ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 12 March 2019
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00467
Edited by:
Nadin Beckmann,
Durham University, United Kingdom
Reviewed by:
Elizabeth Austin,
University of Edinburgh,
United Kingdom
William Tov,
Singapore Management University,
Singapore
*Correspondence:
Scott Barry Kaufman
[email protected]
†Present address:
Scott Barry Kaufman,
Department of Psychology, Barnard
College, Columbia University,
New York, NY, United States
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Personality and Social Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 24 November 2018
Accepted: 15 February 2019
Published: 12 March 2019
Citation:
Kaufman SB, Yaden DB, Hyde E
and Tsukayama E (2019) The Light vs.
Dark Triad of Personality: Contrasting
Two Very Different Profiles of Human
Nature. Front. Psychol. 10:467.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00467
The Light vs. Dark Triad of
Personality: Contrasting Two Very
Different Profiles of Human Nature
Scott Barry Kaufman1*†, David Bryce Yaden1, Elizabeth Hyde1 and Eli Tsukayama2
1 Positive Psychology Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States, 2 Business Administration Division,
University of Hawai‘i-West O‘ahu, Kapolei, HI, United States
While there is a growing literature on “dark traits” (i.e., socially aversive traits), there has
been a lack of integration with the burgeoning research literature on positive traits and
fulfilling and growth-oriented outcomes in life. To help move the field toward greater
integration, we contrasted the nomological network of the Dark Triad (a well-studied
cluster of socially aversive traits) with the nomological network of the Light Triad,
measured by the 12-item Light Triad Scale (LTS). The LTS is a first draft measure of a
loving and beneficent orientation toward others (“everyday saints”) that consists of three
facets: Kantianism (treating people as ends unto themselves), Humanism (valuing the
dignity and worth of each individual), and Faith in Humanity (believing in the fundamental
goodness of humans). Across four demographically diverse samples (N = 1,518), the
LTS demonstrated excellent reliability and validity, predicting life satisfaction and a wide
range of growth-oriented and self-transcendent outcomes above and beyond existing
measures of personality. In contrast, the Dark Triad was negatively associated with life
satisfaction and growth-oriented outcomes, and showed stronger linkages to selfish,
exploitative, aggressive, and socially aversive outcomes. This exploratory study of the
contrasting nomological networks of the Light vs. Dark Triad provides several ways
forward for more principled and data driven approaches to explore both the malevolent
and beneficent sides of human nature.
Keywords: dark triad, antagonism, light triad, personality, positive psychology
INTRODUCTION
“I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.” – Anne (Frank, 1995)
(1947/, p. 332).
“What’s one less person on the face of the earth, anyway?” – Ted Bundy (as quoted in Leyton, 2003).
We all have, within each of us, both a light and a dark side. We all vary, however, in the extent
to which we consistently exhibit light vs. dark patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviors in our
daily lives. For over the past 15 years, there has been a flurry of empirical research on a number of
“dark traits” that are associated with ethically, morally, and socially aversive beliefs and behaviors
(Moshagen et al., 2018). There is an emerging consensus that the “dark core” (or so-called “heart of
darkness”) of these dark traits consists of an antagonistic social strategy characterized by high levels
of interpersonal manipulation and callous behavior (Jones and Figueredo, 2013; Marcus et al., 2018;
Moshagen et al., 2018).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
While there are some newcomers on the dark trait scene
(e.g., sadism and spitefulness), the most studied and validated
dark traits are indexed by the now infamous “Dark Triad”
of personality: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and subclinical
psychopathy (Paulhus and Williams, 2002; Jonason et al., 2012b;
Furnham et al., 2013; Muris et al., 2017). Since the initial paper
proposing a Dark Triad of personality (Paulhus and Williams,
2002), research on the topic has increased every year, with two
thirds of the publications on the Dark Triad appearing in 2014
and 2015 alone (Muris et al., 2017). While each of the three
members of the Dark Triad have unique features and correlates
(e.g., Jones and Figueredo, 2013; Glenn and Sellbom, 2015; Muris
et al., 2017), there is enough overlap among these socially aversive
personalities that researchers have argued that they “should be
studied in concert” (Paulhus, 2014, p. 421).
Considering the dark core of the Dark Triad, it’s no surprise
that the field has focused on predicting a wide range of
aversive psychosocial outcomes, including aggression and violence
(Pailing et al., 2014; Dinic and Wertag, 2018; Knight et al.,
2018; Paulhus et al., 2018); low affective empathy (Wai and
Tiliopoulos, 2012; Jonason and Kroll, 2014; Pajevic et al., 2018),
strong motives for self-enhancement, achievement, power, money,
hedonism, and short-term instrumental sex (Jonason et al., 2008;
Lee et al., 2013; Kajonius et al., 2015; Jonason and Ferrell,
2016; Balakrishna et al., 2017), counterproductive and coercive
behaviors in the workplace (O’Boyle et al., 2012; Spain et al., 2013;
Jonason et al., 2014, 2018; Spurk et al., 2015); a heartless “love
style” characterized by high levels of infidelity, active prowling,
game playing, practical utility, avoidant attachment style, and
a preference for “one-night-stands” and “friends-with-benefits”
(Jonason and Kavanagh, 2010; Jonason and Buss, 2012; Jonason
et al., 2012a; Koladich and Atkinson, 2016; Unrau and Morry,
2017; Alavi et al., 2018); and immature defense mechanisms
(Richardson and Boag, 2016). Furthermore, as if the preceding
findings were not socially aversive enough, the Dark Triad has
even been associated with committing the “seven deadly sins”
more often (Veselka et al., 2014; Jonason et al., 2017).
While this growing research base has contributed substantially
to our understanding of the darker side of human nature, many
fulfilling and growth-oriented outcomes possible in life have
largely gone unexplored in the Dark Triad literature. The latest
science of well-being includes a wide range of topics, including
positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), life satisfaction (Diener,
1984; Diener et al., 1999), personal growth (Ryff, 1989; Ryff and
Keyes, 1995), altruism (Keltner, 2009; Ricard, 2016), gratitude
(Emmons and Crumpler, 2000; Emmons and McCullough, 2004),
savoring (Kurtz, 2018), forgiveness (Witvliet and Luna, 2018),
intellectual humility and a quiet ego (Wayment et al., 2014; Zachry
et al., 2018), hope (Snyder et al., 2003; Lopez, 2013), courage
(Pury and Saylors, 2018), mindfulness (Kabat-Zinn, 2013; Langer
and Ngnoumen, 2018), positive connection (Fredrickson, 2013),
positive romantic relationships (Pawelski and Pawelski, 2018),
competence (Ryan and Deci, 2000), grit (Duckworth et al., 2007),
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), healthy self-esteem (Tafarodi and
Swann, 1995; Kernis, 2003), autonomy (Ryan and Deci, 2000),
meaning (Steger et al., 2006; Martela and Steger, 2016), purpose
(Damon, 2009), engagement and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008),
awe, self-transcendence, and spirituality (Keltner and Haidt, 2003;
Yaden et al., 2016, 2017a,b, 2018), morality (Meindl et al., 2015;
Jayawickreme and Fleeson, 2017), character strengths (Peterson
and Seligman, 2004), mature coping styles (Vaillant, 1998), and
authenticity (Kernis and Goldman, 2006; Wood et al., 2008).
Therefore, while it is certainly true that there is a malevolent
side of human nature, and the Dark Triad literature has
contributed important information to our understanding of
this aspect of humanity, research has also clearly articulated a
positive, growth-oriented side of human beings – a beneficent
side (Maslow, 1962; Rogers, 1961; Seligman, 2012). Too much
focus on one aspect of human nature at the expense of the
other misrepresents the full capacities of humanity (see Maslow,
1962). What is missing in the field, we believe, are empirical
investigations that include measures of the dark side and
measures of the light side, and that look at both maladaptive
outcomes and well-being-related variables, all in the same study.
The main aim of the current investigation is an attempt to do just
that – to help further integration between two fields that been
traveling mostly on separate paths.
To explore the contrasts between the dark and light side of
personality, we created a first draft of a brief measure of the light
side of personality that could provide a useful direct contrast
to the common core of dark traits. In constructing the scale,
we were motivated by the question: what would an everyday
loving and beneficent orientation toward others look like that is
in direct contrast to the everyday antagonistic orientation of those
scoring high on dark traits? To inform the construction of items,
we looked at existing measures of the Dark Triad (the most
well-validated cluster of dark traits that have been studied) and
generated a variety of items that conceptually represented the
opposite interpersonal orientation toward others, ensuring that
none of the items were merely reverse-coded versions of those
comprising the Dark Triad scales.
In addition to increasing integration between literatures that
rarely talk to each other, we believe the current investigation
can also inform existing debates in the Dark Triad literature. It
is well-known that the Dark Triad is negatively associated with
Big Five Agreeableness (e.g., Jonason et al., 2013a) and is even
more strongly inversely correlated with the HEXACO HonestyHumility factor of normal personality variation, which consists
of the facets of sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty
(Ashton et al., 2000; Lee and Ashton, 2005; Jonason and McCain,
2012; Book et al., 2015; Hodson et al., 2018). The extent to which
the Dark Triad out-predicts important life outcomes above and
beyond these “normal” facets of personality remains an open
and interesting question, however. Also, while we expected that
the Light Triad would show strong positive associations with
these standard measures of the socially desirable personality,
we predicted that the Light Triad would not be completely
redundant with such measures. Therefore, in the current study we
assessed the predictive validity of the Light and Dark Triad above
and beyond both the HEXACO Honesty-Humility dimension of
personality, as well as measures of Big Five Agreeableness.
Another interesting question that has not received as much
attention in the Dark Triad literature is whether normal
personality variation can predict meaningful outcomes
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
after partialing out the antagonistic traits comprising the
Dark Triad. For instance, recent research suggests that the
agentic aspect of narcissism offers a protective factor, and that
grandiose narcissism is even related to adaptive outcomes
once the antagonistic aspect of narcissism is partialed out
(Kaufman et al., 2018). The present study will be in a position
to not only assess whether the Dark Triad is completely
redundant with normal personality variation (disagreeableness
and the inverse of honesty-humility), but also whether
the residual variance in the Dark Triad is associated with
adaptive outcomes.
Another controversy in the field is the extent to which
the Dark Triad uniformly predicts adverse and transgressive
psychosocial outcomes across the board. Are there any benefits to
having a preponderance of Dark Triad characteristics? Through
broadening the nomological network of the Dark Triad to
include a number of adaptive outcomes in life, we believe the
current paper is in a better position to assess the potential costs
and benefits of both the dark and light side of personality.
In order to reveal the nomological network surrounding this
construct, we do not rely solely on self-report scales but we
also include measures of moral judgment and offer participants
opportunities to either donate bonus reward money to charity
or keep it for themselves while playing an adaptation of
the “Dictator Game.”
Current Studies
In this series of studies, we sought to (a) to expand the
already-existing nomological network of the Dark Triad, and
(b) to establish a nomological network for the Light Triad, by
examining relationships with a wide variety of outcomes. Based
on the prior literature, we expected the Dark Triad to generally
be positively related to maladaptive, selfish, and aggressive
outcomes, and negatively related to more prosocial, growthoriented, and self-transcendent outcomes, and for the Light Triad
to generally show the opposite pattern of results. We also believed
that some relationships would diverge from this general pattern,
as these two constructs are not merely opposites of each other.
While primarily exploratory, we expected a that the light and dark
triad would show the strongest discrimination when it comes
to the core motives and values underlying each trait (e.g., selfenhancement motives and values vs. self-transcendent motives
and values) and worldview (e.g., a fundamental belief in the
goodness of humans and acceptance of others). We also expected
that the light triad would show a positive relationship to the facets
of interpersonal guilt that most strongly reflect an empathetic
concern for others (O’Connor et al., 1997).
In sum, our main aims were to show (1) that the Light
Triad can be measured with a reliable scale, (2) that the
Light Triad is distinct from the inverse of the Dark Triad,
Big Five Agreeableness, and the Honesty-Humility sub-scale of
the HEXACO, (3) that the Light Triad predicts well-studied
positive and negative outcomes over and above Agreeableness
and Honesty-Humility, and (4) that the Light Triad is a
useful explanatory construct informing both the literatures on
well-being and the Dark Triad.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
A total of 1,518 participants were recruited across four
demographically diverse samples using two different data
collection platforms. Sample size for each study was determined
based on the minimal number of participants that would
provide meaningful individual differences results (N > 150).
All four studies received IRB approval from the University of
Pennsylvania. Participants for the first two studies (described
in this paper as “Study 1” and “Study 2”) were recruited from
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (M-Turk), with the restriction that
all participants are currently living in the United States and were
above the age of 18. Participants for the other studies (described
in this paper as “Study 3” and “Study 4”) were recruited from
a newer platform called Prolific Academic. Research shows that
Prolific Academic is a viable alternative to Mechanical Turk (Peer
et al., 2017). While the data quality of Prolific Academic has
been found to be comparable to Mechanical Turk, participants
recruited from Prolific Academic have been found to be more
diverse and less dishonest compared to participants recruited
from M-Turk (Peer et al., 2017). Even so, M-Turk samples have
been found to be generally representative and adequate as well
(Buhrmester et al., 2011). All studies took participants about
25 min on average to complete.
Study 1 comprised 387 M-Turk participants with an average
age of 34.60 (Min = 19, Max = 72, SD = 10.16). There was
about an equal gender split (Male = 50.4%, Female = 49.6), and
80% identified as White (with the rest of the sample mostly
identifying as either Hispanic, Latino, Black, or Asian). Study
2 comprised 670 M-Turk participants with an average age of
36.07 (Min = 19, Max = 74, SD = 11.82). There was also about
an equal gender split (Male = 47.5%, Female = 52.5%), and
80% identified as White (with the rest of the sample mostly
identifying as either Hispanic, Latino, Black, or Asian). Study 3
comprised 267 Prolific Academic participants, with an average
age of 36.02 (Min = 18, Maximum = 77, SD = 12.42). The
sample consisted of more females (58.1%) than males (41.9%),
and 89% identified as White (with the rest of the sample mostly
identifying as either Hispanic, Latino, Black, or Asian). Study
4 consisted of 194 participants with an average age of 34.73
(Min = 18, Max = 66, SD = 11.13). There was an almost equal
gender split (Male = 49%, Female = 51%), and 84% identified
as White (with the rest of the sample mostly identifying as
either Hispanic, Latino, Black, or Asian). While 187 participants
recruited from Prolific Academic across Studies 3 and 4 came
from the United States, 267 came from the United Kingdom and
Ireland, thus suggesting that our results may generalize across at
least some cultures.
Measures
In each study, participants completed a battery of self-report
survey items and tasks. For clarity of presentation, we grouped
descriptions of the tests by conceptual category and present
the results using the same grouping. Specific details about
which test was included in which study, and the order of
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 1 | Order of presentation of tests for each study.
Study 1
(n = 387)
Study 2
(n = 670)
Study 3
(n = 267)
Study 4
(n = 194)
Demographics Demographics Demographics Demographics
The Dark Triad of Personality (D3-
Short; Jones and Paulhus, 2014)
The Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS;
DeYoung et al., 2007)
The Big Five Inventory—2 (BFI-2;
Soto and John, 2017)
The Big Five Inventory—2 (BFI-2; Soto and
John, 2017)
Light Triad Scale (36 items) The HEXACO Personality
Inventory-Revised-Honesty Humility
(HEXACO-60, Ashton and Lee, 2009)
Light Triad (36 items) Light Triad (16 items)
Social Desirability (Strahan and
Gerbasi, 1972)
The Cognitive, Affective, and Somatic
Empathy Scales (CASES, Raine and
Chen, 2018)
The Five-Factor Narcissism
Inventory-Short Form (FFNI-SF)
The Dark Triad of Personality (D3- Short;
Jones and Paulhus, 2014)
The HEXACO Personality
Inventory-Revised-Honesty Humility
(HEXACO-60, Ashton and Lee, 2009)
Light Triad Scale (16 items) The Psychopathic Personality
Inventory – Short Form (PPI-SF;
Tonnaer et al., 2013)
Social Desirability (Strahan and Gerbasi,
1972)
The Dispositional Positive Emotion
Scales Questionnaire-Compassion
(DPES, Shiota et al., 2006)
Social Desirability (Strahan and
Gerbasi, 1972)
The Triarchic Personality Measure
(TriPM; Patrick, 2010)
The Authenticity Scale (TAS; Wood et al.,
2008)
The Big Five Inventory—2 (BFI-2;
Soto and John, 2017)
The Dark Triad of Personality (D3-
Short; Jones and Paulhus, 2014)
The Interpersonal Guilt
Questionnaire (ICQ; O’Connor
et al., 1997)
The Authenticity Inventory (AI-3; Kernis and
Goldman, 2006)
The Revised Sociosexual Orientation
Inventory (SOI-R, Penke and
Asendorpf, 2008)
Reactive-Proactive Aggression
Questionnaire (RPQ, Raine et al., 2006)
The Defense Style Questionnaire
(DSQ; Andrews et al., 1993)
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES;
Rosenberg, 1965)
The Love Attitudes Scale (LAS,
Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986)
Utilitarian Moral Dilemmas (items
adapted from Glenn et al., 2009)
The Adult Attachment Scale–
Revised (AAS; Collins, 1996)
The Contingencies of Self Worth Scale
(CSW, Crocker et al., 2003)
The Unified Motives Scales (UMS,
Schönbrodt and Gerstenberg, 2012)
The Selfishness Questionnaire (SQ;
Raine and Uhi, 2018)
Social Desirability (Strahan and
Gerbasi, 1972)
The Adult Attachment Scale– Revised
(AAS; Collins, 1996
The Balanced Measure of
Psychological Needs Scale (BMPN,
Sheldon and Hilpert, 2012)
Dictator Game (adapted from Eckel and
Grossman, 1996)
The Cognitive Triad Inventory (CTI;
Beckham et al., 1986)
The Sense of Self Scale (SOSS; Flury and
Ickes, 2007)
Unpredictability of Childhood
(adapted from Mittal et al., 2015;
Young et al., 2018)
Spiritual Experience (Yaden and
Newberg, unpublished).
The Portrait Values
Questionnaire-Revised (PVQ-RR,
Schwartz et al., 2012)
The Values in Action (VIA) Brief Strengths
Test (Peterson and Seligman, 2004)
The Satisfaction with Life Scale
(SWLS, Diener et al., 1985)
The Varieties Scale (Yaden and
Newberg, unpublished)
Beliefs about self and others (items
created by authors)
The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-II
(CEI-II, Kashdan et al., 2009)
The Quiet Ego Scale (QES; Wayment
et al., 2014)
The Epistemic Curiosity Scale (ECS; Litman
and Spielberger, 2003)
The Conspicuous
Consumption—Extra Money Scale
(Lee et al. (2013))
The Death Transcendence Scale (DTS;
Hood and Morris, 1983)
Beliefs about self and others (items created
by authors
presentation of the tests, can be found in Table 1. Information
about which studies each test came from is also indicated
in the tables provided in the Section “Results.” For more
information about each scale, including example items, please see
the Supplementary Materials.
Demographics
Annual income
Participants were asked to report how much they earned during
the past 12 months.
Childhood income
Participants were asked to report their family’s financial situation
when they were a child on a seven-point scale, ranging from “very
poor” to “very rich.”
Education
Participants were asked to report their education level on a ninepoint scale.
Unpredictability of childhood
We assessed this using eight items, three of which had been
developed for use in a prior research study (Mittal et al., 2015),
and five more were created for inclusion in a different study to
better and more reliably measure the underlying construct on
an unpredictable childhood environment (Young et al., 2018).
Example items include, “My parents frequently had arguments
or fights with each other or other people in my childhood.”
Social desirability
Strahan and Gerbasi (1972) validated a 13-item measure to assess
and control for response bias in self-report research, which was
employed in our studies.
Dark Triad Measures
The Dark Triad of Personality (D3- Short; Jones and
Paulhus, 2014)
The Dark Triad of Personality (D3- Short; Jones and Paulhus,
2014) is a 27-item self-report questionnaire that measures
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
Dark Triad traits, divided into three nine-item subscales:
Machiavellianism (i.e., “It’s not wise to tell your secrets”),
Narcissism (i.e., “People see me as a natural leader”), and
Psychopathy, (i.e., “I like to get revenge on authorities”).
The Psychopathic Personality Inventory – Short Form
(PPI-SF; Tonnaer et al., 2013)
The Psychopathic Personality Inventory – Short Form (PPI-SF;
Tonnaer et al., 2013) is a 56-item version of the original 187-item
PPI (Lilienfeld and Hess, 2001). Its eight-item MachiavellianismEgocentricity facet was administered in this study in order to
measure the Dark Triad trait of Machiavellianism.
The Triarchic Personality Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010)
The Triarchic Personality Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010) is used
to assess the Dark Triad trait of Psychopathy.
The Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory-Short Form (FFNI-SF)
The Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory-Short Form (FFNI-SF) is
the 60-item short form of the original Five-Factor Narcissism
Inventory (FFNI; Glover et al., 2012), designed to assess
the basic elements of narcissism from the perspective of a
five-factor model.
Personality
The HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised-Honesty
Humility (HEXACO-60, Ashton and Lee, 2009)
The HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised-Honesty Humility
(HEXACO-60, Ashton and Lee, 2009) is one of six subscales
comprising the 60-item HEXACO personality inventory. It
contains 10 items, which are divided into four facets: sincerity
(e.g., “I wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get that person
to do favors for me”), fairness (e.g., “I would never accept a
bribe, even if it were very large”), greed-avoidance (e.g., “Having
a lot of money is not especially important to me”), and modesty
(e.g., “I want people to know that I am an important person
of high status”).
The Big Five Inventory—2 (BFI-2; Soto and John, 2017)
The Big Five Inventory—2 (BFI-2; Soto and John, 2017) is
a 60-item scale that measures three more-specific facets for
each of the Big Five domains of personality: Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Negative Emotionality, and
Open-Mindedness.
The Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS; DeYoung et al., 2007)
The Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS; DeYoung et al., 2007) is a
100-item scale that measures two aspects of each Big Five factor.
Psychological Needs and Motives
The Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs Scale (BMPN,
Sheldon and Hilpert, 2012)
The Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs Scale (BMPN,
Sheldon and Hilpert, 2012) is an 18-item questionnaire,
containing three six-item subscales to evaluate the degree of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction of three basic psychological needs:
autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
The Unified Motives Scales (UMS, Schönbrodt and
Gerstenberg, 2012)
The Unified Motives Scales (UMS, Schönbrodt and Gerstenberg,
2012) is a 40-item measure of four explicit motives: achievement,
power, affiliation, and intimacy.
Values and Character Strengths
The Portrait Values Questionnaire-Revised (PVQ-RR,
Schwartz et al., 2012)
The Portrait Values Questionnaire-Revised (PVQ-RR, Schwartz
et al., 2012) consists of 57 items, designed to measure the 19
values that are differentiated in Schwartz et al.’s refined theory
of basic values (2012; enumerated below), which include a “selftranscendence” factor, a “self-enhancement” factor, an “openness
to change” factor, and a “conservation” factor. The need to save
face and humility, which didn’t fit cleanly into any of the other
categories, were analyzed separately.
The Values in Action (VIA) Brief Strengths Test (Peterson
and Seligman, 2004)
The Values in Action (VIA) Brief Strengths Test (Peterson and
Seligman, 2004) is a 24–item self–report questionnaire that
measures the degree to which respondents endorse personal
character strengths and virtues. There is a total of 24 strengths of
character in the VIA Classification, upon which this scale is based.
Defense Styles
The Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ; Andrews et al., 1993)
The Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ; Andrews et al., 1993) is
a 40-item questionnaire that measures “defense styles” based on
the DSM-III-R draft glossary of defense mechanisms (Advisory
Committee on Defense Mechanisms (Work Group to Revise
DSM-III), 1986). This study used a revised version of the original
72-item DSQ (Andrews et al., 1989).
Worldview
The Cognitive Triad Inventory (CTI; Beckham et al., 1986)
The Cognitive Triad Inventory (CTI; Beckham et al., 1986) is
a 30-item questionnaire that measures the “cognitive triad” of
negative beliefs about one’s self, one’s future, and the world,
which Aaron Beck argues is an important predictor of depression
(e.g., Beck et al., 1979).
Beliefs
We asked participants to rate their agreement with the statements
“Humans are good” and “I am good” on a five-point scale.
Self-Esteem and Authenticity
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965)
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) is a
10-item index of global self-esteem that measures both positive
and negative feelings about the self.
The Contingencies of Self Worth Scale (CSW,
Crocker et al., 2003)
The Contingencies of Self Worth Scale (CSW, Crocker et al.,
2003) is a 35-item scale assessing seven contingencies shown to
be important internal and external sources of self-esteem. The
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
subscales include family support, competition, appearance, God’s
love, academic competence, virtue, and approval from others.
The Sense of Self Scale (SOSS; Flury and Ickes, 2007)
The Sense of Self Scale (SOSS; Flury and Ickes, 2007) is a
12-item measure that assesses the extent to which one has a weak
versus strong sense of self. While the scale is unidimensional, it
has items relating to four components of a weak sense of self:
(1) Tendency to confuse one’s feelings, thoughts, and perspectives
with those of others; (2) Lack of understanding of oneself ; (3)
Sudden shifts in feelings, opinions, and values; and (4) Feeling of
a tenuous existence.
The Authenticity Scale (TAS; Wood et al., 2008)
The Authenticity Scale (TAS; Wood et al., 2008) is a 12-item scale
that has three subscales: authentic living, alienation from the self,
and accepting external influence.
The Authenticity Inventory (AI-3; Kernis and Goldman,
2006)
The Authenticity Inventory (AI-3; Kernis and Goldman, 2006)
is a 45-item measure “conceptually designed to assess the
unimpeded operation of one’s true—or core—self in one’s daily
enterprise.” It contains four subscales: awareness, unbiased
processing (reverse scored), behavior, and relational orientation.
Sex, Love, and Relationships
The Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R,
Penke and Asendorpf, 2008)
The Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R, Penke
and Asendorpf, 2008) is a nine-item self-report questionnaire
designed to measure individual differences in the tendency
to engage in sexual relationships without deeper emotional
commitment. This scale is divided into three facets measured
by the inventory: behavior—in terms of number of casual and
changing sex partners, attitude—toward uncommitted sex, and
desire—for people outside of one’s romantic relationship.
The Love Attitudes Scale (LAS, Hendrick and Hendrick,
1986)
The Love Attitudes Scale (LAS, Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986)
is a 42-item questionnaire designed to measure attitudes toward
love. The questionnaire combines attitudes toward one’s current
(or else, recent or hypothetical) partner with attitudes about love
in general. The scale is broken into six subscales (seven items
each) that represent a different love style: Eros—passionate love,
Ludus—game-playing love, Storge—friendship love, Pragma—
practical love, Mania—possessive, dependent love, and Agape—
altruistic love.
The Adult Attachment Scale– Revised (AAS; Collins, 1996)
The Adult Attachment Scale– Revised (AAS; Collins, 1996) is
an 18-item scale that measures the attachment styles of adults.
Consistent with Fraley and Spieker (2003), we computed two
attachment styles: anxious (the extent to which a person is
worried about being rejected or unloved) and avoidant (the
extent to which a person avoids intimacy and feels he/she can
depend on others to be available when needed).
Empathy, Compassion, and Interpersonal Style
The Dispositional Positive Emotion Scales
Questionnaire-Compassion (DPES, Shiota et al., 2006)
The Dispositional Positive Emotion Scales QuestionnaireCompassion (DPES, Shiota et al., 2006) is one of seven
subscales contained in the 38-item DPES self-report instrument.
The five-item compassion subscale measures one’s dispositional
tendency to feel compassion toward people in general.
The Cognitive, Affective, and Somatic Empathy Scales
(CASES, Raine and Chen, 2018)
The Cognitive, Affective, and Somatic Empathy Scales (CASES,
Raine and Chen, 2018) is a 30-item measure containing three
subscales. We administered the 10-item cognitive empathy
subscale, which refers to the capacity to cognitively understand
how others feel and the 10-item affective empathy subscale,
which refers to the capacity to experience the emotions of
how others feel.
The Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire (ICQ; O’Connor
et al., 1997)
The Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire (ICQ; O’Connor et al.,
1997) is a 67-item scale that assesses four types of guilt: survivor,
separation, omnipotent responsibility, and self-hate.
The Quiet Ego Scale (QES; Wayment et al., 2014)
The Quiet Ego Scale (QES; Wayment et al., 2014) measures
“a self-identity that transcends egoism and identifies with a
less defensive, balanced stance toward the self and others.”
This 14-item scale is comprised of four subscales dedicated
to measuring the following well- known psychological
characteristics: detached awareness, inclusive identity,
perspective taking, and growth.
Selfishness, Aggression, and Moral Judgment
The Conspicuous Consumption—Extra Money Scale (Lee
et al., 2013)
The Conspicuous Consumption—Extra Money Scale (Lee et al.,
2013) was constructed for use in a prior research experiment
examining the relationships of sex, power, and money to Dark
Triad characteristics. Participants were asked to indicate how
they would spend an extra $100,000 on 13 items that represent
either conspicuous consumption (e.g., luxury cars, high-end
restaurant meals, etc.) or non-conspicuous consumption (e.g.,
health products, insurance, etc.). We obtained the final scale
scores for this scale by subtracting non-conspicuous scale scores
from conspicuous scale scores.
Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ, Raine
et al., 2006)
Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ, Raine et al.,
2006) is a 23-item, scale that measures the two-factor model of
aggression, with 11 questions examining reactive aggression and
12 questions assessing proactive aggression.
Utilitarian Moral Dilemmas
Utilitarian moral decision-making was assessed using three
condensed versions of high-conflict personal dilemmas—
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
“Crying Baby,” “Footbridge,” and “Sacrifice” (Glenn et al., 2009).
Participants were asked to rate how morally appropriate or
inappropriate they found utilitarian actions (ones that are
harmful but benefit the greater good).
The Selfishness Questionnaire (SQ; Raine and Uhi, 2018)
The Selfishness Questionnaire (SQ; Raine and Uhi, 2018) is
a 24-item self-report instrument designed to measure selfish
behaviors and attitudes. It is comprised of three subscales:
egocentric, adaptive, and pathological.
Dictator Game
This is an experimental economic task in which participants
decide how much, if any, of the money awarded to them by the
experimenter they wish to give away to another recipient, without
any negative consequences. Similar to Eckel and Grossman
(1996) version of the dictator game, the described recipient
was a charity foundation (Save the Children). Participants were
informed that they would be given an additional $0.70 for their
participation in the study and were asked how much they would
be willing to donate to Save the Children.
Religion, Spirituality, and Self-Transcendence
Religious views
Participants were asked on a seven-point scale to report their
degree of religiosity. These items were included as part of the
demographics section in the beginning of the study.
Spiritual experience (Yaden and Newberg, unpublished)
We asked participants the following: “Have you had what you
consider to be a spiritual experience? Spiritual experiences
are generally considered brief, intense, and vivid subjective
experiences involving perceiving an unseen order or connecting
to something larger than yourself. People of all belief systems
(e.g., secular, spiritual, and religious) report having had
such experiences.”
The Varieties Scale (Yaden and Newberg, unpublished)
This scale is an operationalization of distinctions within William
James’s The Varieties of Religious Experience. Participants were
asked to indicate the extent to which they have had an experience
involving a sense of unity (mystical factor) or of God/divinity
(numinous factor).
The Death Transcendence Scale (DTS; Hood and Morris,
1983)
The Death Transcendence Scale (DTS; Hood and Morris,
1983) contains 23 items, based on the premise that “death
is transcended through identification with phenomena more
enduring than oneself.” Items are divided amongst five subscales:
mysticism, religious, nature, creative, and biosocial.
Curiosity
The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-II (CEI-II,
Kashdan et al., 2009)
The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-II (CEI-II, Kashdan
et al., 2009) is a 10-item self-report instrument assessing
individual differences in the recognition, pursuit, and integration
of novel and challenging experiences and information. It contains
two factors, with five items devoted to each: Stretching (about
challenging oneself) and Embracing (accepting uncertainty).
The Epistemic Curiosity Scale (ECS;
Litman and Spielberger, 2003)
The Epistemic Curiosity Scale (ECS; Litman and Spielberger,
2003) is a 10-item instrument developed specifically to assess
individual differences in epistemic curiosity— the desire for new
knowledge. The scale contains items to assess “interest” (I-type)
curiosity, which is meant to “stimulate pleasurable feelings of
situational interest.” It also contains items to assess “deprivation”
(D-type) curiosity, which is meant to “relieve negative affective
conditions of feeling deprived of knowledge.”
Life Satisfaction
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, Diener et al., 1985)
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, Diener et al., 1985)
is a self-report instrument of five items to assess global
life satisfaction.
RESULTS
Light Triad Scale (LTS) Development
To construct the Light Triad Scale (LTS), we were informed by
the themes of existing dark triad questionnaires (see “Materials
and Methods” section) to create our own items. Our initial pool
of 36 items (see Table 2) included a balanced mix of items
that were conceptually the opposite of grandiose narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and subclinical psychopathy, but which were
not simply the reverse coded wording of already existing
dark triad items. After constructing our initial pool of items,
we consulted experts in positive psychology and personality
psychology for their acceptance of the items as a reasonable
contrast to the Dark Triad. We then conducted exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis to derive our final 12-item scale.
Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFAs)
Because we expected the individual members of the Light Triad
to be correlated, we used an oblique oblimin rotation with the fa
function in the psych package in R on our Study 1 data (N = 387).
To determine the number of factors to extract, we used parallel
analyses (Horn, 1965), scree tests (Cattel, 1966), the minimum
average partial criterion (Velicer, 1976), Bartlett’s chi-square test
(Geweke and Singleton, 1980), and the Kaiser criterion (Kaiser,
1960). Except for the Kaiser criterion (which suggested seven
factors), each of these tests suggested extracting four factors.
The fourth factor (which reflected items measuring a secure
self-esteem) only included 2 items with factor loadings above 0.4,
so was therefore dropped as an error factor.
We settled on a three-factor solution. Based on the item
content, we labeled the three factors: Kantianism (treating people
as ends unto themselves, not as mere means to an end),
Humanism (valuing the dignity and worth of each individual),
and Faith in Humanity (believing in the fundamental goodness of
humans). The label “Kantianism” was based on Immanel Kant’s
second formulation of his categorical imperative: “Act in such
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 2 | Exploratory factor analysis loadings from the initial 36 light triad items in study 1.
Factor
Item 1 2 3 4
I don’t like hurting people’s feelings, even if it helps me achieve my goals. 0.60 0.13 0.20 –0.07
I don’t feel comfortable overtly manipulating people to do something I want. 0.63 –0.07 0.15 –0.04
I don’t expect people to treat me with more respect than others. 0.62 0.00 0.04 –0.02
I prefer honesty over charm. 0.59 0.09 –0.01 0.16
I don’t care much about being the center of attention. 0.60 –0.13 –0.09 0.15
If I found out I hurt someone’s feelings, I would feel guilty. 0.51 0.29 0.12 –0.15
I would like to be authentic even if it may damage my reputation. 0.50 0.11 0.08 0.09
I am not too bothered about my social standing. 0.48 0.02 –0.01 0.26
When I talk to people, I am rarely thinking about what I want from them. 0.48 0.05 0.27 0.14
I tend to be a careful person. 0.36 0.20 –0.13 0.18
I tend to be concerned with the dictates of my conscience. 0.35 0.38 –0.08 –0.12
Some people are more valuable than others. –0.35 0.03 –0.27 0.11
If I see someone doing something good, I assume good intentions. 0.28 0.34 0.31 0.02
I rarely try to influence a specific outcome when I am interacting with someone. 0.31 –0.10 0.26 0.03
I’m not always on the look out for opportunities to advance my goals. 0.17 –0.09 0.09 –0.06
People feel comfortable around me. –0.16 0.62 0.11 0.26
I enjoy listening to people from all walks of life. 0.08 0.57 0.14 0.08
I tend to applaud the successes of other people. 0.08 0.53 0.27 0.02
I tend to treat others as valuable. 0.16 0.57 0.12 –0.11
I easily make a connection with others. –0.30 0.48 0.27 0.24
It is important to make sacrifices for my friends and family. 0.19 0.51 0.08 –0.05
I tend to be empathetic to other people. 0.26 0.49 0.18 –0.10
I tend to admire others. –0.14 0.47 0.36 –0.14
I have dealt fairly with people I stand to benefit from. 0.38 0.53 –0.31 0.09
I tend to respect others I am competing against. 0.23 0.45 0.18 0.07
I’m the kind of leader who tends to bring out the best in others. –0.22 0.36 0.22 0.25
I tend to see the best in people. 0.05 0.14 0.71 0.05
I tend to trust that other people will deal fairly with me. 0.06 0.05 0.69 0.01
I think people are mostly good. 0.04 0.12 0.61 0.03
I’m quick to forgive people who have hurt me. 0.12 –0.07 0.65 0.04
I am not afraid of sharing my weaknesses. 0.13 0.05 0.41 0.15
I tend to seek opportunities to contribute to society as a whole. 0.06 0.33 0.36 0.01
I have lost an opportunity due to my honesty. 0.21 0.19 –0.27 –0.09
My self-esteem is not dependent on what others think of me. 0.15 –0.10 0.05 0.78
I tend to value myself regardless of how others treat me. –0.03 0.11 –0.03 0.77
I tend to feel guilty about my past moral failings. 0.23 0.17 –0.16 –0.34
Loadings greater than 0.30 are bolded. Study 1 n = 387.
a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or
in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end,
but always at the same time as an end (Kant, 1785/1993, p. 36).”
We thought Kantianism provided a sensible (and somewhat
tongue-in-cheek) contrast to “Machiavellianism” within the Dark
Triad framework.
To produce the most parsimonious scale possible, we selected
four items with high factor loadings, adequate inter-item
correlations, and face validity from each of the factors. We
then conducted an iterative EFA on this reduced set of 12
items. The three-factor 12-item solution replicated the first
three factors found in the previous solution (see Table 3). The
observed internal consistency coefficients for the three 4-item
factors were a = 0.82, a = 0.79, and a = 0.72, respectively.
The observed internal consistency coefficient for the total
scale was a = 0.84.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs)
We next conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) on
the Study 2 data (n = 670) to verify the solution identified
by the iterative EFA on the Study 1 data. We estimated
both a three-factor and a one-factor model, and found
that the three-factor model fit the data significantly better
than the one-factor model: 1$2(3) = 440.44, p < 0.01. In
the three-factor model, items were allowed to load freely
on their respective factor, the factor loadings with other
factors were set to zero, and the covariance between the
factors was freely estimated. In the one-factor models,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 3 | Exploratory factor analysis loadings from select 12 light triad
items in study 1.
Factor
Item 1 2 3
I tend to see the best in people. 0.79 0.06 0.00
I tend to trust that other people will deal fairly
with me.
0.80 –0.04 –0.02
I think people are mostly good. 0.75 –0.02 0.02
I’m quick to forgive people who have hurt me. 0.53 –0.05 0.09
I tend to admire others. 0.08 0.74 –0.20
I tend to applaud the successes of other
people.
–0.02 0.74 0.12
I tend to treat others as valuable. –0.01 0.60 0.16
I enjoy listening to people from all walks of life. 0.06 0.55 0.10
I prefer honesty over charm. –0.01 –0.02 0.76
I don’t feel comfortable overtly manipulating
people to do something I want.
0.04 0.00 0.57
I would like to be authentic even if it may
damage my reputation.
0.01 0.12 0.57
When I talk to people, I am rarely thinking about
what I want from them.
0.23 0.09 0.47
Loadings greater than 0.30 are bolded. Study 1 n = 387.
all items were allowed to load freely on a single factor.
Factors were scaled by setting the variance equal to 1.0.
All factor loadings were significant at p < 0.01. The
three-factor model (see Figure 1) fit the data well—
$2(51) = 193.38, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.065,
90% CI = [0.055–0.074]; SRMR = 0.05—whereas the one-factor
model exhibited a poor fit to the data: $2(54) = 633.82,
p < 0.01; CFI = 0.78; RMSEA = 0.127, 90% CI = [0.118–0.136];
SRMR = 0.089.
Finally, we conducted the same CFAs on the combined sample
(N = 1,518) and replicated the CFA results (see Figure 2).
Specifically, the three-factor model fit the data significantly
better than the one-factor model: 1$2(3) = 889.61, p < 0.01.
The three-factor model (see Figure 2) fit the data well—
$2(51) = 277.08, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.054,
90% CI = [0.048–0.060]; SRMR = 0.04—whereas the one-factor
model exhibited a poor fit to the data: $2(54) = 1166.69,
p < 0.01; CFI = 0.80; RMSEA = 0.117, 90% CI = [0.111–0.122];
SRMR = 0.083. Figure 3 shows the correlation among the three
members of the Light Triad for all participants across all samples.
The strongest correlation is between Humanism and Faith in
Humanity (r = 0.60), and the weakest is between Kantianism and
Faith in Humanity (r = 0.34).
The observed internal consistency coefficients for the three
4-item factors across all participants across samples (N = 1,518)
were a = 0.80, a = 0.76, and a = 0.67, respectively. The observed
internal consistency coefficient for the total scale across all
participants was a = 0.84.
Relative Proportion of Light vs. Dark Triad
Characteristics
Figure 4 shows the scatterplot of Light vs. Dark Triad scores
in the total sample (N = 1,518). The average Light Triad score
FIGURE 1 | Confirmatory factor analysis on select 12 light triad items in Study
2. n = 670.
for all participants across samples was 3.8 (Minimum = 1.5,
Maximum = 5.00, SD = 0.64), whereas the average Dark Triad
score for all participants across samples was 2.5 (Minimum = 1,
Maximum = 4.7, SD = 0.62). A look at the scatterplot in
Figure 4 suggests that extreme malevolence is rather rare in the
general population.
We also calculated a LT vs. DT balance score for each
participant by subtracting each person’s score on the Dark Triad
from their score on the Light Triad. The average balance score for
the entire sample was 1.3 (Minimum = –3.0, Max = 4., SD = 1.1),
suggesting that the average person is tipped more toward the
Light Triad relative to the Dark Triad.
Correlations Among the Light and Dark Triad
Overall, the Light Triad was moderately negatively correlated
with the Dark Triad (r = –0.48, p < 0.01), suggesting that the
Light Triad is not merely the opposite of the Dark Triad. While
the rest of the analyses in this paper will focus on the total Light
and Dark Triad scores, we thought it would be elucidating to look
at the correlations among each of the factors of the Light and
Dark Triad (see Table 4). For further regressions on each of these
outcomes, please see the Supplementary Materials.
Light Triad total scores as well as each of the three Light
Triad factors were negatively correlated with all of the factors
of the Dark Triad. The Light Triad and its facets were
most strongly negatively correlated with Machiavellianism. In
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
FIGURE 2 | Confirmatory factor analysis on select 12 light triad items in
combined sample. N = 1,518.
FIGURE 3 | Correlations among light triad subscales. All correlations
significant at p < 0.01. N = 1,518.
a regression analysis in which the unique variance of each
member of the Dark Triad was assessed, both Machiavellianism
and Psychopathy independently negatively predicted Light Triad
scores (Psychopathy b = –0.41, p < 0.01, Machiavellianism
b = –0.30, p < 0.01), whereas narcissism slightly independently
positively predicted Light Triad scores (b = 0.15, p < 0.01). These
findings suggest that the three Light Triad facets are not simply
the direct counterparts of the three Dark Triad facets.
Light Triad Nomological Network
In order to assess the differing nomological network of the
Light and Dark Triad, we examined correlations between the
Light Triad and Dark Triad scores and a wide range of variables
FIGURE 4 | Scatterplot of light vs. dark triad scores in the total sample.
N = 1518.
relating to personality, psychological needs, values, character
strengths, psychological defenses, worldview, self-esteem,
authenticity, sex, relationships, compassion, morality, life
satisfaction, curiosity, and transcendence. We also added
columns in gray showing the partial correlation controlling for
all of the facets of Agreeableness administered in that particular
study and HEXACO Honesty-Humility (in the two studies that
administered this scale). Below we will mention each set of
findings, grouped conceptually. All of the information about the
source of the variables (i.e., which studies they came from) are
listed in the associated tables as well as in Table 1.
Demographics
Table 5 shows the association between the Light and Dark Triad
and relevant demographic information.
The Light Triad was negatively correlated with
unpredictability in childhood (but not associated with
childhood income). The Light Triad was no longer negatively
correlated with childhood unpredictability, however, after taking
Agreeableness into account. The Light Triad was positively
correlated with older age, being female, and higher income.
The correlation with being female remained significant, even
after controlling for Agreeableness. In contrast, the Dark Triad
was negatively associated with age and being female and was
positively correlated with childhood unpredictability and weakly
positively correlated with income. The Dark Triad remained
negatively correlated with age and being female after controlling
for Agreeableness.
Because preliminary analyses suggested that the relationships
between education and the Light and Dark Triad were non-linear,
we conducted one-way ANOVAs followed by polynomial trend
analyses. For the Light Triad, there were no differences among
education groups, F(8,1509) = 0.83, p = 0.58. For the Dark
Triad, there was a significant overall difference, F(8,1509) = 2.82,
p = 0.004, and a significant quadratic trend, F(1,1509) = 16.11,
p < 0.01, indicating that Dark Triad increased from Some High
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 4 | Light triad total and subscale correlations with dark triad total and subscales.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(1) LT Total 3:80 0:64 –
(2) LT Kantianism 4:01 0:75 0:71∗∗ –
(3) LT Humanism 3:94 0:74 0:83∗∗ 0:41∗∗ –
(4) LT Faith in Humanity 3:45 0:93 0:84∗∗ 0:34∗∗ 0:60∗∗ –
(5) DT Total 2:52 0:62 –0:48∗∗ –0:56∗∗ –0:30∗∗ –0:30∗∗ –
(6) DT Machiavellianism 2:84 0:85 –0:43∗∗ –0:44∗∗ –0:28∗∗ –0:32∗∗ 0:80∗∗ –
(7) DT Narcissism 2:53 0:73 –0:20∗∗ –0:38∗∗ –0:07∗∗ –0:07∗ 0:78∗∗ 0:42∗∗ –
(8) DT Psychopathy 2:17 0:75 –0:48∗∗ –0:51∗∗ –0:35∗∗ –0:31∗∗ 0:80∗∗ 0:44∗∗ 0:50∗∗
N = 1,518. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05.
School to Some College, peaked at Associates and Bachelor’s
Degrees, and then decreased with more advanced degrees
(see Figure 5).
FIGURE 5 | Curvilinear relationship between education and dark triad in the
total sample. N = 1518.
In terms of socially desirable responding, there was a weak
but significant tendency for those scoring higher on the Light
Triad to score higher in socially desirable responding (r = 0.19,
p < 0.01, N = 1324), and those scoring higher on the Dark
Triad to score lower in socially desirable responding (r = –0.14,
p < 0.01, N = 1324), and these relationships became weaker
(but still remained statistically significant) after controlling for
Agreeableness (see Table 5). Nevertheless, since the correlations
with socially desirable responding were so weak, we did not
expect that socially desirable responding strongly influenced the
results reported in this paper.
Personality
Table 6 shows the association between the light and Dark
Triad and personality, using two different comprehensive Big
Five test batteries, as well as the Honesty-Humility facet of
the HEXACO model.
The Light Triad was positively correlated with the
Honesty-Humility factor and its associated facets, being
particularly associated with the Modesty facet. In a regression
model, Modesty, Fairness, and Sincerity independently positively
predicted the Light Triad (Modesty: b = 0.40, p < 0.01; Fairness:
b = 0.22, p < 0.01; Sincerity: b = 0.12, p < 0.01), whereas Greed
Avoidance slightly negatively independently predicted the Light
Triad when all of the facets of Honesty-Humility were considered
together (b = –0.07, p < 0.05). As expected based on the prior
literature, the Dark Triad was strongly negatively correlated with
Honesty-Humility and its facets (especially the Modest facet).
Likewise, in the regression analysis, Modesty made the strongest
TABLE 5 | Correlations between demographic variables with light triad, dark triad, and light vs. dark triad.
M SD Light Triad (Partial) Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad (Partial)
Age 35:49 11:45 0:05† 0:22∗∗ –0:26∗∗ –0:15∗∗
Female 52.6% 0:07∗∗ 0:20∗∗ –0:28∗∗ –0:21∗∗
Income – – 0:09∗∗ 0:09∗∗ –
Childhood Income – – 0:04 0:06∗ –
Childhood Unpredictability – 0:01 –0:21∗∗ 0:12∗ 0:03
Social Desirability 6:03 2:74 0:11∗∗ 0:19∗∗ –0:14∗∗ –0:07∗
Because Income, Childhood Income is an ordinal variable, the reported correlation with this variable was a non-parametric Spearman Rho Rank correlation. N = 1,518;
Study 4 did not measure Social Desirability, so N = 1,324 for summary statistics including that variable. Study 1 was the only study that measured childhood predictability,
so N = 387 for statistics including that variable. In the partialed column, we controlled for total agreeableness scores across samples. We did not conduct partial
correlations with income and childhood income because they are ordinal variables. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05, †p < 0.10.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 6 | Correlations between personality and light vs. dark triad.
Light Triad Dark Triad
Honesty-Humility (HH)a;b 0:48∗∗ –0:73∗∗
HH Sincerity 0:32∗∗ –0:45∗∗
HH Fairness 0:39∗∗ –0:53∗∗
HH Greed_Avoidance 0:22∗∗ –0:46∗∗
HH Modesty 0:49∗∗ –0:71∗∗
Big Five Inventory (BFI)a;c;d
BFI Open Mindedness 0:29∗∗ –0:04
BFI Aesthetic Sensitivity 0:28∗∗ –0:13∗∗
BFI Intellectual Curiosity 0:21∗∗ –0:03
BFI Creative Imagination 0:23∗∗ 0:09∗
BFI Conscientiousness 0:32∗∗ –0:19∗∗
BFI Organization 0:17∗∗ –0:12∗∗
BFI Productiveness 0:31∗∗ –0:09∗∗
BFI Responsibility 0:37∗∗ –0:29∗∗
BFI Extraversion 0:24∗∗ 0:24∗∗
BFI Social Engagement 0:21∗∗ 0:18∗∗
BFI Assertiveness 0:02 0:40∗∗
BFI Energy Level 0:39∗∗ 0:00
BFI Agreeableness 0:79∗∗ –0:52∗∗
BFI Compassion 0:66∗∗ –0:44∗∗
BFI Respectfulness 0:59∗∗ –0:50∗∗
BFI Acceptance 0:72∗∗ –0:38∗∗
BFI Negative Emotionality –0:30∗∗ 0:04
BFI Anxiety –0:23∗∗ –0:03
BFI Depression –0:32∗∗ 0:03
BFI Emotional Volatility –0:25∗∗ 0:09∗∗
Big Five Aspects Scale (BFAS)b
BFAS Intellect Openness 0:36∗∗ –0:05
BFAS Intellect 0:27∗∗ –0:02
BFAS Openness 0:34∗∗ –0:06
BFAS Conscientiousness 0:12∗∗ –0:10∗
BFAS Industriousness 0:20∗∗ –0:08∗
BFAS Orderliness 0:01 –0:09∗
BFAS Extraversion 0:26∗∗ 0:18∗∗
BFAS Enthusiasm 0:42∗∗ –0:08∗
BFAS Assertiveness 0:04 0:38∗∗
BFAS Agreeableness 0:68∗∗ –0:58∗∗
BFAS Compassion 0:64∗∗ –0:38∗∗
BFAS Politeness 0:57∗∗ –0:68∗∗
BFAS Neuroticism –0:27∗∗ 0:13∗∗
BFAS Withdrawal –0:23∗∗ 0:05
BFAS Volatility –0:28∗∗ 0:20∗∗
aMeasure included in Study 1 (n = 387); bMeasure included in Study 2 (n = 670);
cMeasure included in Study 3 (n = 267); dMeasure included in Study 4 (n = 194).
∗∗
p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05.
independent prediction on the Dark Triad (b = –0.53, p < 0.01),
followed by Fairness (b = –0.25, p < 0.01), Sincerity (b = –0.13,
p < 0.01), and Greed Avoidance (b = –0.10, p < 0.01).
In terms of the Big Five Inventory (BFI), the Light Triad was
significantly correlated with all five factors of the Big Five, and all
of the facets of the Big Five except for Assertiveness. As expected,
the Light Triad was strongly correlated with Agreeableness
(r = 0.79, p < 0.01) and all of its facets. In a regression model
looking at the BFI Big Five traits, Agreeableness remained the
only independent predictor of the Light Triad, and this prediction
was high (b = 0.78, p < 0.01). In a regression model looking at all
of the facets of the BFI, the facets that independently predicted the
Light Triad were Acceptance (b = 0.48, p < 0.01), Compassion
(b = 0.28, p < 0.01), Responsibility (b = 0.12, p < 0.01),
Respectfulness (b = 0.12, p < 0.01), and Anxiety (b = 0.07,
p < 0.01), with Acceptance and Compassion clearly standing out
as the strongest independent predictors of the Light Triad.
In contrast, only three of the BFI traits were correlated with the
Dark Triad: (higher) Extraversion, (lower) Conscientiousness,
and (lower) Agreeableness. At the facet level, the Dark Triad was
positively correlated with BFI Social engagement, Assertiveness,
Emotional Volatility, and Creative Imagination, and was
negatively correlated with Aesthetic Sensitivity, Organization,
Productiveness, Responsibility, Compassion, Respectfulness, and
Acceptance. In a regression analysis, Assertiveness (b = 0.33,
p < 0.01), Responsibility (b = –0.28, p < 0.01), Acceptance
(b = –0.22, p < 0.01), Compassion (b = –0.18, p < 0.01), Creative
Imagination (b = 0.18, p < 0.01), Respectfulness (b = –0.18,
p < 0.01), and Aesthetic Sensitivity (b = –0.10, p < 0.01)
independently predicted the Dark Triad.
In regards to the BFAS, the Light Triad was correlated with
all Big Five traits. Again, the correlation with Agreeableness was
the strongest relationship among the Big Five traits (r = 0.68,
p < 0.01). At the facet level of analysis, the Light Triad
was correlated with (greater) Intellect, (greater) Openness to
Experience, (greater) Industriousness, (greater) Enthusiasm,
(greater) Compassion, (greater) Politeness, (less) Withdrawal,
and (less) Volatility. In a regression model, the BFAS traits
that independently predicted the Light Triad were: Agreeableness
(b = 0.65, p < 0.01), (less) Conscientiousness (b = –0.17, p < 0.01),
Intellect/Openness (b = 0.07, p < 0.01), and (less) Neuroticism
(b = –0.15, p < 0.01). In a regression analysis looking at the
aspects of the BFAS, Compassion (b = 0.40, p < 0.01), Politeness
(b = 0.30, p < 0.01), (less) Withdrawal (b = –0.18, p < 0.01),
and (less) Industriousness (b = –0.15, p < 0.01) remained
independent predictors of the Light Triad.
In contrast, the Dark Triad was negatively correlated
with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and was positively
correlated with Extraversion and Neuroticism. At the aspect level,
the Dark Triad was positively correlated with Assertiveness and
Volatility, and was negatively correlated with Industriousness,
Orderliness, Enthusiasm, Compassion, and Politeness. In a
regression, the following aspects independently predicted the
Dark Triad: (lower) Politeness (b = –0.54, p < 0.01), (higher)
Assertiveness (b = 0.37, p < 0.01), (higher) Withdrawal (b = 0.19,
p < 0.01), (lower) Compassion (b = –0.14, p < 0.01),
(higher) Openness (b = 0.12, p < 0.01), and (lower) Intellect
(b = –0.10, p < 0.01).
Psychological Needs and Motives
Table 7 shows the correlations among psychological needs,
motives, as well as the Light Triad and Dark Triad.
The Light Triad was positively correlated with the satisfaction
of the needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy, and
negatively correlated with dissatisfaction of these needs. The
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 7 | Correlations and partial correlations between psychological needs/motives and light vs. dark triad.
Light Triad
(Partial)
Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad (Partial)
PN Relatedness Aggregatea 0:16∗∗ 0:53∗∗ –0:25∗∗ 0:05
PN Relatedness Satisfaction 0:26∗∗ 0:54∗∗ –0:22∗∗ 0:11∗
PN Relatedness Dissatisfaction –0:02 –0:36∗∗ 0:21∗∗ 0:02
PN Competence Aggregatea 0:09 0:33∗∗ –0:08 0:13∗
PN Competence Satisfaction 0:18∗∗ 0:33∗∗ 0:01 0:21∗∗
PN Competence Dissatisfaction 0:04 –0:23∗∗ 0:15∗∗ 0:00
PN Autonomy Aggregatea 0:13∗ 0:39∗∗ –0:16∗∗ 0:10
PN Autonomy Satisfaction 0:23∗∗ 0:39∗∗ –0:07 0:17∗∗
PN Autonomy Dissatisfaction –0:01 –0:30∗∗ 0:20∗∗ –0:01
Motives
UM Power 0:09 –0:17∗∗ 0:61∗∗ 0:50∗∗
UM Affiliation 0:15∗∗ 0:24∗∗∗ 0:22∗∗ 0:24∗∗
UM Intimacy 0:23∗∗ 0:43∗∗ –0:05 0:16∗∗
aMeasure included in Study 1 (n = 387). The following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: HEXACO Sincerity, HEXACO Fairness, HEXACO Greed
Avoidance, HEXACO Modesty, BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI Acceptance. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05.
correlations between the Light Triad and the satisfaction of these
needs remained even after partialing out all of the facets of
Agreeableness and HEXACO Honesty-Humility.
In contrast, the Dark Triad was negatively related to
satisfaction of Relatedness, and was positively correlated
with dissatisfaction of relatedness, competence, and autonomy.
After partialing out all of the facets of Agreeableness and
Honesty-Humility, the Dark Triad was no longer correlated with
dissatisfaction of psychological needs, and was even positively
associated with satisfaction of relatedness, competence, and
autonomy. In a regression model looking at the aggregate of
all three needs, only (less) Relatedness was an independent
predictor of the Dark Triad (b = –0.27, p < 0.01). Looking
at the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the psychological
needs simultaneously, (less) Relatedness Satisfaction (b = –0.22,
p < 0.01) and (more) Competence Satisfaction (b = 0.16,
p < 0.01) were independent predictors of the Dark Triad. There
was also a marginal effect of autonomy dissatisfaction on the Dark
Triad (b = 0.13, p = 0.05).
In terms of core motives, the Light Triad was positively related
to the motives for affiliation and intimacy but was negatively
related to the power motive. Partialing out all of the facets of
Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility, the Light Triad was no
longer associated with the power motive but was still significantly
positively associated with the motives for affiliation and intimacy.
In a regression, all three motives independently predicted the
Light Triad (Intimacy: b = 0.40, p < 0.01; Power: b = –0.30,
p < 0.01; Affiliation: b = 0.19, p < 0.01).
In contrast, unsurprisingly, the correlation between the
Dark Triad and the Power motive was extremely high
(r = 0.61, p < 0.01). The Dark Triad was also positively
correlated with the motive for affiliation but was uncorrelated
with the motive for intimacy. After controlling for all
of the facets of Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility, the
Dark Triad was still positively correlated with the motives
for power and affiliation, but a positive correlation with
intimacy emerged.
Values and Character Strengths
Table 8 shows the correlation between the light and Dark Triad
and values and character strengths.
The Light Triad was strongly positively correlated with
the values of Self-Transcendence and Humility and strongly
negatively correlated with Self-Enhancement. The Light Triad
was also positively correlated with Conservation and negatively
correlated with Openness to Change and Face, although these
correlations were very small in magnitude. The correlations
with (greater) Self-Transcendence, (greater) Humility, and (less)
Self-Enhancement remained after partialing out the facets
of Agreeableness.
In terms of character strengths, the Light Triad was
positively correlated with 18 out of the 24 character
strengths, and 11 of these correlations remained significant
after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness. In contrast,
only six character strengths were positively correlated with
the Dark Triad (creativity, curiosity, judgment, bravery,
leadership, and spirituality).
Defense Styles
Table 9 shows the correlations among the Light and Dark Triad
and psychological defenses.
The Light Triad was positively correlated with mature and
with neurotic defense styles, and negatively associated with
immature defense styles. The correlations with mature and
neurotic defense styles held even after controlling for the facets of
Agreeableness. In contrast, the Dark Triad was uncorrelated with
mature and neurotic defense styles but showed a strong positive
correlation with immature defense styles, which remained even
after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness. Interestingly,
after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness, the Dark Triad
was also positively correlated (although weaker) with mature and
neurotic defense styles.
In contrast, the following immature defense styles positively
independently predicted the Dark Triad: Dissociation (b = 0.30,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 8 | Correlations and partial correlations between values/character strengths and light vs. dark triad.
Light Triad
(Partial)
Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad
(Partial)
Valuesc
Self-Transcendence 0:23∗∗ 0:49∗∗ –0:51∗∗ –0:35∗∗
Universalism Nature 0:07 0:12 –0:18∗∗ –0:13∗
Universalism Concern 0:16∗ 0:39∗∗ –0:43∗∗ –0:28∗∗
Universalism Tolerance 0:24∗∗ 0:37∗∗ –0:32∗∗ –0:21∗∗
Benevolence Care 0:08 0:36∗∗ –0:33∗∗ –0:18∗∗
Benevolence Dependability 0:08 0:26∗∗ –0:26∗∗ –0:13∗∗
Self-Enhancement –0:35∗∗ –0:52∗∗ 0:69∗∗ 0:61∗∗
Achievement –0:14∗ –0:26∗∗ 0:56∗∗ 0:53∗∗
Power- Domination –0:36∗∗ –0:48∗∗ 0:60∗∗ 0:50∗∗
Power- Resources –0:30∗∗ –0:49∗∗ 0:53∗∗ 0:42∗∗
Openness to Change –0:02 –0:13∗∗ 0:30∗∗ 0:23∗∗
Self-Direction Thought 0:01 –0:09 –0:01 –0:11
Self-Direction Action 0:02 –0:13∗ 0:02 –0:07
Stimulation –0:01 –0:04 0:36∗∗ 0:36∗∗
Hedonism –0:04 –0:05 0:28∗∗ 0:29∗∗
Conservation 0:09 0:15∗ –0:41∗∗ –0:39∗∗
Security-Personal –0:07 –0:15∗ –0:22∗∗ –0:28∗∗
Security-Societal 0:01 –0:05 –0:08 –0:12†
Tradition –0:03 0:06 –0:01 –0:01
Conformity-Rules 0:14∗ 0:12∗ –0:36∗∗ –0:37∗∗
Conformity-Interpersonal 0:15∗ 0:31∗∗ –0:35∗∗ –0:23∗∗
Face –0:10 –0:26∗∗ 0:19∗ 0:11
Humility 0:25∗∗ 0:31∗∗ –0:39∗∗ –0:36∗∗
VIA Character Strengthsd
VIA Creativity 0:07 0:09 0:27∗∗ 0:31∗∗
VIA Curiosity 0:20∗∗ 0:20∗∗ 0:16∗ 0:21∗∗
VIA Judgment 0:16∗ 0:17∗ 0:16∗ 0:23∗∗
VIA Love of Learning 0:14† 0:18∗ 0:08 0:15∗∗
VIA Perspective 0:27∗∗ 0:41∗∗ –0:04 0:12∗∗
VIA Bravery 0:04 0:05 0:27∗∗ 0:32∗∗
VIA Perseverance 0:04 0:15∗ 0:06 0:17∗
VIA Honesty/Authenticity 0:11 0:13† 0:13† 0:14∗
VIA Zest 0:19∗∗ 0:37∗∗ 0:03 0:21∗∗
VIA Love 0:25∗∗ 0:44∗∗ –0:04 0:13
VIA Kindness 0:21∗∗ 0:51∗∗ –0:13† 0:13
VIA Social Intelligence 0:19∗ 0:35∗∗ –0:02 0:14
VIA Teamwork 0:23∗∗ 0:31∗∗ 0:09 0:20∗∗
VIA Fairness 0:10 0:21∗∗ 0:11 0:22∗∗
VIA Leadership 0:11 0:12† 0:28∗∗ 0:31∗∗
VIA Forgiveness 0:18∗ 0:32∗∗ 0:00 0:12
VIA Humility 0:07 0:17∗ –0:04 0:10
VIA Prudence –0:03 –0:10 0:08 0:07
VIA Self Regulation –0:01 0:10 0:04 0:14
VIA Appreciation 0:27∗∗ 0:32∗∗ 0:05 0:14
VIA Gratitude 0:25∗∗ 0:41∗∗ –0:11 0:06
VIA Hope 0:13 0:25∗∗ 0:13† 0:23∗∗
VIA Humor Playfulness 0:14 0:15∗ 0:04 0:10
VIA Spirituality 0:08 0:18∗ 0:15∗ 0:23∗∗
cMeasure included in Study 3 (n = 267); dMeasure included in Study 4 (n = 194). In Study 3, a more comprehensive battery of the dark triad was administered to
participants (see section “Materials and Methods”). The following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI
Acceptance. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05, †p < 0.10.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 9 | Correlations and partial correlations between defense styles and light vs. dark triad.
Light Triad
(Partial)
Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad
(Partial)
Defense Style Maturec 0:23∗∗ 0:37∗∗ –0:05 0:16∗
Mature Suppression 0:21∗∗ 0:33∗∗ –0:10 0:06
Mature Sublimation 0:17∗∗ 0:30∗∗ 0:02 0:18∗∗
Mature Humor 0:13∗ 0:26∗∗ –0:05 0:09
Mature Anticipation 0:12∗ 0:15∗ –0:01 0:08
Defense Style Neuroticc 0:25∗∗ 0:39∗∗ 0:00 0:18∗∗
Neurotic Pseudoaltruism 0:25∗∗ 0:40∗∗ –0:14∗ 0:04
Neurotic Undoing 0:14∗ 0:09 0:10† 0:12
Neurotic Idealization 0:06 0:23∗∗ 0:14∗ 0:29∗∗
Neurotic Reaction Formation 0:22∗∗ 0:34∗∗ –0:11† 0:01
Defense Style Immaturec –0:09 –0:33∗∗ 0:53∗∗ 0:46∗∗
Immature Projection –0:09 –0:26∗∗ 0:20∗∗ 0:11
Immature Passive Aggression –0:17∗ –0:38∗∗ 0:35∗∗ 0:20∗∗
Immature Acting Out 0:01 –0:18∗∗ 0:45∗∗ 0:39∗∗
Immature Isolation –0:07 –0:31∗∗ 0:39∗∗ 0:28∗∗
Immature Devaluation –0:05 –0:35∗∗ 0:31∗∗ 0:16∗∗
Immature Autistic Fantasy 0:02 –0:25∗∗ 0:19∗∗ 0:08
Immature Denial –0:10 –0:05 0:37∗∗ 0:40∗∗
Immature Displacement 0:06 –0:09 0:14∗ 0:07
Immature Dissociation –0:17∗∗ –0:14∗ 0:44∗∗ 0:48∗∗
Immature Splitting –0:06 –0:11† 0:36∗∗ 0:38∗∗
Immature Rationalization –0:05 0:17∗∗ 0:04 0:21∗∗
Immature_Somatization 0:06 –0:09 0:20∗∗ 0:20∗∗
cMeasure included in Study 3 (n = 267). In Study 3, a more comprehensive battery of the dark triad was administered to participants (see section “Materials and Method”).
The following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI Acceptance. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05, †p < 0.10.
TABLE 10 | Correlations and partial correlations between worldview and light vs. dark triad.
Light Triad
(Partial)
Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad
(Partial)
Cognitive Triad Inventory (CTI)c
CTI Total 0:15∗ 0:41∗∗ –0:18∗∗ 0:03
CTI Positive View Self 0:10 0:37∗∗ –0:20∗∗ 0:02
CTI Positive View World 0:18∗∗ 0:43∗∗ –0:24∗∗ –0:07
CTI Positive View Future 0:14∗ 0:34∗∗ –0:08 0:09
Beliefsd
Belief “Humans Are Good” 0:34∗∗ 0:54∗∗ –0:26∗∗ –0:10
Belief “I Am Good” 0:08 0:47∗∗ –0:16∗ 0:07
cMeasure included in Study 3 (n = 267); dMeasure included in Study 4 (n = 194). In Study 3, a more comprehensive battery of the dark triad was administered to
participants (see section “Materials and Methods”). The following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI
Acceptance. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05.
p < 0.01), Acting Out (b = 0.29, p < 0.01), and Isolation
(b = 0.26, p < 0.01).
Worldview
Table 10 shows the correlation among the light and Dark
Triad and worldview.
The Light Triad was positively correlated with the Cognitive
Triad and all of its facets (Positive View of Self, Positive View
of the World, and Positive View of the Future). Controlling
for the facets of Agreeableness significantly reduced the size of
the correlations, but the relationship between the Light Triad
and total score, Positive View of World, and Positive View
of Future remained statistically significant. The Dark Triad
was negatively correlated with the total score, Positive View
of Self, and Positive View of World, but was uncorrelated
with view of the future. The Dark Triad was no longer
correlated with the Cognitive Triad after controlling for the facets
of Agreeableness.
Within the Cognitive Triad, Positive View of the World was
the only independent predictor of the Light Triad (b = 0.35,
p < 0.01). Both Positive View of the World (b = –0.30, p < 0.01)
and Positive View of Self (b = –0.27, p < 0.05) negatively
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
independently predicted the Dark Triad, whereas Positive View
of Future was a strong positive independent predictor of the
Dark Triad (b = 0.36, p < 0.01). Note that at the zero-order
level of analysis, Positive View of Future was uncorrelated
with the Dark Triad.
Consistent with these findings, the Light Triad was strongly
related to the belief that “Humans are good” and the
belief that “I am good.” After controlling for the facets of
Agreeableness, the Light Triad was still positively related to the
belief that “Humans are good.” In contrast, the Dark Triad
was negatively correlated with both beliefs. However, these
correlations were not significant after controlling for the facets
of Agreeableness.
Self-Esteem and Authenticity
Table 11 shows the correlations between Self-Esteem,
Authenticity, and the Light vs. Dark Triad.
The Light Triad was positively correlated with global
self-esteem, with self-esteem being especially contingent on
the domains of family support, god love, and virtue. After
controlling for the facets of Agreeableness, only virtue remained
significantly correlated with the Light Triad. The Dark Triad
was also positively associated with global self-esteem, but was
more contingent on competition, appearance, and god love.
The Dark Triad showed a negative correlation with virtue and
family support. After controlling for the facets of Agreeableness,
the Dark Triad was no longer correlated with family support,
but was still positively correlated with global self-Esteem and
the contingencies of competition, appearance, god love, and
negatively correlated with the contingency of virtue.
In terms of sense of self, the Light Triad was negatively
correlated with a weak sense of self, but this correlation was no
longer significant after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness.
The Dark Triad was uncorrelated with a weak sense of self.
However, after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness, the
Dark Triad was negatively correlated with a weak sense of self.
In terms of authenticity, the Light Triad was positively
correlated with authentic living, self-awareness, unbiased
processing, authentic behavior, and relational authenticity, and
was negatively correlated with self-alienation. The positive
correlation between the Light Triad and authentic living,
authentic behavior, and relational authenticity remained even
after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness. In contrast,
the Dark Triad was negatively correlated with authentic living
and accepting external influence and was uncorrelated with the
rest of the measures of authenticity. After controlling for the
facets of Agreeableness, the Dark Triad was no longer correlated
with authentic living, but was still negatively correlated with
accepting external influence, and became negatively correlated
with self-alienation and positively correlated with self-awareness.
Sex, Love, and Relationships
Table 12 shows the correlation between sex, love, relationships,
and the light and Dark Triad.
The Light Triad was negatively associated with sociosexuality
and its facets. Controlling for the facets of Agreeableness and
Honesty-Humility substantially reduced the correlations to zero.
In contrast, the Dark Triad was positively associated with the
Sociosexuality Index (SOI) and all of its facets, and these
correlations remained significant even after controlling for all
TABLE 11 | Correlations and partial correlations between self-esteem/authenticity and light vs. dark triad.
Light Triad
(Partial)
Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad
(Partial)
Self Esteemd
Global Self Esteem 0:00 0:27∗∗ 0:18∗ 0:39∗∗
CSE Family Support 0:10 0:41∗∗ –0:18∗ 0:03
CSE Competition –0:07 –0:09 0:29∗∗ 0:29∗∗
CSE Appearance 0:01 0:00 0:20∗∗ 0:20∗∗
CSE God Love 0:07 0:24∗∗ 0:16∗ 0:28∗∗
CSE Academics 0:15∗ 0:14∗ 0:10 0:08
CSE Virtue 0:26∗∗ 0:43∗∗ –0:23∗∗ –0:09∗
CSE Approval From Others 0:10 0:13† –0:11 –0:10∗
Weak Sense of Self Totald 0:03 –0:16∗ –0:07 –0:23∗∗
Authenticity Scaled
Authentic Living 0:30∗∗ 0:47∗∗ –0:18∗ 0:00
Self-Alienation 0:06 –0:30∗∗ –0:01 –0:18∗
Accepting External Influence –0:09 0:12 –0:16∗ –0:17∗
Authenticity Inventoryd
Self-Awareness 0:11 0:34∗∗ 0:03 0:23∗∗
Unbiased Processing –0:03 0:20∗∗ –0:03 0:08
Authentic Behavior 0:17∗ 0:31∗∗ –0:08 –0:01
Relational Authenticity 0:19∗∗ 0:48∗∗ –0:14 0:05
dMeasure included in Study 4 (n = 194). The following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI Acceptance.
∗∗
p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05, †p < 0.10.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 12 | Correlations and partial correlations between sex/love/relationships and light vs. dark triad.
Light Triad
(Partial)
Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad
(Partial)
Sociosexuality Index (SOI)a
SOI Behavior 0:00 –0:14∗∗ 0:29∗∗ 0:24∗∗
SOI Attitude –0:03 –0:27∗∗ 0:32∗∗ 0:17∗∗
SOI Desire 0:03 –0:29∗∗ 0:44∗∗ 0:22∗∗
SOI Global 0:00 –0:29∗∗ 0:43∗∗ 0:25∗∗
Love Stylesa
Eros 0:20∗∗ 0:36∗∗ –0:12∗ 0:08
Ludus –0:11∗ –0:45∗∗ 0:52∗∗ 0:19∗∗
Storge 0:14∗∗ 0:26∗∗ –0:10∗ 0:02
Pragma 0:04 0:00 0:22∗∗ 0:10
Mania 0:06 –0:18∗∗ 0:19∗∗ 0:00
Agape 0:24∗∗ 0:40∗∗ –0:21∗∗ 0:03
Adult Attachment Scale (AAS)c
Anxious Attachment 0:07 –0:17∗∗ 0:14∗ 0:02
Avoidant Attachment 0:01 –0:40∗∗ 0:18∗∗ –0:05
aMeasure included in Study 1 (n = 387); cMeasure included in Study 3 (n = 267). In Study 3, a more comprehensive battery of the dark triad was administered to
participants (see section “Materials and Methods”). For SOI and Love Styles, the following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: HEXACO Sincerity,
HEXACO Fairness, HEXACO Greed Avoidance, HEXACO Modesty, BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI Acceptance. For AAS, the following subscales were
controlled for in the partialed column: BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI Acceptance. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05.
of the facets of Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility. In a
regression analysis, only SOI Desire (b = –0.20, p < 0.01) and SOI
Attitude (b = –0.14, p < 0.05) were independent predictors of the
Light Triad. In contrast both SOI Desire (b = 0.37, p < 0.01) and
SOI Behavior (b = 0.14, p < 0.01) were independent predictors
of the Dark Triad. Note that SOI Desire was a particularly strong
independent predictor of the Dark Triad.
In terms of love styles, the Light Triad was positively correlated
with Eros (romantic), Storge (friendship), and Agape (love for
all), and negatively correlated with Ludus (game playing). All
the significant correlations (except for the negative association
with Mania) remained significant after controlling for the facets
of Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility. In a regression, Agape
(b = 0.26, p < 0.01), Storge (b = 0.14, p < 0.01), and Eros
(b = 0.13, p < 0.01) were positive independent predictors of the
Light Triad, whereas Ludus (b = –0.27, p < 0.01) and Mania
(b = –0.26, p < 0.05) were negative independent predictors of
the Light Triad.
In contrast, the Dark Triad was strongly positively correlated
with Ludus, followed by positive correlations with Pragma
and Mania, and a negative correlation with Agape. The only
correlation with the Dark Triad that remained significant after
controlling for the facets of Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility
was Ludus. Similarly, in a regression analysis, Ludus was a very
strong positive independent predictor of the Dark Triad (b = 0.47,
p < 0.01), but Mania (b = 0.16, p < 0.05) and Pragma (b = 0.12,
p < 0.05) also independently predicted the Dark Triad.
In terms of adult attachment, the Light Triad was negatively
correlated with both an anxious and avoidant attachment style.
However, these correlations were no longer significant after
controlling for the facets of Agreeableness. In a regression,
Avoidance was a strong negative predictor of the Light Triad
(b = –0.48, p < 0.05), whereas Anxious Attachment was a
borderline positive independent predictor of the Light Triad
(b = 0.14, p = 0.06).
In contrast, the Dark Triad was positively correlated with
both an anxious and avoidant attachment style, although
these correlations were no longer significant after controlling
for the facets of Agreeableness. In a regression, the only
independent predictor of the Dark Triad was Avoidant
Attachment (b = 0.16, p < 0.05).
Empathy, Compassion and Interpersonal Style
Table 13 shows the correlation between Empathy, Compassion,
Interpersonal Style, and the Light vs. Dark Triad.
Consistent with the personality findings, the Light Triad
was strongly positively correlated with both Compassion and
Empathy, whereas the Dark Triad was negatively correlated
with Compassion and Empathy. The Light Triad remained
significantly correlated with Compassion and Empathy even after
for controlling for the facets of Agreeableness and HonestyHumility. In a regression, both Affective Empathy (b = 0.44,
p < 0.01) and Cognitive Empathy (b = 0.18, p < 0.01)
independently predicted the Light Triad.
In contrast, the Dark Triad was negatively correlated with
Compassion and Empathy. However, after controlling for
the facets of Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility, the Dark
Triad was positively correlated with Compassion and Empathy.
In a regression, Affective Empathy was a strong negative
independent predictor of the Dark Triad (b = –0.40, p < 0.01),
whereas Cognitive Empathy was a slight but significant positive
independent predictor of the Dark Triad (b = 0.10, p < 0.05).
The Light Triad was positively associated with all of the facets
of Interpersonal Guilt except for Self-Hate Guilt, which showed a
negative association with the Light Triad. Even after controlling
for the facets of Agreeableness, the Light Triad was still correlated
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 17 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 13 | Correlations and partial correlations between empathy/compassion/interpersonal style and light vs. dark triad.
Light Triad
(Partial)
Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad
(Partial)
DPES Compassiona 0:31∗∗ 0:67∗∗ –0:37∗∗ 0:11∗
Empathy Totalb 0:26∗∗ 0:56∗∗ –0:27∗∗ 0:09
Cognitive Empathy 0:23∗∗ 0:45∗∗ –0:14∗∗ 0:12∗∗
Affective Empathy 0:21∗∗ 0:55∗∗ –0:34∗∗ 0:03
Interpersonal Guilt Scalec
Guilt Total 0:09 0:15∗ –0:03 0:05
Survival Guilt 0:23∗∗ 0:29∗∗ –0:27∗∗ –0:18∗∗
Separation Guilt 0:06 0:26∗∗ –0:10† 0:06
Omnipotence Guilt 0:16∗∗ 0:35∗∗ –0:17∗∗ 0:03
Self-Hate Guilt –0:11 –0:34∗∗ 0:32∗∗ 0:18∗∗
Quiet Ego Scale Totala 0:27∗∗ 0:66∗∗ –0:32∗∗ 0:14∗
Detached Awareness –0:09 0:23∗∗ –0:14∗∗ 0:12∗
Inclusive Identity 0:23∗∗ 0:44∗∗ –0:07 0:14∗
Perspective Taking 0:25∗∗ 0:62∗∗ –0:39∗∗ –0:02
Personal Growth 0:33∗∗ 0:39∗∗ –0:07 0:16∗∗
aMeasure included in Study 1 (n = 387); bMeasure included in Study 2 (n = 670); cMeasure included in Study 3 (n = 267). In Study 3, a more comprehensive battery
of the dark triad was administered to participants (see section “Materials and Methods”). For DPES Compassion and the Quiet Ego Scale, the following subscales
were controlled for in the partialed column: HEXACO Sincerity, HEXACO Fairness, HEXACO Greed Avoidance, HEXACO Modesty, BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness,
BFI Acceptance. For Empathy, the following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: HEXACO Sincerity, HEXACO Fairness, HEXACO Greed Avoidance,
HEXACO Modesty, BFAS Compassion, BFAS Politeness. For Interpersonal Guilt, the following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: BFI Compassion,
BFI Respectfulness, BFI Acceptance. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05.
with Survival Guilt and Omnipotence Guilt. In contrast, the
Dark Triad was negatively associated with Survival Guilt and
Omnipotence Guilt, but was positively associated with Self-Hate
Guilt. After controlling for the facets of Agreeableness, the Dark
Triad remained negatively correlated with Survivor Guilt and
remained positively correlated with Self-Hate Guilt.
In terms of the Quiet Ego, the Light Triad was positively
correlated with the Quiet Ego total score and its facets.
Note that the correlation with the Quiet Ego total score
was particularly strong, about as high as the correlation with
Compassion. All of these correlations (except for inclusive
identity) remained significant even after controlling for the facets
of Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility. In contrast, the Dark
Triad was negatively correlated with the Quiet Ego total scores,
as well as with Detached Awareness and Perspective Taking, and
was uncorrelated with Inclusive Identity and Personal Growth.
Selfishness, Aggression, and Moral Judgment
Table 14 shows the correlation between Selfishness, Aggression,
Moral Reasoning, and the Light vs. Dark Triad.
The Light Triad was negatively correlated with Conspicuous
Consumption, whereas the Dark Triad was positively correlated
with Conspicuous Consumption. The negative correlation
between the Light Triad and conspicuous consumption remained
even after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness and
Honesty-Humility, whereas the correlation between the Dark
Triad and Conspicuous Consumption was longer significant after
controlling for these facets.
In terms of aggression, the Light Triad was negatively
correlated with both Reactive and Proactive Aggression, whereas
the Dark Triad was positively correlated with both Reactive
and Proactive aggression. The negative correlation between
the Light Triad and Reactive Aggression remained significant
even after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness and
Honesty-Humility, as did the positive correlation between the
Dark Triad and both Reactive and Proactive Aggression.
The Light Triad was negatively correlated with Utilitarian
Moral Reasoning, whereas the Dark Triad was positively
related to Utilitarian Moral Reasoning. After controlling for
the facets of Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility, Utilitarian
Moral Reasoning was no longer associated with either the
Light or Dark Triad.
In terms of Selfishness, the Light Triad was strongly negatively
correlated with Selfishness and its facets (Egocentric, Adaptive,
and Pathological Selfishness), whereas the Dark Triad was
strongly positively correlated with Selfishness and each of its
facets, particularly with the Pathological facet of Selfishness
(r = 0.70, p < 0.01). All of these correlations remained
significant even after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness
and Honesty-Humility.
The Dictator Game task was in line with the Selfishness
findings; the Light Triad was positively correlated with donations
given in the Dictator Game, whereas the Dark Triad was
negatively correlated with donations given in the Dictator Game.
The correlation between the Light Triad and donations given
remained significant even after controlling for the facets of
Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility, whereas the Dark Triad
was no longer significantly correlated with the Dictator Game
after controlling for these facets.
Religion, Spirituality, and Self-Transcendence
A one-way ANOVA found no Dark Triad difference on any
of the response options on the religiosity demographic item.
For the Light Triad, one-way ANOVAs found a few pairwise
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 18 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 14 | Correlations and partial correlations between selfishness/aggression/moral reasoning and light triad vs. dark triad.
Light Triad
(Partial)
Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad
(Partial)
Conspicuous Consumption Differencea –0:10† –0:28∗∗ 0:28∗∗ –0:05
Conspicuous Consumption –0:14∗∗ –0:28∗∗ 0:36∗∗ –0:10
Non-conspicuous Consumption 0:00 0:07 –0:02 –0:10
Reactive-Proactive Aggression Totalb –0:10∗ –0:39∗∗ 0:53∗∗ 0:22∗∗
Reactive Aggression –0:10∗ –0:27∗∗ 0:37∗∗ 0:20∗∗
Proactive Aggression –0:07 –0:42∗∗ 0:57∗∗ 0:18∗∗
Utilitarian Moral Dilemmas Averageb –0:05 –0:21∗∗ 0:26∗∗ 0:06
Selfishness Totalb –0:13∗∗ –0:53∗∗ 0:69∗∗ 0:36∗∗
Selfishness Egocentric –0:09∗ –0:54∗∗ 0:56∗∗ 0:23∗∗
Selfishness Adaptive –0:10∗ –0:39∗∗ 0:58∗∗ 0:30∗∗
Selfishness Pathological –0:13∗ –0:49∗∗ 0:70∗∗ 0:37∗∗
Dictator Game (Low–High)b 0:15∗∗ 0:27∗∗ –0:22∗∗ –0:02
aMeasure included in Study 1 (n = 387); bMeasure included in Study 2 (n = 670). For Conspicuous Consumption, the following subscales were controlled for in the
partialed column: HEXACO Sincerity, HEXACO Fairness, HEXACO Greed Avoidance, HEXACO Modesty, BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI Acceptance. For
Reactive-Proactive Aggression, Utilitarian Moral Dilemmas, Selfishness, and the Dictator Game, the following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column:
HEXACO Sincerity, HEXACO Fairness, HEXACO Greed Avoidance, HEXACO Modesty, BFAS Compassion, BFAS Politeness. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05, †p < 0.10.
differences between the Religious and Spiritual responses and
the other responses, but no Light Triad difference between the
Secular, None, and Other groups, F(2,651) = 0.02, p = 0.98.
Therefore, we created dummy variables for being Spiritual and
Religious and ran a two-way 2 × 2 ANOVA with Light Triad
as the outcome. The Spiritual by Religious interaction was not
significant [F(1,1514) = 1.12, p = 0.29], but there were main
effects of being Spiritual [F(1,1514) = 32.87, p < 0.01, d = 0.36]
and Religious [F(1,1514) = 5.96, p = 0.015, d = 0.26]. Therefore,
religious and spiritual people are more likely to also be high
scorers on the Light Triad scale.
Table 15 shows the correlation between measures of
Spirituality, Self-Transcendence, and the Light vs. Dark Triad.
The Light Triad was significantly correlated with having
had a Spiritual Experience, and this correlation remained
significant after controlling for facets of Agreeableness
and Honesty-Humility. The Dark Triad was not correlated
with having had a Spiritual Experience, although the Dark
Triad was positively correlated with having had a spiritual
experience once we controlled for the facets of Agreeableness
and Honesty-Humility.
The Light Triad was positively correlated with Oneness
Experiences and God Experiences, and these correlations
remained significant even after controlling for the facets of
Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility. The Dark Triad was
also positively correlated with Oneness Experiences, and this
correlation remained significant even after controlling for the
facets of Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility. The Dark Triad
was uncorrelated with God Experiences.
In terms of death transcendence, the Light Triad was
positively correlated with nature and biosocial forms of death
transcendence. After controlling for the facets of Agreeableness,
the Light Triad was correlated with nature but was no longer
correlated with the biosocial route to death transcendence. In
contrast, the Dark Triad was positively correlated with religious
and creative forms of death transcendence, and negatively
correlated with nature as a route to death transcendence. The
positive correlation between the Dark Triad and both the
religious and creative routes to death transcendence remained
significant after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness.
Curiosity
Table 16 shows the correlation between measures of Curiosity
and the Light vs. Dark Triad.
The Light Triad was positively correlated with Stretching,
Interest Curiosity, and Deprivation Curiosity, and all of these
correlations remained significant after controlling for the facets
of Agreeableness. In contrast, the Dark Triad was positively
correlated with Stretching, Embracing, and Deprivation
Curiosity, and these correlations remained significant even
after controlling for the facets of Agreeableness. In a regression,
only Stretching positively predicted the Light Triad (b = 0.46,
p < 0.01), whereas Embracing negatively predicted the Light
Triad (b = –0.19, p < 0.05). In contrast, Embracing (b = 0.37,
p < 0.01) and Deprivation Curiosity (b = 0.22, p < 0.01)
positively predicted the Dark Triad.
Life Satisfaction
The Light Triad was positively correlated with Life Satisfaction
(r = 0.37, p < 0.01), whereas the Dark Triad was negatively
correlated with life satisfaction (r = –0.11). The correlation
between the Light Triad and Life Satisfaction remained
significant even after controlling for the facets of BFI
Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility (r = 0.21, p < 0.01),
whereas the correlation between the Dark Triad and Life
Satisfaction was no longer significant after controlling for these
facets (r = 0.07, p > 05).
DISCUSSION
Across four studies including a wide range of positive and
negative outcomes, the Light Triad Scale (LTS) was found to
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 19 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
TABLE 15 | Correlations and partial correlations between spirituality/self-transcendence and light vs. dark triad.
Light Triad
(Partial)
Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad
(Partial)
Spiritual Experiencea 0:08∗ 0:15∗∗ 0:02 0:09∗
Varieties of Spiritual Experience
Unity Experiencesa 0:14∗∗ 0:16∗∗ 0:10∗ 0:14∗∗
God Experiencesa 0:10∗ 0:12∗∗ 0:06 0:06
Death Transcendenceb
DT Mysticism 0:04 –0:01 –0:02 –0:04
DT Religious 0:05 0:08 0:31∗∗ 0:33∗∗
DT Nature 0:23∗∗ 0:29∗∗ –0:17∗ –0:07
DT Biosocial 0:04 0:32∗∗ –0:03 0:14
DT Creative 0:10 0:11 0:26∗∗ 0:24∗∗
aMeasure included in Study 2 (n = 670). bMeasure included in Study 4 (n = 194). For Had Spiritual Experience, Oneness Experiences, and God Experiences, the following
subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: HEXACO Sincerity, HEXACO Fairness, HEXACO Greed Avoidance, HEXACO Modesty, BFAS Compassion, BFAS
Politeness. For Mysticism, the following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: HEXACO Sincerity, HEXACO Fairness, HEXACO Greed Avoidance, HEXACO
Modesty, BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI Acceptance. For Death Transcendence, the following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: BFI
Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI Acceptance. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05.
TABLE 16 | Correlations among curiosity and light triad, dark triad, and light vs. dark triad.
Light Triad
(Partial)
Light Triad Dark Triad Dark Triad
(Partial)
Curiosityd
CEI Stretching 0:26∗∗ 0:34∗∗ 0:20∗∗ 0:35∗∗
CEI Embracing 0:08∗ 0:08 0:36∗∗ 0:18∗
Interest Curiosity 0:19∗∗ 0:25∗∗ 0:11 0:18∗
Deprivation Curiosity 0:23∗∗ 0:17∗ 0:25∗∗ 0:24∗∗
dMeasure included in Study 4 (n = 194). The following subscales were controlled for in the partialed column: BFI Compassion, BFI Respectfulness, BFI Acceptance.
∗∗
p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05.
be a reliable and valid measure of a loving and beneficent
orientation toward others. While the Light Triad contrasts with
the callous and manipulative orientation of the Dark Triad, the
Light Triad was not merely the inverse of the Dark Triad. It
appears that at least in terms of personality, the absence of
darkness does not necessarily indicate the presence of light. As
with the literature on positive and negative emotions (Diener
and Emmons, 1984; Watson et al., 1988), there appears to be
some degree of independence between the Light and Dark Triad,
leaving room for people to have a mix of both light and dark traits.
With that said, the Light Triad diverged from the Dark Triad
across numerous outcomes drawn from both the Dark Triad
and well-being literatures and tended to show stronger outcomes
with self-transcendent and growth-fostering outcomes relative
to the Dark Triad. Below, we’ll go into greater detail on the
contrasting nomological networks of the Light vs. Dark Triad,
thereby painting overall portraits of these two very different
profiles of human nature.
Portraits of the Light vs. Dark Triad
First, we replicated a number of findings in the Dark Triad
literature and extended these findings to the Light Triad. For
example, it has been found that Dark Triad traits are correlated
with greater childhood unpredictability (Jonason et al., 2013b,
2016), aggression (Pailing et al., 2014; Dinic and Wertag, 2018;
Knight et al., 2018; Paulhus et al., 2018), utilitarian moral
judgment (Djeriouat and Tremoliere, 2014), selfishness, power,
money, and sociosexuality (Jonason et al., 2008; Jonason and
Buss, 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Kajonius et al., 2015; Jonason and
Ferrell, 2016; Balakrishna et al., 2017), and immature defense
styles (Richardson and Boag, 2016). We replicated these findings
and also found that the Light Triad is significantly correlated with
the inverse of these outcomes.
Second, by also investigating a number of growth-fostering
and well-being-related outcomes, we could see an overall pattern
of findings that paints two very different portraits of humanity.
We found that the Dark Triad was positively correlated with
being younger, being male, being motivated by power, sex,
achievement, and affiliation, having self-enhancement values,
immature defense styles, conspicuous consumption, selfishness,
and creative work and religious immortality as routes to death
transcendence. The Dark Triad was negatively correlated with life
satisfaction, conscientiousness, agreeableness, self-transcendent
values, compassion, empathy, a quiet ego, a belief that humans
are good, and a belief that one’s own self is good.
The Dark Triad was not associated with exclusively adverse
and transgressive psychosocial outcomes, however, and some of
the correlates of the dark triad may be considered adaptive, at
least in limited contexts or “dark niches” (Paulhus, 2014). One
example is our replication of the well-known link between the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 20 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
Dark Triad and short-term instrumental sociosexuality (Jonason
et al., 2008). Researchers have suggested that the Dark Triad may
have evolved precisely because of the reproductive benefits it
conferred on our distant ancestors (particularly men) with these
Dark Triad characteristics (Jonason et al., 2008). Regardless of
the veracity of this evolutionary argument, depending on one’s
goals, and the compatibility of those goals with one’s desired
sexual partners, high sociosexuality is not necessarily an aversive
psychosocial outcome.
The Dark Triad also showed positive correlations with a
variety of variables that could facilitate one’s more agentic-related
goals. For instance, the Dark Triad was positively correlated with
utilitarian moral judgment and the VIA strengths of creativity,
bravery, and leadership, as well as assertiveness, in addition to
motives for power, achievement, and self-enhancement. Also, an
unexpected correlation between the Dark Triad and curiosity
was found, which was localized primarily to the embracing and
deprivation forms of curiosity.
Interestingly, after controlling for Agreeableness and
HEXACO Honesty-Humility, the Dark Triad demonstrated
positive associations with various growth-oriented outcomes
(e.g., empathy, compassion, quiet ego, and spiritual experience)
that were negatively related to the Dark Triad before these
antagonistic traits were partialed out. These findings suggest
that the callous and manipulative core of the Dark Triad does
not do these individuals many favors. It’s likely that the variance
that is leftover once the malevolence-related variance of the
Dark Triad is removed is associated with agentic extraversion,
which may provide a protective factor for those scoring higher
on the Dark Triad. This is in line with recent research on
narcissism that explicitly separates the antagonistic and agentic
extraversion facets of narcissism in predicting well-being
(e.g., Kaufman et al., 2018).
In stark contrast, the overall picture provided by the pattern
of correlations with the Light Triad was quite different than
the Dark Triad. The Light Triad was associated with being
older, being female, less childhood unpredictability, as well
as higher levels of religiosity, spirituality, life satisfaction,
acceptance of others, belief that others are good, belief that
one’s self is good, compassion, empathy, openness to experience,
conscientiousness, positive enthusiasm, having a quiet ego, and
a belief that one can live on through nature and biosociality
(having children) after one’s personal death. It is notable that the
correlation between the belief that others are good and the Light
Triad remained significant even after controlling for Big Five
Agreeableness, suggesting that— as initially expected— this belief
may be a particularly unique aspect of the Light Triad. Also note
that we found a strong correlation between “Humans are Good”
and the belief that “I am Good” (r = 0.51, p < 0.001, n = 194).
This correlation might be worthy of further investigation in
future studies.
Individuals scoring higher on the LTS also reported more
satisfaction with their relationships, competence, and autonomy,
and they also reported higher levels of secure attachment style
and eros in their relationships. In general, the light triad
was related to being primarily motivated by intimacy and
self-transcendent values. Many character strengths correlated
with the Light Triad, including curiosity, perspective, zest,
love, kindness, teamwork, forgiveness, and gratitude. Note that
the flavor of curiosity associated with Light Triad (primarily
stretching) differed from the flavor of curiosity associated with
the Dark Triad (primarily embracing and deprivation). Mature
defense styles were also associated with the Light Triad, as were
optimistic beliefs about the self, the world, and one’s future, as
measured by the Beck’s cognitive triad. Individuals scoring higher
on the LTS also reported higher self-esteem, authenticity, and a
stronger sense of self.
In general, the Light Triad does not appear to be associated
with any obvious downsides, with a few possible exceptions
depending on the context. The Light Triad was not associated
with assertiveness, and was negatively correlated with the motives
for achievement and self-enhancement (even though the Light
Triad was positively related to productivity and competence).
In terms of character strengths, unlike the Dark Triad, the
Light Triad was uncorrelated with bravery or assertiveness.
Such characteristics may be important for reaching one’s more
challenging goals and fully self-actualizing. Additionally, in
line with our predictions, the Light Triad was related to
greater interpersonal guilt— including survivor, separation, and
omnipotence forms of guilt. While it may be adaptive to
experience these forms of interpersonal guilt for facilitating
relationships and repairing damage in a relationship, these forms
of guilt may limit one’s ambitions for fear of succeeding while
others remain less successful.
The Light Triad was also correlated with greater “reaction
formation,” which consisted of the following items: “If someone
mugged me and stole my money, I’d rather he be helped than
punished” and “I often find myself being very nice to people
who by all rights I should be angry at.” While having such
“loving-kindness” even for one’s enemies is conducive to one’s
own well-being (see Salzberg, 2017), these attitudes, coupled
with greater interpersonal guilt, could make those scoring higher
on the Light Triad potentially more open to exploitation and
emotional manipulation from those scoring higher on the Dark
Triad. Indeed, we believe further investigation of the social
interactions between extreme light vs. dark triad scorers would
be an interesting future line of research.
Nevertheless, taking all of these patterns together, the Light
Triad appears correlated with a greater quality of life overall
than the Dark Triad across numerous dimensions of well-being
and growth. Again, we’d like to emphasize that no one is all
Light or Dark Triad, and we each differ in our balance of these
traits. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that the average lightdark balance showed a substantial skew toward the light side of
personality, and extreme malevolence was rare in the samples
we studied. Indeed, research has shown that, in general, people
tend to view the ‘true’ self in others as both good and moral
(Strohminger et al., 2017). Anne Frank may have been on to
something in her quote at the beginning of this paper.
Limitations
This study was limited in a number of ways. First, in the same
tradition of the literature on the Dark Triad, the Light Triad
was measured through self-report. While we do not see this as
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 21 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
problematic in establishing a new construct, we would like to
see more unobtrusive and behavioral measures of both the Light
Triad and Dark Triad. For this reason, we included a dictator
game that involved the distribution of real money, but more
behavioral tasks would provide stronger evidence for the validity
of these constructs.
Second, all participants were recruited from paid online survey
platforms. While research has shown that the data collected from
the platforms we used are generally representative (Buhrmester
et al., 2011; Peer et al., 2017), we think a fuller confirmation of
the validity of both the Light Triad and Dark Triad would benefit
from the investigation of more ecologically valid samples, such as
criminals and “saints.” Additionally, further research is required
to assess the generalizability of the findings to a wider range of
cultures (e.g., non-English speaking countries), as well as races
and ethnicities.
Third, construct redundancy is an issue. The same researchers
who are not interested in the extra predictive validity of the
Dark Triad over and above the inverse Agreeableness and the
HEXACO Honesty-Humility facet will likely not be interested
in the Light Triad. On the other hand, those conducting
more granular research on the Dark Triad may be interested
in the differences described in this paper. Additionally, those
interested in well-being and positive mental processes more
generally may be interested in the Light Triad. This study took
the debate about whether the Dark Triad provides additional
explanatory power seriously, controlling for these traits in
various analyses. We found that many of the stronger firstorder correlations with the Light Triad remained significant,
though at a much smaller effect size, demonstrating the added
predictive validity offered by the Light Triad. Also notably,
Honesty-Humility was more strongly correlated with the inverse
of the Dark Triad than with the Light Triad, while the Light
Triad was more strongly correlated with Agreeableness than
with Honesty-Humility, suggesting further divergence between
these two constructs.
Future Directions
There are several future directions for research on the Light
Triad. Most pressingly, further studies should replicate our
findings demonstrating that the Light Triad Scale (LTS) provides
useful information over and above the inverse of existing
measures of the Dark Triad, Big Five Agreeableness, and the
HEXACO Honesty-Humility facet.
Second, as noted above, further research on this topic
might benefit from a greater focus on behavioral outcomes,
demonstrating that these measures predict differences in
behavior between predominantly Light Triad individuals as
opposed to predominantly Dark Triad individuals. We believe
that the workplace might be a particularly interesting context
to explore the effects of Dark Triad and Light Triad individuals
on teams, and their relative effects on levels of satisfaction
and performance.
Third, research could be done on the occupations and life
outcomes associated with the Light vs. Dark triad. Some research
has found that individuals with Dark Triad traits are often
skilled at climbing organizational hierarchies and negatively
impact those around them (Mathieu et al., 2014). What kinds of
occupations are most attractive to Light Triad individuals?
Fourth, there is also the question of intervention. Is
it possible to enhance Light Triad characteristics? In the
current investigation, we found a strong link between
the Light Triad and the four main characteristics of a
quiet ego: perspective-taking, inclusive identity, detached
awareness, and growth-mindedness. Researchers are developing
exercises to enhance these characteristics (e.g., Wayment
and Bauer, 2017), and it’s an interesting question whether
such interventions would also have an effect on Light Triad
scores. We also found some evidence that experiences of
unity, or self-transcendent experiences (STEs; Yaden et al.,
2017a), are positively (though less strongly) correlated with
the Light Triad. This raises the possibility that certain kinds of
experiences could potentially influence these personality traits.
While this is unknown, we believe this would be an exciting
area of further study.
Fifth, there is the question of framing. In general, research
on this topic ought to be a largely a descriptive endeavor. While
we have attempted to be balanced in the foregoing discussion,
there is little doubt that we believe that Light Triad individuals
are more enjoyable to be around and likely exert a more
positive net effect on the world. We acknowledge, however,
that it is not our place to moralize these two sub-clinical,
interpersonal orientations. Future research should bear this
descriptive imperative in mind, and researchers may prefer
alternative frameworks to describe the nomological network of
these two interpersonal orientations. One alternative framework
that is popular within the Dark Triad literature is life history
strategy, which employs more neutral labels such as “fast” vs.
“slow,” rather than our framing of “adverse” vs. “growth-oriented”
(e.g., Jonason et al., 2012b). Therefore, we acknowledge that the
overall patterns of results could be interpreted within multiple
frameworks in psychology.
Sixth, while the focus of this paper was on the suite of
traits that comprise the dark vs. light triad, future research
is needed on the differential prediction of the three facets
of the LTS: Kantianism, Humanism, and Faith in Humanity.
Until such validation and/or further scale development is done,
we recommend that researchers focus on the total score of
the LTS, as the current studies showed that overall, the LTS
is a brief, reliable, and valid measure of an important core
of positive traits.
Nevertheless, the current version of the LTS included in
these investigations should be viewed as a first-draft, and
further studies on a wider range of cultures and over longer
stretches of time will have to be conducted to improve the
generalizability, reliability, stability, and validity of the Light
Triad. Also, while the brevity of the LTS has its advantages,
it might not be sufficient to explore the breadth of the Light
Triad facets that we discovered. In future work, it might be
helpful to go back to a larger pool of items and construct
a longer measure.
Finally, just as the scope of dark traits has recently increased
beyond the boundaries of the Dark Triad (see Moshagen et al.,
2018; Paulhus et al., 2018), the scope of the Light Triad may
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 22 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
have to eventually be broadened to include further facets of
the positive personality. Since our method of constructing the
Light Triad Scale (LTS) was based on a consideration of the
conceptual contrast to the Dark Triad, we acknowledge that
there could be additional aspects of human beneficence that
are not captured by the LTS. Ultimately, a combination of
top-down and bottom-approaches will be useful to derive the
full breadth of facets that comprise the light personality or the
“light character” (Cloninger and Zohar, 2011; Meindl et al., 2015;
Garcia and Rosenberg, 2016).
While informing other empirical approaches to studying the
moral character, we hope our conceptualization of the Light Triad
can also inform a number of philosophical discussions of virtuous
character and moral behavior (for a psychology-friendly review of
this expansive philosophical literature, see Miller, 2013), as well
as more specific philosophical discussions of certain drawbacks
to such a temperament, as in Wolf’s (1982) notion of “moral
saints” and Schwitzgebel’s (2014) distinction between “jerks”
and “sweethearts.”
CONCLUSION
In order to research the motivations and behaviors associated
with the Dark Triad, we have found it useful to recall someone
from our personal lives who fits these characteristics – and the
same can be said of the Light Triad. For most people, calling
to mind an “everyday psychopath” from one’s own life is about
as easy as doing so with an “everyday saint.” We suspect that
the reader can easily generate examples of both types of people
from his or her personal life – as well as prominent individuals in
the public arena. As an emerging research literature has shown,
there is little doubt that individuals with Dark Triad traits tend to
cause substantial interpersonal, organizational, and institutional
harm, and thus warrant research attention. However, we believe
that the light side of personality is also worth understanding.
We hope the current investigation stimulates further research
on the good that those with Light Triad characteristics create in
the world.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The datasets generated for this study are available on request to
the corresponding author.
ETHICS STATEMENT
This study was carried out in accordance with the
recommendations of the University of Pennsylvania Department
of Psychology IRB committee with written informed consent
from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent
in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol
was approved by the University of Pennsylvania Department of
Psychology IRB Committee.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
SK and DY developed the study concept. SK, DY, and EH
designed the experiments and contributed to the creation of the
Light Triad Scale (LTS). DY set up the experiments. EH ran the
experiments and cleaned the data. SK and ET conducted the
analyses. SK wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. DY, EH,
and ET provided edits on the manuscript.
FUNDING
This research was supported by Grant 50696 from the
John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this
publication are those of the authors and do necessarily reflect the
view of the John Templeton Foundation.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.
2019.00467/full#supplementary-material
REFERENCES
Advisory Committee on Defense Mechanisms (Work Group to Revise Dsm-III)
(1986). “A deaft glossary of defense mechanisms for DSM-III-R,” in Empirical
Studies of Ego Mechanisms of Defenses, ed. G. E. Vaillant (Washington, D.C:
American Psychiatric Press, Inc.).
Alavi, M., Mei, T. K., and Mehrinezhad, S. A. (2018). The dark triad of
personality and infidelity intentions: the moderating role of relationship
experience. Pers. Individ. Diff. 128, 49–54. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.
02.023
American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R), 3rd Edn. Washington, D.C: Author.
Andrews, G., Pollock, C., and Stewart, G. (1989). The determination of defense style
by questionnaire. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 46, 455–460. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.
1989.01810050069011
Andrews, G., Singh, M., and Bond, M. (1993). The defense style questionnaire.
J. Nerv. Mental Dis. 181, 246–256. doi: 10.1097/00005053-199304000-
00006
Ashton, M. C., and Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: a short measure of the
major dimensions of personality. J. Pers. Assess. 91, 340–345. doi: 10.1080/
00223890902935878
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., and Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor
personality: correlations with Machiavellianism, primary psychopathy, and
social adroitness. Eur. J. Pers. 14, 359–368. doi: 10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)
14:4<359::AID-PER382>3.0.CO;2-Y
Balakrishna, A., Plouffe, R. A., and Saklofske, D. H. (2017). What do sadists value?
Is honesty- humility an intermediary? Replicating and extending findings on the
link between values and “dark” personalities. Pers. Individ. Diff. 109, 142–147.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.055
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychol. Rev. 84, 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.
2.191
Beck, A. T., Rush, A., Shaw, B., and Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Therapy of
Depression. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Beckham, E. E., Leber, W. R., Watkins, J. T., Boyer, J. L., and Cook, J. B. (1986).
Development of an instrument to measure Beck’s cognitive triad: the cognitive
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 23 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
triad inventory. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54, 566–567. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.
54.4.566
Bond, M., Gardner, S. T., Christian, J., and Sigal, J. J. (1983). Empirical study of selfrated defense styles. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 40, 333–338. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.
1983.01790030103013
Book, A., Visser, B. A., and Volk, A. A. (2015). Unpacking “evil”: claiming the
core of the dark triad. Pers. Individ. Diff. 73, 29–38. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.
09.016
Brugman, S., Cornet, L. J. M., Smeijers, D., Smeets, K., Oostermeijer, S., Buitelaar,
J. K., et al. (2017). Examining the reactive proactive questionnaire in adults
and forensic and non-forensic settings: a variable- and person-based approach.
Aggress. Behav. 43, 155–162. doi: 10.1002/ab.21671
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., and Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: a
new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 3–5.
doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980
Cattel, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav.
Res. 1, 245–276. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Cloninger, C. R., and Zohar, A. H. (2011). Personality and the perception of health
and happiness. J. Affect Disord. 128, 24–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2010.06.012
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: implications for explanation,
emotion, and behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71, 810–832. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.71.4.810
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., and Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies
of self-worth in college students: theory and measurement. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
85, 894–908. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894
Crowne, D. P., and Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
independent of psychopathology. J. Consult. Psychol. 24, 349–354. doi: 10.1037/
h0047358
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.
New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Damon, W. (2009). The Path to Purpose: How Young People Find Their Calling in
Life. New York, NY: Free Press.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., and Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and
domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93, 880–896.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 95, 542–575. doi: 10.1037/
0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener, E., and Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative
affect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47:1105. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., and Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with
life scale. J. Pers. Assess. 49, 71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., and Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being:
three decades of progress. Psychol. Bull. 125, 276–302. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.
125.2.276
Dinic, B., and Wertag, A. (2018). Effects of dark triad and HEXACO traits on
reactive/proactive aggression: exploring the gender differences. Pers. Individ.
Diff. 123, 44–49. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.003
Djeriouat, H., and Tremoliere, B. (2014). The dark triad of personality and
utilitarian moral judgment: the mediating role of honesty/humility and
harm/care. Pers. Individ. Diff. 67, 11–16. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.026
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., and Kelly, D. R. (2007).
Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92,
1087–1101. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Eckel, C. C., and Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games.
Games Econ. Behav. 16, 181–191. doi: 10.1006/game.1996.0081
Emmons, R. A., and Crumpler, C. A. (2000). Gratitude as a human strength:
appraising the evidence. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 19, 56–69. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2000.
19.1.56
Emmons, R. A., and McCullough, M. E. (2004). The Psychology of
Gratitude. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:
oso/9780195150100.001.0001
Flury, J., and Ickes, W. (2007). Having a weak versus strong sense of self: the sense
of self scale (SOSS). Self Identity 6, 281–303. doi: 10.1080/15298860601033208
Fraley, C. R., and Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continuously
or categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior.
Dev. Psychol. 39, 387–404. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.387
Frank, A. (1995). The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition. Amsterdam:
Doubleday.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:
the broaden- and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. 56, 218–226.
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Love 2.0: Finding Happiness and Health in Moments of
Connection. New York, NY: Plume.
Furnham, A., Richards, S., and Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality:
a 10 year review. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 7, 199–216. doi: 10.1111/spc3.
12018
Garcia, D., and Rosenberg, P. (2016). The dark cube: dark and light character
profiles. PeerJ 4:e1675. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1675
Geweke, J. F., and Singleton, K. J. (1980). Interpreting the likelihood ratio statistic
in factor models when sample size is small. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 75, 133–137.
doi: 10.1080/01621459.1980.10477442
Glenn, A. L., Raine, A., and Schug, R. A. (2009). The neural correlates of
moral decision-making in psychopathysychopathyhy. Mol. Psychiatry 14, 5–6.
doi: 10.1038/mp.2008.104
Glenn, A. L., and Sellbom, M. (2015). Theoretical and empirical concerns regarding
the dark triad as a construct. J. Pers. Disord. 29, 360–377. doi: 10.1521/pedi_
2014_28_162
Glover, N., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., and Widiger, T. A. (2012). The
five-factor narcissism inventory: a five-factor measure of narcissistic personality
traits. J. Pers. Assess. 94, 500–512. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2012.670680
Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 50, 392–402. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392
Hodson, G., Book, A., Visser, B. A., Volk, A. A., Ashton, M. C., and Lee, K. (2018). Is
the dark triad common factor distinct from low honesty-humility? J. Res. Pers.
73, 123–129. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.012
Hood, R. W. Jr., and Morris, R. J. (1983). Toward a theory of death transcendence.
J. Sci. Study Relig. 22, 353–366. doi: 10.2307/1385773
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrika 30, 179–185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447
Jayawickreme, E., and Fleeson, W. (2017). “Does whole trait theory work for the
virtues?,” in Moral Psychology: Virtue and Character, eds W. Sinnot-Armstrong
and C. Miller (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 75–104. doi: 10.2307/j.ctt1n2
tvzm.9
Jonason, P. K., and Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: tactics
for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Pers. Individ. Diff. 52, 606–610.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.015
Jonason, P. K., and Ferrell, J. D. (2016). Looking under the hood: the psychogenic
motivational foundations of the Dark Triad. Pers. Individ. Diff. 94, 324–331.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.039
Jonason, P. K., Icho, A., and Ireland, K. (2016). Resources, harshness, and
unpredictability: the socioeconomic conditions associated with the Dark Triad
traits. Evol. Psychol. 14, 1–11. doi: 10.1177/1474704915623699
Jonason, P. K., Kaufman, S. B., Webster, G. D., and Geher, G. (2013a). What lies
beneath the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen: varied relations with the Big Five. Individ.
Differ. Res. 11, 81-90.
Jonason, P. K., and Kavanagh, P. (2010). The dark side of love: love styles
and the Dark Triad. Pers. Individ. Diff. 49, 606–610. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.
05.030
Jonason, P. K., Koehn, M. A., Okan, C., and O’Connor, P. J. (2018). The role of
personality in individual differences in yearly earnings. Pers. Individ. Diff. 121,
170–172. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.038
Jonason, P. K., and Kroll, C. H. (2014). A multidimensional view of the relationship
between empathy and the Dark Triad. J. Individ. Diff. 36, 150–156. doi: 10.1027/
1614-0001/a000166
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., and Czarna, A. Z. (2013b). Quick and dirty: The Dark
Triad is associated with a volatile socioecology in three countries. Evol. Psychol.
11, 172–185.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., and Schmitt, D. P. (2008). The dark
triad: facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. Eur. J. Pers. 23, 5–18.
doi: 10.1007/s10508-017-0937-1
Jonason, P. K., Luevano, V. X., and Adams, H. M. (2012a). How the Dark Triad
traits predict relationship choices. Pers. Individ. Diff. 53, 180–184. doi: 10.1016/
j.paid.2012.03.007
Jonason, P. K., and McCain, J. (2012). Using the HEXACO model to test the validity
of the Dirty Dozen measure of the dark triad. Pers. Individ. Diff. 53, 935–938.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.010
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 24 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
Jonason, P. K., Webster, G. D., Schmitt, D. P., Li, N. P., and Crysel, L. (2012b). The
antihero in popular culture: life history theory and the dark triad personality
traits. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 16, 192–199. doi: 10.1037/a0027914
Jonason, P. K., Wee, S., Li, N. P., and Jackson, C. (2014). Occupational niches and
the Dark Triad traits. Pers. Individ. Diff. 69, 119–123. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.
05.024
Jonason, P. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., and Okan, C. (2017). Good v. evil: predicting
sinning with dark personality traits and moral foundations. Pers. Individ. Diff.
104, 180–185. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.002
Jones, D. N., and Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: uncovering the heart
of the dark triad. Eur. J. Pers. 27, 521–531. doi: 10.1002/per.1893
Jones, D. N., and Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short Dark Triad (SD3):
a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment 21, 28–41. doi: 10.1177/
1073191113514105
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2013). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and
Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. New York, NY: Bantam.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.
Psychometrika 20, 141–151.
Kajonius, P. J., Persson, B. N., and Jonason, P. K. (2015). Hedonism, achievement,
and power: universal values that characterize the Dark Triad. Pers. Individ. Diff.
77, 173–178. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.055
Kant, I. (1785/1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by
Ellington, James W, 3rd Edn. London: Hackett.
Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen,
W. E., Terhar, D., et al. (2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory-II.
development, factor structure, and psychometrics. J. Res. Pers. 43, 987–998.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011
Kaufman, S. B., Weiss, B., Miller, J. D., and Campbell, W. K. (2018). Clinical
correlates of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism: a personality perspective.
J. Pers. Disord. 32:384. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2018_32_384
Keltner, D. (2009). Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life. New York,
NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Keltner, D., and Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic
emotion. Cogn. Emot. 17, 297–314. doi: 10.1080/02699930302297
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychol.
Inq. 14, 1–26. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_01
Kernis, M. H., and Goldman, B. M. (2006). “A multi-component conceptualization
of authenticity: theory and research,” in Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, ed. M. P. Zanna (New York, NY: Academic Press), 283–357.
Knight, N. M., Dahlen, E. R., Bullock-Yowell, E., and Madson, M. B. (2018). The
HEXACO model of personality and Dark Triad in relational aggression. Pers.
Individ. Diff. 122, 109–114. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.016
Koladich, S. J., and Atkinson, B. E. (2016). The dark triad and relationship
preferences: a replication and extension. Pers. Individ. Diff. 94, 253–255.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.023
Kurtz, J. L. (2018). “Savoring: a positive emotion amplifier,” in Positive Psychology:
Established and Emerging Issues, ed. D. S. Dunn (New York, NY: Routledge).
Langer, E. J., and Ngnoumen, C. T. (2018). “Mindfulness,” in Positive Psychology:
Established and Emerging Issues, ed. D. S. Dunn (New York, NY: Routledge).
Lee, K., and Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, machiavellianism, and
narcissism in the five- factor model and the HEXACO model of personality
structure. Pers. Individ. Diff. 38, 1571–1582. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.
09.016
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., and Gallucci, A.
(2013). Sex, power, and money: prediction from the Dark Triad and honestyhumility. Eur. J. Pers. 27, 169–184. doi: 10.1002/per.1860
Leyton, E. (2003). Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer.
New York, NY: Carroll & Graf.
Lilienfeld, S. O., and Hess, T. H. (2001). Psychopathic personality traits and
somatization: sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality.
J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 23, 11–24. doi: 10.1023/A:1011035306061
Litman, J. A., and Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and
its diversive and specific components. J. Pers. Assess. 80, 75–86. doi: 10.1207/
S15327752JPA8001_16
Lopez, S. J. (2013). Making Hope Happen: Create the Future You Want for Yourself
and Others. New York, NY: Atria Books.
Maples, J. L., Lamkin, J., and Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of two brief measures of the
Dark Triad: the Dirty Dozen and Short Dark Triad. Psychol. Assess. 26, 326–331.
doi: 10.1037/a0035084
Marcus, D. K., Preszler, J., and Zeigler-Hill, V. (2018). A network of dark
personality traits: what lies at the heart of darkness? J. Res. Pers. 73, 56–62.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.003
Martela, F., and Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life:
distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. J. Posit. Psychol. 11,
531–545. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623
Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: Wiley.
doi: 10.1037/10793-000
Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., and Babiak, P. (2014). A dark side of
leadership: corporate psychopathy, and its influence on employee well-being,
and job satisfaction. Pers. Individ. Diff. 59, 83–88. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.
11.010
Meindl, P., Jayawickreme, E., Furr, M., and Fleeson, W. (2015). A foundation
beam for studying morality from a personological point of view: are individual
differences in moral behaviors and thoughts consistent? J. Res. Pers. 59, 81–92.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.09.005
Miller, C. B. (2013). Character and Moral Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199674350.001.0001
Mittal, C., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Sung, S., and Young, E. (2015).
Cognitive adaptations to stressful environments: when childhood adversity
enhances adult executive function. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 604–621.
doi: 10.1037/pspi0000028
Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B., and Zettler, I. (2018). The dark core of personality.
Psychol. Rev. 125, 656–688. doi: 10.1037/rev0000111
Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., and Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side
of human nature: a meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the
Dark Triad (narcissism, Machavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspect. Psychol.
Sci. 12, 183–204. doi: 10.1177/1745691616666070
O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., and McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A metaanalysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective.
J. Appl. Psychol. 97, 557–579. doi: 10.1037/a0025679
O’Connor, L. E., Berry, J. W., Weiss, J., Bush, M., and Sampson, H. (1997).
Interpersonal guilt: the development of a new measure. J. Clin. Psychol. 53,
73–89. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199701)53:1<73::AID-JCLP10>3.0.
CO;2-I
Pailing, A., Boon, J., and Egan, V. (2014). Personality, the Dark Triad and violence.
Pers. Individ. Diff. 67, 81–86. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.018
Pajevic, M., Vukosavljevic-Gvozden, T., Stevanovic, N., and Neumann, C. S.
(2018). The relationship between the Dark Tetrad and a two-dimensional view
of empathy. Pers. Individ. Diff. 123, 125–130. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.009
Patrick, C. J. (2010). Operationalizing the Triarchic Conceptualization of
Psychopathy: Preliminary Description of Brief Scales for Assessment of Boldness,
Meanness, and Disinhibition. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Curr. Dir. Psychol.
Sci. 23, 421–426. doi: 10.1177/0963721414547737
Paulhus, D. L., Curtis, S. R., and Jones, D. N. (2018). Aggression as a trait: the Dark
Tetrad alternative. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 19, 88–92. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.
04.007
Paulhus, D. L., and Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality:
Narcissism, Machavelliniasm, and psychopathy. J. Res. Pers. 36, 556–563.
doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Pawelski, S. P., and Pawelski, J. O. (2018). Happy Together: Using the Science of
Positive Psychology to Build Love That Lasts. New York, NY: TarcherPerigee.
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., and Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk:
alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 70, 153–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
Penke, L., and Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations:
a more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and
romantic relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95, 1113–1135. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.95.5.1113
Peterson, C., and Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues:
A Classification and Handbook. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Pury, C. L. S., and Saylors, S. (2018). “Courage, courageous acts, and positive
psychology,” in Positive Psychology: Established and Emerging Issues, ed. D. S.
Dunn (New York, NY: Routledge).
Raine, A., and Chen, F. R. (2018). Cognitive, affective, and somatic empathy scale
(CASES) for children. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 47, 24–37. doi: 10.1080/
15374416.2017.1295383
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 25 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467
Kaufman et al. Light vs. Dark Triad
Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loever, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., et al.
(2006). The reactive-proactive agression questionnaire: differential correlates of
reactive and proactive agression in adolescent boys. Aggress. Behav. 32, 159–171.
doi: 10.1002/ab.20115
Raine, A., and Uhi, S. (2018). The selfishness questionnaire (SQ): egocentric,
adaptive, and pathological forms of selfishness. J. Res. Pers. doi: 10.1080/
00223891.2018.1455692 [Epub ahead of print].
Ricard, M. (2016). Altruism: The Power of Compassion to Change Yourself and the
World. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.
Richardson, E. N., and Boag, S. (2016). Offensive defenses: the mind beneath the
mask of the dark triad traits. Pers. Individ. Diff. 92, 148–152. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.
2015.12.039
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy.
New York, NY: Mariner Books.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400876136
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation
of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55,
68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning
of psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1069–1081. doi: 10.3109/
09638288.2010.503835
Ryff, C. D., and Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being
revisited. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69, 719–727. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719
Salzberg, S. (2017). Real Love: The Art of Mindful Connection. New York, NY:
Flatiron Books.
Schönbrodt, F. D., and Gerstenberg, F. X. R. (2012). An IRT analysis of motive
questionnaires: the unified motive scales. J. Res. Pers. 46, 725–742. doi: 10.1016/
j.jrp.2012.08.010
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C.,
et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
103, 663–688. doi: 10.1037/a0029393
Schwitzgebel, E. (2014). A Theory of Jerks. Aeon Magazine. Available at: https://
aeon.co/essays/so-you-re-surrounded-by-idiots-guess-who-the-real-jerk-is.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2012). Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness
and Well-Being. New York, NY: Atria Books.
Sheldon, K. M., and Hilpert, J. C. (2012). The balanced measure of
psychological needs (BMPN) scale: an alternative domain general measure
of need satisfaction. Motivat. Emot. 36, 439–451. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-
9279-4
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., and John, O. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositions
differentially associated with big five personality and attachment style. J. Posit.
Psychol. 1, 61–71. doi: 10.1080/17439760500510833
Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., Shorley, H. S., Rand, K. L., and Feldman, D. B. (2003).
Hope theory, measurements, and applications to school psychology. School
Psychol. Quart. 18, 122–139. doi: 10.1521/scpq.18.2.122.21854
Soto, C. J., and John, O. P. (2017). The next big five inventory (BFI-2): developing
and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth,
fidelity, and predictive power. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 113, 117–143. doi: 10.1037/
pspp0000096
Spain, S. M., Harms, P., and LeBreton, J. M. (2013). The dark side of personality at
work. J. Organ. Behav. 35, S41–S60. doi: 10.1002/job.1894
Spurk, D., Keller, A. C., and Hirschi, A. (2015). Do bad guys get ahead or fall
behind? Relationships of the Dark Triad of personality with objective and
subjective career success. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 7, 113–121. doi: 10.1177/
1948550615609735
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Kaler, M., and Oishi, S. (2006). The meaning in
life questionnaire: assessing the presence of and search for meaning
in life. J. Counsel. Psychol. 53, 80–93. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2013.
765882
Strahan, R., and Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogenous versions of the MarloweCrowne social desirability scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 28, 191–193. doi: 10.1002/1097-
4679(197204)28:2<191::AID-JCLP2270280220>3.0.CO;2-G
Strohminger, N., Knobe, J., and Newman, G. (2017). The true self: a psychological
concept distinct from the self. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 551–560. doi: 10.1177/
1745691616689495
Tafarodi, R. W., and Swann, W. B. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as
dimensions of global self-esteem: initial validation of a measure. J. Pers. Assess.
65, 322–342. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6502_8
Tonnaer, F., Cima, M., Sijtsma, K., Uzieblo, K., and Lilienfeld, S. O. (2013).
Screening for psychopathy: validation of the psychopathic personality
inventory-short form with reference scores. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 35,
153–161. doi: 10.1007/s10862-012-9333-2
Unrau, A. M., and Morry, M. M. (2017). The subclinical psychopath in love:
mediating effects of attachment styles. J. Soc. Pers. Relationsh. 36, 421–449.
doi: 10.1177/0265407517734068
Vaillant, G. E. (1998). The Wisdom of the Ego. Boston, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Vandecreek, L., and Nye, C. (1993). Testing the death transcendence scale. J. Sci.
Study Relig. 32, 279–283. doi: 10.2307/1386666
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of
partial correlations. Psychometrika 41, 321–327. doi: 10.1007/BF02293557
Veselka, L., Giammarco, E. A., and Vernon, P. A. (2014). The Dark Triad and the
seven deadly sins. Pers. Individ. Diff. 67, 75–80. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.055
Wai, M., and Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature
of the dark triad of personality. Pers. Individ. Diff. 52, 794–799. doi: 10.1016/j.
paid.2012.01.008
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., and Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of
brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 54:1063. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Wayment, H. A., and Bauer, J. J. (2017). The quiet ego: motives for self-other
balance and growth in relation to well-being. J. Happin. Stud. 19, 881–896.
doi: 10.1007/s10902-017-9848-z
Wayment, H. A., Bauer, J. J., and Sylaska, K. (2014). The quiet ego scale: measuring
the compassionate self-identity. J. Happin. Stud. 16, 999–1033. doi: 10.1007/
s10902-014-9546-z
Witvliet, C. V., and Luna, L. R. (2018). “Forgiveness and well-being,” in Positive
Psychology: Established and Emerging Issues, ed. D. S. Dunn (New York, NY:
Routledge).
Wolf, S. (1982). Moral saints. J. Philos. 79, 419–439. doi: 10.2307/2026228
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., and Baliousis, M. J. S. (2008). The
authentic personality: a theoretical, and empirical conceptualization, and
the development of the authenticity scale. J. Counsel. Psychol. 55, 385–399.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385
Yaden, D. B., Eichstaedt, J. C., Schwartz, H. A., Kern, M. L., Le Nguyen, K. D.,
Wintering, N. A., et al. (2016). The language of ineffability: linguistic analysis
of mystical experiences. Psychol. Relig. Spirit. 8, 244–252. doi: 10.1037/rel000
0043
Yaden, D. B., Haidt, J., Hood, R. W. Jr., Vago, D. R., and Newberg, A. B. (2017a).
The varieties of self-transcendent experience. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 21, 143–160.
doi: 10.1037/gpr0000102
Yaden, D. B., Le Nguyen, K. D., Kern, M. L., Wintering, N. A., Eichstaedt, J. C.,
Schwartz, H. A., et al. (2017b). The noetic quality: a multimethod exploratory
study. Psychol. Conscious. 4, 54–62. doi: 10.1037/cns0000098
Yaden, D. B., Kaufman, S. B., Hyde, E., Chirico, A., Gaggioli, A., Zhang, J. W., et al.
(2018). The development of the Awe experience scale (AWE-S): a multifactorial
measure for a complex emotion. J. Posit. Psychol. 1–15. doi: 10.1080/17439760.
2018.1484940
Young, E. S., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Waters, T., and Mittal, C. (2018). Can
an unpredictable childhood environment enhance working memory? Testing
the sensitized- specialization hypothesis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 114, 891–908.
doi: 10.1037/pspi0000124
Zachry, C. E., Phan, L. V., Blackie, L. E., and Jayawickreme, E. (2018). Situationbased contingencies underlying wisdom-content manifestations: examining
intellectual humility in daily life. J. Gerontol. 73, 1404–1415. doi: 10.1093/
geronb/gby016
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2019 Kaufman, Yaden, Hyde and Tsukayama. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 26 March 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 467