See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/293017937

The dark triad and relationship preferences: A replication and extension

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · May 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.023

CITATIONS READS

47 3,097

2 authors, including:

Breanna E. Atkinson
The University of Western Ontario
16 PUBLICATIONS   358 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

How Do Emotional Restrictions Affect the Use of Humor? A Behavior Genetic Analysis of Alexithymia and Humor Styles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Breanna E. Atkinson on 10 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 253–255

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The dark triad and relationship preferences: A replication and extension

Samantha J. Koladich, Breanna E. Atkinson ⁎
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5C2

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In a replication and extension of previous research demonstrating a connection between the dark triad (narcis-
Received 13 January 2016 sism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) and relationship preferences, this study investigated the relationship
Accepted 13 January 2016 using normative scales in an attempt to yield more accurate results. Two hundred and eighty nine undergraduate
Available online xxxx
students completed a number of online questionnaires measuring the dark triad and relationship preferences.
The dark triad was positively correlated with a preference for short-term relationships and negatively correlated
Keywords:
Dark triad
with a preference for serious romantic relationships. Narcissism was positively correlated with a preference for
Relationship preferences “one-night-stands”, “booty-calls”, and “friends-with-benefits”, and not significantly correlated with a preference
One-night-stands for serious romantic relationships. Psychopathy and Machiavellianism were both positively correlated with a
Booty-calls preference for “one-night-stands”, “booty-calls”, and “friends-with-benefits”, and negatively correlated with a
Friends-with-benefits preference for serious romantic relationships. The results of this study suggest that the normative scales were
Serious romantic relationships useful in supporting the conclusion that the dark triad is related to a preference for short-term relationships,
and that the traits can be used to predict people's relationship choices.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
The “Dark Triad” – a cluster of three personality traits: narcissism,
psychopathy, and Machiavellianism – is something that everyone pos-
sesses to some degree. Narcissism is characterized by egotism, pride,
and grandiosity (Kohut, 1977); psychopathy is distinguished by impul-
sivity and antisocial behavior (Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick, & Lilienfeld,
2011); and Machiavellianism is identified by a manipulative, deceptive,
and exploitative nature toward others (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006).
Research on the dark triad has become considerably more
prominent in the last decade (Jonason & Webster, 2010). In the research
that also focuses on relationships, the dark triad has consistently
been found to be related to short-term relationship preferences
(Baughman, Jonason, Veselka, & Vernon, 2014; Jonason & Buss, 2012;
Jonason, Valentine, Li, & Harbeson, 2011). In these studies, however, re-
searchers tend simply to compare long-term relationships and short-
term relationships. This does not provide great insight into specific rela-
tionship patterns, strategies, and preferences that individuals may
choose. The current study aims to investigate the connection between
the dark triad traits and preferences for a number of relationship
subtypes.
A number of researchers have made a connection between the dark
triad and mating or relationship styles. For example, Jonason and
Kavanagh (2010) correlated the dark triad with specific love styles in
an international online study. They found that individuals who scored
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: skoladic@uwo.ca (S.J. Koladich).
higher on the dark triad had ludus and pragma love styles. A ludus love
style describes a game-playing mating strategy, where the individual
seeks to play “the game of love” with multiple partners. In contrast, a
pragma love style describes a cerebral mating strategy, where the indi-
vidual uses mates for their own gains, and “thinks with their head rather
than their heart”. Jonason and Kavanagh's (2010) study sets a founda-
tion in understanding that individuals who have higher levels of the
dark triad traits maintain short-term mating styles by avoiding becom-
ing emotionally connected. It also reinforces the idea that the dark triad
is associated with a preference for short-term mating.
In related research, Jonason and Buss (2012) conducted two studies
on the dark triad and short-term mating strategies. The first study ex-
amined how individuals avoid entangling commitments (unwanted,
encumbering relationships) in the context of short-term mating, and
the second study reported positive correlations between these tactics
and the dark triad traits and sociosexuality. This finding is particularly
important for the current study as it reaffirms the basis on which the
study develops its main focus — that the dark triad is associated with
a preference for short-term relationships.
In another study, Jonason et al. (2011) examined the relationship be-
tween the dark triad and mating standards and preferences, using a
budget-allocation task to correlate the dark triad traits with long-term
and short-term mate preferences. This study revealed that individuals
who scored higher on the dark triad had lower standards for short-
term mates, which likely widens their selection of prospective mates.
As well, individuals who scored higher on the dark triad selected
mates based on self-interest, assortative mating, or a preference for vol-
atile environments. Again, this research gives insight into the mating

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.023
0191-8869/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
254 S.J. Koladich, B.E. Atkinson / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 253–255
preferences, strategies, and rationale of individuals who score higher on
the dark triad, and confirms that these individuals prefer to seek short-
term relationships.
Jonason, Luevano, and Adams (2012) sought to relate the dark triad
and mating preferences in a more thorough manner, using relationship
subtypes and a budget-allocation task. Their results showed that the
dark triad traits were positively correlated with a preference for short-
term relationships and negatively correlated with a preference for
long-term relationships. Specifically, narcissism was positively correlat-
ed with a preference for one-night stands and friends-with-benefits,
psychopathy was positively correlated with booty-calls, and Machiavel-
lianism did not predict any type of relationship preference. Narcissism
and psychopathy were also both negatively correlated with a preference
for serious romantic relationships.
The current study is a replication and an extension of Jonason et al.
(2012). Similar to their study, the current study examines the connec-
tion between the dark triad and relationship preferences, using four
relationship subtypes: one-night stands, booty-calls, friends-with-
benefits, and serious romantic relationships. Our study, however, ex-
tends previous research by using normative scales rather than a
budget-allocation task, which can produce ipsative results in correla-
tional studies (Jonason et al., 2012); our normative scales are expected
to yield more accurate results.
The four relationship subtypes used in the present study are defined
in the same manner that they were in Jonason et al., 2012. Serious ro-
mantic relationships – defined as those that are committed and monog-
amous – were contrasted with three short-term relationship subtypes:
one-night-stands — sexual relationships that occur one time only;
friends-with-benefits — relationships between friends in which the
two people engage in sexual activities but do not define their relation-
ship as romantic; and booty-calls — relationships in which there is solic-
itation from a non-long-term partner for the explicit or implicit intent of
engaging in sexual activity (Jonason et al., 2012).
Since narcissism is characterized by egotism, pride, and grandiosity,
it was expected that participants who score higher on narcissism would
seek a greater range of relationships and would therefore be positively
correlated with one night stands, friends-with-benefits, and booty-
calls and not correlated with long-term serious romantic relationships.
Because psychopathy is characterized by impulsivity and antisocial be-
havior we predict that it will be positively correlated with booty-calls
and one-night stands. Psychopathy is not expected to be significantly
correlated with friends-with-benefits, since social behavior would be
required, and we also expect psychopathy to be negatively correlated
with serious romantic relationships, because these would go against
the impulsive and antisocial nature of the individual. Finally, we predict
that Machiavellianism will be positively correlated with booty-calls,
since these would be consistent with the manipulative, deceptive, and
exploitative nature of Machiavellians. We do not expect Machiavellian-
ism to have a significant correlation with friends-with-benefits, because
Machiavellians are unlikely to engage in long-term friendships, and to
be negatively correlated with a preference for serious romantic relation-
ships for the same reason.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 289 university students (150 female, 120 male, 3
“other”, and 2 unspecified) enrolled in an introductory psychology
course at XXXXX University in XXXXX. They ranged in age from 18 to
26 years (M = 18.49, SD = .98). Participants were eligible for the
study if they were over 18 and spoke English fluently. Participants
were recruited using an online platform where they could sign up for
different studies as part of a course requirement. Participants completed
the study online and received course credit for their participation.
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Demographics
Participants completed a demographic survey asking them to indi-
cate their gender and their age.
2.2.2. Sociosexuality
Sociosexuality was assessed using a modified version of the revised
Sociosexual Inventory (SOI-R; Penke & Asendorpg, 2008. The SOI-R has
nine items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. For the first three items, partic-
ipants were asked to indicate the number of different sexual partners they
had been with (e.g., “With how many different partners have you had sex
within the past 12 months?”). For the second three items, participants
were asked to rate how they feel about different sexual relations
(e.g., “Sex without love is OK.”). For the last three items, participants
were asked to rate the frequency that they think about sexual relations
(e.g., “How often do you have fantasies about having sex with someone
you are not in a committed romantic relationship with?). Four items
were added to the SOI-R that were created for the current study, rated
on a 5-point Likert scale. For these items, participants were asked to
rate the degree to which they are currently seeking certain types of rela-
tionships (e.g., “I am currently seeking sexual relationships that occur one
time only.”). These items were specific to either a serious romantic rela-
tionship or a short-term relationship subtype (i.e., one-night stand,
booty-call, or friends-with-benefits), and were created to allow relation-
ship preferences to be measured more accurately than in previous
research.
2.2.3. Narcissism
Participants completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI-40; Raskin & Terry, 1988) which includes 40 items consisting
of pairs of statements that the participant was asked to choose from,
(e.g., “A. I have a natural talent for influencing people. B. I am not
good at influencing people.”). One point was assigned to each response
that matched the key provided and the points were added together to
determine a final total score: higher scores indicate a higher level of
narcissism.
2.2.4. Psychopathy
Participants completed the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III (SRP;
Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press), which comprises 64 items rated
on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (Disagree Strongly) to 5 (Agree Strongly).
The sum of participants' scores on each item was used as a measure of
their overall psychopathy score (after reverse coding where needed).
Thus, a higher score indicates a higher level of psychopathy.
2.2.5. Machiavellianism
Participants completed the MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), which
includes 20 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Participants were asked to
rate the items (e.g., “Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is ask-
ing for trouble.”) based on how they feel about people. Participants
were given a total score by adding together their scores on all of the
items (after reverse coding as needed). Thus, a higher score indicates
a higher level of Machiavellianism.
2.3. Procedure
Participants signed up for the study through an online platform.
They first received a letter of information and provided informed con-
sent by clicking on the link to the surveys. Participants were then linked
to the questionnaires, which they filled out online, individually.
Participants first completed the demographic questionnaire. They
were then asked to complete the SOI-R, the NPI-40 the SRP-III, and the
MACH-IV in that order. After completing these questionnaires
 S.J. Koladich, B.E. Atkinson / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 253–255
participants were linked to a debriefing form. The total duration of the
study was approximately 1 h.
3. Results
Correlations among the three dark triad variables were in line with
those reported in previous studies and indicate that the data are behav-
ing as they should: narcissism (M = 15.93, SD = 6.84) and psychopathy
(M = 2.34, SD = 4.36): r(287) = .48, p b .001; narcissism and Machia-
vellianism (M = 2.78, SD = 0.46): r(287) = .36, p b .001; Machiavel-
lianism and psychopathy r(287) = .52, p b .001.
Also consistent with previous findings, total scores on the dark triad
were positively correlated with sociosexuality (M = 2.53, SD = 0.88):
r(287) = .365, p b .001, indicating that individuals who have higher levels
of the dark triad traits have a preference for short-term relationships.
Looking at each dark triad trait individually revealed that narcissism
was positively correlated with sociosexuality: r(287) = .323, p b .001.
Narcissism was also positively correlated with “one-night-stands”
(M = 1.85, SD = .950): r(285) = .284, p b .001; “booty-calls” (M =
2.00, SD = 1.03): r(285) = .187, p b .01; and “friends-with-benefits”
(M = 2.20, SD = 1.21): r(287) = .188, p b .01. As predicted, there
was no significant relationship between narcissism and serious roman-
tic relationships (M = 3.83, SD = 1.10): r(286) = −.088, ns.
As predicted, psychopathy was also positively correlated with
sociosexuality: r(284) = .439, p b .001; “one-night-stands”: r(282) =
.302, p b .001, and “booty-calls”: r(282) = .361, p b .001; and negatively
correlated with serious romantic relationships: r(283) = −.268,
p b .001. Contrary to prediction, psychopathy was also positively corre-
lated with “friends-with-benefits”: r(284) = .346, p b .001.
Finally, as predicted Machiavellianism was positively correlated with
sociosexuality: r(284) = .297, p b .001; “one-night-stands”: r(282) =
.235, p b .001, and “booty-calls”: r(282) = .230, p b .001; and negatively
correlated with serious romantic relationships: r(283) = −.125, p b .05.
Contrary to prediction, Machiavellianism was also positively correlated
with “friends-with-benefits”: r(284) = .233, p b .001.
Multiple regression analyzes that the three dark triad traits in com-
bination accounted for 11.0% of the variance in the preference for “one-
night stands”, with narcissism (β = .182, p b .01) and psychopathy
(β = .179, p b .05) making a significant contribution. In combination,
the dark triad traits accounted for 11.2% of the variance in the prefer-
ence for “friends-with-benefits” but only psychopathy made a signifi-
cant contribution (β = .318, p b .001). In combination, the dark triad
traits accounted for 12.1% of the variance in the preference for “booty-
calls” and, again only psychopathy added significantly to the prediction
(β = .35, p b .001). Finally, the 3 dark triad traits accounted for just
6.70% of the variance in the preference for serious romantic relation-
ships and psychopathy was again the only significant (negative) predic-
tor (β = −.333, p b .001).
4. Discussion
Past studies have established that there is a significant relationship be-
tween the dark triad and a preference for short-term relationships. The
present study replicated this finding and extended it by employing nor-
mative scales in order to obtain more accurate results. Overall, our results
bear more similarities than differences with previous reports and the ma-
jority of our predictions were supported. Specifically, we found that nar-
cissism was positively correlated with sociosexuality in general, as well
as with a preference for “one-night-stands”, “booty-calls”, and “friends-
with-benefits”, and not correlated with a preference for serious romantic
relationships. This supports the idea that narcissists are likely to seek and
to feel entitled to a greater range of relationships. Psychopathy was also
expected to be positively correlated with a preference for “booty-calls”
and “one-night-stands”, and negatively correlated with a preference for
serious romantic relationships, and this is what we found. These findings
are consistent with the antisocial and impulsive nature of people high on
View publication stats
255
psychopathy. Unexpectedly, we also found psychopathy to be positively
correlated with a preference for “friend-with-benefits”; a finding that
suggests that to the extent that psychopaths have friendships or that
sub-clinical psychopathy is related to friendship, individuals higher in
psychopathy are likely to try to use these for sexual purposes. Finally, as
expected we found that Machiavellianism was positively related to a pref-
erence for “booty-calls” and “one-night-stands” and negatively correlated
with a preference for serious romantic relationships. Contrary to our pre-
diction, Machiavellianism – like psychopathy – was also positively corre-
lated with a preference for “friends-with-benefits”; indicating that
Machiavellians prefer all types of short-term relationships, which is con-
sistent with their manipulative and exploitative nature.
Our results are also consistent with other previous studies. Crysel,
Crosier, and Webster (2013), for example, reported positive correlations
between the dark triad and short-term-focused traits (impulsivity and
sensation-seeking) and risk-taking: behaviors that are intuitively relat-
ed to a preference for short-term sexual relationships. In a study that ex-
amined relationships between the dark triad and sexual fantasies,
Baughman et al. (2014) reported that all three dark triad traits were
positively correlated with overall sex drive but that psychopathy had
the strongest correlations with exploratory, impersonal, and sadomas-
ochistic fantasies. These results are similar to ours in that psychopathy
was the most highly correlated with a preference for short-term (and
hence likely impersonal) relationships.
One possible limitation of our study was its use of undergraduate
students as participants which might limit the generalizability of our re-
sults. That said, the correlations among the three dark triad variables in
our study were comparable to, if somewhat larger than those in other
studies, suggesting that our sample is not overly atypical. Nonetheless,
future studies in this area could only benefit from drawing participants
from a more general population, and it would also be interesting to sam-
ple from an incarcerated population with a wider range of scores on psy-
chopathy in particular and perhaps also on the other dark triad traits.
References
Baughman, H. M., Jonason, P. K., Veselka, L., & Vernon, P. A. (2014). Four shades of sexual
fantasies linked to the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 47-51 (Re-
trieved October 21, 2014 from PsycINFO).
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Crysel, L. C., Crosier, B. S., & Webster, G. D. (2013). The dark triad and risk behaviour.
Personality and Individual Differences, 54(1), 35–40 (Retrieved April 10, 2015, from
PsycINFO).
Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The ‘dark triad’ and normal personality traits. Personality
and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331–339 (Retrieved October 3, 2014, from
PsycINFO).
Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for
implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences,
52(5), 606–610 (Retrieved October 3, 2014, from PsycINFO).
Jonason, P. K., & Kavanagh, P. (2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the Dark Triad.
Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 606–610 (Retrieved October 3, 2014,
from PsycINFO).
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 (Retrieved
October 3, 2014, from PsycINFO).
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., & Harbeson, C. L. (2011). Mate-selection and the
Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile environ-
ment. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(6), 759–763 (Retrieved October 3,
2014, from PsycINFO).
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad.
Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432 (Retrieved October 21, 2014, from PsycINFO).
Kohut, H. (1977). The Restoration of the Self. New York: International Universities Press.
Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2016). Manual for the Hare Self-Report Psy-
chopathy scale. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems (in press).
Penke, L., & Asendorpg, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more dif-
ferentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Person-
ality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902.
Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic person-
ality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 95–162 (Retrieved October 3, 2014, from
PsycINFO).