Data absence and a lack of parsimony: A response to Kay and Arrow's elemental Dark Triad

Abstract

Arrow's (2022) recent Social and Personality Psychology Compass article, the same dubious attacks have also emerged elsewhere. We remind the field that although there are reasons to keep an eye on the overlap among the traits, the field of Dark Triad research is progressing well. Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the traits are independent of one another-both theoretically and empirically. The bulk of concerns regarding Dark Triad overlap stem from Machiavellianism and psychopathy. However, it is critical to understand that Machiavellianism is a situationally contingent variable. Thus, misbehavior associated with Machiavellianism is dependent upon the environment (Jones & Mueller, 2021;Jones & Paulhus, 2017). Consequently, research on Machiavellianism that ignores contexts and situations (and instead relies on single timepoint, self-report surveys) creates distorted perceptions of the unique properties of Dark Triad traits. It is on this illusion that Kay and Arrow's (2022) criticisms rest. | Criticisms of the Dark TriadThe crux of Kay and Arrow's (2022) thesis is that traditional approaches to measuring the Dark Triad are flawed. They argue that the most logical model of dark personality should instead rely on an "elemental approach," which originates from the Big Five model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In particular, the authors claim that issues with the current state of the Dark Triad can be alleviated by breaking down the traits into smaller components. While addressing the multifaceted nature of personality traits can be worthwhile depending on the research question, Kay and Arrow's argument has three core problems: (1) too narrow of a discussion when comparing, and critiquing, the existing measures of the Dark Triad, (2) ignoring parsimony and practicality, and (3) failure to bolster the elemental approach via comparisons of relevant metrics. We next describe-and address-each of these issues in more detail.

Eight misconceptions about the elemental approach and aversive personality trait research: A response to Andrews and colleagues (2023)

“…Of the 10 studies reported by Jones and colleagues, only two statistically compared the associations. In those two cases, the associations for Machiavellianism and psychopathy were significantly different (although they were not, as argued by Andrews and colleagues (2023), opposite). We commend Jones and colleagues for testing these differences.…”

“…In responding to our article, Andrews and colleagues (2023) also asserted that Machiavellianism and psychopathy are empirically distinct because they manifest in opposite relations with various criteria. In support of this claim, they cited seven articles, comprising 10 studies, from Jones and colleagues.…”

“…In a footnote in our original article, we argued that using the term “dark” to describe aversive personality traits may be harmful, as it reinforces an association between “darkness” and “badness”. Evidently, Andrews and colleagues (2023) disagree. They argue that there is no evidence that conflating “darkness” with “badness” is socially damaging.…”

“…Not long ago, we would have agreed with Andrews and colleagues (2023). In fact, as recently as 2021, the first author of this response was using the term “dark” in his own work (e.g., Kay, 2021).…”

“…Andrews and colleagues (2023) assert that there are a number of issues with our recent article, “Taking an elemental approach to the conceptualization and measurement of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy” (Kay & Arrow, 2022). Many of these issues seem to stem from common misconceptions about the elemental approach and aversive personality trait research generally.…”