The role of “dark personalities” (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice

Abstract

The so-called Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) represent correlated subclinical personality traits capturing “dark personalities”. How might darker personalities contribute to prejudice? In the present study (n = 197), these dark personality variables correlated positively with outgroup threat perceptions and anti-immigrant prejudice. A proposed two-stage structural equation model, assuming indirect personality effects (Dark Personality, Big Five) on prejudice through ideology and group threat perceptions, fit the data well. Specifically, a latent Dark Personality factor predicted social dominance orientation, whereas (low) Openness to Experience predicted right-wing authoritarianism; these ideological variables each predicted prejudice directly and indirectly through heightened intergroup threat. The authors recommend that personality models of prejudice incorporate both normal-range and subclinical personality predictors, in addition to ideological and social psychological mediators.

Introduction

Researchers have recently expressed interest in “dark personalities” (Paulhus & Williams, 2002, p. 561) and “socially aversive personality traits” (Lee & Ashton, 2005, p.1572). For instance, the Dark Triad framework (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) highlights associations between subclinical psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism (Lee and Ashton, 2005, Vernon et al., 2008). We explore how subclinical (“dark”) traits, in conjunction with normal-range personality variables, explain intergroup threat perceptions and prejudice.

Psychopathy is now recognized as a subclinical variable, exhibiting meaningful variation within “normal” populations (Hare, 1991). Subclinical psychopathy is characterized by high impulsivity, callousness, interpersonal manipulation, exploitation, and stimulation-seeking, and by low empathy, anxiety, and remorse (Hare, 1991, Paulhus and Williams, 2002). Those higher in psychopathy are anti-social and express negativity toward others. At least two psychopathy factors typically emerge: primary psychopathy (Factor I), characterized by callous affect (low empathy) and interpersonal manipulation, and secondary psychopathy (Factor II), expressed through erratic lifestyles and anti-social behaviors (e.g., crime).

Machiavellianism is characterized by the manipulation and exploitation of others, cunning, cold affect, and a lack of sincerity or ethical concern (Christie & Geis, 1970). Machiavellians score low in Honesty–Humility (Lee & Ashton, 2005), maximizing self-interests via deception and disregard for others. Although Machiavellianism and psychopathy might represent a single construct (Lee and Ashton, 2005, McHoskey et al., 1998), these constructs differ in heritability (Vernon et al., 2008), and some theorists consider them distinct (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Given these alternative viewpoints, we first explore how each construct predicts prejudice, then consider their influence (with narcissism) as a latent “Dark Personality” factor. Related to psychopathy and Machiavellianism, narcissism represents an exaggeration of self-worth and importance, superiority over others (i.e., grandiosity), and attention-seeking (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Put simply, narcissism is an “excessive love for one’s self” (Vernon et al., 2008, p.445). Given that ingroup-love fuels prejudice, exaggerated self-love may likewise predict outgroup dislike.

Relatively ignored by intergroup researchers, darker personality variables may prove valuable in understanding prejudice. Prejudice was originally conceptualized as irrational and unjustified (1920s–1930s), resulting from unconscious psychological defenses (1930s–1940s), or pathological needs (1950s), clearly emphasizing individual maladjustment. Prejudice explanations subsequently became increasingly social, emphasizing norms, group interests, and categorization that typify everyday psychological functioning (Duckitt, 1992). Contemporary personality theorists similarly approach prejudice-explanation in terms of normal-range personality factors. For instance, Flynn (2005) found that Openness to Experience negatively predicted prejudice even after statistically controlling for other Big Five factors (Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism).

Others have considered how normal-range personality relates to authoritarian ideologies associated with prejudice. Altemeyer (1998) right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) construct emphasizes submission, conventionalism, and aggression purportedly resulting from social learning (Altemeyer, 1998), conforming personality, and danger-themed worldviews (Duckitt, 2005). An additional “authoritarian” variable, social dominance orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), taps endorsement of intergroup hierarchies and inequalities resulting from a tough-minded personality and competitive worldviews (Duckitt, 2005). Both RWA and SDO correlate negatively with Openness, but RWA also correlates positively with Conscientiousness and SDO correlates negatively with Agreeableness (Heaven & Bucci, 2001).

These ideological variables are believed to occupy psychological space at the interface between personality and social psychology (Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakrisson, 2004). In support, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and (low) Openness predict prejudice via RWA, whereas (low) Agreeableness predicts prejudice through SDO (Ekehammar et al., 2004). Relatedly, SDO mediates relations between tough-mindedness and prejudice, whereas RWA mediates relations between social conformity and prejudice (Duckitt, 2005). Ideological variables (RWA/SDO) therefore lie psychologically between normal-range personality and prejudicial attitudes.

Do ideological variables similarly lie between darker personalities and prejudice? Suggesting this possibility, RWA and SDO independently mediate relations between clinically-relevant interpersonal disgust sensitivity and anti-immigrant attitudes (Hodson & Costello, 2007). Expanding personality explanations to include subclinical variables could address concerns that existing approaches are overly narrow (Jackson & Poulsen, 2005). Considering that correlations between normal-range personality factors and prejudice are modest (Ekehammar et al., 2004, Flynn, 2005), additional personality variables, particularly darker traits, may be important overlooked predictors.

Encouragingly, intergroup researchers have begun investigating clinical/maladaptive personality variables. Among pathologically-diagnosed participants, Compulsive-Dependent personality predicts prejudice indirectly through RWA (Schlachter & Duckitt, 2002). Van Hiel, Mervielde, and De Fruyt (2004) found that Compulsiveness correlated positively with right-wing ideology, yet maladaptive personalities did not predict beyond Big Five factors. These studies offer promise for subclinical prejudice-explanations such as those rooted in psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Characterized by disregard for others’ well-being, exploitation, and interpersonal manipulation, psychopathy presumably translates to intergroup relations. Callous affect, central to psychopathy, presumably contributes to outgroup biases. Consider also that SDO is related to meanness (Altemeyer, 1998), a probable psychopathy correlate. Machiavellianism is expected to predict prejudice considering that SDO and Machiavellianism are positively related (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007), and low empathy (expressed by such individuals) predicts elevated prejudice (Batson et al., 1997).

Narcissism is a less obvious potential contributor to prejudice. Being self-focused, narcissists care less about others, and outgroups exemplify “others”. Narcissists are therefore expected to express disapproval and negativity toward outgroups (by definition different to the self). Although self-esteem, a healthier cousin of narcissism, does not consistently predict intergroup bias (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998), narcissism might. After all, SDO correlates with narcissism (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007), and narcissists are problematically self-focused and relatively higher in “meaner” Dark Triad variables.

We propose two indirect routes to prejudice, one from Dark Personalities (a latent factor comprising Dark Triad variables) and one from the Big Five. Defined within the Big Five space, Agreeableness correlates (negatively) with Dark Triad variables, whereas Openness does not (Lee and Ashton, 2005, Vernon et al., 2008; but see Paulhus & Williams, 2002), consistent with observations that Openness has no maladaptive counterpart (Van Hiel et al., 2004). Therefore Openness might predict prejudice independently from dark personalities. In contrast, (low) Agreeableness, a stronger Dark Triad correlate, may not predict prejudice beyond these dark personality traits. These two routes are expected to map onto dual-route systems predicting prejudice through RWA and SDO. These ideological variables have unique origins (Duckitt, 2005), often predicting prejudice independently (Altemeyer, 1998, Hodson and Costello, 2007) and operating on prejudice through different personality factors (Ekehammar et al., 2004). In our framework, we anticipate parallel paths of prejudice prediction from Dark Personalities and Openness through SDO or RWA, respectively. Specifically, Dark Personalities were expected to predict the relatively “mean” and hierarchical SDO construct. In contrast, SDO was expected to be less associated with Big Five factors except (low) Agreeableness (see Ekehammar et al., 2004). RWA, on the other hand, was expected to relate primarily to Big Five factors, especially (low) Openness and Conscientiousness (Ekehammar et al., 2004, Heaven and Bucci, 2001). Because RWAs consider themselves moral (Altemeyer, 1998), we expected RWA to be unassociated or negatively associated with darker personality variables.

Which variables might mediate the influence of Darker Personalities and ideology on prejudice? Social psychological research demonstrates that outgroup threats, the “actions, beliefs, or characteristics [that] challenge the goal attainment or well-being of another group”, exacerbate prejudice (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006, p.336), especially among SDOs (Esses, Hodson, & Dovidio, 2003) and RWAs (McFarland, 2005). Therefore intergroup threat perceptions were expected to mediate relations between ideology and prejudice, with Dark Personalities predicting heightened SDO-based ideology, and (low) Openness predicting heightened RWA-based ideology.