نیمه تاریک عشق و رضایت از زندگی: ارتباط با روابط صمیمی، اختلالات فکری و روانی و ماکیاولیسم
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34340||2010||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4734 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 228–233
This study examines, for the first time, the psychopathy subtypes and Machiavellianism in relation to life satisfaction and intimate relationships. Using structural equation modelling (SEM) in a male and female non-clinical sample, we investigated the degree to which primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy, Machiavellianism, gender, sociosexual orientation and the relationship components of intimacy, commitment and passion, accounted for variance in life satisfaction. Results indicated that Machiavellianism was negatively associated with the relationship components. Unexpectedly, primary psychopathy was positively associated with the relationship components. Secondary psychopathy was negatively associated with life satisfaction and intimacy. Implications for the conceptualisation of “dark side” traits and their effects on inter- and intra-personal relations are considered.
Non-clinical psychopathy and Machiavellianism are personality traits with a particularly nefarious reputation; they are associated with callousness, manipulation, deception, egocentricity, emotional coldness, superficial charm and exploitation (e.g., Austin et al., 2007, Hare, 1991 and McHoskey et al., 1998). Research into aversive or “dark side” personality traits is burgeoning, with particular interest directed towards the emotional deficits endemic in non-clinical psychopathy and Machiavellianism, such as anxiety, emotion modulated startle response, emotion perception, empathy, aggression and emotional intelligence (e.g., Ali et al., 2009, Austin et al., 2007 and Del Gaizo and Falkenbach, 2008). Theoretically, psychopathy is dyadic as it consists of primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) and research has confirmed the heterogeneity of psychopathy (e.g., Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008), with primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy thought to be distinguishable by negative affectivity (e.g., Brinkley et al., 2004 and Newman et al., 2005). The Anti-social Personality Questionnaire (APQ: Blackburn & Fawcett, 1999) indicates that primary psychopathy is characterised by impulsivity, aggression, hostility, extraversion, self-confidence and low to average anxiety. Secondary psychopathy, like primary psychopathy, is characterised by hostility, impulsivity and aggression, but unlike primary psychopathy, it is associated with social anxiety, introversion, moodiness and low self-esteem. Psychopathy and Machiavellianism do not fare well in the interpersonal domain, as exemplified in the interpersonal circle structural model (see Leary, 1957 and Wiggins, 1982), which consists of two dimensions, namely power/control (dominance vs. submission) and affiliation (hostility vs. nurturance). Psychopathy is represented by a hostile interpersonal style involving subtle forms of humiliating, retaliatory and critical interactions designed to inspire fear in others (Leary, 1957). Empirical research provides support for the associations between psychopathy and a hostile dominance interpersonal style (e.g., Blackburn, 1998 and Kosson et al., 1997). In relation to Machiavellianism, several studies indicate that high Machiavellianism scorers are high on dominance and low on affiliation (e.g., Gurtman, 1992 and Locke and Christensen, 2007). Life satisfaction has been positively associated with happy intimate relationships (e.g., Arrindell, van Nieuwenhuizen, & Luteijn, 2001) and successful intimate relationships tend to be characterised by high intimacy, passion and commitment (Sternberg, 1998). Considering the deficiency in affect and antagonistic behavioural style manifested in both psychopathy and Machiavellianism, it is unsurprising that these personality styles are associated with poor intimate relationship quality. Psychopathic traits (in clinical and non-clinical samples) are associated with relationship distress and breakdown (Han et al., 2003 and Savard et al., 2006), infidelity (Egan & Angus, 2004), domestic violence (Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2003) and acts of sexual aggression (Hersh & Gray-Little, 1998). As stated by Ullrich, Farrington, and Coid (2008) ‘lack of remorse, lack of empathy, and callousness are counterproductive for status and wealth and successful intimate relationships’ (p. 1169). Although much less research has examined Machiavellianism and intimate relationships, research indicates that Machiavellianism is associated with promiscuity, hostile sexual attitudes and various selfish and deceptive sexual tactics such as cheating, divulging intimate sexual secrets to others, feigning love, inducing intoxication to secure sex and an endorsement of using sexual force (Jonason et al., 2009 and McHoskey, 2001), though these effects seem to be attenuated or absent in females (McHoskey, 2001). The current study examined life satisfaction in psychopathy and Machiavellianism; an area which so far has been neglected in the research literature. Potential differences between primary and secondary psychopathy in relation to life satisfaction have never been investigated, even though research has demonstrated that the two subtypes can be differentiated on the basis of affective experience (e.g., Blackburn, 2009). Because the quality of a relationship contributes to life satisfaction, the current study also expands research investigating maladaptive traits and intimate relationships by examining psychopathy and Machiavellianism alongside sexual strategy (sociosexual orientation) and the relationship components of intimacy, commitment and passion, in a non-clinical sample. Research with non-clinical samples has found that despite lower base-rates, there is evidence for diverse expressions of psychopathic traits across the population (Skeem, Poythress, Edens, Lilienfeld, & Cale, 2003) and investigators (e.g., Lilienfeld, 1998 and Williams and Paulhus, 2004) argue that research on non-clinical samples is necessary for findings to generalise to more individuals. Most studies using self-report based measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism suggest that males tend to score higher on these measures than females (e.g., Wilson et al., 1999 and Zágon and Jackson, 1994), although a few studies have shown no significant gender differences in self-reported psychopathy scores (e.g., Hamburger, Lilienfeld, & Hogben, 1996). Psychopathy and intimate relationship research tends to focus on males (e.g., Savard et al., 2006) yet assessing non-clinical psychopathy and Machiavellianism in females could enhance knowledge on the potential theoretical relevance of these traits in both genders. With regards to intimate relationships, past research has sometimes relied on one-dimensional global measures of psychopathy (e.g., Han et al., 2003 and Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2003), which ignore potential differences between primary and secondary psychopathy. The current study employed a mixed-gender, non-clinical and adult (non-student) sample to investigate life satisfaction and intimate relationships in primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy and Machiavellianism. It was hypothesised that these dark traits would be negatively associated with the relationship components and satisfaction with life, but positively associated with a promiscuous sociosexual orientation. It was also hypothesised that the relationship components would be positively associated with greater life satisfaction. Finally, it was hypothesised that males would be positively associated with higher levels of these dark traits and a promiscuous sociosexual orientation.