ti

atedthiughwetingle,petithces

1. Introduction

gh score Darky; Pauipulatidomin. Theseto plh indif-intere

itive given that many individuals can be simultaneously attractedto the same person (Alexander, 1979; Buss, 1988). One way tocompete with rivals to generate favorable evaluations from poten-tial mates is to derogate the traits and attributes of competitors(e.g., Buss & Dedden, 1990), an option that should be particularlyfavorable to individuals scoring high on the Dark Triad given their

of deceptiet al.).

Individuals who score high on narcissism tend to exhibiacteristics of dominance, grandiosity, and superiority comto others. Narcissists feel a sense of entitlement, have an oving need to succeed, and enjoy being the center of attention. Theyare interested in their accomplishments only and as a result of thisegotism they do not work well with others. Like individuals whoare high in Machiavellianism, the narcissist also uses manipulationand deception to accomplish his or her goals and does not thinkabout how his or her actions may impact others (Paulhus &Williams, 2002). Although narcissists appear to have an inated

Corresponding author. Address: The University of Western Ontario, London, ONN6A 5C2, Canada. Tel.: +1 (519)661 2111x84904; fax: +1 (519)661 3961.

E-mail address: lcampb23@uwo.ca (L. Campbell).

Personality and Individual Differences 67 (2014) 4246

Contents lists availab

Personality and Indi

.esomeone else (Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010).The process of attracting mates, however, is inherently compet-

and also gain the trust of others by using tacticsexploitation in order to achieve their goals (Learyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.0030191-8869/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved., 1981),on and

t char-pared

erbear-such as a preference for short-term sexual relationships (Jonason,Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009; Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012),lowering mate standards to facilitate the successful implementa-tion of these short-term mating preferences (Jonason, Valentine,Li, & Harbeson, 2011), as well as being more likely to attempt topoach mates that are currently in committed relationships with

viduals with Machiavellian personalities possess a manipulativepersonality style. They are often described as charmers (Wilson,Near, &Miller, 1996), but tend to be arrogant and conniving andwillscheme their way through any situation for personal gain, regard-less of whom it may hurt (Leary, Knight, & Barnes, 1986). Thereforethey are less willing to help others who are in need (WolfsonIndividuals reporting relatively hiality traits collectively known as thlianism, narcissism, and psychopathtend to use strategies such as manremain in a position of power andpersonal gain (Lee & Ashton, 2005)tendencies have recently been foundromantic relationship contexts, witon the Dark Triad adopting more seles on the three person-Triad (i.e., machiavel-

lhus & Williams, 2002)on and exploitation toance, which is used forselsh and exploitive

ay an important role inviduals scoring highersted mating strategies,

penchant for manipulating and exploiting others. To date, though,the growing body of research focusing on the Dark Triad in a rela-tionship context has not considered how individual differences onthe Dark Triad are associated with competitive tactics used withrivals when attempting to enact their preferred mating strategies,a topic addressed by the present research.

1.1. The Dark Triad

The Dark Triad comprises three personality traits: Machivellian-ism, narcissism, and psychopathy (Paulhus &Williams, 2002). Indi-The Dark Triad and the derogation of ma

Melissa K. Goncalves, Lorne Campbell The University of Western Ontario, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 26 February 2014

Keywords:Dark TriadCompetitionMatingDerogationIntrasexual selection

a b s t r a c t

The present study investigrivals. Three hundred andwere recruited online throsignicant associations betFurthermore, when compewith a rude derogation stytried to outshine their comPsychopathy was linked wconsidering subtle differenTriad are discussed.

journal homepage: wwwng competitors

the relation between the Dark Triad and tactics used to derogate matingrty-one participants (213 males, 118 females) living in the United StatesAmazon Mechanical Turk. Correlations between study variables revealeden indicators of the Dark Triad and three types of mate derogation tactics.with rivals for a mate, high scores on (a) Machiavellianism was associated(b) Narcissism was associated with a derogation style where individualsitor in different situations (e.g., sports, dominance, and strength), and (c)endorsing tactics that damaged their rivals reputation. Implications forin the use of mate derogation tactics across the three indicators of Dark

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

le at ScienceDirect

vidual Differences

lsevier .com/locate /paid

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

andsense of self-worth, their self-esteem is easily threatened by others(Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). The appearance of grandiosity, there-fore, is often used as a facade by narcissists to hide their lowself-esteem and feelings of inferiority (Kernberg, 1975; Kohut,1966).

Individuals who score high on traits of psychopathy have cold,impulsive and emotionally void personalities. Like the narcissistsand Machiavellians, these individuals are manipulative and con-niving and use their supercial charm to lie to others and get theirway. These individuals have little or no empathy and concern forother people and therefore they do not feel remorse or guilt whenthey have deceived and manipulated others (Hare, 2003). Psycho-paths often engage in thrill seeking and reckless activities (Hare),which is usually a result of their impulsive and irresponsiblebehaviour style (Cooke & Michie, 2001).

1.2. The Dark Triad and sexual behaviour

Overall, individuals who score high on Machiavellianism aremore inclined to have promiscuous sexual attitudes and engagein unsafe sexual practices (McHoskey, 2001), and Machiavellianmen also tend to have more mating success (Linton & Wiener,2001). Narcissists have been found to have an unrestricted socio-sexuality orientation (Foster, Shrira, & Campbell, 2006), and whenin a relationship are more likely to engage in indelity (Campbell,Foster, and Finkel, 2002). Narcissists usually express less commit-ment and interest in continuing the partnership (Foster et al.) andseek to nd better relationship alternatives since they nd startingnew relationships relatively easy to do (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992).Like individuals high in narcissism, those high in psychopathy tendto have more promiscuous sexual behaviours and attitudes(Barnes, Malamuth, & Check, 1984) and engage in sexual behav-iours at an earlier age (Visser, Pozzebon, Bogaert, & Ashton,2010). Their lack of knowledge on sexual diseases leads to theirengagement in unsafe sexual practices (McCown, 1992).

1.3. The Dark Triad and competition

In a competitive context, individuals scoring high on Machiavel-lianism use exploitative tactics to excel (Harrel, 1980). Ryckman,Thornton, and Bulter (1994) found that Machiavellians maximizeself-interest and winning a competition at all costs. In doing so,they have a disregard for community and family (McHoskey,2001). This could be explained by their willingness to win a com-petition, regardless of how ethical their tactics for winning are(Mudrack, Bloodgood, & Turnley, 2012). One of the few studieson narcissism and competition by Bushman and Baumeister(1998) found that when narcissists were placed in a competitivecontext and were insulted they were overcome by exceptionallyhigh levels of aggression towards the individual who offendedthem. Lastly, Smith (1978) argued that many descriptors of thepsychopath commonly resemble that of the Machiavellian andtherefore the Machiavellian should be likely to express similarbehaviours in a competitive context.

1.4. Mate derogation in intrasexual competition

A central theme in intrasexual competition for mates is makingoneself more attractive to the opposite sex or making ones same-sex rival less appealing to the individual one is pursuing. Buss andDedden (1990) tested the notion that both men and women em-ploy competitor derogation tactics by asking large samples ofmen and women, across a few studies, to rate how likely they

M.K. Goncalves, L. Campbell / Personalitywould be to use a variety of derogation tactics in a mate attractioncontext. A number of derogation tactics were endorsed by men andwomen equally, such as spreading rumors about the competitor,2.2.2. Tactics for derogating competitorsCompetitor derogation was measured using tactics taken from

Buss and Dedden (1990). The scale was composed of 12 items an-swered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Very Unlikely and 7 = VeryLikely). We selected four tactics that men in Buss and Deddensresearch were particularly likely to endorse (e.g., How likely areyou to outshine the competitor in sports? and How likely areyou to dominate your competitor?), four tactics that women wereparticularly like to endorse (e.g., How likely are you to call yourcompetitor a tease? and How likely are you to question yourcompetitors delity to a potential mate?), as well as four tactics2.2.1. Short-D3Machiavellianism, narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy

were measured using the Short-D3 questionnaire, which is com-prised of 27 items (9 items for each personality trait) measuredon a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree)(Paulhus &Williams, 2002). The Short-D3 contains three subscales,one for each of the three personality traits: Machiavellianism, (Itswise to keep track of information that you can use against peoplelater, a = .78), narcissism, (Many group activities tend to be dullwithout me, a = .77), and psychopathy, (Its true that I can becruel, a = .78). Cronbachs alpha for the scale overall was .83.2.1. Participants

The present study consisted of 331 participants (213 males, 118females) aged 1870 (M = 29.33, SD = 9.76) living in the UnitedStates, recruited via Amazons Mechanical Turk. Fifty-four percentof participants indicated that they were currently involved in aromantic relationship, 44% of participants indicated they were sin-gle, and 1.8% of participants preferred not to disclose their relation-ship status.

2.2. Materials1.5. Present study

Guided by prior research demonstrating differences in matingstrategies, and in overall competitive behaviors of individuals scor-ing higher versus lower on markers of the Dark Triad, in the currentstudy we tested the hypothesis that individuals scoring higher onthe Dark Triad would be more likely to endorse the use of tacticsaimed at derogating competitors for potential mates compared toindividuals scoring low on the Dark Triad. We also explored poten-tial differences between the three traits that make up the DarkTriad in the types of derogation tactics endorsed.

2. Methodsderogating the competitors intelligence, and calling the competi-tor boring. Some gender differences also emerged, with men beingmore likely to endorse tactics focused on derogating their compet-itors nancial resources, achievements, and strengths, and womenbeing more likely to endorse tactics focused on derogating theircompetitors appearance and sexual delity. The research by Bussand Dedden was concerned with creating a list of competitor der-ogation tactics typically used by men and women, and to show dif-ferences in the employment of some of these tactics between menand women, but not on individual differences with respect to theuse of these competitor derogation tactics.

Individual Differences 67 (2014) 4246 43endorsed equally by men and women (e.g., How likely are youto call your competitor boring? and How likely are you to spreadrumors about the competitor).

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

BedramHighlight

2.2.3. Self-perceived mating success scaleParticipants perceived ability to attract mates was measured

with the self-perceived mating success scale (Landolt, Lalumiere,& Quinsey, 1995). This scale measures how attractive participantsperceive themselves to be by members of the opposite sex (e.g.,Members of the opposite sex that 1 like, tend to like me back,and Members of the opposite sex are attracted to me). The scaleincludes eight items measured on a 7-point Likert scale(1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). Cronbachs alpha for thescale was .87. We assessed self-perceived mating success to deter-mine if our hypothesized associations emerged even when control-ling for variability on individuals success in attracting mates.

2.3. Procedure

by using tactics showing that they could outperform their compet-

Correlations among study variables are presented in Table 3.Correlations were found between the Dark Triad, self-perceivedmating success and the three competitor derogation indices. Allcorrelations were statistically signicant, except for self-perceivedmating success and damaging a rivals reputation as well as self-perceived mating success and acting rudely towards ones materival. The hypothesis that individuals scoring higher on the DarkTriad would be more likely to endorse using greater levels of matederogation tactics in a mating competition context was supported.

Additional analyses were conducted to determine if the threetraits that are part of the Dark Triad uniquely, or equally, predictendorsing the use of the three competitor derogation tactics. Spe-cically, a multiple regression analysis was conducted for each ofthe three mate derogation tactics, with sex, the three traits com-prising the Dark Triad, as well as interactions between sex andeach trait as predictor variables. Results from these analyses arepresented in Table 4. Across all analyses there were no signicantinteractions between gender and Dark Triad components in pre-dicting the three outcomes.

Interestingly, each component of the Dark Triad signicantlypredicted endorsing the use of one, but not the other two, compet-itor derogation tactics. Specically, individuals scoring higher ver-sus lower on psychopathy reported a greater likelihood to attemptto damage the reputation of mate competitors. Individuals scoringhigher versus lower on narcissism indicated being more likely toattempt to outshine mating rivals. Lastly, individuals scoring high-er versus lower on Machiavellianism endorsed the use of tactics

44 M.K. Goncalves, L. Campbell / Personality anditor. This included items such as derogating their competitorsstrength, outshining their competitor in sports, and dominatingtheir competitor (a = .70). The last index was labelled Rude anddescribes the degree to which individuals said that they would talkabout the competitor in an impolite or offensive way. This includeditems such as calling the competitor boring, ignoring the competi-tor, and derogating the competitors intelligence and appearance(a = .80). One item, derogating the competitors nancial resources,

Table 1Principal component analysiscomponent loadings.

1 2 3

Call competitor promiscuous .781 .315 .005Call competitor a tease .810 .050 .096Question competitors delity .685 .364 .074Spread rumors about competitor .707 .233 .235Ignore competitor socially .017 .740 .051Call competitor boring .248 .680 .137Derogate competitors intelligence .253 .820 .103Derogate competitors appearance .366 .677 .211Derogate competitors strength .281 .375 .659Outshine competitor in sports .022 .110 .862Dominate competitor .165 .262 .684Derogate competitors nancial resources .508 .408 .358Participants were recruited online through Amazon MechanicalTurk. While online, participants were given a letter of informationand a letter of informed consent and then asked to ll out the ques-tionnaires in the order listed above. Once participants had com-pleted each questionnaire they were debriefed and given theircompensation of .25 cents. The study took approximately 12 minto complete.

3. Results

We rst conducted a principal component analysis (Table 1) onthe 12 derogation items used in the present research to create asmaller number of indices of mate derogation tactics. Only itemsloading .60 or higher on each factor were used to form the followingindices (only one item was excluded using this criteria). Three fac-tors with eigenvalues greater than 1 emerged from the analysis,explaining 63.30% of the variance. The rst index labelled DamageReputation reects the degree towhich individuals endorsed usingtactics that could be seen as purposely hurting their rivals reputa-tion. This consisted of items such as calling the competitor promis-cuous and/or a tease, questioning the competitors delity inromantic relationships, and spreading rumors about the competitor(a = .80). The second index labelled Outshine reects the extentto which participants said they would derogate their competitorNote: Bolded component loading indicate that these items were used to compute anindex of competitor derogation tactics.loaded on each of three factors in a similar fashion and was not in-cluded in the calculation of each index.

Means, standard deviations, and t-tests of sex differences are re-ported in Table 2. Sex differences were found for the Dark Triad aswell as each individual component of the Dark Triad (Machiavel-lianism, narcissism and psychopathy), such that males scored high-er than females on all traits. Men were also more likely thanwomen to say they would use tactics in which they could outshinetheir rival.

Table 2Descriptive statistics.

Male Female t(329)

M SD M SD

Self-perceived mating Success 3.37 .80 3.45 .80 .93The Dark Triad 3.04 .50 2.79 .47 4.45*

Damage reputation 3.26 1.40 3.40 1.61 .83Outshine 4.11 1.52 3.17 1.43 5.5*

Rude 4.48 1.41 4.46 1.63 .11Machiavellianism 3.56 .64 3.31 .65 3.37*

Narcissism 3.07 .59 2.89 .57 2.66*

Psychopathy 2.49 .66 2.16 .62 4.49*

* p < .05.

Table 3Correlations between study variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. Dark Triad (overall) .31* .23* .43* .31*

2. Self-perceived mating success .02 .18* .063. Damage reputation .33* .55*

4. Outshine .39*

5. Rude

* p < .05.

Individual Differences 67 (2014) 4246aimed at being particularly rude toward competitors for mates.Importantly, these results do not meaningfully change when con-trolling for self-perceived mating success.

and4. Discussion

The present study investigated the relation between the traitsof the Dark Triad, self-perceived mating success, and competitorderogation tactics. We hypothesized, and found, that individualsscoring higher on the Dark Triad would be more likely to endorsetactics aimed at derogating rivals for the affection of potentialmates. Since these individuals have been found to use tactics ofmanipulation and exploitation (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), itseems tting to nd these correlations as derogating a competitorusually involves some sort of manipulation and aversive behav-iour. Individuals scoring higher on the Dark Triad also reportedhigher levels of self-perceived mating success, not surprising giventhey also tend to possess a grandeur sense of self-importance andentitlement (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

Exploratory analyses found that each of the Dark Triad traitsuniquely predicted one of the three indices of mate competitiontactics. Machiavellianism predicted the use of tactics aimed atbeing rude to competitors, narcissism predicted tactics designedto outshine rivals, and psychopathy predicted attempting to dam-age the reputation of rivals. This pattern of results seems to makesense when considering the nature of each Dark Triad trait in com-bination with the mate derogation tactics assessed. Machiavellian-ism, for example, reects a manipulative personality style usuallyinvolving a lack of morality and concern for the feelings of others.Because their main focus is on self-interest, they do not feel guiltilywhen manipulating an individual into liking them by acting in arude manner towards their competitor and using tactics of exploi-tation to derogate their competitor. Therefore, the nding that

Table 4Unstandardized regression coefcients of sex, components of the Dark Triad andinteractions with sex, on the mate derogation tactics.

Predictor Mate derogation tactics

Damage reputation Outshine Rude

Sex .25 .21 .05Machiavellianism .26 .05 .59**

Narcissism .05 .86** .01Psychopathy .76 .27 .48

Sex Damage Reputation .03 .33 .10Sex Outshine .16 .22 .03Sex Rude .14 .02 .31

Note.** p < .01. p

Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Correll, J. (2003).Secure and defensive high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 85, 969978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.969.

Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York:Jason Aronson.

Kohut, H. (1966). Forms and transformations of narcissism. Journal of theAmerican Psychoanalytic Association, 14, 243272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000306516601400201.

Landolt, M. A., Lalumiere, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sexvariations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology andSociobiology, 16, 323.

Leary, M. R., Knight, P. D., & Barnes, B. D. (1986). Ethical ideologies of themachiavellian. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 7580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167286121008.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Pyschopathy, machiavellianism, and narcissism inthe ve-factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure.Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 15711582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j/paid.2004.09.016.

Linton, D. K., & Wiener, N. I. (2001). Personality and potential conceptions: Matingsuccess in a modernWestern male sample. Personality and Individual Differences,31, 675688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.520.

McCown, W. (1992). Contributions of the EPN paradigm to HIV prevention: Apreliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 13011303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90204-O.

McHoskey, J. W. (2001). Machiavellianism and sexuality: On the moderating role ofbiological sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 779789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00180-X.

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: Adynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177196.

Mudrack, P. E., Bloodgood, J. M., & Turnley, W. H. (2012). Some ethical implicationsof individual competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 347359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1094-4.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36,556563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.

Ryckman, R. M., Thornton, B., & Butler, J. C. (1994). Personality correlates of theHypercompetitive Attitude Scale: Validity tests of Horneys theory of neurosis.Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 8494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6201_8.

Smith, R. J. (1978). The psychopath in society: A series of monographs, texts, andtreatises. London: Academic Press.

Visser, B. A., Pozzebon, J. A., Bogaert, A. F., & Ashton, M. C. (2010). Psychopathy,sexual behaviour, and esteem: Its different for girls. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 48, 833838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.008.

Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of theevolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 285299.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.285.

Wolfson, S. L. (1981). Effects of Machiavellianism and communication on helpingbehavior during emergency. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 189195.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1981.tb00531.x.

Zeigler-Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem:Implications for narcissism and self-esteem instability. Journal of Personality, 74,119143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00371.x.

46 M.K. Goncalves, L. Campbell / Personality and Individual Differences 67 (2014) 4246

The Dark Triad and the derogation of mating competitors1 Introduction1.1 The Dark Triad1.2 The Dark Triad and sexual behaviour1.3 The Dark Triad and competition1.4 Mate derogation in intrasexual competition1.5 Present study

2 Methods2.1 Participants2.2 Materials2.2.1 Short-D32.2.2 Tactics for derogating competitors2.2.3 Self-perceived mating success scale

2.3 Procedure

3 Results4 Discussion4.1 Limitations and future directions

5 ConclusionsReferences