DOCSLIB.ORG

Gullibility: a Review and a Scale

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gullibility: a Review and a Scale Running head: GULLIBILITY: A REVIEW AND A SCALE Gullibility: A Review of the Literature and Devising a Self-Report Measure Alessandra Teunisse Bachelor of Psychology (Honours), Bachelor of Media (Honours) 40323862 Supervisor: Dr Trevor Case Empirical Thesis presented to the Faculty of Human Sciences Department of Psychology Macquarie University Submitted on the 8th of October, 2015, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Research Macquarie University, 2015. GULLIBILITY: A REVIEW AND A SCALE i Table of Contents Gullibility: A Review of the Literature ................................................................................... 1 Defining Gullibility .......................................................................................................... 2 Existing Research ............................................................................................................ 4 Trust and Insensitivity to Untrustworthiness Cues ........................................................ 15 Reducing Sensitivity to Untrustworthiness Cues ........................................................... 22 Motivation ...................................................................................................................... 26 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 28 Gullibility: Devising a Self-Report Measure ........................................................................ 30 Study 1: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Gullibility Items ............................................... 34 Method ............................................................................................................................... 34 Participants ..................................................................................................................... 34 Materials and Procedure ................................................................................................ 35 Overview of Analyses .................................................................................................... 37 Results ............................................................................................................................... 38 Data Preparation ............................................................................................................ 38 Exploratory Factor Analysis .......................................................................................... 38 Descriptive and Demographic Data ............................................................................... 41 Intercorrelations ............................................................................................................. 41 Characteristics of the Gullibility Scale .......................................................................... 42 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 43 Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Gullibility Scale ....................................... 44 Method ............................................................................................................................... 44 Participants ..................................................................................................................... 44 Materials and Procedure ................................................................................................ 46 Overview of the Analyses .............................................................................................. 49 GULLIBILITY: A REVIEW AND A SCALE ii Results ............................................................................................................................... 49 Data Preparation ............................................................................................................ 49 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ....................................................................................... 49 Descriptive and Demographic Data ............................................................................... 55 Intercorrelations ............................................................................................................. 56 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 59 General Discussion ............................................................................................................ 61 References ......................................................................................................................... 64 Appendix A: List of Online Forms .................................................................................... 82 Appendix B: Participant Information and Consent Forms ................................................ 83 Appendix C: Marlowe and Crowne Social Desirability Scale .......................................... 87 Appendix D: Gullibility Item Pool .................................................................................... 89 Appendix E: Demographic Questions for Study 1 ........................................................... 92 Appendix F: Scree Plot of Eigenvalues ............................................................................. 94 Appendix G: Gullibility Scale- Reduced ........................................................................... 95 Appendix H: Tests of Normality for the Reduced Gullibility Scale ................................. 97 Appendix I: Participant Information and Consent Forms ............................................... 100 Appendix J: Interpersonal Trust Scale ............................................................................ 104 Appendix K: Agreeableness Scale .................................................................................. 106 Appendix L: Machiavellianism Personality Scale .......................................................... 107 Appendix M: Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale .............................................................. 108 Appendix N: Demographic Questions for Study 2 ......................................................... 109 Appendix O: Standardised Regression Weights for Models ........................................... 111 Appendix P: Tests of Normality for the final Gullibility Scale and Three Factors ......... 114 Appendix Q: Ethics Approval Letters ............................................................................. 116 GULLIBILITY: A REVIEW AND A SCALE iii List of Tables Table 1. Rotated Factor Matrix .......................................................................................... 40 Table 2. Summary of Descriptive Statistics for the Gullibility and Four Factors .............. 41 Table 3. Intercorrelations Between the Variables .............................................................. 42 Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for the Variables ............................................................... 43 Table 5. Fit Indices for Various Models ............................................................................. 51 Table 6. Item Descriptions .................................................................................................. 54 Table 7. Summary of Descriptive Statistics for the Gullibility Scale Three and Factors ... 56 Table 8. Factor Correlation Matrix .................................................................................... 58 Table 9. Standardised Regression Weights for the Four Factor Model ............................. 111 Table 10. Standardised Regression Weights for the Hierarchical Model .......................... 112 GULLIBILITY: A REVIEW AND A SCALE iv List of Figures Figure 1. Model of the Gullibility Scale with the standardised regression weights ........... 54 GULLIBILITY: A REVIEW AND A SCALE v Abstract Gullibility refers to a vulnerability to being manipulated. Although almost 300,000 people in the United States of America in 2014 fell victim to various scams (Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complaint Center, 2014), this area is surprisingly under researched. The dissertation begins with a review of the empirical literature, drawing together findings from research on the Barnum Effect, superstition, social vulnerability, scam compliance, trust, social intelligence, deception detection, and Theory of Mind. The review concludes by arguing that insensitivity to signs of untrustworthiness may be central to understanding the propensity for gullibility. Following the review, two empirical studies describe the development of a self-report measure of gullibility. In Study 1 (N = 371), a pool of items were generated and administered in an anonymous online survey. Demographic items and a measure of social desirability were also administered. An exploratory factor analysis produced a 35-item scale consisting of four factors labelled Persuadable, Trust, Unassertive, and Unsuspecting, which were not related to social desirability. In Study 2, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using a new sample (N = 325). Respondents completed the Gullibility Scale as well as measures of trust, agreeableness, Machiavellianism, and social intelligence. On the basis of the confirmatory factor analysis, the Trust factor was removed, which reduced the measure to a reliable 24-item scale, consisting of three factors. The Gullibility Scale had a moderate negative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Solution for Elder Bullying
    WIEGAND.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/27/2020 11:06 AM “LIKE MEAN GIRLS, BUT EVERYONE IS EIGHTY”: A SOLUTION FOR ELDER BULLYING Brittany Wiegand* Bullying has long been an adolescent issue. With the elderly population ever-growing, however, so too does the incidence of elder bullying. Bullying behaviors often occur in small group settings with members who interact regularly, such as in schools. Senior living communities also fit this description. Bullies in senior communities may engage in verbal and even physical abuse; in the worst cases, bullying can be fatal. Instances of bullying among older adults are likely to increase in frequency as this population grows. This Note evaluates current federal and state laws that bullying victims might use to seek redress. It argues that current state laws should be amended to include seniors by aligning laws with research-based definitions of bullying. This Note also recommends providing a private right of action and implementing research-based programming in communal living centers. I. Introduction Flipped tables and false accusations: two unlikely scenes from a nursing home. Though one might expect something like this to occur at a middle school, each is only a minor component of one woman’s ex‐ perience in an elderly living community where she faced a torrent of physical and verbal abuse from other residents due to her sexual orien‐ tation.1 Brittany Wiegand is the Editor‐in‐Chief 2019–2020, Member 2018–2019, The Elder Law Journal; J.D. 2020, University of Illinois, Urbana‐Champaign; M.A. 2011, Curriculum & Instruction, Louisiana State University; B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biological Basis of Human Irrationality
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 119 041 CG 010 346 AUTHOR Ellis, Albert TITLE The Biological Basis of Human Irrationality. PUB DATE 31 Aug 75 NOTE 42p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (83rd, Chicago, Illinois, August 30-September 2, 1975) Reproduced from best copy available EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage DESCRIPTORS *Behavioral Science Research; *Behavior Patterns; *Biological Influences; Individual Psychology; *Psychological Patterns; *Psychological Studies; Psychotherapy; Speeches IDENTIFIERS *Irrationality ABSTRACT If we define irrationality as thought, emotidn, or behavior that leads to self-defeating consequences or that significantly interferes with the survival and happiness of the organism, we find that literally hundreds of major irrationalities exist in all societies and in virtually all humans in those societies. These irrationalities persist despite people's conscious determination to change; many of them oppose almost all the teachings of the individuals who follow them; they persist among highly intelligent, educated, and relatively undisturbed individuals; when people give them up, they usually replace them with other, sometimes just as extreme, irrationalities; people who strongly oppose them in principle nonetheless perpetuate them in practice; sharp insight into them or their origin hardly removes them; many of them appear to stem from autistic invention; they often seem to flow from deepseated and almost ineradicable tendencies toward human fallibility, overgeneralization, wishful thinking, gullibility, prejudice, and short-range hedonism; and they appear at least in part tied up with physiological, hereditary, and constitutional processes. Although we can as yet make no certain or unqualified claim for the biological basis of human irrationality, such a claim now has enough evidence behind it to merit serious consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Reactions to Flattery As a Function of Self- Esteem
    Br. I. soc. din. Psychol. (1978), 17, 25-29 Printed in Great Britain 25 Reactions to flattery as a function of self-esteem: Self-enhancement and cognitive consistency theories Andrew M. Colman and Kevin R. Olver Male subjects who had previously scored either very high or very low on a self-esteem scale were interviewed about personal characteristics, biographical details, social activities, etc. They then received, via closed-circuit television, flattering or neutral character assessments which were apparently based on their performance in the interviews. A highly significant interaction (P< 0.(01) showed that whereas the subjects of high self-esteem responded with far greater liking for the evaluator in the flattery than in the neutral condition, those of low self-esteem somewhat preferred the neutral evaluator. These findings provide clear-cut support for the cognitive consistency theory regarding reactions to flattery, but do not rule out a concomitant though weaker self-enhancement effect. One of the most well-established techniques of ingratiation encountered in everyday social interaction is flattery, or what Edward Jones (1964), in his influential monograph, calls 'complimentary other-enhancement'. An admonition given great prominence in Dale Carnegie's best-selling manual, How to Win Friends and Influence People (Carnegie, 1936), is to 'dole out praise lavishly', and there is now a considerable body of empirical evidence indicating that people do indeed typically increase their liking for someone who expresses approval of them (e.g. Backman & Secord, 1959; Jones, Gergen & Davis, 1962). From a common-sense point of view these findings are not surprising, although as Jones has pointed out, one might expect excessive flattery to backfire in certain circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Insincere Flattery Actually Works: a Dual Attitudes Perspective
    ELAINE CHAN and JAIDEEP SENGUPTA This research uses a dual attitudes perspective to offer new insights into flattery and its consequences. The authors show that even when flat- tery by marketingagentsis accompanied by an obvious ulterior motive that leads targets to discount the proffered compliments, the initial favor- able reaction (the implicit attitude) continues to coexist with the dis- counted evaluation (the explicit attitude). Furthermore, the implicit attitude has more influential consequences than the explicit attitude, highlighting the possible subtle impact of flattery even when a person has consciously corrected for it. The authors also clarify the underlyingprocess by show- inghow and why the discrepancy between the implicit and explicit atti- tudes induced by flattery may be reduced. Collectively, the findings from this investigation provide implications for both flattery research and the dual attitudes literature. Keywords: flattery, implicit attitudes, dual attitudes, persuasion, long-term consequences Insincere Flattery Actually Works: A Dual Attitudes Perspective Flattery—the art of offering pleasing compliments—is In cases such as these, in which the prospective con- one of the oldest and most commonly used of persuasion sumer is aware of a clear ulterior motive underlying the methods. Research in this area provides a reason for the compliment, both research (e.g., Campbell and Kirmani popularity of this tactic. Put simply, flattery works. Various 2000; Vonk 1998) and intuition suggest that recipients will studies have shown that the target of the flattery evaluates discount the flattering comments and correct their other- the flatterer positively because human beings have a basic wise favorable reactions. Though in partial agreement with desire to believe in good things about themselves (Fogg this premise, the current investigation proposes that despite and Nass 1997; Gordon 1996; Vonk 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Polarization Or an Epidemic of Gullibility?
    This issue snapshot is excerpted from Unmasking the Future (2021), a scan of major current socio-economic trends and developments, at local, provincial, national and international scales, authored by James Stauch of the Institute for Community Prosperity, commissioned by the Calgary Foundation. NOT OK, BOOMER: Polarization or an Epidemic of Gullibility? “Americans need to call on Boomers, The admittedly ageist meme “OK, Boomer” rose to prominence in late 2019, first on TikTok, in their next act onstage, to behave then in the UK parliament to mock attitudes presumed to be associated with people born like grown-ups. And there is no in the two decades following World War II. The phrase knowingly exploits the irony of baby better way for them to do this than boomers critiquing younger generations for being idealist and utopian, but also expresses to guide young people to lives of an exhaustion with having to “inherit ever-amplifying problems in an ever-diminishing greater meaning, effectiveness, and window of time”, according to one British parliamentarian who used the term in the House purpose.” of Commons. Eric Liu It turns out that the baby boom generation is shaping up to be the most reactionary, conspiracy-loving, civically disruptive generation since the days when national socialism and Bolshevism were mainstream. And this is directly tied to uncritical dependence on “Falsehood flies, and truth comes social media. The internet-fueled “outrage-ification” of Americans and an increasing limping after it.” number of Canadians, skews disproportionately
    [Show full text]
  • Why Are Some People More Gullible Than Others? 31 March 2017, by Joseph Paul Forgas
    Why are some people more gullible than others? 31 March 2017, by Joseph Paul Forgas Credulity is closely related, a willingness to believe unlikely propositions with no evidence behind them. April Fool's tricks often work because they exploit our baseline inclination to accept direct communications from others as reliable and trustworthy. When a colleague tells you the boss wants to see you immediately, the first, automatic reaction is to believe them. Once we realise this is April 1, a more critical mindset will increase our threshold of acceptance Lies, pranks and April Fool’s Day jokes show how and triggers more thorough processing. Rejection is gullible we can sometimes be. Credit: then likely unless there is strong corroborating www.shutterstock.com evidence. Do we want to be gullible? Homo sapiens is probably an intrinsically gullible So, it seems that gullibility and credulity have to do species. We owe our evolutionary success to with how we think, and the level of proof we need culture, our unique ability to receive, trust and act before accepting information as valid. on stories we get from others, and so accumulate a shared view about the world. In a way, trusting In most face-to-face situations, the threshold of others is second nature. acceptance is fairly low, as humans operate with a "positivity bias" and assume most people act in an But not everything we hear from others is useful or honest and genuine way. even true. There are countless ways people have been misled, fooled and hoaxed, sometimes for Of course, this is not always so; others often want fun, but more often, for profit or for political gain.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defence of Gullibility: the Epistemology of Testimony and the Psychology of Deception Detection
    Synthese (2010) 176:399–427 DOI 10.1007/s11229-009-9573-1 In defence of gullibility: the epistemology of testimony and the psychology of deception detection Kourken Michaelian Received: 3 October 2008 / Accepted: 12 May 2009 / Published online: 24 May 2009 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 Abstract Research in the psychology of deception detection implies that Fricker, in making her case for reductionism in the epistemology of testimony, overestimates both the epistemic demerits of the antireductionist policy of trusting speakers blindly and the epistemic merits of the reductionist policy of monitoring speakers for trust- worthiness: folk psychological prejudices to the contrary notwithstanding, it turns out that monitoring is on a par (in terms both of the reliability of the process and of the sensitivity of the beliefs that it produces) with blind trust. The consequence is that while (a version of) Fricker’s argument for the necessity of a reduction succeeds, her argument for the availability of reductions fails. This does not, however, condemn us to endorse standard pessimistic reductionism, according to which there is no testimonial knowledge, for recent research concerning the methods used by subjects to discover deception in non-laboratory settings suggests that only a more moderate form of pes- simism is in order. Keywords Epistemology · Testimony · Monitoring · Deception 1 Monitoring and blind trust in the epistemology of testimony In a pair of oft-cited papers (Fricker 1994, 1995)—see also Fricker (1987, 2002, 2004, 2006a,b,c)—Fricker makes an intuitively compelling case for local reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. Against the antireductionist, she argues that a reduction of testimonial justification1 (the justification of testimonial beliefs) is necessary: if her 1 Or testimonial knowledge; see Sect.2.
    [Show full text]
  • DISSERTATION: a Systems Approach To
    A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL SETTING A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION OF AURORA UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION BY BETH PLACHETKA MARCH 17, 2014 2 College of Education Aurora University Ed.D. Program Aurora University Accepted by the faculty of the College of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Education in the College of Education, Aurora University. Doctoral Committee Faith Wilson Ed.D Chair Fred McKenzie, Ph.D Member Ronald Banaszak, Ph. D Member Maribeth Juraska, Ed.D Member March 17, 2014 Date iii ABSTRACT A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL SETTING By BETH PLACHETKA Committee Members: Faith Wilson, Ed.D, Chair Fred McKenzie, Ph.D, committee member Ronald Banaszak, Ed.D, committee member Maribeth Juraska, Ed.D, committee member This qualitative study investigates and describes the lived experience of and meaning applied to the phenomenon of workplace bullying in the K-12 educational setting using system theory as the framework. Descriptors of the participants: bully, target and witness, are operationalized as well as the mental, emotional, physical, social and financial impact and the impact on teacher performance. Twelve self-identified targets or witnesses were chosen from a pool of 57 respondents who completed an online survey delineating the characteristics and impact of workplace bullying. Scenarios of the participants’ experiences offer insight into the emotional experience of the participant while participant interviews reveal the reality of workplace bullying in the K-12 public educational setting as well as the characteristics of targets, bullying behaviors, reality of the personal and professional impact on the individuals and the educational system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emotion Deception Model: a Review of Deception in Negotiation and the Role of Emotion in Deception Joseph P
    Negotiation and Conflict Management Research The Emotion Deception Model: A Review of Deception in Negotiation and the Role of Emotion in Deception Joseph P. Gaspar1 and Maurice E. Schweitzer2 1 Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, Newark and New Brunswick, NJ, U.S.A. 2 Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. Keywords Abstract deception, emotion, ethics, negotiation, trust. Deception is pervasive in negotiations. Negotiations are characterized by information asymmetries, and negotiators often have both opportunities Correspondence and incentives to mislead their counterparts. Effective negotiators need to Joseph P. Gaspar, Department contend with the risk of being deceived, effectively respond when they of Management and Global identify deception, and manage the temptation to use deception them- Business, Rutgers Business selves. In our review of deception research, we integrate emotion School, Rutgers University, 1 Washington Park, Newark, NJ research. Emotions are both an antecedent and a consequence of decep- 07102, U.S.A.; e-mail: tion, and we introduce the emotion deception model (EDM) to represent [email protected]. these relationships. Our model broadens our understanding of deception in negotiations and accounts for the important role of emotions in the deception decision process. On November 16, 1963, Steven Slotkin was born in New York’s Beth-El Hospital. As a result of medical negligence, Steve’s brain was damaged prior to delivery. He was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and was paralyzed, requiring constant care for the duration of his life. The Slotkins filed a malpractice lawsuit (Slotkin v. Beth-El Hospital, 1971) against the hospital and negotiated a settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Sexual Abuse: Prevention and Treatment. Continuing Education Manual. INSTITUTION Eastern Mighican Univ., Ypsilanti
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 258 103 CG 018 306 AUTHOR Stovall, Bennie TITLE Child Sexual Abuse: Prevention and Treatment. Continuing Education Manual. INSTITUTION Eastern Mighican Univ., Ypsilanti. Dept. of Social Work. SPONS AGENCY Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (DHHS), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 82 GRANT DHHS-TE-MI-0181 NOTE 133p.; For related document, see,CG 018 307. AVAILABLE FROMEastern Michigan University, Department of Social Work, 421 King Hall, Ypsilanti, MI 48197 ($10.00). PUB TYPE Guides - Non-Classroom Use (055) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Adolescents; *Child Abuse; *Child Neglect; Children; *Clinical Diagnosis; Continuing Ed.ication; Family Environment; Family Violence; Incest; Independent Study; Instructional Materials; Parent Child Relationship; *Prevention; Resource Materials; *Sexual Abuse; *Social Workers; Workshops IDENTIFIERS Michigan ABSTRACT This self-study manual, for use by individualsor groups, was developed for social work practitioners, and focuseson total family assessment to determine prevention and treatment intervention in cases of child sexual abuse and neglect. The introduction presents the philosophy of continuing educationon which the manual is based, an overview of child sexual abuse, anda discussion of the purpose of the manual. Section II outlinesthree suggested formats (3-hour workshop, 2-day workshop, anda col.rse outline) for presenting the material togroups. Section III, the major portion of the manual, consists of the following materials: suggestions for use ci the manual; a discusssion of myths concerning child sexual abuse; Michigan criminal sexual conduct and child protection law; a definition of child sexual abuse; charts of J'a dynamics in child sexual abuse cases, family diagnosis, andsta,,s the family"life cycle; a discussion of diagrammatic assessmentof family relationships; a diagnostic guide; indications for conjoint evaluation; an outline of a problem- solving model;a model for practice; and lists of audiovisuals and additionalresources.
    [Show full text]
  • Backhanded Compliments: How Negative Comparisons Undermine Flattery
    Backhanded Compliments: How Negative Comparisons Undermine Flattery Ovul Sezer Alison Wood Brooks Michael I. Norton Working Paper 18-082 Backhanded Compliments: How Negative Comparisons Undermine Flattery Ovul Sezer University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Alison Wood Brooks Harvard Business School Michael I. Norton Harvard Business School Working Paper 18-082 Copyright © 2018 by Ovul Sezer, Alison Wood Brooks, and Michael I. Norton Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Backhanded Compliments 1 Backhanded Compliments: How Negative Comparisons Undermine Flattery Ovul Sezera,* Kenan-Flagler Business School University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Alison Wood Brooksb Michael I. Nortonb Harvard Business School *Corresponding author. Ovul Sezer ([email protected]), Phone: +1 16179595721 a Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box 3490, McColl Building, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA b Soldiers Field Road, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 02163 USA Backhanded Compliments 2 Abstract Seven studies (N = 2352) examine backhanded compliments—seeming praise that draws a comparison with a negative standard—a distinct self-presentation strategy with two simultaneous goals: eliciting liking (“Your speech was good…”) and conveying status (“…for a woman”). Backhanded compliments are common, from delivering feedback in work settings to communicating in casual conversation, and take several distinct forms (Studies 1a-b). Backhanded compliments have mixed effectiveness, as people who deliver backhanded compliments erroneously believe that they will both convey high status and elicit liking (Studies 2a-2b) but recipients and third-party evaluators grant them neither (Study 3a-3b); however, backhanded compliments are successful in reducing recipients’ motivation (Study 3c).
    [Show full text]
  • The Dirty Dozen: a Concise Measure of the Dark Triad
    Psychological Assessment © 2010 American Psychological Association 2010, Vol. 22, No. 2, 420–432 1040-3590/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019265 The Dirty Dozen: A Concise Measure of the Dark Triad Peter K. Jonason Gregory D. Webster University of West Florida University of Florida There has been an exponential increase of interest in the dark side of human nature during the last decade. To better understand this dark side, the authors developed and validated a concise, 12-item measure of the Dark Triad: narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism. In 4 studies involving 1,085 participants, they examined its structural reliability, convergent and discriminant validity (Studies 1, 2, and 4), and test–retest reliability (Study 3). Their measure retained the flexibility needed to measure these 3 independent-yet-related constructs while improving its efficiency by reducing its item count by 87% (from 91 to 12 items). The measure retained its core of disagreeableness, short-term mating, and aggressiveness. They call this measure the Dirty Dozen, but it cleanly measures the Dark Triad. Keywords: Dark Triad, narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, measurement The Dark Triad is a term used to describe a constellation of quiring scores on each measure to be standardized (Jonason, Li, three socially undesirable personality traits: narcissism, psychop- Webster, & Schmitt, 2009). athy, and Machiavellianism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Research Second, assessing the Dark Triad’s 91 items is inefficient, on the Dark Triad has increased exponentially over the last decade. time-consuming, and may cause response fatigue in some partic- An analysis of Google Scholar hit counts for “Dark Triad” in ipants. When studying the Dark Triad and one or more other scientific works reveals an explosive increase from one in 2002 to measures of interest (e.g., self-esteem, Big Five personality traits), at least 38 in 2009.
    [Show full text]