Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Stressful life events have a major impact on adverse mental health outcomes, although not all individuals are equally affected. According to the buffering hypothesis, there may be personality traits that protect individuals against mental distress in the face of adversity, playing thus a moderating role between life stressors and mental distress. In the present online study (N = 574), Dark Triad of personality (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) were investigated as moderators between cumulative stressful life events and mental distress (i.e., psychosis, anxiety, and depression). Those who experienced more stressful events during lifetime, and scored higher in Machiavellianism, had higher scores on a psychosis instrument. Narcissism buffered the impact of stressful events on psychosis and depression. The results are discussed in terms of unique profiles associated with each of the traits.

Keywords

Dark Triad stressful life events mental distress moderation

Introduction

Stressful life events have a substantial effect on several mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and psychosis (Bebbington et al., 1993; Kendler, Hettema, Butera, Gardner, & Prescott, 2003; Kopala-Sibley et al., 2016). These events can take the form of a one-off traumatic experience (e.g., Kopala-Sibley et al., 2016) or exert their influence in a cumulative manner over a longer time period (Seery, Holman, & Silver, 2010). Interestingly, there are significant individual differences in the outcomes of stressful life events as not everyone is adversely affected (e.g., Kopala-Sibley et al., 2016; Laceulle, Rentfrow, Lamb, & Alisic, 2018). According to the buffering hypothesis, there may be key factors (e.g., personality traits, social support) that could protect individuals against the impact of adverse life events. For instance, emotional intelligence (Armstrong, Galligan, & Critchley, 2011) and positive affect (Kopala-Sibley et al., 2016; Peng et al., 2012) have been suggested as buffers against mental distress after stressful life events. Despite the wide interest in possible buffers against adversity, there has been less focus on investigating socially negative personality traits, such as those represented by the Dark Triad (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy; Paulhus & Williams, 2002) from a buffering perspective.

The Dark Triad is a constellation of traits that share the core features of selfish and cold interpersonal orientation. The unique features of each of the traits are scheming, cynical nature (i.e., Machiavellianism), antisocial impulsivity and callousness (i.e., psychopathy), and grandiose, inflated self-view (i.e., narcissism). Due to the cold, aloof interpersonal nature of the Dark Triad, there has been some research interest in investigating the traits in relation to coping-related variables, such as empathy (e.g., Jonason, Lyons, Bethell, & Ross, 2013), alexithymia (e.g., Cairncross, Veselka, Schermer, & Vernon, 2013), and positive affect (Miller et al., 2010). There are several reasons to expect that Machiavellianism and psychopathy have a negative association, and narcissism a positive association, with coping with stressful life events.

First, with regard to emotional intelligence/empathy, research has found that Machiavellianism and psychopathy (more so than narcissism) are associated with lower empathy (Jonason & Krause, 2013; Jonason et al., 2013; Petrides, Vernon, Schermer, & Veselka, 2011). As emotional intelligence is an important factor in coping with stress (Armstrong et al., 2011), those high on Machiavellianism and psychopathy are expected to struggle more as a result of stressful events. Second, Machiavellianism and psychopathy have a positive correlation, and narcissism a negative correlation, with an alexithymia measure (Cairncross et al., 2013). More specifically, Machiavellianism and psychopathy have been linked to an aspect of alexithymia, heightened externally oriented thinking (i.e., avoiding to think about one’s own emotions; Jonason & Krause, 2013), which could result in worse coping after stressful events. Third, Machiavellianism and psychopathy have been associated with lower positive mood (Egan, Chan, & Shorter, 2014) and lower emotional expressivity (Lyons & Brockman, 2017), which could, again, hinder coping with stress. Together, the findings on empathy/mood would suggest that those high on Machiavellianism and psychopathy may be less buffered against stressful life events and experience more mental distress as a result.

Furthermore, empirical literature on stress and well-being provide additional support for the idea that narcissism relates to decreased, and Machiavellianism and psychopathy to increased mental distress as a result of life stress. Machiavellianism and psychopathy are directly connected to negative mental health and stress outcomes, and narcissism has either no association or is linked to positive outcomes (Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Jonason, Baughman, Carter, & Parker, 2015; Láng, Birkás, Martin, Nagy, & Kallai, 2017; Love & Holder, 2014; Noser, Zeigler-Hill, & Besser, 2014; Richardson & Boag, 2016; Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2014; Stead, Fekken, Kay, & McDermott, 2012, although see Miller et al., 2010 and Kajonius & Björkman, 2018 for differences between vulnerable and grandiose narcissism). Moreover, narcissism has a relationship with increased mental toughness and reduced emotional reactivity to stress, whereas Machiavellianism and psychopathy are linked to decreased mental toughness and more emotional reactivity to stress (Birkás, Gács, & Csathó, 2016; Onley, Veselka, Schermer, & Vernon, 2013). Thus, we would expect that narcissism acts as a buffer between cumulative life stress and mental distress, whereas Machiavellianism and psychopathy could lead to worsened mental health outcomes after stress.

In the present study, we investigated the role of the Dark Triad of personality in moderating the influence of cumulative stressful life events on depression, anxiety, and psychosis. We chose the outcome variables because (a) they vary in a continuum in nonclinical populations and (b) there is a large amount of overlap between these three forms of mental distress, especially, after an exposure to traumatic events (Wigman et al., 2012). As previous literature has found that some of the Dark Triad traits (i.e., psychopathy and Machiavellianism) have a negative association, and narcissism has a positive association, with mental health and coping, we expected that narcissism acts as a buffer, and Machiavellianism and psychopathy as a catalyst, between stressful life events and mental distress. Importantly, we tested these associations in a nonclinical, nonforensic sample, which is crucial in understanding how personality functions in everyday life. To capture the diversity of life circumstances influencing exposure to stressful events (Benjet et al., 2016), we wanted to capture a more heterogeneous, representative sample using the Internet as a tool for recruitment.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The participants were 574 volunteers (M_age = 25.48, SD = 10.14; 468 women, 106 men; 351 from the United Kingdom; 141 from Australia, the United States, and Canada; 82 from mainland European countries), completing an online study on “Personality, Stressful Life Events, and Mental Health.” To capture a heterogeneous sample, the study was advertised through the researcher’s social networks, through an online participation forum, and to first year students at a university in the North West of England, who could participate in exchange for course credits. Participants signed an online consent form and, after completing the survey, were directed to a debrief page.

Materials

We used the 27-item Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) questionnaire to measure the Dark Triad. The SD3 has a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and nine items for each trait. Examples of statements include “Most people can be manipulated,” (i.e., Machiavellianism, Ω = .80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [.76, .83]); “I know that I am special because everyone keeps telling me so” (i.e., narcissism, Ω = .72, 95% CI = [.69, .75]); and “People who mess with me always regret it” (i.e., psychopathy, Ω = .75, 95 % CI = [.71, .79]). This measure has been used widely as a short instrument for the Dark Triad and has demonstrated good psychometric validity (Maples, Lamkin, & Miller, 2014).

We measured depression and anxiety with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983). This questionnaire has 14 items, seven for each outcome, measured with a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all, 3 = most of the time) for frequency within the past 2 weeks. The statements include “I feel tense or wound up” (anxiety, Ω = .75, 95% CI = [.82, .87]) and “I still enjoy things I used to enjoy” (depression, Ω = .77, 95% CI = [.75, .79]). The HADS has demonstrated good validity and reliability in subsequent studies (e.g., Bjelland, Dahl, Haug, & Neckelmann, 2002).

Psychosis was measured using the Oxford–Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences (O-LIFE; Mason & Claridge, 2006). Participants were given a list of questions, regarding their thoughts, feelings, experiences, and preferences; they then answered yes (score of 1) or no (score of 0) to each of these. Examples included “Are you a person whose mood goes up and down easily” and “do you think that you could learn to read other’s minds if you wanted to” (Ω = .77, 95% CI = [.74, .81]). A higher score in the scale is indicative of higher levels of psychosis proneness. O-LIFE demonstrates good psychometric validity (Fonseca-Pedrero, Ortuño-Sierra, Mason, & Muñiz, 2015).

There are several measures that attempt to investigate the exposure to stressful life events, but little consensus on the comprehensiveness of the measures in a diverse population. To investigate the exposure to stressful life events in a wide Internet sample consisting of students and nonstudents from several countries, we constructed a 25-item scale from some of the existing measures. By doing this, we were hoping to encompass a broad spectrum of traumatic events that could be relevant to a diverse sample. We used the List of Life-Threatening Experiences (LTE; Brugha, Bebbington, Tennant, & Hurry, 1985), The Life Events Scale for Students (LESS; Clements & Turpin, 1996), Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire (SLESQ; Goodman, Corcoran, Turner, Yuan, & Green, 1998), The Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ; Kubany et al., 2000), and the Revised Stressful Life Event Questionnaire (RSLEQ; Sali et al., 2013) in the scale construction. Some of the items in the exiting scale encompass a broad range of similar types of events (e.g., sudden death of close friend or a loved one; Kubany et al., 2000). Questions like these are vague in that they could include the death of a child, parent, close relative, friend, and so on. Because multiple exposure to the same kind of interpersonal trauma (e.g., death) can result in elevated symptoms of trauma (e.g., Green et al., 2000), we wanted to separate these kinds of events into several questions (i.e., death of parent, child, partner, or other close friend or relative). Appendix A lists the items and the scale that featured each item. Participants scored a point for each question where the stressor had occurred, and the points were summed together to form an index of stressful life events.

Analytical Strategy

Structural equation modeling (SEM) with multiple-indicator latent variables was used to study the Dark Triad traits as moderators between cumulative life stress events and anxiety, depression, and psychosis. We controlled for participant sex and age, as both of these are associated with the Dark Triad (Muris, Merckelbach, Otgaar, & Meijer, 2017) and mental distress (Salk, Hyde, & Abramson, 2017). Latent variables are existing constructs but unmeasured using the current data at hand and their use can accommodate measurement error in those constructs when the researcher has recorded several indicators of a hypothesized latent construct. Although almost all the latent constructs were measured on Likert-type scale having less than 5-points, these indicators were modeled as continuous variables because treating them discrete caused severe estimation problems for the model and because their distributions were reasonably normal. Indicators for the construct psychosis were treated as binary indicators. With respect to all latent variables, the first question was used as a marker indicator to set the scale for a latent, and hence, its loading onto respective latent variables was fixed to unity. Cumulative life stress events, such as the covariates participant sex and age, were treated as an observed manifest variable because by definition it was a simple sum of the stressors encounter during lifetime. The model also assumed residual covariances between the latent Dark Triad traits as well as between the latent variables describing anxiety, depression, and psychosis. Furthermore, participants’ country was used as a design-based clustering factor to obtain unbiased estimates and robust standard errors (McNeish, 2014).

The model parameters and their standard errors were estimated by robust maximum likelihood estimator (MLR), insensitive to nonnormal data (Muthén & Muthén, 2008-2015). The moderating influence of Dark Triad on how cumulative life stress events are associated with anxiety, depression, and psychosis was estimated using the latent moderated structural (LMS) equations method (Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000). The model can only be estimated using raw individual data, and hence, no commonly used chi-square test and fit indexes were available to assess global model fit to the data because means, variances, and covariances are not sufficient for the estimation of current model (Edwards, Wirth, Houts, & Xi, 2012). For the same reason, modification indices or model residuals for model re-evaluation were not available for the current model. Analysis was conducted with MPlus version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1988/2017).

Results

In Table 1, we present the descriptive statistics and cross-correlations for all of the variables. Machiavellianism and psychopathy had significant, positive correlations with all the mental health variables, and psychopathy had a significant, positive correlation with stressful life events. Narcissism was significantly, negatively correlated with all the mental health variables. In Table 2, we report the estimated model parameters of main interest for the structural equation model. We found that the influence of cumulative stress events on psychosis and depression, but not on anxiety, was moderated by Dark Triad traits (Table 2). One unit increase in Machiavellianism increased the strength of the relationship between stress events and psychosis (i.e., its regression slope) by 0.509 (95% CI = [0.066, 0.952]) units, whereas one unit increase in narcissism reduced it by 0.054 (95% CI = [0.107, −0.001]) units. Moreover, one unit increase in narcissism reduced the strength of the relationship between stress events and depression by 0.033 (95% CI = [−0.067, 0.000]) units. Of the Dark Triad traits, psychopathy did not moderate the relationship between stress and any of the mental distress variables studied. Instead, it had a direct relationship with anxiety, by increasing its scores (β = 0.458, 95% CI = [0.054, 0.861]). Moreover, psychopathy also had statistically marginally significant direct associations with the increasing scores of depression (β = 0.249, 95% CI = [−0.029, 0.527]) and psychosis (β = 2.276, 95% CI = [−0.056, 4.607]). Machiavellianism was not associated with depression and anxiety, and increase in narcissism decreased the scores on anxiety (β = −0.188, 95% CI = [−0.322, −0.055]).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for the Dark Triad, Stressful Life Events, and Mental Health.

	M	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.
1. Machiavellianism	2.87	0.67	—
2. Narcissism	2.60	0.59	.33**	—
3. Psychopathy	2.13	0.60	.58**	.33**	—
4. Stressful life events	3.96	2.95	.01	.06	.13**	—
5. Anxiety	2.31	0.63	.12**	−.13**	.16**	.13**	—
6. Depression	1.67	0.49	.11**	−.23**	.13**	.20**	.59**	—
7. Psychosis	16.58	6.97	.21**	−.10*	.29**	.16**	.54**	.53**

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2.

The Selected Results of the Structural Equation Model Examining the Potential Moderating Influence of Dark Triad Traits on How Cumulative Life Stress Events Is Associated With the Three Variables of Mental Distress.

	β	SE	z	p
Structural coefficients
Anxiety
Age	−0.012	0.002	−5.044	<.0001
Sex	0.147	0.031	4.761	<.0001
Stress	0.034	0.009	3.815	<.0001
Machiavellianism	−0.337	0.205	−1.641	.101
Narcissism	−0.188	0.068	−2.762	.006
Psychopathy	0.458	0.206	2.224	.026
Machiavellianism × stress	0.067	0.043	1.548	.122
Narcissism × stress	−0.024	0.026	−0.914	.361
Psychopathy × stress	−0.03	0.038	−0.795	.426
Depression
Age	0.00	0.001	−0.548	.584
Sex	0.02	0.023	0.853	.394
Stress	0.032	0.011	3.011	.003
Machiavellianism	0.161	0.264	0.608	.543
Narcissism	−0.352	0.017	−21.159	<.0001
Psychopathy	0.249	0.142	1.754	.079
Machiavellianism × stress	0.003	0.082	0.036	.971
Narcissism × stress	−0.033	0.017	–1.932	.053
Psychopathy × stress	0.015	0.046	0.331	.740
Psychosis
Age	−0.016	0.008	−1.964	.049
Sex	0.295	0.068	4.352	<.0001
Stress	0.154	0.015	10.37	<.0001
Machiavellianism	−2.84	1.843	−1.541	.123
Narcissism	0.058	0.151	0.384	.701
Psychopathy	2.276	1.189	1.913	.056
Machiavellianism × stress	0.509	0.226	2.254	.024
Narcissism × stress	−0.054	0.027	–1.987	.047
Psychopathy × stress	−0.261	0.181	−1.445	.148
Machiavellianism
Age	−0.007	0.001	−9.81	<.0001
Sex	−0.121	0.019	−6.446	<.0001
Narcissism
Age	−0.007	0.002	−3.798	<.0001
Sex	−0.214	0.027	−7.829	<.0001
Psychopathy
Age	−0.009	0.001	−15.3	<.0001
Sex	−0.294	0.019	−15.714	<.0001

Note. Significant interactions are highlighted in bold. For full results, please see Appendix B.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that especially Machiavellianism may predispose individuals to mental distress after cumulative stress events during life, particularly, in terms of higher psychotic symptoms. Narcissism, in turn, may buffer the effect of cumulative stress on psychosis and depression, aiding in coping with adversity (although the effect sizes for narcissism were relatively small and should be treated with caution). Although psychopathy did not moderate any of the relationships, it did have a direct relationship with anxiety. Broadly speaking, the findings are in line with previous research that suggests that Machiavellianism and psychopathy are related to increased vulnerability, and narcissism to decreased vulnerability, to stress and poor mental health outcomes (Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015; Jonason et al., 2015; Láng et al., 2017; Love & Holder, 2014; Noser et al., 2014; Richardson & Boag, 2016; Sedikides, et al., 2004; Stead et al., 2012).

The finding that Machiavellianism may accentuate the effect of cumulative life stress on psychosis proneness is interesting, although perhaps not surprising considering other proximate features associated with the trait. One of the central characteristics of Machiavellianism is the perception of the world as a hostile place, and individuals high in this trait have a deep distrust in others (Christie & Geis, 1970). Distrust is characteristic of psychosis as well, which could stem from a host of adverse events, both recent and past (Beards et al., 2013). Perhaps when cumulative major stressors happen to a high Machiavellian individual, their views of the world as a hostile place are confirmed, predisposing them to psychosis. Recent studies found that Machiavellianism was associated with disordered thinking and schizotypal traits (Láng et al., 2017; Monaghan, Bizumic, & Sellbom, 2016), which are very similar to characteristics of psychosis. Together with our findings, this suggests that rather than being a buffer, Machiavellianism could to act as a catalyst between stressors and propensity for developing psychosis.

Although psychopathy had a direct relationship with all of the mental distress variables, it did not moderate the associations between cumulative stress and mental distress. One explanation for this could be heterogeneity of psychopathy construct, which we did not investigate here. According to the two factor–structure model of psychopathy, the trait consists of secondary (i.e., impulsivity, risk-taking behaviors) and primary (i.e., callous, unemotional predisposition) psychopathy. Primary psychopathy has been associated with low guilt and shame proneness (Lyons, 2015), which could relate to higher resilience after life stressors. Secondary psychopathy, in turn, has a relationship with increased vulnerability (Miller et al., 2010). We suspect that higher scores on secondary psychopathy would predispose individuals to more mental distress after adversity, whereas primary psychopathy could act as a buffer. In a similar manner, there may be differences in narcissism subfacets with regard to coping with stress. A recent study found that vulnerable (but not grandiose) narcissism related to increased perceived stress (Kajonius & Björkman, 2018). There are good grounds to expect that grandiose but not vulnerable narcissism would be a buffer against mental distress after trauma.

This brings us to the limitations to our study. First, we used a short instrument for the Dark Triad, which did not allow for splitting any of the Dark Triad traits into subfacets (see, for example, Jonason, Jones, & Lyons, 2013; Jonason et al., 2013; Monaghan et al., 2016). It would be useful to replicate the present study, using longer instruments, and investigating different aspects of the three traits. Second, the measure we used for stressful life events did not separate between controllable or uncontrollable stress. Perhaps, individuals who have high levels of the Dark Triad create stressful environments as a result of their personality features. This could have an association with a range of controllable stressful life events, such as illness, accidents, and divorce. Future studies should use a more sophisticated stressful life event measure, investigating different types of stress (e.g., controllable/uncontrollable), as well as how perceptions of the stressfulness of the events may affect the outcomes. Third, we used a cross-sectional design, where causality between the variables is unclear. For example, it is possible that psychopathy and Machiavellianism contribute to creating stressful life events, such as relationship break-ups (Jones & Weiser, 2014), road accidents (Burtăverde, Chraif, Aniţei, & Mihăilă, 2016), self-inflicted negative health outcomes (Jonason et al., 2015), miscarriages (Jonason & Lavertu, 2017), and being a victim of bullying (Linton & Power, 2013). Indeed, psychopathy and Machiavellianism had an association with increased experience of stressful events. Rather than investigating cumulative life stress, future research could look at the influence of the Dark Triad in coping after a single traumatic life event (see, for example, Kopala-Sibley et al., 2016). This would allow some control over the relationship between the Dark Triad and stressful life events. Finally, we utilized a diverse online sample through social networks and participant recruitment website, which may introduce some self-selection biases (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002). However, reviews of Internet samples have demonstrated that the findings can be as reliable and valid as research on more specified off-line samples (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004), and the benefits of using Internet samples outweigh the costs (Gosling & Mason, 2015).

Despite these limitations, we have provided new evidence for the relationships between cumulative life stress, the Dark Triad, and mental distress. We highlight the importance of investigating nonforensic, nonclinical populations, as the findings can be understood in terms of how the effects of stress covary with personality and mental distress in a normal continuum. Our results add to a growing body of research interested in investigating personality as a buffer or a diathesis after severe stressors. The Dark Triad is associated both with vulnerability and resistance toward mental distress, emphasizing the heterogeneous outcomes linked to each of the three traits.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix C

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Minna Lyons is a senior lecturer in the school of psychology at the University of Liverpool. Her research areas of interests are individual differences from evolutionary perspective.

Kate Evans is a former undergraduate student in the school of psychology at the University of Liverpool. She is interested in mental health from evolutionary perspective. Kate currently works as a researcher and a statistician.

Samuli Helle currently works at the department of Biology, University of Turku. Samuli does research in Biological Anthropology, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

References

Aghababaei

Błachnio

(2015). Well-being and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 365-368. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.043

Armstrong

A. R.

Galligan

R. F.

Critchley

C. R.

(2011). Emotional intelligence and psychological resilience to negative life events. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 331-336. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.025

Beards

Gayer-Anderson

Borges

Dewey

M. E.

Fisher

H. L.

Morgan

(2013). Life events and psychosis: A review and meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 39, 740-747. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbt065

Bebbington

Wilkins

Jones

Foerster

Murray

Toone

Lewis

(1993). Life events and psychosis: Initial results from the Camberwell collaborative psychosis study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 72-79. doi:10.1192/bjp.162.1.72

Benjet

Bromet

Karam

E. G.

Kessler

R. C.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Ruscio

A. M.

. . . Koenen

A. C.

(2016). The epidemiology of traumatic event exposure worldwide: Results from the world mental health survey consortium. Psychological Medicine, 46, 327-343. doi:10.1017/S0033291715001981

Birkás

Gács

Csathó

. (2016). Keep calm and don’t worry: Different Dark Triad traits predict distinct coping preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 134-138. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.007

Bjelland

Dahl

A. A.

Haug

T. T.

Neckelmann

(2002). The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: An updated literature review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 52, 69-77. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(01)00296-3

Brugha

Bebbington

Tennant

Hurry

(1985). The list of threatening experiences: A subset of 12 life event categories with considerable long-term contextual threat. Psychological Medicine, 15, 189-194. doi:10.1017/S003329170002105X

Burtăverde

Chraif

Aniţei

Mihăilă

(2016). The incremental validity of the dark triad in predicting driving aggression. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 96, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.07.027

10.

Cairncross

Veselka

Schermer

J. A.

Vernon

P. A.

(2013). A behavioral genetic analysis of alexithymia and the Dark Triad traits of personality. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16, 690-697. doi:10.1017/thg.2013.19

11.

Christie

Geis

F. L.

(1970). Machiavellianism. Academic Press, Incorporated.

12.

Clements

Turpin

(1996). The life events scale for students: Validation for use with British samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 747-751. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(96)00005-0

13.

Edwards

M. C.

Wirth

R. J.

Houts

C. R.

(2012). Categorical data in the structural equation modeling framework. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 195-208). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

14.

Egan

Chan

Shorter

G. W.

(2014). The Dark Triad, happiness and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 17-22. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.004

15.

Fonseca-Pedrero

Ortuño-Sierra

Mason

O. J.

Muñiz

(2015). The Oxford–Liverpool inventory of feelings and experiences short version: Further validation. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 338-343. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.041

16.

Goodman

L. A.

Corcoran

Turner

Yuan

Green

B. L.

(1998). Assessing traumatic event exposure: General issues and preliminary findings for the Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 521-542. doi:10.1023/A:1024456713321

17.

Gosling

S. D.

Mason

(2015). Internet research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 877-902. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015321

18.

Gosling

S. D.

Vazire

Srivastava

John

O. P.

(2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93

19.

Green

B. L.

Goodman

L. A.

Krupnick

J. L.

Corcoran

C. B.

Petty

R. M.

Stockton

Stern

N. M.

(2000). Outcomes of single versus multiple trauma exposure in a screening sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13, 271-286.

20.

Jonason

P. K.

Baughman

H. M.

Carter

G. L.

Parker

(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/j.paid.2015.01.008

21.

Jonason

P. K.

Jones

Lyons

(2013). Creatures of the night: Chronotypes and the Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 538-541.

22.

Jonason

P. K.

Krause

(2013). The emotional deficits associated with the Dark Triad traits: Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 532-537. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.027

23.

Jonason

P. K.

Lavertu

A. N.

(2017). The reproductive costs and benefits associated with the Dark Triad traits in women. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 38-40. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.024

24.

Jonason

P. K.

Lyons

Bethell

E. J.

Ross

(2013). Different routes to limited empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 572-576. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.009

25.

Jones

D. N.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28-41. doi:10.1177/1073191113514105

26.

Jones

D. N.

Weiser

D. A.

(2014). Differential infidelity patterns among the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 20-24. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.007

27.

Kajonius

P. J.

Björkman

(2018). Dark malevolent traits and everyday perceived stress. Current Psychology, 1-6.

28.

Kendler

K. S.

Hettema

J. M.

Butera

Gardner

C. O.

Prescott

C. A.

(2003). Life event dimensions of loss, humiliation, entrapment, and danger in the prediction of onsets of major depression and generalized anxiety. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 789-796. doi:10.1001/arch psyc.60.8.789

29.

Klein

Moosbrugger

(2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457-474. doi:10.1007/BF02296338

30.

Kopala-Sibley

D. C.

Kotov

Bromet

E. J.

Carlson

G. A.

Danzig

A. P.

Black

S. R.

Klein

D. N.

(2016). Personality diatheses and Hurricane Sandy: Effects on post-disaster depression. Psychological Medicine, 46, 865-875. doi:10.1017/50033291715002378

31.

Kubany

E. S.

Leisen

M. B.

Kaplan

A. S.

Watson

S. B.

Haynes

S. N.

Owens

J. A.

Burns

(2000). Development and preliminary validation of a brief broad-spectrum measure of trauma exposure: The Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 12, 210-224. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.I2.2.210

32.

Laceulle

O. M.

Rentfrow

Lamb

M. E.

Alisic

(2018). General risk or individual vulnerability? Individual differences in young adults’ health risk behaviour after childhood trauma. Personality and Individual Differences. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.017

33.

Láng

Birkás

Martin

Nagy

Kállai

(2018). Schizotypal traits and the Dark Triad from an ecological perspective: A nonclinical sample study. Psychological Reports, 121, 996-1012.

34.

Linton

D. K.

Power

J. L.

(2013). The personality traits of workplace bullies are often shared by their victims: Is there a dark side to victims? Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 738-743. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.026

35.

Love

A. B.

Holder

M. D.

(2014). Psychopathy and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 112-117. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.033

36.

Lyons

Brockman

(2017). The Dark Triad, emotional expressivity and appropriateness of emotional response: Fear and sadness when one should be happy? Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 466-469. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.038

37.

Lyons

M. T.

(2015). Evidence for an evolutionary cheater strategy—Relationships between primary and secondary psychopathy, parenting, and shame and guilt. The Journal of Psychology, 149, 570-581. doi:10.1080/00223980.2014.925845

38.

Maples

J. L.

Lamkin

Miller

J. D.

(2014). A test of two brief measures of the dark triad: The dirty dozen and short dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 26, 326-331. doi:10.1037/a0035084

39.

Mason

Claridge

. (2006). The Oxford-Liverpool inventory of feelings and experiences (O-LIFE): Further description and extended norms. Schizophrenia Research, 82, 203-211. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2005.12.845

40.

McNeish

D. M.

(2014). Modeling sparsely clustered data: Design-based, model-based, and single-level methods. Psychological Methods, 19, 552-563. doi:10.1037/met0000024

41.

Miller

J. D.

Dir

Gentile

Wilson

Pryor

L. R.

Campbell

W. K.

(2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78, 1529-1564. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00660.x

42.

Monaghan

Bizumic

Sellbom

(2016). The role of Machiavellian views and tactics in psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 72-81. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.002

43.

Muris

Merckelbach

Otgaar

Meijer

(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, 183-204. doi:10.1177/1745691616666070

44.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

(2017). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. (Original Work published 1998)

45.

Nosek

B. A.

Banaji

M. R.

Greenwald

A. G.

(2002). E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 161-176. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00254

46.

Noser

A. E.

Zeigler-Hill

Besser

(2014). Stress and affective experiences: The importance of dark personality features. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 158-164. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.007

47.

Onley

Veselka

Schermer

J. A.

Vernon

P. A.

(2013). Survival of the scheming: A genetically informed link between the Dark Triad and mental toughness. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16, 1087-1095. doi:10.1017/thg.2013.66

48.

Paulhus

D. L.

Williams

K. M.

(2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

49.

Peng

Zhang

Zuo

(2012). Negative life events and mental health of Chinese medical students: The effect of resilience, personality and social support. Psychiatry Research, 196, 138-141. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2011.12.006

50.

Petrides

K. V.

Vernon

P. A.

Schermer

J. A.

Veselka

(2011). Trait emotional intelligence and the dark triad traits of personality. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 14, 35-41. doi:10.1375/twin.14.1.35

51.

Richardson

E. N.

Boag

(2016). Offensive defenses: The mind beneath the mask of the dark triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 148-152. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.039

52.

Sali

Roohafza

Masoumeh

Andalib

Shavandi

Sarrafzadegan

(2013). Validation of the revised stressful life event questionnaire using a hybrid model of genetic algorithm and artificial neural networks. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2013, Article ID 601640. doi:10.1155/2013/601640

53.

Salk

R. H.

Hyde

J. S.

Abramson

L. Y.

(2017). Gender differences in depression in representative national samples: Meta-analyses of diagnoses and symptoms. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 783-822.

54.

Sedikides

Rudich

E. A.

Gregg

A. P.

Kumashiro

Rusbult

(2004). Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 400-416. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.400

55.

Seery

M. D.

Holman

E. A.

Silver

R. C.

(2010). Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 1025-1041. doi:10.1037/a0021344

56.

Stead

Fekken

G. C.

Kay

McDermott

(2012). Conceptualizing the dark triad of personality: Links to social symptomatology. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 1023-1028. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.021

57.

Wigman

J. T. W.

van Winkel

Ormel

Verhulst

F. C.

Van Os

Vollebergh

W. A.

(2012). Early trauma and familial risk in the development of the extended psychosis phenotype in adolescence. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 126, 266-273. doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01857.x

58.

Zigmond

A. S.

Snaith

R. P.

(1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 361-370.doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x

Do “Dark” Personality Features Buffer Against Adversity? The Associations Between Cumulative Life Stress,the Dark Triad,and Mental Distress

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Participants and Procedure

Materials

Analytical Strategy

Results

Discussion

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix C

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Author Biographies

References