Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 269–272

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Unpacking more “evil”: What is at the core of the dark tetrad?

Angela Book a,⁎, Beth A. Visser b, Julie Blais c, Ashley Hosker-Field a, Tabatha Methot-Jones a,
Nathalie Y. Gauthier a, Anthony Volk a, Ronald R. Holden d, Madeleine T. D'Agata d
a
Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
b
Lakehead University, Orillia, Ontario, Canada
c
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
d
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

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

Article history: Several models have been proposed to explain the overlap in the Dark Triad traits. Research indicates that the
Received 3 November 2015 HEXACO model best accounted for the core of these constructs. “Sadism”, has recently been added to the Triad
Accepted 4 November 2015 resulting in a Dark Tetrad. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether the HEXACO model
Available online xxxx
best accounts for the core of dark-personality traits with the addition of sadism. Four-hundred-and-ninety un-
dergraduate students completed the study online. Although all models were significant, the HEXACO accounted
Keywords:
Dark tetrad
for significantly more variability. Loadings suggest that the core is represented by low Honesty-Humility,
Hexaco Emotionality, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, with Honesty-Humility having the largest impact. Individ-
Honesty-humility ual regressions highlight potential conceptual differences between the dark personalities, though all were
Evil predicted by honesty-humility and agreeableness.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Although many have tried to define/study evil, it is an amorphous
concept (Baron-Cohen, 2011). Definitions include phrases such as
“morally bad” and “causing injury” (Merriam-Webster's online, 2015).
One attempt within psychological research is the Dark Triad (Paulhus
& Williams, 2002), which is comprised of Machiavellianism, psychopa-
thy, and narcissism (Paulhus & Williams), all of which are associated
with many antisocial behaviors (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013),
and the overlap has been labeled “evil” (Book, Visser, & Volk, 2015).
Several theories attempt to explain the “core” of these constructs, in-
cluding Big Five Agreeableness (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), callousness
(Jones & Paulhus, 2010), Factor 1 of psychopathy (Jones & Figueredo,
2013), a fast/exploitive life history strategy (Jonason, Webster, Schmitt,
Li, & Crysel, 2012) and the HEXACO model of personality, with
Honesty-Humility being the strongest predictor (Lee & Ashton, 2005).
Using canonical correlation analyses, Book et al. (2015) found that
the HEXACO personality model, and, in particular, the Honesty-
Humility factor, best accounted for the core of the Triad. Findings also
supported the idea that the overlap in the Triad represents a fast-life-
history strategy characterized by short term mating effort and an
exploitive interpersonal style.
Recently, everyday sadism has been added to the Triad (Buckels,
Jones, & Paulhus, 2013), characterized by the enjoyment of cruelty in ev-
eryday life. Its conceptual overlap with other dark personalities serves as
an impetus for including it in the study of evil behaviors in the form of a
Dark Tetrad (Buckels et al., 2013). In support, research conducted by
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: abook@brocku.ca (A. Book).
Reidy, Zeichner, and Seibert (2011) found that sadism was strongly relat-
ed to psychopathy, and Chabrol, Van Leeuwen, Rodgers, and Séjourné
(2009) found that antisociality was related to sadistic personality, even
when the Dark Triad was held constant. These links, along with the po-
tentially selfish nature of sadism, lead us to suspect that the HEXACO
personality framework may help to also explain sadistic behavior.
The purpose of this study was to directly compare the models above
with respect to the core of the Tetrad. We chose the same models previ-
ously employed as predictors of the Dark Triad (Book et al., 2015),
predicting that the HEXACO personality model would outperform
other theoretical explanations.
Another aim was to examine how sadism fit into the set of dark per-
sonalities. We expected that it would be correlated with other Tetrad
members, and would correlate positively with the tendency to exploit
others (including short-term mating).
Finally, we examined how the HEXACO model related to each of the
individual Tetrad members in order to determine whether the same set
of traits predict each of the Dark personalities. Given that Aghababaei
and Blachnio (2015) found different patterns for the Triad, we expected
to find differences in Tetrad members.
1. Methods
1.1. Participants
Four-hundred-and-ninety undergraduate students (60% women;
age = 19.83, SD = 3.29) completed the measures on Qualtrics and
received course credit.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.009
0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
270 A. Book et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 269–272

1.2. Measures Table 1

Correlations between Dark Tetrad and Study Variables.

All measures were on a five-point scale, from 1(strongly disagree) to Narcissism Psychopathy Machiavellianism Sadism
5 (strongly agree). Psychopathy
Factor 1 .31 .77 .73 .76
1.2.1. Dark Tetrad Factor 2 .28 .78 .52 .67
The Short-Dark-Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) was used to measure Exploitiveness .42 .43 .49 .38
Entitlement .38 .46 .44 .42
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. Sadism was measured
STMO .17 .52 .36 .52
using the 16-item Variety of Sadistic Tendencies scale (Paulhus & Big Five
Jones, 2015). Extraversion .50 .03 (.58) −.28 .26
Agreeableness −.09 (.05) −.59 −.53 −.52
1.2.2. Big Five Personality Model Conscientiousness .03 (.58) −.37 −.26 −.34
Neuroticism −.28 −.01 (.84) .05 (.26) −.16
The Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999) was used to Openness .26 −.12 (.01) .07 (.13) .01 (.84)
measure Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Honesty-Humility −.40 −.61 −.66 −.53
Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Emotionality −.16 −.41 −.27 −.52
Extraversion .51 −.40 −.13 (.003) −.13 (.003)
Agreeableness −.17 −.44 −.42 −.32
1.2.3. Factor 1 and Zero-Empathy Models
Conscientiousness −.04 (.44) .05 (.26) −.13 (.003) −.13 (.003)
The 64-item Self-Report Psychopathy scale (SRP-4; Paulhus, Openness −.11 (.01) −.44 −.42 −.32
Hemphill, & Hare, 2015) includes subscales measuring Interpersonal
Note.N=490, p value in brackets unless p b .001.
Manipulation, Callous Affect, Erratic Lifestyle, and Antisocial Behavior,
also yielding two factor scores (Factor 1: Interpersonal Manipulation
and Callous Affect, and Factor 2: Erratic Lifestyle and Antisocial
Behavior). The zero-empathy model used the Callous Affect subscale, Table 2
as items pertaining to lack of empathy are represented there. Tetrad Intercorrelations.

Psychopathy Machiavellianism Sadism

1.2.4. Fast-life-history strategy
The Exploitation and Entitlement subscales from the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979) were included in this
model. A fast-life-history strategy is really a combination of the
tendency to exploit others, and short-term mating orientation, thus
we included the 10-item Short-Term Mating Orientation from the
Sociosexuality Scale (STMO; Jackson & Kirkpatrick, 2007). Because
Jonason, Li, Webster, and Schmitt (2009) argued that interpersonal ma-
nipulation is an important aspect of a fast-life-history strategy, we in-
cluded the Interpersonal Manipulation subscale from the SRP (below).
1.2.5. HEXACO Personality Model
The 60-item HEXACO-PI (Ashton & Lee, 2009) assessed Honesty-
Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientious-
ness, and Openness to Experience.
2. Results
Bivariate correlations are reported in Table 1. Alpha was set at .01 to
minimize Type I error increases that come with large samples/multiple
tests(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). All Tetrad members were positively
correlated with Factor 1 and 2, STMO, exploitiveness, and entitlement,
and negatively related to Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, and Agree-
ableness. Effect sizes were moderate-to-large for psychopathy, Machia-
vellianism, and Sadism, but small-to-large for narcissism. Findings
support the inclusion of sadism in the Tetrad, even suggesting that sa-
dism is a better fit than narcissism. Intercorrelations between the Tetrad
members (Table 2) find large correlations among psychopathy, Machia-
vellianism, and sadism, with small-to-moderate relationships with
narcissism.
Canonical correlation analyses (CCAs) were conducted using
MANOVA syntax in SPSS20 to test all of the proposed models of the
core. The Big Five model significantly predicted the Tetrad, F(20,
1592.93) = 34.25, p b .001, yielding a λ of .31 indicating that 69% of
the variance in the Dark Tetrad variables was accounted for. The second
model tested the low empathy model, employing the Callous Affect
(CA) subscale of the SRP-III-R. The CCA was significant, F(4, 491) =
243.34, p b .001, accounting for 66% of the variance. Our fast-life-
history strategy model included STMO, Exploitation, Entitlement, and
Interpersonal Manipulation (IPM). The CCA was significant, λ = .22,
F(16, 1421.24) = 57.47, p b .001. Effect size indicated that 78% of the
Narcissism .34 .31 .24
Psychopathy - .63 .69
Machiavellianism - .56
Note. All correlations significant p b .001.
variance in the tetrad variables was accounted. Our Factor 1 model
was also significant, λ = .21, F(8, 974) = 149.31, p b .001, accounting
for 79% of the variance. Our final model used the HEXACO to predict
the Tetrad. The overall CCA was significant, λ = .16, F(24, 1675.73) =
45.48, p b .001, accounting for 84% of the variance.
Comparing the models to the HEXACO model (using Z-tests),
the HEXACO model significantly outperformed the other models
(Table 3), thus, we further interpreted the HEXACO model. Five canon-
ical functions were produced with squared canonical correlations of .81,
.64, .38, and .14. All sets of functions were significant (p values b .02).
Because subsequent functions are difficult to interpret (Sherry &
Henson, 2005), we only interpreted the first. Standardized coefficients
and loadings are in Table 4. Loadings smaller than .30 were not
interpreted. All Tetrad members loaded on the canonical function,
with Narcissism having a much lower, but still large, loading. On the
other side, loadings are negative for Honesty-Humility, Emotionality,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Thus, the core of the Tetrad is
negatively related to Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Agreeableness,
and Conscientiousness, with Honesty-Humility being the largest
contributor.
To examine whether Tetrad members show similar patterns of rela-
tionships with the HEXACO, we ran simultaneous MRAs predicting each
Tetrad variable from the HEXACO. As can be seen in Table 5, all Tetrad
members score low on both Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness. Fur-
ther, psychopathy and sadism share a lack of emotionality and conscien-
tiousness. However, while low Honesty-Humility is the strongest
Table 3
z-tests Comparing HEXACO Model with Other Models on R2c .
Model z p
Big Five 8.47 b .001
Callous Affect 10.93 b .001
Fast Life History 5.78 b .001
Psychopathy Factor 1 4.79 b .001
 A. Book et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 269–272 271

Table 4 while behaving vengefully towards people who try to exploit oneself.
CCA Summary for the HEXACO Model. However, although Honesty-Humility was a significant predictor in all
Function 1 cases, it was only the strongest predictor for psychopathy and Machia-
Standardized Loading
vellianism. The different patterns of beta-weights suggests that while
Coefficient much of the variability is shared, each of the members of the Tetrad is
comprised of different combinations of personality traits. For example,
Honesty-Humility −.60 −.88
Emotionality −.34 −.57 narcissism was best predicted by high levels of social attention seeking
Extraversion (Extraversion) combined with selfish and vengeful tendencies (Hones-
Agreeableness −.29 −.57 ty-Humility/Agreeableness). This fits well with the stereotypical and
Conscientiousness −.18 −.50 conceptual notions of this trait, as individuals seek to publically preen
Openness
Psychopathy .39 .89
their egos with little consideration for the needs or welfare of others
Narcissism .09 .41 (e.g., Carpenter, 2011).
Machiavellianism .38 .85 In contrast, Machiavellianism is hypothesized to be a rational, cost-
Sadism .34 .84 benefit strategy of exploitation, as can be seen in research findings
that Machiavellians are less likely to engage in prosocial/helping behav-
ior when no one is observing them (Bereczkei, Birkas, & Kerekes, 2010).
Table 5 This is consistent with our findings of a strong tendency to exploit
Standardized Regression Coefficients for HEXACO predicting each Dark Personality. others (low Honesty-Humility) combined with an unwillingness to be
Narcissism Psychopathy Machiavellianism Sadism exploited (low Agreeableness). Psychopathy was somewhat similar to,
Honest-Humility −.33 −.38 −.54 −.29
and is fairly strongly correlated with, Machiavellianism. However, psy-
Emotionality −.04 −.25 −.10 −.40 chopathy also included low levels of Conscientiousness (reflecting a
Extraversion .53 −.06 −.10 −.09 lack of planning or effort) combined with a significant degree of callous-
Agreeableness −.15 −.25 −.20 −.15 ness and lack of anxiety (low Emotionality).
Conscientiousness .01 −.18 −.04 −.19
Finally, psychopathy and sadism had similar patterns of relation-
Openness .10 .04 .11 .05
ships with HEXACO traits, with the notable difference that low Emotion-
Note. bolded/italicized coefficients significant at p b .001. ality was the largest predictor of Sadism (rather than Honesty-
Humility). This is consistent with the literature, as sadism is conceptual-
predictor of psychopathy, low Emotionality is the strongest predictor of ly related to the ability to not worry about the pain and suffering of
sadism. Narcissism alone was related to Extraversion. others (Baumeister & Campbell, 1999). The HEXACO appears to support
existing theoretical accounts of the nature of these personalities, and of-
3. Discussion fers researchers a relatively simple, non-clinical tool for measuring
them. Future research should further explore these patterns, and how
The goal of the current study was to extend findings (Book et al., they might relate to external covariates, such as antisocial behavior
2015) identifying the HEXACO model as the best explanation of “evil” and the negative effects of each personality on others, and how they
to the study of the core of the Dark Tetrad. Findings confirmed the utility change or develop over time.
of all tested models. More specifically, low agreeableness (Paulhus &
Williams, 2002), lack of empathy (Jones & Paulhus, 2010), Factor 1 psy- Acknowledgments
chopathy traits (Jones & Figueredo, 2013), fast and exploitive life history
strategies (Jonason et al., 2012), and the HEXACO model of personality This project was funded by an internal grant from Brock University
(Lee & Ashton, 2005), were significantly related to the Tetrad and useful (Council for Research in the Social Sciences (CRISS).
in understanding the overlap between Dark Tetrad members.
Consistent with findings from Book et al. (2015), the HEXACO model
References
outperformed the others. More specifically, the core was related to low
Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, Aghababaei, N., & Blachnio, A. (2015). Well-being and the dark triad. Personality and
Individual Differences, 86, 365–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.043.
with Honesty-Humility identified as the most salient construct. Extra-
Ashton, M.C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: a short measure of the major dimensions
version and Openness to Experience did not have salient loadings, a of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.
finding consistent with the larger literature examining correlations 1080/00223890902935878.
between HEXACO traits and psychopathy (e.g., Lee et al., 2013). Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). The science of evil: On empathy and the origins of cruelty. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
There is overlap between the HEXACO model of personality and Baumeister, R.F., & Campbell, W.K. (1999). The intrinsic appeal of evil: sadism, sensational
several of the alternative models tested above, and as mentioned, all thrills, and threatened egotism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 210–221.
models were significant predictors of the core. For a discussion of the http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_4.
Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2010). The presence of others, prosocial traits, and
conceptual overlap and complimentary nature of these models, see Machiavellianism: a personality by situation approach. Social Psychology, 41,
Book et al. (2015). 238–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000032.
We also examined whether everyday sadism is a plausible addition Book, A.S., Visser, B., & Volk, A. (2015). Unpacking evil: claiming the core of the dark triad.
Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 29–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
to the Dark Triad. As expected, sadism was significantly correlated 2014.09.016.
with the other dark personalities, and showed similar relationships Buckels, E., Jones, D., & Paulhus, D. (2013). Behavioural confirmation of everyday sadism.
with the variables from the models described above. It is impressive Psychological Science, 24, 2201–2209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613490749.
Carpenter, C. (2011). Narcissism on Facebook: self-promotional and anti-social behavior.
that everyday sadism showed larger relationships to Machiavellianism Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 482–486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
and psychopathy, as well as model variables, than did narcissism, 2011.11.011.
indicating that everyday sadism may be a better fit in the Tetrad than Chabrol, H., Van Leeuwen, N., Rodgers, R., & Séjourné, N. (2009). Contributions of psycho-
pathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic personality traits to juvenile delin-
narcissism.
quency. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 734–739. http://dx.doi.org/10.
Given the findings of Aghababaei and Blachnio (2015), we expected 1016/j.paid.2009.06.020.
that the patterns of relationships may differ for the Tetrad members, Evil. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. (Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://
and this was borne out by the results. All of the dark personalities www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil)
Furnham, A., Richards, S., & Paulhus, D. (2013). The dark triad of personality: a ten year
were associated with low Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness. This review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.
suggests that the truest core of “evil” is a tendency to exploit others 1111/spc3.12018.
272 A. Book et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 269–272
Jackson, J.J., & Kirkpatrick, L.A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating
strategies: toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 28, 382–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.005.
John, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L.A. Pervin, & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
theory and research (pp. 102–138) (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Jonason, P.K., Li, N.P., Webster, G.D., & Schmitt, D.P. (2009). The dark triad: facilitating a
short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.698.
Jonason, P.K., Webster, G.D., Schmitt, D.P., Li, N.P., & Crysel, L. (2012). The antihero in pop-
ular culture: Life history theory and the Dark Triad personality traits. Review of
General Psychology, 16, 192–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027914.
Jones, D.N., & Figueredo, A.J. (2013). The core of darkness: uncovering the heart of the dark
triad. European Journal of Personality, 27, 521–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1893.
Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2010). Differentiating the dark triad within the interpersonal
circumplex. In L.M. Horowitz, & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology:
theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 249–268). New York:
Wiley.
Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3): a brief measure
of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1073191113514105.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M.C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the five-
factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 1571–1582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016.
Lee, K., Ashton, M.C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J.S., Visser, B.A., & Gallucci, A. (2013). Money,
power, and sex: prediction from the dark triad and honesty-humility. European Jour-
nal of Personality, 27, 145–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1860.
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). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Paulhus, D.L., & Williams, K.M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: narcissism, Machia-
vellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.
Paulhus, D.L., Hemphill, J.D., & Hare, R.D. (2015). Self-report psychopathy scale: version III.
Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Raskin, R., & Hall, C. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45,
590. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590.
Reidy, D.E., Zeichner, A., & Seibert, L.A. (2011). Unprovoked aggression: effects of psycho-
pathic traits and sadism. Journal of Personality, 79, 75–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2010.00691.x.
Sherry, A., & Henson, R.K. (2005). Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation anal-
ysis in personality research: a user-friendly primer. Journal of Personality Assessment,
84, 37–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8401_09.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.