© 2013 American Psychological Association l040-3590/]4/$l2.00 DOI: IO.lO37/aOO35O84

Psychological Assessment 2014, Vol. 26, No, 1,326-331

BRIEF REPORT

A Test of Two Brief Measures of the Dark Triad: The Dirty Dozen and Short Dark Triad Jessica L. Maples, Joanna Lamkin, and Joshua D. Miller University of Georgia There has been a substantial increase in the simultaneous study of 3 related constructs—psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism—since being termed the dark triad (DT; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Growing interest in the DT has led to the development of 2 short, efficient measures that reduce the number of items typically used from 124 to 12 (Dirty Dozen, or DD; Jonason & Webster, 2010) and 27 (Short Dark Tdad, or SD3; Jones & Paulhus, in press), respectively. Using a community sample collected online (N = 287), we examined the convergent, discdminant, incremental, and criterion validity of scores from 2 bdef measures of the DT. In general, scores from the SD3 scales manifested stronger convergent and incremental validity in relation to longer, more established measures of the DT constructs. Scores from both bdef DT measures evidenced adequate discriminant validity as well as cdtedon validity in relation to traits from the five-factor model. However, the SD3 Narcissism Scale appears to assess primarily the grandiose aspects of this construct, whereas the DD captures both vulnerable and grandiose features of narcissism. Overall, if a short measure of the DT is required, the SD3 yields data that are more consistent with these constructs as they are measured using more established and validated measures. Keywords: psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, validity

Short Dark Tdad (SD3; Jones & Paulbus, in press) have been created. However, it is impodant that brevity does not come at the expense of construct validity (Hinkin, 1998; Smith, McCarthy, & Anderson, 2000), and psychopathy and narcissism are complex, heterogeneous constioicts that may be difficult to assess with brief measures. From a general trait perspective, psychopathy is most strongly related to traits of antagonism and conscientiousness (e.g., Decuyper, De Pauw, De Fruyt, De Bolle, & De Clercq, 2009), whereas narcissism is most strongly related to traits from extraversion and antagonism (e.g., Campbell & Miller &, 2013). An examination of the items used to assess psychopathy in these bdef measures suggests that although both measures appear to assess antagonistic behaviors and attitudes, the DD Psychopathy scale does not contain items related to disinhibition, an impodant trait in the conceptualization of psychopathy (e.g., Lynam & Widiger, 2007), whereas the SD3 does (e.g., "People often say I'm out of control"). Similarly, both brief DT Narcissism scales include items relevant to antagonism, but the DD Narcissism scale does not appear to include content related to Extraversion, an important component of narcissism (e.g., Lynam & Widiger, 2001), unlike the SD3 Narcissism scale (e.g., "I'm likely to show off if I get the chance"). In addition, an examination of the narcissism items suggests that the DD scale may be more attuned to narcissistic vulnerability (e.g., "I tend to want others to pay attention to me") than the SD3 scale. This is an impodant distinction as these two narcissism variants manifest different nomological networks (see Miller et al., 2011). The aforementioned concerns are supported by an examination of preliminary data regarding the DD. First, scores from the DD scales manifested relatively limited convergent validity with lon-

The dark triad (DT) consists of three independent-but-related personality trait configurations: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The overlap among these constructs can be explained by their shared (negative) relations with Agreeableness from the five-factor model (FFM; e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002), but the constructs diverge with regard to their relations with Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness. Interest in the DT has increased substantially; a review found dozens of DT studies and over 350 citations dudng the past 10 years (Fumham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). Given this interest, tbere has been a recent focus on the development of new measures that assess all three DT constructs simultaneously and efficiently. Most research on the DT has used separate assessment measures for each of tbe DT constructs, typically, the Machiavellian Scale (MACH-IV; Chdstie & Geis, 1970), the Hare Self-Repod Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press), and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988), which together require more than 120 items. Concerns have been raised that such an assessment battery could result in fatigue for participants and hinder padicipation when tbere are limited incentives or time. Accordingly, the 12item Dirty Dozen (DD; Jonason & Webster, 2010) and the 27-item

This article was published Online First November 25, 2013. Jessica L. Maples, Joanna Lamkin, and Joshua D. Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joshua D. Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, 125 Baldwin Street, Athens, GA 30602-3013. E-mail: [email protected] 326

BRIEF MEASURES OF THE DARK TRIAD

ger, more established scales (Jonason & Luévano, 2013; Jonason & Webster, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, in press; Miller et al., 2012). Second, the DD Machiavellianism scale manifested a larger correlation with Psychopathy and Narcissism scales in the derivation study (Jonason & Webster, 2010) and a larger correlation with a Psychopathy scale in a subsequent study (Jones & Paulhus, in press). Preliminary data on the SD3 suggest that its scores manifest stronger convergent validity than DD scores (Jones & Paulhus, in press), but further direct, head-to-head comparisons are necessary. The present study provided a test of the comparative validity of the scores from two newly developed brief measures of the DT. We tested the convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of scores from these measures in relation to well-established inventories for each of these DT constmcts, as well as their criterion validity with regard to their relations with the FFM traits. Finally, because brief measures were created with the explicit goal of enhancing efficiency, we also measured the length of time needed to complete the two brief meastires in comparison to the longer, established measures.

Method Participants and Procedures Participants were 300 adults from the United States recmited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). From this initial set of 300, 13 participants were removed due to high scores on two validity scales (cutoff of 3 SD above the mean for Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA; Lynam et al., 2011)-Infrequency score and cutoff of 2.75 SD above mean for EPA-Virtue score). The resulting sample comprised 287 adults (48.8% female; 80.5% White; mean age = 34.3 years; SD = 13.0).

Measures Dirty Dozen (DD; Jonason & Wehster, 2010). The DD is a 12-item measure with scales for narcissism (a = .88, mean interitem correlation [MIC] = .69), psychopathy (a = .86, MIC = .63), and Machiavellianism (a = .90, MIC = .67). Coefficient alphas reported for all assessment measures were calculated in the current sample. Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, in press). The SD3 is a 27-item measure of narcissism (a = .79; MIC = .29), psychopathy (a = .81; MIC = .33), and Machiavellianism (a = .85; MIC = .38).

327

Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988). The NPI is a 40-item forced-choice self-report measure of trait narcissism (total; a = .91; MIC = .21) with subscales (Ackerman et al., 2011) that measure; Leadership/Authority (LA; a = .85; MIC = .35), Grandiose Exhibitionism (GE: a = .81; MIC = .29), and Entitlement/Exploitativeness (EE: a = .59; MIC = .27). Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-Version III (SRP-UI; Paulhus et al., in press). The SRP-III is a 64-item measure of psychopathy (total; a = .94; MIC = .21) with subscales of Interpersonal Manipulation, Callous Affect, Erratic Lifestyle, and Antisocial Behavior. Alphas for the subscales ranged from .84 to .94 (MICs ranged from .21 to .37). MACH-rV (Christie & Geis, 1970). The MACH-IV is a 20-item measure of the personality trait of Machiavellianism (a = .86; MIC = .23). Five-Factor Model Rating Form (FFMRF; Mullins-Sweatt, Jamerson, Samuel, Olson, & Widiger, 2006). The 30-item FFMRF assesses the five domains of personality from the FFM: Neuroticism (a = .75; MIC = .33), Extraversion (a = .82; MIC = .43), Openness to Experience (a = .70; MIC = .28), Agreeableness (a = .80; MIC = .40), and Conscientiousness (a = .83; MIC = .45). Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS; Hendin & Cheek, 1997). The HSNS is a 10-item self-report measure of hypersensitivity, entitlement, and vulnerability (a. = .75; MIC = .23). Triarchic Psychopathy Measure-Boldness scale (TriPM; Patrick, 2010). The TriPM is a self-report measure of psychopathy. Only the Boldness scale was used (a = .89; MIC = .31). Elemental Psychopathy Assessment-Infrequency and Virtue scales (EPA; Lynam et al., 2011). The EPA Infrequency scale (eight items) measures inattention or random responding. The EPA Virtue scale (eight items) measures overly positive self-presentation.

Results Convergent and Discriminant Validity Correlations Among the DD and SD3 A p value of .01 was used as the threshold for statistical significance across all tests. Convergent correlations ranged from .54 (narcissism) to .65 (psychopathy), with a median of .61 (see Table 1). Scores from both sets of DT scales manifested reasonable

Table 1 Correlations Among Brief Dark Triad Measures Psychopathy

Machiavellianism

Narcissism

Measure

DD

SD3

DD

SD3

DD

SD3

DD Psychopathy SD3 Psychopathy DD Machiavellianism SD3 Machiavellianism DD Narcissism SD3 Narcissism

.65 .68 .63 .40 .21

— .64 .57 .39 .41

.61 .56 .35

.41 .34

.54

—

Note. All correlations are significant at ;j < .01. Bolded correlations represent the convergent validity correlations. DD = Dirty Dozen; SD3 = Short Dark Triad.

MAPLES, LAMKIN, AND MILLER

328

sism were statistically significant (range: .34-.46; mean r = .40); three of the four were significant for the SD3 Narcissism scale (range: -.01 to .72; mean r = .48). The DD Narcissism scale manifested a significantly stronger correlation with the measure of vulnerable narcissism than did the SD3, whereas the SD3 Narcissism scale manifested stronger correlations with the narcissism scales in two cases. The convergent validity correlations manifested by DD and SD3 Narcissism scales were generally larger than or close to the correlations these scales manifested with the Psychopathy (DD: mean r = .35; SD3: mean r = .42) and Machiavellianism scales (DD: r = .31; SD3: r = .16).

discriminant validity such that the psychopathy and narcissism manifested larger convergent validity correlations with the corresponding DT scales than any other scales. Both Machiavellianism (MACH) scales manifested slightly larger correlations with the corresponding psychopathy scale than with the MACH scale.

Correlations Between the DD and SD3 with Established Measures of the DT Next, we examined the DD and SD3 scales in relation to existing DT measures (Table 2). Where mean correlations are reported, individual correlations were first transformed using the Fisher's z transformation before being averaged and transformed back into Pearson correlations. Psychopathy. Five of the six correlations between the DD Psychopathy scale and the longer measures of psychopathy were statistically significant (range: .06-.73; mean r — .54); all six were significant for SD3 psychopathy (range: .20-.84; mean r = .68). Of the six sets of correlations, four were significantly different such that the SD3 Psychopathy scale manifested significantly larger correlations. The mean convergent validity correlations for the DD and SD3 psychopathy scales were generally larger than their correlations with narcissism (DD: mean r = .37; SD3: mean r = .40). The convergent validity correlation for SD3 psychopathy was slightly larger than its mean correlation with MACH (mean r = .65), although the same was not true for the DD Psychopathy scale, which manifested a larger correlation with MACH-IV (mean r = .70). Machiavellianism. Both DD (r = .63) and SD3 (r = .74) MACH scales produced significant positive correlations with the established measure of Machiavellianism. With regard to discriminant validity, the convergent validity correlations for the DD and SD3 MACH scales were generally larger than their correlations with psychopathy (DD: mean r = .56; SD3: mean r = .49) or narcissism (DD: mean r = .38; SD3: mean r = .36). Narcissism. All four of the correlations between the DD Narcissism scale and the longer, more established measures of narcis-

Incremental Validity Analyses of the DD and SD3 in Relation to Existing IVieasures of the DT Residualized DT scores were created for each DD and SD3 scale in which each respective scale (e.g., DD Narcissism) was regressed on the same scale from the competing instrument (e.g., SD3 Narcissism), and the residuals were saved. We then correlated these residualized DT scores with the established DT scales (see Table 2). The correlations manifested by these scores were also tested to see if they were significantly different from one another. The residualized DD Psychopathy scale manifested a significant positive correlation with the existing psychopathy scales in three of six cases (range: -.10 to .34; mean r = .13); tbe residualized SD3 Psychopathy scale demonstrated significant correlations across all six (range: .22-.56; mean r = .42). The sets of correlations differed significantly in four of six cases. The residualized DD MACH scale produced a significant correlation with the full-length MACH-IV Scale (r = .22). The residualized SD3 scale manifested a significant positive correlation with the full-length MACH-IV Scale as well (r = .45) that was statistically significantly larger than that manifested by the DD MACH scale. The residualized DD Narcissism scale manifested significant positive correlations with the established narcissism scales in two of the four instances (range: -.02 to .42; mean r = .20); the residualized SD3 Narcissism scale produced significant positive correlations in

Table 2 Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental Convergent Validity Correlations Generated by the Dirty Dozen and Short Dark Triad Narcissism

Machiavellianism

Psychopathy

Res r

Res r

Res r Variable

DD

SD3

DD

SD3

DD

SD3

Self-Report of Psychopathy-III total Interpersonal Manipulation Callous Affect Erratic Lifestyle Antisocial Behavior Boldness (Triarchic Psychopathy Measure subscale) MACH-IV Narcissistic Personality Inventory Leadership/Authority Grandiose Exhibitionism Exploitativeness/Entitlement Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale

.70" .70 .73 .50. •37, .06. .70

.84, .71 .73 .70, .67, .20, .65

.20. .32 .34 .06. -.08. -.10.

.51, .34 .33 .50, .56, .22,

.70„ .77 .57 .56» .40" .18 .63.

.62, .76 .62 .40, .24, .10 .74,

•23„ .17, .56 .47„

.33, •37, .56 •31,

.33 .32" .52 .35"

.31 .20, .48 .45,

DD

.22.

SD3

DD

SD3

.45,

.43 .45 .32 .41 .19 .24 .31"

.42 .43 .32 .38 .25 .65 .16"

.37. .46, .42 .34.

.72, .61, .43 -.01,

DD

SD3

-.02. .15. .22 .42.

.62, .43, .24 -.24,

Note. Correlations > . 16 arc significant at p < .01. Res = residualized scores that represent the variance in each Dark Triad (DT) scale (e.g., Dirty Dozen [DD] Psychopathy) not shared with its counterpart (e.g., Short Dark Triad [SD3] Psychopathy).Correlations in the same row with different subscripts are statistically significantly different (done separately for each DT construct; also done separately for the bivariate and residualized correlations). Bolded correlations represent the convergent validity correlations. MACH-IV = Machiavellianism-IV.

BRIEF MEASURES OF THE DARK TRIAD three of four cases (range: -.24 to .62; mean r = .29). The sets of correlations differed significantly in three of four cases such that the DD Narcissism scale manifested a stronger unique relation with the measure of vulnerable narcissism, whereas the SD3 Narcissism scale manifested stronger unique relations with two scales related to grandiose narcissism.

Relations Between the DD and SD3 Scales and the FFM Personality Domains Next, we examined the DD and SD3 scales in relation to the FFM domains and tested the resultant correlations against one another (Table 3). We also compared the FFM profiles generated by the DT scales with the FFM trait profiles generated by the longer, established scales (e.g., SRP-III) using double-entry q correlations, which assess absolute agreement (see McCrae, 2008). DD Psychopathy manifested a significant positive correlation with Neuroticism and significant negative correlations with Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. SD3 psychopathy manifested significant negative correlations with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. The correlations were significantly different across the psychopathy scales for Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness. Overall, the two FFM profiles generated by the psychopathy scales were significantly similar to one another (r[intraclass correlation], or r,cc = 89) and the SRP-III profile (DD: ''/cc ~ -91 vs. SD3; r,cc = -98), but neither was significantly related to the profile generated by the TriPM Boldness scale (which was also unrelated to the SRP-III profile). DD MACH manifested a significant positive correlation with Neuroticism and significant negative correlations with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, whereas SD3 MACH manifested significant negative correlations with Extraversion and Agreeableness. The correlations were significantly different across the MACH seales for Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. Overall, the two FFM profiles generated by the MACH scales were significantly similar with one

329

another (r^^c = 89) and the full MACH-IV Scale (DD: r,cc = -94 vs. SD3: r,cc = -87). Finally, the DD Narcissism scale manifested a significant negative correlation with Agreeableness, whereas the SD3 Narcissism manifested significant positive correlations with Extraversion and Openness, and significant negative correlations with Neuroticism and Agreeableness. The eorrelations were significantly different across the narcissism scales for Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness. Overall, the two FFM profiles generated by the narcissism scales were not significantly similar to one another (r^^c — .31) and manifested distinct profile relations with the measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. The SD3 Narcissism scale manifested an FFM profile that was significantly more strongly related with grandiose narcissism than was the DD profile (DD: r,cc = -36 vs. SD3: r,cc = 97). Neither the DD's nor SD3's FFM profile was significantly related to the profile for vulnerable narcissism, although they were statistically significantly different such that the DD was positively related (r,cc = 49) and the SD3 profile was negatively related (r,^.^ ~ --51) to vulnerable narcissism.

Median Time of Completion Across Measures The median time to complete the DD and SD3 was 38.9 s and 98.7 s, respectively. The median sum of the time to complete the longer versions of the DT scales was 489.6 s (NPI = 157.5 s; SRP-III = 231.7 s; MACH-IV = 100.4 s).

Discussion Growing interest in the study of the DT has led to a corresponding increase in the development of brief assessment tools such as the DD and SD3 that can be used to study the DT constructs in an efficient manner. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the performance of the DD and SD3 via a comparison of their validity and efficiency. The convergent validity of the scores from the DD and SD3 were of the foremost concem, particularly

Table 3 Criterion Validity Correlations Generated by the Dirty Dozen and the Short Dark Triad With the Five-Factor Model Personality Domains Psychopathy

Machiavellianism

Narcissism

Variable

DD

SD3

SRP

Bold

DD

SD3

MACH

DD

SD3

NPI

HSNS

Five-factor model Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Profile match SD3

.19° -.24" .04 -.64» -.18

.07, -.03, .03 -.55, -.25

.10 .01 .06 -.65 -.23

-.56 .60 .22 -.17 .29

-.08 .01 -.54 -.21,

.06, -.16 -.05 -.52 -.04,

.23 -.26 -.02 -.63 -.20

.14" .08" .10 -.30 -.13,

-.29, .47, .18 -.27 .08,

-.29 .41 .16 -.39 .14

.45 -.37 .07 -.30 -.17

.89* .91* -.29

.98* -.06

.97* -.51

-.40

SRP-m Bold MACH NPI HSNS

.89*

.31

.00 .94*

.87* .36 .49

Note. For the bivariate correlations, rs > .16 are significant aX p < .01. Correlations in the same row with different superscripts are statistically signiflcantly different (done separately for each Dark Triad [DT]) construct; comparisons of effect sizes conducted only between the Dirty Dozen [DD] and Short Dark Triad [SD3], not with longer DT measures). Profile match was assessed using double-entry q correlations, which measure the absolute agreement of the DT and five-factor model proflles. SRP-III = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III; Bold = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure-Boldness subscale; MACH = Machiavellianism-IV; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; HSNS = Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale.

330

MAPLES, LAMKIN, AND MILLER

as initial investigations have raised concems regarding aspects of the DD's convergent validity (e.g.. Miller et al., 2012). Overall, the scores from the SD3 scales demonstrated statistically stronger convergent validity, as across 11 comparisons of convergent validity correlations the SD3 scales manifested significantiy stronger convergent correlations for eight. The convergent validity data also suggest that the DD Narcissism scale assesses both grandiose and vulnerable aspects of narcissism, whereas the SD3 Narcissism scale is more specifically related to narcissistic grandiosity. It appears that tiie efficiency of the DD scales comes with a significant cost, as this measure captures smaller portions of the variance in these established scales. Discriminant validity was generally adequate although scores from both MACH scales manifested the weakest discriminant validity, as convergent correlations for both measures were smaller than at least one discriminant correlation. This is not surprising, however, as these two constructs demonstrate a large amount of overlap (e.g., McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998) due, in part, to shared genetic influences (Vemon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008). We also tested the incremental validity of the DD and SD3 scales above and beyond one another in relation to their convergence with the established measures of the DT. The SD3 scales accounted for, on average, an additional 14% ofthe variance in the DT scales versus 3% for the DD scales. The differences were larger for psychopathy (DD = 2% vs. SD3 = 18%) and Machiavellianism (DD = 5% vs. SD3 = 20%) than for narcissism (DD = 4% vs. SD3 = 8%), suggesting that the SD3 scales provide a fuller account of the underlying DT constmcts. One reason for the stronger convergent and incremental validity of the scores from the SD3 scales is their breadth and coverage of relevant content, as demonstrated by the mean interitem correlations manifested for the individual DD (median MIC = .67) and SD3 (median MIC = .33) scales. In order to create short but intemally consistent scales, the authors of the DD chose items for each DT constmct that verge on redundancy (e.g.. Item 1; "I tend to manipulate others to get my way"; Item 4; I tend to exploit others toward my own end"). Clark and Watson (1995) stated that choosing redundant items "will increase internal consistency estimates but will also create an overly narrow scale" (p. 314), suggesting that MICs among scale items should vary between .15 and .50 and that only particularly narrow constructs should have mean interitem correlations in the .40 to .50 range. All three DD scales produced MICs that exceeded this .50 cutoff, despite the fact that DT constructs would not typically be conceptualized as especially narrow. Given that the DT includes complex, heterogeneous constmcts, it is important that a brief measure of these constmcts assesses all central traits. For example, from a general trait perspective, psychopathy is most strongly related to antagonism and conscientiousness and narcissism is most strongly related to extraversion and antagonism. Initial content analyses suggested that the DD Psychopathy scale does not contain items related to (low) Conscientiousness, whereas the SD3 does. However, despite the lack of items that directly assess disinhibition in the DD Psychopathy scale, it was still negatively correlated with Conscientiousness, which is likely due to the inherent relation between Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (e.g., Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005). Overall, the two FFM proflles generated by the psychopathy scores were similar to one another and the profile manifested by the well-validated SRP-IIl. Neither scale generated a profile consis-

tent with boldness, however, suggesting neither is consistent with this controversial component of psychopathy (e.g.. Miller & Lynam, 2012). The two MACH scales also generated similar FFM profiles with one another and with the profile manifested by the longer MACH-IV measure. Finally, we compared the two narcissism scales to the FFM profiles generated by established measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, which have widely disparate nomological networks (Miller et al., 2011). The profiles of two DT narcissism scales were unrelated to one and other and manifested diverging degrees of similarity with the grandiose and vulnerable profiles such that SD3 narcissism was strongly related to the FFM profile for grandiose narcissism (i.e., NPI) and negatively related to the FFM profile of vulnerable narcissism (i.e., HSNS). Conversely, the DD Narcissism scale generated an FFM profile that manifested moderate (but nonsignificant) profile similarity with both the grandiose and vulnerable FFM proflles. Both the DD and SD3 proved to be efficient measures as both represent significant time savings compared with the sum of the longer measures often used in this research (124 items total; 489.6 s). Given the evidence that scores from the SD3 demonstrate stronger convergent and incremental validity, it appears that this brief measure of the DT more effectively navigates the tension between precision and efficiency (Gorsuch & McFarland, 1972). We would note, however, that it takes less than 9 min to assess the DT using the longer, more established instmments, which is also relatively brief and efficient. We advocate that individuals use the longer DT instmments except in cases where time is tmly of the essence; in these cases, the SD3 scales yield effect sizes that are more consistent with the established DT scales.

Limitations and Conclusions A significant limitation of the present study is that the findings reported here were derived from self-report data; future studies should compare self-report data on these scales with data collected from other modalities (e.g., informant reports; interviews) tested in larger, more diverse samples that have higher mean levels of DT traits (e.g., forensic samples). As stated by Smith et al. (2000, p. 102), "validity standards for short forms should be quite high." The goal of a measure is that it is just short enough to capture the construct, but not so short that it omits important parts of a constmct. Both the DD and SD3 are highly efficient, but the SD3 generates scores with stronger convergent and incremental validity than the DD. If a brief measure of the DT is needed, the SD3 appears to be a more promising measure.

References Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory really measure? Assessment, 18, 61-&1. Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2013). Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) and the five-factor model: Delineating NPD, grandiose narcissism, and vulnerable narcissism. In T. A. Widiger & P. T. Costa (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (3rd ed., pp. 133-146). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, doi: 10.1037/13939-009 Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.

BRIEF MEASURES OF THE DARK TRIAD Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 Decuyper, M., De Pauw, S., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., & De Clercq, B. J. (2009). A meta-analysis of psychopathy-, antisocial PD-, and FFM associations. European Journal of Personality, 23, 531-565. doi: 10.1002/per.729 Fumham, A., Richards, S. C , & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark tdad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199-216. doi:10.1111/spc3.12018 Gorsuch, R. L., & McFarland, S. G. (1972). Single vs. multiple-item scales for measudng religious values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 53-64. doi:10.2307/1384298 Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexaminalion of Murray's Narcissism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588-599. doi:10.1006/jrpe.l997.2204 Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A bdef tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121. doi:10.1177/109442819800100106 Jonason, P. K., & Luévano, V. (2013). Walking the thin line between efficiency and accuracy: Validity and structure of the Dirty Dozen. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 76-81. doi:10.1016/j.paid .2013.02.010 Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the dark tdad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420-432. doi:10.1037/a0019265 Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (in press). Introducing the Short Dark Tdad (SSD3): A brief measure of dark personality trait. Assessment. Lynam, D. R., Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Miller, D. J., Mullins-Sweatt, S., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: Development and validation of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23, 108-124. Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 401-412. doi:10.1037/ 0021-843X. 110.3.401 Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). Using a general model of personality to identify the basic elements of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 160-178. doi:10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.160 Markon, K. E., Kmeger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88. 139157. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.139 McCrae, R. R. (2008). A note on some measures of profile agreement.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 105-109. doi: 10.1080/ 00223890701845104

331

McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 192-210. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.192 Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Seibert, L. 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, 1048-1053. doi:10.1037/a0028583 Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79, 1013-1042. doi:10.111I/j.l467-6494.2010.00711.x Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory's nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 305-326. doi:10.1037/a0024567 Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, D. B., Olson, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2006). Psychometdc properties of an abbreviated instmment of the five-factor model. Assessment, 13, 119-137. doi: 10.1177/1073191106286748 Patdck, C. J. (2010). Operationalizing the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Preliminary description of brief scales for assessment of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. Unpublished manuscdpt. Department of Psychology, Flodda State University, Tallahassee, FL. Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. F., & Hare, R. D. (in press). Manual for the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III). Toronto, Ontado, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark tdad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6 Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A pdncipal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its constmct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890 Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102-111. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102 Vemon, P. A., Villani, V. C , Vickers, L. C , & Hards, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of the Dark Tdad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 445-452. doi: 10.1016/j.paid .2007.09.007

Received June 20, 2013 Revision received October 7, 2013 Accepted October 9, 2013

Copyright of Psychological Assessment is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.