A Narcissist, a Psychopath, and a Machiavellian Walk into a Bar…

The bartender asks, ‘who has the darkest personality out of you three?’ The Narcissist says ‘me’, the Psychopath says, ‘I don’t care’ and the Mach says ‘it’s whoever I want it to be’.

All embarrassing jokes aside, the Dark Triad of Personality rather ominously named, is an area of Psychological research which is attracting significant attention. It is however only a young field, in fact, it was just over a decade ago that Paulhus and Williams (2002) coined the term ‘Dark Triad’. It’s an area of research that seems to intrigue Organisational, Clinical and Forensic Psychologists alike and of course, has important implications for society as a whole. However, is there any real merit, use and/or empirical rigour in the study of these traits? I was inspired to delve a little deeper into the Dark Triad after last month’s blog on office politics, which touched on certain characteristics which fall within the remit of these traits i.e. manipulating others for self gain.

So what does the Dark Triad consist of?

Narcissism: characterised by grandiosity, entitlement, dominance, and superiority (Corry, Merritt, Mrug, & Pamp, 2008). The scale largely used to measure this trait is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979).

Psychopathy: characterised by high levels of impulsivity and thrill-seeking along with low levels of empathy (Hare, 1985). It has been described as the most ‘malevolent’ of the Dark Triad (Rauthmann, 2012). The scale which is largely used in the literature to measure Psychopathy is the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) scale, version III forthcoming (Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare). It was modelled on the Psychopathy Check List (Hare, 1991), which is largely seen as the ‘‘gold standard’’ for the measurement of forensic Psychopathy.

Machiavellianism: characterised as being cynical, unprincipled and using manipulation of others for self-gain and life success (Jones & Palhaus, 2009). The scale which is most used to measure this construct is the Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970).

Global measures of the triad have recently been created such as the Dirty Dozen, a 12 item scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010) and the Short Dark Triad, a 27 item scale (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, forthcoming).

Both Narcissism and Psychopathy have migrated from the clinical literature as personality disorders found in DSM-IV, whilst Machiavellianism has been distilled from the philosophy and tactics of Nicolo Machiavelli. In this instance, they have been applied to the sub-clinical population in much the same way as the Big Five personality factors. It is suggested that there are extreme personalities in our communities, which cross the boundary over into subclinical Dark Triad territory. In fact, a recent TED talk* highlighted the fact that as many as 1% of ‘normal people’ could be classed as a Psychopath, rising to 4% in CEO’s and business leaders.

Much of my research into the Dark Triad was precipitated by an excellent new review of the literature by Furnham, Richards & Paulhus (2013). Hence please refer to this for a more detailed account of this area. They do a particularly good job at highlighting the major outcomes which the Dark Triad predict, across the workplace, educational and evolutionary literature.

Focussing on workplace behaviours, they cite research which shows that while leaders who are high in such traits can be successful in navigating their way to the top (when coupled with high IQ and attractiveness, apparently), most eventually fall or derail in the end (Furnham, 2010). They are described by Hogan (2007) as being able to ‘get ahead’ but not ‘get along’ – which eventually comes back to haunt them. Specific behaviours include Narcissists’ softer methods of manipulation, while Psychopaths use harder, more direct methods and Machs are able to be flexible and switch between both methods (Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012). With extremely successful publications such as Snakes in Suits raising awareness of Dark Triad traits and behaviours, leadership derailment and management style are more relevant and important than ever.

In terms of specifics, research indicates that Psychopaths tend to make negative impressions in short meetings (Rauthman, 2012), while Machs have the most questionable morals and are most cynical towards others (Rauthman, 2012). Lastly, Narcissists believe themselves to be good leaders, with high emotional intelligence even though they are perceived negatively by those around them (Petrides et al, 2011). Globally, however, all three Dark Triad traits exhibit a drive for ruthless self-advancement (Zuroff, Fournier, Patall, & Leybman, 2010).

A word of warning; whereas Psychopaths react aggressively to physical threat, Narcissists do so to ego-threat (Jones & Palhaus, 2010). However, Machs are more deliberate and cautious as to how they react and respond as they don’t give into temptation as easily as the other two typically do (Williams, Nathanson & Paulhus, 2010). Therefore, when thinking about corporate crime, Jones et al (2012) suggest that it is the Mach who is unhindered by the impulsivity of the Psychopath, and displays of hedonism of the Narcissist to be the most successful perpetrator of white-collar crimes.

All jokes aside, the next time you face an aggressive bully, you could be dealing with a Psychopath. The next time you face an overtly arrogant manager, you could be dealing with a Narcissist. And finally, the next time you find yourself manoeuvred out of an opportunity, you may have just been made a victim of a Mach’s manipulation. The Dark Triad does exist, perhaps in all of us. However, in the vast majority of us, they do so to a much lesser extent than that 1% of the population that they truly manifest themselves in.

Written by Raj Chopra, TPF committee member.

Follow me on Twitter: @Raj_Chopra24, follow TPF on Twitter: @TPF_UK.

• TED Talk on Psychopaths by Jon Ronson: http://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_strange_answers_to_the_psychopath_test.html

References

Christie, R. C., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic press.

Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The factor structure of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 593–600.

Furnham, A. (2010). The Elephant in the Boardroom: The Causes of Leadership Derailment. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Furnham, A., Richards, S.C. & Paulhus, D.L. (2013) The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7/3, 199–216,

Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7–16.

Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the Fate of Organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449–453.

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 93–108). New York: Guilford.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 12–18.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. forthcoming. Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personalities. Manuscript under review.

Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. forthcoming. Manual for the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) Scale. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Paulhus, D. L, & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

Petrides, K. V., Vernon, P. A., Schermer, J. A., & Veselka, L. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence and the Dark Triad of personality. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 14, 35–41.

Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590.

Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and interpersonal perception: Similarities and differences in the social consequences of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 487–496.

Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: Their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 293–307.

Zuroff, D. C., Fournier, M. A., Patall, E. A., & Leybman, M. J. (2010). Steps toward an evolutionary personality psychology: Individual differences in the social rank domain. Canadian Psychology, 51, 58–66.

Reblogged from: A Narcissist, a Psychopath and a Machiavellian Walk into a Bar…  by Raj Chopra, June 23, 2013

 

Psychopath TEST Politicians

 

.

The Corporate Psychopath’s Arsenal

An adult having a childish tantrum = psychopathy

Psychopathy, often confused with sociopathy, is typically defined as a personality disorder with symptoms of persistent antisocial behaviour such as frequent violence; impaired or nil empathy and remorse, and brash, disinhibited, egotistical personas. Whilst the term is often used by the media to describe the psychotic and mentally ill, Professor Robert Hare, the creator of the ‘Psychopathy Checklist’, explains that psychopaths are not disorientated with reality and suffering from hallucinations or extreme distress but rather are very rational and have a high awareness of their behaviour and environment. All of their resulting actions are made out of choice and are freely exercised.

The Psychopathy Checklist, the most valid and reliable psychopathy measuring tool, points to three recurring observable characteristics of psychopathy: boldness, disinhibition and meanness. Psychopaths are well-known for their lack of empathy, coupled with predatory and parasitic behaviour. They are found in 1% of the general population but the number rises to 3.5% at the management level in corporate organisations.

The Corporate Psychopath’s Behaviour

Corporate Psychopaths are too often successful in organisations and the workplace. They are very career orientated but behaviourally they are ruthless, unethical, manipulative and extremely exploitative in order to quickly climb the corporate ladder. Some behavioural trademarks are:

• Superficial charisma
• Emotionally shallow
• Pathological lying and manipulation
• Lack of empathy, remorse or guilt
• Promiscuous sexual behaviour
• Grandiose sense of self-worth
• Constant impulsive and irresponsible behaviour
• Lack of realistic long term goals

Psychopathic behaviour differs when exposed in different environments. At an organisational level or within the workplace environment, these behaviours would typically result in scenarios such as:

• Frequent temper tantrums to cause high anxiety amongst peers
• Ridiculing or blaming others for bad work performance
• Intentionally spreading malicious lies for their benefit
• Stealing credit for the accomplishments of others or sabotaging others
• Refusing to take responsibility for behaviour or errors
• Doing whatever it takes to close a deal with no regards for ethics or legality
• Often taking the belongings of others without any intention of returning

Research shows that there are more instances of corporate psychopathic behaviour at the management level when compared to the general population, the reported scenarios are as such:

• Setting unrealistic and unachievable expectations to set employees up for failure
• Reluctance or refusal outright to attend meetings with more than one person
• Threatens perceived opponents with dismissal or discipline in order to taint employee profile
• Refusal to provide sufficient training or instructions to victim
• Invasion of personal privacy of employees
• Multiple sexual encounters with junior and/or senior employees
• Developing new ideas without real follow through
• Public humiliation of others and even encouraging of peers to torment or humiliate others

Havens for Corporate Psychopathy

Corporate Psychopaths are attracted to organisations and positions where they can easily gain power, influence, position, prestige and money typically in the financial services, media and legal sector. Other less known sectors include the civil services (e.g. the military, police, government and even the clergy). Clive Boddy’s paper on “The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis” comprehensively explains and illustrates how corporate psychopathy when left to flourish at the top hierarchy of companies, specifically Wall Street Banks, were the main culprits of the Financial Crisis of 2007-08 in America. None of the biggest culprits were prosecuted and they got away scot-free with their ill-gotten gains. What was most revealing was their behaviour: their total lack of empathy for the chaos and massive suffering they had caused to individuals, economies and countries.

There are measures to identify, prevent and monitor instances of corporate psychopathic behaviour in the workplace. The dilemma is the reluctance to use them due to company policies, data protection and confidentiality clauses. In our next article in this series, we will delve deeper into details concerning workplace norms, employment cases, legal implications and penalties of corporate psychopathy from a British perspective.

Excerpt from “The Corporate Psychopath’s Arsenal” By C.H.I. Talent Assessment, Nov 8 2016

Green Criminal Activity

Crime statistics often present a distorted view of crime because they fail to include the large volume and scope of crime and harm that ecological disorganization produces. In short, green criminologists often reference this harm in comparison to traditional ‘street’ crimes that the state records for statistical purposes for crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, assault, larceny and motor vehicle theft. Green crimes easily surpass the volume and number of victims reported in crime statistics that are kept by the state. There are a wide variety of green crimes, and the victims of green crimes include non-traditional victims whom criminologists do not ordinarily examine. In addition to human victims, green crimes also have non-human victims including animals, plants, and ecosystems. Green crimes do not outnumber the crimes reported by the police such as murder, rape, assault, larceny, burglary and motor vehicle theft simply because there are more categories of victims. For instance, green-harms often victimize larger numbers of human victims in a single incident compared with typical street crimes.

A single green crime may produce hundreds, thousands or even millions of human victims. Some of those victims suffer repeated victimization as green crimes can also unfold over long periods of time and have a duration not typically associated with street crimes. Each of these factors increases the scope, intensity, and numbers of green victimizations, making these forms of victimization quite different from the typical street crime victimization incident. Green harm and crime are important conceptually and theoretically as well because they have the ability to cause forms of ecological damage that change the very nature of the world.

These green harms can also make the world uninhabitable. Abandoned towns and communities exist because of the health hazards posed by toxic pollutants and other related environmental disasters that are counted among green crimes. In the United States, for example, these locations include: Times Beach, Missouri (due to dioxin pollution); Centralia, Pennsylvania (due to underground mining fires); Love Canal, Niagara Falls, NY (due to widespread disposal of toxic waste); Pitcher, Oklahoma (due to concentrations of lead and zinc pollution); Treece, Kansas (due to lead pollution). These cities, and others around the world, stand as monuments to the tremendous harms green crimes can produce. In addition to these abandoned cities, there are currently 1,163 Superfund sites that are portions of cities, towns, and communities in the United States listed as containing sufficient levels of ground pollution to require remediation.

The environmental impacts of the international capitalist economy include escalated carbon dioxide pollution and other hazardous pollutants. As some researchers note, corporations fail to consider how their behaviours impact ecological disorganization because they externalize the costs of ecological harms—ecological problems that are produced by corporations become social problems which the government, rather than the private firms that create those problems, must address. This shifts the expense of anti-environmental practices to the state, which must tax citizens to generate the funds for remedies. Corporations benefit from the combination of weak environmental regulations and a pseudo-free market which enables the corporations to externalize costs to the state. This, in turn, facilitates private-sector accumulation by transferring corporate costs to individual tax-payers.

Exerpts from “IS IT A CRIME TO PRODUCE ECOLOGICAL DISORGANIZATION?” by Michael J. Lynch, Michael A. Long, Kimberly L. Barrett and Paul B. Stretesky. BRIT. J. CRIMINOL. (2013) 53, 997–1016

Photo courtesy CoastalCare.org

 

Psychopath TEST Politicians

.