Eight misconceptions about the elemental approach and aversive personality trait research: A response to Andrews and colleagues (2023)

Abstract

Andrews and colleagues (2023) assert that there are a number of issues with our recent article, "Taking an elemental approach to the conceptualization and measurement of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy" (Kay & Arrow, 2022). Many of these issues seem to stem from common misconceptions about the elemental approach and aversive personality trait research generally. We thank Andrews and colleagues-as well as the editor-for the opportunity to address those misconceptions here. | MISCONCEPTION 1: AN ELEMENTAL APPROACH MEANS RESEARCHERS CANNOT STUDY MACHIAVELLIANISM, GRANDIOSE NARCISSISM, AND PSYCHOPATHY AS COMPOUND VARIABLESPart of the negative reaction to the elemental approach seems to be the belief that researchers taking this approach can no longer study Machiavellianism, grandiose narcissism, and psychopathy as compound variables but must, instead, study the myriad elements of Machiavellianism, grandiose narcissism, and psychopathy. Andrews and colleagues note that this is both unparsimonious and impractical, violating the principle of Occam's razor and requiring the estimation of so many parameters that researchers will inevitably find spurious associations.Fortunately, the elemental approach does not mean researchers cannot study these traits as compound variables. Just as the existence of atoms doesn't mean researchers aren't allowed to study molecules, the existence of personality elements doesn't mean researchers aren't allowed to study higher-order personality traits. The elemental approach simply allows us to identify the aspects of personality that are shared among and unique to each of these constructs, granting researchers the ability to test whether scales are measuring what they are meant to be measuring and, if not, update the scales to better capture the intended constructs.