THE DARK TRIAD IN PERSONNEL SELECTION: AN

EXPLORATION OF NARCISSISM, PSYCHOPATHY, AND

MACHIAVELLIANISM IN CANDIDATES INVOLVED IN
AN ORGANISATIONAL SELECTION PROCESS.

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the Degree

of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology

in the University of Canterbury

by Geoff Sutton

Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury

2019

Supervisors
Dr Joana Kuntz
Professor Katharina Näswall
 i

Table of Contents i

Acknowledgements vi

Abstract vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Dark Triad Theory, and Research: Current Standards in Personnel

Selection 5
2.1.1 Narcissism 5
Definitions of Narcissism 6
Theoretical Foundations of Narcissism 6
Structure of Narcissism 6
Associations between Narcissism and Other Constructs 7
2.1.2 Psychopathy 9
Definitions of Psychopathy 9
Structure of Psychopathy 10
Associations between Psychopathy and Other Constructs 11
2.1.3 Machiavellianism 12
Definitions of Machiavellianism 12
Structure of Machiavellianism 13
Associations between Machiavellianism and Other Constructs 14
2.2 Clinical vs Sub-Clinical Personality 16
2.3 Sub-Clinical Dark Triad Traits and Their Associations with Other Constructs 17
2.3.1 Sub-Clinical Narcissism 18
2.3.2 Sub-Clinical Psychopathy 20
2.3.3 Sub-Clinical Machiavellianism 23
2.3.4 The Dark Triad 26
2.4 Measures of the Dark Triad 29
2.4.1 Measures of Narcissism 30
2.4.2 Measures of Psychopathy 30
2.4.3 Measures of Machiavellianism 31
2.4.4 Combined Measures 32
2.5 Personnel Selection 33
Chapter 3: The Dark Triad and Success on Personnel Selection 36
3.1.1 The Dark Triad 38
Machiavellianism 38
Narcissism 39
Psychopathy 40
3.1.2 The Dark Triad in Personnel Selection 41
3.1.3 Personnel Selection Systems 42
 ii

3.2 Methods 44
3.2.1 Participants and Procedure 44
Timeline of AC 46
3.2.2 Measures 46
Dark Triad Measure 46
Ratings of Stress 47
Outcome Ratings 48
3.3 Results 48
3.4 Discussion 52
3.4.1 Limitations and Directions for Future Research 55
3.5 Conclusions 56
Chapter 4: Peer Observations of the Dark Triad 57
4.1.1 Dark Triad and Destructive Leader Behaviour 60
4.1.2 Dark Triad and Other-Ratings of Behaviour 61
4.2 Methods 64
4.2.1 Participants and Procedure 64
4.2.2 Measures 65
Dark Triad Measure 65
Peer Measures of the Dark Triad 65
Peer Ratings of Team Leader Competencies 66
4.3 Results 67
4.4 Discussion 72
4.4.1 Limitations 75
4.5 Conclusions 76
Chapter 5: The Dark Triad and Expert Ratings of Performance 78
5.1 Introduction 78
5.1.1 The Dark Triad 78
5.1.2 The Use of Competencies in Personnel Selection 79
5.2 Methods 84
5.2.1 Participants and Procedure 84
Participants 84
Assessors 84
5.2.2 Measures 85
The Dark Triad 85
Competencies 86
5.3 Results 88
5.4 Discussion 91
5.4.1 Limitations and Directions for Future Research 94
5.5 Conclusions 95
 iii

Chapter 6: The Dark Triad and Expert Recommendations on Assessment Centres 96

6.1.1 Performance and the Dark Triad 96
6.2 Method 98
6.2.1 Participants and Measures 98
6.3 Results 98
6.4 Discussion 100
6.4.1 Limitations 102
6.5 Conclusions 103
Chapter 7: General Discussion 104
7.1 Overall Results and Themes 104
7.2 Implications for Personnel Selection Decisions 106
7.3 Self- vs Other- Perception of the Dark Triad 109
7.4 The Dark Triad and Leadership Competencies 114
7.5 Methodological Considerations 115
7.6 Final Conclusions 119
References 120
 iv

List of Figures
Figure 1: Structural Model of Dark Triad Traits. 28
Figure 2: Timeline of Data Collection with Variables used in this Study in Bold and 46
Underlined.
Figure 3: Plotted Interaction of Stress on Relationship between Machiavellianism at 51
T1 and T2.
Figure 4: Plotted Interaction of Stress on Relationship between Psychopathy at T1 52
and T2.
Figure 5: Plotted Interaction of Stress on Relationship between Narcissism at T1 and 52
T2.
Figure 6: Timeline of Data Collection with Variables used in this Study in Bold and 65
Underlined.
Figure 7: Alternative Attribution Model of Peer-Observation of Dark Triad Behaviours. 110
Figure 8: Alternative Attribution Model of Self-Observation of Dark Triad Behaviours. 110
 v

List of Tables

Table 1: Dark Triad Characteristics across Traits. 28

Table 2: Correlates between Dark Triad Traits at Time 1 and Time 2. 47

Table 3: Logistic Regression for Dark Triad at T1 Predicting Assessment Centre 49

Success.

Table 4: Repeated-Measures ANOVA of T1 vs T2 Self-Reported Dark Triad. 50

Table 5: Repeated Measures ANOVA Demonstrating Change of Dark Triad 51

Traits Over Time by Stress Levels

Table 6: Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Peer Ratings of Dark 67

Triad Traits.

Table 7: Repeated Measures ANOVA of Self- vs –Peer- Reports of Dark 68

Triad Traits.

Table 8: Correlations between Self- Reported Dark Triad and Team Leader 69
Competencies.

Table 9: Multiple Regression of Dark Triad Traits Predicting Team 71

Leader Competencies.

Table 10: Competencies Used in this Study and their Definitions. 87

Table 11: Example Competency Scale Used in this Study Showing 87

Conceptual Statements and Example Behaviours.

Table 12: Multiple Regression of Dark Triad Traits Predicting TE and 89

SME Initial Competency Ratings.

Table 13: Multiple Regression of Dark Triad Traits Predicting TE and 90

SME Final Competency Ratings.

Table 14: Logistic Regression of Dark Triad Traits Predicting TE and SME 99
Recommendations.
 vi

Acknowledgements

Ehara taku toa, he takitahi, he toa takitini

My success should not be bestowed onto me alone, as it was not individual success but
success of a collective

I wish to thank several individuals for their support throughout the development and

construction of this thesis. Firstly, my tolerant supervisors who provided me with direction,

and understanding, and the appreciation of being flexible. At times obstacles arose which

were challenging in the least and depressing at the most. My supervisors developed my

optimism and agility which enabled a new way forward for which I am continually grateful.

My wife sat through my musings, explanations, and frustrations without judgement; provided

the time and space to complete key pieces; and gave me a drive to finish by reminding me

that “This isn’t forever” (i.e. “You better be finished soon!”). My fellow students allowed me

the space to engage in conversation, and provided me with a wall to bounce concepts and

theories off. Collectively, they all contributed to the formation of ideas, experiences, and

processes associated with this thesis. Consequently, this piece of work is more than just my

own, and I consider it to belong to those who contributed, rather than any one person.
 vii

Abstract
As a first point of entry into an organisation, personnel selection is an important tool to identify

positive and negative characteristics of job candidates. Three such negative characteristics are

Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, also known as the Dark Triad. These three traits reflect

a core of callous self-interest, and have been associated with manipulation, deceit, self-promoting

strategies, and interpersonal conflict. The Dark Triad represents a risk for organisations in terms of how

those possessing high levels of DT may manifest damaging behaviours when entering or existing within

the workplace context. As of yet, few studies have examined how the Dark Triad manifests within a

personnel selection context. Consequently, this thesis examined how aspects such as selection

outcomes, peer ratings of leadership competencies, and performance ratings were related to self-

reported Dark Triad scores over the course of a five day assessment centre in a large public sector

organisation. The main research question investigated in this thesis was how the Dark Triad is related

to personnel selection outcomes, in particular how Dark Triad traits are related to others’ perceptions

of behaviour. Results revealed that narcissism was perceived positively by others, and was related

positively to success on selection. In contrast, psychopathy had negative relationships with a number of

outcome variables including success on selection, peer-ratings of effort and comradeship, and ratings

of awareness of others. Peer-ratings of the Dark Triad were found to be lower than self-rated Dark Triad

scores. Final recommendations by expert assessors were positively related to narcissism but negatively

related to psychopathy, in line with expectations. These results respond to research questions associated

with how the Dark Triad is related to selection outcomes and perceptions of others, identifying three

main themes which have emerged from this thesis. Firstly, success of job candidates is more positively

associated with the narcissism trait, while psychopathy was detrimental to the success on the selection

process. The second theme was associated with the differences between peer ratings of the Dark Triad

and self-ratings of the Dark Triad with individuals rating themselves higher on the Dark Triad. Lastly,

in general, narcissism was perceived as more preferable by others while psychopathy more

unfavourably. The implications noted in the final chapter relate to organisations considering screening

options to identify those scoring high on Dark Triad measures, and the impact on selection decisions

particularly for public sector organisations which tend to rely on a hierarchical structure. In addition,
 viii

how others might report on perceived Dark Triad behaviour, and the ways in which ratings of leadership

competencies are related to Dark Triad traits are aspects organisations may also wish to consider. These

implications are limited by lower than expected effect sizes, and thusly further studies examining these

outcomes may provide a clarity on the relationships identified in this thesis. Practitioners may consider

taking note of the main Dark Triad traits associated with selection outcomes, as well as how Dark Triad

traits may be initially perceived positively by peers and subject matter experts alike.
 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The workplace can be a place of great social support, where colleagues face challenges

together through shared experiences. It can also be a place of great distress, where instances of

bullying, intimidation, discrimination, maltreatment, and victimisation by co-workers and

leaders alike may occur. Personality research has long attempted to understand whether and

how individual differences contribute to these negative workplace experiences (Dalal, 2005;

Hershcovis et al., 2007; Marcus, Taylor, Hastings, Sturm, & Weigelt, 2016). While

predominant personality frameworks (i.e. the Big Five) are useful in explaining more general

characteristics, scholars have called for frameworks of more specific negative traits that may

explain dysfunctional workplace behaviours (Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009). Growing

research examining sub-clinical elements of socially aversive personality traits, more widely

known as “dark personality”, suggests that these traits may significantly impact on

organisational outcomes (Furnham, Richards, Rangel, & Jones, 2014; Muris, Merckelbach,

Otgaar, & Meijer, 2017; Spain, Harms, & LeBreton, 2014; Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016). Dark

personalities have defining features, including social malevolence, self-promotion, lack of

empathy, and aggressiveness (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016).

Research into dark personality has tended to focus on a specific group known as the Dark Triad,

which consists of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy traits (Paulhus & Williams,

2002). This research has recently begun to explore the impact of the Dark Triad on

organisational behaviour (e.g., LeBreton & Shiverdecker, 2018; Muris et al., 2017).

The Dark Triad is associated with an unkind and callous approach to others, and an

emphasis on ensuring personal gain over the wellbeing of others (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

For example, those scoring higher on measures of Machiavellianism tend to have a cynical

approach to others, deceit, and want to engage in manipulation to achieve their goals (Jones &

Paulhus, 2009). Further, those scoring high on measures of psychopathy tend to be cold and
 2

callous, and have an impulsive nature, even though they may come across as charming (Hare

& Neumann, 2006). People with narcissistic traits are grandiose, overly confident, needing

constant admiration and validation, and can be vengeful if they feel they have been wronged

in some way (Campbell, Campbell, Hoffman, & Marchisio, 2011).

The Dark Triad has demonstrated consistent negative associations with well-established

positive personality traits, namely agreeableness and conscientiousness (Lee & Ashton, 2005,

2014; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Within organisations, research on the Dark Triad has

focused on the relationship between dark traits, work behaviours, and workplace outcomes

(Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011). For example, high scores on Machiavellianism have been

associated with a number of workplace variables, such as charisma (Coie, Dodge, &

Kupersmidt, 1990), money and power orientation (Stewart & Stewart, 2006), goal

achievement, and extreme competitiveness (Ryckman, Thornton, & Butler, 1994).

Psychopathy has been associated to reduced productivity (Clarke, 2005), corporate bullying

(Baughman, Dearing, Giammarco, & Vernon, 2012), and general leadership derailment

(Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Narcissism has been linked to extraversion, self-confidence, and

charisma in the workplace (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984), but also with lack of leadership

integrity (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008). In sum, the Dark Triad shows significant

associations with both positive and negative outcomes in occupational settings.

Of relevance in the organisational space, few studies of the Dark Triad have examined a)

all its traits simultaneously, and b) the Dark Triad in the context of important organisational

processes and outcomes. While no studies have examined the Dark Triad in an applied selection

context, only one study to date has examined the Dark Triad in a personnel selection setting

(Paulhus, Westlake, Calvez, & Harms, 2013). The results from the Paulhus et al. (2013) study

suggest that, despite the potential for long-term deleterious effects of dark traits at work, these

traits may benefit job applicants through the projection of positive features, namely competence
 3

and assertiveness (Paulhus et al., 2013). The organisational costs of contending with aversive

workplace behaviours (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006) highlight the need to further

explore whether and under what circumstances organisations might place themselves at greater

risk of selecting individuals with potentially destructive personalities. As only student samples

have been used to investigate the Dark Triad in a selection context, studies conducted with

organisational samples would provide the field of dark personality research with important

insights. Further, as the majority of studies on the Dark Triad rely on self-report measures,

psychometric issues associated with biases that may affect accurate responses, such as common

method bias for example, continue to trouble the literature (Piedmont, McCrae, Riemann, &

Angleitner, 2000). Overall, a number of gaps have appeared in Dark Triad research which

provide opportunities to further develop knowledge about how this malevolent personality trio

operates within an organisational context.

To further our understanding of the Dark Triad in organisational settings, this thesis will

analyse data collected from job candidates taking part in an intense five-day Assessment

Centre. The aim of this research is to examine how the Dark Triad impacts on personnel

selection decisions, while also investigating how external perceptions of the Dark Triad (i.e.

peer or observer perceptions) may differ from self-appraisals. Chapter 2 will provide a detailed

overview and discussion of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism traits, with a focus

on these traits in an organisational context. Contemporary personnel selection methods will

also be discussed in this chapter, in relation to their capacity to identify Dark Triad traits.

Following on from this, four studies will examine how the Dark Triad functions in the selection

context, with a final chapter summarising this research and the practical implications for

organisations.
 4

Study 1

Study 1 (Chapter 3) examines whether the Dark Triad impacts on candidate success

during a robust assessment centre, as assessed by Subject Matter Experts. This study also

investigates whether cognitive load produced through high pressure situations has an impact

on trait self-representation of dark personality trait scores.

Study 2

Study 2 (Chapter 4) examines how fellow candidates on an assessment centre perceive

Dark Triad traits in a selection context, and whether this perception contrasts with self-

appraisals of these traits. In addition, the relationship between Dark Triad traits and peer

perception of team leadership competencies is also examined to establish if Dark Triad traits

relate to perceptions of leadership qualities.

Studies 3 and 4

Building on the findings from Study 1 and 2, Study 3 (Chapter 5) and Study 4 (Chapter

6) seek to establish if the Dark Triad is associated with expert key performance indicators, such

as competencies and recommendations during an assessment centre. Specifically, Study 3 looks

at whether levels of Dark Triad traits are reflected in competency ratings by expert raters. In

addition, Study 4 examines final assessment centre recommendations based on behavioural

observation data and how they relate to Dark Triad scores.

Following on from Chapters 5 and 6, Chapter 7 offers an integrative discussion of the

main findings from the four studies, identifying key themes across studies and implications for

research and practice. Specifically, this chapter condenses findings from the studies, outlines

the implications for organisations, describes methodological considerations, in addition to

presenting an alternative attribution theory.

 5

Chapter 2: Dark Triad background, theory, and research; current standards in

Assessment and selection.

This chapter provides a discussion of the collection of dark personality traits known as

the Dark Triad. As mentioned previously, the Dark Triad consists of narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, all traits which share callousness and self-interest as their

central feature (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). All three traits will be described in terms of their

theoretical underpinnings, structure of each trait, and known relationships the traits have with

variables of interest in the general population such as aggression and delinquency, socio-

emotional deficits, antisocial tactics, and interpersonal problems (Muris Merckelbach, Otgaar,

& Meijer, 2017). Following the descriptions of the Dark Triad, personnel selection will be

discussed as one of the contexts within which the Dark Triad can manifest on and affect

outcomes.

2.1 Clinical Bases of Dark Triad Traits

2.1.1 Narcissism

Greek legend tells of a youth, known as Narcissus, who was so attractive that when he

saw his reflection in the water he immediately fell in love with himself. Sadly, he could only

gaze at his own image and died pining away for his unattainable love (Hamilton, 2009). The

concept of narcissism has been widely investigated by scholars and clinicians alike, particularly

how this trait plays out in different contexts (Buelow & Brunell, 2014; Campbell et al., 2011;

Emmons, 1987; Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis, & Fraley, 2015; Kubarych, Deary, &

Austin, 2004; Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017). The introduction of the concept of

excessive self-love into psychological descriptions of disorder and dysfunction has driven the

interest in narcissism (Reynolds & Lejuez, 2012), yet several controversies associated with

how narcissism is defined remain a concern for narcissism research (Miller, Lynam, et al.,

2017).
 6

Definitions of Narcissism

The current definition of clinical narcissistic personality disorder adopted by the

American Psychiatric Association (APA) within the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual (DSM-V) describes a grandiose individual who is entitled and expectant of

praise, believes they are special or unique, has fantasies of limitless achievement, and needs

constant appreciation (APA, 2013).

Theoretical Foundations of Narcissism

In contrast to other models of personality, the understanding of clinical narcissism is

drawn from psychoanalytic theory (Campbell, Brunell, & Finkel, 2006). For example,

predominant models of personality, such as the Big Five, tend to be derived from natural

language descriptors, rather than empirically founded or tested within clinical groups

(Campbell, Goodie, & Foster, 2004). As such, psychoanalytic theory has influenced how the

concept of narcissism was developed and defined. Subsequent iterations of the DSM have

extended the original definition of narcissism described from a psychoanalytic perspective, to

include patterns of grandiose thinking, need for attention and admiration, and a lack of empathy

(Reynolds & Lejuez, 2012). These characteristics indicate how the construct of narcissism is

currently defined, conceptualised, and measured within a population.

Structure of Narcissism

Research examining clinical narcissism has primarily identified two factors or sub-types

to narcissism, indicating differences in relationship orientation, ego impact, guilt, and affect

regulation (Russ & Shedler, 2013). Those scoring high on measures of vulnerable narcissism

tend to experience feelings of superiority which conceal a fragile ego and low confidence,

resulting in severe fluctuations between overconfidence and dominance, and feelings of

betrayal, over-sensitivity, helplessness, and anxiety (Reynolds & Lejuez, 2012). In contrast,

high levels of grandiose narcissism describes those who demonstrate overt dominance and
 7

aggression, are more likely to be directly expressive of their superiority, are exploitative, and

can be ruthless and vengeful (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Malesza & Kaczmarek, 2018).

Researchers have suggested that the common definition and understanding of narcissism

describes largely the extraverted ‘grandiose’ type, and focuses less on the anxious and

psychologically fragile vulnerable type (Miller, Lynam, et al., 2017). As such, this may skew

the conceptual definition of the narcissistic trait, and likely narrow the scope of measurement

tools to consider primarily the grandiose type.

Associations Between Narcissism and Other Constructs

It is important to consider how narcissism is related to other variables, as this identifies

the effects of narcissism for individuals across situations and contexts. Several studies have

found immediate, self-serving benefits for narcissism, however other studies have highlighted

the detrimental impact of the trait in the long run (e.g., Miller, Campbell, & Pilkonis, 2007).

For example, narcissism has been associated with positive outcomes such as well-being

(Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004), leadership charisma (Khoo & Burch,

2008), and the number and size of company procurements (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). In

addition, narcissism has also demonstrated positive relationships with outcomes such as poor

decision-making (Campbell, Goodie, & Foster, 2004; Foster & Trimm, 2008; Vazire & Funder,

2006), self-perception of a higher academic ability (Robins & Beer, 2001) and taking credit for

others’ work (Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000), highlighting the deleterious effects

of this trait.

In terms of predominant personality models such as the Big Five, research has found that

narcissism is linked to high levels of extraversion, low levels of general agreeableness, and low

levels of neuroticism (Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Trull & McCrae, 2002). This contrasts with

the DSM–V, which presents a model of clinical narcissism linked to higher levels of

neuroticism with no specifically stated relationship with extraversion (Miller & Campbell,
 8

2007). Acknowledging that the Big Five represents normal personality rather than a clinical

representation, the alternative model of personality disorder outlined in Section III of the

DSM–V highlights the scaled nature of personality, illustrating the link between clinical and

‘normal’ personality. Thus, given the sub-clinical nature of the Big Five and the multifactorial

nature of clinical narcissism, these varied findings support differences between clinical and

sub-clinical manifestations of narcissism.

Over the past 30 years, the mean levels of narcissism have increased, demonstrating

generational differences in the trait. For example, scholars have questioned whether younger

generations feel more entitled than previous generations, given a general increase in narcissism

scores over time in young populations (Twenge & Foster, 2010; Twenge, Konrath, Foster,

Keith Campbell, & Bushman, 2008). Specifically, young adult participants tended to score

higher on measures of narcissism when compared to a similar age group decades earlier, with

over 60% of same-age participants in a 2006 sample scoring higher than the 1979-1985 sample.

Potential causes for this increase have only been hypothesised as indicating a social effect of

increased entitlement, vanity, and ego inflation over time (Twenge et al., 2008), with a call for

more longitudinal research to expose factors contributing to this trend. In contrast, other

researchers have suggested this difference is not attributable to generational differences, and

more a function of changing demographics such as being more self-obsessed (Twenge &

Foster, 2008) and greater economic prosperity (Bianchi, 2014), as well as measurement

differences in tools like the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Trzesniewski, Donnellan, &

Robins, 2008; Wetzel et al., 2017). This debate is of interest to organisations, as the

employment group associated with junior leaders is likely to consist of younger generations.

As such, it may be worthwhile examining narcissism among the younger workforce and

explore whether narcissism is of concern for managers and workforce leaders.

 9

2.1.2 Psychopathy

Definitions of Psychopathy

In 1941, Harvey Cleckley outlined his thoughts about psychopathy in his book “The Mask

of Sanity”. He depicted psychopaths as normally functioning individuals who, under closer

examination, displayed characteristics which resulted in harm to others. These behaviours

included an inability to build firm relationships and emotional attachment in general, a lack of

caring or consideration for others, early delinquent and antisocial behaviours including

impulsivity, and a superficial charm. More specifically, Cleckley outlined 16 characteristics

associated with psychopathy, and described these characteristics along three domains:

interpersonal (grandiose, manipulative, domineering), affective (superficial emotions, unable

to establish and maintain relationships, callous), and behavioural (impulsivity, risk taking,

distractible).

In a more recent effort, Hare and Neumann (2008) described psychopaths as “human

predators who coldly, callously, and ruthlessly use charm, deceit, manipulation, threats,

intimidation, and violence to dominate and control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs

and desires” (p. 3). Clinical nomenclature in the DSM-V (APA, 2013) defines psychopathy as

a specifier of Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), and describes psychopathy more

generally than Hare and Neumann (2006) as characterised by withdrawal, attention seeking,

and low anxiety.

Standardised screening tools such as the Psychopathy Checklist (Revised) or PCL-R

(Hare, 2003) have enabled the development of a more refined conceptualisation of psychopathy

as a personality construct due to the general acceptance of the scale amongst researchers and

clinicians (Hare & Neumann, 2008). This has allowed the configuration of psychopathy to be

better understood, and its components recognised in more widely. Despite the considerable

amounts of research driving a more standardised understanding of psychopathy, the definition

 10

of psychopathy as a general pathological syndrome has remained varied (Hare & Neumann,

2008) and represents a lack of definitive agreement of what the psychopathy construct

comprises.

Structure of Psychopathy

When examining the structure of psychopathy, factor analyses on the ‘gold standard’ of

psychopathy measurement, the PCL-R (Hare & Neumann, 2006) have found two, three and

four distinct factors (Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005; Hare, Hart, & Harpur,

1991; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989). The bulk of the literature defines psychopathy as

comprising of two factors (e.g., Muris, et al., 2017). Factor one is associated with the

emotional-interpersonal aspects of psychopathy, and includes glibness/superficial emotions,

lying and/or manipulation, a lack of remorse/guilt, and general callousness. The second factor

relates mainly to a antisocial and socially aversive lifestyle. This social aversion includes

excitement-seeking, impulsivity, and irresponsibility as the main features of this factor (Hare

et al., 1991). This division is of interest when studying the effects of psychopathic personality,

as relationships with outcomes vary depending on the factor considered. For example, the

association between Anti-social Personality Disorder and psychopathy appears to be stronger

with the antisocial factor (factor two), and weaker with relationship with the emotional-

interpersonal factor (factor one) (Hare, 1996). Similarly, intellect has been found to have

different associations with psychopathy factors, with a small positive association between

verbal and fluid intellect and the emotional-interpersonal factor but a negative relationship with

the antisocial factor (Salekin, Neumann, Leistico, & Zalot, 2004). These findings are of

relevance to organisations interested in understanding how some traits may interact with other

characteristics to produce harmful outcomes. For example, the interaction between intelligence

and psychopathy is associated with sub-optimal decision making, resulting in an inconsistent

work history (Babiak & Hare, 2007), higher levels of unemployment (Andersen, Sestoft,
 11

Lillebaek, Mortensen, & Kramp, 1999) and higher levels of counterproductive workplace

behaviours (O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012).

Associations Between Psychopathy and Other Constructs

In Cleckley’s (1941) description of psychopathy, several characteristics were specified

as comprising psychopathy, such as a lack of nervousness, an unreliable nature, superficial

charm, and “good intelligence”. The inclusion of an intellectual characteristic is of interest

given research associated with this construct has found mixed relationships with traditional

measures of intellect (e.g., Hare, 2003; DeLisi, Vaughn, Beaver, & Wright, 2010; Spironelli,

Segre, Stegagno, & Angrilli, 2014). As mentioned previously, some aspects of psychopathy

have been found to relate negatively with verbal intelligence (DeLisi et al., 2010; Salekin et

al., 2004). However, it is thought that the factor associated with emotional-interpersonal

aspects benefits the individual by granting them extra cognitive space to navigate deceitful or

manipulative strategies in order to profit from this tactic (DeLisi et al., 2010). This is related to

so called “cheater theories” (i.e. dishonesty in mating contexts e.g., Carter, Campbell, &

Muncer, 2014; Jonason, Lyons, Baughman, & Vernon, 2014) and may be relevant in the

personnel selection process given the motivation and opportunities for deceit in this setting.

The fact that psychopathy is associated with both negative and positive outcomes

indicates that the trait may be considered adaptive in some respects. For example, psychopathic

elements such as charisma and confidence (the flip side to manipulation and grandiosity), or

quick and rational decision making (akin to impulsive and callous traits) may be considered

adaptive in the high pressure corporate world (Babiak et al., 2010). While adaptive

characteristics have been suggested in the literature (e.g., Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012),

limited amounts of research have supported a benefit for others, with typically long term

negative consequences highlighted for individuals demonstrating psychopathic traits (Muris,

et al., 2017; Lebreton, et al., 2018).

 12

2.1.3 Machiavellianism

Definition of Machiavellianism

The construct of Machiavellianism takes its name from the 16th century Italian political

advisor Niccolò Machiavelli who, in his book ‘The Prince’ (Machiavelli, 1532), professed an

approach of taking advantage of others as a method to control them. In essence, Machiavelli

suggested that an effective leader should consider, and indeed employ, any tactics which would

achieve a favourable outcome, including lying, deceit, and any other manipulative strategies

(Jones & Paulhus, 2009). This resulted in a perspective in which the ends justifies the means,

and the use of manipulation as a key tactic in achieving one’s aim. As Machiavelli put his

perspective:

One can say this in general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful,

timid of danger and avid of profit […] Love is a bond of obligation and these miserable

creatures break whenever it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of

punishment that never passes. (p. 68)

This highlights the essence of Machiavelli’s cynical approach, taking every opportunity

for manipulation, selfishness, competitiveness, and winning at any cost, lest the leader succumb

to their empathetic nature (Jones & Paulhus, 2009).

As a psychological construct, Machiavellianism was initially studied as a personality trait

by Christie and Geis in 1970. They outlined their concept of a psychological trait which was

characteristic of the wider population rather than just leaders, and also more than a description

of a psychopathology but a descriptor of attitude, approach, and perception (Bereczkei, 2018).

Their book Studies in Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970) described five main traits

associated with Machiavellianism: deceit and manipulation, unethical approach, cynicism, a

lack of emotional consideration for others, and a lack of empathy. These characteristics are
 13

underpinned by an individual need for power and control, which drives the use of tactics to

justify behaviours associated with Machiavellianism. Others have conceptualised

Machiavellianism as consisting of four aspects, including a scepticism of others’ intentions,

requiring status and control, and a lack of ethical consideration (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy,

2009). LeBreton et al. (2018) generated a similar list of descriptors, encompassing lack of

empathy, unethical decision making, agentic drive, and lower levels of affect. The common

themes in the definitions describe an individual who is exploitative, manipulative, deceitful,

ruthless, and driven by selfish achievement (Jones & Paulhus, 2009).

Structure of Machiavellianism

While Machiavellianism is often reported as a single omnibus score (LeBreton et al.,

2018), the different facets that comprise the trait may be useful in understanding the behaviours

associated with this trait. The original survey designed to measure Machiavellianism, known

as the MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), included three components: manipulative

approaches, sceptical view of others, and a contempt for ethical decisions (Muris et al., 2017).

Other research has found a single factor (Kuo & Marsella, 1977), four factors (Corral &

Calvete, 2000), and even a five factor solution (Ahmed & Stewart, 1981). On the back of the

varied factor structures, scholars have speculated that the MACH-IV scale lacks a factorial

structure, suggesting a single factor is predominantly used in research (Panitz, 1989). Despite

the lack of agreement of the structure of Machiavellianism when using the MACH-IV scale,

the MACH-IV remains the most widely used Machiavellianism scale used for research

(LeBreton et al., 2018, Muris et al., 2017). As such, the factor structure of Machiavellianism

will be taken as the three factors found with the MACH-IV.

Associations Between Machiavellianism and Other Constructs

Due to the harmful nature associated with Machiavellianism, how this trait relates to

clinical disorders has been considered by researchers. Christie and Geis (1970) commented on
 14

the relationships between anti-social behaviour and Machiavellianism, suggesting there is no

theoretical basis for any relationship between the two. They posited that for those high on

Machiavellianism, the act of being anti-social does not gain them anything specifically, and

that their energy is better directed at other ways of achieving personal gain. Subsequent

research showing non-significant associations between Machiavellianism and aggression have

supported this assumption (Harrel, 1980; Kerr & Gross, 1978; Russell, 1974). Similarly, a

review of antisocial relationships indicated no clear relationship between Machiavellianism

and overt violence (Jones & Paulhus, 2009).

In a similar clinically related vein, research has also examined the association of

Machiavellianism with anxiety. Several studies have found higher levels of anxiety in those

scoring higher on measures of Machiavellianism, with a review by Fehr, Samson, and Paulhus

(1992) highlighting the positive relationship between the two. However, in general the

relationship between Machiavellianism and anxiety remains inconsistent, with some research

failing to demonstrate a significant relationship between Machiavellianism and anxiety (e.g.,

Allsopp, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1991; McNamara, Durso, & Harris, 2007; Paulhus & Williams,

2002), and other supporting the link (e.g., Jakobowitz & Egan, 2006; Ramanaiah, Byravan, &

Detwiler, 1994). It was thought that those scoring high on measures of Machiavellianism had

little concern or worry about what others thought, and as a consequence, would have few

difficulties in self-disclosure of potentially compromising information (McNamara et al.,

2007). However, it has been found that those who score high in measures of Machiavellianism

tend to conceal perceived deficiencies more than those who score low on the trait (Sherry,

Hewitt, Besser, Flett, & Klein, 2006), suggesting they are responsive to social cues in terms of

the objectives they are pursuing. Other research has also found those scoring high on measures

of Machiavellianism are selective of when they self-disclose (Liu, 2008), potentially explaining

the discrepancy between theory and anxiety findings in Machiavellian research. As a way to
 15

resolve the two perspectives, Muris et al. (2017) conducted a recent meta-analysis which found

that Machiavellianism was indeed positively related to anxiety, suggesting an underlying

predisposition towards negative emotions (Muris et al., 2017) despite the small effect. Further

research is required to establish if characteristics associated with the perception of weakness

are likely to be associated with Machiavellianism.

Those scoring high on measures of Machiavellianism tend to engage in manipulation and

deceit where they deem it necessary (Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991), and tend to view impression

management as justifiable. Those scoring high on measures of Machiavellianism also tend to

use more negative (i.e. supplication and intimidation) than positive tactics (e.g., over

emphasising ability, self-promotion etc.) when deceiving, particularly in job interview settings

(Lopes & Fletcher, 2004). This is of importance to organisations wishing to identify

Machiavellianism in personnel selection mechanisms as impression management is known to

be employed by candidates during such activities (Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002).

Machiavellianism could be expected to be related to intellect, given that deception

requires cognitive resources (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005). However, research has not

supported any link between Machiavellianism and intellect (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & Story,

2013; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). In response to the lack of a

significant association with intelligence, other research has looked at whether those scoring

high on measures of Machiavellianism engage in effective manipulative behaviours through

emotional, rather than cognitive mechanisms. However, research looking into emotional

intelligence has also fallen short, indicating a negative association between Machiavellianism

and emotional intelligence (e.g., Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore, 2007), and also with the

ability to recognise emotions in others (Simon, Francis, & Lombardo, 1990). In their review of

Machiavellianism, Jones and Paulhus (2009) have suggested that this lack of relationship with
 16

intelligence is reasonable given previous research, as any tendency to be manipulative or

deceitful does not necessarily translate into actually being effective.

2.2 Clinical vs Sub-Clinical Personality

This chapter has thus far discussed the Dark Triad traits predominantly from a clinical

perspective and as separate constructs, in line with how they have been described in the

literature. More recently however, research has examined Dark Triad traits collectively,

exploring the three traits simultaneously, and from a sub-clinical perspective. Given that the

Dark Triad was conceived as a sub-clinical composite (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), and the

sub-clinical environment that characterises the organisational context, it is important to outline

the differences between clinical expressions of Dark Triad traits and sub-clinical Dark Triad.

While clinical definitions of narcissism have similarities to sub-clinical definitions, they

typically differ in that sub-clinical definitions of narcissism show a normal distribution in the

general population, and the trait is associated with lower levels of intensity and personal

impairment (LeBreton et al., 2018). In addition, sub-clinical definitions do not require a level

or cut-off to highlight psychopathic traits (Campbell et al., 2011) in addition to issues with

labelling an individual as a ‘psychopath’, making it all the more important to distinguish

between clinical and sub-clinical definitions of the Dark Triad.

The Dark Triad was originally considered as a set of sub-clinical representations of the

more malevolent clinical traits (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The examination of the Dark Triad

has been conducted in many settings such as the organisational context, which does not

represent the clinical realm from which some research has stemmed. This is relevant to

organisational literature as sub-clinical prevalence of Dark Triad are suggested to be much

higher than the prevalence of clinical levels of the Dark Triad, the latter estimated to be less

than 1% of the population (Wu & Lebreton, 2011). For example, in order to examine clinically

diagnosed personality traits within the normal population, given the low general base rate, a
 17

large sample size would be required. As such, collection of data from clinical samples within

an organisation would be difficult to obtain (Wu & Lebreton, 2011). Thusly, the study of sub-

clinical Dark Triad is considered to be less problem laden, and easier to conduct than research

on clinical dark personality traits (LeBreton et al., 2018).

Another difference between clinical and sub-clinical manifestations of personality is the

diagnostic criteria used to define clinical disorders. For example, clinical narcissism is in part

defined by dysfunctional levels of grandiosity (Hare & Neumann, 2008). While grandiosity is

also a feature of sub-clinical narcissism, it manifests to a lesser degree in the non-clinical realm,

rather than being expressed as a dichotomous behavioural indicator (Campbell et al., 2011).

Consequently, sub-clinical dark personality traits are seen as pervasive in the general

population and manifest at varying levels due to the wider behavioural continuum it exists

within.

Of importance to consider, particularly in the organisational context, is the legal

consequences of utilising clinical measures as screening tools. In order to avoid possible

litigation, organisations in New Zealand are not to discriminate against disability (as described

under New Zealand Law: Employment Relations Act, 2000; Human Rights Act, 1993). As

such, screening with the intent to filter based on clinical disorder may invite legal challenge

from candidates. However, when defined, developed, and used as measures of normal

personality in organisational processes, the Dark Triad can be legally justified and useful for

the detection of organisationally relevant characteristics, as highlighted by LeBreton et al.

(2018).

2.3 Sub-clinical Dark Triad Traits and their Associations with Other Constructs

The background of the Dark Triad described above provided a basic understanding of the

foundations of the traits. While the literature describing the origins of Dark Triad traits has

tended to focus on the clinical bases, the relationships narcissism, psychopathy, and
 18

Machiavellianism have within more specific contexts, such as the organisational setting, should

be addressed separately and discussed with reference to the specific context in which they

manifest.

2.3.1 Sub-clinical Narcissism

Sub-clinical definitions of narcissism typically outline self-importance, power or

ascendency, a principle of personal privilege, and condescension, albeit representing less

dysfunction for the individual than clinical narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). While sub-

clinical definitions of narcissism vary, they generally describe a relatively stable trait associated

with “… grandiosity, self-love and inflated self- views” (Campbell et al., 2011, p. 269).

Typically, what distinguishes clinical from sub-clinical narcissism is the degree to which

narcissistic characteristics are manifested (i.e., magnitude), rather than differences in their

defining features. Consequently, on a sliding scale clinical narcissism may be evidenced by

high levels of a given feature (e.g., paranoia) while sub-clinical narcissism is reflected on lower

levels of that feature (e.g., tendency to mistrust other’s intentions).

Research on narcissism in the workplace suggests that this trait is associated with both

positive and negative outcomes. For example, supervisor narcissistic traits have been related

to higher levels of subordinate career success (subjective and objective), higher charisma

attributions by team members (Galvin, Waldman, & Balthazard, 2010; Volmer, Koch, &

Göritz, 2016), and persistence in goal attainment (Manley, Roberts, Beattie, & Woodman,

2018). Further, studies examining how narcissism is related to personnel selection activities

have uncovered a positive relationship between narcissism and success on a job interview

(Paulhus et al., 2013), suggesting that those with higher narcissistic traits may be able to

navigate selection filter mechanisms more effectively. In addition, the positive relationship

between narcissism and perceived leadership qualities (Paulhus, 1998) is of interest to

organisations identifying narcissistic traits in during job selection.

 19

Narcissism in the workplace has also been associated with problematic outcomes. For

instance, narcissism is positively associated with erratic organisational performance over a

period of time (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007) as well as aggression and bullying (Bushman &

Baumeister, 1998). In addition, narcissism in the workplace has been related to

counterproductive work behaviours (Penney & Spector, 2002; O'Boyle et al., 2012) and

unethical leadership (Blair et al., 2008), highlighting an organisational risk for narcissism in

the workplace. These relationships with key organisational outcomes suggest the long term

deleterious consequences to having individuals with high levels of narcissistic trait in key

leadership positions. However, narcissism has also been associated with positive outcomes

such as well-being (Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004), leadership

charisma (Khoo & Burch, 2008), and the number and size of company procurements

(Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). The mixed positive and negative effects associated with

narcissism and workplace variables highlights the inconclusive nature of the trait, and provides

opportunities for research aiming to establish the benefits and costs of narcissism.

Of particular note to the study of narcissism is the ‘Contextual Reinforcement’ (CR)

model described by Campbell and Campbell (2009). The CR model proposes how narcissism

can be leveraged in organisations given certain contexts, while also outlining certain

circumstances which can lead to problematic outcomes. In essence, the CR model describes

contexts known as “emergent zones” and “enduring zones” in which desirable or detrimental

behaviours are observed depending on the duration of interactions. Emergent zones are settings

associated with the initiations of relationships within short-lived contexts, such as projects

where individuals come together to complete a short term goal. In contrast, enduring zones are

contexts associated with the requirement to establish relationships over a longer duration, such

as long-term managerial positions. According to the CR model those demonstrating narcissistic

trait behaviours are more likely to be perceived as charismatic, having confidence, and being
 20

decisive in emergent zones. Consequently, narcissistic trait behaviours observed in the

emergent zones are likely to be associated with higher levels of performance due to the match

of appropriate behaviours to the fast-paced and adaptive context. However, in the enduring

zone these same individuals are viewed as impulsive, arrogant, and perceived as risk takers.

than when manifested in enduring zones due to the match of. Consequently, when acting in an

enduring zone narcissistic leaders may be more likely to be perceived as less leader-like and

be more problematic to the organisation. Thus, the impact of a leader demonstrating narcissistic

trait behaviours in the enduring zone (i.e. the long term, stable context) is likely to be more

detrimental to the organisation than a leader in the emerging zone (i.e. the short term, dynamic

context) due to the longer term negative influence of persistent narcissistic behaviours. Thus,

short-term effects of narcissism may be beneficial to the individual and perhaps may even have

a neutral impact on the organisation, while long-term effects of narcissism tends to prove

detrimental to others and to organisational performance (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). These

behaviours ultimately result in the perception of a leader who is effective in the short-term, but

fails to demonstrate sustained performance given their destructive characteristics. This theme

of short-term gain for long-term pain is a consistent message within the research (Campbell et

al., 2011; Miller, Campbell, & Pilkonis, 2007), reinforcing that those scoring high on measures

of narcissism may do well initially, but are prone to problematic outcomes as time wears on in

an organisation.

2.3.2 Sub-Clinical Psychopathy

Sub-clinical definitions of psychopathy typically include all the main elements of clinical

psychopathy, though at lower levels of dysfunction. For example, Paulhus and Williams (2002)

describe sub-clinical psychopathy as having elements of impulsivity and thrill seeking, along

with low empathy and anxiety, in alignment with clinical descriptions of the trait. However, it

is recognised that while there will necessarily be behavioural similarities between clinical and
 21

sub-clinical manifestations of traits, sub-clinical levels of the psychopathy trait are likely to be

more prevalent but less problematic than clinical levels (LeBreton et al., 2018). As with

narcissism, differences between clinical and sub-clinical psychopathy highlight a difference in

magnitude rather than a difference in characteristic. In terms of prevalence, the base rates for

psychopathy in a clinical or forensic population are known to be around 1% (Hare, 1999).

Conversely, sub-clinical psychopathy rates have been suggested to range from between 5-15%

(Gustafson & Ritzer, 1995; Pethman & Erlandsson, 2002), indicating sub-clinical psychopathy

is more pervasive.

In their book on corporate psychopathy, Babiak and Hare (2007) described an individual

who, while appearing to successfully navigate the organisational context, demonstrated

harmful and self-oriented behaviours analogous to psychopathy. They claimed that business

people demonstrating psychopathic traits were a more common feature of the organisational

landscape than many expect, and that prevalence rates could be up to 3.5% of the executive

corporate population. Similarly, other scholars have suggested that a higher base rate for

psychopathy allows the high performing psychopath to operate largely undetected (LeBreton,

Binning, & Adorno, 2006). Consequently, while there may be many harmful behaviours

associated with psychopathy, these individuals may be left unchecked in organisations, creating

toxic environments which allow them to continue to wreak havoc on those around them in the

workplace.

Sub-clinical psychopathy has been found to be negatively related to the Big Five

personality domains of agreeableness and conscientiousness, and with warmth and positive

emotion facets. This is an important finding to consider in the organisational context given that

conscientiousness is also a significant predictor of job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).

In addition, psychopathy is positively related to angry hostility, impulsiveness, and excitement-

seeking facets (Decuyper et al., 2009; Lee & Ashton, 2014; Paulhus & Williams, 2002),
 22

suggesting that psychopathy may be associated with workplace factors that influence

performance, namely impulsive decision-making, high risk-taking, and interpersonal conflict.

Psychopathy has been shown to relate to several negative workplace outcomes, including

higher levels of counter-productive workplace behaviours (O'Boyle et al., 2012; Scherer,

Baysinger, Zolynsky, & LeBreton, 2013), threatening and aggressive management techniques

(Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012), and lower levels of ratings on felt responsibility for

others (Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010). High levels of psychopathy trait have an impact not

only on others, but also on the individual exhibiting the trait. For example, those scoring higher

on measures of psychopathy also have an inconsistent work history (Babiak & Hare, 2007) and

higher levels of unemployment (Andersen et al., 1999), suggesting that maintaining

relationships and positive work behaviours can be difficult for those with psychopathic

tendencies.

Conversely, in the leadership space, it has been suggested that the flat affect that those

with higher levels of psychopathy demonstrate may allow them to make more functional or

utilitarian decisions (Osumi & Ohira, 2010), giving the impression of a planned approach to

leader-like behaviours. Further, psychopathy trait behaviours such as flat affect, are associated

with the perception of being a leader, despite associated poor performance ratings (Babiak et

al., 2010). This may be relevant in organisations which consider that some of the more

potentially adaptive traits of psychopathy (e.g., a lack of anxiety) may place those scoring high

on measures of psychopathy in a good position to make decisions in the management or

leadership space. The reality is that while others might consider those scoring high on measures

of psychopathy to initially be effective strategists and communicators, their performance in

terms of team work and general management style tends to be low (Babiak et al., 2010)

generating operational risk for organisations. However, even with low to moderate levels of
 23

psychopathy, these relationships highlight the conflict between short-term performance

benefits and general poor performance outcomes associated with psychopathy.

2.3.3 Sub-Clinical Machiavellianism

Mainstream measures of personality (i.e. the Big Five) have been shown to correlate with

Machiavellianism. For instance, both agreeableness and conscientiousness domains relate

negatively to the Machiavellianism trait (Lee & Ashton, 2014; O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, Story,

& White, 2015; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Other personality research has found that

Machiavellianism is strongly and negatively related to the HEXACO factor of honesty-

humility, more so than with any of the Big Five domains (Lee & Ashton, 2005). This is perhaps

unsurprising given the core of self-interest and duplicitous motivation associated with

Machiavellianism. Given the negative associations Machiavellianism has with the

agreeableness and conscientiousness domains, and with the honesty-humility factor, this

reinforces the original description of Machiavellianism as a harmful and negatively oriented

trait.

Political skill is a variable of interest with regards to Machiavellianism, particularly since

Machiavelli intended his initial manuscript as political advice to aristocrats and politicians.

Political skill has been defined as the ability to understand others in the organisational context,

and using knowledge to influence others as a means of personal gain (Ferris, et al., 2005). The

research looking at politician personality is limited by the observer-only methodology

prevalent in political- personality research, with few studies using self-reported data (Caprara

& Zimbardo, 2004; Simonton, 1998). While political skill has been linked to Machiavellianism

with some studies indicating a positive relationship between a willingness to engage in

deception and secrecy and self-rated Machiavellianism, no direct link between the two has been

established (Silvester, Wyatt, & Randall, 2014).

 24

Machiavellianism has been associated with a range of predominantly negative

organisational variables (Muris et al., 2017). This makes sense given the central tenet of

Machiavellianism is for self-gain or goal attainment at any cost, and as such, the exploitation

and misuse of others is a mechanism through which those higher in Machiavellianism achieves

their goals. As an example, research suggests that those scoring higher in Machiavellianism

appear comfortable with the use of brute force when they deem it necessary (Barker, 1994),

and also that Machiavellianism has a positive relationship with abusive supervision (Wisse &

Sleebos, 2016). Similarly, research focusing on positive organisational outcomes has tended to

find negative relationships between Machiavellianism, prosocial behaviour (Becker & Dan

O'Hair, 2007), and organisational citizenship behaviours (Liu, 2008). These negative

relationships between Machiavellianism and prosocial behaviours is reasonable given the core

of self-interest and goal orientation expressed by those high in Machiavellianism. Overall,

these findings are in line with the overall perception of Machiavellianism as a harmful trait that

steers individuals toward the fulfilment of personal agendas without regard for others.

With respect to Machiavellianism and leadership, it is known that Machiavelli provided

his advice as a way to enhance the leaders' of his time ability to influence others. This has been

reflected in studies demonstrating a positive association between Machiavellianism and a

desire to lead (Mael, Waldman, & Mulqueen, 2001), and with effective leader performance in

unstructured environments (Gable, Hollon, & Dangello, 1992). Research on Machiavellianism

and organisational leadership has also found positive associations between the trait and money

and power orientation (Stewart & Stewart, 2006), goal achievement and extreme

competitiveness (Ryckman et al., 1994), and even attribution of key leadership characteristics

by others (Coie et al., 1990). Further, those scoring higher on Machiavellianism are perceived

to be charming and charismatic leaders (Deluga, 2001; Jones & Paulhus, 2009), suggesting

others may consider them effective leaders. However, research examining leader performance
 25

of those scoring high on measures of Machiavellianism has been mixed, with a meta-analysis

finding a small but significant negative relationship between Machiavellianism and leader

performance (Deluga, 2001; O'Boyle et al., 2012). Thus, despite some positive relationships

between Machiavellianism and leadership outcomes such as charismatic leadership (Deluga,

2001) and the perception of being objective and seen to be in control (Geis, 1978), no strong

associations between Machiavellianism and leader performance have been demonstrated.

While these relationships suggest a personal benefit for those with higher levels of

Machiavellianism, other studies have established negative effects for subordinates and

colleagues. For example, research has found a detrimental impact of supervisor

Machiavellianism on subordinates’ career success and wellbeing (Volmer et al., 2016). Further,

despite evidence of personal benefit for those scoring higher on measures of Machiavellianism,

the impact of context on the performance of those scoring high on measures of

Machiavellianism must be taken into account. In highly structured environments, those scoring

high on measures of Machiavellianism tend to perform less well than those scoring low on

measures of Machiavellianism (Gable et al., 1992). In addition, those scoring high on measures

of Machiavellianism perform better in highly autonomous roles which provide more decision

power (O'Connor & Morrison, 2001; Shultz, 1993; Sparks, 1994). This suggests that those

scoring high on measures of Machiavellianism will likely flourish in jobs that allow freedom

of decision making in addition to less structured and rule bound processes.

Some research has established a positive relationship between Machiavellianism and

work-unit performance (Gable & Dangello, 1994), and also with performance as a leader

(Deluga, 2001) indicating a potential positive benefit of Machiavellianism for individuals and

organisations. In another study looking at non-linear relationships between Machiavellianism

and job performance, an inverted-u shape relationship was found, indicating that higher and

lower levels of Machiavellianism were harmful to performance (Zettler & Solga, 2012). In
 26

general terms however, meta-analyses have discovered a weak negative relationship between

Machiavellianism and job performance (O'Boyle et al., 2012). This said, the authors of the

meta-analysis (O’Boyle et al., 2012) acknowledged there is likely to be significant variation

across studies due to methodological differences, making the relationship between

Machiavellianism and job performance less clear. Overall, despite some aspects of

Machiavellianism suggesting a benefit to either individuals or their team members, most

research looking at Machiavellianism and performance has found detrimental relationships

(Muris, et al., 2017).

2.3.4 The Dark Triad

The notion of the Dark Triad was developed by Paulhus and Williams (2002) as a way to

conceptualise what they considered as the key traits of malevolent sub-clinical personality, as

described previously. The Dark Triad shares a set of behaviours guided by a callous core of

self-interest (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Together, the Dark Triad is typically associated with

gains for the self and a disregard for other’s wellbeing, and, at times, taking pleasure in other’s

misfortunes (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

In terms of the structure of the Dark Triad, researchers have suggested that the Dark Triad

traits may cluster together given their core of self-interest. For instance, some have argued that

Machiavellianism and psychopathy appear too closely related to be distinct constructs (Miller,

Hyatt, Maples-Keller, Carter, & Lynam, 2017; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). Dark Triad traits

do, however, have similar conceptual bases such as manipulation, a distorted view of the world,

unemotional or callous approach to others (LeBreton et al., 2018). Despite these similarities,

the measures of each Dark Triad trait do not appear to form any latent higher level construct,

but three correlated dimensions, as illustrated in Figure 1. (Note: while the model presented in

Figure 1 represents the general understanding of Dark Triad traits and their facets in the general

literature, as the facets are closely correlated they will not be analysed in this thesis). Meta-
 27

analyses have found that, although the three traits are strongly interrelated, they are distinct

enough to be considered separate constructs (LeBreton et al., 2018; Muris et al., 2017; Paulhus,

2014). Further, while the Dark Triad traits may have some similarities in terms of behavioural

manifestations, they have been shown to be distinct and recognised as individual traits in and

of themselves (Muris et al., 2017). Table 1 highlights the common and distinct behavioural

manifestations for each Dark Triad trait showing how each trait is similar and where they

diverge from each other. For example, while individuals who score high on both narcissism

and psychopathy will tend to demonstrate impulsivity, narcissist do not tend to be intentionally

deceitful unlike the psychopathy trait. Similarly, those scoring high on Machiavellianism and

psychopathy will tend to demonstrate manipulative behaviour, however Machiavellianism does

not tend to be as vengeful as psychopathy. Thus, the combination of the behavioural

manifestations for any given trait is what makes each trait unique.
 28

Narcissism Psychopathy Machiavellianism

Grandiose Vulnerable Unethical

Emotional/ Antisocial/
Decision
Interpersonal Social Aversion
Manipulative Making
Approaches
Sceptical
Perspective

Figure 1. Dark Triad Measurement Model.

Table 1. Dark Triad Characteristics across Traits.

Behavioural manifestations of
Dark Triad traits Narcissism Psychopathy Machiavellianism
Impulsivity X X
Manipulative X X
Deceitfulness X X
Grandiosity X
Leader-like behaviour X X
Charisma X X
Low empathy X X X
Exploitative X X X
Vengeful X X
Drive for Status X X
Low Affect X X

While much research conducted thus far points towards the negative outcomes associated

with possessing high levels of dark personality traits, non-linear relationships identified in other

research indicate that the connection between these traits and organisational outcomes may not

be straightforward (Benson & Campbell, 2007; Gable et al., 1992; Harms et al., 2011).

Evolutionary theory suggests there is some reason these dark traits occur in society, and that

there may be a personal benefit for the individual for these traits to emerge (Jonason &

Kavanagh, 2010). Research examining the psychology of mate retention styles has found that
 29

those scoring high on measures of the Dark Triad do engage in mate-poaching behaviours that

are self-advantageous (Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010). Further, a short-term mating style by males

may facilitate a reproductively adaptive strategy for individuals (Jonason, Li, Webster, &

Schmitt, 2009), demonstrating a potentially beneficial approach for those scoring high on

measures of the Dark Triad, and an evolutionary explanation for the higher levels of Dark Triad

in males (Muris et al., 2017). However, as other research associated with the Dark Triad has

shown, this advantage can come at a cost to others. While some research has suggested there

may be positive effects for others when leaders score high on measures of narcissism (Volmer

et al., 2016), few other studies have found positive effects for others when examining high

levels of Dark Triad more generally. This leads to the general finding that the Dark Triad is

largely harmful to others, even if it may provide functional benefits for those scoring high on

the traits (Muris et al., 2017).

2.4 Measures of the Dark Triad

The growing body of research in this area illustrates the pervasive orientation and interest

researchers have toward understanding the behavioural manifestations of Dark Triad traits, and

the effect these traits may have on key organisational outcomes. In order to identify how these

traits manifest in the individual and with regard to important outcome variables, measures of

the Dark Triad have been developed.

A moderate amount of research exists around measurement of the Dark Triad (see Muris

et al., 2017, or Furnham et al., 2013 for a review). Predominantly, the three traits are measured

collectively (i.e. all three traits measured together) or with individual scales (i.e. on a trait

level). These shall now be discussed with a brief overview of common measures provided.

2.4.1 Measures of Narcissism.

As narcissism has a clinical basis, measures have tended to focus on the clinical

examination and diagnosis of the trait to assist clinicians’ diagnostic work. To explore the gap
 30

in sub-clinical narcissism measurement, Raskin and Hall (1979) developed the Narcissistic

Personality Inventory (NPI) which has dominated the measurement of sub-clinical narcissism

(Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006). The predominant use of the NPI has focused on the total of

NPI scores rather than any other sub-scale scores, with the 40 item measure found to have good

psychometric properties (Raskin & Terry, 1988). More recently, a shortened 16-item NPI scale

has been developed (NPI-16; Ames, et al., 2006) and shown adequate psychometric properties

despite having fewer facets than the NPI 40 (Corry, Merritt, Mrug, & Pamp, 2008).

2.4.2 Measures of |Psychopathy.

For individual measures of psychopathy, several assessment tools have been developed.

Hare (1980) initially developed the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) with a revised version (PCL-

R) created and developed more recently (Hare & Neumann, 2006). The PCL-R is a 20 item

scale used by clinicians to measure the two facets of psychopathy (selfish, callous, and

remorselessness; and chronic or long-term anti-social behaviour) that coalesce to form the trait

(see Figure 1). While some have considered the PCL-R as the ‘gold standard’ for assessing

psychopathy in the clinical setting (Edens & Cox, 2012), others have questioned its reliability

and generalisability to a field setting (Boccaccini, Chevalier, Murrie, & Varela, 2017;

Boccaccini, Turner, & Murrie, 2008; Turner, Boccaccini, Murrie, & Harris, 2015). The PCL-

R has been further developed into a self-report measure known as the Self Report Psychopathy

scale (SRP III; Paulhus, Hemphill, & Hare, in press) although this has been criticised for its

lack of factor consistency (Debowska, Boduszek, Kola, & Hyland, 2014) and lack of

applicability to a non-forensic population (Boduszek & Debowska, 2016). Of relevance to

organisational researchers, a recently developed organisational psychopathy measure known

as the Business-Scan 360 (B-Scan 360; Mathieu, Neumann, Hare, & Babiak 2014) has been

developed. This measure of corporate psychopathy employs both self-report and multi-rater

360 degree data. Responses on self-report measures of psychopathy have been found to differ
 31

significantly to other’s perceptions for those scoring high on psychopathy (Decuyper et al.,

2009) suggesting that either those high on psychopathy are intentionally altering the way they

respond to these scales, or they have a distinctly different way of viewing themselves than

others. This is important to consider in the measurement of psychopathy as manipulation of

others’ perceptions is a key psychopathy characteristics (Babiak et al., 2010). The Psychopathy

Personality Inventory (Lilienfield & Andrews, 1996) is a 154 item self-report questionnaire

that loads onto eight subscales, each comprising two factors (Benning, Patrick, Hicks,

Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003). Despite being a lengthy survey, it is a useful scale to examine

psychopathy in depth, while also being developed and validated in a community (i.e. non-

clinical) population. Internal consistency has been found to be adequate (Lilienfield &

Andrews, 1996), with good convergent validity with the PCL-R (Hughes, Stout, & Dolan,

2013).

2.4.3 Measures of Machiavellianism.

Christie and his team (1970) set out to develop a measure of Machiavellianism which

would distinguish those demonstrating higher levels of this trait from those less manipulative

and deceitful in nature. From their research, Christie and Geis developed the 20 item MACH

IV scale in order to tap into Machiavellian characteristics. The MACH IV measures four main

clusters of Machiavellian characteristics: willingness to exploit others or treat them as a means

to an ends, a short-term perspective and limited acknowledgment of long-term consequences;

a lack of morals; and an absence of a clinical disorder (Kessler et al., 2010).

While most individual measures are seen as ideal methods which allow subordinate

factors of each trait to be measured, the length of time it takes to administer all three individual

measures can make it difficult to use in organisations. As such, brief combined measures of

sub-clinical Dark Triad were created to highlight levels of Dark Triad in an effective way, and

in a variety of contexts.
 32

2.4.4 Combined Measures of the Dark Triad.

The two main scales developed to look specifically at the Dark Triad are the Dirty Dozen

(DD; Jonason & Webster, 2010) and the Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). As

its name suggests, the DD is a 12 item measure examining all three Dark Triad traits using four

items for each trait. While the DD has demonstrated validity by correlating positively with

individual measures of each of the dark personality traits (i.e. SRP-III, NPI, MACH IV), its

internal consistency varies across traits (narcissism α from .85 to .87; Machiavellianism α from

.67 to .72; and psychopathy α from .62 to .66). Due to its brevity, the DD has been criticised

for not reflecting the full span of trait factors (Carter et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2012), thereby

potentially neglecting relevant components (e.g., the impulsivity aspect of psychopathy).

Despite this, the DD has demonstrated adequate overall psychometric properties and continues

to be used widely as a brief research tool (Muris et al., 2017)

The SD3 is a 27 item measure (9 items for each trait) which aims to assess the Dark Triad

in a more comprehensive fashion. It has shown stronger correlations with individual Dark Triad

trait measures than the DD, good internal consistency (α from .70 to .80), and can capture more

component aspects of individual traits resulting in better convergent validity (LeBreton et al.,

2018). The SD3 also generates smaller effect sizes than the DD. However, this is thought to be

due largely to the limited number of items per trait in the DD, resulting in a ‘fuzzy trait’ which

is less distinguishable from other Dark Triad traits (Muris et al., 2017). This said, the DD is

frequently used in organisational settings due its short length and ease of administration, and

will be used as the Dark Triad measure in this thesis in order to better satisfy operational

requirements of the target organisation.

2.5 Personnel selection

Organisational performance is predicated on how well employees are selected and placed

within the workforce (Borman & Motowildo, 1997; Huselid, 1995; Hunter, Schmidt, &
 33

Judiesch, 1990), making the selection process a key one to get right in organisations. However,

this is only possible if evidence-based personnel selection processes are developed.

Personnel selection aims to identify those individuals who are likely to perform

adequately in a job, matching individual abilities to job requirements (Salgado, Viswesvaran,

& Ones, 2001). Ideal personnel selection requires an understanding of the job being selected

for, and the criteria from which candidates are measured against (Salgado et al., 2001). This

is typically identified through the use of an effective job analysis (see Sanchez & Levine (2001)

for a review). As job candidates are assessed by these key processes, an effective picture of

applicants is determined from which comparisons and hiring decisions can be made. However,

as human decision-making is fraught with variability and error, poor decisions regarding

selection emphasise the need to develop accurate and effective processes to limit the effect of

human decision errors (Kahneman, 2011).

The cost of making selection mistakes is well established, and it includes lowered

productivity, increased counterproductive workplace behaviours (Sackett & Devore, 2001),

higher training costs, and lowered effectiveness in general (Davis, 2005; Ryan & Tippins,

2004; Boxall & Purcell, 2008 Newell & Shackleton, 1994). In contrast, organisations

potentially have the most to gain when they have high validity in their selection procedures

(Hunter et al., 1990). Thus, the effectiveness of selection programs is a critical consideration

for the majority of organisations.

A well-known method used for effectively assessing candidate qualities is the

Assessment Centre (AC). ACs were first developed and used comprehensively in the 1950s

(Bray & Grant, 1966), and are defined in this thesis as the consistent and standardised

assessment of behaviour based on observations of trained assessors from multiple assessment

activities (Arthur & Day, 2011). A typical AC will involve the use of multiple assessors to

assess multiple candidates across exercises in a standardised manner (Eurich, Krause,

 34

Cigularov, & George, 2009). For example, an AC may utilise individual and group assessment

methods including work sample tests (i.e., selection tests that are representative of actual on-

the-job tasks), psychometric tests, and interviews in order to determine candidates’ suitability

for a job (Herd, Alagaraja, & Cumberland, 2016). This allows greater value for money for the

organisation while still maintaining the predictive power of the combined selection tests.

In terms of tests that predict behaviour, in a meta-analysis Schmidt and Hunter (1998)

found that the best predictor of job performance was general mental ability or ‘g’. In addition,

a structured interview or a work sample test, when combined with g, further increased this

relationship. This indicates that the use of multiple tests of ability in a selection system is useful

alongside the use of g. However, the use of multiple assessments must be balanced against the

cost of having too many tests which makes the selection system less efficient and more costly.

This cost consideration also holds for the number of competencies assessed in a selection

system where the greater the number of competencies the selection seeks to examine, the

greater the financial cost for the organisation (Mount, Witt, & Barrick, 2000; Shippmann et al.,

2000).

While most ACs aim to examine work behaviours required for the job, some also look

for examples of negative, harmful, or problematic behaviours during an AC. Examples of

negative or problematic work behaviours already discussed include counterproductive work

behaviours, bullying, manipulative and deceitful acts, and aggressive behaviour, all which fall

within recognised manifestations of the Dark Triad. However, to date, there has been little

applied research into how Dark Triad traits, characteristics and behaviours are observed or

made apparent during personnel selection processes. This is of relevance to organisations and

researchers, as the behaviour these individuals exhibit once in an organisation can be harmful

to individual performance, social processes and other organisational outcomes. Consequently,

 35

this thesis aims to examine how Dark Triad traits are perceived by others and whether the traits

are associated with personnel selection outcomes.

 36

Chapter 4: The Dark Triad and Success on Personnel Selection

The Dark Triad, comprising Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy,

characterises a set of socially aversive personality traits that have merited growing interest in

psychology and management fields. The three traits reflect a core of callous self-interest, and

have been associated with manipulation, deceit, self-promoting mating strategies, and

interpersonal conflict (Harms & Spain, 2015; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Zeigler-Hill &

Marcus, 2016). Importantly, these traits do not reflect an inability to function in everyday life,

and as such are distinguishable from clinical pathologies (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). That Dark

Triad traits are not classified as a set of clinical disorders is important to workplaces, as

organisations comprise individuals from the general population, and therefore employ

individuals who exhibit varying levels of these traits.

Dark Triad research in occupational settings has highlighted how employees and

managers with high levels of Dark Triad are more likely to engage in counterproductive

behaviours, namely seeking and maintaining positions of power for personal gain and

manipulating others (Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Jackson, 2014; Kessler et al., 2010), and to exhibit

lower levels of organisational citizenship behaviours and job satisfaction (DeShong, Grant, &

Mullins-Sweatt, 2015; Jonason, Wee, & Li, 2015; Zettler & Solga, 2012). Dark Triad traits

have also been related to bullying, decreased performance, and abuse by managers (Kiazad,

Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, & Tang, 2010). Given the costs associated with dismissing and

replacing problematic employees, organisations may benefit from developing systems that

allow for early detection of dark traits. Hence, organisations would benefit from grasping the

extent to which their personnel selection systems effectively exclude, or at least identify,

individuals with these dark traits, and from refining existing methods accordingly.
 37

Socially desirable or impression management (IM) responding is expected to occur to

some degree in personnel selection (e.g., Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002). Job applicants

may effectively cloak undesirable personal features by self-monitoring or modifying usual

behaviour, a strategy that renders the identification of aversive personality traits challenging.

This said, whether misrepresentation of responses reflects an actual IM bias or whether altered

responses are attributed to other characteristics (e.g., religiosity, emotional stability,

conscientiousness etc.) is not conclusive given the limited evidence to support one particular

view over the other (Martocchio & Judge, 1997; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss 1996).

Relationships between Dark Triad traits and socially desirable responding in a personnel

selection context has been suggested (Kowalski, Rogoza, Vernon, & Schermer, 2018;

Rauthmann, 2011), although no research to date has tested whether individuals scoring higher

on Dark Triad traits are also more likely to misrepresent themselves. Further, as research

suggests that stress can mitigate the ability to impression manage by increasing one’s cognitive

load (Vohs et al., 2005), examining whether and how high pressure situations influence the

manifestation of Dark Triad traits is useful to organisations intending to minimise self-

presentation bias and identify aversive personality traits. Therefore, the present study will

investigate whether high pressure situations impact on self-reported Dark Triad scores.

The use of deception associated with specific Dark Triad traits may prove advantageous

in personnel selection contexts. For example, narcissism has been positively related with

success on personnel selection tests (Paulhus et al., 2013). It could be that this advantage

extends to other Dark Triad traits, or that in specific types of selection systems this benefit is

either enhanced or diminished. Further, many selection systems are conducted over a short (i.e.

one-to-two day) period, making opportunities for accurate observation of job candidates

limited. Drawing on an overview of recent research on the Dark Triad, and on data collected

throughout an extended 5-day assessment centre (AC), the first aim of this study is to examine
 38

the relationship between Dark Triad traits and personnel selection outcomes. Secondly, given

that narcissism has shown to favour performance in some personnel selection activities

(Paulhus et al., 2013), there is a need to further explore whether the other traits of the Dark

Triad, i.e. psychopathy and Machiavellianism, also favour selection candidates. Thus, the

second purpose of this study is to investigate whether high pressure situations change levels of

self-reported Dark Triad within a personnel selection setting.

3.1.1 The Dark Triad

Machiavellianism. In the 16th century, an Italian political advisor Niccolo Machiavelli

professed manipulation of others as a method to achieve control. From this perspective

emerged the concept of Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970; Jones & Paulhus, 2009). In

essence, Machiavelli suggested that an effective leader should consider and employ any

manipulative tactics which would achieve a favourable outcome for the individual, including

lying and deceit (Jones & Paulhus, 2009). This reflects an ‘ends justify the means’ perspective,

and suggests the use of manipulation as a key tactic in achieving personal aims. One may

characterise a Machiavellian individual as someone who is cynical, distrustful of others’

intentions, and a pragmatist who has a long-term strategic focus, and above all pursues self-

enhancing goals through manipulation and deceit if necessary (Christie & Geis, 1970). In an

organisational context, Machiavellianism has been linked to money and power orientation, goal

achievement, and extreme competitiveness (Ryckman et al., 1994), but also to subordinate

abuse, use of deceptive strategies, and interpersonal manipulation (Kessler et al., 2010). Thus,

managing employees who exhibit high levels of Machiavellianism, and identifying these

individuals early through the selection process represent key challenges for organisations.

Individuals who possess high levels of trait Machiavellianism tend to be perceived by

others as exhibiting key leadership characteristics, which further promotes their career

advancement (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990). This is particularly important to the
 39

leadership role, as behaviours linked to Machiavellianism have the potential to derail leader,

team, and organisational performance (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). While some research exists

examining how Machiavellianism manifests in a leadership context (e.g., Wisse & Sleebos,

2016; Kiazad et al., 2010), a limited number of studies have examined how those scoring high

on Machiavellianism perform in a personnel selection context.

Narcissism. Greek mythology tells of a young man, Narcissus, who fell in love with his

own reflection in the water and withered away because he longed so much for himself. Drawing

on this apologue, psychologists have applied the concept of narcissism as a personality disorder

defined in the clinical psychology nomenclature (e.g., within the Diagnostic Statistical

Manual V (DSM-V): American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Sub-clinical definitions of

narcissism typically describe individuals characterised by a sense of self-importance, power or

ascendency, a principle of personal privilege, and condescension (Campbell et al., 2011;

Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Sub-clinical narcissism has been related to a number of important

outcomes such as poor decision-making due to their short-term and inward focus, and an

inflated perception of ability (Robins & Beer, 2001). Links to lack of leadership integrity and

counterproductive work behaviours have made narcissism a concern in managerial and non-

managerial roles alike (Penney & Spector, 2002).

Despite its associations with negative organisational outcomes, narcissism is also related

to promotion to leadership positions, given the increased likelihood that individuals exhibiting

this trait project confidence and charisma (Davies, 2005; Galvin et al., 2010; Harms et al., 2011;

Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006). Research examining narcissism in organisations suggests that

candidates with higher scores on narcissism may have an advantage over other candidates in a

selection process. Specifically, this research shows that narcissists are more successful during

interviews due to their willingness to self-promote and talk about themselves (Paulhus et al.,

2013). The eventual downside for organisations is that over time, the positive first impression
 40

presented by the narcissist during selection activities can degrade into exploitative and

tyrannical styles (Grijalva & Harms, 2014; Paulhus, 1998). As such, the misattribution of a

narcissist’s behaviour to positive traits and competencies (e.g., confidence, assertiveness)

rather than to negative features (e.g., overbearing and self-aggrandising tendencies) poses a

challenge to organisations and can undermine the validity of selection processes.

Psychopathy. Psychopathy was initially presented as a psychological disorder in Harvey

Cleckley’s book ‘The Mask of Sanity’ (1941). Since then, Robert Hare has led the charge on

research on the clinical aspect of this personality disorder, delving into other, non-clinical

contexts such as the corporate setting (Babiak & Hare, 2007; Babiak et al., 2010; Mathieu,

Neumann, Hare, & Babiak, 2014). Psychopathy has been defined as having low empathy, a

callous stance towards others, possessing an impulsive and manipulative nature, and a deceitful

disposition (Hare, 1985). Sub-clinical psychopathy has been linked to lying and misconduct,

violence and aggression at work, lower levels of job performance, corporate bullying, and

general leadership derailment. (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). In one particular review, Furnham et

al. (2014) examined multiple studies looking at relationships between malevolent personalities

and the Big Five personality framework. They found consistent relationships between

psychopathy and lower levels of agreeableness (specifically tender-mindedness and altruism),

and conscientiousness, highlighting the callous and impulsive nature of psychopathy.

Overall, Dark Triad traits have been linked to a wide range of negative workplace factors

such as aggression, retaliation, and deviance (Nathanson, 2008; Spector & Fox, 2010).

Nevertheless, evolutionary perspectives suggest that Dark Triad traits are socially

advantageous to individuals (Jonason, Valentine, Li, & Harbeson, 2011), emphasising the

importance of detecting these behaviours early on in the employment selection process. That

is, in certain circumstances, self-serving strategies enacted by individuals with higher levels of

Dark Triad traits can be more useful for the individual than collaborative tactics or helping
 41

behaviours (O'Boyle et al., 2012). This indicates that context is relevant when considering how

the Dark Triad operates in social settings. For example, as both psychopathy and

Machiavellianism are associated with deceit and lying (Jonason, Lyons, et al., 2014), these

traits could be advantageous to an individual in situations where self-reported information

associated with past behaviour (e.g., good versus poor job performance) is used to make

selection decisions. In addition, research indicating that narcissists are more likely to be

selected for jobs (Paulhus et al., 2013) suggests personal benefits of this trait in a selection

context. In sum, it is possible that all three Dark Triad traits may demonstrate at least some

benefit to the individual in initial interactions with the organisation, even if not for others in

the long run. The question then remains whether robust selection processes can prevent

candidates scoring high on Dark Triad from being selected into the organisation.

3.1.2 The Dark Triad in Personnel Selection

The increased interest in Dark Triad research in organisations is justified by the traits’

harmful impact on important organisational outcomes. As an example, leaders with higher

narcissism levels tend to be involved in interpersonal conflict and demonstrate toxic leadership

behaviours (Schmidt, 2008; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). Further, those scoring higher on measures

of Machiavellianism are drawn to power and management positions, which, when combined

with their predisposition to self-serve and desire to control others, have an overall negative

influence on their employees (Buelow & Brunell, 2014; Jones & Paulhus, 2009; Penney &

Spector, 2002).

Evidence suggesting the generally maladaptive nature of Dark Triad traits in an

organisational context, along with research indicating that candidates with higher levels of

some Dark Triad traits tend to be evaluated more favourably in personnel selection, and even

seen as possessing key leadership characteristics (Coie et al., 1990; Paulhus et al., 2013),
 42

highlight the need to explore ways of identifying high Dark Triad candidates during personnel

selection.

3.1.3 Personnel Selection Systems.

Organisations often employ Assessment Centres (ACs) to assess characteristics such as

knowledge base, specific job skills, behavioural competencies, and person-organisation fit, and

validly predict future job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). The typical AC involves the

use of multiple assessments (e.g., psychometric tests, interviews etc.), which are observed by

trained assessors who evaluate the candidates in a standardised manner over a number of days

(Arthur & Day, 2011; Herd et al., 2016). As most ACs tend to observe job candidates over a

period of time, providing a number of observations across situations, this selection approach

elicits richer information about each candidate, compared to what can be achieved if they are

only observed for a single selection activity (e.g., interview). While elements of ACs, such as

reliance on multiple assessments, are fairly standard across organisations and occupations, the

length of an AC varies due to job requirements, time and space constraints, and the aim of the

AC. That is, while organisations can cost-cut by having a shorter AC, the long-term cost may

be a deficient system that does not adequately identify those candidates suitable for the role, or

exclude individuals based on important disqualifying factors.

Managing impressions during personnel selection. Impression management (IM) has two

core features: 1) it is more often enacted during personally meaningful activities, such as

personnel selection (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Lönnqvist, Paunonen, Tuulio‐Henriksson,

Lönnqvist, & Verkasalo, 2007; Rosse, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998) and 2) it is susceptible

to effortful and cognitively draining tasks (Levashina & Campion, 2007; Pontari & Schlenker,

2000; Vrij, Semin, & Bull, 1996). In relation to the Dark Triad, those scoring higher on

measures of Dark Triad are more likely to engage in positive IM techniques (Ickes, Reidhead,

& Patterson, 1986; Rauthmann, 2011), indicating that this particular group may engage in IM
 43

more than others during selection activities. However, as cognitive capacity has its limitations

(Bargh, 1984, 1994), IM is likely to only be engaged for a period of time or when cognitive

resources are available. As most ACs are typically conducted over a 1-3 day period (Gaugler,

Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson, 1987), lengthier selection processes may be a more effective

approach to limit the impact of IM on selection decisions. For instance, a candidate may

initially self-present as charming and charismatic, but over time the energy and effort required

to maintain a façade increases, and individuals could struggle to conceal the ‘real self’. Over

the course of a week-long and intense AC, it is expected that those scoring higher on measures

of the Dark Triad will have lower success rates. This study tests the hypothesis that scores on

measures of Dark Triad will be negatively associated with success on an intensive and extended

AC.

H1a: Higher scores of Machiavellianism will be associated with a greater likelihood of

failure on the AC.

H1b: Higher scores of psychopathy will be associated with a greater likelihood of failure

on the AC.

H1c: Higher scores of narcissism will be associated with a greater likelihood of failure

on the AC.

Self-presentation research indicates that those scoring high on the Dark Triad are

concerned with ensuring that others have a positive impression of them (Ickes et al., 1986;

Rauthmann, 2011; Roulin & Bourdage, 2017). However, IM research has found that stress can

impact on the ability to control self-presentation, as pressure depletes cognitive and emotional

resources, particularly if these resources are needed to perform a task (Vohs et al., 2005). In

their study, Vohs et al. (2005) found that self-regulation under taxing situations impaired the

ability to effectively manage others’ impressions of the individual. That is, the effectiveness of

IM was reduced following a stressful activity. This may be due to a conservation of resources
 44

process where a limited resource (i.e. cognitive ability) competes against other mechanisms

(e.g., stress management, problem solving, personality management), resulting in a drop in

efficacy of one or more of the mechanisms. Consequently, it is possible that high pressure

situations, such as those often found in personnel selection, may create the perfect environment

to understand how self-presentation bias impacts on behavioural manifestations and self-

ratings of the Dark Triad. As such, this study tests the hypothesis that in high pressure

situations, self-rated scores of Dark Triad will increase as IM capacity decreases due to

increased cognitive load from the pressure situation.

H2a: Self-reported Machiavellianism following a high pressure selection exercise will be

significantly higher than self- reported Machiavellianism when not under pressure.

H2b: Self-reported psychopathy following a high pressure selection exercise will be

significantly higher than self- reported psychopathy when not under pressure.

H2c: Self-reported narcissism following a high pressure selection exercise will be

significantly higher than self- reported narcissism when not under pressure.

3.2 Methods

3.2.1 Participants and Procedure.

Participants in this study were candidates in a five-day Assessment Centre (AC) for a

large public sector New Zealand organisation. 158 individuals participated in this study, the

majority were male (82%), and the mean age was 22.74 (SD = 5.61). Ethics approval from the

University ethics committee was gained prior to commencement of this study. All participants

were provided a detailed brief of the study and were given the opportunity to opt out of the

study at any stage of the AC without impact on the selection outcome.

Due to commercial sensitivity reasons, some detail associated with the AC cannot be

divulged here, although a significant amount of content is described in this methods section.

The selection system for this organisation consisted of a five day AC including both practical
 45

and theoretical (planning) exercises. The AC aimed to select candidates for junior management

roles within the organisation. Successful candidates take part in an intensive leadership and

management training program in the organisation including a 12 month training course after

which successful trainees are placed into junior leadership positions.

Candidates at the AC were organised into groups of six to eight candidates, and observed

by one trained Subject Matter Expert (SME) and one organisational psychologist (known as

Technical Expert (TE)) for each group of typically eight candidates. SMEs were selected for

their experience in the organisation (minimum of 12 years in management/leadership positions)

and must have successfully completed several internal management and leadership courses.

TEs were employed to provide specialist input into the AC in terms of behavioural observation,

interpretation of psychometrics, and to ensure appropriate processes were followed during the

AC. The assessors (i.e. the SMEs and TEs) provided initial and final ratings on all participants

based on behaviourally-derived competencies observed throughout the AC. These

competencies were used to guide final recommendations by assessors, such that those who

scored higher on competencies were more likely to receive a positive recommendation. A final

decision on all candidates’ suitability was made by the AC president based on

recommendations from the assessors, and on behavioural competency ratings. As a part of this

study, participants were asked to complete self-report Dark Triad measures at three time points

during the AC.

Timeline of AC. A chronological timeline of data collection is outlined in Figure 2.

Following the consent and information brief, the candidates completed the first (i.e. T1) Dark

Triad self-report measure. Following administration of the first Dark Triad measure, candidates

proceeded to participate in normal AC activities. On day four, candidates were exposed to a

high-pressure work sample test requiring management of multiple resources to complete a

planning task. SMEs and TEs assessed the candidates’ ability to prepare and deliver an
 46

effective plan in response to a particular issue, and asked questions of the candidates as to the

effectiveness of their plan. Following the planning exercise, a second self-report Dark Triad

measure was completed (Dark Triad T2). On day five, the final self-report Dark Triad measure

was conducted (Dark Triad T3) and the AC was concluded with final selection decisions of

success (selected/ not selected) also completed.

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

 Dark Triad T1  High Pressure situation  Peer TLC rating 2

 Dark Triad T2  Peer Dark Triad
 Peer TLC rating 1 rating
 SME/TE rating 1  SME/TE rating 2
 Final AC decision

Figure 2. Timeline of Data Collection with Variables Used in this Study in Bold and
Underlined.

3.2.2 Measures

Dark Triad Measure. The Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010) was used as a

shortened measure of the Dark Triad within the general population and consists of four items

associated with each trait. This measure was chosen for operational reasons associated with the

AC (i.e. quick administration) and has been found to be a psychometrically sound measure of

the Dark Triad as assessed within a normal population (Jonason & Luévano, 2013; Jonason &

Webster, 2010). An example item from the Dirty Dozen is “I tend to be callous or insensitive”

and is scored using a 1 to 5 scale (1= Not at all like me; 5= Very much like me).

Cronbach’s alphas reported in a recent meta-analysis ranged from .85 to .87 for

narcissism, .67 to .72 for Machiavellianism, and .62 to .66 for psychopathy (LeBreton,

Shiverdecker, & Grimaldi, 2018). A Pearson’s correlation showed significant positive

relationships between all Dark Triad traits, as illustrated in Table 2. A CFA showed reasonable

factor fit for a three factor Dark Triad model (R2= 58.21, df= 41, p= .04; SRMR= .083; TLI=
 47

.914; RMSEA= .073; CFI= .936) associated with the three Dark Triad traits at T1 and T2. Both

two factor (R2= 86.16, df= 43, p= .00; SRMR= .11; TLI= .79; RMSEA= .11; CFI= .84) and

one factor models (R2= 195.60, df= 44, p= .00; SRMR= .15; TLI= .29; RMSEA= .21; CFI=

.43) demonstrated poorer fit than the three factor model.

Table 2. Correlations between Dark Triad traits at T1 and T2.

T1 T2
Scale M P N M P N
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 T1 Machiavellianism (M) .72
2 T1 Psychopathy (P) .44** .73
3 T1 Narcissism (N) .46** .27** .80
4 T2 M .61** .25** .27** .73
5 T2 P .33** .59** .15 .42** .68
** ** **
6 T2 N .34 .27 .60 .50** .24** .75
Note: figures in bold on diagonal represent Cronbach’s alpha; *= p< .05 level; **= p< .01

Ratings of stress. Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) were used by SMEs to

rate all candidates on behavioural manifestations of stress during a high pressure activity.

Behavioural descriptors for the BARS consisted of a 5-point scale, with 1 indicating obvious

behavioural signs of stress and poor stress coping mechanisms in response to the planning task,

and 5 corresponding to positive coping mechanisms and few observed signs of stress.

Behavioural descriptors were provided for each grade. For example, the ‘Weak’ category

included behavioural descriptors such as “shows significant signs of stress e.g., fidgeting,

crying, unable to talk, hands shaking etc.”, “unable to work through calculations in adequate

time”, and “difficulty in responding to questions adequately”. The ‘Strong’ category consisted

of behavioural descriptors including “Shows positive outlook under stress”, “Clear and quick

logical thinking under pressure”, “Controls emotion under pressure”, and “No signs of stress

under pressure”. SMEs were trained on effective behavioural observation by qualified

organisational psychologists and provided practice opportunities with supervision.

 48

Outcome ratings. Final selection decisions made by the AC convenor were either

‘Successful’ (1) or ‘Not Successful’ (0) and were made based on the recommendations of

SMEs and TEs using behavioural observations and competency-based decision matrices.

3.3 Results

The first hypothesis proposed that success on the AC would be negatively associated with

self-reported levels of Dark Triad traits assessed at T1. This hypothesis was tested using logistic

regression with the outcome variable being success on the AC (day five), and the predictor

variables narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism at T1 (day one). It was determined

that the T1 Dark Triad trait measures were most appropriate as predictors of AC success, as

the Dark Triad scores from T2 were measured after high pressure manipulation and may have

been influenced by practice or fatigue effects. Further, Dark Triad scores at T1 are unlikely to

be impacted by fatigue effects (unlike T3) and as such T1 was the time point chosen to predict

AC outcomes.

Logistic regression results can be found in Table 3. A Nagelkerke’s R of .08 for the Dark

Triad traits predicting success on the AC indicated a weak relationship between the final

outcome of the AC and Dark Triad traits, with only 8% of the variance being accounted for.

Nevertheless, narcissism at T1 was a significant positive predictor of success on the AC (B=

.50), while psychopathy was associated with greater likelihood of being unsuccessful (B= -

.52). Machiavellianism was not predictive of success on the AC. These results suggest mixed

support for H1 in general. H1a proposed that Machiavellianism was associated with a greater

chance of failure on the AC, however no significant relationship was found. Psychopathy was

expected to be negatively related to AC outcome for H1b, which was supported at the slightly

more liberal alpha level of p< .10. Lastly, narcissism was also expected to be associated with

failure on the AC, however a positive relationship with AC success was noted, in contrast to

H1c. Overall, AC outcomes were positively associated with narcissism and negatively
 49

associated with psychopathy, with no significant relationship between AC outcomes and

Machiavellianism.

Table 3. Logistic Regression for Dark Triad at T1 Predicting AC Success.

B S.E. Wald p value Exp(B)
Constant -.39 .67 .34 .56 .68
Narcissism .50 .20 5.94 .01* 1.65
Psychopathy -.52 .27 3.68 .06 .60
Machiavellianism .04 .32 .02 .89 1.05
Note: *= p< .05; B= unstandardized coefficient; S.E. = Standard Error; Wald= Wald statistic; Exp
(B)= Odds Ratio.

Hypothesis 2 suggested that Dark Triad trait scores would significantly increase

following a high-pressure planning task due to an increase in cognitive load and subsequent

decrease in ability to manage self-presentation. A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted

to compare levels of self-reported Dark Triad at T2 (immediately following the high-pressure

task), with the self-reported Dark Triad at T1. H2 in general would be supported if Dark Triad

trait scores at T2 were significantly higher than Dark Triad trait scores at T1. The results

summarised in Table 4 suggest that there were no significant differences between T1 self-

reported Dark Triad trait scores T2 self-reported Dark Triad scores.

Table 4. Repeated-Measures ANOVA of T1 vs T2 Self-Reported Dark Triad.

η2 F Mean T1 Mean T2 p value
Machiavellianism .02 3.15 1.92 1.83 .08
Psychopathy .00 .56 1.89 1.93 .46
Narcissism .00 .00 2.72 2.72 .96
Note: η2= partial eta squared.

To analyse whether there were any difference in levels of the traits between T1 and T2 at

higher levels of observed stress as rated by SMEs, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted
 50

with time and stress being the variables of interest. For this analysis, stress was dichotomised

into two categories: ‘Stress observed’ which indicates moderate to higher levels of stress

observed by SMEs, and ‘Limited stress observed’ which indicates the lower levels of stress

observed. This categorical variable was used as a conditional variable when examining the

relationship between T1 and T2 Dark Triad traits. The analysis indicated no significant effect

of stress on the relationship between T1 and T2 for all Dark Triad traits (see Table 5, and

Figures 3-5 for illustration). However, there was a significant difference between those who

demonstrated higher levels of stress and those showing lower levels of stress in the increase of

the psychopathy trait, with higher levels of psychopathy being reported at T2 for those with

lower levels of stress. This indicates that lower levels of observed stress was associated with

higher scores of psychopathy. Overall however, the hypothesis that self-reported Dark Triad

scores would increase following a high pressure selection activity was not supported.

Table 5. Repeated-Measures ANOVA Demonstrating Change of Dark Triad Trait Scores Over
Time by Stress Levels.

Variable η2 F p value
Machiavellianism .01 1.25 .27
Machiavellianism * Stress .02 3.21 .08
Psychopathy .01 1.71 .19
Psychopathy * Stress .02 3.35 .07
Narcissism .00 .00 .99
Narcissism * Stress .00 .01 .92
Note: *= p< .05
 51

Note: error bars indicate 95% CI.

Figure 3. Plotted Interaction of Stress on Relationship Between Machiavellianism at T1 and T2.

Note: error bars indicate 95% CI.

Figure 4. Plotted Interaction of Stress on Relationship Between Psychopathy at T1 and T2.

 52

Note: error bars indicate 95% CI.

Figure 5. Plotted Interaction of Stress on Relationship Between Narcissism at T1 and T2.

3.4 Discussion
This study examined whether Dark Triad traits were predictive of success on personnel

selection. In line with other research examining Dark Triad and success in an interview setting

(Paulhus et al., 2013), candidates with higher narcissism scores showed a greater likelihood of

success on the AC, while those with higher psychopathy scores were less likely to be selected.

Machiavellianism scores did not show a significant relationship with AC outcome.

The second hypothesis of this study concerned the susceptibility of Dark Triad scores to

a high pressure situation. None of the Dark Triad traits demonstrated a significant difference

when examining baseline and post-pressure activity scores, in contrast to expectations stated

in hypothesis 2. The results of a repeated measures ANOVA indicated that at T2 psychopathy

scores tended to be higher when levels of observed stress were low. However, in general stress

did not appear to impact on the relationship between T1 and T2 measures of Dark Triad, in

contrast to the second hypotheses.

 53

Of interest in this study is the finding that narcissism was positively associated with

selection outcomes on a robust and comprehensive selection process. Indeed, this finding is

consistent with research conducted in a student population by Paulhus et al. (2013), and adds

value to the growing literature on the Dark Triad by corroborating these results in an applied

setting. The positive impression that is associated with narcissism was maintained throughout

the 5-day assessment centre, which included a high-pressure situation, and where candidates

were observed by different experts over an extended time period. This is also in line with

existing research in the AC field, with research questioning whether longer ACs are valuable

from a predictive validity standpoint (Thornton, Gaugler, Rosenthal, & Bentson, 1992).

The results from this study hold important implications and raise questions for research

and practice. Firstly, given that those with higher levels of narcissism may hold better chances

of being selected, can selection systems be improved to detect higher, and potentially more

harmful, levels of narcissism? Secondly, organisations may want to know at which level the

narcissism trait becomes detrimental to other individuals and performance. The research focus

should extend from a cross-sectional approach that asks ‘Do narcissists have a better chance of

being selected into an organisation?’ to a longitudinal approach addressing the question ‘At

what degree/threshold is the narcissistic trait more likely to result in negative work

behaviours?’

Of particular importance to the Dark Triad literature is the finding that psychopathy was

associated with unsuccessful outcomes on the AC. This finding is encouraging for

organisations, as it suggests that psychopathy can be identified in lengthier and more

comprehensive selection systems. However, for organisations with less comprehensive

personnel selection processes that do not highlight the undesirable attributes associated with

psychopathy, this finding may be less relevant. One reason why psychopathy may be more

salient in terms of the negative behaviours associated with this assessment centre is the
 54

impulsivity trait related to psychopathy. It could be that impulsivity dysregulation, a key feature

of psychopathy, which renders individuals less able to control spontaneous thoughts and desires

(Hare & Neumann, 2008), is more susceptible to stressful situations than the manipulative and

self-aggrandising behaviours that characterise Machiavellianism for example. That is to say,

the cognitive consequences for impulsive decision-making may have greater performance

implications than self-aggrandising behaviour, particularly in the context of a planning and

decision-making task (Broos et al., 2012; Evenden, 1999). This perspective gains some support

in light of the moderated relationship noted in hypothesis 2 for psychopathy and narcissism.

Of particular note is that the impulsivity characteristic is also a feature of narcissism, making

the ‘sensitisation to stress’ theory described above more substantial.

While much empirical research on the Dark Triad has made important contributions to

our understanding of dark traits, this research has primarily relied on data from student samples

(Carter et al., 2015). Accordingly, this study has contributed to the Dark Triad literature by

relying on a non-student and applied sample undergoing a selection process conducted over a

period of time, revealing intricacies of the Dark Triad in an applied setting.

3.4.1 Limitations and Directions for Future Research

One limitation associated with this study is the use of the Dirty Dozen measure. Several

studies have questioned the construct validity of the Dirty Dozen when compared with other

Dark Triad measures (e.g., Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Maples, Lamkin & Miller, 2014; Miller et

al., 2012), namely the fact that it does not fully capture all factors of the Dark Triad traits due

to its brevity. The argument from opponents of the Dirty Dozen is that due to its conciseness

the Dirty Dozen overlooks content otherwise captured in longer and more complete measures.

For example, it has been found that the Dirty Dozen is unable to account for the separate factors

within each trait (Jonason & Luévano, 2013), making the measure less specific than individual

or more complete measures of Dark Triad traits. In a meta-analysis examining measures of the
 55

Dark Triad, Muris et al. (2017) conclude that perhaps the Dirty Dozen is too simple, as it only

captures the callous affect associated with the scale, and neglects aspects associated with traits

such as impulsivity. As such, while the attractive brevity of the Dirty Dozen draws support for

the use of the scale, the construct validity remains a point of contention (e.g., Jonason &

Kavanagh, 2010; Rauthman, 2012; Webster & Jonason, 2013). Nevertheless, other research

suggests an adequate validity of the Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Luévano, 2013; Jonason &

Webster, 2010; Rauthmann, 2011). Further, a longer measure of the Dark Triad would not have

been amenable to the needs of the organisation and the logistics of conducting these measures

throughout the AC. As such, the use of a short and relatively effective measure of the Dark

Triad is justified in this study.

Another limitation concerns range restriction. Pre-selection activities including targeted

recruitment, minimum education levels, New Zealand work requirements, and recruiter

interviews reduce the applicant pool to more manageable numbers but also more restricted set

of personal characteristics. In saying this, improvements in study design may be made through

‘before’ pre-selection and ‘after’ the AC measures of Dark Triad traits as a way to assess base

rates prior to the AC. In this way, how Dark Triad scores and IM levels change over time could

be better assessed. In addition, surveying those who were not selected to attend the AC, and

establishing baseline Dark Triad scores prior to the AC would provide valuable data and an

understanding of any differences between AC attendees and those not selected to attend.

Finally, future studies should examine the deliberate use of IM scale directly prior to and

following a high pressure activity, and the use of a control group to provide a better understand

and as a comparison group. In this way levels of impression management can be established

and linked more directly to high pressure activities and levels of Dark Triad traits.
 56

3.5 Conclusions

While a set of mixed results characterised this study, several findings are of importance

to practitioners within the field of personnel selection. Having higher levels of narcissism may

be helpful for candidates entering organisations as a junior manager/leader, while in contrast,

psychopathy may harm individuals’ chances of success in personnel selection contexts.

Further, high pressure situations appeared to affect the Dark Triad traits differently.

Psychopathy scores increased following a high pressure selection activity, yet no significant

changes in self-reported scores of Machiavellianism and narcissism were recorded. This

finding suggests the need for further, longitudinal research into how IM operates alongside

Dark Triad traits in order to fully understand the association of Dark Triad and stress within a

selection context. Limitations of this study include the validity of the Dark Triad measure used,

as well as the range restriction apparent in this personnel selection system. Future studies may

wish to focus on the use of impression management scales alongside the Dark Triad, and

baseline scores of Dark Triad prior to and following ACs.

 57

Chapter 4: Peer Observations of the Dark Triad

Chapter 3 examined whether Dark Triad (Dark Triad) traits demonstrated any personal

benefit to candidates of a five-day assessment centre and found that self-reported psychopathy

was negatively related to success, while narcissism was positively related to assessment centre

outcome. This finding is of interest to organisations as it suggests that behaviours associated

with narcissism can be easily misconstrued as desirable, but behaviours associated with

psychopathy are likely deemed disqualifying. Further, Dark Triad scores appeared to be

affected by higher levels of observed stress such that higher levels of stress resulted in higher

levels of psychopathy and narcissism as compared to baseline scores. As the Dark Triad is

largely self-oriented, i.e. harm towards others and a focus on gains for one-self, this begs the

question whether those who are engaged in daily tasks alongside individuals with high levels

of dark traits (i.e. peers) can detect these dark traits. In this chapter, this study therefore seeks

to examine the relationship between self- and peer-ratings of the Dark Triad, and between peer

evaluations of team leader competencies and self-reported Dark Triad scores.

Malevolent personality has become a source of great interest in psychology with a recent

upsurge in research examining dark personality (Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016). Literature

associated with dark personality has covered a number of different constructs such as the dark

tetrad (Mededovic & Petrovic, 2015), the Hogan domain model (Hogan & Hogan, 2001), and

the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) demonstrating the rising interest in how aversive

personality functions in day to day life. While it may be unclear exactly what constitutes a

‘dark personality’ (Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016), lead researchers contend it consists of key

features such as social antagonism associated with interpersonal difficulties, and destructive

behaviours usually targeted towards others (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) across a range of

contexts (Muris et al., 2017; Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016).

 58

In particular, the dark personality literature discusses a collection of traits with defining

features such as a manipulative approach to others, callous nature and highly driven self-

interest. This assembly of problematic personality is collectively known as the Dark Triad and

consists of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The

construct of Machiavellianism is characterised by manipulation, a narrow ethical focus, and a

cynical worldview (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Those scoring high on scales of narcissism

have a tendency toward a grandiose sense of self, a need for others’ attention, and an overly

developed sense of entitlement (Campbell et al., 2011). Psychopathy is associated with a

distinct lack of empathy for others, deceitful orientation, and impulsivity (Babiak et al., 2010).

The Dark Triad has been investigated in several different contexts such as physical activity

(Sabouri et al., 2016), academia (Nathanson, Paulhus, & Williams, 2006), and in organisational

settings (O'Boyle Jr, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012), typically with a focus on the

maladaptive nature of the traits.

Within the organisational context, many outcomes associated with negative workplace

behaviours result in substantial costs for organisations. For example, abusive supervision is

estimated to cost US companies nearly $24 billion annually (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert,

2006). Thus, organisations have a financial interest in identifying those expressing potentially

negative traits in order to limit costs. The tendency of Dark Triad traits to be reflected in

negative or harmful behaviours places this set of personality traits squarely in the firing line

for organisations to identify and limit their impact in their workforce. However, the effective

identification of Dark Triad traits in organisations is predicated on rigorous assessment tools.

The Dark Triad literature is replete with examples of Dark Triad measurement using self-report

measures (Harms & Spain, 2015; Judge et al., 2006; Kiazad et al., 2010; Marcus & Zeigler-

Hill, 2016; Muris et al., 2017). Issues associated with self-report measures for personality traits

have been well documented, and include respondents wanting to make themselves look as good
 59

as possible with their responses (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002), common method bias

(Campbell & Fiske, 1959), and the inability to verify responses (Klonsky & Oltmanns, 2002;

Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The preponderance of self-report data in Dark Triad research, along

with the aforementioned issues with general self-report data in personality research, suggests

that non-self-report measures of Dark Triad such as peer ratings may be beneficial in

understanding how Dark Triad traits manifest and are perceived within organisations.

In addition to self-report issues, the organisational level at which dark personality traits

have an effect is also of interest to Dark Triad research. Personality traits are considered to be

associated with leadership outcomes (Hoffman, Woehr, Maldagen-Youngjohn, & Lyons, 2011;

Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002), making traits which shape leader performance and

behaviour of interest to organisations wishing to develop this resource. Those in leadership or

supervisory positions are required to allocate resources and make decisions on incumbent

placements, task allocation, and performance appraisals. As such, leaders are in a prime

position to provide great support for their team, or conversely to cause great harm to

organisations and individuals (Harms et al., 2011; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). While the Dark

Triad has been investigated amongst organisational leaders (Babiak & Hare, 2007; Burke,

2006; Kiazad et al., 2010; Mathieu et al., 2014; Volmer et al., 2016; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016),

the association between Dark Triad traits and external perceptions of leadership behaviours

among employees, has yet to be examined.

Given the aforementioned gaps in Dark Triad research around self-report data in relation

to leadership roles, this study seeks to examine whether self- and other-observations of the

Dark Triad are consistent, and whether peer ratings inflate or underestimate Dark Triad traits

in relation to self-report appraisals. In view of the interest in dark personality in leadership

literature, it is also relevant to consider how self-report Dark Triad scores may relate to peer

ratings of leadership competencies. The aims of this study are to establish whether peer ratings
 60

of Dark Triad traits are consistent with self-reported Dark Triad scores, and what relationship

self-reported Dark Triad scores have with peer rated scores of leadership, camaraderie, and

effort competencies.

4.1.1 Dark Triad and Destructive Leader Behaviour

Leadership in an organisational context has drawn much interest from organisations and

scholars on the back of research suggesting organisational procedures and processes

implemented by leaders may promote or allow negative workplace behaviour. For example,

nearly 75% of bullying in an organisational context can be attributed to leadership (Hoel,

Cooper, & Faragher, 2001), and is sustained by organisational culture mechanisms held in

place by organisational leaders (Einarsen, 1999). Indeed, negative leadership behaviours

associated with authoritarian and Machiavellian behaviours have pervasive and powerful

negative effects on the psychological wellbeing of employees (Montano, Reeske, Franke, &

Hüffmeier, 2016). Further, other dark personality traits of supervisors, such as psychopathy,

have also been found to impact negatively on subordinate job satisfaction (Mathieu et al.,

2014).

In one particular study investigating the relationship between supervisors’ scores on

measures of the Dark Triad and employee wellbeing, Volmer et al. (2016) found that supervisor

Machiavellianism and psychopathy were negatively associated with employee subjective

career success and employee subjective wellbeing. Conversely, narcissism was found to be

positively related to subjective and objective career success (i.e. salary and promotions). This

suggests a benefit for subordinates of leaders scoring high on measures of narcissism and

indicates narcissism may be perceived as being “brighter” than other Dark Triad traits. In a

similar vein, narcissism has been identified as being of benefit for individuals in an interview

setting, as distinct from the other Dark Triad traits in a simulated personnel selection context,

suggesting a further distinction between the three traits (Paulhus et al., 2013). This discrepancy
 61

across the Dark Triad traits has been suggested by other authors (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012,

2013) proposing there instead of a triad of dark traits, a “Malicious Two” best represents dark

personality. That there are both positive and negative outcomes associated with leaders scoring

high on measures of the Dark Triad suggest that there may be both a ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ side to

the Dark Triad (Judge et al., 2009) rather than a consistent association with negative

behavioural outcomes. This is of interest in this study as it indicates relationships between Dark

Triad traits and outcomes may not be straightforward or even in the same direction.

4.1.2 Dark Triad and Other-Ratings of Behaviour

Taking into consideration the power, resources, and autonomy associated with leadership

and management roles, the consequences of having someone in a leadership role exhibiting

Dark Triad behaviours can hold wide-ranging negative implications for the organisation

(Harms & Spain, 2015; Jonason & Webster, 2010b; O'Boyle et al., 2012; Paulhus & Williams,

2002). Given the over-reliance on self-report methods in Dark Triad research, some researchers

have called for ways to minimise the effects of self-report biases (Harms & Spain, 2015;

Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016). This is of importance to field research as self-report personality

measures have been found to be quite susceptible to intentional distortion (Klonsky &

Oltmanns, 2002). Despite issues with this form of personality measurement, self-report

measures of the Dark Triad appear to be dominant in the Dark Triad literature (Marcus &

Zeigler-Hill, 2016; Muris et al., 2017). In order to mitigate the biases naturally occurring in

self-report data the use of others’ ratings of Dark Triad levels of individuals then becomes an

important aspect to consider when developing a functional understanding of the Dark Triad in

organisations.

The reliance on data gathered from non-self-report methods has been widely recognised

as useful in selection context and supported by evidence suggesting high predictive validity of

leadership (Allen et al., 2014; Kraut, 1975; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Thus, peer ratings of
 62

performance can provide organisations with a key opportunity to gather useful job candidate

data that is not self-report, thereby avoiding limitations of self-reported data (Hofstee, 1994;

Kim, 2011; Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Ones, 2002). Further, impression management is known

to be a common feature in a personnel selection context (Ellis et al., 2002). As such,

observations made by those outside of directly assessed tasks (e.g., informal non-assessed peer

interactions) become useful to assess behaviour not otherwise observed during formal

assessment activities.

With the aforementioned distortions apparent in self-report data, it is possible that

behavioural manifestations of Dark Triad related to leadership are observed and considered

differently by peers than they are by the individual. For example, candidates scoring high on

measures of Dark Triad may view themselves as ‘persuasive’ but be perceived as

‘manipulative’ by others. This is in line with the manipulative, deceitful, and distorted picture

portrayed by those scoring high on Dark Triad measures (Marcus & Zeigler-Hill, 2016), and

may reflect a distinction between identity and reputation. How others perceive an individual

who scores high on the Dark Triad is of interest to organisations considering that individuals

have been found to adjust their behaviour in response to how others perceive them during

personnel selection (Ellis et al., 2002; Stevens & Kristof, 1995).

Of particular note in distortions of self-report data is the direction that the distortion

operates in. Research has established that self-assessments of more positive aspects such as

attractiveness and intelligence are likely to be inflated (Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee, 1994; Taylor &

Brown, 1988). However, other research associated with narcissism suggests that social

characteristics that are perceived by others as negative (e.g., selfishness, insulting, crude) are

considered less problematic by narcissists (Jones & Brunell, 2014). Therefore, it could be that

those with higher levels of Dark Triad score themselves less favourably (i.e. score higher) on

measures of Dark Triad than those with lower levels of the Dark Triad. In light of the lack of
 63

research on differences between self- and other- ratings of the Dark Triad, it becomes important

to assess in which direction differences may exist (if indeed they do) between self- and other-

ratings of the Dark Triad. Based on previous research suggesting those scoring high on

measures of narcissism perceive less favourable traits as less problematic, it is expected that

scores on self-reported measures of the Dark Triad will be significantly higher that peer-ratings

of all three Dark Triad traits. More specifically, narcissism, psychopathy, and

Machiavellianism self-report scores will be significantly higher than other-rated narcissism,

psychopathy, and Machiavellianism scores as assessed by peers.

H1a: Self- rated scores of Machiavellianism will be significantly higher than peer-

reported Machiavellianism scores.

H1b: Self-rated scores of narcissism will be significantly higher than peer-reported

narcissism scores.

H1c: Self-rated scores of psychopathy will be significantly lower than peer-reported

psychopathy scores.

As previously mentioned, the literature suggests that narcissism may be distinct from

Machiavellianism or psychopathy (Judge et al., 2009; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012, 2013;

Volmer et al., 2016). In view of this distinction it is expected that self-ratings of Dark Triad

measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism will be negatively related to peer-ratings of

Leadership competencies. Further, considering the “brighter” perception of narcissism

especially in a leadership context, it is expected that narcissism will be perceived more

positively, as reflected in positive associations between ratings of narcissism and peer ratings

of Leadership.

H2a: Peer ratings of Team Leader competencies (i.e. Comradeship, Leadership, and

Effort) will be negatively associated with self-reported Machiavellianism.

 64

H2b: Peer ratings of Team Leader competencies (i.e. Comradeship, Leadership, and

Effort) will be negatively associated with self-reported psychopathy.

H2c: Peer ratings of ‘Leadership’ Team Leader competency will be positively associated

with self-reported narcissism.

4.2 Methods

4.2.1 Participants and Procedure

144 participants took part in a public sector personnel selection process which included

a number of practical and theoretical tasks over the course of five days. 82% of participants

were male, with a mean age of 22.74 years (SD 5.61). 14 candidates had missing data for either

the self- or peer-reported data and so were excluded from this study. Candidates at the

assessment centre were applying for junior management/leadership positions in a large

government organisation. Assessed activities were associated with typical leadership and

management tasks incumbents undertake in the job and included theoretical planning and

leadership tasks as part of a team and individually. Participants completed measures of both

self-report and peer-report Dark Triad, and rated others within their group on measures of

Leadership competencies (discussed below) over the course of the selection (see Figure 6).

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

 Dark Triad T1  High Pressure  Peer TLC rating 2

situation  Peer Dark Triad
 Dark Triad T2 rating
 Peer TLC rating 1  SME/TE rating 2
 SME/TE rating 1  Final AC decision
 65

Figure 6. Timeline of Assessment Centre Activities with Measures Used in this Study in Bold
and Underlined.

4.2.2 Measures

Dark Triad. A brief measure of the Dark Triad was used in this study: the ‘Dirty Dozen’

(Jonason & Webster, 2010). This has been found to be concise and effective measure of all

three of the Dark Triad traits (Jonason & Webster, 2010; Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010;

Rauthman, 2012). The Dirty Dozen is scored on a 1-5 scale where 1= “Not at all like me” and

5= “Very much like me”. A sample question from the scale is “I tend to be unconcerned with

the morality of my actions” (Machiavellianism). Participants completed the self-rated Dirty

Dozen on day one of the assessment centre and the peer-rated measure on day five.

Peer Measures of the Dark Triad. The Dirty Dozen was adapted for use as a peer-rating

scale using the same scale as the self-report (i.e. 1 to 5). Individuals were instructed to indicate

how much they agree with each item (i.e. 1= “Not at all” and 5= “Very much”) for each

individual in their syndicate group taking part in the study. A sample item was “… tends to

manipulate others to get his/her way.”

In order to establish whether peer-rated Dark Triad scores could be aggregated to a

higher-level score for the whole group, the intra-class correlation (ICC; Bartko, 1976) and rWG(J)

(James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) were examined. Two forms of the ICC are typically used to

assess interrater reliability: ICC (1) and ICC (2) using the components of a one-way random

effects analysis of variance (Bliese, 1998). rWG(J) is a measure of inter-rater agreement that

examines the level of agreement between multiple raters assessing multiple targets (Bliese,

2000) and is also used to establish suitability of a variable to aggregate. ICC(1), ICC(2), and

rWG(J) were calculated by using the R software package (R Core Team, 2017).

Overall, ICC(1) for all scales ranged from .11 to .55 with a mean of .18 and median of

.16, indicating 16% of the variance in ratings can be attributed to group membership. ICC(2)
 66

ranged from .44 to .88 with a mean score of .69 and median of .73 indicating good inter-rater

reliability (Koo & Li, 2016). In general, rWG(J) scores ranged from .00 to 1.00 with a mean score

of .86 and a median score of .91 indicating good to excellent inter-rater agreement (Koo & Li,

2016), suggesting that it was appropriate to aggregate group peer-rated Dark Triad scores.

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted on the peer-adapted Dirty Dozen. This

CFA tested three competing models, with a three-factor solution providing the best fit

(Table 6). The majority of scales were normally distributed and had Cronbach’s alpha greater

than .70 indicating adequate reliability (see Table 7).

Peer Ratings of Team Leader Competencies. All candidates were asked to rank other

members of their group during the assessment centre on Team Leader competencies of

‘Comradeship’, ‘Leadership’, and ‘Effort’. Comradeship was defined as an ability to show

concern and respect for others and making an effort to get on with people. The Leadership

competency was defined as having a noticeable and influential presence within the group, and

an ability to get others to act on their ideas and follow their lead. Finally, Effort consisted of

the ability to keep going and consistently giving their best effort when things get tough. This

peer rating was conducted on day three after participants had an opportunity to become familiar

with each other and to observe behaviours of those within their group. Each candidate was

ranked from first (1) through to last (8) for a typical eight-person group on each competency,

with 1 denoting highest ranking for the competency. This was reverse scored so that higher

numbers corresponded to higher levels of the competency in the group.

Table 6. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Peer Ratings of Dark Triad Traits.
Factors
1 2 3
2
R (df) 496.39 (54) 326.08 (53) 201.11 (51)
RMSEA .23 .19 .14
CFI .82 .89 .94
TLI .78 .86 .92
SRMR .05 .06 .06
 67

4.3 Results

Hypothesis 1 proposed that peer-ratings of Dark Triad traits would be significantly higher

than self-report ratings of Dark Triad. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on

aggregated peer-ratings and self-reported Dark Triad scores at T1 to test for significant

differences between Dark Triad traits. As shown in Table 7, effect sizes varied between

moderate for Machiavellianism and narcissism traits, and small for psychopathy. All peer-

ratings of Dark Triad traits were significantly lower than self-reported Dark Triad scores, which

is in line with hypothesis 1(a-c). Cohen’s d was calculated for Dark Triad self- vs peer- rating

differences, and demonstrated medium to large effect sizes (.44-.86).

 68

Table 7. Repeated-Measures ANOVA of Self- vs Peer- Reports of Dark Triad Traits.

Source Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α Mean SR Mean Peer df MS F η2 p value
Self Peer
Machiavellianism .71 .95 1.92 1.43 143 17.94 69.58 0.33 0.00
Psychopathy .71 .95 1.89 1.62 143 5.29 15.93 0.10 0.00
Narcissism .85 .92 2.47 1.87 143 26.00 65.28 0.31 0.00
Note: Mean SR= Self-reported Dark Triad mean; Mean Peer= Peer-reported Dark Triad mean; df= degrees of freedom; MS= Mean Square; η2 = partial eta squared; N= 144.
 69

Hypothesis 2a and 2b proposed that self-reported psychopathy and Machiavellianism

scores would be negatively associated with peer ratings of Team Leader competencies, namely

Comradeship, Leadership, and Effort. Hypothesis 2c stated that narcissism would be positively

associated with the Leadership peer rated competency. A correlation analysis was conducted

to explore relationships between Team Leader Competencies and self-reported Dark Triad

scores prior to a regression (Table 8). The Leadership competency was positively related to

Machiavellianism and narcissism while the Effort competency was negatively related to

psychopathy. Comradeship was not significantly related to any of the Dark Triad traits.

Table 8. Correlations between Self-Report Dark Triad and Team Leader Competencies.
Comradeship Leadership Effort Machiavellianism Psychopathy
Leadership .68**
Effort .64** .55**
Machiavellianism .10 .19* .08
Psychopathy -.14 -.02 -.16* .36**
Narcissism .15 .24** .09 .41** .21**
Note: N= 158; significant correlations in bold; * p< .05; ** p< .01.

A linear multiple regression was then conducted to test the relative contribution of the

Dark Triad traits to the ratings of leadership competencies, in order to establish which

competency had the strongest relationship. The findings presented in Table 9 show that

psychopathy demonstrated a negative relationship with Comradeship (β= -.21, p= .02), while

Machiavellianism and narcissism were not significantly related to the competency. Overall,

only 5% of the variance in Comradeship was explained by Dark Triad traits. For the Leadership

competency, narcissism emerged as a significant positive predictor of the competency (β= .22,

p= .02). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism were not significantly related to the Leadership

competency. Dark Triad traits explained 6% of the variance in the Leadership competency.

Psychopathy was negatively associated with the Effort competency (β= -.25, p= .01), and

neither Machiavellianism nor narcissism demonstrated significant relationships with this

competency. Dark Triad traits explained 4% of the variance in the Effort competency.
 70

In general, mixed results were found for hypothesis 2. Significant positive relationships

were established in the correlation analysis between the Leadership Team Leader competency,

and Machiavellianism and narcissism. Further, the Effort Team Leader competency was

negatively related to psychopathy, in line with expectations. A regression analysis showed a

similar pattern of relationships, with negative relationships between Team Leader

competencies of Comradeship and Effort and psychopathy (hypothesis 2a). In addition, the

peer-rated Leadership Team Leader competency was positively related to narcissism,

supporting hypothesis 2c. Machiavellianism did not show any significant relationships with

any of the Team Leader competencies, failing to support hypothesis 2b. While the correlational

analysis did demonstrate some relationships in line with expectations, the more robust

regression analysis highlights the more accurate relationships to test hypotheses in this study.
 71

Table 9. Multiple Regression of Dark Triad Traits Predicting Team Leader Competencies.
Comradeship Leadership Effort
SE β p value SE β p value SE β p value
Machiavellianism .35 .12 .22 .34 .13 .17 .35 .14 .15
Psychopathy .30 -.21 .02* .30 -.08 .34 .30 -.25 .01*
Narcissism .25 .17 .06 .25 .22 .02* .25 .11 .23
2
R adjusted .06
Note: *= p< .05; SE= Standard Error; β= Standardised Beta; N= 158.
 72

4.4 Discussion

The findings of this study indicate self-reported scores of Dark Triad traits were

significantly higher than peer ratings of Dark Triad traits, in line with literature associated with

Dark Triad traits (Jones & Brunell, 2014). With regards to how the Dark Triad related to peer-

rated leadership competencies, narcissism was positively associated with the Team Leader

leadership competency while psychopathy was negatively associated with the Effort

competency, in line with hypotheses. Self-reported Machiavellianism was not significantly

associated with any Team Leader competencies.

This study contributes to Dark Triad research, particularly as there are few studies

contrasting how the Dark Triad is perceived by others and self-reported appraisals of the traits.

This is important to consider for two reasons. First, introspectively an individual has access to

all the Machiavellian, narcissistic, and/or psychopathic thoughts coming to mind that outside

observers do not. That is, people rate themselves according to their enduring thoughts and

beliefs, reflecting their perception of their behaviour. However, others typically rate the

behaviours they have observed rather than the intent or other internal processes of the

individual being rated. This is likely to result in disparity between self- and other-ratings of the

Dark Triad. Second, context plays an important part in how and whether behaviours associated

with the Dark Triad are observed. As previously discussed, both narcissism (e.g., the

Contextual Reinforcement model, Campbell & Campbell, 2009), and Machiavellianism

manifest differently depending on the conditions individuals scoring high on these traits are

placed under. Consequentially, context and differences in perception of behaviour may explain

the discrepancy found between self-and other-ratings of the Dark Triad.

Attribution theory may have a hand to play in explaining this finding. Fundamental

attribution error is associated with an over-dependence on dispositional explanations at the cost

of situational attributions (Ployhart & Harold, 2004). This attribution error describes observers’
 73

tendency to attribute a person’s behaviour to their individual motives, values, and beliefs (i.e.

an internal attribution). Conversely, an individual is more likely to consider causes of their own

behaviour as falling outside of their control such as within the environment or situation (i.e.

external attributions) (Ployhart & Harold, 2004). Attribution theory could explain self-other

differences in ratings of the Dark Triad, such that two different mental processes may be at

play for observers and for individuals when considering behaviours associated with the Dark

Triad. While peers make internal attributions when considering an individual’s Dark Triad

behaviour, self-appraisals of behaviour typically reflect external attributions.

While attribution theory offers a reasonable explanation of typical differences in peer-

and self-evaluations, this does not explain the direction of the relationship in relation to the

Dark Triad. Attribution theory suggests that self-ratings of negative traits (i.e. the Dark Triad)

would be scored lower and ascribed to factors outside the individual’s control (external

attribution), while other-ratings of the Dark Triad would be rated higher and more likely

attributed to the individual’s motivation or personality (internal attribution). In addition, other

research findings also suggest that self-ratings of negative traits are typically de-emphasised

by respondents (Beauregard & Dunning, 2001; McElwee, Dunning, Tan, Hollmann, 2001;

Story & Dunning, 1998), which would also predict lower self-rating scores on the Dark Triad.

However, in this study, self-reported Dark Triad scores appeared higher than other-reported

scores in contrast to both attribution theory and past research on negatively perceived traits. As

such, whether the magnitude and direction of the attribution is the same each time an observer

considers an actor’s behaviour during the assessment centre is questionable. This discrepancy

between the findings in this study and theory suggest a more complex process is occurring

within the personnel selection setting and may require combinations of alternative theories and

models to account for differences in peer- and self-evaluations of the Dark Triad.
 74

One reason that could explain the differences and direction of differences in Dark Triad

scores is the rationalisation of behaviour by the individual being rated. It could be that

individuals who score higher on measures of the Dark Triad deem the behaviours associated

with the Dark Triad less problematic (e.g., Jones & Brunell, 2014). For example, the negative

behaviours that those scoring high on the Dark Triad carry out could become normalised for

them, potentially justifying the negative impact of these behaviours. For example, someone

scoring high on Machiavellianism may consider manipulation justified if it achieves her goal

of promotion. This may explain why self-reported Dark Triad scores were higher than others’

observations of Dark Triad behaviour, and potentially contribute to the null relationships

Machiavellianism had with Team Leader competencies. This “internal justification” process

contrasts with attribution theory where one’s perceived behavioural motives are attributed

within the individual are attributed to external factors, rather than rationalising behaviour as

appropriate given their worldviews. Future studies may examine the meaning ascribed to Dark

Triad traits to explain differences between self and other ratings.

With regards to the relationships found between Dark Triad traits and team leader

competencies, the finding that narcissism was positively associated with peer ratings of

leadership, comradeship and effort competencies is of interest to the Dark Triad literature. This

is consistent with other research which has identified that leadership emergence (i.e. whether

someone is viewed as a leader by others) is positively related to narcissism (Judge et al., 2002).

That is, peers consider those with narcissistic traits to have leadership characteristics. Of further

relevance to organisations seeking to harness peer-observations in their leader selection

processes, this study found a positive relationship between narcissism and the leadership

competency. This is telling as research suggests that initial perceptions of narcissism can give

way to enduring performance issues (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007) making the weighting of

initial peer ratings of narcissism in hiring decisions potentially less useful in selection settings.
 75

In this study, narcissism was perceived as more positive by peers in terms of leadership.

This may encourage organisations (or their representatives) to consider the short-term benefits

of hiring narcissistic leaders over the long-term consequences (Paulhus, 1998) if organisations

put more weight in peer ratings of leadership. For example, recent research has suggested that

narcissistic leaders can be beneficial and in fact promote an innovative culture (Zhang, Ou,

Tsui, & Wang, 2017) while others suggests that the performance of narcissistic leaders can be

unpredictable (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). As such, organisations willing to hire those

scoring high on measures of narcissism may consider the use of these individuals for projects

associated with short-term problem solving and creative team innovation.

4.4.1 Limitations

When examining the relationships that the Dark Triad had with Team Leader

Competencies, the variance adjusted for was low indicating a limited likelihood that this

finding would be replicated in a similar population. This may be due to the small sample size,

or perhaps to assessment centre effects. For example, given the peer-rated Dark Triad data was

collected at the end of the selection process, fatigue effects may have impacted on peer-reported

Dark Triad scores. Alternatively, as this study was conducted in an applied setting, as opposed

to a laboratory setting which tends to be more closely controlled, the contextual variability and

confounds inherent in such a setting may have contributed to further random error. This may

have resulted in low effect sizes. Future studies should seek to replicate this study with a larger

number of participants in other applied and experimental settings in order to establish

differences between self- and other-ratings of the Dark Triad.

An additional issue with this study was the majority of participants were young (22.74

years old) and male (82%). Previous research has shown that males and younger individuals

tend to score higher on measures of the Dark Triad (Muris et al., 2017; Barlett & Barlett, 2015).

As the industry in which this study was conducted is male-dominated, the findings of this study
 76

may well be generalisable to organisations and sectors with a similar demographic

composition. However, the limited gender diversity demonstrated by this study may reduce

how generalizable these findings to the wider population.

A final limitation of this study is the low base rate, which is common in Dark Triad

research (LeBreton et al., 2018). The fact that people have been found to underreport dark

personality and behaviours makes the study of these kinds of constructs an issue in general

(Paulhus & John, 1998). Indeed, small to moderate effect sizes have been found when

examining Dark Triad traits (Muris et al., 2017), indicating low base rates may have an impact

on relationships found between Dark Triad and variables of interest in the general population.

In addition, because individuals place high importance on the outcomes of personnel selection

(Ellis et al., 2002), this may provide impetus to ‘fake good’, potentially driving Dark Triad

scores down even further. As few studies have examined how the Dark Triad functions within

personnel selection, this makes it difficult to assess whether findings in this study are robust

given low base rates and impression management characteristic in this setting. Future studies

may wish to assess Dark Triad scores anonymously prior to and following personnel selection

in order to assess whether Dark Triad scores change due to the assessment centre environment.

4.5 Conclusions

This study adds to the growing literature on the Dark Triad by examining self- and peer-

reported data, with an aim to establish whether differences occur between self- and other- Dark

Triad scores. Findings suggest that self-reported Dark Triad was scored higher than peer-scored

Dark Triad, and that psychopathy was negatively related to the perception of Comradeship and

Effort Team Leader competencies. Narcissism was also found to be perceived positively by

others, notably with the Leadership competency, with no significant relationships identified for

Machiavellianism. Suggestions for future directions included making use of ongoing selection-
 77

training pipelines and developing longitudinal data blocks with which to corroborate cross

sectional findings, particularly with regards to the positive perception of narcissism.

 78

Chapter 5: The Dark Triad and Expert Ratings of Performance

Personnel selection processes culminate in decisions about candidates’ suitability for a

role based on available information (Sackett & Lievens, 2008), typically from a range of

sources such as subject matter experts (SMEs). Personality is also a factor of interest to

organisations concerned with making effective hires during selection processes (Hogan &

Holland, 2003), which may explain the recent focus on aversive personality traits in

occupational contexts (Spain, Harms, & LeBreton, 2014). In Chapter 3, it was identified that

some aversive personality traits may help candidates succeed even as they undergo robust and

thorough selection processes. One such group of aversive traits is the Dark Triad, a collection

of three personality traits manifested in extreme self-interest, devious and deceitful behaviour,

and a callous approach to others (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The Dark Triad has been

associated with several negative workplace outcomes and widely perceived as problematic to

organisations (Muris et al., 2017; Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016). The question this study

attempts to answer is whether behavioural ratings of SMEs and technical experts (i.e.

organisational psychologists) in a personnel selection context are consistent with self-reported

scores of Dark Triad traits. To establish how Dark Triad scores may be associated with ratings

by experts, this chapter will first describe the Dark Triad and the use of competencies in

selection settings, then examine data from a five day assessment centre.

5.1.1 The Dark Triad

In 2002, Paulhus and Williams developed and tested the idea of a trio of malevolent

personality traits (i.e. narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) collectively known as

the Dark Triad. Narcissism is associated with grandiose thinking, extreme self-confidence,

feelings of entitlement, and a need for constant appreciation (Miller, Lynam, et al., 2017).

Those scoring high on measures of psychopathy tend to have an inconsiderate and callous

attitude towards others, and are impulsive, deceitful, and exploitative (Hare & Neumann,
 79

2008). The concept of Machiavellianism was developed by Christie and Geis (1970) and refers

to a manipulative, cynical approach towards others, as well as an ‘ends justify the means’

perspective. Taken together, the Dark Triad represents a callous nature coupled with a lack of

empathy, and a central theme of self-interest (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). (Paulhus &

Williams, 2002).

In organisations, the Dark Triad has been linked to a number of negative workplace

outcomes, such as counterproductive workplace behaviours (DeShong et al., 2015; O'Boyle et

al., 2012), bullying (Baughman et al., 2012), a proclivity towards deceit particularly in high

pressure stakes (Paulhus et al., 2013), and general maladaptive behaviour (Muris et al., 2017).

While some have suggested that the Dark Triad may be beneficial for individuals, enabling

them to rise to leadership positions (e.g., Jonason, Wee, & Li, 2014), a general theme associated

with the Dark Triad and negative workplace outcomes has arisen in the Dark Triad literature,

with little support for the positive effect of Dark Triad beyond personal gain (LeBreton et al.,

2018; Muris et al., 2017; Spain et al., 2014). In order to establish how the Dark Triad impacts

on organisational outcomes, research has examined a range of topics, including leadership

(Allen et al., 2014; Judge et al., 2009), managerial outcomes (Volmer et al., 2016), and

performance (Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; O'Boyle et al., 2012; Zettler & Solga, 2013). While

research on the Dark Triad is growing, studies examining its association with leadership

competencies as rated by others is limited.

5.1.2 The Use of Competencies in Personnel Selection

In order to rate behaviours in a standardised manner during AC activities, competencies

or dimensions are often used (Eurich et al., 2009). Competencies were initially considered as

an alternative measure to intelligence (Voskuijl, 2017), although this has changed towards a

focus on behavioural indicators of performance. Since its inception, definitions of

competencies have varied significantly leading to confusion over what actually constitutes a
 80

“competency” (Arthur & Day, 2011; Shippmann et al., 2000). To further muddy the waters,

terms such as “dimensions”, “Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other attributes” (KSAOs),

and “behavioural constructs” have also been touted as synonymous to competencies, making

alignment of term with operational definition difficult (Shippmann et al., 2000). For the

purposes of this study, Campion et al.’s (2011) definition will be used: “Competency models

refer to collections of KSAOs that are needed for effective performance in the jobs in question”

(p. 226). That is, competencies can be conceptualised as a set of similar behaviours which are

anchored on a single label, such as leadership for example. At its base, contemporary

descriptors of competencies emphasise the importance of differences between indices of poor

and good behaviour, often used over the course of an assessment process in order to determine

those who have performed well (Stevens, 2013).

Competencies have been used in the evaluation of both aspiring leaders and incumbents

(Lado & Wilson, 1994; Naquin & Holton, 2006) with the aim of identifying those who have

potential for further leadership positions. Of interest is that other sources of ratings have

become increasingly used as a way to mitigate issues associated with biases such as common

method bias associated with self-reporting found in Dark Triad literature (Allen et al., 2014;

Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006). While differences were found between peer- and self-reports of

Dark Triad traits in Chapter 4, self-reported Dark Triad traits were also found to be related to

peer-reported Leadership competencies in the preceding chapter. Indeed, there is reason to

consider peer reporting to be valuable in contexts outside of discrete assessment centre

activities aimed at assessing individual performance evaluated by assessors. However, given

the use of trained assessors in personnel selection (Zysberg & Nevo, 2004) whether peer-

ratings of individuals adds any incremental validity over expert ratings needs to be considered.

In a study examining multisource ratings of leadership, Darr and Catano (2008) found that

supervisor ratings were more predictive of performance on a promotional interview than self-
 81

and other- sources of behavioural information. In addition, the selection context brings with it

a specific set of external pressures that trigger self-presentation mechanisms, including

impression management (Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002), which may impact on how

candidates rate others competing for the same job vacancy. Thus, the accuracy of peer-reported

ratings of performance in this context cannot be guaranteed.

Organisations often use both subject matter experts (SMEs) and technical experts (TEs)

such as psychologists to form accurate portrayals of candidates during selection context

(Zysberg & Nevo, 2004). The degree to which these experts can make sound decisions based

on behavioural and technical information associated with candidates is of importance to

organisations who rely on selection processes to maintain and increase their performance.

While TEs in this context have more training in the area of assessment and selection, SMEs

typically have more practical on-the-job experience of the role candidates were being recruited

into, and relevant performance criteria, making both perspectives valuable. Thus, the use of

both SME and TE ratings can be useful in selection settings.

While several studies have examined the relationship between the Dark Triad and job

performance (see O’Boyle et al., 2012 for a review) no research as yet has looked at the

association between the Dark Triad and ratings of leadership performance by assessors during

a selection activity. This chapter aims to establish whether ratings by experts are consistent

with Dark Triad traits in junior leader applicants attending a five day assessment centre.

This study examines how competencies, as scored by experts, relate to self-reported

Dark Triad traits. Several hypotheses were developed for this study corresponding to peer

competencies measured during the AC. Findings from Chapter four found that peer ratings of

leader ‘Effort’ (the ability to keep going and consistently giving their best effort when things

get tough; akin to the ‘Drive’ competency in this study) were negatively related to self-reported

psychopathy. Given this finding, and that one of the key characteristics of psychopathy is
 82

impulsivity (Hare & Neumann, 2008), it is expected that self-reported psychopathy will be

negatively related to expert ratings of how well individuals can maintain focus and effort. In

contrast, those scoring high on measures of narcissism have been shown to persist in tasks and

goal achievement (Manley et al., 2018; Wallace, Ready, & Weitenhagen, 2009), suggesting a

positive relationship with how others perceive an individual’s drive and goal persistence. Thus,

the following is hypothesized.

H1a: Self-reported scores of psychopathy will be negatively associated with expert-rated

scores on the Drive competency.

H1b: Self-reported scores on narcissism will be positively associated with expert-rated

scores on the Drive competency.

H1c: Self-reported scores on Machiavellianism will be unrelated to expert-rated scores

on the Drive competency.

The second hypothesis examines the link between the Dark Triad, and SME and TE

ratings on a competency associated with influence. This is of interest given the propensity

towards manipulation and deceit underlying all three traits (Muris et al., 2017). In addition, as

research suggests a positive relationship between charisma, and narcissism (Galvin et al.,

2010), psychopathy (Babiak et al., 2010), and Machiavellianism (Deluga, 2001), it is expected

that all three Dark Triad scales will be positively associated with an Influence competency.

H2: Self-reported scores of Dark Triad traits will be positively associated with expert-

rated scores on the Influence competency.

How those with higher levels of harmful behaviours relate and interact with others is of

importance to organisations, given this is the prime mechanism through which those scoring

high on Dark Triad achieve their aims (LeBreton et al., 2018; Marcus & Zeigler-Hill, 2016).

Emotional Intelligence (EI) describes how individuals consider their own and others’ emotional
 83

experiences and needs through social exchanges, and manage their emotions accordingly

(Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004). EI has been found to contribute to positive mental

health outcomes for individuals (Martins, Ramalho, & Morin, 2010), but also to correlate

negatively with both Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Petrides, Vernon, Schermer, &

Veselka, 2011). This suggests a relationship between personal health outcomes and Dark Triad

traits, which is supported in health outcome studies (Hudek-Knežević, Kardum, & Mehić,

2016; Jonason, Baughman, Carter, & Parker, 2015), and indicates that EI may be negatively

associated with traits linked to harmful behaviours. Of interest is the positive relationship

narcissism appears to have with EI (Petrides et al., 2011) and with positive health outcomes

(Jonason, Baughman, et al., 2015). While encouraging, the relationship between narcissism

and EI may be explained by the fact that high scores of EI require high levels of self-efficacy;

something which narcissists tend to have in spades (Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991).

The concept of awareness of others (ability to consider others’ needs; Walla, Duregger,

Greiner, Thurner, & Ehrenberger, 2008) has been identified as a key factor of EI (Zeidner et

al., 2004), and therefore potentially at odds with the Dark Triad concept. It is therefore

suggested that a behavioural competency which taps into the understanding of emotions of

oneself and others is likely to reflect the negative relationship between EI and Dark Triad. As

such, hypothesis 3 proposes that both psychopathy and Machiavellianism traits will negatively

predict a competency labelled Awareness of Others (AoO), whereas narcissism is expected to

be positively associated with AoO.

H3a: Self-reported scores of psychopathy and Machiavellianism traits will be negatively

associated with expert-rated scores on the Awareness of Others competency.

H3b: Self-reported scores of narcissism will be positively associated with expert-rated

scores on the Awareness of Others competency.

 84

The relationship between Dark Triad traits and the ability to cope under pressure was of

interest in this study for a number of reasons. The original conception of psychopathy

(Cleckley, 1941) suggested a positive relationship between psychopathy and mental toughness,

although mixed findings have been demonstrated for this link (Decuyper et al., 2009;

Papageorgiou, Wong, & Clough, 2017; Sabouri et al., 2016). A limited amount of research has

looked at the relationship between narcissism and mental toughness, although one paper

(Papageorgiou et al., 2017) found that higher scores on measures of narcissism resulted in

higher scores on behavioural measures of the ability to cope under pressure. However, the lack

of studies investigating Dark Triad traits and ability to cope under pressure means a hypothesis

is difficult to establish. Thus, a hypothesis relating to the association between Dark Triad traits

and a Reaction to Stress competency will not be examined given the expectation for this

construct to be unrelated to any Dark Triad traits.

5.2 Methods

5.2.1 Participants and Procedure

Participants. 158 participants from a large New Zealand public sector assessment centre

(AC) took part in this study. The AC was conducted over a five day period during which time

candidates were assessed by Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and Technical Experts (TEs:

qualified organisational psychologists) trained on assessment and selection procedures.

Candidates were grouped into teams of up to eight individuals with whom they progressed

through the AC.

Assessors. One SME and one TE were assigned to a group of six-eight candidates, and

rated all candidates on five competencies (detailed below). All competencies were scored by

assessors using a five point scale where ‘1’ indicated the candidate’s performance in the

particular area had a negative impact on their effectiveness, and a ‘5’ indicating the candidate
 85

showed mastery of competency, and once familiar with context they would require minimal

refinement to meet high performance standards.

In terms of the AC process, SMEs and TEs observed the same candidates across all

activities on the same competencies (discussed below). Each SME and TE submitted separate

competency gradings independent of other assessors. For example, one SME observed a group

of six-eight candidates over the course of the AC and provided competency gradings for all

candidates in that group across activities. A TE also observed the same candidate group over

the course of the AC across all activities, and provide independent competency gradings for all

candidates in that group.

As discussed in chapter 3, SMEs are likely to have a different understanding to the TEs

of the behaviours observed due to different backgrounds and qualifications. For example,

generally SMEs have more experience than TEs as operational leaders in the organisation

(generally more than 12 years), although have less technical experience and knowledge of the

AC process. Moreover, TEs are trained psychologists with knowledge of employee selection

methods and have access to psychometric data of candidates such as cognitive ability and

personality profiles which they review during the course of the AC. These different

backgrounds, knowledge and experiences provides each group of assessors with unique

perspectives which frames their observations differently, potentially resulting in different

understanding of behaviour and therefore different ratings of competencies for each candidate.

5.2.2 Measures

The Dark Triad. The Dirty Dozen is a 12 item measure of the Dark Triad, and has been

shown to be a short and valid measure of all three elements of the Dark Triad (Jonason &

Kavanagh, 2010; Jonason & Webster, 2010b; Rauthmann, 2012). An example statement from

the Dark Triad is “I tend to be callous or insensitive” and is scored using a 1 to 5 scale (1= Not
 86

at all like me; 5= Very much like me). Previous research has established that the Dark Triad

has adequate construct validity (Jonason & Luévano, 2013; Jonason & Webster, 2010).

Competencies. The competencies used in this study were developed by the organisation,

and can be found in Table 10. These AC competencies were developed through the use of a

comprehensive job analysis followed by SME input, and were scored on a five-point scale from

‘Weak’ to ‘Strong’ using behavioural indicators. An example scale (Awareness of Others) can

be found in Table 11. Assessors scored all candidates within their assigned group on these

competencies twice; once initially on day four and a final grading followed by

recommendations of suitability for all candidates on day five.

A bivariate correlation was conducted between initial (day four) SME and TE

competency ratings, showing relationships which ranged from -.01 (SME Drive and TE AoO)

to .60 (SME Influence and TE Influence). A paired-samples T-Test was conducted to

establish whether differences existed between initial SME and TE competency ratings. Thee

of the five competencies were significantly different in their mean scores (Drive, AoO, and

Stress) with differences between SME and TE mean scores ranging between .06 (Influence)

and .32 (Drive). Final (day five) SME and TE competency correlations showed relationships

ranging from .04 (SME AoO and TE Problem Solving) to .69 (SME Drive and Influence).

Differences between final SME and TE competency ratings were assessed through a paired

samples T-Test. Three of the five competencies were significantly different (Drive, AoO, and

Stress), with differences ranging between .02 and .33.

 87

Table 10. Competencies Used in this Study and their Definitions.

Competency Definition
Problem Solving The extent to which an individual gathers information, understands relevant information, effectively analyses
information, generates options, ideas and solutions, and selects sound courses of action. Uses available resources in
new ways. Generates and recognises imaginative solutions. Ability to make good decisions.
Drive The extent to which an individual initiates and maintains a high activity level, sets high performance standards and
persists towards their objectives.
Influence Extent to which an individual persuades others to do something or adopt a point of view to produce a desired result.
Interacts in way that gives others confidence in their intention. Group takes action or makes decisions in which the
dominant influence is the individual’s own opinion.
Awareness of Others The extent to which an individual's actions reflect a consideration for the feelings and needs of others, as well as an
awareness of the impact and implications of decisions relevant to others.
Reaction to Stress The extent to which an individual maintains effectiveness in diverse situations under varying degrees of pressure,
opposition and disappointment.

Table 11. Example Competency Scale Used in Chapter 5 Showing the Conceptual Statement and Example Behaviours.

Awareness of Others
Weak Limited Adequate Good Strong

Actions foster discord At times overlooks Appears mindful of others’ Attentive to the needs and Proactively fosters harmonious
and disharmony in the the feelings and needs and feelings. Doesn’t feelings of others. Takes group relations, and feelings
team. Belittling, needs of others. needlessly upset others or action to remedy discord and and needs of others are a key
undermining others, taking Unsafe, dismissive, create disharmony, isn’t disharmony. Checks on others, factor in decisions and actions.
opportunity to embarrass blunt, rude, abrasive, proactive about resolving encourages quiet people to Listens, tactful, respectful,
others, scapegoating and little encouragement conflict or tension, doesn’t speak up, addresses conflict or consoling, seeking others input,
blaming, Scoffing, or positive remarks. invest additional effort in tension, generally appears concerned for others.
sneering, eye rolling, maintaining harmonious encouraging of others. Mediates conflict and tension
bullying, inappropriate or relationships with others. constructively. Offers
offensive. encouragement and support.

Note: Statements in bold indicate the scale Conceptual Statement; Statements in italics represent example behaviours associated with each scale.
 88

5.3 Results

This study used multiple regression analyses to examine the relationship between Dark

Triad traits, and initial (day four) and final (day five) competency ratings from expert assessors

over the course of five days (tables 12 and 13). Hypothesis 1 proposed that the Drive

competency would be negatively related to self-reported scores of psychopathy, positively

related to narcissism, and unrelated to Machiavellianism. Both preliminary and final SME

ratings of Drive were not significantly related to any of the Dark Triad trait scores. Initial

ratings by TEs on the Drive competency did not demonstrate a significant relationship for

psychopathy or narcissism, failing to support H1a and H1b. However, final TE ratings of Drive

demonstrated a positive significant association with narcissism, in line with H1b.

Machiavellianism was unrelated to the Drive competency for SMEs and TEs at both time

points, in line with H1c. The second hypothesis examined whether the Influence competency

was positively associated with self-reported Dark Triad traits. With both initial and final ratings

of competencies, no significant relationships were found between Dark Triad traits and either

SME or TE ratings, failing to support this hypothesis. SME ratings of Influence did

demonstrate a relationship with Machiavellianism although this was at the less stringent p-level

of .10. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported in this study.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that the Awareness of Others competency would demonstrate a

negative relationship with the Dark Triad traits. Initial and final TE ratings showed negative

and positive significant relationships for both psychopathy and narcissism respectively; for

narcissism this was in the inverse direction expected. No significant relationship was found

between SME ratings of Awareness of Others and the Dark Triad traits, or for the

Machiavellianism trait.
 89

Table 12. Multiple Regression of Dark Triad Traits Predicting TE and SME Initial (Day Four) Competency Ratings.
TE SME
B SE β p value R2 R2 adjusted B SE β p value R2 R2 adjusted
Problem Solving (Constant) 2.47 .30 .00 .02 .00 2.53 .20 .00 .01 .00
Machiavellianism -.02 .15 -.01 .90 .09 .10 .09 .35
Psychopathy -.06 .13 -.04 .63 .05 .08 .05 .55
Narcissism .16 .11 .14 .14 -.02 .07 -.02 .80
Drive (Constant) 2.50 .28 .00 .03 .01 2.91 .21 .00 .02 .00
Machiavellianism -.10 .14 -.07 .48 .03 .10 .03 .77
Psychopathy .05 .12 .04 .68 .08 .09 .08 .37
Narcissism .20 .10 .18 .05* .04 .07 .05 .62
Influence (Constant) 2.38 .27 .00 .03 .01 3.04 .24 .00 .01 .00
Machiavellianism .06 .13 .05 .63 .09 .12 .07 .45
Psychopathy .13 .12 .10 .26 .02 .10 .02 .81
Narcissism .08 .10 .08 .39 -.10 .08 -.10 .25

Awareness of Others (Constant) 2.90 .23 .00 .05 .03 3.07 .13 .00 .01 .00

Machiavellianism -.02 .11 -.01 .88 -.07 .07 -.11 .27

Psychopathy -.22 .10 -.20 .02* -.02 .06 -.03 .78

Narcissism .16 .08 .18 .05 .04 .05 .08 .36
Reaction to Stress (Constant) 2.64 .24 .00 .01 .00 2.78 .18 .00 .04 .02
Machiavellianism .05 .11 .05 .64 .15 .09 .16 .09
Psychopathy .05 .10 .05 .59 .06 .08 .08 .40
Narcissism .05 .08 .05 .56 -.02 .06 -.03 .72

Note: B= Unstandardised B; SE= Standard Error; β= Standardised Beta; N= 158; *= significant p< .05
 90

Table 13. Multiple Regression of Dark Triad Traits Predicting TE and SME Final (Day Five) Competency Ratings.
TE SME
B SE β p value R2 2
R adjusted B SE β p value R2 R2 adjusted
Problem Solving (Constant) 2.49 .31 .00 .01 .00 2.60 .22 .00 .03 .01
Machiavellianism -.02 .15 -.01 .88 .03 .11 .03 .76
Psychopathy -.01 .13 -.01 .91 -.12 .09 -.12 .18
Narcissism .11 .11 .09 .32 .11 .08 .13 .15
Drive (Constant) 2.4 .28 .00 .04 .02 2.94 .23 .00 .01 .00
Machiavellianism -.13 .14 -.09 .36 .09 .11 .08 .41
Psychopathy .05 .12 .04 .65 .00 .10 .00 .99
Narcissism .23 .10 .21 .02* .03 .08 .03 .72
Influence (Constant) 2.39 .28 .00 .03 .00 2.78 .25 .00 .02 .01
Machiavellianism .10 .14 .07 .47 .23 .12 .18 .07
Psychopathy .11 .12 .08 .36 .00 .11 .00 .98
Narcissism .07 .10 .06 .51 -.08 .09 -.08 .36

Awareness of Others (Constant) 2.86 .21 .00 .05 .03 3.12 .15 .00 .00 .00
Machiavellianism .00 .10 .00 .94 .00 .07 .00 .95
Psychopathy -.19 .09 -.19 .04* -.04 .06 -.05 .56
Narcissism .15 .08 .18 .05* -.01 .05 -.02 .86
Reaction to Stress (Constant) 2.69 .25 .00 .01 .00 2.65 .20 .00 .05 .03
Machiavellianism .00 .12 .00 .99 .16 .10 .16 .10
Psychopathy .05 .11 .04 .67 .02 .08 .02 .82
Narcissism .07 .09 .07 .42 .06 .07 .07 .44
Note: B= Unstandardised B; SE= Standard Error; β= Standardised Beta; N= 158; *= significant p< .05
 91

Overall, mixed results were found for this study, with three of the five hypotheses

supported. Self-reported narcissism demonstrated positive relationships with most

competencies overall, in particular Awareness of Others and Drive. In addition, self-reported

psychopathy also demonstrated a significant negative relationship with Awareness of Others,

but no other competencies. Of note, Machiavellianism did not feature at all in any significant

regression results, although did appear to show a potential for a significant positive relationship

with the Influence competency.

5.4 Discussion

The aim of this study was to establish whether and how expert assessors’ ratings of

performance were associated with self-reported Dark Triad ratings. This study saw a number

of competencies rated by Technical Experts (TEs) being related to self-reported Dark Triad

traits. Of note was that no SME ratings of competencies were associated with Dark Triad traits.

In addition, Machiavellianism did not demonstrate significant relationships with any

competency, although demonstrated a positive relationship with the Influence competency at

the more liberal significance level of 0.1.

Research using measures of the Big Five and the Dark Triad has found that the construct

of agreeableness is negatively associated with the Dark Triad (Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus &

Williams, 2002). The basis of agreeableness is prosocial behaviour targeting others’ wellbeing

(Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007) which, considering the callous, selfish nature of

the Dark Triad, may contrast with Dark Triad intentions. Of interest in this study is the

similarities between agreeableness and Awareness of Others which, while not being explicitly

linked in this study, has relevance to the relationship the Dark Triad has with the Awareness of

Others competency. This may explain the negative relationships generally found between the

Dark Triad and agreeableness (Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), and the

negative association between psychopathy and the Awareness of Others competency obtained
 92

in this study. However, the positive relationship narcissism displayed with the Awareness of

Others competency indicated the relationship between Dark Triad and prosocial competencies

is not straightforward, and that at least over short periods of time assessors may perceive

behavioural expressions of narcissistic traits as positive and linked to Awareness of Others.

One way the relationship between narcissism and Awareness of Others may be explained is by

the positive relationship between EI and narcissism (Petrides et al., 2011). Two theories exist

explaining why narcissism tends to be positively related to EI. The first is that most EI data is

self-report and therefore susceptible to manipulation i.e. fakeable, resulting in less accurate

data (Petrides et al., 2011). Secondly, one of the main characteristics of narcissism is high self-

worth (Raskin et al., 1991). Relating this to one of the main components of EI i.e. self-esteem,

it is of little surprise that narcissism demonstrates positive relationships with EI (Petrides et al.,

2011). Therefore, while there is a positive relationship between narcissism and prosociality as

measured by Awareness of Others, this may be more of a measurement artefact than any real

awareness of others demonstrated by those scoring high on measures of narcissism.

Another possibility as to why those scoring high on measures of narcissism were

perceived as more in tune to others’ wellbeing needs and assessed as more prosocially oriented

concerns biases such as the ‘Halo’ effect (Thorndike, 1920). This bias is thought to impact on

assessments of others when a single positive trait washes out the perception of any potential

negative observation. With the halo bias in effect, negative traits associated with narcissism

(e.g., grandiosity, over-confidence etc.) may be regarded as less socially jarring due to more

positive traits (e.g., charisma) and could result in individuals being rated more positively.

Indeed, research conducted in Chapter four has found peers have a positive view of those

scoring higher in narcissism, particularly in a leadership role, corroborating the suggestion that

narcissists are seen in a positively light.

 93

The positive relationship between narcissism and Drive is of interest to Dark Triad

research, and in line with previous studies (Manley et al., 2018). While narcissism continues

to be perceived as ‘brighter’ than the other Dark Triad traits, research examining the long term

consequences of having a narcissistic leader may establish how others’ perception could

change over time. Further research would do well to observe longitudinal testing of the

narcissism traits in conjunction with information from other sources in order to establish long-

term behavioural outcomes associated with narcissism and awareness of others.

That psychopathy did not have a negative relationship with Drive is of interest but

perhaps not surprising, considering impulsivity may not be captured by the Dirty Dozen

measure (Muris et al., 2017). In addition, the hypothesised relationships between psychopathy,

and Reaction to stress and Influence were also non-significant, suggesting competency scores

are not related to self-reported Dark Triad trait scores. Research examining the resistance to

stress- psychopathy link has had mixed findings to date (Decuyper et al., 2009; Richardson &

Boag, 2016), thus the finding with regards to the Reaction to Stress competency may not be a

simple one to reveal. Given one of the key characteristics of both Machiavellianism and

psychopathy is charisma and the perception of leadership (Babiak et al., 2010; Deluga, 2001),

it seems counterintuitive that the Influence competency was not significantly related to either

of these Dark Triad traits. It could be that in this assessment centre, Machiavellianism and

psychopathy type behaviours are judged to be less about influence, and more closely associated

with harmful or toxic behaviours. The resulting judgements may then be considered, and thus

remain, unrelated to assessor ratings of influence. This may highlight the further disparity

between self- ratings of the Dark Triad and others’ perceptions of their behaviour found in

other research (Chapter 3).

An additional thought to consider is that of a particular profile which may align more to

certain competencies. For example, it could be that high scores on narcissism and
 94

Machiavellianism, coupled with low scores on psychopathy, account for more variance in the

Influence competency than any single trait score alone. Examining whether and how different

combinations of dark traits are uniquely associated with competencies of interest in selection

may elucidate the findings obtained here, and offer useful directions for research and practice.

5.4.1 Limitations

As most studies in the Dark Triad tend to be cross sectional in nature (Muris et al., 2017),

this research attempted to establish how perception of the Dark Triad might change over a

period of time as observed by trained assessors. While this research was not cross sectional in

nature, it was relatively short-term and as such one critique may be that a longer term

assessment of Dark Triad traits and behaviour would be beneficial. In this way, positively

perceived traits like narcissism could be examined in terms of whether they maintain their

positive trajectory and continue to be perceived as they were initially, or if, as some research

has suggested, darker behaviours associated with destructive outcomes emerge over a period

of time (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007).

The limitations of the Dirty Dozen in terms of construct validity, in particular the

psychopathy trait, may have had an impact on results in this study. It is recognised that while

all three Dark Triad traits are represented in the Dirty Dozen scale, this particular Dark triad

measure may not represent all aspects as comprehensively as other scales (Muris et al., 2017).

The brief nature of the Dirty Dozen does make it an attractive measure in the organisationally

applied setting in particular, given the ‘time is money’ adage. While these benefits are well

noted, future study design would do well to consider other measures in addition to the Dirty

Dozen to establish the utility of this scale against other better validated measures.

Research examining the utility of supervisor ratings of performance over self- or peer-

ratings of performance suggests peer-ratings may not be as useful an indicator of performance

as more experienced assessors (Darr & Catano, 2008). In addition, the competitive nature of
 95

personnel selection suggests candidates’ interests may impact on how individuals rate each

other, further complicating the ways in which peer ratings may be of use in the selection

context. Future research may wish to establish whether peer ratings of performance and the

Dark Triad are related to SME or assessor ratings of performance. In addition, whether expert

ratings add predictive validity to performance on-the-job or performance during training would

also provide valuable insights to the Dark Triad literature.

5.5 Conclusions

This study sought to establish if SMEs’ and TEs’ ratings on competencies represented

levels of candidate’s self-reported Dark Triad trait scores. Self- reported narcissism was a

positive predictor of competencies geared towards persistence of effort and consideration of

others, while psychopathy had a negative relationship with the Awareness of Others

competency. Machiavellianism was not significantly related to any competencies in this study.

Thus, it appears personnel selection performance ratings are influenced by Dark Triad traits

through Awareness of Others in both positive (i.e. narcissism) and negative (i.e. psychopathy)

ways. This research contributes to Dark Triad literature by suggesting Dark Triad behaviours

are a factor in performance ratings, rather than Dark Triad traits just being drivers of behaviour.

By demonstrating behaviourally that the link between the Dark Triad and awareness of others

is present, this study was able to align theory and applied research to provide organisations

with factors which may impact on personnel selection methods.

 96

Chapter 6: The Dark Triad and Expert Recommendations on Assessment Centres

Findings from the study described in chapter 3 suggest a link between Dark Triad traits

and success on an AC process, with further results from chapter 5 indicating that expert

competency ratings do indeed reflect candidates’ Dark Triad traits. However, not all expert

ratings were found to be associated with self-reported Dark Triad traits. A work group on

personnel selection methods has recommended that decisions on assessment and selection

activities are based on robust methods (Shippmann et al., 2000), however whether assessors’

recommendations regarding candidate suitability are associated with Dark Triad traits remains

to be seen. The study outlined in this chapter explores whether and how self-reported Dark

Triad manifests in expert selection recommendations, following up on associations found

between expert ratings of performance and self-report Dark Triad ratings. This is achieved by

examining whether Dark Triad traits are predictive of final AC recommendations by SMEs and

TEs. Building on findings from chapters 3 and 5, this study seeks to examine whether Dark

Triad traits are a factor in how assessors make recommendations that contribute toward the

final AC decision.

6.1.1. Performance and the Dark Triad

Research examining how those scoring high on measures of the Dark Triad function at

work has identified varied and inconsistent relationships with job performance. For example,

Machiavellianism has been found to be beneficial in terms of leader performance in

unstructured environments (Deluga, 2001; Gable et al., 1992), but inverted- U type relationship

and job performance (Zettler & Solga, 2012). Further, narcissism has been associated with both

positive work outcomes such as the number of company procurements, and negative workplace

outputs such as an erratic organisational performance for those in leadership positions

(Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). Overall though, meta-analyses examining performance and

the Dark Triad, O'Boyle et al. (2012) has identified small negative relationships between
 97

performance and both psychopathy and Machiavellianism, which was also substantiated by

Zettler and Solga (2013), albeit with small to moderate effect sizes for both studies. Other

research examining Dark Triad traits and performance has found that the weak relationship

narcissism had with job performance further decreased when those scoring higher on measures

of narcissism progressed to places of power (O'Boyle et al., 2012). This suggests a moderating

effect of context. In saying this, other research has suggested that narcissistic leader behaviour

at work is associated with overly-bold strategic decisions (e.g., risky acquisitions) and

fluctuating organisational performance (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007) indicating caution for

those considering narcissistic individuals for leadership positions. Other research has found

abusive supervision is associated with supervisor Machiavellianism scores (Kiazad et al., 2010;

Wisse & Sleebos, 2016), and that employee ratings of job satisfaction were positively related

to supervisor psychopathy (Mathieu et al., 2014).

Findings from both chapters 3 and 5 indicate that self-reported narcissism is positively

related to a number of AC factors, such as Team Leader competencies, while self-reported

psychopathy was found to be negatively associated with selection factors. Further, self-reported

Machiavellianism has consistently failed to demonstrate significant relationships with selection

outcomes. It is therefore expected that that narcissism will positively predict and psychopathy

negatively predict final recommendations of selection experts, while Machiavellianism will be

unrelated to SME and TE recommendations.

H1: Self-reported narcissism scores will positively predict assessor recommendations of

success on the assessment centre.

H2: Self-reported psychopathy scores will negatively predict assessor recommendations

of success on the assessment centre.

H3: Self-reported Machiavellianism scores will be unrelated to assessor

recommendations of success on the assessment centre.

 98

6.2 Method

6.2.1 Participants and Measures

Participants in this study were 158 candidates in a large public sector organisation, and

were applying for junior leader positions within the organisation. 83% were male with ages

ranging from 17 to 51 year and a mean age of 22 years. The Dark Triad was measured using

the Dirty Dozen as described in Chapter 5. SME and TE recommendations were made on the

final day of the AC (day 5) and consisted of either a ‘Recommended’ grade or a ‘Not

Recommended’ grade. The recommendations from both expert raters were related but not

equivalent; that is, each recommendation is based on independent observations of canddates

over the course of the AC. Both SMEs and TEs (one per group of candidates) gave a

recommendation for each individual. The recommendations from SMEs and TEs are typically

based on their observations of the candidates over the AC. These recommendations are taken

into account when making AC selection decisions (i.e., deciding on whether candidates are

selected or not)

6.3 Results

A logistic regression was used to establish if self-reported Dark Triad traits were

predictive of SME and TE recommendations (Table 14). Regarding hypothesis 1, narcissism

was positively related to both SME and TE final recommendations, while psychopathy

negatively predicted only SME recommendations. Machiavellianism was not significantly

related to both SME and TE recommendations in line with hypothesis 3. These findings support

all three hypotheses in this study and suggest that a candidate’s level of psychopathy and

narcissism are related to expert decision making in this AC.

 99

Table 14. Logistic Regression of Dark Triad Traits Predicting TE and SME Recommendations.
TE SME
B S.E. Wald p value Exp(B) B S.E. Wald p value Exp(B)
Constant -1.25 .69 3.26 .07 .29 .15 .68 .05 .83 1.16
Narcissism .54 .25 4.78 .03* 1.71 .52 .25 4.39 .04* 1.69
Psychopathy -.41 .29 1.95 .16 .67 -.62 .29 4.48 .03* .54
Machiavellianism .29 .33 .74 .39 1.3 .09 .34 .06 .80 1.09
Note: †= p< .05; B= unstandardized coefficient; S.E. = Standard Error; Wald= Wald statistic; Exp (B) = Odds Ratio.
 100

6.4 Discussion

The results presented in chapter 5 suggest that scores of raters with greater experience in

leadership roles (SMEs) did not reflect levels of self-reported Dark Triad scores of individuals

they were rating. Of interest in this study was that final SME recommendations reflected self-

reported psychopathy and narcissism scores, in contrast to findings in chapter 5. Similarly, TE

competency ratings were associated with both narcissism and psychopathy in chapter 5, but

only self-reported narcissism remained a positive predictor of TE final recommendation in this

study. These findings supported all three hypotheses associated with this study.

While it may be reasonable to expect experts’ recommendations to be predicted by the

specific traits also predicting success in chapter 3, with the discrepancy between findings of

chapter 3, and findings of chapter 5 and this study suggest a divergence. Of particular note for

this study is that while narcissism and psychopathy were predictive of selection outcomes in

both chapter 3 and expert recommendations this study, this was not necessarily reflective of

the way SMEs rated candidates on competencies in chapter 5. In chapter 5, there were no

significant relationships noted between the Dark Triad and any competencies rated by the

SMEs, although it was found that TE ratings did demonstrate significant relationships with

psychopathy and narcissism.

Leadership theory may be useful in explaining the results of this study. For example, Kets

De Vries and Miller (1985) suggested that a latent narcissism dimension is prevalent in all

leaders, indicating that narcissism characteristics are reflected in leaders. Further, the

Contextual Reinforcement model (Campbell & Campbell, 2009) as discussed in Chapter 2,

also supports the relationship between the narcissism trait and assessor recommendation. The

Contextual Reinforcement model suggests that emerging contexts (short-lived and

commencement of relationships) are where narcissistic traits are more likely to be perceived

positively and furnish greater reward for individuals (e.g., promotion; Volmer et al., 2016) and
 101

the organisation. The selection environment may be considered an emerging context due to the

fast-paced, adaptive, and short-lived nature of the activity. Consequently, the attributes of an

individual scoring high on measures of sub-clinical narcissism may appear more positive in

emerging contexts such as selection, than they seem in enduring contexts (Campbell &

Campbell, 2009). Other research suggesting that initial perceptions of narcissistic traits such as

charisma, can be initially attractive to others (e.g., Galvin et al., 2010; Volmer et al., 2016),

also supports the likelihood of someone with elevated narcissistic traits having a higher

likelihood of success on personnel selection processes. These theories supported by empirical

findings corroborates the finding in this study that narcissism was positively associated with

assessor recommendations.

While mainstream personality theory (e.g., Big Five) attempts to understand peoples’

enduring thoughts, beliefs and attitudes which drive behaviour, it also describes those fringe

personality constructs which describe harmful effects of behaviour driven by deleterious

personality factors. In this way, psychopathy may be considered a part of the framework which

describes both clinical and non-clinical personality, and at the fringe of normal (or functional)

personality. Psychopathy has been linked to normal personality factors such as agreeableness

and conscientiousness (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) and honesty-humility in particular (Lee &

Ashton, 2014). These relationships are in line with finding in this study that the psychopathy

trait is negatively associated with SME recommendations.

In terms of how the AC process may explain these results, it could be that TEs have more

training in assessment and selection and therefore may be more accurate in detecting

behavioural manifestations of these traits. Further, with TEs extended access to psychometrics

this could also provide them with further information which informs their final decision.

Nevertheless, the final recommendations of SMEs were positively associated with levels of

self-reported psychopathy and narcissism (i.e., higher levels of narcissism and psychopathy
 102

were associated with greater likelihood of positive and negative (respectively)

recommendations), suggesting SMEs may observe manifestations of Dark Triad behaviours,

but not capture them through competency ratings in the AC. In contrast to SME competency

ratings, TEs’ ratings were consistent with self-reported levels of Dark Triad traits in chapter 5,

but were not carried over to final recommendations. The non-significant association between

psychopathy and final selection recommendations for TEs is interesting given findings in this

thesis suggesting psychopathy to be negatively related to AC outcomes. More in depth research

examining the differences between SME and TE ratings of the Dark Triad may highlight why

these differences occur.

That Machiavellianism was not significantly associated with selection recommendations

is unsurprising, as it is consistent with findings obtained in the studies summarised in previous

chapters. This does, however, suggest that future research consider whether behaviours

associated with Machiavellianism may actually manifest in a selection context. For example,

those scoring higher on measures of Machiavellianism are less concerned with others’

perceptions if these external impressions are not considered to affect task or goal achievement

(Jones & Paulhus, 2009). As such, if those scoring high on Machiavellianism deemed particular

manipulative behaviour to be of less use in a particular context (e.g., in group vs individually

assessed tasks), they may resist engaging in this type of behaviour, resulting in null-

relationships between outcomes and Machiavellianism scores in these settings.

6.4.1 Limitations

This study looked at the relationships between assessor recommendation and Dark Triad,

and examined whether Dark Triad traits were predictive of final assessor outcome. This is one

way of measuring indirectly whether two variables are related in some way. A more direct

measure of relationships between variables might look at behavioural occurrences of Dark

Triad behaviour and note frequency of behaviour rather than examine the co-variation between
 103

variables. For example, future studies may wish to examine coded behaviours of the Dark Triad

and how these vary over time, and potentially over different assessment tasks (e.g., work

sample test vs planning task). This may highlight a) whether assessors can actually detect

potentially subtle behaviour within individual scoring high on Dark Triad traits, and b) whether

context is a factor in which Dark Triad behaviour varies as a function of selection activity.

6.5 Conclusions

This study aimed to establish if assessors’ final recommendations on selection processes

reflected levels of psychopathy and narcissism. Results indicated that narcissism remained a

positive predictor of assessor recommendations, while psychopathy negatively predicted only

SME recommendations. This research contributes to Dark Triad literature by explaining the

way in which narcissism and psychopathy effect selection system outcomes through assessor

ratings and recommendations. By demonstrating behaviourally that the link between the Dark

Triad and awareness of others is present, this study is able to align theory and applied research

to provide organisations with clearer guidelines on suitable personnel selection methods.

 104

Chapter 7: General Discussion

7.1 Overall Results and Themes

This thesis aimed to establish how the Dark Triad impacted on personnel selection

decisions, and whether others’ perceptions of the Dark Triad differed from self-appraised Dark

Triad scores. To that end, three research objectives were explored. Firstly, to examine whether

the Dark Triad was associated with success on a personnel selection system, and also whether

a high pressure situation had an effect on the self-ratings of the Dark Triad. Secondly, this

thesis compared self-perceptions of the Dark Triad with other-ratings of the Dark Triad, and

assessed the relationship between peer-rated leadership competencies and self-reported Dark

Triad scores. The last aim of this thesis was to investigate if Dark Triad scores were related to

expert ratings of performance during an assessment centre.

Study 1, presented in Chapter 3, indicated that narcissism was positively related to

assessment centre outcomes, while psychopathy was negatively related to assessment centre

outcomes and Machiavellianism was not related to outcomes. In addition, it appeared in this

study that high pressure situations did not alter self-reported Dark Triad scores, in contrast to

expectations. Study 2 (Chapter 4) showed that self-ratings of Dark Triad traits were

significantly higher than peer-ratings. Further, Study 2 demonstrated that narcissism was

positively associated with peer ratings of leadership, while also finding negative relationships

between psychopathy and peer-rated competencies associated with effort and comradeship.

Contrary to expectations Machiavellianism was not related to any peer-rated competencies.

Results from Study 3 (presented in Chapter 5) indicated positive relationships between

narcissism and competencies associated with drive and awareness of others, while psychopathy

was negatively associated with awareness of others. Further, Study 4 (Chapter 6) found that

narcissism was positively associated with, and psychopathy was negatively associated with,

expert assessors’ final recommendations, in line with findings from study 1.

 105

Overall, narcissism appeared to be viewed by others in a more favourable light than the

other dark traits, and was positively associated with a range of selection and assessment

outcomes. Past research corroborates this positive perception of narcissism (Rauthmann &

Kolar, 2012). Conversely, psychopathy was generally perceived less positively by raters, and

was mainly negatively associated with selection outcomes. These findings are in line with other

research looking at psychopathy, demonstrating a negative association with most outcomes

such as organisational citizenship behaviours, job satisfaction, and creativity (LeBreton et al,

2018).

Three conclusions can be drawn from this thesis. First, as demonstrated in studies 1 and

4, Dark Triad trait scores appeared to be aligned with personnel selection decisions in a way

which suggests the narcissism trait is beneficial and psychopathy detrimental to job candidates.

This is of relevance for organisations as ignoring harmful traits during selection processes, such

as the Dark Triad, may impair the selection system’s predictive capacity. Overlooking

potentially harmful traits may negatively impact other key organisational activities. For

example, by not taking into account sub-clinical psychopathic traits of candidates,

organisations could leave themselves vulnerable to the overly aggressive tendencies associated

with this trait. The resulting complaints and personal grievances which can accompany

behaviours associated with psychopathy represent not just a financial risk in terms of legal and

re-hiring costs, but also the human and social capital costs.

Second, there were differences between self- and other-ratings of the Dark Triad. More

specifically, peers scored individuals significantly lower on measures of the Dark Triad than

corresponding self-ratings of the Dark Triad. Others’ ratings of individuals are of relevance to

selection decisions as both peer and expert observations have been shown to add predictive

value to the selection decision making process, and are often relied upon (Kraut, 1975; Schmidt

& Hunter, 1998).

 106

Thirdly, narcissism was positively related to peer-rated Team Leader competencies of

Leadership, and TE rated performance competencies of Drive and Awareness of Others, as

discussed in studies 2 and 3. This is of relevance for organisations aiming to hire effective

leaders, and to avoid the effect of negative leadership qualities associated with the Dark Triad

on their workforce. These three themes form a structure from which to understand how the

Dark Triad may influence personnel selection ratings, behaviours, and decision outcomes.

7.2 Implications for Personnel Selection Decisions

The findings from the studies suggest a number of implications for practitioners. First, as

identified in studies 1 and 4, organisations should look to assess sub-clinical psychopathy as a

screening tool. This would enable organisations to identify those at the higher end of the

psychopathy trait and allow a greater focus and scrutiny of problematic behaviours (e.g. closer

investigation of past jobs and references). Given the generally negative associations

psychopathy has with assessment centre outcomes in this thesis, the use of a psychopathy

screening tool would enable quick identification of those demonstrating higher levels of this

trait. This may provide a tool for trained assessors to focus on behavioural observations in order

to note potential harmful behaviours during selection. This may be of particular relevance to

roles which require empathy and high level social support, given psychopathy characteristics

tend to have a negative association with these prosocial characteristics (LeBreton et al., 2018).

Another potential contribution to practice is the finding associated with high pressure

situations in Study 1. Immediately following a high pressure or stressful situation, self-reported

Dark Triad scores did not significantly increase, as was expected. However, a further analysis

found that individuals who displayed higher stress levels showed a significant increase between

baseline psychopathy and narcissism scores and scores immediately following a high pressure

situation. High pressure situations have been used in selection activities in an attempt to predict

a candidates’ emotional regulation (Chen, Lee, Huang, & Ko, 2017; Posthuma, Morgeson, &
 107

Campion, 2002). As such, high pressure situations may have an impact on how individuals

respond to Dark Triad surveys for those who demonstrate higher levels of stress.

Third, questions still exist regarding how differing levels of Dark Triad may have an

effect in different organisational contexts, such that similar levels of Dark Triad in different

organisations may have more or less harmful implications depending on organisational culture,

training context, and job requirements. For example, high levels of narcissism in a selection

context are beneficial to the candidate as they were perceived as positive by raters, as shown

throughout this thesis. However, in the training context which tends to be lengthier than

selection contexts, narcissism behaviours may be perceived as less positive given the cognitive

effort required to maintain these positive impressions over a period of time increases, and that

over time raters may realise that there is a dark side to the seemingly positive behaviours.

With regards to the differing contributions of Dark Triad traits across contexts, some

research has suggested that occupational niches may exist, where preferences around

vocational interest align with certain Dark Triad traits (Jonason, Wee, Li, & Jackson, 2014). In

their study, Jonason et al. (2014) found that vocational interests for those scoring higher on

measures of narcissism tended to centre on artistic and social type jobs, while higher

psychopathy levels were obtained among individuals who exhibited preference for practical

occupations. As such, it could be that mean levels of the three traits vary across occupations in

the general population. For example, it could be that some occupations, such as a Special Forces

soldier, require higher levels of emotional detachment (and therefore attracts or allows for those

with higher levels of psychopathy) but lower levels of narcissism. Consequently, a configural

(i.e., looking at how differing levels of Dark Triad traits combine to predict outcomes) approach

to data analysis such as latent profile analysis (LPA) may be more useful in determining

suitable candidate profiles in particular occupations than variable-centred approaches (Flaherty

& Kiff, 2012). LPA examines configurations of variables and how they are interconnected,
 108

whereas variable-centred approaches such as regression tend to analyse variables in isolation

rather than consider how they interact (Stanley, Kellermanns, & Zellweger, 2017). The LPA

methodological approach is appealing to those who have large enough sample sizes at their

disposal to offset the low base rates in Dark Triad research (Muris et al., 2017). While a non-

linear analysis such as LPA would have been desirable for this thesis, the limited number of

participants and low general base rate for Dark Triad traits made it untenable to conduct. Being

able to understand how non-linear Dark Triad relationships exist in the organisational context

is a proposed direction for future in order to better grasp how subtle relationship interactions

occur in the selection context.

7.3 Self- vs Other-Perception of the Dark Triad

Throughout this thesis, narcissism was perceived as ‘brighter’ to peers and experts than

the remaining Dark Triad traits. While this is not necessarily a new finding (Rauthmann &

Kolar, 2012), the fact that others perceived narcissism as positive over the relatively short

period of the assessment centre, suggests the positive first impression others have of an

individual with a higher score on this trait may have a lasting effect on ratings across a range

of exercise dimensions over an extended assessment period. Future research may wish to

consider establishing whether the positive view of narcissistic traits is maintained following

selection, and what contextual factors influence a turn for both individual behaviours and

others’ perceptions.

With few studies in the literature examining how others perceive Dark Triad traits and

how individuals score themselves on measures of the Dark Triad, study 2 looked at the

difference between self- and other-ratings of the Dark Triad. This study found that mean self-

reported Dark Triad scores were higher than mean peer-ratings of Dark Triad. These mean

level differences suggest perceptual differences between how individuals represent the Dark

Triad and the behaviours others observe. It could be that the relationship between levels of self-
 109

reported Dark Triad traits and perceived Dark Triad behaviour may be influenced by the

selection context, resulting in distorted relationships between Dark Triad scores and observed

behaviours. For example, impression management is reported to be employed by those scoring

high on the measure of Dark Triad (Rauthmann, 2011), which could inhibit the manifestation

of certain kinds of negatively perceived behaviours, and result in lower peer-ratings of these

traits and smaller differences between peer- and self-ratings of Dark Triad traits. Further, in

non-selection or low consequence contexts where impression management are less a factor,

peer-ratings of Dark Triad traits could be higher, reflecting the Consequently, how much value

peer-ratings of the Dark Triad add to selection decisions requires further investigation.

As discussed in Chapter 4, attribution theory (Heider, 1958) may provide some

explanation of the differences between self-reported and peer-reported Dark Triad scores.

While attribution theory has been widely relied on to explain differences in perceptions of

behaviour, the theory fails to provide sound theoretical explanation for why self-rated Dark

Triad scores are higher than peer-rated Dark Triad scores. As a way to develop understanding

of the results of this thesis, an alternative attribution theory model (Figures 7 and 8) is proposed

as a way to further explain the differences in scores, and also why differences exist in the

opposite direction to that predicted by attribution theory.

 110

Stimulus
Cognitive Peer
Observed Dark processing: Internal Dark Triad
Triad behaviours Attribution Attribution Score
Behavioural
interpretation Lower score
(relative to
self-reported
DT scores)

Figure 7. Alternative Attribution Model of Peer-Observation of Dark Triad Behaviours.

External
Attribution
Cognitive
Stimulus processing:
Dark Triad
Attribution Score
Self-appraisal
of DT
Normalisation of Higher DT score
the behaviour; (relative to how
ascription of
others’ score on DT)
meaning to
behaviour as ‘no big
deal’.

Figure 8. Alternative Attribution Model of Self-Observation of Dark Triad Behaviours.

In the alternative attribution models shown in Figures 7 and 8, stimuli in the form of

behaviours observed by either peers or themselves. The stimuli then goes through a cognitive

process, namely attribution, where either internal attributions (for peers rating others) or

external attributions (for self-ratings) are made, as described by general attribution theory

(Kelley, 1967). From this point, the model differs depending on whether peers or individuals

process Dark Triad behaviours. For peer raters, the post-attribution process involves the

behavioural interpretation of Dark Triad behaviours and include biases such as halo effect and

in-group bias. These behavioural interpretations serve to reduce the negative perception of

Dark Triad behaviours and result in a consequential reduction in Dark Triad peer-ratings. For

example, the halo effect is generated when a positive characteristic, such as confidence,

generalises to all characteristics of the individual (Leuthesser, Kohli, & Harich, 1994). As such,
 111

over time, someone who is considered influential, confident, and ‘leader-like’ (all

characteristics associated with Dark Triad traits) by others may have the more negative aspects

of their behaviour ameliorated, resulting in lower peer-rated Dark Triad scores relative to self-

rated Dark Triad scores. This process occurs for peer ratings because exposure to contexts that

foster closer social ties between individuals are likely to generate biases such as in-group bias

and halo. Because these biases support a more positive perspective of those being rated, this

will likely result in a reduction of scores on scales perceived as more negative, such as the Dark

Triad traits.

For self-ratings of Dark Triad behaviour, two parallel processes are proposed to occur

following observations of Dark Triad behaviour. Firstly, the cognitive process associated with

attribution occurs, typically resulting in an external attribution as described in conventional

attribution theory (Kelley, 1967). Concurrently, the individual processes information

associated with Dark Triad behaviour, normalising any Dark Triad behaviour as ‘typical’ or

‘reasonable’ of anyone given the context (i.e. an external attribution). For example, someone

scoring high on Machiavellianism may consider manipulation justified if it achieves the goal

of promotion. The negative behaviours associated with scoring high on the Dark Triad could

then become normalised for the individual, potentially justifying the negative impact of these

behaviours and resulting in higher scores on Dark Triad scales. This process by which

individuals normalise negative behaviours, may also result in considerations that any negative

behaviours are unproblematic and consequently reduces the self-perception of harm or

adversity to others as the result of the behaviours. As the behaviours are deemed reasonable by

the individual considering their own behaviours and something others would likely do given

the situation, higher scores (relative to peer-ratings) are likely to be made for self-ratings of

Dark Triad behaviours. This normalisation process contrasts with attribution theory where

one’s perceived behavioural motives are attributed to external factors, rather than rationalising
 112

behaviour as appropriate given their worldviews. Future studies may examine the meaning

ascribed to Dark Triad traits to establish differences between introspective thoughts and

observed behaviour by others.

The model presented here has similarities with Ployhart and Harold’s (2004) Applicant

Attributional Reaction Theory (AART), although their model is primarily targeted towards

selection outcomes (i.e. hiring; outcomes of interviews, tests etc.) rather than processes. In

addition the AART is more associated with the perception of fairness and justice in selection

rather than perception of behaviour relative to self-perceptions. The presented alternative

attribution model targets behaviour observed over a period of time during the assessment centre

and is less associated with a specific event or activity, extending across the entire assessment

centre. Further, the alternative attribution theory model is specific to the Dark Triad, making it

more applicable to how Dark Triad behaviours are attributed in the selection context.

In terms of ratings of performance by others, it was noted in studies 3 and 4 that technical

expert competency ratings and recommendations, and SME competency ratings and

recommendations, did not necessarily align. However, both technical experts and SMEs

appeared to provide useful information throughout the process with significant relationships

identified between Dark Triad traits and selection outcomes for both expert raters. While the

relationships between expert rater scores and self-reported Dark Triad scores were different on

occasion, this suggests unique but valuable perspectives in the selection contexts. Similar

assessment centres may wish to make use of both SMEs and technical experts in their decision

making process in order to make most use of the unique perspectives they bring.

It is understood that existing Dark Triad measures require an element of self-awareness

that individuals scoring high on measures of Dark Triad, particularly narcissism, do not exhibit

(O'Boyle et al., 2012). As others cannot see into the mind of the individual scoring high on

measures of Dark Triad, they must infer intent and aim of the person. As an example, in the
 113

absence of narcissistic-type behaviours, observers might infer that this person is not narcissistic

in their approach. What observers may miss though, is the context which allows the behaviour

to manifest. For example, those scoring higher on measures of Machiavellianism tend to

perform better in unstructured environments where they can exert control (Gable et al., 1992).

However, without the environment providing the opportunity for the trait to be expressed, no

Machiavellian behaviour can be observed. Thus, in a setting which does not allow for, or

promote the use of Dark Triad behaviours, the observer’s inference that someone does not have

dark traits in their repertoire is more likely. This is related to the Contextual- Reinforcement

model of Campbell and Campbell (2009) discussed in Chapter 2, and highlights the importance

of the environment in providing opportunities for dark behaviours to emerge. For example,

while the results of this thesis suggest that narcissism appears to be perceived positively, how

this may transfer to the on-the-job context over time is less certain. As an example, in a job

context where individuals can establish relationships over a period of time, those who score

high on measures of narcissism may come across as demanding instead of charming, lacking

in empathy instead of inclusive, and arrogant instead of confident (Campbell & Campbell,

2009). Future studies would benefit from identifying how the Dark Triad traits exist over a

period of time in the training context, and whether peer ratings are able to detect higher levels

of self-report Dark Triad trait scores.

7.4 The Dark Triad and Team Leadership Competencies

In contrast to findings in study 3, where psychopathy and narcissism showed significant

relationships with assessment centre outcomes, Machiavellianism appeared to be unrelated to

team leader competencies. This finding conflicts with other research indicating

Machiavellianism is positively related to the perception of leadership qualities (Spurk, Keller,

& Hirschi, 2016). One possibility for the conflicting results may stem from the intent of the

Machiavellian individual. The general principle underlying a Machiavellian approach is the

 114

ends justifies the means, suggesting goal achievement at any cost. While this is true for this

trait, consider two facets of this statement. Firstly, “ends” denotes some form of goal, aim or

task to be achieved. In this selection context, the aim of the individual is to be selected and

offered a job, which is true for all individuals within any selection process generally. However,

the ways in which an individual achieves this aim differ. For the Machiavellian individual, this

may mean manipulation of others to ensure success. The second part of the axiom guiding

Machiavellianism is “means”, with the implication that the goal should be achieved by any

method which will achieve the task or goal in mind. The caveat in achieving goals relevant for

the Machiavellian candidate is that any manipulation or influence of others is only necessary

when it is deemed useful in pursuit of their aim. That is, if there is no need for manipulation or

political manoeuvring, the Machiavellian will tend to not engage in this practice (Jones &

Paulhus, 2009). Selection processes that are emphasised as non-competitive and more ‘merit’

or performance-based (as this particular selection process was), may result in less need for

those scoring higher on measures of Machiavellianism to engage in Machiavellian-type

behaviours if it does not contribute towards goal achievement. Without the expression of

Machiavellian-like traits in this particular context, little would remain of the variability in

outcome measures to be explained by this Dark Triad trait. As such, it is possible that

relationships between Machiavellianism and outcome variables may be either small or non-

existent in this particular context, as found throughout this thesis. While most selection

processes has the overall aim to hire the best person for the job, how Machiavellianism

manifests in other contexts, the training setting for example, is unclear.

Another aspect of this thesis to consider was the finding associated with leadership

competencies and Dark Triad traits, as highlighted in studies 2, 3, and 4. Again, narcissism was

consistently positively related to outcomes whether rated by both peers or expert assessors.

These results are in line with other studies in this thesis, narcissism has been found to be
 115

positively related to numerous leadership characteristics (Grijalva et al., 2015). In terms of

leadership relationships with psychopathy in this thesis, negative relationships were found

between psychopathy and team peer-rated leader competencies associated with effort, and

assessor rated ‘awareness of others’ competency. These relationships have not been

investigated before in other personnel selection studies, but is in line with other research

suggesting psychopathy is the ‘darkest’ of the three dark traits (LeBreton et al., 2018). The

relationships found in this thesis contribute to the information that could be taken into

consideration when making selection decisions. In order to paint a more accurate picture of

candidates applying for leadership roles, information from other candidates and expert

assessors may be useful in highlighting antisocial traits within the selection context. Ensuring

information from others about dark traits is gathered may be an essential aspect to consider

during leadership selection processes.

7.5 Methodological Considerations

The study design for this thesis allowed for the tracking of Dark Triad scores over time

in conjunction with others’ measures of Dark Triad traits, included competency measures, and

measures of success on the selection process. This provided rich information from which to

conduct analyses and test the hypotheses in this thesis, providing important contributions to the

Dark Triad literature. However, it is acknowledged that some methodological considerations

may be useful to discuss for future research.

For example, future studies looking at how Dark Triad traits are associated with faking

in selection processes may consider the use of a validated impression management scale.

Impression management is likely a factor in how individuals behave during personnel selection

(Ellis et al., 2002; Stevens & Kristof, 1995), as such, how the Dark Triad functions in a

personnel selection context with regards to impression management may be a useful

consideration when designing future Dark Triad-impression management research. Noting the
 116

issues with impression management scales currently (see Feldman, Kosinski, & Stillwell, 2017;

de Vries et al., 2017; & Feldman, 2018 for recent discussions on impression management and

lie scale use), utilising scales which identify the propensity to misrepresent responses.

One of recurrent issues in this thesis was the validity of the Dirty Dozen which was used

in all studies. While adequate validity was demonstrated across the studies, it is acknowledged

that other scales such as individual scale measures (e.g. NPI, MACH-IV, PPI etc.) and more

robust global Dark Triad scales such as the SD3, hold better psychometric properties and thus

may have produced better effect sizes or more conclusive results. However, the issues

associated with length of administration make longer scale options disruptive to an

organisation’s personnel selection processes. Consequently, there is a trade-off for the use of

lengthy Dark Triad scales in organisations, such that more potentially valid but lengthier scales

may be bypassed for shorter but potentially less valid scales.

The range restriction noted in study 1 was a feature of all studies. Ideally, Dark Triad

scores would have been obtained for all those who had applied for these junior leadership roles

from initial recruitment stages, making comparisons with those who reached the final

assessment centre more relevant. However, the practicalities of engaging in Dark Triad

assessments for all applicants is challenging, and as such only those taking part in the

assessment centre were chosen to complete Dark Triad scales. This makes reducing the impact

of range restriction difficult, and future research may wish to include a greater range of

participants and include those applicants who were not selected to attend the assessment centre.

In addition, future research could look at how Dark Triad traits manifest over time, from

selection through training contexts, and into the job environment. This may reveal how the

Dark Triad is represented in different settings, whether the Dark Triad impacts on the training

continuum, and importantly, what the long term consequences are for selection decisions

independent of Dark Triad score. In addition, examining how non-linear relationships are
 117

associated with selection processes may also be a route for future research. One potential issue

not examined in this thesis associated with Dark Triad research is the inverted U shape

relationship. For example, non-linear relationships have been found between Machiavellianism

and organisational citizenship behaviours (Zettler & Solga, 2012), and narcissism and job

performance (Grijalva et al., 2015). This could potentially reflect a phenomenon of dark

personality such that higher and lower levels of traits lead to less favourable outcomes.

However, linear relationships have largely been found between Dark Triad traits and

organisational outcomes in an organisational context, leaving non-linear relationships mostly

unexplored. While non-linear relationship explorations were outside the scope of this thesis,

future research could consider how higher and lower levels of Dark Triad traits have an effect

on organisational outcomes, investigating whether context is an important factor to consider.

Small effect sizes were apparent in all three studies, with less than 10% effect size for

studies 1, 3 and 4. In contrast, study 2 demonstrated moderate-to-large effect sizes, suggesting

differences between peer- and self-rated Dark Triad scores. Of interest is that while large effect

sizes are found in Dark Triad research (see LeBreton et al., 2018 for a review), effect sizes in

other studies associated with the Dark Triad have been small (e.g. O’Boyle et al., 2012; Grijalva

et al., 2015; LeBreton et al., 2018) indicating small effect sizes are not uncommon in the realm

of dark personality research. As is noted in recommendations from the American Psychological

Association (Wilkinson, 1999), effects sizes should be examined in light of other effect sizes

found in the same research context. While small effect sizes are apparent in studies within this

thesis, in the context of small effect sizes also found in other Dark Triad research, it is

reasonable to expect these effect size within the context of Dark Triad research.

Peer-ratings of the Dark Triad are scarce and present several challenges both

methodologically and statistically. As noted in study 2 (Chapter 4) even the best model fit for

the CFA of peer-adapted Dirty Dozen was poor, indicating that items failed to load together,
 118

even as a single higher order factor i.e. a global Dark Triad scale. This was in contrast to the

other Dark Triad CFA models at both T1 and T2 which generated acceptable fit indices for a

three latent factor model. The timing of the peer-rating of the Dark Triad may have accounted

for the poor fit of the model, such that fatigue effects reduced the accuracy of responding.

Future studies may wish to examine how peer-ratings of the Dark Triad change over time, or

if they are effected by fatigue or other contextual manipulations.

Research has suggested that when constraints are placed on individuals scoring higher on

Machiavellianism, their performance tends to drop due to the limited amount of control they

feel they can assert (O'Connor & Morrison, 2001; Shultz, 1993; Sparks, 1994). The assessment

centre in the present thesis was conducted for a large public sector organisation which, as with

any large and bureaucratic organisation, relies on rules, procedures, and policy to achieve

outputs. While this organisation may have bureaucracy as a perceived feature, junior leaders in

this organisation are given autonomy over resources and as such provided latitude over where

they can exert power. The perception of those outside of the organisation may consider this

workplace a rather strict place to work. Consequently, it could be that those scoring higher on

Machiavellianism do not consider this kind of organisation as a desirable place to work, given

the perceived constraints placed on employees. As such, the restriction of range from both self-

selection and pre-assessment centre processes may impact on the base rate of those high on

Machiavellianism applying for roles in this organisation, and thus be less representative of the

trait within this particular sample. In terms of diversity, some organisations may wish to engage

in recruiting efforts to attract more Machiavellian type individuals who reportedly perform

better in unstructured environments. However, it is advised that the negative repercussions of

hiring those scoring high on measures of the Dark Triad are weighed up against the human

costs of hiring those scoring high on Machiavellianism.

 119

7.6 Final Conclusions

The aim of this research was to examine how the Dark Triad related to personnel selection

decisions, and how external perceptions of the Dark Triad differed from self-appraisals. This

thesis met those aims and was able to deliver findings which can be of value to the increasing

understanding of Dark Triad in an organisational context. The findings of this thesis are of

relevance not just to scholars concerned with the transfer from the academic environment to

applied settings, but to wider audiences such as human resource professionals involved in the

development of personnel selection processes. The implications are wide ranging and relate to

the impact on selection decisions, how others might perceive the Dark Triad in different ways

to self- rated Dark Triad, and the ways in which ratings of leadership competencies are related

to Dark Triad traits. As this is exploratory research, more conclusive studies replicating these

findings would provide practitioners with further evidence-based guidance around how Dark

Triad traits impact on selection outcomes. Research around the Dark Triad does not come

without risk, and future studies are encouraged to use lengthier and potentially better validated

measures where operational limitations allow, examine the Dark Triad through the selection,

training, and on-the-job contexts, and to use effective impression management scales to

establish self-enhancement strategies. Overall, this piece of work has identified gaps in Dark

Triad organisational research, and enabled further understanding of how the Dark Triad

impacts on a key organisational process through the identification of important relationships

within the personnel selection mechanism.

 120

References

Ahmed, S. M. S., & Stewart, R. A. C. (1981). Factor analysis of the Machiavellian scale.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 9(1), 113-115.
doi:10.2224/sbp.1981.9.1.113
Akhtar, S., & Thomson, J. A., Jr. (1982). Overview: narcissistic personality disorder. Am J
Psychiatry, 139(1), 12-20. doi:10.1176/ajp.139.1.12
Allen, M. T., Bynum, B. H., Oliver, J. T., Russell, T. L., Young, M. C., & Babin, N. E.
(2014). Predicting leadership performance and potential in the U.S. Army Officer
Candidate School (OCS). Military Psychology, 26(4), 310-326.
doi:10.1037/mil0000056
Allsopp, J., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Machiavellianism as a component in
psychoticism and extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(1), 29-41.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90129-Y
American Psychiatric Association., & American Psychiatric Association. DSM-5 Task Force.
(2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders : DSM-5 (Fifth ed.).
Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association., & American Psychiatric Association Work Group to
Revise, D. S. M., III. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders:
DSM-III-R (3rd, rev. ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of
narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 440-450.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.03.002
Andersen, H. S., Sestoft, D., Lillebaek, T., Mortensen, E. L., & Kramp, P. (1999).
Psychopathy and psychopathological profiles in prisoners on remand. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 99(1), 33-39. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1999.tb05382.x
Arthur, W., & Day, E. A. (2011). Assessment centers. In (pp. 205-235). DC;US;Washington;:
American Psychological Association.
Arthur, W., Day, E. A., Mcnelly, T. L., & Edens, P. S. (2003). a meta-analysis of the
criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology,
56(1), 125-153. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00146.x
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work:
HarperCollins.
Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk.
Behav Sci Law, 28(2), 174-193. doi:10.1002/bsl.925
Bargh, J. A. (1984). Automatic and conscious processing of social information. In R. S. Wyer
& T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 1-43): Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and
control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social
cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 1-40): Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barker, R. A. (1994). The Rethinking of Leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 1(2), 46-54. doi:10.1177/107179199400100205
Barlett, C. P., & Barlett, N. D. (2015). The young and the restless: Examining the
relationships between age, emerging adulthood variables, and the Dark Triad.
Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 20-24. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.05.024
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of Impression Management and Self-
Deception on the Predictive Validity of Personality Constructs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81(3), 261-272. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.261
 121

Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological

Bulletin, 83(5), 762-765. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.762
Baughman, H. M., Dearing, S., Giammarco, E., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). Relationships
between bullying behaviours and the Dark Triad: A study with adults. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52(5), 571-575. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.11.020
Beauregard, K.S., & Dunning, D. (2001) Defining self-worth: Trait self-esteem moderates the
use of self-serving trait definition in social judgment. Motivation and Emotion, 25,
135–161.
Becker, J. A. H., & Dan O'Hair, H. (2007). Machiavellians' Motives in Organizational
Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 246-267.
doi:10.1080/00909880701434232
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R. F. (2003). Factor
structure of the psychopathic personality inventory: Validity and implications for
clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15, 340-350.
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Blonigen, D. M., Hicks, B. M., & Iacono, W. G. (2005).
Estimating Facets of Psychopathy From Normal Personality Traits: A Step Toward
Community Epidemiological Investigations. Assessment, 12(1), 3-18.
doi:10.1177/1073191104271223
Benson, M. J., & Campbell, J. P. (2007). To Be, or Not to Be, Linear: An expanded
representation of personality and its relationship to leadership performance.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(2), 232-249.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00384.x
Bereczkei, T. s. (2018). Machiavellianism: the psychology of manipulation (First ed.).
London: Routledge.
Blair, C. A., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. R. (2008). Narcissism in Organizations: A
Multisource Appraisal Reflects Different Perspectives. Human Performance, 21(3),
254-276. doi:10.1080/08959280802137705
Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group Size, ICC Values, and Group-Level Correlations: A Simulation.
Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 355-373. doi:10.1177/109442819814001
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. (pp. 349-
381). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
Boccaccini, M. T., Chevalier, C. S., Murrie, D. C., & Varela, J. G. (2017). Psychopathy
Checklist–Revised Use and Reporting Practices in Sexually Violent Predator
Evaluations. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(6), 592-614.
doi:10.1177/1079063215612443
Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., & Murrie, D. C. (2008). Do some evaluators report
consistently higher or lower pcl-r scores than others? Findings from a statewide
sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
14(4), 262-283. doi:10.1037/a0014523
Boduszek, D., & Debowska, A. (2016). Critical evaluation of psychopathy measurement
(PCL-R and SRP-III/SF) and recommendations for future research. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 44, 1-12. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.11.004
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993) .Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. C. Borman and Associates
(Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71- 98 ). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2008). Strategy and human resource management. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
 122

Bray, D. W., & Grant, D. L. (1966). The assessment center in the measurement of potential
for business management. Psychological monographs, 80(17), 1-27.
doi:10.1037/h0093895
Broos, N., Schmaal, L., Wiskerke, J., Kostelijk, L., Lam, T., Stoop, N., & Gouiaan, A. E.
(2012). The relationship between impulsive choice and impulsive action: a cross-
species translational study. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e36781.
doi:10.1371/[Link].0036781
Buelow, M. T., & Brunell, A. B. (2014). Facets of grandiose narcissism predict involvement
in health-risk behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 193-198.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.05.031
Burke, R. J. (2006). Why leaders fail: exploring the darkside. International Journal of
Manpower, 27(1), 91-100. doi:10.1108/01437720610652862
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self-Esteem,
and Direct and Displaced Aggression: Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Lead to Violence?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 219-229. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.75.1.219
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull, 56(2), 81-105.
Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2009). On the Self-regulatory Dynamics Created by
the Peculiar Benefits and Costs of Narcissism: A Contextual Reinforcement Model
and Examination of Leadership. Self and Identity, 8(2-3), 214-232.
doi:10.1080/15298860802505129
Campbell, W. K., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in
organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268-284.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.10.007
Campbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., & Foster, J. D. (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk
attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4), 297-311.
doi:10.1002/bdm.475
Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Narcissism and
Comparative Self-Enhancement Strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(3),
329-347. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2282
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B.
(2011). Doing Competencies Well: Best Practices in Competency Modeling.
Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 225-262. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01207.x
Caprara, G. V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Personalizing politics: A congruency model of
political preference. American Psychologist, 59, 581–594. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.59.7.581
Carter, G. L., Campbell, A. C., Muncer, S., & Carter, K. A. (2015). A Mokken analysis of the
Dark Triad ‘Dirty Dozen’: Sex and age differences in scale structures, and issues with
individual items. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 185-191.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.04.012
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It's All about Me: Narcissistic Chief Executive
Officers and Their Effects on Company Strategy and Performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351-386. doi:10.2189/asqu.52.3.351
Chen, C. C., Lee, Y. H., Huang, T. C., & Ko, S. F. (2017). Effects of stress interviews on
selection/recruitment function of employment interviews. Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources. doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12170
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Clarke, J. (2005). Working with monsters: how to identify and protect yourself from the
workplace psychopath. Milsons Point, N.S.W: Random House.
 123

Cleckley, H. M. (1941). The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Reinterpret the So-called

Psychopathic Personality: Mosby.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status.
Peer rejection in childhood, 17.
Corral, S., & Calvete, E. (2000). Machiavellianism: dimensionality of the Mach IV and its
relation to self-monitoring in a Spanish sample. The Spanish journal of psychology,
3(1), 3.
Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The Factor Structure of the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(6), 593-600.
doi:10.1080/00223890802388590
Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The Development and Validation of a
New Machiavellianism Scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219-257.
doi:10.1177/0149206308318618
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(6), 1241-1255. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
Darr, W., & Catano, V. M. (2008). Multisource Assessments of Behavioral Competencies
and Selection Interview Performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 16(1), 68-72. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00410.x
Davies, M. R. (2005). Prediction of Transformational Leadership by Personality Constructs
for Senior Australian Organisational Executive Leaders. (Dissertation/Thesis),
Griffith University. School of Psychology Retrieved from
[Link]
Davis, S.H. (2005). Should a 60 per cent success rate be achievable? Industrial and
Commercial Training, 37(7):331 – 335.
Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., Kola, S., & Hyland, P. (2014). A bifactor model of the Polish
version of the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. Personality and Individual
Differences, 69, 231-237. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.06.001
Decuyper, M., De Pauw, S., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., & De Clercq, B. J. (2009). A meta-
analysis of psychopathy-, antisocial PD- and FFM associations. European Journal of
Personality, 23(7), 531-565. doi:10.1002/per.729
del Rosario, P. M., & White, R. M. (2005). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Test–
retest stability and internal consistency. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6),
1075-1081. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.08.001
DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. P. (2010). The hannibal lecter myth:
Psychopathy and verbal intelligence in the macarthur violence risk assessment study.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32(2), 169-177.
doi:10.1007/s10862-009-9147-z
Deluga, R. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism Implications for charismatic
leadership and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 339-363.
doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00082-0
DeShong, H. L., Grant, D. M., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2015). Comparing models of
counterproductive workplace behaviors: The Five-Factor Model and the Dark Triad.
Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 55-60. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.10.001
Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable
narcissism. Journal of personality disorders, 17(3), 188-207.
doi:10.1521/pedi.17.3.188.22146
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding Self-Report Bias in
Organizational Behavior Research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245-
260. doi:10.1023/A:1019637632584
 124

Edens, J. F., & Cox, J. (2012). Examining the Prevalence, Role and Impact of Evidence
Regarding Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy and Psychopathy in Capital Cases: A
Survey of Defense Team Members: APD and psychopathy in capital cases: A survey.
Behavioral sciences & the law, 30(3), 239-255. doi:10.1002/bsl.2009
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of
Manpower, 20(1/2), 16-27. doi:10.1108/01437729910268588
Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). The use of impression
management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1200-1208. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.6.1200
Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and Measurement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(1), 11-17. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.11
Eurich, T. L., Krause, D. E., Cigularov, K., & George, C. T., III. (2009). Assessment Centers:
Current Practices in the United States. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(4),
387-407. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9123-3
Evenden, J. L. (1999). Varieties of impulsivity. Psychopharmacology, 146(4), 348-361.
doi:10.1007/PL00005481
Fehr, B., Samson, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty
years later. In Advances in personality assessment, Vol. 9. (pp. 77-116). Hillsdale, NJ,
US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J.,
Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill
inventory. Journal of Management, 31, 126–152. doi:10.1177/0149206304271386
Flaherty, B. P., & Kiff, C. J. (2012). Latent class and latent profile models. In (pp. 391-404).
DC;US;Washington;: American Psychological Association.
Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2008). On Being Eager and Uninhibited: Narcissism and
Approach–Avoidance Motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7),
1004-1017. doi:10.1177/0146167208316688
Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring malevolence:
Quantitative issues surrounding the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 67, 114-121. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.02.001
Gable, M., & Dangello, F. (1994). Locus of control, machiavellianism, and managerial job
performance. The Journal of Psychology, 128(5), 599-608.
doi:10.1080/00223980.1994.9914917
Gable, M., Hollon, C., & Dangello, F. (1992). Managerial Structuring of Work as a
Moderator of the Machiavellianism and Job Performance Relationship. The Journal of
Psychology, 126(3), 317-325. doi:10.1080/00223980.1992.10543366
Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic Illusions in Self-Evaluations of
Intelligence and Attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 143-155.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00798.x
Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary communication qualities
as mediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributions of leader
charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 509-537. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2010.01179.x
Gaugler, B. B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thornton, G. C., & Bentson, C. (1987). Meta-analysis of
assessment center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 493-511.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.493
Geis, F.L. (1978). Machiavellianism. In H. London & J. Exner (Eds.), Dimensions of
personality (pp. 305-363). New York: Wiley.
 125

Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness,
Empathy, and Helping: A Person × Situation Perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93(4), 583-599. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583
Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. D. (2014). Narcissism: An Integrative Synthesis and Dominance
Complementarity Model. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 108-127.
doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0048
Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015).
Narcissism and Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of Linear and Nonlinear
Relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1-47. doi:10.1111/peps.12072
Gustafson, S. B., & Ritzer, D. R. (1995). The dark side of normal: A psychopathy-linked
pattern called aberrant self-promotion. European Journal of Personality, 9(3), 147-
183. doi:10.1002/per.2410090302
Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal
populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1(2), 111-119.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(80)90028-8
Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(1), 7-16. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.53.1.7
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: "A Clinical Construct Whose Time Has Come". Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 25.
Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us.
New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., Hart, S. D., & Harpur, T. J. (1991). Psychopathy and the DSM-IV Criteria for
Antisocial Personality Disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(3), 391-398.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.100.3.391
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL-R Assessment of Psychopathy:
Development, Structural Properties, and New Directions. In Handbook of
psychopathy. (pp. 58-88). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 217-246.
doi:10.1146/[Link].3.022806.091452
Harms, P. D., & Spain, S. M. (2015). Beyond the Bright Side: Dark Personality at Work:
Beyond the Bright Side. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 15-24. doi:10.1111/apps.12042
Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of
personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 495-509.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.04.007
Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-Factor Conceptualization of
Psychopathy: Construct Validity and Assessment Implications. Psychological
Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 6-17.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6
Harrel, W. A. (1980). Retaliatory aggression by high and low Machiavellians against
remorseful and non-remorseful wrongdoers. Social Behavior and Personality: an
international journal, 8(2), 217-220. doi:10.2224/sbp.1980.8.2.217
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Herd, A. M., Alagaraja, M., & Cumberland, D. M. (2016). Assessing global leadership
competencies: the critical role of assessment centre methodology. Human Resource
Development International, 19(1), 27-17. doi:10.1080/13678868.2015.1072125
 126

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., &
Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting Workplace Aggression: A Meta-Analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228-238. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228
Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain:
The impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 10(4), 443-465. doi:10.1080/13594320143000780
Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R., & Lyons, B. D. (2011). Great man or
great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences
and leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
84(2), 347.
Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition of personality? European Journal
of Personality, 8(3), 149-162. doi:10.1002/per.2410080302
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job-Performance
Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100-
112. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing Leadership: A View from the Dark Side.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1), 40-51. doi:10.1111/1468-
2389.00162
Hudek-Knežević, J., Kardum, I., & Mehić, N. (2016). Dark triad traits and health outcomes:
An exploratory study. Psychological Topics, 25(1), 129-156.
Hughes, M. A., Stout, J. C., & Dolan, M. C. (2013). Concurrent validity of the psychopathic
personality Inventory–Revised and the psychopathy checklist: Screening version in an
Australian offender sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 802-813.
doi:10.1177/0093854812475135
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Judiesch, M. K. (1990). Individual Differences in Output
Variability as a Function of Job Complexity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1),
28-42. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.28
Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,
38: 635-672.
Ickes, W., Reidhead, S., & Patterson, M. (1986). Machiavellianism and Self-Monitoring: As
Different as "Me" and "You". Social Cognition, 4(1), 58.
doi:10.1521/soco.1986.4.1.58
Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality
and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331-339. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.07.006
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85-
98. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
Jonason, P. K., Baughman, H. M., Carter, G. L., & Parker, P. (2015). Dorian Gray without
his portrait: Psychological, social, and physical health costs associated with the Dark
Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 5-13.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.01.008
Jonason, P. K., & Kavanagh, P. (2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the Dark
Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 606-610.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.05.030
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Buss, D. M. (2010). The costs and benefits of the Dark Triad:
Implications for mate poaching and mate retention tactics. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48(4), 373-378. doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.11.003
 127

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating
a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23(1), 5-18.
doi:10.1002/per.698
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(1), 76-81. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.02.010
Jonason, P. K., Luévano, V. X., & Adams, H. M. (2012). How the dark triad traits predict
relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 180–184.
Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Baughman, H. M., & Vernon, P. A. (2014). What a tangled web
we weave: The Dark Triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual
Differences, 70, 117-119. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.06.038
Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic
employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 449-453.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.11.008
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., & Harbeson, C. L. (2011). Mate-selection and the
Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile
environment. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(6), 759-763.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.06.025
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A Concise Measure of the Dark
Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420-432. doi:10.1037/a0019265
Jonason, P. K., Wee, S., & Li, N. P. (2014). Thinking Bigger and Better About “Bad
Apples”: Evolutionary Industrial–Organizational Psychology and the Dark Triad.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(1), 117-121. doi:10.1111/iops.12118
Jonason, P. K., Wee, S., & Li, N. P. (2015). Competition, autonomy, and prestige:
Mechanisms through which the Dark Triad predict job satisfaction. Personality and
Individual Differences, 72(Supplement C), 112-116.
doi:[Link]
Jonason, P. K., Wee, S., Li, N. P., & Jackson, C. (2014). Occupational niches and the Dark
Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 119-123.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.05.024
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In Handbook of individual
differences in social behavior. (pp. 93-108). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A Brief
Measure of Dark Personality Traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28-41.
doi:10.1177/1073191113514105
Jones, L. L., & Brunell, A. B. (2014). Clever and crude but not kind: narcissism, self-esteem,
and the self-reference effect. Memory (Hove, England), 22(4), 307-322.
doi:10.1080/09658211.2013.778999
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A
Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving Yourself Abundantly: Relationship
of the Narcissistic Personality to Self- and Other Perceptions of Workplace Deviance,
Leadership, and Task and Contextual Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(4), 762-776. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits:
A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership
Quarterly, 20(6), 855-875. doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.09.004
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (1st ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
 128

Kerr, N. L., & Gross, A. C. (1978). Situational and personality determinants of a victim's
identification with a tormentor. Journal of Research in Personality, 12(4), 450-468.
doi:10.1016/0092-6566(78)90071-5
Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., Nelson, C. E., & Penney, L.
M. (2010). Re-Examining Machiavelli: A Three-Dimensional Model of
Machiavellianism in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(8),
1868. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00643.x
Khoo, H. S., & Burch, G. S. J. (2008). The ‘dark side’ of leadership personality and
transformational leadership: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44(1), 86-97. doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.07.018
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In
pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between
supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory
behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512-519.
doi:[Link]
Kim, J. H. (2011). Peer Performance Evaluation: Information Aggregation Approach.
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(2), 565-587. doi:10.1111/j.1530-
9134.2011.00297.x
Klonsky, E. D., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2002). Informant-Reports of Personality Disorder:
Relation to Self-Reports and Future Research Directions. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 9(3), 300-311. doi:10.1093/clipsy.9.3.300
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass
Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. Journal of chiropractic medicine,
15(2), 155-163. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.02.012
Kowalski, C. M., Rogoza, R., Vernon, P. A., & Schermer, J. A. (2018). The Dark Triad and
the self-presentation variables of socially desirable responding and self-monitoring.
Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 234-237.
doi:[Link]
Kraut, A. I. (1975). Prediction of managerial success by peer and training-staff ratings.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1), 14-19. doi:10.1037/h0076360
Kubarych, T. S., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J. (2004). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory:
factor structure in a non-clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences,
36(4), 857-872. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00158-2
Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and Validation of an Instrument for
Measuring Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76(5), 619-627. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.619
Kuo, H. K., & Marsella, A. J. (1977). The meaning and measurement of Machiavellianism in
Chinese and American college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 101(2), 165-
165. doi:10.1080/00224545.1977.9924005
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human Resource Systems and Sustained Competitive
Advantage: A Competency-Based Perspective. The Academy of Management Review,
19(4), 699-727. doi:10.5465/AMR.1994.9412190216
LeBreton, J., Shiverdecker, L. K., & Grimaldi, E. M. (2018). The Dark Triad and Workplace
Behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 5(1), 387-414. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104451
LeBreton, J. M., Binning, J. F., & Adorno, A. J. (2006). Sub-clinical psychopaths. In J. C.
Thomas & D. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and
psychopathology: Personality and everyday functioning (Vol. 1, pp. 388-411). New
York: NY: Wiley.
 129

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality
Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329-358.
doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the
Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571-1582. doi:10.1016/[Link].2004.09.016
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2014). The Dark Triad, the Big Five, and the HEXACO model.
Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2-5. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.01.048
Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C.S., & Harich, K.R. (1995). Brand equity: the halo effect measure.
European Journal of Marketing, 29 (40, 57-66.
[Link]
Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring Faking in the Employment Interview:
Development and Validation of an Interview Faking Behavior Scale. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1638-1656. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1638
Lievens, F., Chasteen, C. S., Day, E. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2006). Large-scale
investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center
convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 247-258.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.247Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996).
Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic
personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment,
66(3), 488.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2006). The Self-Report Assessment of Psychopathy:
Problems, Pitfalls, and Promises. In Handbook of psychopathy. (pp. 107-132). New
York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Liu, C. C. (2008). The Relationship between Machiavellianism and Knowledge Sharing
Willingness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 233-240.
doi:10.1007/s10869-008-9065-1
Lönnqvist, J. E., Paunonen, S., Tuulio-Henriksson, A., Lönnqvist, J., & Verkasalo, M.
(2007). Substance and Style in Socially Desirable Responding. Journal of
Personality, 75(2), 291-322. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00440.x
Lopes, J., & Fletcher, C. (2004). Fairness of impression management in employment
interviews: A cross-country study of the role of equity and Machiavellianism. Social
Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 32(8), 747-768.
doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.8.747
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory:
Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343-378. doi:10.1016/0030-
5073(84)90043-6
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the Five-Factor Model to Represent the DSM-
IV Personality Disorders: An Expert Consensus Approach. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 110(3), 401-412. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.401
Machiavelli, N. (1532). The prince. Rome, Italy: Antonio Blado d'Asola.
Mael, F. A., Waldman, D. A., & Mulqueen, C. (2001). From Scientific Work to
Organizational Leadership: Predictors of Management Aspiration among Technical
Personnel. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(1), 132-148.
Manley, H., Roberts, R., Beattie, S., & Woodman, T. (2018). I'll get there because I'm great,
or am I? Narcissistic vulnerability moderates the narcissistic grandiosity – goal
persistence relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 65-74.
 130

Malesza, M., & Kaczmarek, M. C. (2018). Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism
and impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 126, 61-65.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2018.01.021
Maples, J. L., Lamkin, J., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of two brief measures of the dark
triad: the dirty dozen and short dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 326-331.
doi:10.1037/a0035084
Marcus, B., Taylor, O. A., Hastings, S. E., Sturm, A., & Weigelt, O. (2016). The Structure of
Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Review, a Structural Meta-Analysis, and a
Primary Study. Journal of Management, 42(1), 203-233.
doi:10.1177/0149206313503019
Marcus, D. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2016). Understanding the dark side of personality:
Reflections and future directions. In (pp. 363-374). Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association.
Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the
relationship between Emotional Intelligence and health. Personality and Individual
Differences, 49(6), 554-564. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.05.029
Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Babiak, P. (2014). A dark side of leadership:
Corporate psychopathy and its influence on employee well-being and job satisfaction.
Personality and Individual Differences, 59(Supplement C), 83-88.
doi:[Link]
McElwee, R.O., Dunning, D., Tan, P.L., & Hollmann, S. (2001). Evaluating others: The role
of who we are versus what we think traits mean. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 123–136.
McNamara, P., Durso, R., & Harris, E. (2007). "Machiavellianism" and frontal dysfunction:
Evidence from Parkinson's disease. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 12(4), 285.
doi:10.1080/13546800701202316
Mededovic, J., & Petrovic, B. (2015). The Dark Tetrad: Structural properties and location in
the personality space. Journal of Individual Differences, 36(4), 228-236.
doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000179
Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2007). Narcissistic personality disorder:
relations with distress and functional impairment. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48(2),
170-177. doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.10.003
Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Seibert, L. A., Watts, A., Zeichner, A., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An
examination of the Dirty Dozen measure of psychopathy: a cautionary tale about the
costs of brief measures. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 1048-1053.
doi:10.1037/a0028583
Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., Pryor, L. R., Kamen, C., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). Is research
using the narcissistic personality inventory relevant for understanding narcissistic
personality disorder? Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 482-488.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.02.001
Miller, J. D., Hyatt, C. S., Maples-Keller, J. L., Carter, N. T., & Lynam, D. R. (2017).
Psychopathy and Machiavellianism: A Distinction Without a Difference? J Pers,
85(4), 439-453. doi:10.1111/jopy.12251
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Controversies in
Narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 291-315.
doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244
Montano, D., Reeske, A., Franke, F., & Hüffmeier, J. (2016). Leadership, followers' mental
health and job performance in organizations: A comprehensive meta-analysis from an
occupational health perspective: Leadership and Followers' Mental Health. Journal of
Organizational Behavior. doi:10.1002/job.2124
 131

Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2004). "Dark Side" Personality Styles as Predictors of Task,
Contextual, and Job Performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
12(4), 356-362. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00290.x
Mount, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Incremental validity of empirically
keyed biodata scales over gma and the five factor personality constructs. Personnel
Psychology, 53(2), 299-323. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00203.x
Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The Malevolent Side of Human
Nature: A Meta-Analysis and Critical Review of the Literature on the Dark Triad
(Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 12(2), 183-204. doi:10.1177/1745691616666070
Naquin, S. S., & Holton, E. F. (2006). Leadership and Managerial Competency Models: A
Simplified Process and Resulting Model. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
8(2), 144-165. doi:10.1177/1523422305286152
Nathanson, C. (2008). Exploring the dynamics of revenge. (Dissertation/Thesis), University
of British Columbia Dissertation, Retrieved from [Link]
Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006). Predictors of a behavioral measure
of scholastic cheating: Personality and competence but not demographics.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 97-122.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.03.001
Newell, S., & Shackleton, V. (1994). International Differences in Selection Methods.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2(2), 71-73. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2389.1994.tb00152.x
O'Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of
the Dark Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective. The Journal of
applied psychology, 97(3), 557-579. doi:10.1037/a0025679
O'Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., Story, P. A., & White, C. D. (2015). A Meta-
Analytic Test of Redundancy and Relative Importance of the Dark Triad and Five-
Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 644-664.
doi:10.1111/jopy.12126
O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D., Banks, G. C., & Story, P. A. (2013). A meta-analytic review of
the Dark Triad–intelligence connection. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6),
789-794. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.08.001
O'Connor, W. E., & Morrison, T. G. (2001). A Comparison of Situational and Dispositional
Predictors of Perceptions of Organizational Politics. The Journal of Psychology,
135(3), 301-312. doi:10.1080/00223980109603700
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality
testing for personnel selection: A red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660
– 679. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.660
Osumi, T., & Ohira, H. (2010). The positive side of psychopathy: Emotional detachment in
psychopathy and rational decision-making in the ultimatum game. Personality and
Individual Differences, 49(5), 451-456. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.04.016
Panitz, E. (1989). Psychometric Investigation of the Mach IV Scale Measuring
Machiavellianism. Psychological Reports, 64(3), 963-968.
doi:10.2466/pr0.1989.64.3.963
Papageorgiou, K. A., Wong, B., & Clough, P. J. (2017). Beyond good and evil: Exploring the
mediating role of mental toughness on the Dark Triad of personality traits.
Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 19-23.
doi:[Link]
Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of
psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness.
 132

Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913-938.

doi:10.1017/S0954579409000492
Paulhus, D., & Hemphill, J. (2006). Scoring manual for the Hare self-report psychopathy
scale-III. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and Intrapsychic Adaptiveness of Trait Self-
Enhancement: A Mixed Blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74(5), 1197-1208. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1197
Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a Taxonomy of Dark Personalities. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23(6), 421-426. doi:10.1177/0963721414547737
Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and Moralistic Biases in Self-Perception: The
Interplay of Self-Deceptive Styles With Basic Traits and Motives. Journal of
Personality, 66(6), 1025-1060. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00041
Paulhus, D. L., Westlake, B. G., Calvez, S. S., & Harms, P. D. (2013). Self-presentation style
in job interviews: the role of personality and culture: Self-presentation style in job
interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(10), 2042-2059.
doi:10.1111/jasp.12157
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-
563. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and Counterproductive Work Behavior:
Do Bigger Egos Mean Bigger Problems? International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 10(1), 126-134. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00199
Pethman, T. M. I., & Erlandsson, S. I. (2002). Aberrant Self-Promotion or Subclinical
Psychopathy in a Swedish General Population. The Psychological Record, 52(1), 33-
50. doi:10.1007/BF03395413
Petrides, K. V., Vernon, P. A., Schermer, J. A., & Veselka, L. (2011). Trait Emotional
Intelligence and the Dark Triad Traits of Personality. Twin Research and Human
Genetics, 14(1), 35-41. doi:10.1375/twin.14.1.35
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2000). On the invalidity of
validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 582-593. doi:10.1037//0022-
3514.78.3.582
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management.
Journal of Management, 39(2), 313-338. doi:10.1177/0149206311410060
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G. C., & Levy, K. N.
(2009). Initial Construction and Validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory.
Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 365-379. doi:10.1037/a0016530
Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsky, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic
personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 421-446.
doi:10.1146/[Link].121208.131215
Ployhart, R. E., & Harold, C. M. (2004). The Applicant Attribution‐Reaction Theory
(AART): An Integrative Theory of Applicant Attributional Processing. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12: 84-98. doi:10.1111/j.0965-
075X.2004.00266.x
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems
and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
doi:10.1177/014920638601200408
Pontari, B. A., & Schlenker, B. R. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on self-
presentation: Can cognitive busyness help as well as harm social performance?
 133

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1092-1108. doi:10.1037//0022-

3514.78.6.1092
Posthuma, R. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2002). Beyond employment interview
validity: a comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time.
Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 1-81. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00103.x
R Core Team. (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/
Ramanaiah, N. V., Byravan, A., & Detwiler, F. R. J. (1994). Revised Neo Personality
Inventory Profiles of Machiavellian and Non-Machiavellian People. Psychological
Reports, 75(2), 937-938. doi:10.2466/pr0.1994.75.2.937
Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and defensive self-
enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59(1), 19-38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1991.tb00766.x
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A Principal-Components Analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and Further Evidence of Its Construct Validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890-902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological
Reports, 45(2), 590-590. doi:10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590
Rauthmann, J. F. (2011). Acquisitive or protective self-presentation of dark personalities?
Associations among the Dark Triad and self-monitoring. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51 (4), 502-508.
Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and Interpersonal Perception: Similarities and
Differences in the Social Consequences of Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and
Psychopathy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 487-496.
doi:10.1177/1948550611427608
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(7), 884. doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.06.020
Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2013). The perceived attractiveness and traits of the Dark
Triad: Narcissists are perceived as hot, Machiavellians and psychopaths not.
Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 582-586.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.11.005
Rauthmann, J. F., & Will, T. (2011). Proposing a multidimensional Machiavellianism
conceptualization. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(3), 391-404.
doi:10.2224/sbp.2011.39.3.391
Reynolds, E. K., & Lejuez, C. W. (2012). Narcissism in the DSM. In The Handbook of
Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (pp. 14-21): John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Richardson, E. N., & Boag, S. (2016). Offensive defenses: The mind beneath the mask of the
dark triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 148-152.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.12.039
Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short-term benefits and
long-term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 340-352.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.2.340
Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response
distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(4), 634-644. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.83.4.634
Roulin, N., & Bourdage, J. S. (2017). Once an Impression Manager, Always an Impression
Manager? Antecedents of Honest and Deceptive Impression Management Use and
 134

Variability across Multiple Job Interviews. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00029
Russ, E., & Shedler, J. (2013). Defining narcissistic subtypes. In (pp. 29-43).
DC;US;Washington;: American Psychological Association.
Russell, G. W. (1974). Machiavellianism, Locus of Control, Aggression, Performance and
Precautionary Behaviour in Ice Hockey. Human Relations, 27(9), 825-837.
doi:10.1177/001872677402700901
Ryan, A.M., & Tippins, N.T. (2004). Attracting and selecting: what psychological research
tells us. Human Resources Management, 43(4):305-318.
Ryckman, R. M., Thornton, B., & Butler, J. C. (1994). Personality correlates of the
Hypercompetitive Attitude Scale: validity tests of Horney's theory of neurosis.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 62(1), 84-94. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6201_8
Sabouri, S., Gerber, M., Sadeghi Bahmani, D., Lemola, S., Clough, P. J., Kalak, N., & Brand,
S. (2016). Examining Dark Triad traits in relation to mental toughness and physical
activity in young adults. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 12, 229-235.
doi:10.2147/NDT.S97267
Sackett, P.R. & Devore, C.J. (2001) Counterproductive behaviors at work, in N. Anderson,
D. Ones, H. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds.) Handbook of industrial, work, and
organizational psychology, 1, 145-164.
Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual review of psychology, 59(1),
419-450. doi:10.1146/[Link].59.103006.093716
Salekin, R. T., Neumann, C. S., Leistico, A.-M. R., & Zalot, A. A. (2004). Psychopathy in
Youth and Intelligence: An Investigation of Cleckley's Hypothesis. Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33(4), 731-742.
doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_8
Salgado, J. F., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2001). Predictors Used for Personnel
Selection: An Overview of Constructs, Methods and Techniques. In Handbook of
Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology: Personnel Psychology handbook of
industrial, work and organizational psychology: Personnel psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
165-199). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Sanchez, J. I., & Levine, E. L. (2001). The Analysis of Work in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of
Industrial, Work &amp; Organizational Psychology - Volume 1: Personnel
Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 71-89). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from
[Link] doi:10.4135/9781848608320
Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder
empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8),
1055-1085. doi:10.1016/[Link].2002.09.001
Scherer, K. T., Baysinger, M., Zolynsky, D., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Predicting
counterproductive work behaviors with sub-clinical psychopathy: Beyond the Five
Factor Model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 300-305.
doi:[Link]
Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the Toxic Leadership Scale.
(Dissertation/Thesis), ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link];jsessionid=681436D874F97F78F6C4AAE1097994C6?sequence=1
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research
findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
 135

Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are
Normal Narcissists Psychologically Healthy?: Self-Esteem Matters. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 400-416. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.400
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Klein, C. (2006). Machiavellianism,
trait perfectionism, and perfectionistic self-presentation. Personality and Individual
Differences, 40(4), 829-839. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.09.010
Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Batjtsta, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B.,& Sanchez, J. I.
(2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 703-740.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00220.x
Shultz, C. J., II. (1993). Situational and dispositional predictors of performance: a test of the
hypothesized Machiavellianism x structure interaction among sales persons. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 23(6), 478.
Simonton, D. K. (1998). Political leadership: Part 1 – world heads of state. Leadership
Quarterly, 9, 239–242.
Silvester, J., Wyatt, M., & Randall, R. (2014). Politician personality, Machiavellianism, and
political skill as predictors of performance ratings in political roles. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 258-279.
Spain, S. M., Harms, P., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). The dark side of personality at work.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S41-S60. doi:10.1002/job.1894
Sparks, J. R. (1994). Machiavellianism and Personal Success in Marketing: The Moderating
Role of Latitude for Improvisation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
22(4), 393-400. doi:10.1177/0092070394224008
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010). Counterproductive Work Behavior and Organisational
Citizenship Behavior: Are They Opposite Forms of Active Behavior? Applied
Psychology An International Review, 59(1), 21-39. doi:10.1111/j.1464-
0597.2009.00414.x
Spironelli, C., Segre, D., Stegagno, L., & Angrilli, A. (2014). Intelligence and psychopathy: a
correlational study on insane female offenders. Psychological Medicine, 44(1), 111-
116. doi:10.1017/S0033291713000615
Spurk, D., Keller, A. C., & Hirschi, A. (2016). Do Bad Guys Get Ahead or Fall Behind?
Relationships of the Dark Triad of Personality With Objective and Subjective Career
Success. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(2), 113-121.
doi:10.1177/1948550615609735
Stanley, L., Kellermanns, F. W., & Zellweger, T. M. (2017). Latent Profile Analysis:
Understanding Family Firm Profiles. Family Business Review, 30(1), 84-102.
doi:10.1177/0894486516677426
Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the Right Impression: A Field Study of
Applicant Impression Management During Job Interviews. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80(5), 587-606. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.5.587
Stevens, G. W. (2013). A Critical Review of the Science and Practice of Competency
Modeling. Human Resource Development Review, 12(1), 86-107.
doi:10.1177/1534484312456690
Stewart, A. E., & Stewart, E. A. (2006). The Preference to Excel and Its Relationship to
Selected Personality Variables. Journal of Individual Psychology, 62(3), 270-284.
Story, A.L., & Dunning, D. (1998). The more rational side of self-serving prototypes: The
effects of success and failure performance feedback. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 34, 513–529.
Tamborski, M., & Brown, R. P. (2011). The measurement of trait narcissism in social-
personality research. In The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality
 136

disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments. (pp. 133-140).

Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological
Perspective on Mental Health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193-210.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice,
victom precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 4(1), 25-29. doi:10.1037/h0071663
Thornton, G. C., Gaugler, B. B., Rosenthal, D. B., & Bentson, C. (1992). Die pradiktive
Validitat des Assessment Center – eine Metaanalyse [The predictive validity of the
assessment center – A meta-analysis]. In H. Schuler & W. Stehle (Eds.), Assessment-
Center als Methode der Personalentwicklung (2nd ed., pp. 36-60). Gottingen:
Hogrefe.
Trull, T. J., & McCrae, R. R. (2002). A five-factor perspective on personality disorder
research. In (2nd ed., pp. 45-57). US;Washington;DC;: American Psychological
Association.
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2008). Do Today's Young People
Really Think They Are so Extraordinary? An Examination of Secular Trends in
Narcissism and Self-Enhancement. Psychological Science, 19(2), 181-188.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02065.x
Turner, D. B., Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., & Harris, P. B. (2015). Jurors Report that
Risk Measure Scores Matter in Sexually Violent Predator Trials, but that Other
Factors Matter More. Behavioral sciences & the law, 33(1), 56-73.
doi:10.1002/bsl.2154
Twenge, J. M., & Foster, J. D. (2010). Birth Cohort Increases in Narcissistic Personality
Traits Among American College Students, 1982–2009. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 1(1), 99-106. doi:10.1177/1948550609355719
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., & Bushman, B. J. (2008).
Egos Inflating Over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875-902. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2008.00507.x
Vazire, S., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists.
Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 10(2), 154-165.
doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_4
Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Portrait of a narcissist:
Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42(6), 1439-1447. doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.06.007
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2002). The moderating influence of job
performance dimensions on convergence of supervisory and peer ratings of job
performance: Unconfounding construct-level convergence and rating difficulty.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 345-354. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.345
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-
presentation: regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and
effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. J Pers Soc Psychol, 88(4),
632-657. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632
 137

Volmer, J., Koch, I. K., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of leaders' dark
triad traits: Effects on subordinates' career success and well-being. Personality and
Individual Differences, 101, 413-418. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.06.046
Voskuijl, O. F. (2017). Job Analysis: Current and Future Perspectives. In The Blackwell
Handbook of Personnel Selection (pp. 25-46): Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Vrij, A., Semin, G. R., & Bull, R. A. Y. (1996). Insight Into Behavior Displayed During
Deception. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 544-562. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2958.1996.tb00378.x
Walla, P., Duregger, C., Greiner, K., Thurner, S., & Ehrenberger, K. (2008). Multiple aspects
related to self-awareness and the awareness of others: an electroencephalography
study. Journal of Neural Transmission, 115(7), 983-992. doi:10.1007/s00702-008-
0035-6
Wallace, H. M., Ready, C. B., & Weitenhagen, E. (2009). Narcissism and Task Persistence.
Self and Identity, 8(1), 78-93. doi:10.1080/15298860802194346
Westen, D., Shedler, J., Bradley, R., & Russ, E. (2008). Refining the Construct of Narcissistic
Personality Disorder: Diagnostic Criteria and Subtypes. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 165(11), 1473-1481. doi:10.1176/[Link].2008.07030376
Wetzel, E., Brown, A., Hill, P., Chung, J. M. H., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2017).
The narcissism epidemic is dead: Long live the narcissism epidemic. Psychological
Science, 28(12), 1833-1847. doi:10.1177/0956797617724208
Wilkinson, L. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and
explanations. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594-604. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.54.8.594
Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the Four-Factor Structure
of Psychopathy in College Students Via Self-Report. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 88(2), 205-219. doi:10.1080/00223890701268074
Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the
evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 285-299.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.285
Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power
strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work
teams. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 122-126.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.05.019
Wong, P.T.B., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask ‘‘why’’ questions, and the heuristics
of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650–663.
Wu, J., & Lebreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the Dispositional Basis of
Counterproductive Work Behavior: The Role of Aberrant Personality. Personnel
Psychology, 64(3), 593-626. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01220.x
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional Intelligence in the
Workplace: A Critical Review. Applied Psychology An International Review, 53(3),
371-399. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00176.x
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Marcus, D. K. (2016). Introduction: A bright future for dark personality
features? In V. Zeigler-Hill & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality:
Science and practice in social, personality, and clinical psychology. (pp. 3-22).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zettler, I., & Solga, M. (2012). Not Enough of a 'Dark' Trait? Linking Machiavellianism to
Job Performance (Vol. 27).
Zhang, H., Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, H. (2017). CEO humility, narcissism and firm
innovation: A paradox perspective on CEO traits. The Leadership Quarterly.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.01.003
 138

Zysberg, L., & Nevo, B. (2004). “The Smarts That Counts?”: Psychologists' Decision-
Making in Personnel Selection. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 117-124.
doi:10.1023/B:JOBU.0000040275.16133.15