qualitatively different provocations.

 2

Aggression as a Trait: The Dark Tetrad Alternative

Delroy L. Paulhus

Shelby R. Curtis and Daniel N. Jones

Delroy L. Paulhus

University of British Columbia

Curtis Shelby and Daniel N. Jones

University of Texas at El Paso

 3

Abstract

Aggression is often construed as a unitary trait fully captured by the Buss-Perry Aggression

Questionnaire (BPAQ). Our review of the literature questions that assumption in several

respects. Instead of a top-down approach, we argue for a bottom-up conception based on the

Dark Tetrad of personality, that is, narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. We

highlight research showing that each member of the tetrad responds to different provocations.

We conclude that the unitary trait conception of aggression has yielded more confusion than

understanding. The term aggression should be reserved for outcomes, with many possible trait x

situation predictors. Future research should continue the investigation of moderators as well as

cognitive mediators to clarify the triggering of aggression in the individual tetrad members.
 4

In common parlance, aggression is a trait, that is, a stable and enduring style of thinking,

acting, and feeling that can be measured on a continuum of individual differences [1]. By far the

most popular trait measure is the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) [2] and its

predecessor. Because of that popularity, much of the research on trait aggression has assumed

the reality of that construct as the starting point. Unfortunately, that assumption has led to much

confusion as to the nature of the trait. Factor analyses and other decompositions have yielded a

broad range of content including assault, verbal aggression, suspicion, neurotic aggression,

impulsive aggression, social-cognitive aggression, instrumental aggression, hostile aggression,

alienation, anger, irritability, and social desirability, among others [3, 4*]. Given this jumble of

precipitators, processes and outcomes, it is questionable that the revered BPAQ actually captures

a fundamental personality construct.

The evaluation of links to fundamental personality models, namely, the Big Five or

HEXACO, has further undermined the case for a unitary understanding of trait aggression. To

begin with, no aggression factor emerges in such comprehensive factor models. Instead, a spate

of studies have linked the BPAQ with specific combinations of fundamental traits. Considering

that the Big Five and HEXACO factors were designed to be orthogonal, this complexity of

associations precludes a simple understanding of aggression and its relation to other traits.

In the present review, we question the value of reifying aggression with the assumed gold

standard, that is, the BPAQ. Instead of this a top-down approach, we will argue for a bottom-up

approach beginning with an underlying set of malevolent traits, namely, the Dark Tetrad [5**]:

That is, narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism.

Before we elaborate on that model, it is worth acknowledging another key weakness with

a unitary trait approach. It has become clear that individual differences in personality interact
 5

with situational settings to provoke aggressive behaviors. That perspective was supported in the

definitive meta-analysis by Bettencourt and colleagues [*4]. They found that whereas some

personality traits (e.g., irritability) predict aggression across all situations, other traits are

associated with aggression only under specific conditions. Such moderator elements are evident

in much of the subsequent research on aggression [6, 7, 8, 9]. The specificity of situational

triggers was exemplified in a daily diary study: The authors identified five categories of anger

and aggression triggers, which, despite the inclusion of personality traits, captured the majority

of variance in daily aggression and feelings of anger [10].

In this article, we not only acknowledge moderator elements but go further to suggest that

aggression is an intrinsically interactive process. We honor these notions while advancing the

argument that moderation effects should be investigated at the level of the Dark Tetrad traits,

rather than at the level of a (questionable) unitary trait. To update our earlier review [11], we

will emphasize work from the last decade.

Personality, Situational, and Mediating Factors

Before we cover the Dark Tetrad literature, it is important to review two key topics from

mainstream aggression research: (a) cognitive explanations of trait aggression and (b) links to

standard trait models. Both bear on our critique of a simple unitary trait model for aggression.

Big Five/HEXACO factors. It has become standard practice in trait research to

differentiate other traits from fundamental sets such as the Big Five or HEXACO. That

requirement applies to the study of trait aggression. The most consistent links are with low

Conscientiousness, low Agreeableness and high Neuroticism [12, 13, 14]. The first two factors

tend to be linked to impulsivity whereas neuroticism is commonly linked to anger issues.

 6

Although these links can be theoretically justified, it seems impossible to build a unitary trait by

postulating a common theme among three orthogonal factors.

The HEXACO factor model includes the Big Five plus an extra factor

Honesty/Humility. In the most recent germane study, Agreeableness predicted three of five

bullying categories; but Honesty-Humility was linked to all five, including verbal, physical,

social, sexual, and racial subtypes [15].

The role of cognition. The traditional temperament model assumes that genetic

differences explain trait differences in aggression [16]. That approach has been challenged by

cognitive approaches advocating that social information structures can trigger aggression or, at

least, intervene between the impelling force of traits and overt aggression. Most influential is the

hostile attributional bias: Here, individual differences in aggression are explained as a reaction

to assuming hostile intent in others. Recent evidence supports that claim across time and culture

[17*].

Although the framework is more comprehensive, cognitive elements are also central to

the General Aggression Model [18]: It holds that social knowledge structures, including scripts

and schemas, are critical to the decision to aggress or not to aggress. Such social knowledge can

be very elaborate and differentiated: Hence this model can also accommodate a great degree of

personality x situation complexity. Most supportive are recent studies indicating significant

mediation between traits and aggressive behavior [19]. One recent study included the Big Five

traits and General Aggression Model social knowledge variables [20*]. Results indicated that

cognitive variables including situational triggers provided virtually complete mediation between

the Big Five traits and aggressive behavior.

 7

The demonstration of cognitive mediation is important in questioning the direct impact of

a unitary aggression construct. Along with the added complexity of moderator effects, mediation

effects suggest that intervening psychological processes play a key role.

The Dark Tetrad: Empirical Links with Aggression

In recent years, research on individual differences on aggression has turned to a small set

of personality constructs known as the Dark Tetrad [5**]. The tetrad consists of four inter-

correlated personality traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism). Although

theoretically distinct, current measures of the four variables tend to overlap substantially [21].

The common core appears to be callous manipulation [22*]. Rather than criminal or clinical

samples, most of this research has been conducted on normal (e.g., student, work, and

community) samples. Undoubtedly, the dramatic surge in research has been facilitated by the

publication of Dark Triad combination measures [23, 24*]. Now available is a more

comprehensive inventory that includes the fourth component of the Dark Tetrad, that is, the

sadistic personality [25].

The tetrad members tend to show different patterns of associations with aggression,

whether self-reported, observer-reported, or behavioral. Strongest and most consistent are links

with psychopathy [26, 27]. This pattern is consistent with the short-term mating strategy

associated with psychopathy: These individuals (especially men) seek indiscriminate sexual

contacts [23, 28]. Individual links of aggression with narcissism [29, 30] and sadism [31] have

also been found.

Most important for our model are studies that include three or four of the dark

personalities. This multivariate methodology helps control for the overlap among members,

thereby avoiding possible misattribution of the effect of one tetrad member to another
 8

unmeasured member. To date, the bulk of such research has involved the Dark Triad (all but

sadism) but work with the full tetrad is growing. The studies below follow the multivariate

recommendation by including multiple dark personalities as predictors.

Psychopathy. One example is a recent latent variable approach to the Dark Triad and

dispositional aggression [32]. Although the data confirmed a common factor linking the Dark

Triad core (callousness manipulation) to the common core of aggression, psychopathy added

unique variance. In particular, psychopathy had a strong and direct link to physical aggression,

above and beyond the common variance of the Dark Triad. This finding is consistent with other

research indicating that, in predicting aggression, psychopathy out-performs other triad members

as well as the Big Five [28, 33, 34, 35].

Narcissism. When narcissism and self-esteem are pitted head-to-head in predicting

aggression, narcissism typically wins the day [30]. (In fact, contrary to conventional wisdom,

low self-esteem does not predict aggression [36]). But when other tetrad members are controlled,

narcissism has little association with aggression under normal circumstances -- presumably any

aggressive component is accounted for by other members. Although their callous and

disagreeable qualities may signal violence, grandiose narcissists continue to believe others

admire them and therefore only aggress when such beliefs are threatened.

This moderator effect was evident in a recent laboratory study [37**]. In a white noise

paradigm, participants were provoked either with (a) an insult to their intellectual ability, or (b) a

physical attack (a surprise, gratuitous blast of high-volume noise). Consistent with an earlier

finding [38], narcissists showed aggressive responses to the ego-threat whereas psychopaths

showed aggressive responses to the physical threat. That narcissism result was confirmed in a

followup study on costly aggression [39].

 9

Sadism. The sadistic personality is unique among the Dark Tetrad in involving an

appetite for cruelty as opposed to callous indifference [5**]. Only sadistic individuals are

willing to pay a price (perform a boring task) for the opportunity to harm others [40**]. In a

study of males only, sadism predicted sexual aggression [31]; in females, the link with sadism

was fully mediated by sexual attitudes [41].

With human communication increasingly occurring online, a new phenomenon cyber-

aggression has emerged. This ugly variant is largely defined in similar terms to other forms of

aggression, but is delivered via electronic means [42]. Recent research indicates that the Dark

Tetrad, especially sadism, are key predictors of trolling and bullying behaviors online [43**].

Although all four tetrad constructs show positive associations with cyberbullying and aggression,

sadism has the strongest link and narcissism, the weakest [44]. In both adolescents and adults,

psychopathy and sadism have emerged as unique predictors of cyberbullying [45, 46]. The

emergence of sadism as the primary predictor in the online context suggests that anonymity can

unleash the darker side of human nature [21].

Machiavellianism. By contrast, few studies reveal a unique link between

Machiavellianism and aggression in adults. Presumably this follows from their careful, strategic

methods of interpersonal engagement [5]. Among children, however, Machiavellianism has

been linked with relational aggression, that is, aggression used to establish social hierarchies or

to assert power [47*]. Recent research on couples suggests possible gender differences where,

among women only, Machiavellianism is associated with direct aggression [48]. More generally,

Machiavellians exploit others when profitable [49], but are normally restrained enough to realize

that direct aggression is seldom worthwhile.

 10

Conclusion

We have argued two main points regarding the trait approach to aggression. One is that

the top-down approach that is, reifying and then breaking down the Buss-Perry Aggression

Questionnaire [2] has led to confusion about the nature of trait aggression. The plethora of

facets, processes, and outcomes included in that measure do not capture a coherent trait. We

believe that the term aggression should be reserved for overt outcomes, with many possible trait

predictors. Second, the argument for a unitary trait approach is challenged by the wealth of

studies indicating interactions with context.

Instead, we argue for a bottom-up approach where aggression emerges in distinct ways

from four lower level traits known as the Dark Tetrad. Together, these propositions point a new

way forward. Instead of using a single broad measure, trait aggression should be tapped with

joint measures of psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and sadism (for example, the

Short Dark Tetrad, SD4). Subsequent hypotheses must acknowledge the specific context

because each tetrad member responds aggressively to unique provocations. Put another way,

aggression appears to be intrinsically interactional.

However, the cognitive mediators of Dark Tetrad variables have yet to be explored. The

General Aggression Model social knowledge mediators as well as the hostile attribution bias

may help clarify qualitative differences in aggressive responding. It is through research on such

mediators that the complex personality x situation effects of the Dark Tetrad on violence can be

better understood.
 11

Conflict of interest

Nothing declared.

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

*Of special interest

**Of outstanding interest

1. McCrae RR, Costa Jr PT: Personality trait structure as a human universal. Amer
Psychol 1997, 52:509-516.

2. Buss A, Perry M: The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol 1992, 63:452-459.

3. Becker G: The Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire: Some unfinished business. J Res

Pers 2007, 41:434-452.

4. *Bettencourt BA, Talley A, Benjamin AJ, Valentine J: Personality and aggression

under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 2006,
132:751-777.

This meta-analysis was the first to systematically differentiate predictors of aggression

across situations of provocation. The findings support the perspective that personality
traits interact with situational factors to influence the likelihood of aggressive behavior.

5. **Paulhus, DL: Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in

Psychological Science 2015, 2: 421-426.

This review provides an update on the complete set of dark personalities known as the
Dark Tetrad. They include narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadistic
personality. Rather than clinical or criminal levels, they are studied at the subclinical or
everyday level.

6. Brees JR, Mackey JD, Martinko M, Harvey P: The mediating role of perceptions of
abusive supervision in the relationship between personality and aggression. J Leader
Org Studies 2014, 21:403-413.

7. DeWall CN, Gillath O, Pressman SD, Black LL, Bartz JA., Moskovitz, J, Stetler DA.
When the love hormone leads to violence: Oxytocin increases intimate partner violence
inclinations among high trait aggressive people. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 2014, 5:691697.
 12

8. Lobbestael J, Cima M, Lemmens A: The relationship between personality disorder

traits and reactive versus proactive motivation for aggression. Psychiatry Res 2015,
229:155-160.

9. Kokko, K., Simonton, S., Dubow, E., Lansford, J. E., Olson, S. L., Huesmann, L. R.,
Boxer, P., Pulkkinen, L., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S.. Country, sex, and
parent occupational status: Moderators of the continuity of aggression from childhood
to adulthood. Aggressive Behavior, 2014, 40:552567.

10. Kashdan TB, Goodman FR, Mallard TT, DeWall CN: What triggers anger in
everyday life? Links to the intensity, control, and regulation of these emotions, and
personality traits. J Pers 2015, 84:737-749.

11. Paulhus DL, Jones DN: Individual differences in aggression. In Aggression and
violence: A social psychological perspective. Edited by Bushman BJ. Taylor and Francis;
2016:105-118.

12. Barlett CP, Anderson CA: Direct and indirect relations between the Big Five
personality traits and aggressive and violent behavior: Pers Indiv Diff 2012, 52:870875.

13. Egan V: The Big Five: Neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness as an organisational scheme for thinking about aggression and
violence. In Personality Disorder and Violence. Edited by McMurran M, Howard RC.
Wiley & Sons; 2009:63-84.

14. Jones SE, Miller JD, Lynam DR: Personality, antisocial behavior, and aggression: A
meta-analytic review. J Crim Just 2011, 39:329-337.

15. Farrell AH, Della Cioppa V, Volk AA, Book AS. Predicting bullying heterogeneity
with the HEXACO model of personality. International Journal of Advances in Psychology
2014 3:30-9.

16. Raine A: From genes to brain to antisocial behavior. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 2008, 17: 323328.

17. *Dodge KA, Malone PS, Lansford JE, Sorbring E, Skinner AT, Tapanya S, Uribe
Tirado LM, Zelli A, Alampay LP, Al-Hassan SM, et al.: Hostile attributional bias and
aggressive behavior in global context. Proc Nat Acad Sci 2015, 112:9310-9315.

One of few aggression studies to incorporate a longitudinal methodology, this

research confirms the case for HAB predicting aggressive behavior across both
culture and time.

18. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ: Human aggression. Ann Rev Psychol 2002, 53:27-51.

19. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. General aggression model (this issue).
 13

20. *Hosie J, Gilbert F, Simpson K, Daffern M: An examination of the relationship

between personality and aggression using the general aggression and five factor
models. Agg Behav 2014, 40, 189-196.

This study shows that although personality traits are associated with aggression, cognitive
processes mediate this relationship, supporting the General Aggression model (GAM).

21. Book A, Visser BA, Blais J, Hosker-Field A, Methot-Jones T, Gauthier NY, Volk A,
Holden RR, D'Agata MT: Unpacking more "evil": What is the core of the dark tetrad?
Pers Indiv Diff 2016, 90, 269-272.

22. *Jones DN, Figueredo AJ: The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark
Triad. Euro J Pers 2013, 27:521-531.

After extracting the common core of the Dark Triad, the researchers found that each
construct was uniquely related to different forms of aggression. Psychopathy was
positively associated with physical aggression, Machiavellianism was positively
associated with hostility, and Narcissism was negatively associated with hostility

23. Jonason PK, Webster GD. The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad.
Psychological Assessment 2010, 22:420.

24. *Paulhus DL, Jones DN: Measures of dark personalities. In Measures of personality
and social psychological constructs. Edited by Boyle GJ, Saklofske GJ, Matthews G.
Academic Press; 2016:556-563.

This chapter includes a variety of individual measures of narcissism, Machiavellianism,

psychopathy, and sadism. Also included are two combination measures: Short Dark Triad
and Dirty Dozen.

25. Jones DN, Plouffe, R Saklofske, D., Buckels EE, Paulhus, DL A short measure of the
Dark Tetrad (SD4). Unpublished instrument.

26. Paulhus DL, Neumann CS, Hare RD. Manual for the Self Report Psychopathy scale.
Toronto: Multi-health systems. 2016.

27. Hecht LK, Berg JM, Lilienfeld SO, Latzman RD: Parsing the heterogeneity of
psychopathy and aggression: Differential associations across dimensions and gender.
Pers Disord: Theory, Res, Treat 2016, 7: 2-14.

28. Webster GD, Gesselman AN, Crysel LC, Brunell AB, Jonason PK, Hadden BW, Smith
CV: An actor-partner interdependence model of the Dark Triad and aggression in
couples: Relationship duration moderates the link between psychopathy and
argumentativeness. Pers Indiv Diff 2016, 101:196-207.

29. Barnett MD, Powell HA: Self-esteem mediates narcissism and aggression among
women, but not men: A comparison of two theoretical models of narcissism among
college students. Pers Indiv Diff 2016, 89:100-104.
 14

30. Paulhus DL, Robins RW, Trzesniewski KH, Tracy JL. Two replicable suppressor
situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2004, 39:303-28.

31. Russell T.D, & King AR. Anxious, hostile, and sadistic: Maternal attachment and
everyday sadism predict hostile masculine beliefs and male sexual violence. Pers Indiv
Diff 2016, 99:340345.

32. Jones DN, Neria AL: The Dark Triad and dispositional aggression. Pers Indiv Diff
2015, 86:360-364.

33. Burtverde V, Chraif M, Aniei M, Mihil T: The incremental validity of the dark
triad in predicting driving aggression. Accid Anal Prev 2016, 96:1-11.

34. Baughman HM, Dearing S, Giammarco E, Vernon PA. Relationships between bullying
behaviours and the Dark Triad: A study with adults. Pers Indiv Diff 2012, 52:571-575.

35. Westhead J, Egan V: Untangling the concurrent influences of the Dark Triad,
personality and mating effort on violence. Pers Indiv Diff 2015, 86:222-226.

36. Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF, Thomaes S., Ryu E, Begeer S, West SG. Looking again,
and harder, for a link between low self-esteem and aggression. J Pers 2009, 77:427-446.

37. **Jones DN, Paulhus DL: Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists
and psychopaths. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 2010, 1:12-18.

Using a white noise paradigm to operationalize aggression, this study suggests that
members of the Dark Triad aggress under different provocations. Specifically,
researchers found that narcissistic individuals are aggressive in response to an ego threat,
while psychopathy uniquely predicts aggression in the face of a physical provocation.

38. Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., van Dijk, M., & Baumeister, R. F. Narcissism, sexual
refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion. J
Pers and Soc Psychology 2003, 84:10271040.

39. Lmmle L, Oedl, C., & Ziegler M. Dont threaten me and my dark side or even self-
harm wont stop me from hurting you. Pers Indiv Diff 2014, 67: 87-91.

40. **Buckels EE, Jones DN, Paulhus DL: Behavioral confirmation of everyday sadism.
Psychol Sci 2013, 24:2301-2309.

Across two studies, sadism predicted higher willingness and enjoyment of aggression.
Further, those higher in sadism were willing to work to have an opportunity to be
aggressive against an innocent partner.

41. Russell TD, Doan CM, King AR: Sexually violent women: The PID-5, everyday
sadism, and adversarial sexual attitudes predict female sexual aggression and coercion
against male victims. Pers Indiv Diff 2017, 111:242-249.
 15

42. Grigg DW: Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. Aust J Guid
Couns 2010, 20:143-156.

43. **Buckels EE, Trapnell PD, Paulhus DL: Trolls just want to have fun. Pers Indiv Diff
2014, 67:97-102.

44. Goodboy AK, Martin MM: The personality profile of a cyberbully: Examining the
Dark Triad. Comp Hum Behav 2015, 49:1-4.

45. Pabian S, De Backer CJS, Vandebosch H: Dark Triad personality traits and
adolescent cyber-aggression. Pers Indiv Diff 2015, 75:41-46.

46. Van Geel M, Goemans A, Toprak F, Vedder P: Which personality traits are related to
traditional bullying and cyberbullying? A study with the Big Five, Dark Triad and
sadism. Pers Indiv Diff 2017, 106:231-235.

47. *Kerig PK, Stellwagen KK: Roles of callous-unemotional traits, narcissism, and
Machiavellianism in childhood aggression. J Psychopath Behav Ass 2010, 32:343-352.

Among children, narcissism and Machiavellianism were differentially associated with

manifestations of aggression. Psychopathy was consistently related to all forms of
aggression, but Machiavellianism only predicted relational aggression.

48. Hamel J, Jones DN, Dutton DG, Graham-Kevan N: The CAT: A gender-inclusive
measure of controlling and abusive tactics. Viol Vict 2015, 30:547-580.

49. Jones DN, Paulhus DL: Duplicity among the Dark Triad: Three faces of deceit. J
Pers Soc Psychol. In press.

View publication stats