The Dark Five: A reconsideration of the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4)

IF 3.5 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Personality and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2024.112971

J.J. Crawford , C. Smyth , B.P. Crossey , D. Waldeck

{"title":"The Dark Five: A reconsideration of the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4)","authors":"J.J. Crawford , C. Smyth , B.P. Crossey , D. Waldeck","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2024.112971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The measurement of ‘dark’ personality traits has been shown to be susceptible to error. In particular, the Dark Tetrad is theorized to fit poorly to the 4-factor structure within the SD4 (Paulhus et al., 2021). The present study examined the structural validity of the SD4 by using a dataset of internet users (<em>n</em> = 604). A robust approach to confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the 4-factor model proposed by Paulhus et al. (2021) did not appropriately reflect the data. Alternatively, an exploratory 5-factor model (<em>The Dark Five</em>; including coalition-building, grandiose exhibitionism, psychopathy, violent voyeurism, and indirect sadism) resulted in better statistical fit than the 4-factor model. Moreover, the Dark Five allowed the successful discrimination of psychopathy and sadism and explained more variance in attachment orientation than had the 4-factor model. Future research using the SD4 to measure ‘dark’ personalities or to explore differences between psychopathy and sadism may therefore benefit by testing the 5-factor model or opting for a different measure of the Dark Tetrad.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"235 ","pages":"Article 112971"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886924004318","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The measurement of ‘dark’ personality traits has been shown to be susceptible to error. In particular, the Dark Tetrad is theorized to fit poorly to the 4-factor structure within the SD4 (Paulhus et al., 2021). The present study examined the structural validity of the SD4 by using a dataset of internet users (n = 604). A robust approach to confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the 4-factor model proposed by Paulhus et al. (2021) did not appropriately reflect the data. Alternatively, an exploratory 5-factor model (The Dark Five; including coalition-building, grandiose exhibitionism, psychopathy, violent voyeurism, and indirect sadism) resulted in better statistical fit than the 4-factor model. Moreover, the Dark Five allowed the successful discrimination of psychopathy and sadism and explained more variance in attachment orientation than had the 4-factor model. Future research using the SD4 to measure ‘dark’ personalities or to explore differences between psychopathy and sadism may therefore benefit by testing the 5-factor model or opting for a different measure of the Dark Tetrad.

查看原文本刊更多论文

黑暗五重奏重新考虑短黑暗四分体（SD4）

对 "黑暗 "人格特质的测量容易出现误差。特别是，根据理论，"黑暗四因子 "与 SD4 中的 4 因子结构拟合度较低（Paulhus 等人，2021 年）。本研究使用网民数据集（n = 604）检验了 SD4 的结构有效性。稳健的确认性因子分析方法显示，Paulhus 等人（2021 年）提出的 4 因子模型并不能恰当地反映数据。另外，一个探索性的 5 因子模型（黑暗五因子，包括建立联盟、炫耀性展示癖、精神变态、暴力窥淫癖和间接虐待狂）比 4 因子模型的统计拟合效果更好。此外，与 4 因子模型相比，黑暗五子模型能够成功区分变态心理和虐待狂，并能解释更多依恋取向的变异。因此，未来使用 SD4 来测量 "黑暗 "人格或探索变态心理与虐待狂之间差异的研究，可以通过测试 5 因子模型或选择不同的 "黑暗四因子 "测量方法来获益。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Personality and Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-

CiteScore

8.50

自引率

4.70%

发文量

577

审稿时长

41 days

期刊介绍： Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.