Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Psychopathy rather than Machiavellianism or narcissism facilitates

intimate partner violence via fast life strategy
Satoru Kiire
Graduate School of Humanities, Hosei University, Boissonade Tower 11F, 2-17-1 Fujimi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8160, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The dark triad traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) are socially aversive and relate to an-
Received 22 June 2016 tisocial behavior and violence. These behaviors may facilitate intimate partner violence (IPV) in couple relation-
Received in revised form 26 August 2016 ships. IPV risk factors may be correlated with the dark triad traits. Life history strategy (LHS) may be able to
Accepted 28 August 2016
account for IPV risk factors including the dark triad traits. This research therefore tested if possession of dark
Available online xxxx
triad traits predicts IPV perpetration, and if LHS mediates any such relationship. Each dark triad trait directly pos-
Keywords:
itively affected IPV perpetration in a sample of Japanese undergraduate students (N = 344; M = 19.0 years;
Dark triad SD = 1.25; 182 females); however, only psychopathy uniquely predicted IPV perpetration. Among males, LHS
Machiavellianism partially mediated psychopathy's prediction of IPV, and mediated an indirect negative effect of Machiavellianism
Narcissism on IPV. LHS may account for the dark triad traits' effect on IPV in males. Directions of future research examining
Psychopathy IPV and the present research's limitations are discussed.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Life history strategy (LHS)

1. Introduction high extraversion, and high openness with low conscientiousness

Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy comprise the dark
triad personality traits; these traits are socially aversive (e.g.,
Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Jonason, Webster, Schmitt, Li, &
Crysel, 2012; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The dark triad traits predict a
range of antisocial behaviors (e.g., Baughman, Dearing, Giammarco, &
Vernon, 2012; Jonason, Strosser, Kroll, Duineveld & Baruf, 2015;
Jones & Paulhus, 2010; Pailing, Boon, & Egan, 2014). This study exam-
ined the dark triad traits' relationship with intimate partner violence
(IPV), which is a serious public health problem (Wolitzky-Taylor et al.,
2008), using life history strategy theory (Figueredo et al., 2005, 2006).
1.1. The dark triad
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy are associated with
the following characteristics: interpersonal manipulation and callous-
ness (e.g., Jones & Figueredo, 2013; Paulhus, 2014), low agreeableness
(e.g., Furnham, Richards, Rangel, & Jones, 2014; Paulhus & Williams,
2002), and agency but not communion in interpersonal attitudes (e.g.,
Kajonius, Persson, & Jonason, 2015; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). In con-
sequence, these traits have been termed the dark triad and extensively
examined both collectively and in isolation from one another (Furnham
et al., 2013; Campbell et al., 2009; Garcia & Rosenberg, 2016; Jonason et
al., 2012; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). For example, low conscientiousness,
E-mail address: s.kiire0518@gmail.com.
have been identied as uniquely related to Machiavellianism, narcis-
sism, and psychopathy, respectively (e.g., Furnham et al., 2014;
Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008). Similarly, agency is characteris-
tic of dark triad trait possession; however, narcissism is correlated with
high communion and high agency, psychopathy is correlated with low
communion, and Machiavellianism is not explicitly correlated with
agency or communion, when controlling for the other dark triad traits
(Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). In this context, each dark triad trait's un-
derlying mechanism may differ from the others', although many out-
comes are common between two or three traits. That is, common dark
triad characteristics may reect self-exhibition, impulsiveness or sensa-
tion seeking, and cynical world view in narcissism, psychopathy, and
Machiavellianism, respectively (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). In sum, a differ-
ent mechanism may underlie each behavioral pattern characteristic of
dark triad trait possession.
1.2. Intimate partner violence (IPV)
IPV is a serious public problem (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2008). Previ-
ous research has identied a range of IPV risk factors (see review, Vagi et
al., 2013); for example, personality (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart,
1994; Weinstein, Gleason, & Oltmanns, 2012), risky behavior (Temple,
Shorey, Fite, Stuart, & Le, 2013), parental relationships (Miller,
Gorman-Smith, Sullivan, Orpinas, & Simon, 2009), friendships
(McDonell, Ott, & Mitchell, 2010), and socioeconomic status (Foshee
et al., 2008). The dark triad traits overlap these risk factors and may
therefore predict IPV. Furthermore, narcissism and psychopathy are

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.043
0191-8869/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
402 S. Kiire / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406
independently positively correlated with IPV (Ryan, Weikel, &
Sprechini, 2008; Swogger, Walsh, & Kosson, 2007); however, little is
known about each dark triad trait unique effect on IPV when controlling
for factors shared with other traits. This research therefore examined
each dark triad trait's unique relationship with IPV.
1.3. Life history theory
Figueredo et al. describe life history theory (LHT) as a mid-level the-
ory from evolutionary biology that describes the strategic allocation of
bioenergetic and material resources among different components of t-
ness (Figueredo et al., 2006, p. 244). The individual allocates bioenergy
and resources to reproduction and survival based on his or her life his-
tory strategy (LHS); these allocations are not consciously controlled
(Buss, 2009). The balance of allocation of bioenergy and resources to re-
production and survival varies depending on environmental cues and
genetic factors (Figueredo et al., 2006).
Individuals' life history strategies exist on a one-dimensional contin-
uum ranging from fast to slow; their location on this continuum is mea-
sured as the K-factor (Figueredo et al., 2006). LHS incorporates a range
of life history traits (e.g., reproductive, parental, and social behaviors),
and individuals' adopted strategy explains some subsequent behavior
(Figueredo et al., 2005, 2006; Sherman, Figueredo, & Funder, 2013;
Wolf, van Doorn, Leimar, & Weissing, 2007). From a general and simpli-
ed perspective, these strategies represent a tradeoff between current
reproduction and parental survival (Buss, 2009). Fast LHS tend to prior-
itize current reproduction; such strategies facilitate short-term relation-
ships and pursue immediate benets. In contrast, slow LHS tend to
prioritize parental survival; such strategies facilitate long-term relation-
ships and pursue long-term benets. Slow LHS thus promote pro-social
behavior and communion (e.g., cooperation), whereas fast LHS promote
antisocial behavior and individual agency (e.g., exploitation). Human
beings generally adopt slow LHS; however, the dark triad traits (or at
least psychopathy) constitute a fast LHS (Jonason, Baughman, Carter,
& Parker, 2015; Jonason, Koenig, & Tost, 2010).
1.4. IPV and life history strategy
Parental uncertainty is an adaptive problem facing males (Archer,
2013; Buss, 2009; Figueredo et al., 2006). Hence, males perform various
mate retention behaviors (Buss, Shackelford, & McKibbin, 2008) to pre-
vent partner indelity and consequent pregnancy (Kaighobadi,
Shackelford, & Goetz, 2009; Buss & Duntley, 2011). In this context,
LHT may predict patterns of mate retention behavior. Individuals
whose LHS is slow may use relatively gentle mate retention tactics
due to higher valuation of the partner relationship (e.g., in order to pro-
mote cooperation; Figueredo et al., 2006). In contrast, fast-LHS individ-
uals may use more severe tactics due to lower valuation of the
relationship and a tendency towards temporary sexual relationships
rather than long-term relationships involving cooperation (Figueredo
et al., 2006). Specically, IPV is a severe mate retention behavior
(Archer, 2013; Buss & Duntley, 2011); therefore, it is expected that
fast-LHS individuals will be more likely to use IPV to prevent partner
indelity.
1.5. Hypotheses
This research tested the following hypotheses. First, each dark triad
trait is positively correlated with IPV perpetration. Second, IPV perpe-
tration is correlated with fast LHS. Finally, LHS mediates the dark triad
traits' relationship with IPV perpetration. Previous research has as-
sumed that IPV as a mate retention strategy is male-specic (Buss &
Duntley, 2011); additionally, males more commonly possess strong
dark triad traits (Furnham et al., 2013) and fast LHS (Figueredo et al.,
2006; Kawamoto, 2015), although IPV perpetration is bidirectional
among males and females (Straus, 2008). Thus, the present research in-
cluded female participants as an exploratory analysis.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 467 university students from Tokyo, Japan. Some
participants had never been in a romantic relationship. IPV assumes a
partner relationship; therefore, these participants were excluded, leav-
ing 344 participants who had been in or were presently in a relationship
(182 females, 162 males, mean age = 19.0 years, SD = 1.25). Partici-
pants were recruited through their university course. Participation
was voluntary. All participants were Japanese. Participants were not
asked if their partner was also participating in the study in order to pro-
tect participant anonymity; therefore, some participants' partners may
also have participated.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Short Dark Triad, Japanese version (SD3J)
The Short Dark Triad (SD3) is 27-item self-report questionnaire that
measures dark triad trait possession; nine items examine each trait
(Jones & Paulhus, 2014; e.g., It's not wise to tell your secrets for Machi-
avellianism, People see me as a natural leader for narcissism, I like to
get revenge on authorities for psychopathy). The validity of the Japa-
nese version (SD3J) has been supported (Shimotsukasa, Hashimoto, &
Oshio, 2015; Shimotsukasa & Oshio, 2015). Responses used a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Scores on
items examining each trait were averaged to give separate trait scores;
scores on all items were averaged to give an overall dark triad score. Fac-
tor analysis replicated the factor structure identied in previous re-
search. Internal reliability was acceptable regarding each subscale
score and the overall score (Table 1).
2.2.2. Mini-K, Japanese version (Mini-K-J)
The Mini-K is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that measures LHS
(as K-factor; e.g., I would rather have one than several sexual relation-
ships at a time, I am often in social contact with my friends); lower
scores indicated faster LHS (Figueredo et al., 2006). The validity of the
Japanese version (Mini-K-J) has been supported (Kawamoto, 2015).
Two items in this scale are unsuitable for use with Japanese undergrad-
uate students (i.e., I have a close and warm relationship with my own
children and I am closely connected to and involved in my religion);
these items were removed in the present research, giving an 18-item
scale. Factor analysis replicated the factor structure identied in previ-
ous research. The resulting scale's internal consistency was good
(Table 1).
2.2.3. Intimate partner violence scale (IPV scale)
The IPV scale was used to measure experiences of IPV victimization
and perpetration (Kiire & Ochi, 2015). In this research, only perpetration
scores were analyzed. This scale was originally composed in Japanese; it
examines the following dimensions of IPV: direct violence (e.g., slap-
ping), indirect violence (e.g., frightening their partner by beating or
kicking a table or wall), control (e.g., sending e-mails or calling many
times per day), verbal violence (e.g., talking condescendingly), sexual
violence (e.g., engaging in unwanted sexual contact), economical vio-
lence (e.g., refusal to return or relinquish borrowed things or money),
and stalking (e.g., unwanted social interaction). Three items measured
each dimension; responses used a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 =
often). This scale has been validated in the Japanese context. Conrma-
tory factor analysis replicated the factor structure identied in previous
research. The hypothetical model's data t was acceptable (2(168) =
542.89, p b 0.001; CFI = 0.850; RMSEA = 0.081, 90% CI = [0.073,
0.088]; SRMR = 0.060). Additionally, sample scores closely resembled
 S. Kiire / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406 403

Table 1
Dark triad traits, K-factor, and IPV: descriptive statistics and sex differences.

Cronbach's Female Male ta Hedges's g

M (SD) min Max M (SD) min Max

Dark triad trait

Mach 0.74 4.72 (0.85) 2.33 6.89 4.75 (0.91) 1.00 6.67 0.32 0.03
Narc 0.73 3.24 (0.90) 1.44 6.22 3.48 (0.88) 1.33 6.33 2.54 0.27
Psych 0.63 3.27 (0.82) 1.67 6.11 3.41 (0.89) 1.56 6.33 1.57 0.17
comp 0.80 3.74 (0.66) 2.19 5.85 3.88 (0.62) 1.92 5.44 2.02 0.22
K-factor 0.81 5.03 (0.61) 2.50 6.39 4.73 (0.96) 1.00 6.33 3.49 0.39
IPV perpetration
Direct 0.68 1.10 (0.31) 1.00 3.33 1.16 (0.43) 1.00 3.67 1.47 0.16
Indirect 0.70 1.19 (0.44) 1.00 4.67 1.23 (0.52) 1.00 4.00 0.68 0.07
Control 0.59 1.81 (0.83) 1.00 5.00 1.81 (0.79) 1.00 4.67 0.04 0.004
Verbal 0.61 1.52 (0.62) 1.00 4.00 1.56 (0.69) 1.00 4.00 0.47 0.05
Sexual 0.78 1.07 (0.23) 1.00 2.33 1.43 (0.75) 1.00 5.00 5.87 0.66
Economic 0.67 1.60 (0.78) 1.00 5.00 1.28 (0.51) 1.00 4.00 4.50 0.47
Stalking 0.63 1.23 (0.43) 1.00 3.00 1.37 (0.57) 1.00 3.67 2.67 0.29
General IPV 0.85 1.36 (0.37) 1.00 3.57 1.41 (0.43) 1.00 3.35 1.04 0.11

Note. Mach = Machiavellianism, Narc = narcissism, Psych = psychopathy, D3 comp = dark triad composite.
p b 0.001.
p b 0.0.1
p b 0.05.

p b 0.10.
a
Welch's t-tests (two-tailed).

the general sample score pattern (Supplemental Table S1). Scores on
items examining each dimension were averaged to give subscale scores.
Each IPV dimension was highly correlated; therefore, scores on all items
were averaged to give a general IPV score. This measure's internal con-
sistency was acceptable considering the small number of items examin-
ing each dimension (Table 1).
2.3. Procedure
A survey was administered in psychology, astronomy, computer
learning, and climatology classes. Participants answered individually
and simultaneously, responded to all measures in full, and completed
demographics questionnaires. All procedures were approved by the
ethics committee of [institution blinded for review].
2.4. Data analysis
From an evolutionary perspective, sex and age differences require
careful interpretation. The researcher considered it likely that sex differ-
ences would become apparent; therefore, both genders were included
separately in all analyses. Moreover, all analyses considered partici-
pants' age as a control variable. First, Pearson's correlation coefcients
were calculated between participants' dark triad, K-factor, and IPV di-
mension scores in order to test hypotheses 1 and 2. Second, multivariate
multiple regression analysis was used to examine each dark triad trait's
unique effect on each IPV dimension (i.e., to further test hypothesis 1).
Additionally, univariate multiple regression analysis was used to regress
general IPV scores for each dark triad trait. Finally, mediation analysis
was used to test if LHS explained the identied associations between
each dark triad trait and general IPV (5000 bootstraps).
signicantly but weakly by gender, supporting previous research (e.g.,
Straus, 2008).
3.2. Correlations and regression analysis
Table 2 presents Pearson's coefcients of correlation between dark
triad traits, K-factor, and IPV. Among males, psychopathy was positively
correlated with IPV, supporting previous research (Ryan et al., 2008);
additionally, narcissism was weakly correlated with IPV. Machiavellian-
ism was not correlated with IPV except regarding sexual IPV. Dark triad
composite scores correlated with IPV although the dark triad traits
showed varying correlation patterns, partially supporting hypothesis
1. K-factor was negatively correlated with IPV, supporting hypothesis
2. Among females, all dark triad traits and dark triad composite scores
were positively correlated with IPV. In contrast, K-factor was not corre-
lated with IPV. These ndings suggest that psychopathy is specically
correlated with IPV in males, whereas all dark triad traits are correlated
with IPV in female. Moreover, K-factor and IPV scores were negatively
correlated in males only.
The multivariate model was signicant in a multivariate test (fe-
males: R2 = 0.22, F(28, 696) = 1.56, p b 0.05; males: R2 = 0.30, F(28,
616) = 1.95, p b 0.01; including participants age). Sensitivity analysis
did not indicate multicollinearity (Supplemental Table S2). Each dark
triad trait explained each IPV dimension; however, only psychopathy
was mainly signicantly uniquely effective on each IPV dimension
(Table 3). Each dark triad trait explained variance in participants' gener-
al IPV score; however, only psychopathy signicantly uniquely affected
participants' general IPV score (Table 3). In summary, only psychopathy
uniquely affected IPV.
3.3. Mediation analysis

3. Results Among females, psychopathy signicantly directly affected IPV and

3.1. Descriptive statistics and sex differences
Table 1 presents participants' mean scores for the dark triad traits, K-
factor, and IPV, stratied by gender. Males scored higher for narcissism
and composite dark triad trait possession and lower on the K-factor;
these results support previous studies (e.g., Jones & Paulhus, 2014;
Paulhus & Williams, 2002). No signicant sex differences were found re-
garding Machiavellianism or psychopathy. Some IPV types varied
K-factor; its other direct and indirect effects were not signicant.
Among males, psychopathy signicantly directly and indirectly affected
IPV; in contrast, Machiavellianism only indirectly affected IPV (Table 4).
Narcissism was not signicantly correlated with IPV or LHS. LHS partial-
ly mediated psychopathy's correlation with IPV and fully mediated
Machiavellianism's correlation with IPV, although K-factor had a non-
signicant effect on IPV. On this point, K-factor negatively affected IPV
in both females and males; therefore, their data were combined and
retested by mediation analysis. In this analysis, psychopathy signicant
404 S. Kiire / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406

Table 2
Correlations between dark triad traits, K-factor score, and IPV.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Mach 0.32 0.43 0.75 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.23 0.16 0.05 0.27 0.17 0.27
2. Narc 0.03 0.44 0.77 0.04 0.18 0.23 0.20 0.16 0.06 0.25 0.13 0.27
3. Psych 0.20 0.47 0.79 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.28 0.26 0.33
4. D3 comp 0.59 0.71 0.80 0.12 0.21 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.12 0.34 0.24 0.37
5. K-factor 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.20 0.13 0.08

IPV perpetration
6. Direct 0.03 0.03 0.19 0.09 0.22 0.62 0.24 0.48 0.25 0.29 0.31 0.58
7. Indirect 0.02 0.10 0.33 0.22 0.20 0.63 0.46 0.70 0.28 0.48 0.44 0.80
8. Control 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.13 0.05 0.32 0.38 0.38 0.23 0.37 0.43 0.72
9. Verbal 0.06 0.18 0.29 0.25 0.10 0.45 0.59 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.30 0.76
10. Sexual 0.18 0.16 0.37 0.34 0.18 0.31 0.34 0.34 0.44 0.33 0.38 0.47
11. Economic 0.01 0.14 0.20 0.16 0.21 0.37 0.49 0.26 0.41 0.46 0.49 0.77
12. Stalking 0.03 0.12 0.26 0.16 0.25 0.55 0.48 0.61 0.36 0.50 0.43 0.67
13. General IPV 0.07 0.16 0.36 0.28 0.22 0.67 0.76 0.69 0.71 0.71 0.66 0.79

Notes. Mach = Machiavellianism, Narc = narcissism, Psych = psychopathy, D3 comp = dark triad composite. The lower and higher triangles represent correlations for male and female
participants, respectively. Participant's age was controlled for.
p b 0.01.
p b 0.05.

p b 0.10.

indirectly affected IPV (bindirect = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.003, 0.05]) and K-
factor directly affected IPV (bdirect = 0.07, 95% CI = [ 0.13,
0.005]). These results support hypothesis 3; additionally, the non-sig-
nicant path from K-factor to IPV among male participants may be due
to insufcient sample size.
4. Discussion
This article examined the relationship between the dark triad traits,
LHS, and IPV. Each dark triad trait was correlated with general IPV and
IPV dimensions, particularly among female participants, supporting
previous research examining psychopathy (Swogger et al., 2007) and
narcissism (Ryan et al., 2008). Machiavellianism shares factors with
psychopathy and narcissism; therefore, Machiavellianism may also be
correlated with IPV (although this correlation may only obtain among
females).
Only psychopathy had a unique main effect on general IPV and each
IPV dimension. Psychopathy is characterized by impulsivity and sensa-
tion seeking when it controls the other dark triad traits; these character-
istics facilitate antisocial behavior (Jones, 2013; Jones & Paulhus, 2011).
The present ndings support this relationship. In contrast, Machiavel-
lianism is characterized by an orientation towards strategic calculation
and the avoidance of behaviors that might harm one's reputation
(Jones & Paulhus, 2014); this may explain the present nding that Ma-
chiavellianism did not uniquely affect IPV. In contrast, narcissism is
characterized by attention seeking and administration; this leads nar-
cissism to promote communion (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). IPV is like-
ly to aggravate this relationship; this may explain the present nding
that narcissism did not uniquely affect IPV.
Among male participants, LHS mediated Machiavellianism and
psychopathy's relationship with general IPV; this suggests that male
psychopathy may underlie fast LHS (Jonason et al., 2010; Jonason,

Table 3
Regression of IPV depending on each dark triad traita.

Machiavellianism Narcissism Psychopathy

95% CI 95% CI 95% CI

B LL UL b* B LL UL b* B LL UL b* R2

Female (N = 182)
Direct 0.001 [0.06, 0.06] 0.00 0.04 [0.02, 0.09] 0.11 0.06 [0.001, 0.12] 0.16 0.06
Indirect 0.03 [0.05, 0.11] 0.06 0.07 [0.01, 0.15] 0.14 0.09 [0.001, 0.18] 0.17 0.09
Control 0.13 [0.02, 0.29] 0.14 0.09 [0.06, 0.23] 0.10 0.13 [0.03, 0.30] 0.13 0.09
Verbal 0.06 [0.05, 0.18] 0.09 0.06 [0.06, 0.17] 0.08 0.09 [0.04, 0.21] 0.12 0.05
Sexual 0.01 [0.05, 0.04] 0.02 0.003 [0.04, 0.04] 0.01 0.05 [0.002, 0.10] 0.17 0.05
Economic 0.14 [0.003, 0.28] 0.16 0.11 [0.02, 0.24] 0.13 0.15 [0.002, 0.30] 0.16 0.12
Stalking 0.04 [0.04, 0.11] 0.07 0.01 [0.07, 0.08] 0.01 0.12 [0.03, 0.20] 0.23 0.08
General IPVb 0.06 [0.01, 0.12] 0.13 0.05 [0.01, 0.11] 0.13 0.10 [0.03, 0.17] 0.22 0.14
Male (N = 162)
Direct 0.04 [0.11, 0.04] 0.08 0.04 [0.13, 0.04] 0.09 0.12 [0.04, 0.20] 0.25 0.05
Indirect 0.03 [0.11, 0.06] 0.05 0.04 [0.14, 0.05] 0.07 0.22 [0.12, 0.32] 0.37 0.13
Control 0.04 [0.10, 0.18] 0.05 0.004 [0.16, 0.15] 0.01 0.12 [0.04, 0.27] 0.13 0.02
Verbal 0.01 [0.11, 0.12] 0.01 0.04 [0.09, 0.17] 0.05 0.21 [0.08, 0.34] 0.27 0.09
Sexual 0.09 [0.03, 0.21] 0.11 0.01 [0.14, 0.13] 0.01 0.29 [0.15, 0.43] 0.35 0.16
Economic 0.03 [0.11, 0.06] 0.05 0.04 [0.07, 0.13] 0.06 0.10 [0.002, 0.20] 0.18 0.06
Stalking 0.06 [0.15, 0.04] 0.09 0.01 [0.12, 0.10] 0.02 0.18 [0.07, 0.29] 0.28 0.09
General IPVb 0.00 [0.07, 0.07] 0.00 0.004 [0.08, 0.08] 0.01 0.18 [0.10, 0.26] 0.36 0.14

Note. b* = standardized partial regression coefcient. Signicant effects (p b 0.05) were shown by bold face. Age was controlled; however, age correlation results are not presented for clarity.
p b 0.001.
p b 0.01.
p b 0.05.

p b 0.10.
a
In analysis of each trait, the other two were controlled for.
b
Univariate multiple regression analysis examining only general IPV.
 S. Kiire / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406 405

Table 4 adolescents, as IPV is relevant among adolescents as well as older people

Mediation of K-factor between the dark triad and IPV. (O'Leary & Slep, 2003).
Female Male Third, this research did not examine correlations between IPV and
95% CI (5000 bootstraps) 95% CI (5000 bootstraps)
the traits of both partners in couples that had experienced IPV. Combi-
nations of traits in couples may importantly affect IPV risk (e.g.,
b LL UL b LL UL
Giordano, Soto, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Straus, 2008). Future re-
Direct effects search should therefore examine possible interactions between LHS
General IPV
pairings and IPV.
Machiavellianism 0.06 [0.001, 0.12] 0.03 [0.07, 0.11]
Narcissism 0.05 [0.02, 0.14] 0.03 [0.11, 0.17]
Finally, although this research suggested the possibility that IPV risk
Psychopathy 0.10 [0.02, 0.18] 0.13 [0.01, 0.27] factors may reect an underlying evolutionary mechanism in males, this
K-factor 0.01 [0.10, 0.09] 0.09 [0.18, 0.004] may also be the case in females, following Archer (2013). Future re-
K-factor search should explore evolutionary mechanisms and other possible ex-
Machiavellianism 0.02 [0.13, 0.10] 0.31 [0.09, 0.52]
planations of IPV in females.
Narcissism 0.13 [0.01, 0.27] 0.43 [0.27, 0.61]
Psychopathy 0.23 [0.37, 0.09] 0.48 [0.68, 0.28]
Indirect effects 4.2. Conclusions
GIPV K-factor Mach 0.00 [0.01, 0.01] 0.03 [0.08, 0.002]
GIPV K-factor Narc 0.002 [0.02, 0.01] 0.04 [0.08, 0.00]
GIPV K-factor Psych 0.003 [0.02, 0.03] 0.04 [0.002, 0.09] The present research supports a relationship between the dark triad,
LHS, and IPV. The dark triad traits, and particularly psychopathy, affect
Notes. Mach = Machiavellianism, Narc = narcissism, Psych = psychopathy. Signicant ef-
fects (p b 0.05) are shown in bold. Age was controlled; however, age correlation results are
IPV among both males and females. LHS appears to partly mediate
not presented for clarity. these relationships among males. The present ndings support previous
research and the uniqueness of each dark triad trait's effect. However, as
this research examined only the dark triad and LHS among numerous
IPV risk factors, future research should address IPV's relationship with
other important IPV risk factors.
Baughman et al., 2015). Psychopathy's unique direct effect on IPV may
reect psychopathy's impulsive and antisocial aspects. Interestingly,
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Machiavellianism indirectly negatively affected general IPV (Table 4),
although Machiavellianism partial regression coefcient for general
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
IPV was not signicant in the regression analysis (Table 3). Machiavel-
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.043.
lianism may promote slow LHS and thereby diminish IPV (Furnham et
al., 2013), potentially explaining this nding. Nonetheless, this research
found a non-signicant regression coefcient regarding Machiavellian- References
ism and general IPV, which does not support this inference. In females, Archer, J. (2013). Can evolutionary principles explain patterns of family violence?
LHS did not mediate psychopathy's relationship with general IPV; this Psychological Bulletin, 139, 403440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029114.
suggests that psychopathy, rather than LHS, may cause IPV in females. Barnes, J. C., TenEyck, M., Boutwell, B. B., & Beaver, K. M. (2013). Indicators of domestic/
intimate partner violence are structured by genetic and nonshared environmental in-
In summary, the present research found that the dark triad traits, uences. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47, 371376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
and particularly psychopathy, are associated with IPV. Additionally, jpsychires.2012.10.016.
LHS mediated these relationships in males. Extensive research has iden- Baughman, H. M., Dearing, S., Giammarco, E., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). Relationships be-
tween bullying behaviours and the Dark Triad: A study with adults. Personality and
tied numerous factors that raise IPV risk, and the dark triad traits may Individual Differences, 52, 571575.
underlie some of these factors; however, no integrative explanation of Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and
these factors' effect is immediately apparent. In contrast, LHS may be individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359366. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01138.x.
able to integrate and explain these factors and their effect. The origins
Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2011). The evolution of intimate partner violence. Aggression
of the dark triad and its link to IPV present one such possible explana- and Violent Behavior, 16, 411419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.015.
tion. Nonetheless, this research addressed only the dark triad traits' re- Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., & McKibbin, W. F. (2008). The mate retention inventory-
short form (MRI-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 322334. http://dx.
lationship with LHS. Moreover, IPV is too complex for bivariate analysis
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.08.013.
to be informative. Additionally, genetic factors appear to affect the var- Campbell, J., Schermer, J. A., Villani, V. C., Nguyen, B., Vickers, L., & Vernon, P. A. (2009). A
iables examined in this research (i.e., the dark triad, LHS, and IPV; e.g., behavioral genetic study of the Dark Triad of personality and moral development.
Vernon et al., 2008 regarding the dark triad; Figueredo et al., 2006 re- Twin Research and Human Genetics, 12, 132136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/twin.12.
2.132.
garding LHS; Barnes, TenEyck, Boutwell, & Beaver, 2013 regarding Figueredo, A. J., Vsquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Schneider, S. M., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R., ...
IPV). Accordingly, future research should further integrate and explain Jacobs, W. J. (2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to repro-
IPV risk factors by addressing their relationship with genetics. ductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26, 243275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.
2006.02.002.
Figueredo, A. J., Vsquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Sefcek, J. A., Kirsner, B. R., & Jacobs, W. J.
4.1. Limitations (2005). The K-factor: Individual differences in life history strategy. Personality and
Individual Differences, 39, 13491360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009.
Foshee, V. A., Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Bauman, K. E.,
This research has the following limitations. First, social desirability & Beneeld, T. S. (2008). What accounts for demographic differences in trajectories of
and other false-report biases were not controlled; this may have led to adolescent dating violence? An examination of intrapersonal and contextual media-
under-reporting of dark triad traits and IPV, diminishing statistical tors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 596604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2007.11.005.
power and potentially obscuring signicant correlations. Nonetheless, Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A
self-report examination is supported as adequately reliable (Jones & 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199216. http://dx.doi.
Paulhus, 2014), supporting the present ndings. Notably, this research org/10.1111/spc3.12018.
Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring malevolence: Quan-
measured participant's sex and age; however, it did not address socio-
titative issues surrounding the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual
economic status, cognitive ability, or other potential covariates. Future Differences, 67, 114121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.001.
research should control for such variables. Garcia, D., & Rosenberg, P. (2016). The dark cube: Dark and light character proles. PeerJ,
Second, two items were removed from the Mini-K-J in order to ac- 4, e1675. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1675.
Giordano, P. C., Soto, D. A., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2010). The characteristics
commodate the sample. In this context, future research should test the of romantic relationships associated with teen dating violence. Social Science
present ndings in a more diverse sample that nonetheless includes Research, 39, 863874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.009.
406 S. Kiire / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 401406
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three sub-
types and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476497. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476.
Jonason, P. K., Baughman, H. M., Carter, G. L., & Parker, P. (2015). Dorian Gray without his
portrait: Psychological, social, and physical health costs associated with the Dark
Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2015.01.008.
Jonason, P. K., Koenig, B. L., & Tost, J. (2010). Living a fast life. Human Nature, 21, 428442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12110-010-9102-4.
Jonason, P. K., Strosser, G. L., Kroll, C. H., Duineveld, J. J., & Baruf, S. A. (2015). Valuing my-
self over others: The Dark Triad traits and moral and social values. Personality and
Individual Differences, 81, 102106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.045.
Jonason, P. K., Webster, G. D., Schmitt, D. P., Li, N. P., & Crysel, L. (2012). The antihero in
popular culture: Life history theory and the dark triad personality traits. Review of
General Psychology, 16, 192199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027914.
Jones, D. N. (2013). What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine: The Dark Triad and
gambling with your neighbor's money. Journal of Research in Personality, 47,
563571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.005.
Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the
Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27, 521531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
per.1893.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcis-
sists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 1218. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550609347591.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personal-
ity. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 679682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2011.04.011.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief mea-
sure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 2841. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1073191113514105.
Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2009). From mate retention to murder:
Evolutionary psychological perspectives on men's partner-directed violence. Review
of General Psychology, 13, 327334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017254.
Kajonius, P. J., Persson, B. N., & Jonason, P. K. (2015). Hedonism, achievement, and power:
Universal values that characterize the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual
Differences, 77, 173178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.055.
Kawamoto, T. (2015). The translation and validation of the Mini-K scale in Japanese.
Japanese Psychological Research, 57, 254267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12083.
Kiire, S., & Ochi, K. (2015, October). Houkatsu teki na date violence/harassment syakudo
no kaihatsu [Development of the comprehensive scale of dating violence/harass-
ment]. Proceedings of the 56th Conference on Japanese Society of Social Psychology.
186, (In Japanese, translated by the author of this article.).
Miller, S., Gorman-Smith, D., Sullivan, T., Orpinas, P., & Simon, T. R. (2009). Parent and
peer predictors of physical dating violence perpetration in early adolescence: Tests
of moderation and gender differences. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 38, 538550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374410902976270.
McDonell, J., Ott, J., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Predicting dating violence victimization and
perpetration among middle and high school students in a rural southern community.
Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 14581463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2010.07.001.
O'Leary, K. D., & Slep, A. M. S. (2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating
aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 314327. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_01.
Pailing, A., Boon, J., & Egan, V. (2014). Personality, the Dark Triad and violence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 67, 8186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.018.
Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23, 421426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547737.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: narcissism, machi-
avellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556563. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.
Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2013). Positioning the Dark Triad in the interpersonal
circumplex: The friendly-dominant narcissist, hostile-submissive Machiavellian, and
hostile-dominant psychopath? Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 622627.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.021.
Ryan, K. M., Weikel, K., & Sprechini, G. (2008). Gender differences in narcissism and court-
ship violence in dating couples. Sex Roles, 58, 802813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-008-9403-9.
Sherman, R. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Funder, D. C. (2013). The behavioral correlates of overall
and distinctive life history strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105,
873888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033772.
Shimotsukasa, T., & Oshio, A. (2015). Development and validation of the Japanese version of
the Short Dark Triad (SD3-J). Poster presented at the ISSID 2015 (International Society for
the Study of Individual Differences) London, Ontario, Canada.
Shimotsukasa, T., Hashimoto, Y., & Oshio, A. (2015, September). Nihonngo ban Short Dark
Triad (SD3-J) no saranaru datousei kensyo [Further verication of validity of the
Short Dark Triad Japanese version]. Proceedings of the 79th Conference of the
Japanese Association of Psychology, 53.
Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female
university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252275.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004.
Swogger, M. T., Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2007). Domestic violence and psychopathic
traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other antisocial offenders.
Aggressive Behavior, 33, 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20185.
Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Fite, P., Stuart, G. L., & Le, V. D. (2013). Substance use as a lon-
gitudinal predictor of the perpetration of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 42, 596606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9877-1.
Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013).
Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating vio-
lence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 633649. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10964-013-9907-7.
Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic inves-
tigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
445452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.007.
Weinstein, Y., Gleason, M. E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2012). Borderline but not antisocial per-
sonality disorder symptoms are related to self-reported partner aggression in late
middle-age. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 692698. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/a0028994.
Wolf, M., van Doorn, G., Leimar, O., & Weissing, F. J. (2007). Life-history trade-offs favour
the evolution of animal personalities. Nature, 447, 581584. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/nature05835.
Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Ruggiero, K. J., Danielson, C. K., Resnick, H. S., Hanson, R. F., Smith,
D. W., & Saunders, B. E. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a na-
tional sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 47, 755762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e318172ef5f.