Facebook image: SpeedKingz/Shutterstock
... and how we can protect ourselves.
Recently, I enjoyed the opportunity to email interview Thorsten Quandt, professor and dean at the University of Münster in the Department of Communication, about his substantial work on "dark participation," a term he originated to describe the “bleak flip side” to selfless, democratically motivated participation in online media. Dr. Quandt is a primary investigator on such topics as disinformation on social media, digital games, participatory journalism, conspiracy theory and online belief communities ("patchwork religions"), and how social issues emerge in our complex media environment.
Grant Hilary Brenner: What is "dark participation"?
Thorsten Quandt: Dark participation is marked by negative, selfish, or even deeply sinister contributions. I introduced this concept to challenge the normative—or, depending on one's viewpoint, utopian—idea of participation that was extremely popular in the early 2000s.
At that time, academics were very enthusiastic about online communication's potential, dreaming of a society where everyone would engage in democratic discourse. They viewed online communication as a potential “savior” for democracy and Western liberal ideals. The unrestricted flow of information, where everybody contributes, was even seen as a way to overthrow dictators and authoritarian regimes. While this might sound naïve now, only a few scholars anticipated the rise of large-scale online hate or manipulation through fake content. Even fewer envisioned a scenario where said regimes would exploit a darker form of participation for their ends.
So this idealistic view of participation collided with the more complex realities of human nature and societal behaviors. Clearly, not everyone is motivated to participate, and when they do, their motivations often diverge from the altruistic desire to benefit democracy or the well-being of others.
GHB: Why is the concept of dark participation particularly timely now?
TQ: There's been an uptick in behaviors that deviate from the idealized notion of participation. Today, academics are deeply concerned about issues like toxicity, hate speech, incivility, fake news, and disinformation, seeing them as major threats to open, democratic societies. This perspective has become dominant in parts of media psychology, sociology, and communication studies. Dark participation encompasses a model that captures all these behaviors.
The model delineates the actors, motivations, targets, audiences, and process logics of dark participation. It has proven to be useful for scholars who want to integrate their research into an overarching theoretical concept. Unlike many models that focus on specific behaviors, this one ties back to broader social and communicative principles.
GHB: How does dark participation relate to the dark personality traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and everyday sadism?
TQ: The “dark” in the term hints at a connection, and that is no coincidence. It is evident that dark personality traits can drive the behaviors described in the dark-participation framework. For example, those high in traits like Machiavellianism and psychopathy might instrumentally use online communication as a tool to manipulate others, and indeed, excel at doing so. However, it's important not to oversimplify; some of the behaviors under the umbrella of dark participation serve a rational purpose from the perspective of the perpetrators and may even contribute to their personal well-being. Not all negative behaviors online are linked to dark personality traits. One does not have to be a sadist to humiliate others on the internet! In fact, it would be intriguing to reverse the research direction here and to explore how these traits might lead to normatively positive forms of participation.
GHB: What common behaviors make up dark participation (trolling, gaslighting, misinformation/disinformation, and more)?
TQ: The dark participation model, as presented in the original publication, distinguishes between different actors, motivations, targets, audiences, and process logics. So it is generally applicable, and there is a range of behaviors that can be identified as dark participation—from individual and erratic trolling “just for fun” to systematic cyberbullying by groups to large-scale, orchestrated disinformation campaigns.
How did the concept of dark participation originate?
TQ: My involvement in research on the enthusiastic participation literature led me to reflect on the limitations of normative thinking so prevalent in the early 2000s. Fortunately, I had the option to publish in a special issue of an open-access journal, and the special issue editor, Oscar Westlund, allowed me the freedom to experiment and think out of the box. That’s a rare thing in today’s academic publishing world! I'd encourage reading the original article in a linear fashion and its entirety, as it does a few things that you usually don’t do in academic articles.
Spoiler ahead: It not only deconstructs the original concept of participation, but also the one-sided dystopian concept introduced in the article itself. It is deliberately written to convince the reader of one side, and then to reveal the normative side of that thinking as well. Dark participation was never meant as a one-sided “doom and gloom” concept but as a deliberate deconstruction of polarized black-and-white perspectives. Naturally, there are said phenomena under the umbrella term “dark participation”—but there are also the positive options still out there, and behaviors that cannot be simply categorized into good vs. bad.
GHB: How does dark participation relate to the future? What might we do to combat this growing phenomenon?
TQ: First of all: Some of these behaviors are a “normal” part of societal communication, so we have to accept and embrace them in open democracies. Not every stupid nonsense on the internet is a danger to society!
However, when behaviors intentionally harm others or threaten democratic foundations, they cross a line. Many democracies have responded with regulations, and platforms have been reminded of their responsibilities. That’s the legal side. There's also the avenue of media education, which can be effective but costly. Whatever we do, we must be careful that we do not compromise the freedom of expression in exchange for controlling dark participation. If monitoring is used to control conversations, it can easily lead down a path of democratic self-destruction.
GHB: If you imagine the world 20 years in the future, what do you envision?
TQ: I hope for a world that has learned to deal with these challenges. A world with greater resilience, an ability to expose manipulation, but one that remains open and democratic. We need debate and, to some extent, also conflict. That's part of the principle. However, this might sound quite utopian again, so I better be careful now!
GHB: What do you recommend for people seeking to navigate the current environment?
TQ: Better media training is crucial. While many people know how to use the internet, many struggle to identify disinformation—even very well-educated ones. This training should start early in schools and continue into adulthood. Adults must hone their individual research skills. It's also beneficial to expose oneself to multiple perspectives—it doesn’t hurt to know the position and argument of people with a different or even opposing mindset. And if everything else fails, there's always the option of legal action or platform intervention. That’s not always effective, but many people do not even try. And we shouldn't let platforms off the hook too easily.
Thorsten Quandt is a Professor of Online Communication at the University of Münster, Germany. His work focuses on societal changes connected to the internet and new media. Recent research includes studies on “dark participation”, online propaganda, dysfunctional online use, and the transformation of public communication. Quandt has been a visiting professor at Stanford University, the University of Oxford, the University of California (Santa Barbara), and the University of British Columbia Vancouver, and he has published more than 200 scientific articles.
What to do if you've gotten close to a narcissist, Machiavellian, or psychopath.
KEY POINTS
- The three Dark Triad personality subtypes are narcissistic, Machiavellian, and psychopathic.
- People possessing Dark Triad personalities tend to have unstable relationships and take advantage of others.
- One who becomes involved with [or was unfortunate enough to be born to a family with] someone with a Dark Triad personality should find support from others to shore up and defend their sense of self.
In 2002, psychologists Delroy Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams identified a trio of personality types that are commonly recognized as pathological, but which do not meet strict criteria for personality disorder or for Axis I pathology. Because this set of personality types includes psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism, it has become known as the Dark Triad. People with any of these distinct and unpleasant traits may not meet the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder or anti-social personality disorder, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do any harm. Here’s how to identify people like this, and what to do if you encounter them.
If you’ve never met someone with a Dark Triad personality, consider yourself lucky: These traits are reasonably common in our culture, according to Thomas Plante, professor of psychology at Santa Clara University. In fact, contemporary American society may even reward or reinforce the self-serving behavior that the Dark Triad engenders. Dark Triad types’ lack of empathy and tendency to manipulate others usually causes their relationships to be one-sided and difficult: Research on the Dark Triad has associated the traits with significant problems in relationships, and with a wide range of unpleasant interpersonal behavior. This means aggression, violence, coercion, or manipulation in the workplace (Kaufman et al, 2019) or hedonism, one-night stands, and “using” people for sex (Jonason et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2013; Kajonius et al., 2015; Jonason and Ferrell, 2016; Balakrishna et al., 2017). It might best sum up the Dark Triad personality to say that it has even been associated with the Seven Deadly Sins (Veselka et al., 2014; Jonason et al., 2017, as reported in Kaufman et al., 2019).
How Dark Triad personalities differ
To be more specific about Dark Triad personality expression, one must distinguish its three separate types from each other. First, narcissists — in the popular sense — correspond exactly to what you’d expect: They’re vain, grandiose, entitled, and possess an unearned sense of superiority. By contrast, Machiavellians are predominantly manipulative and deceptive, and often seek self-gratification at the expense of others. Worst of all, psychopathic personality types — sometimes called sociopathic or antisocial — are characterized by callous, remorseless impulsivity and a near-total lack of empathy. All three of these personalities, according to Darlene Lancer on Psychology Today, tend to “act aggressively out of self-interest,” and will “violate social norms and moral values” by lying, cheating, stealing, and bullying their way to get what they want.
The three Dark Triad subtypes also differ in ways that psychological research has isolated. According to Paulhus & Williams (2002), the only Big Five personality factor common among all three subtypes was a lack of agreeableness — a distinct “disagreeableness,” one might politely say. Subclinical psychopaths stand out from the other two types by being the least neurotic — that is, least prone to feelings of worry or guilt. This makes a certain amount of sense, in that the brains of sociopaths have been found to show fewer connections between the neurological regions from which anxiety is derived (according to researchers at the University of Wisconsin at Madison). Psychopaths, as well as Machiavellians, displayed low conscientiousness (that is, they do not appear to feel any desire to "do the right thing”), and narcissists generally showed the expected tendency toward self-enhancement.
What to do if you're in a relationship with a Dark Triad personality
So, what should you do if you find yourself in a relationship with a Dark Triad personality? Get away, according to psychotherapist and author Paul Hokemeyer, Ph.D. You may initially believe you are making the acquaintance a charismatic, glamorous new friend, but people with Dark Triad personalities can’t sustain this positive charade for long (according to Hokemeyer). You may notice that your new acquaintance often talks about being victimized by others; you might also notice alarming inconsistencies in the stories they tell. Or you may start to feel as though you serve their chronic need for validation.
If and when you end up getting close to someone like this, be sure to maintain alternative sources of support in your life (such as other close friends, family members, or a trusted therapist). Don't allow yourself to be isolated. Ultimately, as Hokemeyer says, people with Dark Triad personalities are not likely to change much as they age, so you may have to bring an unambiguous end to the relationship. If you need to discontinue a relationship like this, seek support from people who do not manipulate or control you so that you can preserve and defend your sense of self.
Be cautious of those who fit the profile of the Dark Triad.
Think of the Dark Triad of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism as the Bermuda Triangle – it’s perilous to get near it! The traits of all three often overlap and create personality profiles that are damaging and toxic, especially when it comes to intimate relationships, where we let our guard down.
One woman was the subject of identity fraud. Her bank accounts and credit cards were compromised. At the time, she was in love with her boyfriend who lived with her in her apartment. She was speaking regularly with the FBI and suffered extreme anxiety and emotional stress. The authorities were unsuccessful in finding the culprit.
Her fiancé was very supportive in doing research to try to find him. He comforted her, occasionally bought her gifts, and paid her monthly rent out of money she gave him. When eventually the landlord confronted her about months of delinquency, she realized that the criminal was in fact her own boyfriend, who had been pocketing her rent money, except to buy her gifts. Her denial made it difficult to accept the truth about his ruthless gaslighting.
What is the Dark Triad?
This popular term was coined in 2002 by Paulhus and Williams. Dark Triad refers to three unusually negative personality traits – narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. The latter two share more traits with each other than with narcissists. Generally, the term refers to individuals with “subclinical” symptoms, meaning that they may not necessarily fully have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or anti-social personality disorder (ASPD). Machiavellianism arose out of Machiavelli’s philosophy and is not a mental health disorder.
- Narcissism is characterized by the pursuit of ego gratification, vanity, a sense of superiority, grandiosity, dominance, and entitlement.
- Machiavellianism is marked by manipulation – a calculating, duplicitous, and amoral personality, focused on self-interest and personal gain.
- Psychopathy is distinguished by callousness, impulsivity, and enduring antisocial and bold behavior.
Common Dark Triad Traits
Recent comparative research on the Dark Triad has attempted to analyze differences among these three malevolent personalities. To varying degrees, all act aggressively out of self-interest and lack empathy and remorse. They’re skilled at manipulation and exploit and deceive others, though their motivations and tactics vary. They violate social norms and moral values and lie, deceive, cheat, steal, and bully. It’s thought that genetic factors underlie their personality to some degree.
Machiavellianism and psychopathy are more closely correlated due to their malicious behavior; whereas narcissists are defensive and more fragile. This is because their grandiosity and arrogance is a façade for deeper feelings of inadequacy. (See “Relationships with Narcissists.”) Men outnumber women, primarily when psychopathic traits were measured (i.e., not just deceit, manipulation, etc.). This difference is linked to the overt antisocial behavior associated with psychopathy, suggesting that it may be due to biological factors, such as testosterone, as well as social norms.
All three types (narcissism to a lesser degree) scored low on agreeableness, measured by the Big Five personality test that assesses extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Agreeableness differs from charm and charisma. It involves trustworthiness, unselfishness, straightforwardness, compliance, kindness, and modesty, which are essential for good relationships.
Machiavellians and psychopaths are more lacking in conscientiousness. (Why work when you can cheat and steal!) Psychopaths have the lowest level of neuroticism or negative emotions, which makes them the most sinister. Predictably, narcissists were more open and much more extroverted. Openness correlates with evidence that narcissists tend to be creative.
Deception
All three personalities lack honesty and humility, which includes sincerity, faithfulness, lack of greed, and fairness. A study of cheating revealed that all three cheat when the risk of getting caught is low. When the risk is high, psychopaths and Machiavellians (when their energy for thinking is low) cheat. Both will intentionally lie. Narcissists have high levels of self-deception rather than intentional dishonesty.
Psychosocial Consequences
The comparative research examined a variety of behaviors, including aggression (bullying, sadism, aggression, and violence), erratic lifestyle (impulsivity, risk-taking, and substance use), sexual activity (bizarre fantasies, infidelity, and sexual harassment), socio-emotional deficits (lack of empathy, low emotional intelligence, and theory of mind, i.e., to attribute own and others’ mental states), poor well-being (depression, loneliness, and stress), interpersonal problems (dominance, entitlement, and self-aggrandizement), immorality (lack of values, “deadly sins,” and moral disengagement, i.e. “standards don’t apply to me”), and antisocial tactics (cheating, lying, and negative humor).
Machiavellians and psychopaths scored higher in these psychosocial issues; psychopaths twice as high as narcissists. The highest scores were among psychopaths, with aggression being the highest trait. Narcissists scored in the categories of aggression, sexual issues, interpersonal difficulties, and antisocial tactics. Among all three personalities, most of the high scores were due to psychopathic traits. When those were controlled (removed), narcissism still accounted for interpersonal difficulties.
Callousness
To further understand the lack of empathy among the Dark Triad personalities, research examined affective empathy, which is the ability to have an appropriate emotional response to others’ emotions, and cognitive empathy, the ability to discern others’ emotional states. They found that all three personality types lacked affective empathy, but had unimpaired cognitive empathy. Creepily, all three felt positive looking at sad faces and felt negative seeing happy images. Narcissists and psychopaths also felt good seeing angry faces. Psychopaths liked seeing fearful faces.
Overall empathy was lowest among psychopaths and Machiavellians, and study participants who were high on any of the three personality profiles had the lowest affective empathy. Narcissists scored highest on cognitive empathy. The fact that these people are insensitive to others' feelings, while retaining the ability to assess others’ emotions, allows them to strategically manipulate people, while ignoring the harm they inflict.
To find out if you or someone you know may qualify, see the Dark Triad test.
Protect Yourself
If you think you may be involved with a Dark Triad personality, seek psychotherapy. Don’t be afraid to talk to others about your experience. Covering up bad behavior is a common but dangerous form of denial. Learn about narcissistic abuse, subtle forms of abuse, abusive relationships, and narcissistic relationships. Learn How to Be Assertive and read Dealing with a Narcissist. Violence is preceded by emotional abuse. If you’ve been threatened with violence, don’t wait for it to happen or trust that it won’t be repeated.
These master manipulators are natural con artists and dangerous companions.
KEY POINTS
- Machiavellians are temperamentally predisposed to be calculating, conniving, and deceptive.
- Emotional detachment and a cynical outlook enable Machiavellians to control their impulses and be careful, patient opportunists.
- Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism make up the "Dark Triad" of personality types.
Source: StockLite/Shutterstock
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), political philosopher and author of The Prince, wrote, “A wise ruler ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests,” and, "A prince never lacks good reasons to break his promise.” According to Machiavelli, honesty—and all other virtues—are expendable if deceit, treachery, and force would be more expedient. In short, he would argue, people in positions of power should choose to be, well, Machiavellian, even if that is not their natural leadership style.
In psychology, Machiavellianism refers to a personality type that does not choose to be, but simply is, a master manipulator. Machiavellians (or “High Machs"; see below) do not need to read The Prince to acquire a knack for duplicity. They are temperamentally predisposed to be calculating, conniving, and deceptive. Essentially amoral, they use other people as stepping stones to reach their goals. From a Machiavellian’s perspective, if we allow ourselves to be used, we probably deserve it. As P. T. Barnum is alleged to have said, "There’s a sucker born every minute.” That sums up their mindset.
We can all be duplicitous at times, depending on need or circumstances. If you’ve ever called in sick when you were well or lied to your spouse about what you were doing, you have demonstrated the human capacity to con others. Such episodes probably do not reflect your standard behavior patterns, and you may have felt a little guilty.
But this type of behavior is routine for Machiavellians.
In 1970, psychologists Richard Christie and Florence Geis introduced the first test of Machiavellianism, the Mach IV. "High Machs" are those with elevated scores on the Mach IV. (There are versions of the test online that you can take and self-score.)
The test includes statements such as these for people to agree or disagree with:
- "The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear."
- "It is wise to flatter important people."
- "The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught."
Groucho Marx once quipped, “Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” He was joking, but to a High Mach, this sounds like really good advice.
How can you spot a High Mach? Here are five characteristics to watch for:
- They function best in jobs and social situations where the rules and boundaries are ambiguous.
- Emotional detachment and a cynical outlook enable them to control their impulses and be careful, patient opportunists.
- Their tactics include charm, friendliness, self-disclosure, guilt, and (if necessary) pressure.
- They prefer to use subtle tactics (charm, friendliness, self-disclosure, guilt), when possible, to mask their true intentions and provide a basis for plausible denial if they are detected. However, they can use pressure and threats when necessary.
- They tend to be preferred by others in competitive situations (debating, negotiations), but are not preferred as friends, colleagues, or spouses.
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism make up the "Dark Triad" of personality types. But while psychopaths and malignant narcissists generate much interest and discussion, Machiavellians typically get far less attention. Machiavellian behavior, however, is typical not just of High Machs, but of psychopaths and narcissists as well.
... and why certain people are more likely to be pulled in.
KEY POINTS
- Three "dark" personality traits are related to heightened attraction in several studies.
- Dark traits, such as narcissism, can sometimes be mistaken as attractive features, especially when you don't know someone well.
- People who fall in love fast, easily, and often tend to be more readily seduced by dark traits.
- Some dark traits are linked to having more children, meaning they may provide a reproductive advantage.
Source: 123RF/lightfieldstudios
When looking at studies examining what people say they want in a romantic partner, people tend to report a lot of positive traits. For example, kindness, honesty, and dependability are reliably near the top of the list.
In other words, we largely say we’re attracted to nice people—and people we hope will treat us well in return.
However, there’s an interesting paradox in the scientific literature on attraction. While people say they’re attracted to nice partners, they simultaneously report being attracted to individuals with “dark” personality traits.
The Dark Triad, Explained
There is a cluster of three personality traits—known as the Dark Triad—that have been shown to be related to heightened attraction across multiple studies. These traits are Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. Although each one signifies something a little different, they’re all tied together by a tendency to engage in antisocial behaviors, such as being callous and manipulative.
On the surface, these traits don’t sound like things that would intuitively be sexually or romantically appealing. However, it turns out that they are often mistaken for attractive traits. For example, if you don’t know a narcissist very well, their overly inflated self-views and tendency to talk about themselves can potentially come across as being talkative and/or confident.
Likewise, narcissists and other social manipulators often make an effort to put on a pretty attractive veneer. For instance, they might invest more time and effort into their appearance, surround themselves with symbols of money and success, and make a greater effort to say the “right” things (even if they aren’t true) in order to appear desirable or to manipulate someone else into liking them.
Several studies have shown that people with these dark traits are often rated as being more attractive than people who are low on these traits.
Men High in Dark Triad Traits are Seen as More Attractive
In one study, a group of college women was asked to rate the attractiveness of profiles of men who varied in their levels of the Dark Triad traits. The physical characteristics of the men were held constant—what varied was only whether they were high or low in these three personality characteristics.
The men who were high in Dark Triad traits were rated as being significantly more attractive than the men who were low on them—and it was a fairly sizeable difference (more than a full point on the scale). What was especially interesting about this study is that the researchers also asked participants to evaluate the men on their perceived levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—and the men who were high on these traits were indeed perceived as such. So the participants consciously recognized this fact, yet still rated them as more attractive.
People Who Fall in Love Quickly are Easily Seduced By Dark Traits
In another study, which I previously summarized, people who fall in love fast, easily, and often (i.e., those high in the trait of emophilia) reported greater attraction to profiles of individuals who were high in Dark Triad traits than did people who were low on emophilia.
This suggests that people who believe in “love at first sight” seem to be more easily seduced by partners who have dark personalities, perhaps initially mistaking these dark traits for attractive features in their quest for love.
Do Dark Traits Offer a Reproductive Advantage?
Yet another study, which focused on the genetics of antisocial personality traits, actually found that people with these traits seem to have a reproductive advantage over others. Specifically, the genes that have been linked to antisocial traits were also correlated with the genes associated with reproducing earlier in life and having more children. In other words, having less care and concern for other people was associated with having more children.
Why is that? Psychopathy is linked to living a “fast life”—these individuals tend to take more risks and act more impulsively. One outcome of this is that they tend to start reproducing earlier in life and have more children over time.
So when you combine the fact that “dark” personalities are often seen as attractive (at least initially) with higher levels of risk-taking and impulsive behavior amongst the persons who have these traits, you end up with a situation in which those traits not only have the opportunity to survive but also thrive in the population.
The genes that predispose people to these traits, therefore, have the potential to get passed on in greater numbers over time. It’s an uncomfortable thought to be sure, but it’s really just evolution at work.
Evolution is a tricky thing in that it doesn’t care about morality, justice, or political correctness. It operates independently of our social values. The traits that facilitate attraction and reproduction are the traits most likely to be passed on, regardless of whether we value those traits or not.
A new study indicates how common the tendency may be.
KEY POINTS
- Everyday sadism involves taking pleasure from ordinary experiences in which cruelty is vicarious.
- One study suggests that everyday sadists might become more aggressive when provoked than other individuals.
- Sadism can be measured with the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale (SSIS) developed by University of College Cork psychologist Aisling O’Meara.
Source: beboy/Shutterstock
The film series based on the Fifty Shades of Grey novels brought into theaters a vivid depiction of the forms that sadism can take in the bedroom.
But there is a more pervasive, and more mundane, type of sadism hiding within the recesses of many individuals' personalities.
Psychologists talk about "the dark triad" in personality, representing a perfect-storm combination of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. People high in the dark triad traits callously use people to their own advantage, seeing them as tools to exploit in order to get what they want.
To be sure, enjoying the suffering of others—the hallmark of sadism—can be part of the picture in the dark triad constellation. However, personality psychologists are beginning to believe that a predilection for cruelty stands on its own in understanding why one person would want to harm another. Rather than express itself in behavior that results in humiliation, maiming, or death, however, there’s a kind of everyday sadism that shows up in more benign, everyday form.
You might even express the everyday form of sadism without realizing it.
Perhaps you enjoy the rush of blasting a videogame opponent’s avatars to bits. At a hockey game, you may cheer less for your team to score than for members of both teams to engage in a violent clashing of sticks and bodies against the glass. Action movies involving battles to the death may be your favorite form of entertainment. In all of these cases, you’re taking pleasure from ordinary experiences in which the cruelty (other than at the hockey game) is vicarious.
Investigating everyday sadism
University of British Columbia psychologist Erin Buckels and collaborators (2013) decided to investigate the idea that everyday sadists are willing to inflict real, not just vicarious, harm. They also reasoned that people high in this less overt form of sadism might themselves become more aggressive when provoked than other individuals. Further, they believed it possible for sadism to provide a unique prediction of antisocial behavior above and beyond those of the dark triad qualities.
To investigate everyday sadism in actual behavior, they needed to come up with a laboratory task that would mimic the kind of casual harm-producing behavior people might perform in their daily life. But translating everyday sadism into a lab setting is, understandably, a challenge: You have to invent a task that will not actually hurt people but which has to seem realistic. Buckels and her team zeroed in on bug-killing. The act of killing a bug, they argued, would satisfy a sadistic desire to cause a live creature harm through direct physical contact.
To test their theory, they offered participants a choice of unpleasant tasks in which killing bugs would be one alternative among a set of unpleasant but non-sadistic options. They settled on these three choices (plus bug-killing) as possible "jobs" a participant could pick—assisting someone else in killing bugs; cleaning dirty toilets; and putting their hand in a bucket of ice water. (In case you're worried, the bug-killing wasn’t real, but it appeared to be, as the bugs were supposedly being ground in a machine that would loudly crunch them into bits.)
To identify the everyday sadists in the sample, Buckels and her team used the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale (SSIS) developed by University of College Cork psychologist Aisling O’Meara and her team (2011). They also administered dark triad questionnaires to be able to tease out the separate contributions of sadism from those other three qualities.
As expected, the highly sadistic-scoring participants were the most likely to choose the bug-killing task. After completing the task, they also reported enjoying it the most—and, if they had chosen a different task, seemed to regret not having taken on the bug-killing job in the first place.
In the second laboratory task, the highly sadistic were compared with their less cruelty-oriented counterparts in their willingness, in a button-pushing competition, to attack an opponent who they believed would not attack them back. Over the course of the experiment, participants had the opportunity to blast white noise into the headphones of their opponents for every trial that they won. The situation was rigged, of course—there was no actual opponent. However, the participants were led to believe that their opponent would not attack them back after receiving the ear-disrupting blast.
The question, then, was whether those high in sadism would continue to inflict the aversive stimulus to a non-attacking opponent. As it turned out, not only were the everyday sadists quicker to harm their opponents, but they would also work harder for the opportunity to blast them some more. Dark triad qualities, as in the bug-killing experiment, didn’t predict the outcome of noise-blasting tendencies—but sadism did.
We have pretty good evidence, then, that people who score high on a questionnaire measure of sadism may also behave in the casual, everyday ways that might be similar to these lab tasks. That questionnaire measure appears, then, to have reasonably good validity as a way to predict who will kill for the sake of killing (bugs, of course, not people) and who could inflict harm on an opponent offering an olive branch.
Now that you know that the SSIS questionnaire predicted people’s lab behavior, you can take the questionnaire yourself, or look at each item from the vantage point of a person you’d like to rate. Other personality research shows that ratings of people we know on questionnaire measures can provide fairly reliable insights into those people’s dispositions. In fact, in some cases, the ratings we make of others are even more accurate than those we make of ourselves. This is because it can be difficult to admit having certain qualities, perhaps particularly so when considering the darker sides of our nature, which we would prefer to think we don’t have.
With this background, then, here are the 10 questions from the SSIS. Each one is rated simply as “describes me/this person” or “does not describe me/this person”:
- I enjoy seeing people hurt.
- I would enjoy hurting someone physically, sexually, or emotionally.
- Hurting people would be exciting.
- I have hurt people for my own enjoyment.
- People would enjoy hurting others if they gave it a go.
- I have fantasies which involve hurting people.
- I have hurt people because I could.
- I wouldn’t intentionally hurt anyone. (Reversed-scored)
- I have humiliated others to keep them in line.
- Sometimes I get so angry I want to hurt people.
Now, scoring one point for each Yes answer (or No on number 8), compare your scores with those from the participants, who ranged in age from 18 to 65 but were mostly undergraduates. Although the scores from participants did range from 1 to 10, meaning that some participants did in fact endorse every item, 96% of the sample scored at 4 or lower. Thus, if you, or the person you’re rating, scored at 5 or higher, you or that person may fall within the small minority of the population who could be considered everyday sadists. (The more sadistic are particularly likely to endorse the items on the SSIS dealing with fantasy and self-gratification.)
O’Meara and her team examined the relationships among the SSIS and other relevant measures to find out if sadism and empathy were related. The pattern of findings led them to conclude that everyday sadists are aware of the impact that their actions have on others but don’t have a particular concern for how those people feel.
Returning to the Buckels study, it was people with scores on the SSIS of close to 2 who were most likely to choose the bug-killing option. Apparently, it doesn’t take much to qualify as an everyday sadist. Agreeing with just two of the items appears to put an individual at risk; four is even more atypical.
Perhaps with the popularity of 50 Shades, and whatever copycat movies it stimulates, we’ll be more willing to look at sadism as a part of the human experience. Fortunately, it’s only the minority who would ever take their desire to harm others from the realm of fantasy to that of everyday behavior.
Copyright Susan Krauss Whitbourne 2015
A primer on traits that some people reject but most embrace.
Imagine two types of people. Type One is selfish, dishonest, hostile, and cold-hearted. Type Two is generous, honest, friendly, and warm. Which one do you like better? Which one would you pick to be your boss, friend, or partner? Which type would you want your child to be, and to befriend? Which type would you want to see succeed?
My guess is that you, and most people, would choose Type Two. And there’s the paradox: If most people prefer Type Two, why do we see so many successful, well-connected, and powerful people who are decidedly Type One?
One way to understand this paradox is through the concept of the “Dark Triad.” The Dark Triad is a term used in psychology to describe three aversive yet functional (subclinical) personality traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
Narcissism consists of dominance motivation, a sense of entitlement, and perceived superiority combined with intolerance to criticism. Machiavellianism includes facile social charm, deceitful behavior aimed at undermining others, and a reliance on manipulation. Psychopathy shows itself in low or absent empathy, high impulsivity, heartless social attitudes, and interpersonal hostility. Taken together, the most powerful tendency underlying all three Dark Triad traits is a knack for exploiting others.
From an evolutionary perspective, otherwise socially "dark" traits may be selected if they confer an advantage. Psychologist Peter Jonason and colleagues (2009) argued that Dark Triad traits facilitate success in short-term mating: "[S]ubclinical psychopathy is associated with a lack of neuroticism and anxiety, which may facilitate the pursuit of one’s goals through adverse conditions… Similarly, narcissism is associated with aggrandizement, and Machiavellianism is associated with being socially manipulative, both of which may aid in reaping benefits for oneself at the expense of others, especially in initial periods of acquaintance.”
It stands to reason that, just as they confer an advantage in the mating game, the absence of anxiety, coupled with a knack for self-promotion and a facility with social manipulation, will provide advantages in other competitive arenas, including business and politics.
Indeed, research has suggested that narcissism correlates positively with salary, while Machiavellianism has been linked to career advancement and satisfaction. Some evidence suggests that psychopaths are present in business leadership positions in a greater percentage than their population base rate.
In other words, the ability to put our own interests first, manage people’s impressions of us, and pursue our goals with confidence may provide a route to success. Life is hard, and a measure of inner "hardness" is adaptive.
Alas, success achieved using Dark Triad means comes at a cost, to both self and (often more acutely) others, as Dark Triad traits are associated with problems including unethical behavior, white-collar crime, lying, deception, and cyber-aggression.
In a recent review of the literature (2013), Adrian Furnham and colleagues note: “All three of the Dark Triad admit prejudice against immigrants and, more generally, proclaim a social dominance orientation… All three are rated high in ruthless self-advancement.” While they positively correlate with one another, each of the three Dark Triad traits also predicts different, specific behavioral tendencies. For example, Machiavellians are more likely to plagiarize essays and avoid risky bets; narcissists tend to be aggressive after an ego threat; and psychopaths bully others and are more likely to carry out revenge fantasies.
A 2012 meta-analysis of studies of the Dark Triad (DT) by Ernest O’Boyle and colleagues at the School of Business and Economics at Longwood University in Virginia examined their implications for job performance and counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in 245 studies published between 1951 and 2011 (N=43,907). They found that “reductions in the quality of job performance were consistently associated with increases in Machiavellianism and psychopathy and that CWB was associated with increases in all three components of the DT.”
In their review, Furnham and colleagues assert, “One or more of the Dark Triad personalities invariably emerge in analyses of counterproductive behavior… They are evident in notions of ‘toxic leadership,’ ‘snakes in suits,’ and ‘bad bosses.’ Such leaders typically derail somewhere down the line.”
More recently (2016), Andrew Harrison at the Cincinnati University College of Business, and colleagues James Summers and Brian Mennecke of Iowa State, evaluated the effects of the dark triad on fraud intentions and behaviors. They concluded: “Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism affect different parts of the unethical decision-making process. Narcissism motivates individuals to act unethically for their personal benefit and changes their perceptions of their abilities to successfully commit fraud. Machiavellianism motivates individuals not only to act unethically, but also alters perceptions about the opportunities that exist to deceive others. Psychopathy has a prominent effect on how individuals rationalize their fraudulent behaviors. Accordingly, we find that the Dark Triad elements act in concert as powerful psychological antecedents to fraud behaviors.”
Dark Triad traits may be measured in multiple ways. One of the more popular instruments is a 12-item questionnaire nicknamed the “Dirty Dozen,” which was published in 2010 by Jonason of the University of West Florida and Gregory Webster of the University of Florida. Below are the questions (Items 1-4 measure Machiavellianism; items 5-8, psychopathy; and items 9-12, narcissism) which are rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The higher the score, the higher the Dark Triad tendencies:
- I tend to manipulate others to get my way.
- I have used deceit or lied to get my way.
- I have used flattery to get my way.
- I tend to exploit others toward my own end.
- I tend to lack remorse.
- I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions.
- I tend to be callous or insensitive.
- I tend to be cynical.
- I tend to want others to admire me.
- I tend to want others to pay attention to me.
- I tend to seek prestige or status.
- I tend to expect special favors from others.
People who rate high on Dark Triad characteristics may find career success, but not in the way most of us want our kids to achieve it, and they are likely to finish their careers in some form of disrepute. You probably wouldn’t want one as your boss, friend, or long-term partner.
Let's address the mixed messages we are sending to young people.
KEY POINTS
- Cheating is rampant, yet young people consistently affirm honesty and the belief that cheating is wrong.
- This discrepancy arises, in part, from the tension students perceive between honesty and the terms of success.
- In an integrated environment, achievement and the real world are not seen as at odds with honesty.
The release of ChatGPT has high school and college teachers wringing their hands. A Columbia University undergraduate rubbed it in our face last May with an opinion piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education titled I’m a Student. You Have No Idea How Much We’re Using ChatGPT.
He goes on to detail how students use the program to “do the lion’s share of the thinking,” while passing off the work as their own. Catching the deception, he insists, is impossible.
As if students needed more ways to cheat. Every survey of students, whether high school or college, has found that cheating is “rampant,” “epidemic,” “commonplace, and practically expected,” to use a few of the terms with which researchers have described the scope of academic dishonesty.
In a 2010 study by the Josephson Institute, for example, 59 percent of the 43,000 high school students admitted to cheating on a test in the past year. According to a 2012 white paper, Cheat or Be Cheated? prepared by Challenge Success, 80 percent admitted to copying another student’s homework. The other studies summarized in the paper found self-reports of past-year cheating by high school students in the 70 percent to 80 percent range and higher.
At colleges, the situation is only marginally better. Studies consistently put the level of self-reported cheating among undergraduates between 50 percent and 70 percent depending in part on what behaviors are included.1
The sad fact is that cheating is widespread.
Commitment to Honesty
Yet, when asked, most young people affirm the moral value of honesty and the belief that cheating is wrong. For example, in a survey of more than 3,000 teens conducted by my colleagues at the University of Virginia, the great majority (83 percent) indicated that to become “honest—someone who doesn’t lie or cheat,” was very important, if not essential to them.
On a long list of traits and qualities, they ranked honesty just below “hard-working” and “reliable and dependent,” and far ahead of traits like being “ambitious,” “a leader,” and “popular.” When asked directly about cheating, only 6 percent thought it was rarely or never wrong.
Other studies find similar commitments, as do experimental studies by psychologists. In experiments, researchers manipulate the salience of moral beliefs concerning cheating by, for example, inserting moral reminders into the test situation to gauge their effect. Although students often regard some forms of cheating, such as doing homework together when they are expected to do it alone, as trivial, the studies find that young people view cheating in general, along with specific forms of dishonesty, such as copying off another person’s test, as wrong.
They find that young people strongly care to think of themselves as honest and temper their cheating behavior accordingly.2
The Discrepancy Between Belief and Behavior
Bottom line: Kids whose ideal is to be honest and who know cheating is wrong also routinely cheat in school.
What accounts for this discrepancy? In the psychological and educational literature, researchers typically focus on personal and situational factors that work to override students’ commitment to do the right thing.
These factors include the force of different motives to cheat, such as the desire to avoid failure, and the self-serving rationalizations that students use to excuse their behavior, like minimizing responsibility—“everyone is doing it”—or dismissing their actions because “no one is hurt.”
While these explanations have obvious merit—we all know the gap between our ideals and our actions—I want to suggest another possibility: Perhaps the inconsistency also reflects the mixed messages to which young people (all of us, in fact) are constantly subjected.
Mixed Messages
Consider the story that young people hear about success. What student hasn’t been told doing well includes such things as getting good grades, going to a good college, living up to their potential, aiming high, and letting go of “limiting beliefs” that stand in their way? Schools, not to mention parents, media, and employers, all, in various ways, communicate these expectations and portray them as integral to the good in life.
They tell young people that these are the standards they should meet, the yardsticks by which they should measure themselves.
In my interviews and discussions with young people, it is clear they have absorbed these powerful messages and feel held to answer, to themselves and others, for how they are measuring up. Falling short, as they understand and feel it, is highly distressful.
At the same time, they are regularly exposed to the idea that success involves a trade-off with honesty and that cheating behavior, though regrettable, is “real life.” These words are from a student on a survey administered at an elite high school. “People,” he continued, “who are rich and successful lie and cheat every day.”
In this thinking, he is far from alone. In a 2012 Josephson Institute survey of 23,000 high school students, 57 percent agreed that “in the real world, successful people do what they have to do to win, even if others consider it cheating.”3
Putting these together, another high school student told a researcher: “Grades are everything. You have to realize it’s the only possible way to get into a good college and you resort to any means necessary.”
In a 2021 survey of college students by College Pulse, the single biggest reason given for cheating, endorsed by 72 percent of the respondents, was “pressure to do well.”
What we see here are two goods—educational success and honesty—pitted against each other. When the two collide, the call to be successful is likely to be the far more immediate and tangible imperative.
A young person’s very future appears to hang in the balance. And, when asked in surveys, youths often perceive both their parents’ and teachers’ priorities to be more focused on getting “good grades in my classes,” than on character qualities, such as being a “caring community member.”
What to Do
In noting the mixed messages, my point is not to offer another excuse for bad behavior. But some of the messages just don’t mix, placing young people in a difficult bind. Answering the expectations placed on them can be at odds with being an honest person. In the trade-off, cheating takes on a certain logic.
The proposed remedies to academic dishonesty typically focus on parents and schools. One commonly recommended strategy is to do more to promote student integrity. That seems obvious. Yet, as we saw, students already believe in honesty and the wrongness of (most) cheating. It’s not clear how more teaching on that point would make much of a difference.
Integrity, though, has another meaning, in addition to the personal qualities of being honest and of strong moral principles. Integrity is also the “quality or state of being whole or undivided.” In this second sense, we can speak of social life itself as having integrity.
It is “whole or undivided” when the different contexts of everyday life are integrated in such a way that norms, values, and expectations are fairly consistent and tend to reinforce each other—and when messages about what it means to be a good, accomplished person are not mixed but harmonious.
While social integrity rooted in ethical principles does not guarantee personal integrity, it is not hard to see how that foundation would make a major difference. Rather than confronting students with trade-offs that incentivize “any means necessary,” they would receive positive, consistent reinforcement to speak and act truthfully.
Talk of personal integrity is all for the good. But as pervasive cheating suggests, more is needed. We must also work to shape an integrated environment in which achievement and the “real world” are not set in opposition to honesty.
