THE DARK TRIAD AND AGGRESSION The Dark Triad and Aggression in Early Adolescence

31 Pages·2017·0.69 MB·English

Running head: THE DARK TRIAD AND AGGRESSION

The Dark Triad and Aggression in Early Adolescence:
The role of Executive Functioning
Nadine Luchsinger
559770

Supervisor: Jelle Sijtsema
Second assessor: Carlo Garofalo
Abstract

This study considered the relation between the Dark Triad and self- and peer-reported direct and
indirect aggression, and to what extent this relation depends on executive functioning (i.e. cognitive
flexibility) in a group of 312 early adolescents (Mage = 14.42, SD = .97, 47% girls). Results from
regression analyses showed that all Dark Triad traits were related to self-reported indirect aggression.
Psychopathy and Machiavellianism both related to self-reported direct aggression, but only
Machiavellianism related to both direct and indirect peer-reported aggression. These results suggest
that Machiavellianism is a greater risk factor for aggression in adolescents of above average
intelligence than perhaps even psychopathy. We did not find evidence that the associations between
the Dark Triad traits and aggression were moderated by cognitive flexibility. Future studies might
look into executive functioning and the Dark Triad in clinical samples and control groups. These
samples should show a more diverse pattern of scores on the three traits as well as in executive
functioning.

Key words: aggression, the Dark Triad, cognitive flexibility, early adolescents
The Dark Triad and Aggression in Early Adolescence:
The role of Executive Functioning
Direct and indirect aggressive behaviour are associated with a multitude of maladaptive behaviours,
such as conduct problems, emotional dysregulation and peer-rejection, and internalising problems in
the case of indirect aggression (Card, Stucky, Sawalani & Little, 2008). Direct aggression includes the
use of physical and verbal aggression, e.g., kicking, hitting, pushing, calling names, etcetera. Indirect
aggression includes gossiping, ridiculing and trying to damage another’s reputation (Björkqvist,
Lagerspetz & Kaukiainen, 1992). Research into aggression in childhood and adolescence is extensive,
as it is associated with a multitude of damaging behaviour such as conduct disorder and delinquency
at a later age (Card et al. 2008; Carbone-Lopez, Esbensen, & Brick, 2010).
In order to prevent such negative consequences at a later age, it is important to know more
about aggression and its associations in early adolescence. The Dark Triad of personality, narcissism,
Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) has been connected to different
forms of aggressive behaviour in multiple studies (Baughman, Dearing, Giammarco, & Vernon, 2012;
Muris, Meesters, & Timmermans, 2013; Kerig & Stellwagen, 2010). These three traits deserve
attention, as they could be predictors of indirect and direct aggression. However, not all those with
disagreeable personality characteristics show high rates of aggression. Klimstra, Sijtsema, Henrichs,
and Cima (2014), for instance, did not find that all adolescents with narcissistic, Machiavellian or
psychopathic traits displayed aggression.
This study will seek to explain some of the mixed findings in the relation between Dark Triad
traits and aggression by looking at another important factor regarding the display of aggressive
behaviour: impulse control. This study examines whether the association between Dark Triad traits
and aggression is stronger for those who demonstrate a lowered ability switch from one task to the
next and control their impulses. To do so, I ask the following question: to what extent does the
executive function cognitive flexibility moderate the relation between traits of the Dark Triad and
indirect and direct aggression in young adolescents?
The Dark Triad
The Dark Triad consists of three subclinical traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and
psychopathy. The construct of narcissism in the Dark Triad shares the facets of grandiosity,
entitlement, dominance, and superiority with its clinical counterpart (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), but
norms are established in ‘normal’ populations. (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). The same applies to
subclinical psychopathy. The clinical construct measures impulsivity and thrill-seeking along with
low empathy and anxiety. Subclinical scales measure the same facets, but norms have been
established outside of forensic settings (Paulhus, Hemphill, & Hare, 2012). Lastly, Machiavellianism
is best explained as making habitual use of manipulation in interpersonal relations, while exploiting
others in the process (Wilson, Near & Miller, 1996). Machiavellians in general population samples
are more cold and manipulative. This can be seen when responding to, for instance, statements
developed by Christie and Geis (1970).
Though generally considered undesirable, Dark Triad traits can have their uses, especially in
adolescence. Subclinical narcissism has been shown to be a protective factor against sadness,
depression, loneliness, anxiety and neuroticism. It is also positively associated with subjective
wellbeing (Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro & Rusbult, 2004). Subclinical narcissism may serve
adolescents who are coping with a multitude of physical changes, including those changes having to
do with hormones and moods (Buchanan, Eccles & Becker, 1992). However, these subclinical traits
may cease to be functional when they’re associated with antisocial behaviour (Chabrol, van Leeuwen,
Rodgers & Séjourné 2009) such as violence perpetration (Pailing, Boon & Egan, 2014) bullying in
adulthood (Baughman, Dearing, Giammarco & Vernon, 2012), animal cruelty (Kavanagh, Signal &
Taylor, 2013) and aggression (Kerig & Stellwagen, 2010).
The Dark Triad and its relation with two forms of aggression
All three traits of the Dark Triad are related to aggression in one way or another. Jones and
Paulhus (2010), for instance, found that different types of provocations elicited aggression in
subclinical narcissists and psychopaths. Undergraduates with narcissistic traits responded aggressively
when provoked by a threat to their ego, whereas undergraduates with psychopathic traits responded
when threatened physically (Jones & Paulhus, 2010). Machiavellianism was not strongly related with
direct (i.e., openly hostile, physical, or verbal) aggression (Jones & Paulhus, 2009).
Machiavellianism was associated with relational aggression (which is similar to indirect
aggression as defined by Björkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) in a study by Kerig and
Stellwagen (2010). They considered the relation between Callous-Unemotional traits, narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and physical and relational aggression in a group of middle-school children.
Callous-Unemotional (CU) traits are considered a key part of psychopathy, and a few examples are a
lack of empathy, a lack of guilt and limited, superficial emotions (Barry et al., 2000). Kerig and
Stellwagen found that relational aggression associated most strongly with Machiavellianism, whereas
physical aggression associated with CU and narcissism in the absence of Machiavellianism. The three
traits share common variance, and so Kerig and Stellwagen’s results suggest that those aspects that
are unique in CU and narcissism associate most strongly with physical aggression. The finding that
Machiavellianism is associated with indirect aggression in both studies is not surprising, because
Machiavellians use relational manipulation to achieve an end-goal (Wilson, Near & Miller, 1996) in a
covert, ‘sneaky’ way (McIlwain, 2003).
According to these studies, we might expect that psychopathy and narcissism are associated
with direct aggression. However, Klimstra, Sijtsema, Henrichs and Cima (2014) found that
Machiavellianism and narcissism were associated with indirect aggression, whereas psychopathy was
associated with direct aggression. Other studies have found that narcissism is related to physical
aggression, but not relational aggression (Kerig & Stellwagen, 2010). Klimstra et al.’s study
considered the subclinical traits of the Dark Triad, as opposed to the clinical constructs which the
other articles studied, which might also explain why narcissism was related to indict aggression in
their study and not direct aggression as was found in the previous study. Another explanation might
be found in unconsidered moderating variables, such as executive functioning.
Brain development and EF
One reason why a moderating role for executive functions is especially important in early
adolescence is that these functions are not yet at a mature level. Chabrol, van Leeuwen, Rodgers, and
Séjourné (2009) found that narcissistic, psychopathic and Machiavellian traits are more common in
adolescents than in the student population. They propose that a lack of maturation plays a part and
that dysfunctional personality traits may become less pronounced as adolescents grow older (Chabrol,
van Leeuwen, Rodgers & Séjourné 2009). This maturation may be explained by on-going
development of the brain in (early) adolescence and of one brain region in particular: the prefrontal
cortex, which continues to develop into early adulthood (Welsh, Pennington & Groisser, 1991;
Romine & Reynolds, 2005).
There is a peak in the development of cortical grey matter of the frontal lobe in the
preadolescent period, around the age of 12 (Giedd et al., 1999; see Lenroot & Giedd, 2006 for a
review). Around this time synaptic pruning (the removal of infrequently used neural connections)
takes place until mid-adolescence, which coincides with a period of improved information processing
and logical reasoning (Steinberg, 2008). The frontal lobe, housing the prefrontal cortex, is believed to
be related to the cognitive control of important functions, including executive functions (Miller &
Cohen, 2001). These executive functions (EF) are defined by Zelazo and Carlson (2012) as top-down,
neurocognitive processes concerned with conscious, goal-directed thoughts, actions, and emotions.
Cognitive flexibility is one of these functions and will be discussed further on.
Because the frontal lobe is still under construction during early adolescence, it is likely that
the functions attributed to this area are not as well-developed in adolescents as in adults. Evidence
that this is the case for EF comes from work by Huizinga, Dolan, and van der Molen (2006), who
compared participants of varying ages on different EF-tasks. Their results provide insight into the
average age at which different executive functioning skills are mastered at an adult level. They found
that the scores on a shifting-task (used to index cognitive flexibility) no longer improved after the age
of fifteen. Inhibition-tasks were at an adult-level at age eleven. Another study into the development of
cognitive processes showed that cognitive flexibility increased with age, but was not yet at an adult
level at age thirteen. Lastly, research in children and young adolescents using the Dimensional
Change Card Sort (DCCS) test and a revised flanker test, (Zelazo et al. 2013) found that scores on
cognitive flexibility and inhibition improved with age (Zelazo et al., 2013). All of these studies show
that executive functions are still developing in early adolescence. These adolescents’ underdeveloped
brain functions may have great influence on their behaviour.
Moderation of the association between personality and aggression
As was mentioned earlier, the subclinical traits of the Dark Triad can be functional, but cease
to be when they are associated with antisocial behaviour (Chabrol, van Leeuwen, Rodgers & Séjourné
2009). Executive functioning might be a moderating factor in the difference between functional and
dysfunctional traits of the Dark Triad. Adolescents with antisocial personality traits and poorer
regulatory functions may be quicker to show aversive behaviour (e.g. bullying and other forms of
direct aggression) than their higher functioning peers. Those peers with antisocial personality traits,
but higher executive functioning may use their regulatory function to choose other - nonaggressive -
behaviour to achieve their goals. Executive functions such as cognitive flexibility are crucial when
attempting to stop automatic responses, such as aggression, in response to a threat. Studies into a
possible moderation between traits of the Dark Triad and aggression are rare, but Ishikawa, Raine,
Lencz, Bihrle and Lacasse, (2001) looked into the association between clinical psychopathy, criminal
conviction and executive functioning. They labelled adult males who scored high on the PCL-R but
had never been convicted of a crime ‘successful psychopaths’ and those who scored high and had
been convicted ‘unsuccessful psychopaths’. When assessing their executive functioning the authors
found that successful psychopaths’ executive functioning was higher than both unsuccessful
psychopaths and controls. However, there was no difference between unsuccessful psychopaths and
controls. This suggests that high executive functioning may serve as a protective factor for going to
jail in psychopathic individuals. The participants of this study were adult males and so results cannot
be generalised, but they are an indicator of what might be expected from this study.
This study
This study will examine traits of the Dark Triad, aggression and executive functioning in a
group of young adolescents. Based on the above, it is expected that the Dark Triad traits will relate to
aggression in the following way: i) narcissism relates positively to direct and indirect aggression, ii)
Machiavellianism will relate positively to indirect aggression, but there will be no significant relation
to direct aggression, and iii) psychopathy will only relate positively to direct aggression. We also
expect that these associations are moderated by cognitive flexibility. Specifically, iv) adolescents
scoring high on cognitive flexibility and showing high narcissistic tendencies, report less direct
aggression than those with lower executive functions and high narcissistic tendencies; v) adolescents
scoring high on cognitive flexibility and showing high psychopathic tendencies, will also report and
show less direct aggression than those with lower executive functions and high psychopathic
tendencies; vi) adolescents scoring high on cognitive flexibility and showing high Machiavellian
tendencies, will report and show less indirect aggression than those with lower executive functions
and high Machiavellian tendencies. All analyses will be performed while controlling for sex and age,
because studies have shown that sex and age associate with aggression (Kerig & Stellwagen, 2010)
and age also associates with executive functioning (Huizinga, Dolan and van der Molen, 2006;
Davidson, Amso, Anderson and Diamond, 2006; Zelazo et al., 2013).
Method
Participants and study design
Participants were recruited as part of an on-going longitudinal Study of Personality,
Adjustment, Cognition, and Emotions among adolescents and their parents (SPACE-II). First, four
schools gave their permission, after which parents and children were informed through an information
letter. Parents of participants gave informed passive consent, children gave their active consent. Of
the total of 1046 children recruited this way, 863 children (N = 461 girls) and (N = 402 boys)
answered all the questions of the Dirty Dozen and the aggression scales. Their average age was 14.8
with a standard deviation of .97 and range from 12 to 16. Most children were in first (43%) or second
(27%) grade, though some were in third (11%), fourth (13%) or even fifth (6%) grade. Most children
studied at a HAVO/VWO level or higher (83%), indicating that they’re of higher intelligence that the
average Dutch 14-year old.
In this study, 312 girls (N = 146) and boys (N = 166) also completed the DCCS task next to
the Dirty Dozen and aggression questionnaires. All of them were in first (66%) or second (33%) grade
of a high school in Rotterdam or Den Haag. Their mean age was slightly lower 14.42 with a standard
deviation of .97. All of the data were collected in June and December 2014.
Measures
Aggression. Self-reported aggression was measured using the Dutch version of the Direct &
Indirect Aggression Scales (DIAS) (Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992). The subscales
‘direct aggression’ (5 items) and ‘indirect aggression’ (12 items) were used. Students could answer on
a 4-point scale, ranging from ‘never’ to ‘very often’. The indirect and direct subscales had a
Cronbach’s alpha of .92 and .86, respectively. Peer-reported aggression was measured using
nominations: the students received a roster with the names of their classmates. The students could
nominate classmates on two items: ‘quarrels or fights a lot with others’ (direct aggression) and ‘often
gossips or excludes others’ (indirect aggression). The total amount of nominations was then divided
by the number of classmates to calculate proportion scores of direct and indirect peer-reported
aggression. These four measures of peer- and self-reported indirect and direct aggression will be used
as dependent variables.
Dark Triad personality traits. To measure Dark Triad personality traits, a Dutch version
(Klimstra, Sijtsema, Henrichs & Cima, 2014) of the ‘Dirty Dozen’ (Jonason & Webster, 2010) was
used. The English version was translated by two researchers into Dutch and then compared. Any
differences were discussed and chosen by consensus. This version was then back-translated into
English by another researcher who compared it to the original English version; they were very much
alike (Klimstra, Sijtsema, Henrichs & Cima, 2014). Participants were asked to what extent they agree
(from 1 ‘not at all’ to 5 ‘very much’) with twelve statements. The Dirty Dozen has three subscales,
composed of four items each: narcissism (α = .84), Machiavellianism (α = .78), and psychopathy
(α = .71). A composite of the three subscales is a measurement for the Dark Triad (α = .87) and the
subscales are positively intercorrelated: rs .54 - .65, ps < .000.
Executive functioning. Executive functions were measured using a Dutch, revised version of
the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) task, which measures cognitive flexibility (Zelazo et al.
2013; Kirkham, Cruess, & Diamond, 2003; Farrant, Maybery, & Fletcher, 2012).
The revised DCCS has shown excellent reliability and adequate to good discriminant validity
as a measure of executive functioning (Zelazo et al. 2014). Fourteen children completed the task on
laptops during school hours. Participants were seated behind a laptop in a quiet room. The
experimenter (i.e., trained Psychology Master students) briefly explained the task, though most of the
instructions were displayed on the computer screen at the beginning of each individual task. The
DCCS starts with a written instruction on the display, after which there are two series of five practice
trials. In the first series the objective was to, for example, sort the blue boat to the left and the red
rabbit to the right; i.e. sorting by colour. In the second series, the objective was to sort by shape and
ignore colour. When a mistake was made on the practice trials, they were given another try (with a
maximum of three tries). If a mistake was made in the third round of practice trials, the test was
concluded. The conditions were: (a) shape; sorting two stimuli by shape (5 trials), (b) colour: sorting
the same stimuli by colour (5), and (c) the mixed condition; sorting the same stimuli by colour or
shape (40). In all three conditions, the same pseudo-random order was used, that is: the same
condition (colour or shape) was never offered more than two times in a row. Response time and the
number of mistakes were automatically recorded.
Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses to answer the research questions were performed using IBM SPSS
Statistics 21. To determine significance, a two-sided significance level of .05 was used. Direct and
indirect, peer- and self-reported aggression were the dependent variables. The two types of aggression
were measured using the DIAS self-report scale and using peer-nominations, which amounts to a total
of four dependent aggression-variables. The individual traits of the Dark Triad were independent,
continuous variables. EF was assumed to be a moderating variable and was also continuous. The
DCCS task was scored using average accuracy (the number of mistakes) and the average response
time (the average time it takes to react). The reaction time was then divided by the accuracy to create
performance scores as in the study by Buss, Davis, Hobel and Sandman (2011). This means that
higher scores are indicative of longer reaction times, i.e., worse performance, and lower scores
indicate faster responses, i.e., better performance on the task.
The associations were all between continuous variables, which means that tests of association
will be used. Hierarchical multiple linear regression has a number underlying assumptions, including:
multicollinearity, normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and independence of residuals (Pallant,
2013). Multicollinearity was checked using the VIF and Tolerance outcomes from multiple
regression. When performing multiple linear regression, residuals scatterplots were generated for the
remaining assumptions and multicollinearity was checked in the statistics tab.
Descriptives, i.e. means, standard deviations and ranges, were explored for all variables. For
the DCCS scores, the first 40 trials (M = 782.39 SD = 218.36) were used, because participants