سه گانه تاریک، شادی و بهزیستن ذهنی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38026||2014||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 67, September 2014, Pages 17–22
Abstract Narcissism can be expressed in grandiose or vulnerable forms. We examined whether positive psychological states (defined by the Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI) and the Diener Satisfaction With Life (SWL) scales) assisted differentiation relative to general personality traits and the “the Dark Triad” (psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism, measured by the D12 and Short Dark Triad (SD3) indices) for 840 persons primarily from the UK, USA and Canada. The best fitting structural equation model comprised two latent variables, one of positive mood (comprising total scores on the OHI and SWL scales), and another forming a “dark dyad” of Machiavellianism and psychopathy (predicted by low agreeableness and lower positive mood), with narcissism regarded as a separate construct correlated with the dark dyad. Latent positive mood was primarily predicted by higher emotional stability and extraversion. Narcissism was predicted by lower emotional stability, lower agreeableness, and higher extraversion. Latent profile analysis identified four groups in the data: “unhappy but not narcissistic”, “vulnerable narcissism”, “happy non-narcissism” and “grandiose narcissism”. Our results suggest more problematic narcissism can be identified by reference to measures indexing positive mood states and general personality traits.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Results Summary statistics for the scales used are presented in Table 1. All measures were reliable at α = 0.72 or above except for OHI Social Cheerfulness (α = 0.63); results were comparable to published values. Exploratory correlations did not find age or education associated strongly with any personality construct; although by the nature of the large sample size, these small associations (typically 0.1) were sporadically significant. Measured construct correlations between comparable indices on the SD3 and D12 were modest to acceptable (Machiavellianism r = 0.38, P < .001; narcissism r = 0.50, P < .001; psychopathy r = 0.59, P < .001). However, there was also considerable scale cross-correlation. These associations suggest that the some Dark Triad constructs and measures overlap considerably and are non-specific ( Table 2). Table 1. Means, standard deviations and reliability of measurements. Measure Mean SD Alpha reliability IPIP Emotional stability 28.0 7.9 0.88 Extraversion 30.0 7.7 0.88 Intellect 37.4 5.9 0.80 Agreeableness 38.5 6.0 0.85 Conscientiousness 33.6 6.1 0.78 SD3 Machiavellianism 2.8 0.5 0.74 Narcissism 2.7 0.6 0.74 Psychopathy 2.0 0.6 0.76 D12 Machiavellianism 3.2 1.6 0.72 Narcissism 11.2 3.1 0.73 Psychopathy 14.5 4.5 0.74 Positive mood Oxford happiness inventory (OHI) total 91.4 17.2 0.92 OHI mastery 31.1 6.9 0.82 OHI satisfaction 20.2 4.9 0.86 OHI vigour 14.9 3.9 0.72 OHI social interest 6.9 1.7 0.63 OHI social cheerfulness 18.3 3.5 0.77 Diener satisfaction with life scale 14.6 4.5 0.86 Table options Table 2. Correlations (Pearson’s r) between SD3 and D12 measures of the Dark Triad (n = 840). SD3 D12 Machiavellianism Narcissism Psychopathy Machiavellianism 0.38 0.27 0.55 Narcissism 0.21 0.50 0.24 Psychopathy 0.51 0.29 0.59 All coefficients one-tailed and significant at P < .001; D12 is the short form 12-item measure of the Dark Triad; SD3 the 27-item measure of the same construct. Underlined coefficients show the agreement for key constructs between test instruments. Table options Structural equation models were fit to total scores, the models involving latent variables of positive mood (the OHI and SWLS total scores) and their relationship with general personality traits, in turn examining how these contributed to the Dark Triad. All measurement models comprised continuous scale summary scores for participants, rather than item-level indicators. The initial AMOS models tested if Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy loaded on a single Dark Triad latent variable. A far better fit was obtained by having a ‘dark dyad’ latent variable (psychopathy and Machiavellianism), with a separate, directly measured narcissism variable which was allowed to correlate with the dark dyad. Fit statistics for both SD3 and D12 models were acceptable, however, there were slight improvements in fit for a SD3-defined dark dyad (χ2 (df) = 92.977 (22); GFI = 0.976; AGFI = 0.943; RMSEA = 0.064; CMIN/DF = 4.427), compared to dark dyad defined by the D12 (χ2 (df) = 131.952 (22); GFI = 0.956; AGFI = 0.922; RMSEA = 0.077; CMIN/DF = 5.998). A combined model using both SD3 and D12 Dark Triad indices combined to increase the indicators for the relevant latent variables did not sharpen the fit of the model (χ2 (df) = 259.97; GFI = 0.948; AGFI = 0.905; RMSEA = 0.079; CMIN/DF = 6.190). The results of the structural equation model using the SD3 are presented in Fig. 1. SEM of subjective positive mood, the Dark Triad (measured by SD3) and ... Fig. 1. SEM of subjective positive mood, the Dark Triad (measured by SD3) and personality (IPIP). All pathways are standardised regressions statistically significant at P < .001. Narcissism contributes substantially to a latent “dark dyad”, but functions independently of the latent variable. The dark dyad, however, is predicted primarily by lower positive mood and lower Agreeableness. Figure options We examined how personality traits related to latent positive mood and the dark dyad, and if positive mood related to these constructs. Latent positive mood was defined by the total score on the OHI and SWLS. Positive mood was associated primarily with ES and E, with smaller (but significant) influences from the other IPIP dimensions. Though not associated with narcissism, latent positive mood was negatively associated with the latent ‘dark dyad’ (−0.37 and −0.26 for the SD3 and D12, respectively). These results suggest that positive mood is the product of E and ES, and is primarily associated with the more positive expression of narcissism, whereas the vulnerable elements of narcissism correlate with lower A, lower ES, and the dark dyad (itself negatively related to positive mood). The SD3-defined dark dyad is solely predicted by A at −0.51 (−0.66 for the D12). Our results suggest the SD3 narcissism measure can be interpreted as indicating grandiose or vulnerable narcissism if examined alongside general personality and positive mood traits. Finally, a latent profile analysis was conducted. A series of models with two to six profiles were run. A four profile model was selected the best fit of the data (Table 3). This was decided on the basis of the Lo–Mendel–Rubin Likelihood Ratio test (Lo, Mendel, & Rubin, 2001). Though the information criteria did not conclusively suggest an optimal model, inspection of the profiles showed a four profile solution offered a theoretically sound profile relative to the more empirical three profile solution. The first profile represents a group with the least “happy” characteristics. This group were lowest on E, ES, I, the OHI total, and the SWLS, and comprised 21% of the sample. Vulnerable narcissists were similarly low on A but higher in self-reported I, highest in Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy, and next most dissatisfied and unhappy relative to the unhappy non-narcissists: this group represented 23% of the cohort. The largest group were the grandiose narcissists, who comprised 31% of the sample. This group were the highest for E, A, C, and ES, and were equivalent to the vulnerable narcissists in higher self-rated intellect. They were highest on the OHI and SWL scales, and lower in psychopathy. The happy, non-narcissistic group (25% of the group) were also higher in A, and were less narcissistic, psychopathic, or Machiavellian (Fig. 2). Table 3. Fit statistics of latent class analysis for ten personality indicators. Number of classes Ll (df) AIC BIC SSABIC LRT p 2 −21,759.38(31) 43,580.76 43,727.49 43,629.05 1208.22 0.0001 3 −21,543.67 (42) 43,171.33 43,370.13 43,236.76 425.68 00001 4 −21,424.31 (53) 42,954.63 43,205.50 43,037.19 235.53 0.0398 5 −21,337.16 (64) 42,802.31 43,105.25 42,902.01 171.99 0.0842 6 −21,262.77 (75) 42,675.54 43,030.54 42,792.37 146.79 0.6784 7 −21,202.44 (86) 42,576.89 42,983.96 42,710.85 119.04 0.6343 Note: LL(df), log likelihood value and associated degrees of freedom; LRT, Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test value; AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; SSABIC, sample size adjusted Bayesian information criterion. Table options Graph presenting standardised (z-score) means for the four groups identified ... Fig. 2. Graph presenting standardised (z-score) means for the four groups identified using latent class analysis.