MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 1

Measurement Invariance of the Short Dark Tetrad across Cultures and Genders

Christian Blötner, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7415-4756

Department of Psychology, TU Dortmund University, Germany

Gregory D. Webster, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7342-8444

Department of Psychology, University of Florida, USA

Val Wongsomboon, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9467-9952

Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Wellbeing, Northwestern University, USA

European Journal of Psychological Assessment, in press

This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication. The manuscript will undergo

copyediting, typesetting, and review of resulting proof before it is published in its final form.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christian Blötner, TU

Dortmund University, Faculty for Educational Science and Psychology, Department of

Psychology, Emil-Figge-Str. 50, 44227 Dortmund, Germany. E-Mail: christian.bloetner@tu-

dortmund.de.
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 2

Abstract

The last two decades revealed a plethora of scientific examinations on the Dark Triad (narcissism,

psychopathy, Machiavellianism) and Dark Tetrad traits (Dark Triad + sadism) in a variety of

contexts. Short scales for the assessment of these traits have been very influential and widely used.

Building upon previous research, the 28-item Short Dark Tetrad (SD4) was introduced as a measure

for the assessment of the Dark Tetrad traits. A recent study found that the SD4 is invariant across

genders, but little is known concerning invariance across cultures. Therefore, we tested

measurement invariance (MI) between German and US participants. Additionally, we replicated

extant findings on MI across genders. The analyses suggested configural MI across cultures, metric

MI between genders in a US sample, and scalar MI across genders in a German sample. To address

that the SD4 revealed only modest fit in the samples, we further computed Exploratory Structural

Equation Models. Those were mostly consistent with the original model structure and indicated

that adding marginal cross-loadings among the factors accounts for enhanced model fit. Possible

explanations for the findings related to MI were discussed.

Keywords: Dark Personality, Short Dark Tetrad, Dark Triad, Gender, Culture
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 3

Measurement Invariance of the Short Dark Tetrad across Cultures and Genders

Since the Dark Triad was introduced (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), research on the area of

antagonistic personality traits is burgeoning. The Dark Triad comprises subclinical forms of

narcissism (i.e., striving for admiration by others; restoration of the grandiose self after ego

threats), Machiavellianism (Mach; i.e., cynical, distrustful, strategic orientation; self-control), and

psychopathy (i.e., impulsivity, aggression, and antisocial behavior; Back et al., 2013; Jones,

2017; Paulhus & Williams, 2002, Skeem et al., 2011). Previous work illustrated the importance

of these traits in a variety of everyday contexts, such as romantic relationships (Jonason et al.,

2012), school (Stellwagen & Kerig, 2013), and work settings (O’Boyle et al., 2012). The Dark

Triad was recently expanded by sadism (i.e., deriving feelings of joy from hurting others or from

seeing others suffer) and thus became a Dark Tetrad (Chabrol et al., 2009; Paulhus, 2014). As the

instruments originally proposed by Paulhus and Williams revealed undesired overlaps (especially

psychopathy and Mach scales; Grosz et al., 2020) or suffered from unfavorable content coverage

(Paulhus & Jones, 2015), a plethora of research dealt with the development and evaluation of

measures (e.g., Blötner & Bergold, 2021; Jonason & Webster, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2014;

Paulhus & Jones, 2015). Specialized short scales focusing on each trait’s specifics became

increasingly popular and reduced some of the issues of earlier scales. One of those is the Short

Dark Tetrad (SD4; Paulhus et al., 2020). It is the successor of the widely used Short Dark Triad

(SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). The SD4 can be validly interpreted concerning central correlates

of narcissism, psychopathy, Mach, and sadism (Blötner et al., 2021; Neumann et al., 2021).

However, ensuring an instrument’s nomological network is not yet sufficient to assume its

usefulness. Beyond being in line with theoretical expectations about the underlying constructs,

the structural stability of the measure must be examined across different groups (measurement

invariance [MI]). In doing so, users can be sure that differences between groups indicate different
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 4

manifestations of the latent trait — as opposed to different measurement properties. Testing of

MI comprises a hierarchical process of imposing more and more restrictions to a latent model

involving two or more independent groups (or two or more measurement occasions within one

person in the case of longitudinal MI). The most common tests of equality refer to the item-factor

composition (configural MI), loadings (metric MI), and item intercepts (scalar MI) across groups.

Numerous measures cannot withstand more severe restrictions (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016).

Thus far, the SD4 has been used in German, US, and Canadian samples (Blötner et al.,

2021; Furnham & Horne, 2021; Neumann et al., 2021; Paulhus et al., 2020, 2021), and MI has

been demonstrated across genders (Neumann et al., 2021), but the degree of invariance is yet

unclear concerning different cultures (Blötner et al., 2021). Manifestations of the Dark Tetrad

traits could differ across cultures as cultural norms allow, dictate, or prohibit particular behaviors

to members of particular groups (Eagly & Wood, 1991; Hofstede et al., 2010) and therefore

might shape expressions of the Dark Tetrad. To ensure meaningful interpretations of the SD4

subscales across cultures, we tested whether it is invariant between samples from different

countries. Furthermore, we replicated the gender-related analyses of MI conducted by Neumann

et al. (2021).

Method

Samples

We used two samples, which we derived from extant studies. First, we used data from

Blötner et al.’s (2021) study on the German version of the SD4 (N = 594). Second, and with

permission from the authors, we used Webster and Wongsomboon’s (2020) SD4 data involving

participants from the US (N = 451, complete data available for 428 participants). Since the two

samples differed regarding the expected (Webster and Wongsomboon, 2020, suggested that their

participants were between 18 and 23 years of age) or observed age distributions (Blötner et al.,
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 5

2021: Mage = 28.4, SDage = 9.0, ranging from 18 to 79 years), we carried out the culture-related

analyses in two different ways. First, we computed the analyses using the total samples. Second,

we restricted the German sample to freshmen between ages 18 and 23 (N = 170) so that the

samples agree regarding the age ranges (Webster & Wongsomboon, 2020). On the other hand, for

the analyses of gender-related MI within each sample, we used the whole datasets, excluded

participants with non-binary gender (n = 7 in Blötner et al., 2021; n = 4 in Webster and

Wongsomboon, 2020), and computed sample-wise analyses.

Measures

Dark Tetrad

Webster and Wongsomboon (2020) and Blötner et al. (2021) presented the English and

the German version of the SD4 (Paulhus et al., 2020), respectively, to assess narcissism,

psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and sadism. Each scale comprises seven items. Five-point Likert

scales serve as response scales (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 =

strongly agree). Estimations of reliability ranged from Cronbach’s α = .63 to .78 (see Table 1).

Table 1
Cronbach’s α Coefficients of the Subscales of the Short Dark Tetrad per Sample
Facet German (N = 594) Restricted German (N = 170) US (N = 451)
Machiavellianism .70 .68 .63
Narcissism .77 .74 .78
Psychopathy .74 .68 .75
Sadism .69 .70 .78
Note. Restricted German = Subset of the total German sample, entailing only participants between ages 18 and 23.

Analysis Plan

Measurement Invariance between Cultures

We used the R package semTools (version 0.5-4; Jorgensen et al., 2021) to examine

configural, metric, and scalar MI (MLR estimator). We considered particular levels of MI to be

MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 6

ensured if the difference between the fit measures of the respective models were smaller than the

cutoffs proposed by Chen (2007; ΔCFI ≤ .010, accompanied by ΔRMSEA ≤ .015). Differences

between the models were thereby due to imposing equality restrictions to specific parameters

among groups as compared to free estimations of these parameters. We deemphasized the Δχ²-

test as it is overly sensitive to negligible changes and the SRMR as it lacks sensitivity to detect

non-invariance (Chen, 2007). We did not test partial MI because the SD4 subscales are very

concise — yielding a potentially high ratio of non-invariant items per factor — and because there

is no consensus on an acceptable percentage of non-invariant items (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016).

Measurement Invariance between Men and Women

To replicate Neumann et al.’s (2021) analyses concerning MI across genders, we carried

out analyses of gender-related MI per sample. Therefore, we applied the same procedures as we

did in the analyses of MI between cultures.

Results and Discussion

Measurement Invariance across Cultures

When using the entire German and US samples, the descriptive model fit measures

changed substantially when imposing equal loadings to German and US data (ΔCFI = -.013,

ΔRMSEA = .001; see Table 2). Accordingly, the SD4 revealed configural MI across cultures and

factor structures can be meaningfully compared between German and US participants (Putnick &

Bornstein, 2016). However, when we computed the analysis with the restricted German sample

(i.e., only freshmen between 18 and 23 years of age), the analyses exhibited metric MI between

the cultures so that factor loadings can also be meaningfully compared between the samples

(please find the respective results in Table S1 in the supplement; Blötner et al., 2022).

Measurement Invariance across Genders

The SD4 revealed scalar MI across genders in the German sample, but not in the US
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 7

sample — as indicated by acceptable or unacceptable changes of the CFIs when imposing equal

item intercepts to men and women (cutoff ΔCFI ≤ .010; Chen, 2007; see Table 2). Thus,

comparisons of latent means are appropriate between German men and German women and

factor loadings are comparable between US men and US women (Putnick & Bornstein 2016).

Table 2
Tests of Measurement Invariance of the SD4 Across Genders and Cultures
Level of MI χ² (df) CFI RMSEA ΔCFI ΔRMSEA
MI of the SD4 Across Cultures a
Configural 1,942.76 (688) .799 .062 — —
Metric 2,043.50 (712) .786 .063 -.013 .001

MI of the SD4 Across Gender Groups

Configural
Germany b 1,482.30 (688) .775 .065 — —
USA c 1,202.60 (688) .786 .061 — —
Metric
Germany b 1,497.33 (712) .776 .064 .001 -.001
USA c 1,236.98 (712) .781 .060 -.005 .000
Scalar
Germany b 1,544.52 (736) .769 .064 -.006 .000
c
USA 1,372.26 (736) .735 .065 -.046 .005
Note. MLR estimator. Configural = Equal form. Metric = Equal loadings. Scalar = Equal intercepts.
a
NGerman = 594, NUSA = 428. b Nmen = 129, Nwomen = 458. c Nmen = 177, Nwomen = 248.

Exploratory Structural Equation Model

Note that all CFIs in the analyses of MI indicated less than acceptable fit (< .90), whereas

all RMSEAs were acceptable (< .08; Hu & Bentler, 1999). However, these findings are consistent

with earlier analyses of the SD4 (Blötner et al., 2021; Neumann et al., 2021; Paulhus et al., 2020).

To address that standard CFAs are very restrictive (i.e., constraint of cross-loadings onto items of

other factors, neglecting overlaps among the traits), and in line with Neumann et al. (2021), we

further computed Exploratory Structural Equation Models (ESEM; Asparouhov & Muthén,
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 8

2009). By allowing marginal cross-loadings, ESEMs accounted for acceptable fit, CFIs = .90 and

.91 in the US and German samples, respectively, both RMSEAs = .04. Table 3 provides the

loadings from the CFAs and ESEMs. Two out of 196 possible cross-loadings were non-trivial

(i.e., λ ≥ .30), whereas 10 out of 56 expected main-loadings were trivial (28 loadings each

estimated in two samples). As can be seen in Figure S1 in the supplement (Blötner et al., 2022),

the empirical structure of the SD4 differed from the intended one (Paulhus et al., 2020) with

slight differences concerning the Mach, narcissism, and psychopathy subscales and noticeable

differences arising for the sadism scale. The sadism items had substantial cross-loadings with

psychopathy (sixth sadism item) or their loadings were smaller than conventional cutoffs (third,

fifth, sixth, and seventh sadism items).

Table 3
Standardized Factor Loadings of the Short Dark Tetrad by Model Type and Sample
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Exploratory Structural Equation Model
Items M N P S M N P S
M1 .37/.35 .44/.35 -.12/.03 .01/.02 .01/-.02
M2 .60/.45 .51/.43 .14/.15 .14/-.03 .06/.03
M3 .64/.52 .54/.49 -.03/.01 -.16/-.09 .08/-.02
M4 .40/.49 .49/.53 -.07/-.14 .02/.01 .02/-.08
M5 .45/.41 .46/.36 .03/.03 .04/-.09 .00/.13
M6 .55/.42 .44/.46 .08/.00 .01/.05 .05/-.01
M7 .35/.47 .43/.36 .22/.04 -.10/.04 -.06/.13
N1 .69/.60 -.04/-.01 .65/.63 .00/-.05 .06/-.01
N2 .68/.53 .04/.10 .68/.48 .08/.11 .04/.03
N3 .65/.57 .01/.03 .55/.53 .12/.13 .07/-.01
N4 .59/.58 .04/.00 .61/.55 .04/.10 -.02/-.09
N5 .39/.64 .12/-.03 .53/.65 -.04/-.11 .01/.12
N6 .51/.66 .08/.02 .45/.50 .14/.03 .09/.11
N7 .27/.51 .23/.08 .17/.37 .20/.05 -.02/.12
P1 .56/.63 -.11/.04 .02/.14 .59/.53 .17/.07
P2 .40/.73 -.01/.01 .06/.03 .36/.67 .08/.01
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 9

P3 .60/.51 -.05/-.08 .13/.11 .57/.52 .06/.13

P4 .36/.44 .00/.06 .18/.08 .29/.28 .06/.09
P5 .54/.43 .01/.01 -.12/-.07 .49/.55 .17/-.01
P6 .55/.62 .04/.07 .00/-.09 .50/.52 .17/.10
P7 .49/.51 .15/.13 .30/.18 .36/.33 .08/.13
S1 .89/.78 .00/.01 .03/.06 .00/.22 .81/.57
S2 .66/.75 .09/.02 -.08/.00 .05/-.03 .52/.68
S3 .27/61 .24/.16 .03/-.07 .13/.06 .09/.42
S4 .90/.74 -.03/-.03 .03/.03 -.01/-.04 .97/.68
S5 .32/.45 .23/.18 -.02/-.02 .26/.10 .18/.24
S6 .21/.34 .14/.15 -.06/-.02 .43/.42 .19/.10
S7 .19/.34 .18/.23 .11/.09 .22/.21 -.01/.11
Note. M = Machiavellianism. N = Narcissism. P = Psychopathy. S = Sadism. Loadings displayed for German/US
samples.

General Discussion

This study analyzed the degrees of structural equivalence of the SD4 across cultures and

genders. The findings suggest configural MI between German and US cultures. Thus, the factor

structure can be meaningfully compared between these cultures, whereas comparisons of

unstandardized factor loadings and item intercepts are not advisable. However, when we

compared German and US participants from the same age ranges, we found hints on metric MI,

suggesting that both the factor structure and unstandardized loadings, but not the item intercepts,

can be compared between the cultures. Furthermore, we found hints on metric MI between men

and women in the US sample, as well as scalar MI between men and women in the German

sample. Accordingly, factor loadings (item intercepts) can be compared between genders in the

US (German) sample.

Although both of our samples belong to W.E.I.R.D. cultures (Western, Educated,

Intellectual, Rich, Democratic; Henrich et al., 2010), there are moderate to large differences

between those, especially regarding individualism and indulgence (both higher for the USA),
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 10

uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation (both higher for Germany; Hofstede et al.,

2010). Individualism and indulgence reflect person-centeredness (vs. society-centeredness) and

liberal adoption of norms to promote one’s well-being. Valuing own advantages over societal

norms and the bending of rules are two outstanding features of all antagonistic traits (Paulhus,

2014). On the other hand, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation are crucial features of

Mach (Blötner & Bergold, 2021). We suggest that these differences accounted for limited levels

of invariance between the cultures. Likewise, social norms imposing more prosocial expectations

to women as opposed to men and distinct expressions of antagonistic behaviors among men and

women (Muris et al., 2017) may have accounted for scalar non-invariance between men and

women in our US sample. In the German sample, we replicated Neumann et al.’s (2021) finding

on scalar MI across genders, whereas the findings from our US sample contradict extant

literature, despite stemming from the same culture as Neumann et al.’s sample. We assume that

scalar MI in Neumann et al.’s (2021) and Blötner et al.’s (2021) respective total samples was due

to higher heterogeneity within these datasets as compared to Webster and Wongsomboon’s

(2020) sample that entails only students. Blötner et al. and Neumann et al. included a wider array

of individuals from the general population, which also affected our analysis of MI across cultures

when we included all German participants. However, our samples were not sufficient to test this

assumption any further. Hence, we encourage future research to test the equivalence of the SD4

in student samples and samples from the general population by purposefully recruiting from these

populations and considering equivalence regarding potentially confounding variables, for

instance, by incorporating propensity score matching.

Limitations

Given that we reanalyzed data from existing studies, the present work exhibits the same

limitations as the original studies. First, the studies predominantly (i.e., Blötner et al., 2021) or
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 11

exclusively recruited students (Webster & Wongsomboon, 2021). Second, the gender ratio of the

German sample was strongly imbalanced. The gender-related imbalance of the German sample

also affected our total sample (i.e., our combined sample used to examine culture-related MI),

limiting the generalizability of our results as men score higher on antagonistic traits and

behaviors than women (e.g., Muris et al., 2017). The last limitation is specific to the analytic

approach in this study: When we matched the age ranges of the two samples to test culture-

related MI, our examination involved a comparatively small German subsample. We restricted it

to ensure the best possible comparability between the German and US samples regarding crucial

characteristics of sample composition (i.e., age and student status). However, the age range is

relatively narrow and limited to students of psychology, affecting the external validity. The Dark

Tetrad refers to subclinical samples and may therefore have different properties in clinical or

forensic samples (Blötner et al., 2021; Neumann et al., 2021). In summary, we encourage future

research to test the SD4 in groups that are more heterogeneous as well as more balanced in terms

of gender.

Conclusion

Because the items of the SD4 have relatively unambiguous contents, artifacts from the

translation process should be unlikely to account for our findings on MI. Differences might rather

be due to social expectations about how men and women or Germans and US Americans should

or should not behave. Therefore, sample characteristics — especially national culture — should

be an important issue for future research on antagonistic traits and behaviors. However, given

stark contrasts between the results obtained in the samples that were (not) matched regarding age,

the SD4 should only be used in cultural comparisons if the general characteristics of the samples

agree.
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 12

References

Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Structural

Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204

Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A.

(2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of

narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431

Blötner, C., & Bergold, S. (2021). To be fooled or not to be fooled: Approach and avoidance

facets of Machiavellianism. Psychological Assessment, 34(2), 147–158.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001069

Blötner, C., Webster, G. D., & Wongsomboon, V. (2022, February 22). Measurement invariance

of the Short Dark Tetrad across cultures and genders. Open Science Framework.

https://osf.io/p8v3k/

Blötner, C., Ziegler, M., Wehner, C., Back, M. D., & Grosz, M. P. (2021). The nomological

network of the Short Dark Tetrad Scale (SD4). European Journal of Psychological

Assessment. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000655

Chabrol, H., Van Leeuwen, N., Rodgers, R., & Séjourné, N. (2009). Contributions of

psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic personality traits to juvenile

delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(7), 734–739.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.020

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.

Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 13

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic

perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 306–315.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291173011

Furnham, A., & Horne, G. (2021). The Tetradic Heart of Darkness: Comparing three dark-side

instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, 110918.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110918

Grosz, M. P., Harms, P. D., Dufner, M., Kraft, L., & Wetzel, E. (2020). Reducing the overlap

between Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy: The M7 and P7 scales. Collabra:

Psychology, 6(1), 17799. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.17799

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral

and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations. Software of the

mind. McGraw Hill.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Jonason, P. K., Luevano, V. X., & Adams, H. M. (2012). How the Dark Triad traits predict

relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 180–184.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.007

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad.

Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265

Jones, D. N. (2017). The nature of Machiavellianism: Distinct patterns of misbehavior. In V.

Zeigler-Hill & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality: Science and practice in

social, personality, and clinical psychology (pp. 87–107). American Psychological

MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 14

Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14854-005

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3). Assessment,

21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105

Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., Rosseel, Y., Miller, P., Quick, C.,

Garnier-Villareal, M., Selig, J., Boulton, A., Preacher, K., Coffman, D., Rhemtulla, M., …

& Ben-Shachar, M. S. (2021). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling (R

package version 0.5-4). CRAN. https://cran.r-

project.org/web/packages/semTools/index.html

Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of human

nature. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183–204.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070

Neumann, C. S., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2021). Examining the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4)

across models, correlates, and gender. Assessment.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120986624

O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the

Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679

Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 23(6), 421–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547737

Paulhus, D. L., Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Jones, D. N. (2020). Screening for dark

personalities: The Short Dark Tetrad (SD4). European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 37(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000602

Paulhus, D. L., Gupta, R., & Jones, D. N. (2021). Dark or disturbed?: Predicting aggression from

the Dark Tetrad and schizotypy. Aggressive Behavior, 47(6), 635–645.

MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 15

https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21990

Paulhus, D. L., & Jones, D. N. (2015). Measures of dark personalities. In G. J. Boyle, D. H.

Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological

constructs (pp. 562–594). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-

386915-9.00020-6

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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting:

The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental

Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic

personality. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 95–162.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611426706

Stellwagen, K. K., & Kerig, P. K. (2013). Dark triad personality traits and theory of mind among

school-age children. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(1), 123–127.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.019

Webster, G. D., & Wongsomboon, V. (2020, July 6). The Hateful Eight (H8): An efficient

multifaceted approach to the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4). PsyArXiv.

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pr4u6

Open Science

We report all data exclusions, all data exclusion criteria, whether exclusion criteria were

established prior to data analysis, all measures in the study, and all analyses including all tested

models. If we use inferential tests, we report p-values and effect sizes.

MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE SD4 16

Open Data: We confirm that there is sufficient information for an independent researcher

to reproduce all of the reported results, including the codebook if relevant.

Open Materials: We confirm that there is sufficient information for an independent

researcher to reproduce all of the reported methodologies.

Preregistration of Studies and Analysis Plans: This study was not preregistered. Data,

R scripts, and supplements can be retrieved from https://osf.io/p8v3k/.