Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Aggression as a trait: the Dark Tetrad alternative
Delroy L Paulhus1, Shelby R Curtis2 and Daniel N Jones2
Aggression is often construed as a unitary trait fully captured by
the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ). Our review
of the literature questions that assumption in several respects.
Instead of a top-down approach, we argue for a bottom-up
conception based on the Dark Tetrad of personality, that is,
narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. We
highlight research showing that each member of the tetrad
responds to different provocations. We conclude that the
unitary trait conception of aggression has yielded more
confusion than understanding. The term aggression should be
reserved for outcomes, with many possible trait  situation
predictors. Future research should continue the investigation of
moderators as well as cognitive mediators to clarify the
triggering of aggression in the individual tetrad members.
Addresses
1
University of British Columbia, Canada
2
University of Texas at El Paso, USA
Corresponding author: Paulhus, Delroy L (dpaulhus@psych.ubc.ca)
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:88–92
This review comes from a themed issue on Aggression and violence
Edited by Brad J Bushman
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Available online 25th April 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.007
2352-250X/ã 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
In common parlance, aggression is a trait, that is, a stable
and enduring style of thinking, acting, and feeling that
can be measured on a continuum of individual differences
[1]. By far the most popular trait measure is the Buss–
Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) [2] and its pre-
decessor. Because of that popularity, much of the research
on trait aggression has assumed the reality of that con-
struct as the starting point. Unfortunately, that assump-
tion has led to much confusion as to the nature of the trait.
Factor analyses and other decompositions have yielded a
broad range of content including assault, verbal aggres-
sion, suspicion, neurotic aggression, impulsive aggression,
social-cognitive aggression, instrumental aggression, hos-
tile aggression, alienation, anger, irritability, and social
desirability, among others [3,4]. Given this jumble of
precipitators, processes and outcomes, it is questionable
that the revered BPAQ actually captures a fundamental
personality construct.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:88–92
The evaluation of links to fundamental personality
models, namely, the Big Five or HEXACO, has further
undermined the case for a unitary understanding of trait
aggression. To begin with, no aggression factor emerges
in such comprehensive factor models. Instead, a spate of
studies have linked the BPAQ with specific combinations
of fundamental traits. Considering that the Big Five
and HEXACO factors were designed to be orthogonal,
this complexity of associations precludes a simple under-
standing of aggression and its relation to other traits.
In the present review, we question the value of reifying
aggression with the assumed gold standard, that is, the
BPAQ. Instead of this a top-down approach, we will argue
for a bottom-up approach beginning with an underlying
set of malevolent traits, namely, the Dark Tetrad [5]:
That is, narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and
sadism.
Before we elaborate on that model, it is worth acknowl-
edging another key weakness with a unitary trait
approach. It has become clear that individual differences
in personality interact with situational settings to pro-
voke aggressive behaviors. That perspective was sup-
ported in the definitive meta-analysis by Bettencourt
et al. [4]. They found that whereas some personality
traits (e.g., irritability) predict aggression across all situa-
tions, other traits are associated with aggression only
under specific conditions. Such moderator elements are
evident in much of the subsequent research on aggres-
sion [6–9]. The specificity of situational triggers was
exemplified in a daily diary study: The authors identified
five categories of anger and aggression triggers, which,
despite the inclusion of personality traits, captured the
majority of variance in daily aggression and feelings of
anger [10].
In this article, we not only acknowledge moderator ele-
ments but go further to suggest that aggression is an
intrinsically interactive process. We honor these notions
while advancing the argument that moderation effects
should be investigated at the level of the Dark Tetrad
traits, rather than at the level of a (questionable) unitary
trait. To update our earlier review [11], we will emphasize
work from the last decade.
Personality, situational, and mediating factors
Before we cover the Dark Tetrad literature, it is impor-
tant to review two key topics from mainstream aggression
research: (a) cognitive explanations of trait aggression and
(b) links to standard trait models. Both bear on our
critique of a simple unitary trait model for aggression.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Aggression as a trait: the Dark Tetrad alternative Paulhus, Curtis and Jones 89
Big Five/HEXACO factors
It has become standard practice in trait research to
differentiate other traits from fundamental sets such as
the Big Five or HEXACO. That requirement applies to
the study of trait aggression. The most consistent links are
with low Conscientiousness, low Agreeableness and high
Neuroticism [12–14]. The first two factors tend to be
linked to impulsivity whereas neuroticism is commonly
linked to anger issues. Although these links can be
theoretically justified, it seems impossible to build a
unitary trait by postulating a common theme among three
orthogonal factors.
The HEXACO factor model includes the Big Five plus
an extra factor—Honesty/Humility. In the most recent
germane study, Agreeableness predicted three of five
bullying categories; but Honesty–Humility was linked
to all five, including verbal, physical, social, sexual, and
racial subtypes [15].
The role of cognition
The traditional temperament model assumes that genetic
differences explain trait differences in aggression [16].
That approach has been challenged by cognitive
approaches advocating that social information structures
can trigger aggression or, at least, intervene between the
impelling force of traits and overt aggression. Most influ-
ential is the hostile attributional bias: here, individual
differences in aggression are explained as a reaction to
assuming hostile intent in others. Recent evidence sup-
ports that claim across time and culture [17].
Although the framework is more comprehensive, cognitive
elements are also central to the General Aggression Model
[18]: It holds that social knowledge structures, including
scripts and schemas, are critical to the decision to aggress or
not to aggress. Such social knowledge can be very elaborate
and differentiated: Hence this model can also accommo-
date a great degree of personality  situation complexity.
Most supportive are recent studies indicating significant
mediation between traits and aggressive behavior [19].
One recent study included the Big Five traits and General
Aggression Model social knowledge variables [20].
Results indicated that cognitive variables including situa-
tional triggers provided virtually complete mediation
between the Big Five traits and aggressive behavior.
The demonstration of cognitive mediation is important in
questioning the direct impact of a unitary aggression
construct. Along with the added complexity of moderator
effects, mediation effects suggest that intervening psy-
chological processes play a key role.
The Dark Tetrad: empirical links with
aggression
In recent years, research on individual differences on
aggression has turned to a small set of personality
www.sciencedirect.com
constructs known as the Dark Tetrad [5]. The tetrad
consists of four inter-correlated personality traits (Machi-
avellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism).
Although theoretically distinct, current measures of the
four variables tend to overlap substantially [21]. The
common core appears to be callous manipulation [22].
Rather than criminal or clinical samples, most of this
research has been conducted on normal (e.g., student,
work, and community) samples. Undoubtedly, the dra-
matic surge in research has been facilitated by the publi-
cation of Dark Triad combination measures [23,24]. Now
available is a more comprehensive inventory that includes
the fourth component of the Dark Tetrad, that is, the
sadistic personality [25].
The tetrad members tend to show different patterns of
associations with aggression, whether self-reported,
observer-reported, or behavioral. Strongest and most con-
sistent are links with psychopathy [26,27]. This pattern is
consistent with the short-term mating strategy associated
with psychopathy: These individuals (especially men)
seek indiscriminate sexual contacts [23,28]. Individual
links of aggression with narcissism [29,30] and sadism [31]
have also been found.
Most important for our model are studies that include
three or four of the dark personalities. This multivariate
methodology helps control for the overlap among mem-
bers, thereby avoiding possible misattribution of the
effect of one tetrad member to another unmeasured
member. To date, the bulk of such research has involved
the Dark Triad (all but sadism) but work with the full
tetrad is growing. The studies below follow the multivar-
iate recommendation by including multiple dark person-
alities as predictors.
Psychopathy
One example is a recent latent variable approach to the
Dark Triad and dispositional aggression [32]. Although
the data confirmed a common factor linking the Dark
Triad core (callousness manipulation) to the common
core of aggression, psychopathy added unique variance.
In particular, psychopathy had a strong and direct link to
physical aggression, above and beyond the common vari-
ance of the Dark Triad. This finding is consistent with
other research indicating that, in predicting aggression,
psychopathy out-performs other triad members as well as
the Big Five [28,33–35].
Narcissism
When narcissism and self-esteem are pitted head-to-head
in predicting aggression, narcissism typically wins the day
[30]. (In fact, contrary to conventional wisdom, low self-
esteem does not predict aggression [36]). But when other
tetrad members are controlled, narcissism has little asso-
ciation with aggression under normal circumstances—
presumably any aggressive component is accounted for
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:88–92
90 Aggression and violence
by other members. Although their callous and disagree-
able qualities may signal violence, grandiose narcissists
continue to believe others admire them and therefore
only aggress when such beliefs are threatened.
This moderator effect was evident in a recent laboratory
study [37]. In a white noise paradigm, participants were
provoked either with (a) an insult to their intellectual
ability, or (b) a physical attack (a surprise, gratuitous
blast of high-volume noise). Consistent with an earlier
finding [38], narcissists showed aggressive responses to
the ego-threat whereas psychopaths showed aggressive
responses to the physical threat. That narcissism result
was confirmed in a followup study on costly aggression
[39].
Sadism
The sadistic personality is unique among the Dark Tet-
rad in involving an appetite for cruelty—as opposed to
callous indifference [5]. Only sadistic individuals are
willing to pay a price (perform a boring task) for the
opportunity to harm others [40]. In a study of males
only, sadism predicted sexual aggression [31]; in females,
the link with sadism was fully mediated by sexual atti-
tudes [41].
With human communication increasingly occurring
online, a new phenomenon – cyber-aggression – has
emerged. This ugly variant is largely defined in similar
terms to other forms of aggression, but is delivered via
electronic means [42]. Recent research indicates that the
Dark Tetrad, especially sadism, are key predictors of
trolling and bullying behaviors online [43]. Although
all four tetrad constructs show positive associations with
cyberbullying and aggression, sadism has the strongest
link and narcissism, the weakest [44]. In both adolescents
and adults, psychopathy and sadism have emerged as
unique predictors of cyberbullying [45,46]. The emer-
gence of sadism as the primary predictor in the online
context suggests that anonymity can unleash the darker
side of human nature [21].
Machiavellianism
By contrast, few studies reveal a unique link between
Machiavellianism and aggression in adults. Presumably
this follows from their careful, strategic methods of inter-
personal engagement [5]. Among children, however,
Machiavellianism has been linked with relational aggres-
sion, that is, aggression used to establish social hierarchies
or to assert power [47]. Recent research on couples
suggests possible gender differences where, among
women only, Machiavellianism is associated with direct
aggression [48]. More generally, Machiavellians exploit
others when profitable [49], but are normally restrained
enough to realize that direct aggression is seldom
worthwhile.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:88–92
Conclusion
We have argued two main points regarding the trait
approach to aggression. One is that the top-down approach
– that is, reifying and then breaking down the Buss–Perry
Aggression Questionnaire [2] – has led to confusion about
the nature of trait aggression. The plethora of facets,
processes, and outcomes included in that measure do
not capture a coherent trait. We believe that the term
aggression should be reserved for overt outcomes, with
many possible trait predictors. Second, the argument for a
unitary trait approach is challenged by the wealth of studies
indicating interactions with context.
Instead, we argue for a bottom-up approach where aggres-
sion emerges in distinct ways from four lower level traits
known as the Dark Tetrad. Together, these propositions
point a new way forward. Instead of using a single broad
measure, trait aggression should be tapped with joint
measures of psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism,
and sadism (for example, the Short Dark Tetrad, SD4).
Subsequent hypotheses must acknowledge the specific
context because each tetrad member responds aggres-
sively to unique provocations. Put another way, aggres-
sion appears to be intrinsically interactional.
However, the cognitive mediators of Dark Tetrad vari-
ables have yet to be explored. The General Aggression
Model social knowledge mediators as well as the hostile
attribution bias may help clarify qualitative differences in
aggressive responding. It is through research on such
mediators that the complex personality  situation
effects of the Dark Tetrad on violence can be better
understood.
Conflict of interest
Nothing declared.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr: Personality trait structure as a human
universal. Am. Psychol. 1997, 52:509-516.
2. Buss A, Perry M: The aggression questionnaire. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 1992, 63:452-459.
3. Becker G: The Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire: some
unfinished business. J. Res. Pers. 2007, 41:434-452.
4. Bettencourt BA, Talley A, Benjamin AJ, Valentine J: Personality
 and aggression under provoking and neutral conditions: a
meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 2006, 132:751-777.
This meta-analysis was the first to systematically differentiate predictors
of aggression across situations of provocation. The findings support the
perspective that personality traits interact with situational factors to
influence the likelihood of aggressive behavior.
5. Paulhus DL: Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Curr. Dir.
 Psychol. Sci. 2015, 2:421-426.
This review provides an update on the complete set of dark personalities
known as the Dark Tetrad. They include narcissism, Machiavellianism,
www.sciencedirect.com
 Aggression as a trait: the Dark Tetrad alternative Paulhus, Curtis and Jones 91
psychopathy, and sadistic personality. Rather than clinical or criminal
levels, they are studied at the subclinical or ‘everyday’ level.
6. Brees JR, Mackey JD, Martinko M, Harvey P: The mediating role
of perceptions of abusive supervision in the relationship
between personality and aggression. J. Lead. Org. Stud. 2014,
21:403-413.
7. DeWall CN, Gillath O, Pressman SD, Black LL, Bartz JA,
Moskovitz J, Stetler DA: When the love hormone leads to
violence: oxytocin increases intimate partner violence
inclinations among high trait aggressive people. Soc. Psychol.
Pers. Sci. 2014, 5:691-697.
8. Lobbestael J, Cima M, Lemmens A: The relationship between
personality disorder traits and reactive versus proactive
motivation for aggression. Psychiatry Res. 2015,
229:155-160.
9. Kokko K, Simonton S, Dubow E, Lansford JE, Olson SL,
Huesmann LR, Boxer P, Pulkkinen L, Bates JE, Dodge KA,
Pettit GS: Country, sex, and parent occupational status:
moderators of the continuity of aggression from childhood to
adulthood. Aggress. Behav. 2014, 40:552-567.
10. Kashdan TB, Goodman FR, Mallard TT, DeWall CN: What triggers
anger in everyday life? Links to the intensity, control, and
regulation of these emotions, and personality traits. J. Pers.
2015, 84:737-749.
11. Paulhus DL, Jones DN: Individual differences in aggression. In
Aggression and Violence: A Social Psychological Perspective.
Edited by Bushman BJ. Taylor and Francis; 2016:105-118.
12. Barlett CP, Anderson CA: Direct and indirect relations between
the Big Five personality traits and aggressive and violent
behavior. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2012, 52:870-875.
13. Egan V: The Big Five: neuroticism, extraversion, openness,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness as an organisational
scheme for thinking about aggression and violence. In
Personality Disorder and Violence. Edited by McMurran M, Howard
RC. Wiley & Sons; 2009:63-84.
14. Jones SE, Miller JD, Lynam DR: Personality, antisocial behavior,
and aggression: a meta-analytic review. J. Crim. Justice 2011,
39:329-337.
15. Farrell AH, Della Cioppa V, Volk AA, Book AS: Predicting bullying
heterogeneity with the HEXACO model of personality. Int. J.
Adv. Psychol. 2014, 3:30-39.
16. Raine A: From genes to brain to antisocial behavior. Curr. Dir.
Psychol. Sci. 2008, 17:323-328.
17. Dodge KA, Malone PS, Lansford JE, Sorbring E, Skinner AT,
 Tapanya S, Uribe Tirado LM, Zelli A, Alampay LP, Al-Hassan SM
et al.: Hostile attributional bias and aggressive behavior
in global context. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2015,
112:9310-9315.
One of few aggression studies to incorporate a longitudinal methodology,
this research confirms the case for HAB predicting aggressive behavior
across both culture and time.
18. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ: Human aggression. Ann. Rev.
Psychol. 2002, 53:27-51.
19. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. General aggression model.
Curr. Opin. Psychol. (this issue).
20. Hosie J, Gilbert F, Simpson K, Daffern M: An examination of the
 relationship between personality and aggression using the
general aggression and five factor models. Aggress. Behav.
2014, 40:189-196.
This study shows that although personality traits are associated with
aggression, cognitive processes mediate this relationship, supporting the
General Aggression model (GAM).
21. Book A, Visser BA, Blais J, Hosker-Field A, Methot-Jones T,
Gauthier NY, Volk A, Holden RR, D’Agata MT: Unpacking more
evil: what is the core of the dark tetrad. Pers. Individ. Differ.
2016, 90:269-272.
22. Jones DN, Figueredo AJ: The core of darkness: uncovering the
 heart of the Dark Triad. Euro. J. Pers. 2013, 27:521-531.
www.sciencedirect.com
After extracting the common core of the Dark Triad, the researchers found
that each construct was uniquely related to different forms of aggression.
Psychopathy was positively associated with physical aggression,
Machiavellianism was positively associated with hostility, and Narcissism
was negatively associated with hostility.
23. Jonason PK, Webster GD: The dirty dozen: a concise measure
of the dark triad. Psychol. Assess. 2010, 22:420.
24. Paulhus DL, Jones DN: Measures of dark personalities. In
 Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
Edited by Boyle GJ, Saklofske GJ, Matthews G. Academic Press;
2016:556-563.
This chapter includes a variety of individual measures of narcissism,
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. Also included are two
combination measures: Short Dark Triad and Dirty Dozen.
25. Jones DN, Plouffe, R, Saklofske, D., Buckels EE, Paulhus, DL. A
short measure of the Dark Tetrad (SD4). Unpublished
instrument.
26. Paulhus DL, Neumann CS, Hare RD: Manual for the Self Report
Psychopathy scale. Toronto: Multi-health systems; 2016.
27. Hecht LK, Berg JM, Lilienfeld SO, Latzman RD: Parsing the
heterogeneity of psychopathy and aggression: differential
associations across dimensions and gender. Pers. Disord.
Theory Res. Treat. 2016, 7:2-14.
28. Webster GD, Gesselman AN, Crysel LC, Brunell AB, Jonason PK,
Hadden BW, Smith CV: An actor-partner interdependence
model of the Dark Triad and aggression in couples:
relationship duration moderates the link between
psychopathy and argumentativeness. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2016,
101:196-207.
29. Barnett MD, Powell HA: Self-esteem mediates narcissism and
aggression among women, but not men: a comparison of two
theoretical models of narcissism among college students.
Pers. Individ. Differ. 2016, 89:100-104.
30. Paulhus DL, Robins RW, Trzesniewski KH, Tracy JL: Two
replicable suppressor situations in personality research.
Multivar. Behav. Res. 2004, 39:303-328.
31. Russell TD, King AR: Anxious, hostile, and sadistic: maternal
attachment and everyday sadism predict hostile masculine
beliefs and male sexual violence. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2016,
99:340-345.
32. Jones DN, Neria AL: The Dark Triad and dispositional
aggression. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2015, 86:360-364.
verde V, Chraif M, AniÛei M, Miha
33. Burta ila
 T: The incremental
validity of the dark triad in predicting driving aggression.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 96:1-11.
34. Baughman HM, Dearing S, Giammarco E, Vernon PA:
Relationships between bullying behaviours and the Dark
Triad: a study with adults. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2012, 52:571-575.
35. Westhead J, Egan V: Untangling the concurrent influences of
the Dark Triad, personality and mating effort on violence. Pers.
Individ. Differ. 2015, 86:222-226.
36. Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF, Thomaes S, Ryu E, Begeer S,
West SG: Looking again, and harder, for a link between low
self-esteem and aggression. J. Pers. 2009, 77:427-446.
37. Jones DN, Paulhus DL: Different provocations trigger
 aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Soc. Psychol. Pers.
Sci. 2010, 1:12-18.
Using a white noise paradigm to operationalize aggression, this study
suggests that members of the Dark Triad aggress under different pro-
vocations. Specifically, researchers found that narcissistic individuals are
aggressive in response to an ego threat, while psychopathy uniquely
predicts aggression in the face of a physical provocation.
38. Bushman BJ, Bonacci AM, van Dijk M, Baumeister RF:
Narcissism, sexual refusal, and aggression: testing a
narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 2003, 84:1027-1040.
39. Lämmle L, Oedl C, Ziegler M: Don’t threaten me and my dark
side or even self-harm won’t stop me from hurting you. Pers.
Individ. Differ. 2014, 67:87-91.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:88–92
92 Aggression and violence
40. Buckels EE, Jones DN, Paulhus DL: Behavioral confirmation of
 everyday sadism. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24:2301-2309.
Across two studies, sadism predicted higher willingness and enjoyment
of aggression. Further, those higher in sadism were willing to work to have
an opportunity to be aggressive against an innocent partner.
41. Russell TD, Doan CM, King AR: Sexually violent women: the PID-
5, everyday sadism, and adversarial sexual attitudes predict
female sexual aggression and coercion against male victims.
Pers. Individ. Differ. 2017, 111:242-249.
42. Grigg DW: Cyber-aggression: definition and concept of
cyberbullying. Aust. J. Guid. Couns. 2010, 20:143-156.
43. Buckels EE, Trapnell PD, Paulhus DL: Trolls just want to have
 fun. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2014, 67:97-102.
This study was the first to show that internet trolls have sadistic person-
alities. Moreover, they reported that their primary motivation for trolling
was pleasure, that is, the unique motivator of sadistic personalities.
44. Goodboy AK, Martin MM: The personality profile of a
cyberbully: examining the Dark Triad. Comp. Hum. Behav. 2015,
49:1-4.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:88–92
45. Pabian S, De Backer CJS, Vandebosch H: Dark Triad personality
traits and adolescent cyber-aggression. Pers. Individ. Differ.
2015, 75:41-46.
46. Van Geel M, Goemans A, Toprak F, Vedder P: Which personality
traits are related to traditional bullying and cyberbullying? A
study with the Big Five, Dark Triad and sadism. Pers. Individ.
Differ. 2017, 106:231-235.
47. Kerig PK, Stellwagen KK: Roles of callous-unemotional traits,
 narcissism, and Machiavellianism in childhood aggression.
J. Psychopath. Behav. Assess. 2010, 32:343-352.
Among children, narcissism and Machiavellianism were differentially
associated with manifestations of aggression. Psychopathy was consis-
tently related to all forms of aggression, but Machiavellianism only
predicted relational aggression.
48. Hamel J, Jones DN, Dutton DG, Graham-Kevan N: The CAT: a
gender-inclusive measure of controlling and abusive tactics.
Violence Vict. 2015, 30:547-580.
49. Jones DN, Paulhus DL. Duplicity among the Dark Triad: three
faces of deceit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. (in press).
www.sciencedirect.com