PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73 UDC 159.

923
© 2019 by authors 616.89-008.45
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI170803028G

Тhe Dark Triad, Amorality, and Impulsivity

Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić

Faculty of Legal and Business Studies, Dr Lazar Vrkatić,
Novi Sad, Serbia

The ongoing research on socially toxic behaviors has been dominated by the Dark Triad
approach. However, there are other theoretical approaches on antagonistic personalities that
are not incepted by the Dark Triad approach. The goal of the present study was to investigate
empirical overlap between the Dark Triad and Amorality constructs. Our data indicated that
there is a substantial overlap between the two constructs, save for the Narcissism component
of the Dark Triad which is somewhat distinct from the common Dark Triad/Amorality space.
When Impulsivity was included into the analyses it disjointed the relatively monolithic Dark
Triad/Amorality structure that was observed by the earlier analysis; indicating that the Dark
Triad and Amorality do not unreservedly belong to the same measurement space. Thus,
theoretically and empirically separable traits (amalgamated in the Drak Triad, Amorality, and
Impulsivity constructs) combine in an intricate fashion to form distinctive patterns of socially
malignant behaviors.
Key words: The Dark Triad, Amorality, Impulsivity, SD3, Amoral 9, UPPS

Highlights:

• There is a substantial empirical overlap between the Dark Triad and

Amorality.
• Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, and Amorality are the core of evil
personalities.
• Narcissism is somewhat distant from the Dark Triad/Amorality space.
• Impulsivity discriminatingly correlates with different Dark Triad/Amorality
traits.
• Impulsivity is not a necessary ingredient of socially aversive behaviors.

Corresponding author: vesna_gojkovic@vektor.net

Acknowledgement. This research was partially funded by the Autonomous Province of
Vojvodina Council for Science and Technological Development (grant number 142–451–
3555/2017).
54 ТHE DARK TRIAD, AMORALITY, AND IMPULSIVITY

Psychology had been rather hesitant to study aberrant and maladaptive

immoral behaviors that are without prolific antisocial and clinical manifestations.
Only at the beginning of this century, Paulhus and Williams (2002) have
introduced the notion of the Dark Triad. This construct is comprised of three
conceptually independent yet empirically overlapping traits: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and subclinical Psychopathy.
Narcissism is primarily demarcated by excessive self-love and grandiosity
(Campbell & Foster, 2010; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), Machiavellianism by
manipulation, exploitation, and self-interest (Christie & Geis, 1970; Furnham,
Richards, & Paulhus, 2013), while subclinical Psychopathy is best defined
by callousness, lack of remorse, and predatory behavior (Furnham et al.,
2013; Rauthmann, 2012). The Dark Triad is significantly associated with low
empathy (Giammarco & Vernon, 2014; Jonason & Kroll, 2015), dysfunctional
personal relationships and emotional indifference (Jonason, Lyons, Bethell, &
Ross, 2013), aggression and lack of self-control (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones
& Paulhus, 2010, 2011), and with impulsivity and sensation seeking (Egan,
Charlesworth, Richardson, Blair, & McMurran, 2001; Egan et al., 2005). Similar
findings were obtained in studies on adolescent participants. The Dark Triad
was significantly predictive of aggression and peer-related violence (Baughman,
Dearing, Giammarco, & Vernon, 2012; Kerig & Stellwagen, 2010; Muris,
Meesters, & Timmermans, 2013), juvenile delinquency (Chabrol, Leeuwen,
Rodgers, & Séjourné, 2009), social media-related violence (Sanecka, 2017),
impaired emotional intelligence (Zhang, Zou, Wang, & Finy, 2015), and cruelty
to animals (Kavanagh, Signal, & Taylor, 2013). Convergence of findings that
were obtained on different age groups is in line with the conclusion drawn by Lee
and Ashton (Lee & Ashton, 2005; Lee at al., 2013): socially aversive behavior is
structured as a low pole of the basic personality trait Honesty–Humility and, as
is the case with other basic personality traits, is stable.
Some subsequent examinations of the personality’s dark core revealed that
the three Dark Triad traits divergently correlate with external variables (Jonason,
Duineveld, & Middleton, 2015; Kerig & Stellwagen, 2010; Lee & Ashton, 2005;
Lee et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2015). Recurrent reports on Narcissism not acting
in concert with Machiavellianism and Psychopathy indicated that the three Dark
Triad traits may not be equally aversive (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). Thus, for
instance, Pailing, Boon, and Egan (2014) conclude that Narcissism is a distinct
construct, unrelated to antisocial tendencies. Jonason, Duineveld, and Middleton
(2015) report that Machiavellianism and Psychopathy, but not Narcissism
predict different forms of aggression. Moreover, since the antagonistic nature
of Narcissism was challenged by conclusions of several studies (Noser et al.,
2015; Veselka, Schermer, & Vernon, 2012) its contribution to the core of evil
was also called into question. However, Jones and Figueredo (2013) suggested
that manipulation and callousness largely accounted for the associations among
the facet scores of the Psychopathy, Narcissism, and Machiavellianism scales.
They conclude that manipulation–callousness (Hare’s Factor 1) emerged as

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

 Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić 55

a common core that accounts for the overlap among the Dark Triad traits. So,
divergent correlations of the Dark Triad traits with external variables are viewed
as manifestation of the convoluted nature of each socially aversive trait (Jones &
Paulhus, 2010; Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008). Likewise, involvement
of Narcissism in the Dark Triad constellation is determined by its shared variance
with Machiavellianism and Psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) manifesting
in the unique interpersonal strategy marked by exploitativeness and manipulation
(Lee et al., 2013), vanity, self-centeredness, and revenge (Jonason, Li, Webster, &
Schmitt, 2009; Thomaes, Brummelman, Miller, & Lilienfeld, 2017).
Although scoring high on the Dark Triad traits does not necessarily
point to presence of unadaptable behavior it certainly infers propensity for
disrespecting social standards and legal norms and for hurting feelings of
other people (Book, Visser, & Volk, 2015). Thus far, Campbell and colleagues
(Campbell et al., 2009) reported significant negative association between
Psychopathy and Machiavellianism, but not Narcissism and moral development.
Similarly, it was reported that moral disengagement predicts only Psychopathy
and Machiavellianism, but not Narcissism (Egan, Hughes, & Palmer, 2015;
Međedović & Petrović, 2016). Also, Jonason, Strosser, Kroll, Duineveld, and
Baruffi (2015) report that Psychopathy is associated with disregard for all
moral concerns, Machiavellianism is characterized by moral flexibility, whereas
Narcissism is linked to a socially desirable form of morality.
A different theoretical approach views Amorality as a personality trait (or
collection of traits) predisposing to manipulative and criminal behavior and for
transgressing of social and moral norms (Knežević, 2003; Stankov & Knežević,
2005). This approach is operationalized by the Amoral 9 psychometric scale
encompassing three modalities of Amorality: Lascivia (impulsivity – induced
Amorality indicated by hedonism, low impulse control, and laziness), Frustralia
(frustration – induced Amorality indicated by Machiavellianism, ruthless
resentment, and projection of amoral impulses) and Crudelia (brutality – induced
Amorality indicated by brutal hedonism, passive Amorality, and sadism).
Amorality positively correlates with Eysenck’s PEN model Psychoticism
(Knežević, 2003), with the negative pole of the Big Five dimension Agreeableness
(Međedović, Petrović, & Želeskov-Đorić, 2015), and with the negative pole
of the HEXACO trait Honesty–Humility (Međedović et al., 2015). Crudelia
predicts recidivism of adult offenders while Lascivia predicts criminal behavior
of minors (Međedović, Kujačić, & Knežević, 2012). Drawing on Knežević,
Radović, and Peruničić (2008) Paulhus and Jones (2015) indicated that both the
Amorality and the Dark Triad approach may be addressing the central domain
of malevolent personalities. Therefore, there are at least two different conceptual
approaches to malevolent side of the human nature. Nevertheless, there are no
studies directly comparing the two.
Impulsivity is a key construct in many personality theories (Cloninger,
Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Gray, 1987; McCrae &
Costa, 1990; Tellegen, 1982) and is one of the traits that are commonly associated
with the Dark Triad and Amorality. It is also an important etiological factor of

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

56 ТHE DARK TRIAD, AMORALITY, AND IMPULSIVITY

criminal behavior (Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane, 2003; Frick, Stickle,
Dandreaux, Farrell, & Kimonis, 2005; White et al., 1994) and addiction (de Wit,
2009; Perry & Carrol, 2008). Importance of impulsivity for our understanding
of socially malignant behavior is evidenced by its prominent place in the most
recent meta-analytic review on the Dark Triad nomological network as special
attention was paid to impulsivity’s relation to Psychopathy, Narcissism, and
Machiavellianism (Vize, Collison, Miller, & Lynam, 2018).
Whiteside and Lynam (2001) in their UPPS Impulsive Behavior scale
psychometrically operationalized the multi-faceted nature of Impulsivity. The
UPPS scale was conceived to capture principal, and not necessarily correlated,
psychological trajectories that predispose towards diverse expressions of
impulsive behavior. Moreover, UPPS covers much wider impulsivity territory
than Lascivia since it includes four personality facets that are not variations of
Impulsivity but rather four distinct personality traits that result in similar overt
behaviors (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001).
By virtue of its comprehensive eclectic nature, UPPS includes two
cognitive deficits (Lack of Premeditation – poor evaluation of consequences and
poor executive control; and Lack of Perseverance – problems with long-term
focusing on a given task and low or no sense of duty), one negative reinforcement-
driven (Negative Urgency – immediate and high amplitude response to aversive
physical or emotional stimuli) and one positive reinforcement – driven behavioral
tendency (Sensation Seeking – perpetual search for desirable and often arousing
stimulation). Different Impulsivity dimensions were reported to positively
correlate with a variety of maladaptive behaviors, as follows: aggression with
Negative Urgency, antisocial behavior with Sensation Seeking and Lack of
Premeditation, substance abuse with Lack of Premeditation, inattention with
Lack of Perseverance, ADHD with Lack of Premeditation, and eating problems
with Negative Urgency (Miller, Flory, Lynam, & Leukefeld, 2003).
Besides, it seems that impulsivity is diversely associated with different
Dark Triad traits. Thus, Jones, and Paulhus (2011) reported positive
association between Narcissism and functional impulsivity, a dimension of
Impulsivity that is exhibited through light headedness and hastiness in risky
situations (Dickman, 1990) and positive association between Psychopathy and
dysfunctional impulsivity, a dimension of Impulsivity that is exhibited through
hastiness, urgency, and lack of premeditation. However, in the same study
Machiavellianism was not associated with either functional or dysfunctional
dimension of Impulsivity. It is theorized that high Machs are bestowed with
exceptional self-control, quite in line with their ability to make long term
schemes and calculations. Impulsivity may be the trait that differentiates
between Machiavellianism and Psychopathy (Jones & Paulhus, 2011) and/or
the trait that differentiates between diverse subtypes of Psychopathy (Poythress
& Hall, 2011). Furthermore, impulsivity of narcissists is associated with their
high Extraversion while impulsivity of psychopaths is associated with their low
Conscientiousness, high aggression and poor self-control (Hare & Neumann,
2010; Williams & Paulhus, 2004).

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

 Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić 57

While there is paucity of data on the connection between the Dark Triad
and UPPS-defined impulsivity and not much is known about the connection
between Impulsivity and Amorality, there is no knowledge on how inclusion
of Impulsivity changes our perspective on the Dark Triad/Amorality core.
Therefore, the main objective of this study was to investigate associations of
the Dark Triad, Amorality, Impulsivity, and their constituting dimensions –
similarities and dissimilarities between the Dark Triad and Amorality and their
possibly differential relations with different facets of Impulsivity. We posit: H1)
There is a general but not straightforward agreement between the Dark Triad and
Amorality traits and H2) Impulsivity, by virtue of its differential associations
with different Dark Triad and Amorality traits – disjoints the common core of
the Dark Triad/Amorality space.
Better understanding of the relationship between constituting Dark Triad,
Amorality, and Impulsivity traits should be instrumental in resolving some of
the perplexing issues mentioned above: what Dark Triad and Amorality traits
jointly define the core of socially aversive personality, what is the position of
Narcissism vis-à-vis other Dark Triad and Amorality traits, and how Impulsivity,
one of the hallmarks of antisocial behavior fits into Dark Triad/Amorality
characterization of evil.

Method
Participants and Procedure
The study was conducted during 2016/2017 on a sample comprising 255 participants:
145 (57%) female and 110 (43%) male high school students (mean age 17.8 years; SD = 0.68)
from three different high schools from Sremska Mitrovica and Novi Sad, Serbia. Data were
collected in schools with the approval of school principals and teachers who were informed
about the purpose of the study and the content of the psychometric scales that were utilized
in the study. Personal presence of the same administrator was enabled throughout the whole
process of data collection. This was a standard paper-and-pencil study that was not causing
any reasonably anticipated distress to the participants. The study met all ethical requirements
in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki and the legal requirements of the Republic
of Serbia. All participants provided informed consent for their voluntary participation in the
study.

Measures
Short Dark Triad. Dark Triad traits were assessed by the Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones
& Paulhus, 2014). The scale consists of 27 items capturing Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and
subclinical Psychopathy in a balanced way (9 items per each trait). Participants responded to
a proposition on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The
standardized Serbian adaptation of the SD3 psychometric scale (Dinić, Petrović, & Jonason,
2018) was not available at the time of our data collection (2016/2017).
Amoral 9. Amorality was evaluated by the 54-item version of this psychometric scale
(Knežević et al., 2008). Each of its three principal dimensions – Lascivia, Frustralia, and
Crudelia was defined by eighteen 5-point Likert-type scale items. Validity of Amoral 9 was

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

58 ТHE DARK TRIAD, AMORALITY, AND IMPULSIVITY

demonstrated in studies involving criminal offenders (Međedović et al., 2012) and student
population (Stankov & Knežević, 2005).
UPPS Impulsive Behavior scale. Impulsivity was assessed by the 45-item UPPS
Impulsive Behavior scale (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Participants indicated how much
they agreed (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) with statements capturing Lack of
Premeditation, Negative Urgency, Sensation Seeking, and Lack of Perseveration. A recent
review (Berg, Latzman, Bliwise, & Lilienfeld, 2015) appraises UPPS as a reliable measure of
Impulsivity exhibiting suitable construct validity.

Statistical Analysis
Linear associations of the study variables were analyzed by means of bivariate
Pearson product moment correlations and by means of two multivariate statistical methods:
canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and principal component analysis (PCA). Both
CCA and PCA are commonly used for purposes of dimensionality reduction. The primary
objective of CCA is to establish the maximum correlation between two sets of variables. It is
achieved by assigning weights to each variable so that it will maximize correlation between
weighted linear combinations of variables (variates) of the two data sets. However, CCA
provides information about predictive relationship and the variance shared between the two
variates but it does not provide any information about the predictive relationship and the
variance shared between the two sets of variables as no attention is given to communality.
Thus, two canonical variates may correlate highly in spite of very small loadings of
observed variables on those variates and low explained variance. On the other hand, PCA
is a variable reduction technique, used when variables are highly correlated, as was the
case in the present study, providing communality information (the variance of observed
variables accounted for by a common component). Component retention criterion for PCA
was defined as convergence of the 95th percentile rule of Horn’s parallel analysis, Cattell’s
scree test, and Keiser’s K1 rule. Since CCA and PCA provide complementary information
highlighting similarities and dissimilarities among the studied variables, both analyses were
consecutively utilized in the present statistical analysis. Level of statistical significance was
defined at alpha = .05 level.

Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics and the internal consistency for the current study are
presented in Table 1. Reasonable internal consistency was demonstrated for the
three psychometric scales and their respective subscales, ranging from .92 for
Amorality to .66 for Narcissism.
Table 1 presents 78 bivariate correlations between Amorality, Dark Triad,
Impulsivity, and their subscales. Because of the high likelihood of Type I error
among such a large number of inter-correlations, here they are presented mainly
for descriptive purposes. However, it is worth noting that total scores of the three
key constructs were significantly correlated at p < .01 level. Median correlation
among Dark Triad, Amorality, and Impulsivity traits was .45, .53, and .28,
respectively, suggesting that each of the three psychometric scales encompasses
overlapping yet distinctive traits.

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

 Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić 59

Table 1
Intercorrelations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistency for Scores on the
Dark Triad, Amorality, and Impulsivity scales
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. M SD α
1. AMORALITY 2.67 0.46 .92
2. Lascivia .83** 2.78 0.68 .87
3. Frustralia .84** .53** 3.02 0.50 .80
4. Crudelia .77** .38** .58** 2.20 0.51 .82
5. DARK TRIAD .65** .47** .62** .54** 2.90 0.53 .84
6. Machiavellianism .58** .34** .64** .48** .79** 3.42 0.68 .72
7. Narcissism .28** .21** .24** .23** .77** .40** 2.96 0.65 .66
8. Psychopathy .69** .54** .57** .56** .82** .47** .45** 2.32 0.70 .74
9. IMPULSIVITY .57** .69** .40** .24** .37** .16* .22** .49** 2.76 0.45 .87
10. Premeditation
.40** .47** .18** .26** .09 -.03 .00 .25** .72** 2.17 0.63
(lack) .82
11. Negative Urgency .46** .50** .42** .17** .38** .26** .21** .42** .66** .27** 3.01 0.80 .85
12. Sensation Seeking .20** .28** .16* .02 .30** .10 .29** .31** .52** .14* .04 3.56 0.86 .88
13.Perseverance
.40** .50** .24** .18** .08 .02 -.04 .20** .62** .55** .29** -.08 2.30 0.60
(lack) .75
Note. Pearson bivariate correlations are presented; α = Cronbach‘s alpha coefficient.
*
p < .05; **p < .01.

Relationship between the Dark Triad and Amorality

Bivariate correlation analysis. Statistically significant association
between total scores for the Dark Triad and Amorality indicated a close
relationship between the two constructs. The total Amorality score, and its
constituting traits, were all positively associated with the Dark Triad traits.
Among the Dark Triad traits, Narcissism displayed the weakest and Psychopathy
the strongest association with the total Amorality score and its constituting traits.
Internal consistency of both Dark Triad and Amorality constructs was evidenced
by the fact that Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy significantly
correlated with each other and the total Dark Triad score, as was the case with
Lascivia, Frustralia, and Crudelia with the total Amorality score (Table 1).
Canonical correlation analysis. CCA that was performed in order to
quantify the strength of the multivariate relationship between dimensions of the
Dark Triad and dimensions of Amorality yielded two statistically significant
canonical functions. The first canonical function explaining 59.3% (Rc = .77,
χ2(4) = 250.37, p < .01) and the second canonical function explaining 9.4% of
the shared variance (Rc = .31, χ2(1) = 24.81, p < .001). Given the size of r2
effect for each function, only the Function 1 was considered as important in the
context of the present study.
Function 1 encompassed all 3 dimensions of the Dark Triad and all 3
dimensions of Amorality (Table 2). Canonical loadings suggested that two of
the Dark Triad traits (Psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and all 3 Amorality
traits were primary contributors to Function 1. This was evidenced by the size

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

60 ТHE DARK TRIAD, AMORALITY, AND IMPULSIVITY

of canonical loadings for Frustralia, Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, Crudelia,

and Lascivia, but not Narcissism. With the exception of Narcissism, all
standardized canonical coefficients had the same sign, demonstrating positive
associations among them. Narcissism was inversely related to canonical
function following parsing of its common variance with Psychopathy and
Machiavellianism, and had the lowest canonical root of all 6 variables
contributing to the Function 1.
Table 2
Canonical Weights and Canonical Loadings for the
Dark Triad and Amorality traits
Function 1
Traits
β r
Machiavellianism -.57 -.83
Narcissism .18 -.35
Psychopathy -.69 -.87

Lascivia -.23 -.68

Frustralia -.59 -.93
Crudelia -.37 -.80
Note. β = standardized canonical coefficients, canonical weights; r = canonical loadings.

Principal component analysis. PCA was performed in order to further

elucidate the relationship between the Dark Triad and Amorality from a different
perspective. PCA extracted only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1. A
single principal component explained 54.23% of the total variance. Communality
coefficients in Table 3 indicate that Narcissism did not share a substantial
proportion of common variance with other dimensions, as evidenced by its h2 <
.30. This low communality index of Narcissism relative to communality indices
of five other traits additionally indicated that Narcissism is somewhat distinct
from the Dark Triad/Amorality space. This finding is in line with the bivariate
correlation data from Table 1 and also consistent with results of CCA since only
15% of Narcissism’s variance was accounted for by both statistically significant
canonical functions.
Table 3
PCA component matrix of the Dark Triad and Amorality traits
Traits Loadings h2
Lascivia .68 .47
Frustralia .83 .69
Crudelia .75 .56
Machiavellianism .76 .58
Narcissism .53 .28
Psychopathy .83 .68
Note. h2 = communalities.

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

 Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić 61

Relationship between the Dark Triad, Amorality, and Impulsivity

Bivariate correlation analysis. There was a statistically significant
correlation between total Amorality and Impulsivity scores which was based on
significant correlations between constituting Amorality and Impulsivity traits,
save for the correlation between Crudelia and Sensation Seeking. Impulsivity
correlated more with Lascivia than with Frustralia and Crudelia. Of all
Impulsivity traits, Sensation Seeking had the lowest levels of linear association
with Amorality traits. Although there was a strong correlation between Lascivia
and the total Impulsivity score it is worth noting that Lascivia was only weakly
associated with Sensation Seeking. On the other hand, significant correlation
between the total Impulsivity and the total Dark Triad scores was dominantly
defined by the association between Psychopathy and Negative Urgency.
However, there was no association between the two Dark Triad traits (Narcissism
and Machiavellianism) with the two Impulsivity traits defined by a cognitive
deficit (Lack of Premeditation and Lack of Perseveration). That is, Psychopathy
significantly correlated with all Impulsivity traits, Narcissism significantly
correlated with Negative Urgency and Sensation Seeking but not with Lack of
Premeditation and Lack of Perseveration, while Machiavellianism significantly
correlated only with Negative Urgency (Table 1).
Canonical correlation analysis. A separate CCA was performed in
order to investigate association between the set of four Impulsivity traits
defined by UPPS and the set of six socially aversive traits that were defined
by SD3 and Amoral 9. This CCA yielded two statistically significant canonical
functions: Function 1 (Rc = .73, χ2(24) = 263.9, p < .001) and Function 2 (Rc
= .47, χ2(15) = 75.744, p < .01) explaining approximately 53% and 22% of
variance, respectively.
Canonical loadings indicated that all four dimensions of Impulsivity,
but only two dimensions of Amorality (Lascivia and Frustralia), and only
one dimension of the Dark Triad (Psychopathy) considerably contributed to
Function 1. Amorality’s dimension Crudelia and the Dark Triad’s dimensions
of Narcissism and Machiavellianism shared little common variance with
Function 1. On the other hand, canonical loadings indicated that the three
dimensions of Impulsivity (Lack of Premeditation, Lack of Perseveration, and
Sensation Seeking) and the two dimensions of the Dark Triad (Narcissism and
Machiavellianism) considerably contributed to Function 2. Frustralia, Crudelia,
Lascivia, Psychopathy, and Negative Urgency shared little common variance
with Function 2. Thus, CCA indicated that Function 1 relates to tendency for
Negative Urgency – driven psychopathic amoral behavior while Function 2
relates to narcissistic Machiavellian pattern that is devoid of Urgency, Amorality,
and Psychopathy (Table 4).

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

62 ТHE DARK TRIAD, AMORALITY, AND IMPULSIVITY

Table 4
Canonical Weights and Canonical Loadings for the Dark Triad, Amorality, and Impulsivity traits
Function 1 Function 2
Traits
β r β r
Premeditation (lack) -.17 -.62 .72 .67
Negative Urgency -.55 -.74 -.51 -.25
Sensation Seeking -.48 -.49 -.50 -.44
Perseverance (lack) -.41 -.62 .29 .58

Lascivia -.81 -.95 .55 .20

Frustralia -.22 -.59 -.56 -.30
Crudelia .19 -.33 .86 .26
Machiavellianism .23 -.26 -.32 -.42
Narcissism -.11 -.33 -.48 -.57
Psychopathy -.28 -.69 -.35 -.28
Note. β = standardized canonical coefficients, canonical weights; r = canonical loadings.

Principal component analysis. PCA followed by Promax rotation was

performed in order to additionally clarify the latent structure of the measurement
space defined by the three psychometrics scales and to obtain communality
information for the whole data set. In contrast with CCA that investigated
association between the two predetermined sets of variables (Dark Triad/
Amorality vs. Impulsivity) PCA approaches all variables at the same level.
The PCA yielded three principal components (in compliance with the above set
criteria) explaining 38.6%, 16.9% and 11.5% of the total variance, respectively
(Table 5). Horn’s parallel analysis yielded the following eigenvalues for the
three PCA components of the raw data set: 3.86, 1.69, and 1.16 as opposed
to 1.32, 1.22, and 1.14 for the 50th percentile and 1.41, 1.29, and 1.20 for the
95th percentile confidence interval. The three-component solution was retained
although the eigenvalue of the third component was somewhat (1.16 vs. 1.20)
lower than the 95th percentile of the corresponding eigenvalue of the simulated
data. This decision was based on interpretability (the three-component solution
encompasses all ten study variables and groups them in an interpretable pattern)
and on the amount of the total variance explained by the third PCA component.
The main principal component was saturated with four Dark Triad/
Amorality traits (Frustralia, Crudelia, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy).
Therefore, it was viewed as the core Dark Triad/Amorality dimension. The
subsequent principal component is accounted by Lascivia (Impulsivity – induced
Amorality) and three out of four Impulsivity traits (Lack of Perseverance,
Lack of Premeditation, and Negative Urgency). Finally, the third principal
component was dominated by Sensation Seeking, supplemented by a much
smaller contribution of Narcissism. Thus, inclusion of Impulsivity disjointed
the relatively monolithic Dark Triad/Amorality structure that was observed in
the earlier analysis (Table 3) indicating that Dark Triad and Amorality do not
unreservedly belong to the same measurement space. There were moderate

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

 Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić 63

associations between the first principal component and the other two principal
components, whereas there was only a weak association between the second and
the third principal component.
Table 5
Rotated component matrix of PCA of the Dark Triad, Amorality, and
Impulsivity traits. Communalities, Intercorrelations of components
Loadings
Traits h2
1 2 3
Lascivia .28 .63 .20 .73
Frustralia .84 .11 -.08 .74
Crudelia .82 .08 -.21 .61
Machiavellianism .92 -.26 -.03 .74
Narcissism .33 -.23 .59 .56
Psychopathy .59 .16 .32 .71
Premeditation (lack) -.18 .87 .07 .71
Negative Urgency .32 .42 .04 .39
Sensation Seeking -.29 .06 .97 .81
Perseverance (lack) -.02 .87 -.23 . 72
1
2 .34
3 .41 .18
Note. h2 = communalities.

Discussion
The main purpose of the present study was to directly compare two
different positions on socially malignant traits: the widely held Dark Triad
approach (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) psychometrically defined by SD3
and the infrequently cited Amorality approach (Stankov & Knežević, 2005)
psychometrically defined by Amoral 9. Our observations indicate that there is
a strong empirical overlap between the two psychometric scales with different
theoretical origins. This finding vindicates the assumption (Paulhus & Jones,
2015) that Amorality, like everyday sadism (Buckels, Jones, & Paulhus, 2013;
Chabrol et al., 2009), may be considered as a constituting element of the dark
personality. Nevertheless, Narcissism seemed only weakly connected with
Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, Lascivia, Frustralia, and Crudelia – the five
Dark Triad/Amorality traits that constitute the common core of malicious
personality.
Our second objective was to investigate relationship between the Dark
Triad and Amorality with Impulsivity, as defined by the Whiteside and Lynam
(2001) UPPS psychometric scale. As hypothesized, our data suggest that
introduction of Impulsivity redefines the Dark Triad/Amorality constellation.
Within the Dark Triad space Psychopathy is characterized by Negative
Urgency, Machiavellianism is characterized by absence of Impulsivity, while

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

64 ТHE DARK TRIAD, AMORALITY, AND IMPULSIVITY

Sensation Seeking is the only impulsive trait associated with Narcissism. Within
the common Dark Triad/Amorality space Impulsivity is always allied with
Psychopathy and Amorality, Machiavellianism is allied with Psychopathy and
Amorality only in absence of Impulsivity, while Narcissism acts on its own.
Therefore, Impulsivity differentiates two ways of socially malignant behavior:
amoral and impulsive psychopathic behavior that is devoid of Machiavellian
strategies and narcissistic self-centeredness (typical of impulsive psychopaths)
and calculated Machiavellian psychopathic behavior (typical of cold blooded
psychopaths).

Relationship between the Dark Triad and Amorality

Results of CCA and PCA indicated that preponderance of variance
shared by the Dark Triad and Amorality can be explained by a single canonical
variate. Thus, both findings suggest a substantial overlap between the two
constructs and their constituting elements. However, it seems that Narcissism
is markedly disconnected from the Dark Triad/Amorality space explained by
Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and all three Amorality traits. Narcissism’s
lowest communality index indicated its minimal contribution to the principal
component. As opposed to two other Dark Triad traits, Narcissism shared only
a minor proportion of common variance with Amorality and its standardized
canonical coefficient was of the opposite sign relative to Machiavellianism,
Psychopathy, and all three Amorality dimensions. This may be explained by the
inherent overlap among Dark Triad/Amorality variables where Narcissism as the
weakest component of the common core is drained of its dark constituent by
the more powerful and better connected Dark Triad/Amorality elements. Recent
study has indicated that after removing its overlap with two other Dark Triad
components Narcissism loses much of its antagonistic content. This residualized
Narcissism is largely associated with Extraversion and that it “appears to be
related to mostly adaptive outcomes” (Vize et al., 2018).
To the best of our knowledge there are no readily available reports on
earlier studies targeting association between Amoral 9 and SD3. A secondary
source (Paulhus & Jones, 2015) reports that Psychopathy moderately correlated
with all three Amorality dimensions while Narcissism failed to account for any
sizable amount of their variance.
In the present study, this discrepancy can be explained by the very
conceptualization of the Dark Triad. In order to nourish their insatiable sense
of grandiose self-centeredness and their incessant craving for approval and
admiration, narcissists will reach for any tactics available, moral or amoral
(Boardley & Kavussanu, 2010; Roberts, Woodman, Lofthouse, & Williams,
2015). Therefore, it seems that narcissistic amorality is galvanized by factors
other than impulsivity, frustration, and brutality. According to Jones and
colleagues (Jones, Woodman, Barlow, & Roberts, 2016) narcissists’ egocentric
nature overshadows their existing moral concerns. The construct of Amorality,
scrutinized in this study, addresses more prominent and unswerving forms

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

 Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić 65

of amoral behavior and does not directly deal with expression of narcissistic
characters, at least not those measured by SD3. It is quite possible that SD3
items cover only the bright, socially desirable aspect of Narcissism and do not
entail socially aversive narcissistic behaviors (Veselka et al., 2012). According
to Back, Kufner, Dufner, and Denissen (2013), the nature of Narcissism is
heterogeneous and its manifestations are often incongruous since they reflect
the conflict between Narcissism’s bright and its dark side. The main feature of
the bright side is admiration consisting of grandiosity; strive for uniqueness and
charmingness that are generated by persistent need for reward and approval.
Rivalry, the dark side, consisting of devaluation, strive for supremacy and
aggressiveness is motivated by avoidance of punishment. In that case, Amorality
traits would most likely positively correlate with the latter side of Narcissism.
Similarly, some authors consider that narcissistic component of the Dark Triad
serves as its brighter side that is used as bait for potential victims. Narcissists’
glittery appearance may be the reason why they are usually perceived as
more benign and even attractive relative to Machiavellians and psychopaths
(Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013).
In contrast, there is a better understanding of the connection between
Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Amorality. Machiavellianism implies
unscrupulous interpersonal tactics and manipulation that waive all moral
constraints (Jones & Paulhus, 2009, 2010). Machiavellianism is one of
Frustralia’s three facets (Knežević et al., 2008, as cited in Paulhus & Jones,
2015). Psychopathy entails defining features of antisocial and, for that reason,
amoral behavior: callousness, impulsivity, and cruelty (Chabrol et al, 2009;
Jones & Paulhus 2010; Miller et al., 2012). After all, Crudelia, loaded with brutal
hedonism, passive amorality, and sadism is one of Amorality’s three dimensions
(Knežević et al., 2008, as cited in Paulhus & Jones, 2015).
Thus, our data confirm close association between Amorality, Psychopathy,
and Machiavellianism and suggest that ego-promotion makings of Amorality
should deserve further study. Our results are in compliance with earlier reports
indicating that Narcissism is fairly unlike the two other Dark Triad traits
(Jonason, Duineveld et al., 2015; Pailing et al., 2014). With this in mind, our
data limited to the SD3 definition of Narcissism do not permit any conclusion
about the sui generis malevolent nature of Narcissism. Furthermore, the apperant
discrepancy between the results of the bivariate correlation analysis that validates
Narcissism’s involvement in the Dark Triad and the results of the multivariate
CCA and PCA analyses indicating that Narcissism is somewhat detached from
Machiavellianism and Psychopathy common core highlights the need for caution
when interpreting residualized variables after partialling of the variance shared
by all Dark Triad traits (Vize et al., 2018).

Relationship between the Dark Triad, Amorality, and Impulsivity

Results of CCA indicate that tendency for Negative Urgency – driven
psychopathic amoral behavior is orthogonal to narcissistic Machiavellian

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

66 ТHE DARK TRIAD, AMORALITY, AND IMPULSIVITY

pattern that is devoid of Urgency, Amorality, and Psychopathy. However, in

this study when Impulsivity was included in the analysis Machiavellianism was
more closely related to Narcissism than to Amorality. From this correlational
perspective, Machiavellianism was more closely connected with Narcissism and
Sensation Seeking rather than to Psychopathy which in turn is characterized by
high Impulsivity and Amorality, quite in line with previous studies (Rauthmann
& Kollar, 2013; Rauthmann & Will, 2011; Roberts et al., 2015).
When PCA approach to the analysis of the whole data set was complemented
with the CCA correlational approach it became obvious that presence/absence
of Impulsivity makes the key distinction among the Dark Triad personality
traits. When Impulsivity was added to the analysis a more complete picture of
Dark Triad/Amorality relationship emerged, providing an additional insight into
constellations of evil personality traits. The first constellation was saturated with
Amorality, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy but was devoid of Impulsivity
and Narcissism. Impulsivity, independently to the Dark Triad and Amorality,
constituted the second component of PCA while the third component consisted
only of Narcissism and Sensation Seeking. The second PCA component and the
third PCA component were more closely related to the core of evil (the main
PCA component) than to each other. Our finding that the third PCA component
containing Narcissism was more closely related to the main PCA component
containing two other constituents of the Dark Triad than to the Impulsivity,
saturated second PCA component speaks in favor of Narcissism’s inclusion in
the Dark Triad approach.
This is in agreement with earlier studies supporting that Impulsivity is a
trait discerning Psychopathy and Machiavellianism (Furnham et al., 2013; Jones
& Paulhus, 2011; Malesza & Ostaszewski, 2016). Machiavellians are planning
devious strategies while psychopaths react instantaneously and abruptly.
Narcissistic impulsivity is usually manifested by a swift and overconfident
reaction in risky situations which is usually misread as courage and determination,
resulting in a very favorable first impression (Foster & Trimm, 2008; Friedman,
Oltmanns, Gleason, & Turkheimer, 2006).
Existing literature points at different types of Impulsivity which may or
may not lead to antisocial manifestations. According to Eysenck, impulsivity of
psychopaths is of the real, instinctive kind, best described as Narrow Impulsivity
(Brunas-Wagstaff, Bergquist, Richardson, & Connor, 1995; Eysenck & Eysenck,
1977) or dysfunctional impulsivity (Dickman, 1990). In contrast, Narcissism
is associated with functional impulsivity that entails dare and boldness under
precarious circumstances, best described as Venturesome Impulsivity (Brunas-
Wagstaff et al., 1995; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977). Machiavellianism implies
composed calculation which, by definition, discounts impulsivity (Jauk et al.,
2016; Rauthmann & Will, 2011).
According to Whiteside, Lynam, Miller, & Reynolds (2005), different
Impulsivity factors are associated with distinct Five Factor Model (FFM) traits:
Sensation Seeking correlates with Extraversion, Negative Urgency correlates with
Neuroticism, while Lack of Premeditation and Lack of Perseveration negatively

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

 Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić 67

correlate with Conscientiousness. On the other hand, the Dark Triad traits (Paulhus
& Williams, 2002) and the Amorality traits (Međedović et al., 2015) are negatively
associated with Agreeableness. Low Conscientiousness is associated with
Psychopathy and Machiavellianism, but not with Narcissism while Narcissism
and Psychopathy correlate with Extraversion (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Thus,
Agreeableness is the only basic FFM dimension that is not associated with any
UPPS Impulsivity factors. At the same time low Agreeableness is the only basic
FFM trait that correlates with all three Dark Triad traits (Liang & Huang, 2015).
This constellation may be responsible for extraction of separate Impulsivity
and Narcissism and Sensation Seeking PCA components. Since the correlation
between these two components is weaker than the correlation between the each
component and the dominant first component (the core of evil) it is questionable
whether their projection onto personality space defined by FFM would provide a
more complete picture of the antagonistic personality.
Nevertheless, other traits that are beyond the scope of this study
inevitably contribute to maladaptive behavior whether or not it is antisocially
and/or clinically defined. Probing the core of socially aversive character gains
additional importance if we consider its possible adaptive value within the
vast repertoire of human behavior (Book et al., 2015; Jonason, Li, & Buss,
2010). However, knowing the difference between the good and the evil is not
limited to legal, diagnostic, and therapeutic issues. It is the very foundation of
prosocial behavior which is undeniably adaptive. Contemporary research has
reached the conclusion that the roots of socially aversive and amoral behavior
are qualitatively independent of prosocial traits (Ashton & Lee, 2005; Lee &
Ashton, 2005). Consequently, it would be stimulating to investigate projection of
Dark Triad/Amorality/Impulsivity traits in the FFM/Big Five and/or HEXACO
space since that might throw additional light on the nature of the second and the
third PCA component that were detected in this study. Moreover, our findings
should be verified in a setting where Narcissism is assessed by means other than
SD3, such as the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ;
Back et al., 2013).

Limitation
This study is imperfect in a number of ways. Like most contemporary
personality studies we relied on self-reports of our respondents. Participants
from our size-limited sample belonged to a nonclinical population of adolescent
non-offenders from only two Serbian cities. They were probed by psychometric
scales that were developed for use on the adult population. This has already been
the case in previous studies involving UPPS (Booth, Spronk, Grol, & Fox, 2018;
Van der Veen, Hershberger, & Cyders, 2016) and SD3 (Chabrol et al., 2009;
Zuo, Wang, Xu, Wang, & Zhao, 2016) and Amoral 9 (Međedović et al., 2012)
on high school age adolescent respondents. Our approach is further justified by
the overall interpretability and good internal consistency of the data. Although
previous studies have not indicated any age-related differences in manifestations

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

68 ТHE DARK TRIAD, AMORALITY, AND IMPULSIVITY

of socially aversive personality it is quite possible that antagonistic character of

adolescents (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010; Küfner, Nestler, & Back, 2013;
Hill & Lapsley, 2015) curbs generality of our conclusions. Another limitation of
this study originates from the relatively low reliability of Narcissism measured
by SD3, since Narcissism’s relation with other study variables was central to
our interpretation of the data. Finally, use of SD3 psychometric scale restraints
multidimensionality of all Dark Triad traits, and in particular the convoluted
nature of Narcissism.

Conclusion
To our knowledge this study was the first to directly examine two
competing approaches to antisocial behavior and their relationship to different
facets of Impulsivity. Our data support both of the above stated hypotheses
since there is a substantial but not complete overlap between the Dark Triad and
Amorality indicating their common core, and that introduction of Impulsivity
breaks this common core apart.

References
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty–Humility, the Big Five, and the Five-Factor
Model. Journal of Personality, 73(5), 1321–1354. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6494.2005.00351.x
Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J.
J. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides
of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037.
doi:10.1037/a0034431
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first
sight? Decoding the narcissismpopularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 98(1), 132–145. doi:10.1037/a0016338
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(2), 571–575. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.020
Berg, J. M., Latzman, R. D., Bliwise, N. G., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2015). Parsing the
heterogeneity of impulsivity: A meta-analytic review of the behavioral implications of the
UPPS for psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1129–1146. doi:10.1037/
pas0000111
Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2010). Effects of goal orientation and perceived value of
toughness on antisocial behavior in soccer: The mediating role of moral disengagement.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32(2), 176–192. doi:10.1123/jsep.32.2.176
Book, A., Visser, B. A., & Volk, A. A. (2015). Unpacking ‘‘evil’’: Claiming the core of the Dark
Triad, Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 29–38. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.016
Booth, C., Spronk, D., Grol, M., & Fox, E. (2018). Uncontrolled eating in adolescents: The
role of impulsivity and automatic approach bias for food. Appetite, 120, 636–643. doi:
10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.024
Brunas-Wagstaff, J., Bergquist, A., Richardson, P., & Connor, A. (1995). The relationships
between functional and dysfunctional impulsivity and the Eysenck personality
questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(5), 681–683. doi:10.1016/0191–
8869(94)00202–4

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

 Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić 69

Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Behavioral confirmation of everyday
sadism. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2201–2209. doi:10.1177/0956797613490749
Campbell, J., Schermer, J. A., Villani, V. C., Nguyen, B., Vickers, L., & Vernon P. A. (2009).
A Behavioral Genetic Study of the Dark Triad of Personality and Moral Development.
Twin Research and Human Genetic, 12(2), 132–136. doi:10.1375/twin.12.2.132
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2010). Narcissism and Commitment in Romantic
Relationships: An Investment Model Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28(4), 484–494. doi:10.1177/0146167202287006
Chabrol, H., Leeuwen, N. V., Rodgers, R., & Sejourne, N. (2009). Contributions of
psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic personality traits to juvenile
delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(7), 734–739. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2009.06.020
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of
temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), 975–990. doi:10.1001/
archpsyc.1993.01820240059008
DeWit, H. (2009). Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: a review
of underlying processes. Addiction Biology, 14(1), 22–31. doi:10.1111/j.1369–
1600.2008.00129.x.
Dickman, S. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive
correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 95–102. doi:10.1037/0022–
3514.58.1.95
Dinić, B. M., Petrović, B., & Jonason, P. K. (2018). Serbian adaptations of the Dark Triad Dirty
Dozen (DTDD) and Short Dark Triad (SD3). Personality and Individual Differences, 134,
321–328. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.018
Egan, V., Charlesworth, P., Richardson, C., Blair, M., & McMurran, M. (2001). Sensational
interests and sensation seeking in mentally disordered offenders. Personality and
Individual Differences, 30(6), 995–1007. doi:10.1016/S0191–8869(00)00088-X
Egan, V., Figueredo, A. J., Wolf, P., McBride, K., Sefcek, J., Vasquez, G., & Charles, K.
(2005). Sensational interests, mating effort, and personality: Evidence for cross-cultural
validity. Journal of Individual Differences, 26(1), 11–19. doi:10.1027/1614–0001.26.1.11
Egan, V., Hughes, N., & Palmer, E. J. (2015). Moral disengagement, the dark triad, and
unethical consumer attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 123–128.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.054
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: a natural
science approach. New York: Plenum Press.
Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1977). The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional
system of personality description. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16, 57–68.
doi:10.1111/j.2044–8260.1977.tb01003.x
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
Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., Dane, H. E. (2003). Callous-Unemotional
Traits and Conduct Problems in the Prediction of Conduct Problem Severity, Aggression,
and Self-Report of Delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(4), 457–470.
doi:0.1023/A:1023899703866
Frick, P. J., Stickle, T. R., Dandreaux, D. M., Farrell, J. M., Kimonis, E. R. (2005). Callous-
unemotional traits in predicting the severity and stability of conduct problems and
delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(4), 471–487. doi:10.1007/
s10648–005–5728–9
Friedman, J. N. W., Oltmanns, T. F., Gleason, M. E. J., & Turkheimer, E. (2006). Mixed
impressions: Reactions of strangers to people with pathological personality traits. Journal
of Research in Personality, 40(4), 395–410. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.01.005

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

70 ТHE DARK TRIAD, AMORALITY, AND IMPULSIVITY

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10
year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216. doi:10.1111/
spc3.12018
Giammarco, E. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2014). Vengeance and the Dark Triad: The role of empathy
and perspective taking in trait forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 67,
23–29. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.010
Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hare, R., & Neumann, C. S. (2010). The role of antisociality in the psychopathy construct:
Comment on Skeem and Cooke. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 446–454. doi:10.1037/
a0013635
Hill, P. L. & Lapsley, D. K. (2015) Adaptive and Maladaptive Narcissism in Adolescent
Development, In C. T. Barry, P. Kerig, K. Stellwagen, & T. D. Barry (Eds.). Narcissism
and Machiavellianism in youth: Implications for the development of adaptive and
maladaptive behavior (pp. 89–106). Washington, D.C.: APA Press.
Jauk, E., Naubauer, A. C., Mairunteregger, T., Pemp, S., Sieber, K. P., & Rauthmann, J. F.
(2016). How Alluring Are Dark Personalities? The Dark Triad and Attractiveness in Speed
Dating. European Journal of Personality, 30(2), 125–138. doi:10.1002/per.2040
Jonason, P. K. & Kroll, C. H. (2015). A Multidimensional view of the Relationship Between
Empathy and the Dark Triad. Journal of Individual Differences, 36(3), 150–156.
doi:10.1027/1614–0001/a000166
Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The Dark Triad and self-control.
Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 611–615. doi:0.1016/j.paid.2010.05.031
Jonason, P. K., Duineveld, J. J., & Middleton, J. P. (2015). Pathology, pseudopathology,
and the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 43–47.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.028
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/j.paid.2009.11.003
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), 5–1.
doi:10.1002/per.698
Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Bethell, E. J., & Ross, R. (2013). Different routes to limited empathy
in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and empathy. Personality and
Individual Differences, 54(5), 572–576. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.009
Jonason, P. K., Strosser, G. L., Kroll, C. H., Duineveld, J. J., & Baruffi, S. A. (2015). Valuing
myself over others: The Dark Triad traits and moral and social values. Personality and
Individual Differences, 81, 102–106. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.045
Jones, B., Woodman, J-P., Barlow, M., & Roberts, R. (2016). The darker side of personality:
Narcissism predicts moral disengagement and antisocial behavior in sport. The Sport
Psychologist, 31(2), 109–116. doi:10.1123/tsp.2016–0007
Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the
Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 521–531. doi:10.1002/per.1893
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.),
Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93–108). New York: Guilford.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in
narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 12–18.
doi:10.1177/1948550609347591
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 679–682. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.011
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 679–682. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.011

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

 Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić 71

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
Kavanagh, P. S., Signal, T. D., & Taylor, N. (2013). The dark triad and animal cruelty: Dark
personalities, dark attitudes, and dark behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences,
55(6), 666–670. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.05.019
Kerig, P. K., & Stellwagen, K. K. (2010). Roles of callous-unemotional traits, narcissism, and
Machiavellianism in childhood aggression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 32(3), 343–352. doi:10.1007/s10862–009–9168–7
Knežević, G. (2003). Koreni amoralnosti [The Roots of Amorality]. Beograd: Institut za
kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, Institut za psihologiju.
Küfner, A. C., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2013). The two pathways to being an (un‐) popular
narcissist. Journal of Personality, 81(2), 184–195. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6494.2012.00795.x
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/j.paid.2004.09.016
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., & Gallucci, A. (2013).
Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty–Humility. European
Journal of Personality, 27(2), 169–184. doi:10.1002/per.1860
Liang, C., & Huang, J. (2015). A comparative study between the Dark Triad of personality
and the Big Five. Canadian Social Science, 11(1), 93–98. doi:10.3968/%25x
Malesza, M. & Ostaszewski, P. (2016). Dark side of impulsivity – Associations between the
Dark Triad, self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 88, 197–201. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.016
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford.
Međedović, J., & Petrović, B. (2016). Can there be an immoral morality? Dark personality
traits as predictors of Moral foundations. Psihologija, 49(2), 185–197. doi: 10.2298/
PSI1602185M5
Međedović, J., Kujačić, D., i Knežević, G. (2012). Ličnosne dispozicije ka kriminalnom
recidivu u uzorku institucionalizovanih adolescenata [Personal dispositions toward
criminal recidivism in a sample of institutionalized adolescents]. Zbornik Instituta za
kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, 31, 7–24.
Međedović, J., Petrović, B., & Želeskov-Đorić, J. (2015). Pro-kriminalne dispozicije: sličnosti
i razlike između koncepata i njihove prediktivne sposobnosti [Pro-criminal dispositions:
similarities and differences between the concepts and their predictive abilities], U:
M. Hughson, & Z. Stevanović (Ur.). Kriminal i društvo Srbije: izazovi društvene
dezintegracije, društvene regulacije i očuvanja životne sredine (pp. 89–108). Beograd:
Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja.
Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Seibert, 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., Flory, K., Lynam, D., & Leukefeld, C. (2003). A test of the four-factor model of
impulsivity-related traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(8), 1403–1418.
doi:10.1016/S0191–8869(02)00122–8
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic
self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196. doi:10.1207/
S15327965PLI1204_1
Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Timmermans, A. (2013). Some youths have a gloomy side:
Correlates of the dark triad personality traits in nonclinical adolescents. Child Psychiatry
and Human Development, 44(5), 658–665. doi:10.1007/s10578–013–0359–9
Noser, A. E., Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., Besser, A., Ewing, T. D., & Southard, A. C.
(2015). Dark and immoral: The links between pathological personality features and moral
values. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 30–35. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.010

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

72 ТHE DARK TRIAD, AMORALITY, AND IMPULSIVITY

Pailing, A., Boon, J., & Egan, V. (2014). Personality, the Dark Triad and violence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 67, 81–86. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.018.
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.
Paulhus, D. L., & Jones, D. N. (2015). Measures of Dark Personalities, In G. J. Boyle, & D.
H. Saklosfske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological
Constructs (pp. 562–594), San Diego: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/b978–0–12–386915–
9.00020–6
Perry, J. L, & Carroll, M. E. (2008). The role of impulsive behavior in drug abuse.
Psychopharmacology, 200(1), 1–26. doi:10.1007/s00213–008–1173–0
Poythress, N. G., & Hall, J. R. (2011). Psychopathy and impulsivity reconsidered. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 16(2), 120–134. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.003
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), 884–889. doi:10.1016/j.paid.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/j.paid.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
Roberts, R., Woodman, T., Lofthouse, S., & Williams, L. (2015). Not all players are equally
motivated: The role of narcissism. European Journal of Sport Science, 15(6), 1–7. doi:10
.1080/17461391.2014.987324
Sanecka, E. (2017). The dark side of social media: Associations between the Dark Triad
of personality, self-disclosure online and selfie-related behaviors. Journal of Education
Culture and Society, 7(2), 71–88. doi:10.15503.jecs20172.71.88
Stankov, L., & Knežević, G. (2005). Amoral social attitudes and value systems among Serbs
and Australians. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 115–128.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire manual. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Thomaes, S., Brummelman, E., Miller, J. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). The dark personality
and psychopathology: Toward a brighter future. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(7),
835–842. doi:10.1037/abn0000305
Van der Veen, J. D., Hershberger, A. R., & Cyders, M. A. (2016). UPPS-P model impulsivity
and marijuana use behaviors in adolescents: A meta-analysis. Drug & Alcohol
Dependence, 168, 181–190. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.09.016
Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic
investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences,
44(2), 445–452. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.007
Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). The Dark Triad and an expanded
framework of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 417–425.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.002
Vize, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Collison, K. L., & Miller, J. D. (2018). Differences among dark
triad components: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research,
and Treatment, 9(2), 101–111. doi: 10.1037/per0000222
White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Bartusch, D. J., Needles, D. J., Stouthamer-Loeber, M.
(1994). Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 103(2), 192–205. doi:10.1037/0021–843X.103.2.192

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73

 Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić, and Veljko Đurić 73

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a
structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 30(4), 669–689. doi: 10.1016/S0191–8869(00)00064–7
Whiteside, S. P., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., Reynolds, S. R. (2005). Validation of the UPPS
Impulsive Behaviour Scale: a Four-factor Model of Impulsivity. European Journal of
Personality, 19(7), 559–574. doi: 10.1002/per.556
Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy
Scale (SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4),
765–778. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.004
Zhang, W., Zou, H., Wang, M., & Finy, M. S. (2015). The role of the Dark Triad traits and
two constructs of emotional intelligence on loneliness in adolescents. Personality and
Individual Differences, 75, 74–79. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.025
Zuo, S., Wang, F., Xu, Y., Wang, F., & Zhao, X. (2016). The fragile but bright facet in the
Dark Gem: Narcissism positively predicts personal morality when individual’s self-esteem
is at low level. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 272–276. doi: 10.1016/j.
paid.2016.03.076

Mračna trijada, amoralnost i impulsivnost

Vesna Gojković, Jelena Dostanić i Veljko Đurić
Fakultet za pravne i poslovne studije, Dr Lazar Vrkatić, Novi Sad, Srbija

U savremenim istraživanjima društveno nepoželjnog ponašanja preovlađuje pristup

operacionalizovan konstruktom Mračne trijade. Međutim, postoje i drugi teorijski pristupi
koji se odnose na društveno averzivne osobine, a koje ovaj konstrukt ne obuhvata. Cilj ovog
istraživanja bio je da ispita empirijski odnos između Mračne trijade i Amorala. Naši podaci
pokazuju da postoji veliko preklapanje između ova dva konstrukta, uz značajno odstupanje
narcističke komponente Mračne trijade, koja se u priličnoj meri nalazi izvan zajedničkog
mernog prostora. Uključivanjem Impulsivnosti u dalju analizu, dolazi do razdvajanja Mračne
trijade i Amorala; to značajno ograničava prvobitni nalaz o monolitnosti prostora određenog
sadejstvom Mračne trijade i Amorala. Zaključujemo da su crte ličnosti, različitog teorijskog
i empirijskog porekla (združene u konstrukte Mračne trijade, Amorala i Impulsivnosti)
međusobno povezane na složen i delikatan način koji definiše karakteristične obrasce
društveno nepoželjnog ponašanja.
Ključne reči: Mračna trijada, Amoral, Impulsivnost, SD3, Amoral 9, UPPS

RECEIVED 03.08.2017.
REVISION RECEIVED 30.08.2018.
ACCEPTED 31.08.2018.

© 2019 by the authors

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of
the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 International license

PSIHOLOGIJA, 2019, Vol. 52(1), 53–73