Dirty Dozen vs. the H factor: Comparison of the Dark Triad
and Honesty–Humility in prosociality, religiosity, and happiness
Naser Aghababaei a,⇑, Somayeh Mohammadtabar a, Majid Saffarinia b
a Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
b Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 February 2014
Received in revised form 25 February 2014
Accepted 11 March 2014
Available online 24 April 2014
Keywords:
Personality
Dark Triad
Honesty–Humility
Prosociality
Religion
Happiness
a b s t r a c t
Past research has shown that prosocial behavior is related to higher religiosity and Honesty–Humility and
lower levels of the Dark Triad (i.e. narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism). Honesty–Humility
and the Dark Triad are theoretically linked traits (related to an exploitive behavioral style) that tend to
be studied in isolation. This study showed that religion-prosociality link is not an artifact of gender, happiness, and personality. We examined Honesty–Humility and the Dark Triad in the same sample to better
understand how these traits converge and diverge in their associations with self-reported prosociality,
religiosity, and happiness. Results suggested that Honesty–Humility and the Dark Triad traits uniquely
relate to prosociality, religious orientation and happiness with Honesty–Humility evidencing stronger
relations than the Dark Triad as measured by the Dirty Dozen. Data also supported this conclusion that
Dirty Dozen Machiavellianism is the ‘‘darker’’ side of the Dark Triad.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The word prosocial was created by social scientists as an antonym for antisocial. Prosocial behavior covers the broad range of
actions, such as helping, volunteering, sharing, and cooperation,
intended to benefit others than oneself (Batson & Powell, 2003).
Prosocial behavior depends on situational as well as dispositional
variables. For example, there is evidence that happiness leads to
prosocial behavior and prosociality makes people happier (Aknin
et al., 2013; Hideg, 2012). Our focus in the present study is on religiosity and personality predictors of prosociality.
Despite some arguments that deny the existence of a religious
prosociality (see Galen, 2012), research frequently has shown association between religiousness and prosociality, and that this link is
not an artifact of gender, social desirability, attachment, empathy
and intergroup favoritism, and it is not limited to self-reports and
it is not found just at the explicit level (Pichon, Boccato, &
Saroglou, 2007; Pichon & Saroglou, 2009; Preston & Ritter, 2013;
Saroglou, 2012; Saroglou, Pichon, Trompette, Verschueren, &
Dernelle, 2005). Such a link rather may be because of the ‘‘teaching
of equality and brotherhood, of compassion and humanheartedness,
that mark all the great world religions’’ (Allport & Ross, 1967, p. 433).
Research on the Five Factor and the HEXACO models revealed
that higher scorers on Agreeableness and Honesty–Humility are
more helpful (e.g. Carlo, Okun, Knight, & de Guzman, 2005;
LaBouff, Rowatt, Johnson, Tsang, & McCullough Willerton, 2011).
While Big Five Agreeableness considered as the core trait contributing to prosocial behavior (Carlo et al., 2005), Honesty–Humility
well represents the two norms for prosocial behavior, reciprocity
and fairness (Ashton & Lee, 2007; McCullough & Tabak, 2010).
Honesty–Humility also has positive relationships with religion,
and null or weak relations with self-esteem and happiness
(Aghababaei, 2012, 2014; Aghababaei, Wasserman, & Nannini,
2014; Lee, Ogunfowora, & Ashton, 2005; MacInnis, Busseri,
Choma, & Hodson, 2013; Saroglou et al., 2005; Sibley, 2011;
Visser & Pozzebon, 2013). On the other hand, people higher on
the ‘‘dark’’ personalities are less likely to help other people. Higher
scorers on the Dark Triad traits (i.e. narcissism, psychopathy, and
Machiavellianism) are characterized by disagreeableness, dishonesty, duplicity, and aggressiveness; they report lower levels of religiosity, and typically benefit more from exploiting others, not by
helping them (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Jonason, Li, &
Teicher, 2010; Lannin, Guyll, Krizan, Madon, & Cornish, 2014;
Paulhus & White, 2002; Veselka, Schermer, & Vernon, 2012;
White, 2014). All of the Dark Triad traits include a tendency to
deceive, manipulate and exploit others. These tendencies, within
the HEXACO model of personality define the negative pole of the
H factor, Honesty–Humility (Lee et al., 2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.026
0191-8869/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of
Psychology and Education, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Dehkadeh Olympic,
Tehran, Iran. Tel.: +98 9127464750.
E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Aghababaei).
Personality and Individual Differences 67 (2014) 6–10
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
In this study, we aim to extend previous findings on prosociality
and personality by investigating whether the prosociality-religion
link remains even when we control for other predictors including
gender, Honesty–Humility, the Dark Triad and happiness. We also
are interested in the comparison of Honesty–Humility with the
Dark Triad. Because Honesty–Humility explicitly contrasts antisocial and prosocial behavior, this factor is more relevant to the Dark
Triad than any of the other HEXACO dimensions (Furnham et al.,
2013). Moreover, much of the common variance in the Dark Triad
is captured by the Honesty–Humility factor, and Honesty–Humility
has advantage over the Dirty Dozen measure of the Dark Triad in
predicting variables related to sex, power, and particularly money
(Lee et al., 2013). We want to extend this line of research to prosociality, religiosity and happiness.
Since the Dark Triad traits and the negative pole of the H factor
seem to share a core of dishonesty and disagreeableness, it is
important to determine the independent contribution of these
traits. To distinguish these traits, one cannot rely on raw correlations as the sole method of analysis; ‘‘at minimum, multiple
regression or partial correlations should be reported’’ (Furnham
et al., 2013, p. 209) to see their unique and divergent correlations
with personal and interpersonal outcomes such as happiness, religiosity, and prosociality. We expect to find positive links among
Honesty–Humility, prosociality and religiosity. Dark Triad traits,
on the other hand, are expected to negatively correlate with prosociality, religion and Honesty–Humility, but we made no hypothesis related to the independent contribution of each of these traits.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
223 employees were recruited from two private companies in
urban area of Tehran. These 133 female and 90 male had ages ranging from 18 to 57, with a mean of 31.24 (SD = 8.94), most of them
(62.3%) were married, and all of them reported to be Muslim. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous. Participants
at their convenience completed a paper-and-pencil survey package
containing the Persian versions of these measures. A five point Likert-type scale was applied for all items described in this section,
unless indicated otherwise.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen
The 12-item Dirty Dozen measure of the Dark Triad (DTDD;
Jonason & Webster, 2010) was used to measure narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. The DTDD has been shown to
have internal consistency and test–retest reliability, and construct
and convergent validity (Jonason, Kaufman, Webster, & Geher,
2013; Jonason & Luévano, 2013; Jonason & McCain, 2012;
Jonason & Webster, 2010). We replicated the factor structure of
the DTDD in the current study. Like the original measure, its Persian translation has a three-factor structure, consisting of Machiavellianism (alpha = .84; M = 1.66; SD = .88), psychopathy
(alpha = .63; M = 1.98; SD = .77), and narcissism (alpha = .84;
M = 2.93; SD = 1.1). Cronbach’s alpha for the DTDD was at .82
(M = 2.19; SD = .68).
2.2.2. The HEXACO Personality Inventory
The HEXACO factors (Honesty–Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness) were measured using the 60-item HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised
(HEXACO-60; Ashton & Lee, 2009). The HEXACO-60 has been
shown to have internal consistency reliability and convergent
validity. Coefficient alpha of the six factors ranged from .60 to .75.
2.2.3. The Prosocial Personality Battery
The 30-item Prosocial Personality Battery (PSB; Penner,
Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995) was used to assess prosocial
tendencies. Penner et al. (1995) included measures of empathy,
from Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980), to account for
this meditational variable that is often identified as an antecedent
of prosocial behavior. Therefore this scale is composed of items
that assess both empathy and prosocial behavior. The PSB consisted of these scales: social responsibility, empathy (including
empathic concern, perspective taking, and personal distress),
mutual moral reasoning, other oriented reasoning and selfreported altruism. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in the current study
for this scale was at .81.
2.2.4. The Religious Orientation Scale
The 14-item Religious Orientation Scale-Revised (Hill, 1999),
which is an adaptation of Allport and Ross’s (1967) scale, was used
to measure intrinsic (‘‘My whole approach to life is based on my
religion’’), extrinsic-personal (‘‘What religion offers me most is
comfort in times of trouble and sorrow’’), and extrinsic-social (‘‘I
go to the mosque or religious community mainly because I enjoy
seeing people I know there’’) religious orientation. This scale has
been shown to have internal consistency reliability and criterion
and construct validity (e.g. Ghorbani, Watson, Rezazadeh, &
Cunningham, 2011). Cronbach’s alphas for these three scales, in
the current study, were .79, .83, and 80, respectively.
2.2.5. The Subjective Happiness Scale
The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) which is a widely used,
4-item global assessment of happiness (Lyubomirsky & Lepper,
1999) was used to measure happiness. Each item was assessed
on a 7 point Likert scale. Sample item is ‘‘In general I consider
myself: 1 = not a very happy person to 7 = a very happy person’’.
The SHS has shown to have test–retest reliability, discriminant
and convergent validity, and internal consistency (Lyubomirsky &
Lepper, 1999). Cronbach’s alpha for the SHS in the current study
was .71.
3. Results
Table 1 shows bivariate correlations among the study variables.
As expected, prosociality was positively correlated to higher Honesty–Humility, Agreeableness, happiness and religiosity, and lower
scores on the Dark Triad. As with previous studies, men reported
higher on the Dark Triad and lower on Emotionality and religiosity.
Table 1 also shows correlations of Honesty–Humility facets to
other variables.
A series of hierarchical regressions was used to see the unique
contribution of religiosity by controlling for gender, happiness
and personality factors. In doing so, religiosity was entered (in step
2), after entering gender, happiness, HEXACO and the Dark Triad
(in step 1). After controlling for these variables, intrinsic religiosity
managed to explain additional unique variance in self-reported
prosociality (see Table 2). Using the same method for the two other
religiosity measures, the extrinsic personal religiosity accounted
for a significant portion of variance, after those variables have been
controlled (R2 = .05, b = .25; p < .01). However, controlling for gender, happiness and personality, extrinsic social religiosity failed to
account for an additional variance in prosociality (R2 = .00, b = .05;
p = .28).
We investigated the effects of Honesty–Humility and the composite Dark Triad on the other’s relation to variables under study,
N. Aghababaei et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 67 (2014) 6–10 7
by conducting partial correlation analyses (see Table 3). Results
suggest that Honesty–Humility and the Dark Triad composite both
influenced the other’s correlations. However, this effect was most
notable for the Dark Triad composite.
Finally, a series of multiple regressions was applied to determine the independent contribution of the three facets of the Dark
Triad. When shared variance between the Dark Triad traits was
controlled, Machiavellianism was the strongest predictor of prosociality and religiosity measures (see Table 4).
4. Discussion
Religious people had higher self-report levels of prosociality
and lower self-report levels of the Dark Triad. The influence of gender, happiness and personality did not negate the interpretive
value of the relationships between self-reports on religion and
prosociality. People who live their religions internalize religion’s
‘‘values of humanity, compassion, and love of neighbor’’ (Allport
& Ross, 1967, p. 441). Additionally, while social extrinsic religiosity
deals with attainment of social benefits, personal extrinsic religiosity deals with overcoming and controlling psychological troubles
and distress. In the current study, extrinsic personal orientation
follows a path similar to the intrinsic rather than the extrinsic
social orientation, which is in line with more recent findings with
non-Protestant samples (e.g. Aghababaei, 2012; Flere & Lavric,
2008). Our findings suggest that religion as a whole may not be
good for prosociality, however, mature and adjusted forms of religion (such as intrinsic religiosity) are. The findings advise researchers employing the variable religion, to distinguish between
religious attitudes that are intrinsic, extrinsic personal, and extrinsic social. Attempts to define religion as a single linear dimension
are likely too simple and can be misleading. To know a person is
religious is not as important as to know the role religion plays in
her life (Aghababaei, 2012; Allport & Ross, 1967; Cooper & Pullig,
2013).
The present study, to our knowledge, has provided the first
comparison of the H factor and the Dark Triad traits in relation
to prosociality, religion, and happiness. A limitation of research
on the Dark Triad is that many of them are atheoretical and
descriptive, and their samples tend to be drawn from college students form Western countries, which may make some findings difficult to generalize. Beyond replicating past associations (including
lower levels of the Dark Triad in women), this study gained more
knowledge about the Dark Triad within a non-Western, workplace
context. Our results showed that narcissism is the ‘‘lighter’’ side
and Machiavellianism may be the ‘‘darker’’ side of the Dark Triad
which was consistent with some previous findings. For instance,
Lee et al. (2013) found that Machiavellianism was the strongest
correlate of Honesty–Humility. Additionally, in our data the Dirty
Dozen Machiavellianism was the strongest correlate of the Honesty sub-factor, whereas narcissism was the strongest correlate
of the Humility sub-factor which is consistent both with previous
findings by Jonason and McCain (2012), and conceptualization of
narcissism as a construct related to entitlement and grandiosity.
Table 1
Intercorrelations between study variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Age 1
2. Gender .05 1
3. Prosociality .30** .16* 1
4. Happiness .06 .01 .20** 1
Religious orientation
5. Intrinsic .15* .27** .46** .02 1
6. Extrinsic personal .08 .26** .41** .08 .75** 1
7. Extrinsic social .05 .01 .05 .04 .15* .30** 1
Dark Triad scales
8. Machiavellianism .29** .20** .45** .01 .27** .17** 15* 1
9. Psychopathy .13* .20** .28** .06 .18** .13* .05 .40** 1
10. Narcissism .25** .09 .21** .07 .13* .09 .09 .27** .29** 1
11. Dirty Dozen (total) .31** .20** .42** .01 .26** .17** .04 .73** .71** .76** 1
HEXACO scales
12. Openness .03 .21** .24** .06 .06 .06 .01 .15* .18** .05 .16* 1
13. Extraversion .04 .04 .19** .45** .06 .06 .09 .08 .14* .11 .03 .25** 1
14. Agreeableness 17** .21** .43** .21** .34** .26** .01 .33** .37** .08 .32** .11 .18** 1
15. Conscientiousness .08 .21** .38** .13 .26** .23** .12 .26** .34** .04 .22** .40** .44** .32** 1
16. Emotionality .02 .22** .22** .13* .18** .14* .04 .11 .10 .07 .04 .01 .15* .06 03 1
17. Honesty–Humility 33** .19** .51** .10 .35** .19** .17** .58** .36** .36** .59** .01 .07 .40** .26** .06
Honesty–Humility facets
Sincerity .23** .15* .43** .01 .23** .11 .20** .53** .40** .18** .47** .14* .22** .33** .35** .08
Fairness .15* .15* .45** .06 .43** .35** .11 .51** .24** .02 .32** .02 .14* .40** .34** .08
Greed avoidance .19** .05 .19** .10 .09 .01 .02 .08 .07 .33** .24** .11 .11 .10 .08 .01
Modesty .27** .16* .18** .24** .07 .04 .14* .27** .17* .53** .47** .06 .14* .15* .07 .03
Note: Gender coded 1 = female and 2 = male.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
Table 2
Results of the hierarchical regression analysis in predicting prosociality.
B (SE) b R2 D R2
Step 1: .48**
Gender .07 (.05) .07
Happiness .09 (.02) .20**
Dark Triad composite .06 (.04) .09
Openness .16 (.05) .18**
Extraversion .04 (.05) .05
Agreeableness .12 (.04) .16**
Conscientiousness .12 (.05) .15*
Emotionality .18 (.04) .20**
Honesty-Humility .27 (.04) .37**
Step 2: .53** .05**
Intrinsic religiosity .15 (.03) .26**
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
8 N. Aghababaei et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 67 (2014) 6–10
‘‘Darkness’’ of a trait may also be viewed by its benefits (or lack
thereof) for others (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). In this sense, the
current study suggested that Machiavellians are less likely to
engage in altruistic prosocial behavior. However, they might
engage in prosocial actions for non-altruistic reasons such as societal pressure, or as a tactic of influence to get what they want (see
Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012). Additionally, among the Dark
Triad, only Machiavellianism was related to higher scores on
extrinsic social religiosity, showing that Machiavellians may
‘‘use’’ their religions to gain their social ends, which is consistent
with the conceptualization of Machiavellianism as a tendency to
manipulate and deceive others in social situations for personal
gain. It has been suggested, however, that Machiavellianism items
of the Dirty Dozen referring to exploitation and manipulation,
could also be psychopathy items; thus the Dirty Dozen Machiavellianism scale also or even exclusively measures psychopathy and
the psychopathy scale actually assesses Machiavellianism
(Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). In any case, since the Dirty Dozen
may be more apt for studying the Dark Triad composite rather than
the Dark Triad components (Lee et al., 2013) further research using
alternative, more comprehensive measures of the Dark Triad is
warranted to highlight the divergent personal and interpersonal
outcomes of these traits.
The fact that both high scores on Honesty–Humility, and on the
Dark Triad is not associated with happiness, suggest that being or
not being manipulative and exploitive of others although each may
have some adaptive advantages, has nothing to do with one’s own
subjective well-being. Further research using multiple methods of
measurement, studying other cultures is necessary to confirm, and
test the generalizability of our findings, however.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Michael Ashton, Jason Adam Wasserman, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier
drafts of this manuscript.
References
Aghababaei, N. (2012). Religious, honest and humble: Looking for the religious
person within the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and
Individual Differences, 53(7), 880–883.
Aghababaei, N. (2014). God, the good life, and HEXACO: The relations among
religion, subjective well-being and personality. Mental Health, Religion &
Culture, 17(3), 284–290.
Aghababaei, N., Wasserman, J. A., & Nannini, D. (2014). The religious person
revisited: Cross-cultural evidence from the HEXACO model of personality
structure. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 17(1), 24–29.
Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., BiswasDiener, R., et al. (2013). Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural
evidence for a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 104(4), 635–652.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of
the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 11, 150–166.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major
dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345.
Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In T. Millon &
M. J. Lerner (Eds.). Handbook of psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 463–484). New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Carlo, G., Okun, M. A., Knight, G. P., & de Guzman, M. R. T. (2005). The interplay of
traits and motives on volunteering: Agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial
value motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1293–1305.
Cooper, M. J., & Pullig, C. (2013). I’m number one! Does narcissism impair ethical
judgment even for the highly religious? Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1),
167–176.
Table 3
Zero-order and partial correlations between Honesty–Humility, composite Dark Triad, and other variables.
H factor H factor (control for Dirty Dozen) Dirty Dozen Dirty Dozen (control for the H factor)
Happiness .10 .14 .01 .09
Prosociality variables
Social Responsibility .43** .35** .30** .09
Empathic Concern .41** .30** .30** .08
Perspective Taking .19** .20** .11 .05
Personal Distress .11 .06 .10 .09
Mutual Moral Reasoning .39** .22** .40** .20**
Other Oriented Reasoning .41** .21** .44** .25**
Self-reported altruism .21** .16* .19** .03
Prosociality (Total) .51** .39** .42** .16*
Religious Orientation
Intrinsic .35** .23** .26** .04
Extrinsic personal .19** .11 .17** .04
Extrinsic social .17** .19** .04 .06
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < .0.01.
Table 4
Regressions predicting happiness, prosociality and religiosity from the Dark Triad.
Dark Triad Happiness Prosociality Religious orientation
SR EC PT PD OOR MMR SRA Total In Ep Es
Machiavellianism .01 .36** .32** .02 .13 .30** .34** .14 .38** .22** .13 .17*
Psychopathy .08 .03 .07 .14 .01 .19** .13 .04 .09 .06 .07 .02
Narcissism 0.7 .02 .01 .01 .01 .05 .11 .14* .08 .07 .03 .15*
R2 .01 .14** .13** .02 .01 .19** .22** .04* .22** .08** .03* .03*
Note: SR, Social Responsibility; EC, Empathic Concern; PT, Perspective Taking; PD, Personal Distress; OOR, Other Oriented Reasoning; MMR, Mutual Moral Reasoning; SRA,
Selfreported altruism; In, intrinsic; Ep, extrinsic personal; Es, extrinsic social.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
N. Aghababaei et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 67 (2014) 6–10 9
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in
empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Flere, S., & Lavric, M. (2008). Is intrinsic religious orientation a culturally specific
American Protestant concept? The fusion of intrinsic and extrinsic religious
orientation among non-Protestants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38,
521–530.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A
10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216.
Galen, L. W. (2012). Does religious belief promote prosociality? A critical
examination. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 876–906.
Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Rezazadeh, Z., & Cunningham, C. J. L. (2011). Dialogical
validity of religious measures in Iran: Relationships with integrative selfknowledge and self-control of the ‘‘Perfect Man’’ (Ensa¯n-e Ka¯mel). Archive for
the Psychology of Religion, 33, 93–113.
Hideg, I. (2012). The effects of up-regulated happiness on others’ prosocial behavior:
The role of cultural thinking style. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of
Toronto.
Hill, P. C. (1999). Religious Orientation Scale-Revised (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989).
In P. C. Hill., & R. W. Hood, jr. (Eds.), Measures of religiosity. Birmingham:
Religious Education Press.
Jonason, P. K., Kaufman, S. B., Webster, G. D., & Geher, G. (2013). What lies beneath
the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen: Varied relations with the Big Five. Individual
Differences Research, 11(2), 81–90.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Teicher, E. A. (2010). Who is James Bond? The Dark Triad as
an agentic social style. Individual Differences Research, 8(2), 111–120.
Jonason, P. K., & Luévano, V. X. (2013). Walking the thin line between efficiency and
accuracy: Validity and structural properties of the Dirty Dozen. Personality and
Individual Differences, 55, 76–81.
Jonason, P. K., & McCain, J. (2012). Using the HEXACO model to test the validity of
the Dirty Dozen measure of the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences,
53, 935–938.
Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic
employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449–453.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the
Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432.
LaBouff, J. P., Rowatt, W. C., Johnson, M. K., Tsang, J., & McCullough Willerton, G.
(2011). Humble persons are more helpful than less humble persons: Evidence
from three studies. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(1), 16–29.
Lannin, D. G., Guyll, M., Krizan, Z., Madon, S., & Cornish, M. (2014). When are
grandiose and vulnerable narcissists least helpful? Personality and Individual
Differences, 56, 127–132.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., & Gallucci, A. (2013).
Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty–Humility.
European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 169–184.
Lee, K., Ogunfowora, B., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Personality traits beyond the Big
Five: Are they within the HEXACO space? Journal of Personality, 73(5),
1437–1463.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness:
Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2),
137–156.
MacInnis, C. C., Busseri, M. A., Choma, B. L., & Hodson, G. (2013). The happy cyclist:
Examining the association between generalized authoritarianism and
subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 789–793.
McCullough, M. E., & Tabak, B. A. (2010). Prosocial behavior. In R. F. Baumeister & E.
J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 263–302).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Paulhus, D. L., & White, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36,
556–563.
Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995). Measuring the
prosocial personality. In J. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.). Advances in
personality assessment (Vol. 10, pp. 147–163). New Jersey: LEA.
Pichon, I., Boccato, G., & Saroglou, V. (2007). Nonconscious influences of religion on
prosociality: A priming study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37,
1032–1045.
Pichon, I., & Saroglou, V. (2009). Religion and helping: Impact of target thinking
styles and just-world beliefs. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 31, 215–236.
Preston, J. L., & Ritter, R. S. (2013). Different effects of religion and God on
prosociality with the ingroup and outgroup. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 39, 1471–1483.
Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How ‘‘dark’’ are the Dark Triad traits?
Examining the perceived darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and
psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 884–889.
Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2013). Positioning the Dark Triad in the
interpersonal circumplex: The friendly-dominant narcissist, hostilesubmissive Machiavellian, and hostile-dominant psychopath? Personality and
Individual Differences, 54(5), 622–627.
Saroglou, V. (2012). Is religion not prosocial at all? Comment on Galen (2012).
Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 907–912.
Saroglou, V., Pichon, I., Trompette, L., Verschueren, M., & Dernelle, R. (2005).
Prosocial behavior and religion: New evidence based on projective measures
and peer ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(3), 323–348.
Sibley, C. G. (2011). The BIAS–Treatment Scale (BIAS–TS): A measure of the
subjective experience of active and passive harm and facilitation. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 93(3), 300–315.
Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). The Dark Triad and an expanded
framework of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 417–425.
Visser, B. A., & Pozzebon, J. A. (2013). Who are you and what do you want? Life
aspirations, personality, and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences,
54(2), 266–271.
White, B. A. (2014). Who cares when nobody is watching? Psychopathic traits and
empathy in prosocial behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 56,
116–121.
10 N. Aghababaei et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 67 (2014) 6–10