The Associations between Narcissistic and Psychopathic Personality Traits and Antisocial Behavior

43 Pages·2017·0.68 MB·English

by  Willemse, Lieske

The Associations between Narcissistic and Psychopathic
Personality Traits and Antisocial Behavior: Exploring the

Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement

C.D.M. Willemse
June 2017

ARN number: 880584
Supervisor Tilburg University: C. Garofalo
Second supervisor: Dr. Muijres-Thijssen
Abstract
Background: A growing body of research has shown that people with high levels of dark
personality traits are more prone to display a range of antisocial behaviors. Some studies have
pointed out that the psychological mechanisms of moral disengagement (MD) underlie the
association between certain personality traits and levels of antisocial behaviors. This
mediating role of MD has not yet been investigated in the associations between narcissistic
and psychopathic personality traits and different forms of antisocial behaviors. Objective:
The main aim of this study was to investigate the mediating role of MD in the associations
between the different facets of narcissistic (i.e., grandiose and vulnerable narcissism) and
psychopathic (i.e., affective, interpersonal, lifestyle and behavioral facets) personality traits
and three main types of antisocial behaviors (i.e., physical aggression, social aggression and
non-aggressive rule-breaking), to broaden the knowledge about potential psychological
mechanisms that underlie associations between ‘dark’ personality traits and antisocial
behaviors. Methods: A sample of Dutch community participants (N=144) was asked to fill
out self-report questionnaires. Measurements included the Pathological Narcissism Inventory,
the Self-Report Psychopathy-III, the Moral Disengagement Scale and the Subtypes of
Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire. Results: Positive associations were found between
almost all the variables of interest. Mediation analysis showed MD to be a partial mediator in
the associations between dark personality traits and physical aggression and between dark
personality traits and non-aggressive rule-breaking. MD did not function as a mediator in the
associations between dark personality traits and social aggression. Conclusion: To the
author’s knowledge, this is the first study that examined the mediating effect of MD in the
association between dark personality traits and antisocial behaviors. An important finding of
the present study is that MD partially explained the associations between dark personality
1
traits and both over (i.e., physical aggression) and covert (i.e., non-aggressive rule-breaking)
forms of antisocial behaviors. An important implication of this finding is that the
psychological mechanisms of MD do partially help to explain the associations between the
personality characteristics and antisocial behaviors and may form a feasible treatment target
to reduce levels of antisocial behaviors among individuals with high levels of dark
personality traits. The link between the dark personality traits and social aggression was not
explained by the psychological mechanisms of MD, thus pointing out that the associations
between the personality traits and this type of antisocial behavior should be explained by
other mechanisms. Future longitudinal research is recommended to further explore these
associations and underlying mechanisms.

Keywords: Moral disengagement, dark personality traits, narcissism, psychopathy,
antisocial behaviors, mediation

2
Introduction
Most psychological theories of antisocial behavior focus on the influence of personal
characteristics, such as personality traits, and reciprocal interactions between these personal
characteristics with environmental factors in the explanation of the development and
persistence of antisocial behaviors (Moffit, 1993; Tremblay, 2010). Moffit (1993), for
example, used the term ‘contemporary continuity’ in her Dual Taxonomy of antisocial
individuals to describe the persistence of antisocial behavior across the lifespan in certain
individuals due to a stable constellation of personality traits that interact across situations and
time to produce negative behavioral outcomes. In these individuals, the form of the antisocial
behaviors they display may change with changing opportunities, but the underlying
disposition is believed to persist throughout the life course.
With regard to antisocial behaviors, a distinction is often made between overt forms
(such as physical aggression) and covert forms (such as non-aggressive rule-breaking) of
antisocial behavior. A large body of research confirms that physical aggression and non-
aggressive rule-breaking constitute separable, though correlated, dimensions of antisocial
behavior (Frick et al. 1993; Burt, 2009), with different correlates, antecedents and associated
personality features (Burt & Donnelan, 2008; Burt, Donnelan & Tacket, 2011; Tremblay;
2003). Social aggression constitutes yet another potential form of antisocial behavior, and
encompasses more subtle behaviors (both covert and overt), such as gossiping, manipulating
and excluding others, to damage reputations and inflict emotional harm on others (Burt et al.,
2011). Although social aggression is often studied in recent years, it remains unclear how this
diverging construct can be placed within the broader construct of antisocial behavior
(Tackett, 2010; Burt, Donnelan & Tacket, 2012).
In recent years, a growing body of evidence has consistently linked ‘dark’ personality
features (i.e., narcissism and psychopathy; Paulhus & Wiliams, 2002) to all kinds of
3
antisocial behaviors in interpersonal situations, such as aggression (Jones & Paulhus, 2011a;
Marsee, Silverton & Frick, 2005), bullying (Baughman et al., 2012), and delinquent behavior
(Wright et al., 2017). Although narcissism and psychopathy are often referred to as
pathological conditions, these personality traits can also be regarded as multidimensional
constructs that include a constellation of personality characteristics and interpersonal styles
present to some degree in all people (Gini, Pozzoli & Bussey, 2015; Campbell et al., 2016).
Narcissism is often characterized by an excessive love for one’s self, feelings of
superiority and entitlement, use of exploitation in relationships with others, exhibitionism,
and impaired empathy (Campbell et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2005; American Psychiatric
Association, 2000). Contemporary theories of narcissism distinguish two types of narcissism:
grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003). The definition
of grandiose narcissism reflects the description of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of
Psychiatric disorders-IV (DSM-IV, APA, 2000) and primarily reflects traits related to
dominance, arrogance and entitlement. Vulnerable narcissists, on the other hand, are
described as overtly self-inhibited, shy individuals. Underlying this overt presentation,
however, they hold expectations of entitlement and superiority (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003).
The denial of these expectations, and related continuous disappointments, leads to defensive
angry outburst, used to avoid feelings of inadequacy, incompetence and negative affect
(Miller et al., 2011).
Some studies have demonstrated differences in the relationships between the two
types of narcissism and underlying personality features (grandiose narcissism: high
extraversion, low neuroticism and vulnerable narcissism: high neuroticism, low extraversion),
etiological factors and attachment styles, thus confirming them to be meaningful separate
constructs (Maples, Collins, Miller, Fischer & Seibert, 2011). Although some studies have
found stronger links between vulnerable narcissism and internalizing behaviors and between
4
grandiose narcissism and externalizing behaviors (such as physical aggression), up until now
the empirical evidence on the two type narcissism and their potential differing associations
with specific antisocial outcomes remains scarce (Miller et al., 2010).
Psychopathy is often characterized by high impulsivity, use of manipulation and
exploitations in relationships with others, callousness, stimulation-seeking, and by low
empathy, anxiety and remorse (Campbell et al., 2016; Paulhus et al, 2002; DeLisi et al.,
2013). Most measures of psychopathy assess psychopathic traits across four dimensions:
Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial characteristics (Williams, Paulhus, Hare,
2007). In the interpersonal domain, psychopaths are characterized by superficial charm,
pathological lying, manipulation and grandiose self-worth. Affectively, psychopathic
individuals lack guilt and empathy, show shallow emotions, and fail to take responsibility for
their actions. The lifestyle of psychopaths is characterized by a lack of realistic life goals, a
parasitic orientation, irresponsibleness, impulsivity and stimulation-seeking. Lastly,
behaviorally, psychopaths show poor behavior control, early behavioral problems (including
delinquency) and unresponsiveness to punishment (DeLisi et al., 2014). Previous studies have
found differing relationships between the four dimensions of psychopathy and several
correlates correlates (such as intelligence), etiological factors and personality features (Edens,
Skopp & Cahill, 2008; Vitacco, Neuman & Wodushek, 2007). Although a large body of
research has linked psychopathic traits to a strong disposition toward antisocial behaviors,
little is known about the extent to which the four facets of psychopathy are differently
associated with specific forms (i.e., covert, overt and social) of antisocial behaviors (Benning,
Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003; Schmeelk, Sylvers & Lilienfeld, 2008).
Paulhus and Williams (2002) found narcissism and psychopathy to be different
constructs, although they correlated moderately with one another in normal (nonclinical)
populations because of overlapping features such as low agreeableness, callousness, lack of
5
morality, low empathy, social malevolence and tendencies toward self-promotion, coldness,
aggressiveness, and duplicity (Campbell et al., 2016). However, emotionality appears to
differentiate narcissism and psychopathy. Narcissism is often characterized by a certain
degree of emotional instability (i.e., high emotionality), whereas psychopathy is associated
with emotional coldness (i.e., low emotionality) and emotional deficits (Fossati et al., 2014).
Recent research confirms that psychopathy and narcissism should be regarded as separate,
though related and overlapping, constructs (Fossati et al., 2014). Regarding their similar
correlates, although a large body of evidence supports the relationship between both
narcissistic or psychopathic traits and antisocial behaviors, less is known about the
psychological mechanisms underlying the relationship between these personality traits and
maladaptive behavior.
One such mechanism could be moral disengagement. Bandura introduced this mechanism
in his Social-cognitive Theory of Moral Agency (1986) to explain why certain individuals
behave in immoral and antisocial ways. In Bandura’s theory, human beings exercise control
over their own thoughts and behaviors through self-regulatory processes in which they judge
their actions by comparing them to internal moral standards. Most people behave in ways that
are consistent with their internal standards (and those of society) because they want to avoid
external sanctions and the internal experience of feelings of discomfort (i.e., shame, guilt) as
result of internal discrepancy between their behaviors and beliefs. However, Bandura (1999)
proposed that self-regulatory mechanisms could be selectively de-activated and activated.
Moral disengagement (MD) is described as the main cognitive de-activation process, in
which individuals selectively disengage from their internal moral standards. Through MD
individuals can engage in unethical decision-making without experiencing psychological
discomfort, and are therefore more likely to behave in antisocial ways. Additionally, the more
often an individual morally disengages, the more routinized the process becomes (Bandura,
6
1991), leading to stable morally disengaged attitudes that tolerate moral violations and
antisocial behaviors (Hyde et al., 2010; Schulman et al., 2011).
High MD has been consistently linked to antisocial outcomes in adult and child
populations (Hyde, Shaw & Moilanen, 2010). A large body of research indicates that
individuals who find it easier to use MD engage more frequently in different types of
aggressive behaviors (Gini, Pozzoli & Hymel, 2014), unethical decision making (Detert,
Klebe Treviño & Sweitzer, 2008), bullying (Perren & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, 2012), and
delinquency (Kiriakidis, 2008). Moreover, results from longitudinal studies have found
predictive relationships between high levels of MD in children or adolescents and high levels
of antisocial behaviors during adulthood (Schulman, Cauffman, Piquero & Fagan, 2011;
Paciello et al., 2008). Additionally, several studies have found associations between levels of
psychopathy and MD (DeLisi et al., 2014; Egan, Hughes & Palmer, 2015; Roche et al., 2013;
Fossati et al., 2014). On facet level, results of a recent study of Fossati and colleagues (2014)
showed associations between MD and vulnerable narcissism and between MD and all facets
of psychopathy.
The combination of findings about the link between dark personality traits and MD on the
one hand, and between MD and antisocial behaviors on the other hand, logically leads to the
question if dark personality traits may indirectly influence levels of antisocial behaviors
through their effects on MD. If so, the psychological mechanisms of MD may help to explain
(parts of) the association between dark personality traits and antisocial behaviors, and
therefore help to create a more profound understanding about the ways in which levels of
dark personality traits function to produce negative behavioral outcomes. Moreover, a deeper
understanding about the psychological mechanisms that underlie the relationships between
dark personality traits and antisocial behaviors may help to prevent future antisocial
7
behaviors in at-risk individuals (i.e., individuals with high levels of dark personality traits) by
identifying feasible treatment goals.
However, up until now only few studies have examined and supported a mediating role of
MD in associations between certain personality features, such as callous unemotional traits
(Schulman, Cauffman, Piquero & Fagan, 2011) or child empathy (Hyde et al., 2010; Detert et
al., 2008; Wang et al., 2016) and antisocial behaviors. Additionally, even less studies have
studied the mediating role of MD in associations between psychopathy and antisocial
behaviors. In these scarce studies, MD was found to mediate the associations between
psychopathy and both covert types of antisocial behaviors, such as un-ethical decision-
making in the business context (Stevens, Deuling & Armkenakis, 2012), and overt types of
antisocial behaviors, such as violent offending (Walters & DeLisi, 2015). These findings
imply that MD might be one of the mechanisms through which psychopathic individuals are
able to engage in antisocial behaviors. Moreover, these studies highlight the need to further
investigate the influence of MD, as a possible mediator, in the associations between different
aspects of dark personality traits and antisocial behaviors.

The present study
Although a growing body of research consistently links dark personality traits (i.e.,
narcissism and psychopathy) to diverse forms of antisocial behaviors, up until now little
empirical research has been executed to study the underlying psychological mechanisms that
could explain these associations. Specifically, little empirical research has been executed to
investigate the mediating effect of one potential promising explanative mechanism, MD, in
the association between psychopathy and antisocial behaviors. Even more, to the best authors
knowledge, no research on the mediating role of MD in the association between narcissism
and antisocial behaviors has yet been conducted. The present study attempted to address
8
some of these gaps in the literature by investigating the possible mediating effects of MD in
the associations between psychopathic and narcissistic personality traits and levels of
antisocial behaviors.
As previous studies have pointed out, the dark personality traits and the antisocial
behaviors could be further divided in separate, though correlated, meaningful facets, with
different correlates, antecedents and consequents (Burt & Donnelan, 2009; Williams, Paulhus
& Hare, 2007; Dickinson & Pincus, 2003). However, little is known about the way in which
the different facets of the dark personality traits relate to distinct forms of antisocial
behaviors. Knowledge about more specific (differences in) associations and mediating effects
could contribute to a more profound understanding about the ways in which the personality
traits and antisocial behaviors are associated. The dark personality traits and antisocial
behaviors were therefore studied at facet level in the present study. The main aim of this
study was to investigate the mediating role of MD in the associations between the different
facets of narcissistic (i.e., grandiose and vulnerable narcissism) and psychopathic (i.e.,
affective, interpersonal, lifestyle and behavioral facets) personality traits and three main types
of antisocial behaviors (i.e., physical aggression, social aggression and non-aggressive rule-
breaking), to broaden the knowledge about psychological mechanisms that underlie
associations between ‘dark’ personality traits and antisocial behaviors.
Due to overlapping features between the personality traits and the strong associations that
were found in previous studies between the personality traits and MD and antisocial
behaviors, it was expected that significant positive associations would be found between all
the variables of interest (i.e., levels of narcissistic personality traits, levels of psychopathic
personality traits, levels of MD and levels of antisocial behaviors). Moreover, based on
previous studies (Marsee et al., 2005; Lau et al., 2013), it was expected that levels of
narcissistic and psychopathic personality traits would have a positive direct influence on
9