Vulnerable Dark Triad

Searching for a Vulnerable Dark Triad: Comparing
Factor 2 Psychopathy, Vulnerable Narcissism, and

Borderline Personality Disorder
Joshua D. Miller, Ally Dir, Brittany Gentile, Lauren Wilson,
Lauren R. Pryor, and W. Keith Campbell
University of Georgia
ABSTRACT Paulhus and Williams (2002) identied a Dark Triad
comprising the following related personality styles: narcissism, psychopathy,
and Machiavellianism. The heterogeneity found in narcissism and psychop-
athy raises the possibility of a second triad made up of emotional vulnera-
bility and dark traits (i.e., the vulnerable dark triad; VDT). Along with
vulnerable narcissism and Factor 2 psychopathy, the third member of the
hypothesized VDT is borderline personality disorder (BPD). Using a sample
of 361 undergraduates, we examine the relations between these constructs and
their relations with criterion variables, including personality, environmental
etiological factors (e.g., abuse), and current functioning (e.g., psychopathol-
ogy, affect). The results suggest that the VDT constructs are signicantly
related to one another and manifest similar nomological networks, particu-
larly vulnerable narcissismand BPD. Although the VDTmembers are related
to negative emotionality and antagonistic interpersonal styles, they are also
related to introversion and disinhibition. Ultimately, it seems there is a dark
continuum of pathological personality traits that differ primarily in relation
to negative and positive emotionality and disinhibition.
The co-occurrence among pathological personality traits, styles, and
personality disorders (PDs) has long been recognized. For example,
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edi-
tion (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) explicitly
recognizes the tendencies of certain PDs to covary by grouping the
10 PDs into three clusters. In fact, the majority of individuals who
receive a specic PD diagnosis are likely to meet criteria for one or
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joshua D. Miller,
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3013. E-mail:
jdmiller@uga.edu.
Journal of Personality 78:5, October 2010
r 2010 The Authors
Journal of Personality r 2010, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00660.x
more additional PDs (e.g., Zimmerman, Rothschild, & Chelminski,
2005). Trait theorists have suggested that this overlap is due to the
presence of shared personality traits; for instance, Lynam and
Widiger (2001) demonstrated that patterns of comorbidity among
the PDs could be reproduced on the basis of overlap of general per-
sonality traits from the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM).
One area that has received attention is the co-occurrence between
three pathological personality styles that have been titled the Dark
Triad (DT; Paulhus & Williams, 2002): narcissism, psychopathy,
and Machiavellianism. Across multiple studies (e.g., Jonason, Li,
Webster, & Schmitt, 2009; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams,
2002), the three constructs have demonstrated signicant correla-
tions: narcissism and Machiavellianism (mean r 5.23), narcissism
and psychopathy (mean r 5.39), and Machiavellianism and psy-
chopathy (mean r 5.51). Several of these studies have examined the
DT constructs in relation to traits from models of general person-
ality (e.g., FFM; HEXACO) and have demonstrated that these DT
constructs are signicantly related to the general personality trait of
low Agreeableness (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002) or Honesty-
Humility (Lee & Ashton, 2005). The DT members differ, however,
with regard to the role of Extraversion (primarily elevated in narcis-
sism) and Conscientiousness (lower in psychopathy and Machiavel-
lianism; e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The darkness referred to
in the DT is captured by their shared use of antagonistic, dishonest,
and egocentric interpersonal styles (e.g., FFM Disagreeableness).
In the current study, we posit the existence of a second related
triadone that includes personality styles composed of both dark and
emotionally vulnerable traits. That is, we believe there are personality
styles that combine interpersonal antagonism (i.e., low Agreeableness)
with emotional dysregulation and negative emotionality (high Neu-
roticism). The presence of a second triad is necessary, in part, because
of the heterogeneity of conceptualizations of two of the original DT
members: psychopathy and narcissism. The members of this putative
vulnerable dark triad (VDT) would include (a) Factor 2 psychopathy,
(b) vulnerable narcissism, and (c) borderline PD (BPD).
Heterogeneity Within Psychopathy
Most current conceptualizations of psychopathy describe two, three,
or four underlying factors (Cooke & Michie, 2001; Hare, 2003). The
1530 Miller, Dir, Gentile, et al.
two-factor model, which stems from work using the Psychopathy
Checklist (PCL) and its revision (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), has been the
predominant model of psychopathy for the last two decades, and
most self-report measures of psychopathy were built around this
factor structure.
1
Factor 1 is related to the interpersonal and affec-
tive components of psychopathy (e.g., grandiosity, lying, lack of re-
morse or guilt), whereas Factor 2 comprises traits and behaviors
indicative of social deviance (e.g., early behavior problems, imp-
ulsivity; Hare, 2003). Lynam and colleagues (Lynam & Derenko,
2006; Widiger & Lynam, 1998) argued that the psychopathy factors
can be understood via an examination of the basic personality traits
that underlie each factor. In a recent meta-analysis by Lynam and
Derenko (2006), Factor 1 psychopathy manifested the strongest
weighted effect size for Agreeableness (r 5 .46), followed by
Conscientiousness (r 5 .22). For Factor 2, there were signicant
negative effect sizes for Conscientiousness (r 5 .45), Agreeableness
(r 5 .44), and Extraversion (r 5 .12), and a positive effect size
for Neuroticism (r 5.34).
Ultimately, the distinction between these psychopathy measures
is quite relevant to studies of the DT. Studies that have used a
total psychopathy score (e.g., Jonason et al., 2009; Paulhus &
Williams, 2002) that combines these two psychopathy factors
have reported more moderate correlations between psychopathy
and Machiavellianism (mean r 5.37) than those that focus on
Factor 1 in relation to Machiavellianism (mean r 5.68). Distin-
guishing between the psychopathy factors did not have as large of an
effect on relations with narcissism (Factor 1 only: mean r 5.39 vs.
total psychopathy: mean r 5.37) in the DT literature. This is not the
case, however, when examining the relation between the PCL-R
psychopathy factors and narcissistic PD (NPD); PCL-R Factor 1 is
1. Recent factor analyses of the PCL-R have resulted in either a three- (Cooke &
Michie, 2001) or four-factor model (e.g., Hare, 2003). Both of these models divide
the old Factor 1 into two facets (e.g., Interpersonal, Affective). The third factor
(e.g., Impulsive, Irresponsible Lifestyle) in the three-factor model is made up of
the traits and behaviors from the old Factor 2 but does not include the explicitly
antisocial items. Alternatively, the four-factor model divides the old Factor 2 into
two facets (e.g., Lifestyle, Antisocial), one of which includes antisocial behavior.
Despite these changes, most self-report measures of psychopathy still result
in a two-factor solution that is akin to the initial factor structure of the PCL
and PCL-R.
Vulnerable Dark Triad 1531
usually signicantly more strongly related to NPD than is PCL-R
Factor 2 (Widiger, 2006). The stronger relation between Factor 1
psychopathy and Machiavellianism and NPD is most likely due to
the fact that Factor 1 psychopathy is predominantly related to an
antagonistic interpersonal style (i.e., Lynam & Derenko, 2006),
whereas Factor 2 psychopathy is related to an antagonistic inter-
personal style as well as disinhibition and negative emotionality.
This may explain why Factor 1 psychopathy is more strongly related
to NPD, whereas Factor 2 psychopathy is more strongly related to
borderline and antisocial PDs (e.g., Widiger, 2006).
Heterogeneity Within Narcissism
There are compelling data to suggest that narcissism/NPD is also
not a homogeneous construct. Several studies (e.g., Miller &
Campbell, 2008; Russ, Shedler, Bradley, & Westen, 2008; Wink,
1991) have demonstrated that there are two or more variants
of narcissism. Grandiose narcissism is the variant most strongly
associated with the current DSM-IV conceptualization and
primarily reects traits related to grandiosity, entitlement, aggres-
sion, and dominance. This form of narcissism is often measured
using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry,
1988); all ve DT studies have used this measure of narcissism. Sev-
eral studies have demonstrated that, from a trait perspective, gran-
diose narcissism is primarily composed of the agentic aspects
of Extraversion (i.e., dominance) and Disagreeableness (see Miller
& Campbell, 2008; Miller, Gaughan, Pryor, Kamen, & Campbell,
2009).
Vulnerable narcissism reects a more defensive and fragile gran-
diosity that may serve primarily as a mask for feelings of inadequacy.
From a trait perspective, vulnerable narcissism seems to be com-
posed of high levels of Neuroticism and low levels of Agreeableness
and Extraversion (e.g., Hendin & Cheek, 1997). In fact, in two sam-
ples vulnerable narcissism generated a personality prole on a mea-
sure of the FFM that was closer to an expert-rated prototype for
BPD (rs 5.70 and .78; Miller & Campbell, 2008) than to the expert-
rated prototype for NPD (rs 5.15 and .43). Vulnerable narcissism
scores are also signicantly related to BPD symptoms (Miller &
Campbell, 2008; Pincus et al., 2009).
The third point in the VDT, BPD, also contains elements of
both low Agreeableness and Neuroticism. BPD is a DSM-IV PD
characterized by symptoms that include fear of abandonment, in-
terpersonal and affective instability, impulsivity, and suicidal or self-
harming behaviors.
2
From a trait perspective, expert prototypical
ratings (Lynam & Widiger, 2001) as well as empirical meta-analyses
(e.g., Samuel & Widiger, 2008) demonstrate that BPD can be con-
ceived of as being made up of high levels of Neuroticism, impulsivity,
and interpersonal antagonism (i.e., distrustful, noncompliant). In
fact, BPD can be assessed using a composite of these FFM traits
with as much success as instruments explicitly designed to assess
BPD (Trull, Widiger, Lynam, & Costa, 2003). As noted above, BPD
is typically substantially correlated with vulnerable narcissism and
Factor 2 psychopathy. Interestingly, BPD demonstrates substantial
genetic overlap with antisocial personality disorder (Kendler et al.,
2008), which is signicantly correlated with Factor 2 psychopathy.
A Vulnerable Dark Triad: Factor 2 Psychopathy, Vulnerable
Narcissism, and BPD Similarities on the Five-Factor Model
We argue that vulnerable narcissism, Factor 2 psychopathy, and BPD
are all signicantly related forms of personality pathology that have
received scant attention with regard to their interrelations. All three
personality styles share high levels of both Neuroticism and low
Agreeableness (Lynam & Derenko, 2006; Miller & Campbell, 2008;
Miller, Gaughan, & Pryor, 2008; Samuel & Widiger, 2008). The per-
sonality constructs in this proposed VDT are also related to increased
psychological distress and dysfunction, such as suicidality (e.g., Miller
& Campbell, 2008; Verona, Hicks, & Patrick, 2005; Wink, 1991).
Similarities on Impulsivity-Related Traits
Although these constructs appear to overlap quite substantially with
regard to the FFM factors, there may be important trait differences
2. Although BPD is treated as a homogeneous construct in the DSM-IV and most
empirical studies, there is some evidence to suggest that different subtypes exist
that may split along internalizing versus externalizing dimensions (e.g., Bradley,
Conklin, & Westen, 2005). In the current study, however, we treat BPD as a uni-
tary construct to be consistent with how the construct is typically studied.
across the VDT, particularly with respect to relations to impulsivity-
related traits. A recent model of impulsivity (Whiteside & Lynam,
2001) identied four traits believed to be relevant to impulsive be-
havior: Urgency (i.e., an individuals difculty in resisting cravings
and urges when in a negative affective state), (Lack of) Perseverance
(i.e., a tendency to give up easily because of boredom, fatigue, or
task difculty), (Lack of) Premeditation (i.e., a tendency to fail to
pause and deliberate before acting), and Sensation Seeking (i.e., an
interest in and tendency to pursue activities that may be exciting or
novel or involve some degree of risk). Lynam, Smith, Whiteside, and
Cyders (2006) recently included a fth scale titled Positive Urgency
(i.e., an individuals difculty in resisting cravings and urges when in
a positive affective state). These ve scales (collectively called the
UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale or UPPS-P; Lynam et al., 2006)
provide comprehensive coverage of traits that are sometimes
grouped together as part of this very broad impulsivity construct.
With regard to impulsivity, BPD and Factor 2 psychopathy appear
to manifest similar proles (high Urgency, low Premeditation and
Perseverance; Miller et al., 2008; Lynam, Miller, Miller, Bournoval-
ova, & Lejuez, in press), which are likely to be relatively distinct from
vulnerable narcissism. The construct of vulnerable narcissism is not
strongly linked to disinhibited traits from a Conscientiousness per-
spective (i.e., Premeditation, Perseverance; e.g., Hendin & Cheek,
1997; Wink, 1991), although there may be some tendency to behave
impulsively when experiencing negative affect (i.e., Urgency; Hendin
& Cheek, 1997).
Similarities in Environmental Etiological Factors
Developmentally, all three forms of personality pathology are either
theoretically or empirically associated with negative childhood
events such as poorer parenting (less warmth and supervision;
greater psychological intrusiveness) and childhood sexual, physical,
or emotional abuse or neglect (e.g., Battle et al., 2004; Horton,
Bleau, & Drwecki, 2006; Poythress, Skeem, & Lilienfeld, 2006).
These etiological factors t with Linehans (1993) denition of an
invalidating environment, which is thought to be central to the
development of BPD. Linehan argued that invalidating environ-
ments are those in which there is a communication of private ex-
periences that are met by erratic, inappropriate, and extreme
responses, and she includes childhood abuse, particularly sexual
abuse, as the prototypical invalidating environment (p. 49). Line-
han suggests that these environments fail to teach children how to
label and regulate their emotions and tolerate distress and frustra-
tion, while at the same time encouraging extreme emotional dis-
plays to provoke and elicit the expected response from the
environment (p. 51).
Similarities in Current Functioning
All three members of the putative VDT manifest signicant relations
with a host of internalizing symptoms and disorders, such as anxiety
and depression, as well as behavioral indicators of distress, such as
suicidality (Pincus et al., 2009; Verona et al., 2005; Wink, 1991).
For example, Wink found that vulnerable narcissism was substan-
tially negatively correlated with self-reports of psychological well-
being (r 5 .67) and psychological adjustment (r 5 .33). Whereas
at least some members of the DT are negatively associated with
negative affect and emotions and positively associated with self-
esteem (i.e., grandiose narcissism; Miller & Campbell, 2008;
Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004), the re-
verse appears to be the case for the VDT. The VDT members are
associated with higher negative affect and lower self-esteem (Pincus
et al., 2009; Wink, 1991; Witt & Donnellan, 2008; Zeigler-Hill &
Abraham, 2006).
Both vulnerable narcissism and BPD are related to pathological
adult attachment styles, such as an anxious or fearful attachment
(Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Otway &Vignoles, 2006; BPD: Mauricio,
Tein, & Lopez, 2007; Meyer, Pilkonis, & Beevers, 2004). Less
research exists that has examined the relations between psychopa-
thy and specic attachment styles. Kosson, Cyterski, Steuerwald,
Neumann, and Walker-Matthews (2002) found that psychopathy
scores were signicantly negatively related to ratings of closeness to
family in a sample of adolescent males. Similarly, Frodi, Dernevik,
Sepa, Philipson, and Bragesjo (2001) found that psychopathic
offenders were most commonly classied as having a dismissive at-
tachment style. Unfortunately, these relations have not been exam-
ined separately by the psychopathy factors. In a review of the extant
literature, Salteris (2002) noted that individuals with antisocial per-
sonality disorder and those who commit violent crimes (vs. property
crimes) tend to manifest insecure and extremely disturbed attach-
ments. In terms of adult attachment styles, one might hypothesize
that Factor 1 psychopathy would be signicantly related to a dis-
missive attachment style (high avoidance, low anxiety), whereas
Factor 2 psychopathy might be related to a fearful attachment style
(high avoidance, high anxiety), which would be consistent with BPD
and vulnerable narcissism.
Finally, both Factor 2 psychopathy and BPD have been associ-
ated with a number of externalizing behaviors such as substance use/
abuse, aggression, and antisocial behavior (e.g., Feske, Tarter,
Kirisci, & Pilkonis, 2006; Neumann & Hare, 2008; Stuart, Moore,
Gordon, Ramsey, & Kahler, 2006). Because of the small literature
on vulnerable narcissism, its relations with externalizing behaviors
like aggression are less clear (e.g., Pincus et al., 2009; Wink, 1991),
although we would expect smaller effect sizes, in part, due to the lack
of substantial decits in constraint/disinhibition.
Current Study
We examine (a) the interrelations among self-report composites of
Factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and BPD; (b) their re-
lations to self-report measures of personality; (c) parent reports of
personality, (d) etiological measures, and (e) measures of current
functioning. The result is a comprehensive comparison of the no-
mological network of the VDT. We also include two members of the
original DTgrandiose narcissism and Factor 1 psychopathyas a
test of the discriminant validity of the VDT. Because of the number
of correlations reported, we focus primarily on quantitative indices
of the similarity of these patterns of correlations. We also examine
whether the effect sizes manifested by the VDT members differ in
strength.
In general, we expect statistically signicant but not redundant
correlations between the three constructs. All three members of this
putative VDT are expected to be correlated with traits and behav-
iors related to emotional vulnerability (i.e., Neuroticism, difculties
with emotion regulation, psychopathology, nonsuicidal self-harm)
and interpersonal Disagreeableness (e.g., immodesty, distrustful-
ness, manipulativeness, antisocial behavior). We expect differences,
however, with regard to the role of impulsivity-related traits; spe-
cically, we hypothesize that we will nd stronger relations between
Conscientiousness and Conscientiousness-based forms of imp-
ulsivity (i.e., lack of premeditation and perseverance from the
UPPS) and Factor 2 psychopathy and BPD than will be found for
vulnerable narcissism. We also expect that all three VDT members
will manifest similar relations with etiological variables related to
poorer parenting (i.e., less warmth and supervision, greater psycho-
logical intrusiveness) and higher rates of potentially traumatic ex-
periences (i.e., emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse). In
addition, we expect the VDT members to be positively related to
psychopathology, emotion dysregulation, and negative affect, and
negatively related to positive affect and self-esteem. We also expect
all three constructs to be related to more pathological adult attach-
ment styles (i.e., anxious and avoidant). Finally, the relations be-
tween the VDT and externalizing behaviors are more difcult to
predict; we expect signicant relations between secondary psychop-
athy and BPD and behaviors such as crime, gambling, substance
use, nonsuicidal self-harm, and intimate partner violence. We expect
vulnerable narcissism to be similarly related to externalizing con-
structs, albeit to a lesser degree given expected differences with
regard to impulse control.
In order to demonstrate discriminant validity of the VDT, we also
compare two of the original DT members to these criterion variables:
grandiose narcissism and Factor 1 psychopathy. We expect that
grandiose narcissism will demonstrate a substantially different per-
sonality prole from the VDT, such that grandiose narcissism will be
negatively correlated with Neuroticism and internalizing forms of
psychopathology (i.e., anxiety, depression, distress), will be posi-
tively related to self-esteem and Extraversion, and will manifest null
or limited relations with parenting practices (Horton et al., 2006;
Miller & Campbell, 2008). Grandiose narcissism will be similar to the
VDT primarily with regard to a shared relation with low Agreeable-
ness and a predisposition to externalizing behaviors. Alternatively,
we expect that Factor 1 psychopathy will manifest a personality
prole that falls between the VDT and grandiose narcissism, as it will
most likely manifest substantial negative correlations with Agree-
ableness and Conscientiousness but a null correlation with Neurot-
icism (not positive like the members of the VDT, but not negative
like grandiose narcissism). Similarly, Factor 1 psychopathy should
demonstrate positive but weaker correlations (than Factor 2 psy-
chopathy and BPD) with measures of psychopathology and
impulsivity (all members of the VDT), and null correlations with
harmful environmental events.
METHODS
Participants
Participants were 361 students (225 women and 135 men; 1 unknown);
315 participants were White, 16 were Black, 15 were Asian, and 9 were of
Hispanic ethnicity. The remaining 6 chose other for their racial/ethnic
status.
Mean age was 19.1 (SD51.7). Participants received research credit for
their participation. Written informed consent was obtained from each
participant. IRB approval was obtained for all aspects of this study.
Materials
Measures of Vulnerable Dark Triad and Original Dark Triad Variables
Factor 1 and 2 Psychopathy
Levensons Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP). The LSRP (Leven-
son, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) is a 26-item self-report inventory de-
signed to measure psychopathy.
3
The LSRP Primary and Secondary
Psychopathy scales typically manifest adequate internal consistency and
manifest moderate correlations with other self-report measures of psy-
chopathy (Gaughan, Miller, Pryor, & Lynam, 2009).
Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III (SRP-III). The SRP-III (Williams,
Paulhus, & Hare, 2007) is a 64-item self-report measure of psychopathy
that includes four subscales. Interpersonal Manipulation (SRP-IPM) and
Callous Affect (SRP-CA) are typically considered part of Factor 1 psy-
chopathy, whereas Erratic Lifestyle (SRP-ELS) and Antisocial Behaviors
(SRP-ASB) are considered part of Factor 2 psychopathy. The SRP man-
ifests adequate internal consistency and is signicantly related to other
measures of psychopathy (e.g., Gaughan et al., 2009).
Grandiose Narcissism
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI). The NPI (Raskin & Terry,
1988), is a 40-item self-report assessment of trait narcissism. The NPI
3. Coefcient alphas for the triad constructs are presented in Table 1.
total score manifests good internal consistency and signicant correla-
tions with expert ratings of NPD (Miller & Campbell, 2008).
Vulnerable Narcissism
Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS). The HSNS (Hendin &
Cheek, 1997) is a 10-item self-report measure that reects hypersensitiv-
ity, vulnerability, and entitlement. Previous research suggests that the
HSNS manifests adequate internal consistency and is correlated with
measures of covert narcissism, Neuroticism, and Disagreeableness
(Hendin & Cheek, 1997).
Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI). The PNI (Pincus et al., 2009)
is a 52-item self-report measure of traits related to vulnerable and gran-
diose narcissism. In the current study, we used the four scales identied as
being related to vulnerable narcissism: Contingent Self-Esteem, Hiding
the Self, Devaluing, and Entitlement Rage. The vulnerable scales manifest
good internal consistency and are correlated with other measures of vul-
nerable narcissism (Pincus et al., 2009).
PDQ41. The PDQ41(Hyler, 1994) is a 99-item self-report mea-
sure of DSM-IV PDs. In the current study, we use the BPD scale, which
uses nine items to create a BPD symptom count. The PDQ41BPD
score manifests modest to adequate internal consistency and signicant
correlations with interview and self-report ratings of BPD (e.g., Gardner
& Qualter, 2009).
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality DisordersPersonality
Questionnaire (SCID-II-PQ). The SCID-II-PQ (First, Gibbon, Spitzer,
Williams, & Benjamin, 1997) is a 119-item self-report questionnaire
designed to assess the diagnostic criteria for the DSM-IV PDs. This scale
has been widely used in personality disorder research (Bagby, Vachon,
Bulmash, & Quilty, 2008).
McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-
BPD). The MSI-BPD (Zanarini et al., 2003) is a 10-item self-report
measure of DSM-IV BPD, which manifests adequate internal consistency
and signicant correlations with self-report measures and interview rat-
ings of BPD (Gardner & Qualter, 2009).
Personality Measures
Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). The NEO PI-R
(Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item self-report measure of the FFM,
which includes the domains of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to
experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Alphas for the do-
mains ranged from .87 to .92 and .48 to .81 (Mdn 5.73) for the facets.
UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale (UPPS-P). The UPPS-P (Lynam
et al., 2006) is a 59-item self-report measure of impulsivity-related traits.
The Negative and Positive Urgency scales assess difculties in resisting
cravings and urges when in a negative or positive affective state. (Lack of)
Perseverance measures a tendency to give up easily because of boredom,
fatigue, or frustration. (Lack of) Premeditation assesses a tendency to fail
to pause and deliberate before acting. Sensation Seeking measures a ten-
dency to pursue activities that may be exciting or novel or involve risk.
Alphas ranged from .84 to .93. The UPPS traits have manifested diver-
gent relations with a number of constructs such as BPD (Whiteside,
Lynam, Miller, & Reynolds, 2005).
Etiological Measures
Psychological Control Scale (PCS). The PCS (Barber, 1996) is a 16-
item self-report measure of the level of psychological control asserted by
ones mother and father. In the current study, participants were asked
about their parents parenting when they were a senior in high school. The
mean of the ratings for the mother (a 5.82) and father (a5.83) was used
if ratings for both were provided; otherwise, just the single rating was
used. The PCS manifests good internal consistency and is related to con-
structs such as NPD (Miller & Campbell, 2008).
Parenting Warmth and Monitoring Scale. This 24-item self-report scale
(Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991) measures the degree of
warmth and parental supervision given to children. In the current study,
questions pertaining to parental monitoring were asked for the time frame
of 12th grade (warmth: a5.82; monitoring: a5.80). This scale has been
used before in the study of narcissism and NPD (Miller & Campbell, 2008).
Child Abuse and Trauma Scale (CATS). The CATS (Sanders & Giolas,
1991) is a 38-item self-report measure of physical, verbal, emotional, and
sexual abuse. In the current study, we used revised scales on the basis of
analyses presented by Poythress et al. (2006). Four items were used to assess
physical abuse (a5.71), three items were used for verbal abuse (a5.77),
three items were used for sexual abuse (a5.86), and four items were used
for emotional abuse (a5.82). All variables were log-transformed prior to
use in order to reduce problems with non-normality. Previous studies have
demonstrated links between the CATS subscales and the antisocial factor of
psychopathy and dissociation (Poythress et al., 2006).
Current Functioning Measures
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The BSI (Derogatis & Melisaratos,
1983) is a 53-item measure of psychological symptoms experienced during
the past week that includes specic symptom scales and a global severity
index (GSI). Here we report only on the GSI (a 5.96) and ve subscales:
anxiety (six items; a 5.76), depression (six items; a5.90), hostility (ve
items; a 5.80), interpersonal sensitivity (four items; a 5.84), and
paranoid ideation (ve items; a5.67). The BSI has been used to study
the relations between these symptoms and an array of constructs (e.g.,
depression; Stukenberg, Dura, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1990).
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form (PANAS-X). The
PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994) is a 60-item self-report measure of
affect. In the current study, we report on the factors of positive affect (10
items; a 5.87) and negative affect (10 items; a 5.83). The PANAS-X
subscales manifest good to excellent internal consistency and convergent
validity with other self-report ratings of affect (see Watson & Clark, 1994,
for a review).
Difculties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). The DERS (Gratz &
Roemer, 2004) is a 36-item self-report measure of problems with emotion
regulation; in the current study, only the total score is used (a5.93). The
DERS manifests good internal consistency and has manifested relations with a
number of psychological constructs, such as BPD (Bornovalova et al., 2008).
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). The RSES (Rosenberg, 1965) is a
10-item global measure of self-esteem (a5.89). The RSES is the most
widely used self-report measure of self-esteem and has demonstrated ex-
cellent internal consistency and convergent validity with other measures
of self-esteem (see Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991, for a review).
Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R). The ECR-R
(Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000) is a 36-item self-report measure
of two adult attachment styles: avoidance (18 items; a 5.93) and
anxiety (18 items; a5.93). The ECR-R subscales manifest good internal
consistency and structural validity, as well as convergent and divergent
validity with expected constructs (e.g., worry, avoidance of touch; Fair-
child & Finney, 2006).
Crime and Analogous Behavior scale (CAB). The CAB (Miller &
Lynam, 2003) is a self-report inventory that assesses a variety of exter-
nalizing behaviors, including substance use, antisocial behavior, gambling,
and intimate partner violence. An alcohol use variable was computed by
taking the mean of ve standardized variables (e.g., use of alcohol, age of
rst use, current pattern of use, ever binge drinking, number of binge
drinking episodes during the past month). A lifetime substance use variety
count was created by giving participants a 1 for every substance they en-
dorsed using (ve items; e.g., marijuana). A lifetime antisocial behavior
count was created by giving participants a 1 for every relevant act they
endorsed (nine items; e.g., stealing). A lifetime gambling (GAMB) count
was created by giving participants a 1 for every relevant act they endorsed
(six items; e.g., played card or other games for money). A lifetime intimate
partner violence (IPV) count was created using this same approach (six
items; e.g., slapped my partner). The antisocial and IPV variables were
log-transformed to reduce problems with non-normality. In previous stud-
ies, the CAB scales have demonstrated signicant relations with expected
constructs (e.g., psychopathy; Miller & Lynam, 2003).
Deliberate Self-Harm Questionnaire-Short Form (DSHQ-SF). The
DSHQ-SF (Klonsky & Olino, 2008) asks about the lifetime occurrence
of nonsuicidal self-harming behaviors (e.g., cutting). We used a count of
the variety of different forms of nonsuicidal self-injuring behaviors that
were reported (lifetime). In a previous study, this measure manifested rea-
sonable test-retest stability and a positive correlation with BPD (Klonsky
& Olino, 2008). The nonsuicidal self-harm count was log-transformed
prior to use due to problems with skewness and kurtosis.
Informant Reports
One packet was sent to the home of all the participants parents, and the
parents were asked to complete a single packet of questionnaires. The par-
ent(s) completed an informant version of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(Costa & McCrae, 1992), which uses 60 items to assess the ve broad
domains. Alphas for the informant-reported FFMdomains ranged from.63
(Openness) to .90 (Conscientiousness). We compared the participants for
whom we received informant reports (n5143) with those we did not on
demographic variables, the VDT constructs, and the parenting and abuse
variables to determine whether the groups were different in any meaningful
way. Of the variables examined, only two differences were found. Parents
who completed the packets were rated as warmer and less emotionally
abusive by their children, ts(354) 52.59 or greater, p .01. These were
modest effects (ds 5.29 and .27, respectively).
Data Analysis Plan
In order to control for Type 1 error, we lowered our alpha for all tests
to po.001.
4
We rst examined the bivariate relations between the
VDT, grandiose narcissism, and Factor 1 psychopathy in relation to
general traits from the FFM (via self-reports and informant reports),
impulsivity-related traits (via the UPPS), etiological constructs (e.g.,
parenting), and criterion measures (e.g., psychopathology, affect,
self-esteem, and externalizing behaviors). We also conducted simul-
taneous regression analyses to test how much variance is accounted
for by the personality traits (FFM; impulsivity-related traits) in the
triad constructs. In order to compare the nomological networks of
the ve primary constructs (i.e., VDT vs. grandiose narcissism and
Factor 1 psychopathy) in a quantitative manner, we primarily fo-
cused on the pattern of correlations with relevant criterion. We did
this by calculating similarity scores using intraclass correlations via
double-entry q correlations (see McCrae, 2008, for a review) between
the columns of correlations (e.g., correlations between BPD and 30
facets of the FFMvs. correlations between Factor 2 psychopathy and
30 facets of the FFM). We also focused on the differences between
the correlations between each of the VDT members and the criterion
variables, which were tested using tests of dependent rs.
RESULTS
Forming Vulnerable Dark Triad Composites
Before creating the three VDT composites, we examined the
convergent and divergent relations among the scales being used to
assess the VDT constructs (see Table 1). The median convergent
4. We used a less stringent p value for the similarity analyses because they are
underpowered since they do not use the sample size to generate degrees of free-
dom. Instead, the degrees of freedom equal 2 times the number of variables in-
cluded in prole. For example, the degrees of freedom for the similarity
analyses using the NEO PI-R facets (30) is only 60. As such, we used a p value
of po.01 for all similarity analyses.
T
a
b
l
e
1
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
m
o
n
g
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
V
D
T
a
n
d
G
r
a
n
d
i
o
s
e
N
a
r
c
i
s
s
i
s
m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
V
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e
D
a
r
k
T
r
i
a
d
V
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e
N
a
r
c
i
s
s
i
s
m
1
.
P
N
I
-
C
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t
S
e
l
f
-
E
e
s
t
e
e
m
.
9
3
2
.
P
N
I
-
H
i
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
S
e
l
f
.
4
1
n
.
7
8
3
.
P
N
I
-
D
e
v
a
l
u
i
n
g
.
4
7
n
.
3
6
n
.
8
7
4
.
P
N
I
-
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
R
a
g
e
.
5
5
n
.
2
9
n
.
5
8
n
.
8
8
5
.
H
S
N
S
.
5
5
n
.
3
4
n
.
4
6
n
.
5
3
n
.
6
7
F
a
c
t
o
r
2
P
s
y
c
h
o
p
a
t
h
y
6
.
L
S
R
P
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
.
2
9
n
.
1
6
.
3
1
n
.
3
7
n
.
3
0
n
.
6
8
7
.
S
R
P
-
I
I
I
E
L
S
.
0
8
.
1
4
.
1
2
.
1
7
.
0
9
.
6
2
n
.
8
1
8
.
S
R
P
-
I
I
I
A
S
B
.
0
5
.
0
2
.
1
8
n
.
1
3
.
1
1
.
3
5
n
.
4
8
n
.
7
8
B
o
r
d
e
r
l
i
n
e
P
D
9
.
M
c
L
e
a
n
B
P
D
.
3
9
n
.
3
1
n
.
3
4
n
.
3
2
n
.
3
9
n
.
4
3
n
.
3
3
n
.
2
5
n
.
8
1
1
0
.
S
C
I
D
-
I
I
-
P
-
Q
B
P
D
.
4
7
n
.
2
8
n
.
3
7
n
.
3
8
n
.
3
7
n
.
4
5
n
.
3
4
n
.
2
5
n
.
7
1
n
.
7
3
1
1
.
P
D
Q
4
1
B
P
D
.
4
8
n
.
3
0
n
.
3
8
n
.
3
5
n
.
4
3
n
.
4
3
n
.
3
2
n
.
3
0
n
.
7
1
n
.
6
5
n
.
5
2
D
a
r
k
T
r
i
a
d
G
r
a
n
d
i
o
s
e
N
a
r
c
i
s
s
i
s
m
1
2
.
N
P
I
.
0
9
.
0
7
.
1
0
.
1
7
.
0
2
.
1
6
.
3
4
n
.
2
3
n
.
0
1
.
0
2
.
0
4
.
8
6
F
a
c
t
o
r
1
P
s
y
c
h
o
p
a
t
h
y
1
3
.
L
S
R
P
P
r
i
m
a
r
y
.
1
7
.
1
1
.
2
9
n
.
3
7
n
.
2
4
n
.
4
7
n
.
4
7
n
.
5
1
n
.
1
5
.
2
2
n
.
2
3
n
.
4
3
n
.
8
6
1
4
.
S
R
P
-
I
I
I
I
P
M
.
1
5
.
1
9
n
.
2
9
n
.
3
3
n
.
2
3
n
.
4
8
n
.
6
0
n
.
4
6
n
.
3
0
n
.
3
1
n
.
2
9
n
.
5
0
n
.
6
7
n
.
8
6
1
5
.
S
R
P
-
I
I
I
C
A
.
0
2
.
1
6
.
1
5
.
2
1
n
.
1
4
.
4
2
n
.
5
4
n
.
4
5
n
.
1
5
.
1
6
.
1
8
n
.
3
9
n
.
6
5
n
.
7
0
n
.
8
0
N
o
t
e
.
R
u
n
n
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
d
i
a
g
o
n
a
l
s
a
r
e
t
h
e
c
o
e
f
c
i
e
n
t
a
l
p
h
a
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
s
c
a
l
e
.
T
h
e
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
b
o
o
k
s
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
t
v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
c
o
r
-
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
t
h
r
e
e
V
D
T
s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
.
n
p
o
.
0
0
1
.
correlation among the ve vulnerable narcissism scales was .47,
whereas the median divergent correlation for vulnerable narcissism
with the scales from the other two VDT constructs was .31. The
median correlation between the three Factor 2 psychopathy scales
was .48, whereas the median divergent correlation with the other
VDT scales was .25. The median convergent correlation between the
three BPD scales was .71, whereas the median divergent correlation
was .36. As a reference, grandiose narcissism, which was measured
with a single scale, manifested the lowest median divergent correla-
tion, r 5.02, as expected. The median correlation for the Factor 1
psychopathy scales was .67, whereas the median divergent correla-
tion was .29. To create the four composite scores (VDT; Factor 1
psychopathy), all relevant scales were z-scored and averaged. As can
be seen in Figure 1 (part A), the vulnerable narcissism composite was
signicantly related to BPD and secondary psychopathy composites,
rs 5.56 and .28, respectively. The BPD and Factor 2 psychopathy
composites were also signicantly correlated, r 5.48. Grandiose
narcissism manifested null effects with the vulnerable narcissism
(r 5.03) and BPD composites (r 5.00), and a moderate signicant
correlation with the Factor 2 psychopathy composite (r 5.30); gran-
diose narcissism also manifested a signicant correlation with Factor
1 psychopathy (r 5.50). Factor 1 psychopathy manifested signicant
correlations with all three VDT constructs: Factor 2 psychopathy
(r 5.68), vulnerable narcissism (r 5.31), and BPD (r 5.28).
Gender Differences
We next examined whether men and women manifested mean differ-
ences on the VDT constructs. There were no statistically signicant
differences for vulnerable narcissism (t(358) 5 .47, ns; d 5 .05)
or BPD (t(358) 5 .68, ns; d 5 .07); there was a signicant differ-
ence for Factor 2 psychopathy such that men scored signicantly
higher (t(358) 57.27, po.001; d 5.80). Men also scored higher on
grandiose narcissism (t(358) 54.83, po.001; d 5.52) and Factor 1
psychopathy (t(358) 511.18, po.001; d 51.22).
5
5. We also examined whether the relations between the personality constructs (i.e.,
BPD) and the criterion variables were moderated by gender. Of all the correla-
tions examined, less than 1% was signicantly different. As a result, the combined
sample is used in all analyses.
The Vulnerable Dark Triad and Basic Personality:
Five-Factor Model
We next compared the VDT composites with the ve domains and 30
facets from the NEO PI-R, a measure of the FFM (see Table 2). In
addition, the relations between the self-reported triad scores and par-
ent reports of the ve major domains were examined (listed in paren-
theses in Table 2). The mean effect sizes for the VDT and
the ve major domains were as follows: Neuroticism5.50, Extraver-
sion5 .25, Openness to experience 5.07, Agreeableness 5 .38,
and Conscientiousness 5 .37. There were, however, signicant
differences among the VDT members with certain FFM domains.
Both vulnerable narcissism and BPD manifested signicantly stronger
Vulnerable Narcissism
A: .56*
A: .28*
B: .23* B: .10
C: .94* C: .56*
D: .87* D: .50*
E: .93*
E: .67*
BPD Factor 2 Psychopathy
A: .48*
B: .40*
C: .72*
D: .53*
E: .77*
Figure1
Assessing the similarity of the Vulnerable Dark Triad constructs.
A: Bivariate relations between VDT constructs
B: Partial correlations between VDT constructs, controlling for Neuroti-
cism and Agreeableness
C: Similarity scores of VDT FFM personality proles
D: Similarity scores of VDT criterion proles
E: Similarity scores for all 65 correlates (NEO PI-R, UPPS, etiology and
criterion measures)
Table2
Correlations Between VDT Composites and the Five-Factor Model
Vulnerable Dark Triad Dark Triad
Factor 2
Psychopathy
Vulnerable
Narcissism BPD
Grandiose
Narcissism
Factor 1
Psychopathy
Neuroticism .17
n
a
(.10)
.60
n
b
(.32
n
)
.65
n
b
(.40
n
)
.30
n
c
( .17)
.06
d
( .14)
Anxiety .15
a
.37
n
b
.36
n
b
.32
a
.29
n
b
Angry hostility .30
n
a
.43
n
ab
.55
n
b
.10
c
.28
n
a
Depression .18
a
.55
n
b
.59
n
b
.33
c
.01
d
Self-consciousness .04
a
.54
n
b
.38
n
c
.37
d
.15
a
Impulsiveness .32
n
a
.27
n
a
.41
n
a
.05
b
.04
b
Vulnerability .15
a
.45
n
b
.51
n
b
.32
c
.13
d
Extraversion .16
n
a
( .09)
.31
n
a
( .23)
.29
n
a
( .09)
.33
n
b
(.12)
.21
n
a
( .19)
Warmth .34
n
a
.30
n
a
.32
n
a
.02
b
.44
n
a
Gregariousness .05
ab
.24
n
a
.21
n
a
.15
b
.19
n
a
Assertiveness .06
a
.27
n
b
.17
ab
.53
n
c
.11
d
Activity .13
a
.15
a
.16
a
.28
n
b
.08
a
Excitement seeking .18
a
.05
b
.02
b
.26
n
a
.11
ab
Positive emotions .26
n
a
.28
n
a
.32
n
a
.14
b
.36
n
a
Openness .08
a
(.04)
.01
ab
(.07)
.13
a
(.15)
.03
ab
(.07)
.12
b
(.12)
Fantasy .12
a
.09
ab
.11
ab
.01
ab
.04
b
Aesthetics .02
a
.03
ab
.13
a
.04
ab
.14
b
Feelings .13
a
.00
ab
.13
b
.06
ab
.30
n
c
Actions .16
a
.14
b
.03
a
.08
ab
.05
ab
Ideas .05 .04 .01 .11 .06
Values .08
a
.02
ab
.09
ab
.10
ab
.11
b
Agreeableness .48
n
a
( .15)
.31
n
a
(.01)
.34
n
a
( .13)
.49
n
a
( .21)
.71
n
b
( .13)
Trust .23
n
ac
.36
n
abd
.42
n
bd
.06
c
.39
n
d
Straightforwardness .46
n
a
.21
n
b
.28
n
bc
.45
n
ac
.65
n
d
Altruism .43
n
ac
.22
n
b
.27
n
ab
.15
b
.52
n
c
Compliance .43
n
a
.19
b
.29
n
ab
.40
n
ab
.48
n
a
Modesty .19
n
a
.13
ab
.00
b
.62
n
c
.40
n
d
Tendermindedness .20
n
a
.14
a
.10
a
.24
n
a
.42
n
b
Conscientiousness .50
n
a
( .39
n
)
.21
n
b
(.00)
.37
n
a
( .12)
.15
c
( .06)
.17
b
( .23)
Competence .34
n
a
.21
n
ac
.33
n
a
.26
n
b
.04
c
Order .30
n
a
.04
b
.13
ab
.02
b
.08
b
(Continued)
relations with Neuroticism than did Factor 2 psychopathy, whereas
Factor 2 psychopathy and BPD manifested signicantly stronger neg-
ative relations with Conscientiousness than did vulnerable narcissism.
There were no signicant differences among the VDT and the other
three domains. With regard to the original dark triad, grandiose nar-
cissism manifested an FFM prole that differed from the VDT with
regard to Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness. Factor 1
psychopathy differed from both the VDT (less) and grandiose nar-
cissism (more) in terms of Neuroticism; it also differed from all four
other triad constructs in that it manifested the strongest negative cor-
relation with Agreeableness. Factor 1 psychopathy manifested a re-
lation with Extraversion that was more similar to the VDT than
grandiose narcissism. In terms of Conscientiousness, Factor 1 psy-
chopathy differed from two of the three VDT members (in manifest-
ing a less negative relation) and grandiose narcissism. Overall, the
FFM domains accounted for between 42% and 55% of the VDT and
DT constructs.
To quantify the similarity between the personality proles and the
VDT, similarity scores were computed using the 30 facets of the
NEO PI-R (see Figure 1, part C). All three FFM proles were
signicantly related. Vulnerable narcissism and BPD manifested al-
most identical FFM proles, r
icc
5.94, followed by BPD and Factor
Table2 (Cont.)
Factor 2
Psychopathy
Vulnerable
Narcissism BPD
Grandiose
Narcissism
Factor 1
Psychopathy
Dutifulness .42
n
a
.22
n
b
.34
n
ab
.03
c
.21
n
b
Achievement Striving .29
n
a
.12
ac
.25
n
ac
.29
n
b
.08
c
Self-discipline .37
n
a
.28
n
ac
.41
n
a
.22
n
b
.10
c
Deliberation .57
n
a
.09
b
.26
n
c
.13
bc
.26
n
bc
R
2
.44
n
.42
n
.51
n
.52
n
.56
n
Similarity Scores
Grandiose Narcissism .03 .44
n
.32
Factor 1 Psychopathy .69
n
.29 .34 .43
n
Note. Correlations within each row with different superscripts are signicantly
different at po.001. Correlations within parentheses are with parental reports of
FFM domains.
n
po.001.
2 psychopathy, r
icc
5.72. The least similar FFM proles were gen-
erated by vulnerable narcissism and Factor 2 psychopathy, r
icc
5.56.
Grandiose narcissism manifested nonsignicant or signicant but
negative similarity scores with the VDT (see bottom of Table 2),
whereas Factor 1 psychopathy manifested a signicant similarity
score with Factor 2 psychopathy (r
icc
5.69) and positive but non-
signicant similarity scores with the other two VDT constructs.
Grandiose narcissism and Factor 1 psychopathy manifested a sig-
nicant but moderate-sized similarity score, r
icc
5.43.
We also examined the correlations between triad members and
parental reports of the FFM domains. Factor 2 psychopathy was
primarily negatively related to parental reports of Conscientious-
ness, whereas vulnerable narcissism was primarily positively related
to parental reports of Neuroticism and negatively related to Extr-
aversion. BPD was primarily positively related to parental reports of
Neuroticism. Interestingly, none of the VDT constructs were linked
to parental reports of Agreeableness; grandiose narcissism, however,
manifested a negative relation with parental reports of Agreeable-
ness (i.e., r 5 .21). Factor 1 psychopathy was negatively related to
parental FFM reports of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness,
and Conscientiousness, although the correlations were small.
Finally, we tested whether the VDT members were related because
of their shared vulnerable (i.e., Neuroticism) and dark (i.e., low
Agreeableness) traits. Partial correlations between the VDT con-
structs were examined, controlling for Neuroticism and Agreeable-
ness (see Figure 1, part B). The correlation between vulnerable
narcissism and BPD was reduced by 59% after controlling for the
vulnerable and dark FFM domains. Similarly, the correlation be-
tween vulnerable narcissism and Factor 2 psychopathy was reduced
by 64% after controlling for these two FFM domains. Finally, the
correlation between BPD and secondary psychopathy was reduced
by 17% after controlling for the two FFM domains.
The Vulnerable Dark Triad and Basic Personality:
Impulsivity-Related Traits (UPPS-P Model)
Next, we compared the relations between the VDT and impulsivity-
related traits from the UPPS-P (see Table 3). As expected, Factor 2
psychopathy was more strongly related to all ve traits than vulner-
able narcissism. Unexpectedly, however, BPD was less strongly
related to these traits than Factor 2 psychopathy for all traits except
negative urgency and lack of perseverance. The degree to which
impulsivity explains each of the VDT members was examined by
conducting simultaneous regression analyses in which each VDT
member was regressed on the ve impulsivity-related traits. The ve
traits accounted for the most variance in Factor 2 psychopathy
(R
2
5.50), followed by BPD (R
2
5.35) and vulnerable narcissism
(R
2
5.23). As expected, grandiose narcissism manifested a divergent
prole as it was related only to positive urgency and sensation seek-
ing, and these traits explained the least amount of variance
(R
2
5.17). Factor 1 psychopathy was related to negative and pos-
itive urgency and sensation seeking, but at more modest levels than
Factor 2 psychopathy; the UPPS-P domains accounted for 20% of
the variance in Factor 1 psychopathy.
The Vulnerable Dark Triad and Environmental
Etiological Factors
All three members of the VDT manifested a number of signicant
correlations with negative environmental experiences (e.g., abuse; see
Table 4). On average, BPD manifested the largest and most consistent
correlations of the VDT with these negative events, and Factor 2
psychopathy manifested the smallest, with the correlations generated by
vulnerable narcissism falling in between the other two VDT constructs.
Table3
Correlations Between VDT Composites and Impulsivity-Related Traits
Factor 2
Psychopathy
Vulnerable
Narcissism BPD
Grandiose
Narcissism
Factor 1
Psychopathy
Negative urgency .60
n
a
.41
n
b
.57
n
a
.09
c
.34
n
b
Positive urgency .59
n
a
.26
n
bc
.35
n
bc
.24
n
b
.42
n
c
Sensation seeking .33
n
a
.10
b
.01
bc
.23
n
ac
.22
n
a
Lack of perseverance .41
n
a
.15
bd
.32
n
ad
.16
c
.14
d
Lack of premeditation .51
n
a
.01
b
.17
c
.12
bc
.19
bc
R
2
.50
n
.23
n
.35
n
.17
n
.20
n
different at po.001.
n
po.001.
In terms of the original dark triad constructs, grandiose narcissism
manifested no signicant correlations with any of the abuse or parent-
ing constructs, whereas Factor 1 psychopathy manifested a signicant
correlation (negative) only with parental monitoring.
The Vulnerable Dark Triad and Current Functioning:
Psychopathology, Affect, Affect Regulation, Self-Esteem,
Adult Attachment, and Externalizing Behaviors
The VDT manifested consistently positive correlations with psycho-
pathological symptoms such as anxiety, depression, hostility, inter-
personal sensitivity, and paranoid ideation, as well as negative affect
and emotion dysregulation (see Table 5). The VDT also manifested
negative correlations with positive affect and self-esteem. Finally, the
VDT evinced positive correlations with both an avoidant and anx-
ious (i.e., fearful) adult romantic attachment style. There was heter-
ogeneity, however, with regard to effect sizes, with BPD generally
manifesting the strongest relations with these constructs, followed by
vulnerable narcissism and then Factor 2 psychopathy (although the
differences between Factor 2 psychopathy and vulnerable narcissism
were often nonsignicant). Grandiose narcissism manifested an
Table4
Correlations Between VDT Composites and Etiological Constructs
Factor 2
Psychopathy
Vulnerable
Narcissism BPD
Grandiose
Narcissism
Factor 1
Psychopathy
Etiology
Abuse
Sexual .22
ab
.19
n
ab
.32
n
a
.05
b
.19
n
ab
Verbal .27
n
a
.33
n
ab
.46
n
b
.00
c
.17
ac
Physical .24
a
.27
n
a
.37
n
a
.03
b
.17
a
Emotional .26
n
ad
.37
n
ab
.48
n
b
.09
c
.15
d
Parenting
Warmth .18
ab
.21
n
ab
.31
n
a
.01
b
.16
ab
Monitoring .41
n
ac
.14
bc
.25
n
abc
.10
b
.31
n
c
Psychological intrusiveness .21
n
acd
.38
n
ab
.42
n
b
.03
cd
.17
d
n
po.001.
entirely different pattern as it demonstrated negative or null relations
with psychopathology, negative affect, and problematic attachment
styles, and positive correlations with positive affect and self-esteem.
Alternatively, Factor 1 psychopathy manifested null to small posi-
tive correlations with indices of psychopathology, affect, emotional
dysregulation, and the attachment styles. In general, the Factor 1
psychopathy scores were more strongly related to psychopathology
and affective problems than grandiose narcissism but less strongly
than most of the members of the VDT.
Table5
Correlations Between VDT Composites and the Criterion Measures
Factor 2
Psychopathy
Vulnerable
Narcissism BPD
Grandiose
Narcissism
Factor 1
Psychopathy
Psychopathology
Anxiety .20
n
a
.40
n
b
.55
n
c
.13
d
.11
a
Depression .29
n
a
.40
n
a
.62
n
b
.15
c
.12
d
Hostility .32
n
a
.33
n
a
.52
n
b
.01
c
.24
n
a
Interpersonal sensitivity .15
n
a
.45
n
b
.54
n
b
.19
n
c
.04
a
Paranoid ideation .28
n
a
.34
n
a
.42
n
a
.07
b
.28
n
a
Global distress .32
n
a
.43
n
a
.62
n
b
.11
c
.17
d
Affect
Positive .12
a
.29
n
ab
.35
n
b
.37
n
c
.04
d
Negative .26
n
a
.50
n
b
.54
n
b
.06
c
.19
n
a
Emotion dysregulation .38
n
a
.53
n
a
.69
n
b
.13
c
.22
n
d
Self-esteem .22
n
a
.45
n
b
.56
n
b
.41
n
c
.00
d
Attachment
Avoidance .29
n
a
.29
n
a
.25
n
a
.10
b
.23
n
a
Anxiety .24
n
a
.54
n
b
.51
n
b
.13
c
.17
a
Functioning
Crime .60
n
a
.15
b
.33
n
cd
.21
n
bc
.48
n
d
Alcohol use .34
n
a
.09
b
.25
n
ab
.18
ab
.25
n
ab
Substance use .45
n
a
.03
b
.31
n
ac
.04
b
.21
n
bc
Gambling .34
n
a
.02
b
.03
b
.23
n
ab
.38
n
a
Intimate partner violence .11
ab
.08
a
.27
n
b
.07
ab
.04
a
Nonsuicidal self-harm .26
n
a
.18
n
ac
.44
n
b
.00
c
.12
c
Similarity Scores
Grandiose Narcissism .55
n
.86
n
.81
n
Factor 1 Psychopathy .67
n
.14 .05 .14
n
po.001.
With regard to darker behaviors, the VDT was generally posi-
tively related to externalizing behaviors such as crime, alcohol and
substance use, and nonsuicidal self-harm, with the exception of vulner-
able narcissism, which was only related to nonsuicidal self-harm. In
addition, the relations between Factor 2 psychopathy and the exter-
nalizing behaviors were stronger than those found for BPDfor criminal
behavior and gambling. As expected, grandiose narcissism manifested
similarly positive relations with some of the externalizing behaviors
(e.g., crime, gambling), although these relations were smaller than those
found for Factor 2 psychopathy. Factor 1 psychopathy manifested
signicant and positive correlations for four of the six dark behaviors
(the exceptions being intimate partner violence and nonsuicidal
self-harm).
Examined together via similarity analyses (see Figure 1, part D), vul-
nerable narcissism and BPD again manifested the most similar relations
with these criterion variables (r
icc
5.87), followed by nearly equal levels
of similarity between Factor 2 psychopathy and BPD (r
icc
5.53) and
Factor 2 psychopathy and vulnerable narcissism (r
icc
5.50); all three
correlations were signicant. Grandiose narcissism manifested highly
divergent similarity scores from the VDT constructs for these criterion
measures: Factor 2 psychopathy (r
icc
5 .55), vulnerable narcissism
(r
icc
5 .86), and BPD (r
icc
5 .81). Factor 1 psychopathy manifested
a convergent pattern with Factor 2 psychopathy only (r
icc
5.67) and
null similarity scores with vulnerable narcissism (r
icc
5.14), BPD
(r
icc
5.05), and grandiose narcissism (r
icc
5 .14).
Finally, we computed a total similarity score across the triad
constructs taking into account all 65 individual correlations (i.e., 35
NEO PI-R scores; 5 UPPS scores; 7 etiological scores; 18 criterion
scores; see Figure 1, part E). Factor 2 psychopathy manifested sig-
nicant total similarity scores with the other two VDT members:
vulnerable narcissism (r
icc
5.67) and BPD (r
icc
5.77). Factor 2
psychopathy was unrelated to grandiose narcissism (r
icc
5.12) and
highly signicantly related to Factor 1 psychopathy (r
icc
5.82).
Vulnerable narcissism was almost perfectly correlated with BPD
(r
icc
5.93), manifested a moderate positive correlation with Factor 1
psychopathy (r
icc
5.51), and manifested a negative correlation with
grandiose narcissism (r
icc
5 .36); all three correlations were sig-
nicant. BPD also manifested a moderate positive correlation with
Factor 1 psychopathy (r
icc
5.52) and a negative and nonsignicant
correlation with grandiose narcissism (r
icc
5 .29). Finally,
grandiose narcissism and Factor 1 psychopathy manifested a mod-
erate and signicant similarity correlation (r
icc
5.45).
DISCUSSION
We believe that the current evidence supports the existence of a second
dark triad, one that is characterized by an antagonistic interper-
sonal style and emotional vulnerability. The members of the VDT are
also lower in positive emotionality/affect and Conscientiousness. All
VDT members manifested signicant relations with similar etiological
factors, such as retrospective reports of childhood abuse and colder,
more invalidating parenting styles. The VDT was also similarly re-
lated to current levels of psychopathology and lower self-esteem. With
the exception of vulnerable narcissism, the VDT constructs were re-
lated to dark behaviors such as antisocial behavior and substance
use. Given the distress and dysregulation associated with the VDT
contructs, we expected and found that all three manifested signicant
relations with histories of nonsuicidal self-harm.
Despite their ample similarities, the VDT constructs did differ in
meaningful ways as well. Factor 2 psychopathy manifested the least
similar personality prole of the VDT, as it was less strongly related to
negative emotionality and psychopathology (i.e., Neuroticism; Brief
Symptom Inventory) and more strongly related to impulse-control
problems (i.e., Conscientiousness; UPPS-P traits) and externalizing
behaviors. Factor 2 psychopathy appears to be the member of the
VDT that is closest to the original DT; in fact, Factor 2 psychopathy
was equally strongly related to vulnerable (r 5.28) and grandiose
(r 5.30) narcissism and manifested a strong correlation with Factor 1
psychopathy (r 5.68). Factor 2 psychopathy appears to be less
strongly related to internalizing symptoms and traits when compared
to vulnerable narcissism and BPD. The VDT members also differed in
terms of the effect sizes for certain relations; for instance, BPD dem-
onstrated the strongest and most consistent relations with the retro-
spective reports of environmental insults and injuries (e.g., abuse,
problematic parenting), as well as current levels of psychopathology
(e.g., anxiety, depression, hostility; emotion dysregulation). This is
consistent with BPDs substantial comorbidity with Axis I and II dis-
orders (Zanarini et al., 1998a, 1998b; Zimmerman et al., 2005) and
treatment utilization costs (e.g., Bateman & Fonagy, 2003).
The inclusion of grandiose narcissism and Factor 1 psychopathy as
representatives of the original DT allowed for an important compar-
ison of the discriminant validity of the VDT. Interestingly, these two
members of the original DT manifested substantially different patterns
of relations. Grandiose narcissism differed from the VDT personality
styles on almost every criterion included, such as basic personality,
impulsivity, and etiological factors, and criterion constructs such as
psychopathology, affect, attachment, and self-esteem. Grandiose nar-
cissism shared only a similar tendency toward antagonistic interper-
sonal relations (i.e., FFM Agreeableness); even here there seems to
have been some important trait differences, if examined at the specic
facet level. For example, the relation between grandiose narcissism and
the immodesty facet of Agreeableness was signicantly larger than the
relations between immodesty and the VDT constructs. Alternatively,
both vulnerable narcissism and BPD manifested statistically signi-
cantly larger negative correlations with the trust facet of Agreeableness
than did grandiose narcissism. The relations between vulnerable nar-
cissism, BPD, and the trust facet from the Agreeableness domain sug-
gest that individuals with higher scores on these two VDT constructs
may manifest a hostile attribution bias such that they read malevolent
intent in the actions of others (Miller, Lynam, & Jones, 2008). Hostile
attribution biases are correlated with aggressive behavior in children
(e.g., Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, &Newman, 1990) and adults (Miller,
Lynam, & Jones, 2008) and have been linked with etiological factors
such as abuse or harsh discipline (e.g., Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Valente,
1995). Tentatively, these ndings suggest that there may be different
forms of disagreeableness and different pathways to such interpersonal
attitudes and behaviors. Individuals who are high on grandiose nar-
cissism may be disagreeable (e.g., immodest, aggressive) for both in-
strumental reasons (e.g., personal gain) and for reasons related to
status and dominance, whereas the VDT, particularly vulnerable nar-
cissismand BPD, may be related to disagreeable interpersonal behavior
due to affective dysregulation and distrust of others, both of which may
stem from early childhood experiences (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004).
Factor 1 psychopathy, unlike grandiose narcissism, manifested
relations that fell in between those found for the VDT and grandiose
narcissism. Factor 1 psychopathy was more strongly related to
certain forms of impulsivity than grandiose narcissism but less
than most of the VDT members. Similarly, Factor 1 psychopathy
manifested positive (but not signicant) relations with the various
etiological factors (e.g., abuse, poorer parenting), unlike grandiose
narcissism, but these relations were, again, smaller than those found
for some of the VDT members, primarily BPD. A similar pattern
was found for Factor 1 psychopathy and the criterion variables such
as psychopathology, affect, emotion dysregulation, and attachment
styles. This in-between pattern can be traced back to Factor 1
psychopathy scores with the FFM. Like all the personality styles,
Factor 1 psychopathy was signicantly negatively related to Agree-
ableness. However, the correlation between Factor 1 psychopathy
and Neuroticism was (basically) zero, putting it between the signi-
cant positive correlations found for the VDT and the signicant
negative correlation found for grandiose narcissism.
Combining the current ndings regarding a possible vulnerable dark
triad with the extant literature on the original dark triad adds to the
extant literature, suggesting that there are a number of personality
disorders or styles that are substantially related (e.g., Cluster B PDs).
In fact, rather than nding two distinct triads, the current ndings
suggest the existence of a dark continuum of pathological person-
ality constructs. These disorders or personality stylesFactor 1 and
Factor 2 psychopathy, grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, BPD, and
Machiavellianismshare a tendency toward self-centered, dishonest,
and callous attitudes toward others, which often result in behaviors
that fall on the externalizing continuum (e.g., Krueger, Markon, Pat-
rick, Benning, & Kramer, 2007). The constructs may diverge, however,
along other important basic traits related to negative and positive
emotionality and disinhibition. For instance, BPD and vulnerable nar-
cissism manifest the most substantial positive correlations with a host
of negative emotions of both an internalizing (e.g., anxiety, depression,
self-consciousness, and vulnerability to stress) and externalizing nature
(angry hostility, impulsiveness), whereas Factor 1 and Factor 2 psy-
chopathy are primarily related to acting out/externalizing variants of
negative emotions (i.e., angry hostility). Finally, grandiose narcissismis
largely negatively related to all forms of negative emotions. In addi-
tion, these disorders also differ with regard to notions of the self, with
constructs such as grandiose narcissism related to inated self-views,
whereas the VDT constructs were negatively related to self-esteem.
Although most of the personality styles included in the VDT and the
DT appear to be related but independent constructs, there is one pair
that requires greater attention. Vulnerable narcissism, a construct that
has received the least empirical attention of this group, manifested a
nomological network that was nearly identical to BPDs net. The
similarity scores for vulnerable narcissism and BPD across the 65
correlates was .93, suggesting nearly identical patterns of correlates
between these two VDT constructs and important criterion variables.
The two seem to diverge primarily on the degree of impulse control
problems and environmental injury (both higher in BPD); possibly as a
result of these differences, vulnerable narcissismis not as strongly linked
to the externalizing behaviors often associated with BPD (e.g., sub-
stance use, aggression). The overlap between these constructs has been
noted previously (e.g., Pincus et al., 2009), and some have suggested that
shame and guilt play a primary role in both (e.g., Hendin & Cheek,
1997; Rusch et al., 2007). In the current study, both constructs displayed
a signicant relation with the trait self-consciousness, which is related to
shame and embarrassment (Costa & McCrae, 1992), although vulner-
able narcissism manifested a signicantly stronger correlation.
Given the high degree of overlap between these two constructs, it
is not entirely clear whether vulnerable narcissism warrants its
own place as a fully independent PD construct (or subtype of
NPD), as has been argued elsewhere (i.e., Miller & Campbell,
2008; PDM Task Force, 2006), or whether it should be seen as a
part of the BPD construct. Future research is needed, ideally con-
ducted in clinical samples, to further explore the degree of overlap
found between these constructs. Research of this kind may help
determine whether vulnerable narcissism and BPD should be con-
sidered related but distinct constructs or slightly different congu-
rations of the same overall construct, with BPD representing a more
distressed and impulsive variant. We should note that although the
two constructs manifested substantial similarity in the pattern of
correlations with the criterion variables, they were only correlated at
.56 at the composite level. There are a number of possible interpre-
tations for this discrepancy. First, this correlation may suggest that
the two are less overlapping than suggested by their pattern of cor-
relates. Second, this discrepancy may be due, in part, to measure-
ment error; both the vulnerable narcissism and BPD composites
included at least one subscale with only poor to adequate internal
consistency (e.g., HSNS: a 5.67; PDQ41BPD: 5.52). Finally, a
review of the self-report items used to measure the two suggests im-
portant differences with regard to the level of pathology assessed
(e.g., SCID-II BPD item: Do you often have temper outbursts or
get so angry that you lose control?; HSNS vulnerable narcissism
item: I often interpret the remarks of others in a personal way). It
is possible that items related to both constructs are assessing differ-
ent levels of the same latent construct. Item response theory analyses
may be useful for testing this latter hypothesis.
Limitations and Conclusion
Although the current study provides promising data on the notion of
VDT and a broader dark continuum, it is not without limitations.
First, the study relied primarily on self-report data generated from a
predominantly White undergraduate sample. The reliance on self-
report data in reference to personality pathology may be problematic
because individuals with these personality styles may have limited
insight (e.g., Oltmanns, Turkheimer, Krueger, & Tackett, 2006).
Nonetheless, the personality proles generated by the VDT
constructs with self-reported personality traits were relatively
similar to those generated by the informant reports. In fact, the
informants (i.e., parents) reported a more well-adjusted prole
than did the participants (i.e., parents reported that their adult
children were signicantly less neurotic and more agreeable and
conscientious). The use of a college sample is a limitation in that the
variance in some of these constructs is certainly lower than one
would nd in a clinical sample. We believe, however, that this type of
sample is an appropriate place for testing relations between
constructs even if they are inappropriate for deriving prevalence
estimates. Future work would benet from testing these relations in
a psychiatric sample. We should also note that the substantial level
of overlap between Factors 1 and 2 psychopathy may have been in-
ated because of common method variance in that these composites
included items from the same self-report measures. Finally, we
should note that other pathological personality constructs might
show similar patterns of correlations with regard to all or some of
the criterion variables, which argues in favor of a dimensional trait
understanding of these disorders and their comorbidity (e.g., Lynam
& Widiger, 2001).
Overall, these ndings support the notion that the VDT represents
a group of personality constructs that are signicantly related
and manifest similar personality proles (i.e., high Neuroticism;
low Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion) and
outcomes (e.g., distress, emotional dysregulation, low self-esteem,
and externalizing behaviors) and share similar etiological factors
such as multiple forms of childhood abuse and poorer parenting.
The VDT constructs appear to exist on a continuum with members
of the original dark triad in that both share these darker inter-
personal traits, but they may diverge with regard to other basic traits
such as Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bagby, R. M., Vachon, D. D., Bulmash, E., & Quilty, L. C. (2008). Personality
disorders and pathological gambling: A review and re-examination of preva-
lence rates. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 191207.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected con-
struct. Child Development, 67, 32963319.
Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2003). Health service utilization costs for borderline
personality disorder patients treated with psychoanalytically oriented partial
hospitalization versus general psychiatric care. American Journal of Psychiatry,
160, 169171.
Battle, C. L., Shea, M. T., Johnson, D. M., Yen, S., Zlotnick, C., Zanarini, M. C.,
et al. (2004). Childhood maltreatment associated with adult personality disor-
ders: Findings from the collaborative longitudinal personality disorders study.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 193211.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson,
P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes (Vol. 1). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bornovalova, M. A., Gratz, K. L., Daughters, S. B., Delany-Brumsey, A.,
Kosson, D, Lejuez, C. L., et al. (2008). A multimodal assessment of the re-
lationship between emotion dysregulation and borderline personality disorder
among inner-city substance users in residential treatment. Journal of Psychi-
atric Research, 42, 717726.
Bradley, R., Conklin, C. Z., & Westen, D. (2005). The borderline personality
diagnosis in adolescents: Gender differences and subtypes. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 10061019.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Rening the construct of psychopath: Towards
a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171188.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-
PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Lutz,
FL: PAR.
Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An
introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595605.
Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188207.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social information-
processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later
conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 632643.
Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., Bachorowski, J., & Newman, J. P. (1990). Hostile
attributional biases in severely aggressive adolescents. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 99, 385392.
Fairchild, A. J., & Finney, S. J. (2006). Investigating validity evidence for the
Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised questionnaire. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66, 116135.
Feske, U., Tarter, R. E., Kirisci, L., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2006). Borderline personality
and substance use in women. American Journal on Addictions, 15, 131137.
First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S.
(1997). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II personality disorders
(SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory
analysis of self- report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 350365.
Frodi, A., Dernevik, M., Sepa, A., Philipson, J., & Bragesjo, M. (2001). Current
attachment representations of incarcerated offenders varying in degree of psy-
chopathy. Attachment and Human Development, 3, 269283.
Gardner, K., & Qualter, P. (2009). Reliability and validity of three screening
measures of borderline personality disorder in a non-clinical population. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 46, 636641.
Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Pryor, L. R., & Lynam, D. R. (2009). Comparing
two alternative models of general personality in the assessment of psycho-
pathy: A test of the NEO PI-R and the MPQ. Journal of Personality, 77,
965996.
Gratz, K., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regu-
lation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation
of the Difculties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 4154.
Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Psychopathy ChecklistRevised (2nd ed.).
Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reex-
amination of Murrays Narcissism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality,
31, 588599.
Horton, R. S., Bleau, G., & Drwecki, B. (2006). Parenting Narcissus: What are
the links between parenting and narcissism? Journal of Personality, 74,
345376.
Hyler, S. E. (1994). PDQ41personality questionnaire. New York: NYSPI.
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 Person-
ality, 23, 518.
Kendler, K., Aggen, S. H., Czajkowski, N., Roysamb, E., Tambs, K., Torgersen,
S., et al. (2008). The structure of genetic and environmental risk factors
for DSM-IV personality disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65,
14381446.
Klonsky, E. D., & Olino, T. M. (2008). Identifying clinically distinct subgroups of
self-injurers among young adults: A latent class analysis. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 76, 2227.
Kosson, D. S., Cyterski, T. D., Steuerwald, B. L., Neumann, C. S., & Walker-
Matthews, S. (2002). The reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist:
Youth Version (PCL: YV) in non-incarcerated adolescent males. Psychological
Assessment, 14, 97109.
Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., & Kramer, M. D.
(2007). Linking antisocial behavior, substance use, and personality: An inte-
grative quantitative model of the adult externalizing spectrum. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 116, 645666.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991).
Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative,
authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62,
10491065.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism
in the ve-factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 15711582.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psycho-
pathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 151158.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive behavioral treatment of borderline personality
disorder. New York: Guilford Press.
Lynam, D. R., & Derenko, K. J. (2006). Psychopathy and personality. In C. J.
Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of the psychopathy (pp. 133155). New York:
Guilford Press.
Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., Miller, D. J., Bournovalova, M., & Lejuez, C.
(in press). Testing the relations between impulsivity-related traits, suicidality
and non-suicidal self-injury: A test of the incremental validity of the UPPS
model. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment.
Lynam, D. R., Smith, G. T., Whiteside, S. P., & Cyders, M. A. (2006). The UPPS-
P: Assessing ve personality pathways to impulsive behavior (technical report).
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the ve-factor model to represent
the DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of
Mauricio, A. M., Tein, J.-Y., & Lopez, F. G. (2007). Borderline and antisocial
personality scores as mediators between attachment and intimate partner
violence. Violence and Victims, 22, 139157.
McCrae, R. R. (2008). A note on some measures of prole agreement. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 90, 105109.
Meyer, B., Pilkonis, P. A., & Beevers, C. G. (2004). Whats in a (neutral) face?
Personality disorders, attachment styles, and the appraisal of ambiguous social
cues. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 320336.
Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-
personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76,
449476.
Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., & Pryor, L. R. (2008). The Levenson Self-Report
Psychopathy Scale: An examination of the personality traits and disorders as-
sociated with the LSRP factors. Assessment, 15, 450463.
Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., Pryor, L. R., Kamen, C., & Campbell, W. K.
(2009). Is research using the NPI relevant for understanding Narcissistic
Personality Disorder? Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 482488.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Psychopathy and the ve-factor model of
personality: A replication and extension. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81,
168178.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., & Jones, S. (2008). Externalizing behavior through
the lens of the ve-factor model: A focus on agreeableness and conscientious-
ness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 158164.
Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2008). Psychopathic traits in a large community
sample: Links to violence, alcohol use, and intelligence. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 76, 893899.
Oltmanns, T. F., Turkheimer, E., Krueger, R. F., & Tackett, J. L. (2006). Per-
ceptions of self and others regarding pathological personality traits. In R.
Krueger & J. Tackett (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology: Building bridges
(pp. 71111). New York: Guilford Press.
Otway, L. J., & Vignoles, V. L. (2006). Narcissism and childhood recollections: A
quantitative test of psychoanalytic predictions. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 32, 104116.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Nar-
cissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personal-
ity, 36, 556563.
PDM Task Force. (2006). Psychodynamic diagnostic manual. Silver Spring, MD:
Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations.
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A., & Levy,
K. N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcis-
sism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365379.
Poythress, N. G., Skeem, J. L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2006). Associations among
early abuse, dissociation, and psychopathy in an offender sample. Journal of
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcis-
sistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890902.
Rogosch, F. A., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). Child maltreatment and emergent per-
sonality organization: Perspectives from the ve-factor model. Journal of Ab-
normal Child Psychology, 32, 123145.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rusch, N., Lieb, K., Gottler, I., Hermann, C., Schramm, E., Richter, H., et al.
(2007). Shame and implicit self-concept in women with borderline personality
disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 500508.
Russ, E., Shedler, J., Bradley, R., & Westen, D. (2008). Rening the construct of
narcissistic personality disorder: Diagnostic criteria and subtypes. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 14731481.
Salteris, C. (2002). Psychopathy in juvenile offenders: Can temperament and at-
tachment be considered as robust developmental precursors? Clinical Psychol-
ogy Review, 22, 729752.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relation-
ships between the ve-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A
facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 13261342.
Sanders, B., & Giolas, M. H. (1991). Dissociation and childhood trauma in psy-
chologically disturbed adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 5054.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004).
Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 400416.
Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Gordon, K. C., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W.
(2006). Psychopathology in women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 21, 376389.
Stukenberg, K. W., Dura, J. R., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1990). Depression
screening scale validation in an elderly, community dwelling population. Psy-
chological Assessment, 2, 134138.
Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., Lynam, D. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Borderline
personality disorder from the perspective of general personality functioning.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 193202.
Verona, E., Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2005). Psychopathy and suicidality in
female offenders: Mediating inuences of personality and abuse. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 10651073.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Iowa.
Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity:
Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality
and Individual Differences, 30, 669689.
Whiteside, S. P., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Reynolds, S. K. (2005). Valida-
tion of the UPPS impulsive behavior scale: A four-factor model of impulsivity.
European Journal of Personality, 19, 559574.
Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (1998). Psychopathy and the ve-factor model of
personality. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.),
Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 171187). New
York: Guilford Press.
Widiger, T. A. (2006). Psychopathy and DSM-IV psychopathology. In C. J. Pat-
rick (Ed.), Handbook of the psychopathy (pp. 156171). New York: Guilford
Press.
Williams, K., Paulhus, D., & Hare, R. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure
of psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of Personality As-
sessment, 88, 205219.
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 61, 590597.
Witt, E. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2008). Furthering the case for the MPQ-
based measures of psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,
219225.
Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Dubo, E. D., Sickel, A. E., Trikha, A.,
Levin, A., et al. (1998a). Axis I comorbidity of borderline personality disorder.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 17331739.
Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Dubo, E. D., Sickel, A. E., Trikha, A.,
Levin, A., et al. (1998b). Axis II comorbidity of borderline personality disor-
der. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 39, 296302.
Zanarini, M., Vujanovic, A., Parachini, E., Boulanger, J., Frankenburg, F., &
Hennen, J. (2003). A screening measure for BPD: The McLean Screening
Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD). Journal of
Personality Disorders, 17, 568573.
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Abraham, J. (2006). Borderline personality features: Instability
of self-esteem and affect. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25,
668687.
Zimmerman, M., Rothschild, L., & Chelminski, I. (2005). The prevalence of
DSM-IV personality disorders in psychiatric outpatients. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 162, 19111918.

Vulnerable Dark Triad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vulnerable Dark Triad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vulnerable Dark Triad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Searching for a Vulnerable Dark Triad: Comparing

Factor 2 Psychopathy, Vulnerable Narcissism, and

You might also like