2021
DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2021.1998497
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of the Dark Triad personality traits on health protective behaviours: dyadic approach on self-reports and partner-reports

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall, the magnitude of the self-informant correlations reported in this research is consistent with results typically found in the broader personality literature (Beckmann et al, 2020; Connelly & Ones, 2010) and comparable with previously reported self-informant Dark Triad ratings (Hudek-Knezevic et al, 2021; Lämmle et al, 2021; McLarty et al, 2021; Miller et al, 2011). It is unsurprising there were mean self-informant differences in Dark Triad scores given informant reports can be influenced by informant type (romantic partner vs. work colleague), context (home vs. work; Andersen et al, 2022), and observability of the traits being measured (Connelly & Ones, 2010; John & Robins, 1993; Klonsky et al, 2002; Vazire, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Overall, the magnitude of the self-informant correlations reported in this research is consistent with results typically found in the broader personality literature (Beckmann et al, 2020; Connelly & Ones, 2010) and comparable with previously reported self-informant Dark Triad ratings (Hudek-Knezevic et al, 2021; Lämmle et al, 2021; McLarty et al, 2021; Miller et al, 2011). It is unsurprising there were mean self-informant differences in Dark Triad scores given informant reports can be influenced by informant type (romantic partner vs. work colleague), context (home vs. work; Andersen et al, 2022), and observability of the traits being measured (Connelly & Ones, 2010; John & Robins, 1993; Klonsky et al, 2002; Vazire, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…For instance, Carter and Egan (2022) observed that it was ScP (not M and N) that was a predictor of physical and psychological intimate partner violence; Tetreault et al (2021) found that ScP was a predictor of the majority of types of partner aggression. Hudek-Knezevic et al examined the risk related to the presence of individual features of the DT in partner interactions and found that men's ScP, and to a lesser extent men's M (but not N), had a detrimental effect on their partner's health-protective behaviour (Hudek-Knezevic et al, 2021). If these findings were to be generalised, it could be inferred that individuals with N traits do not pose the same level of risk to partners as Machiavellians or subclinical psychopaths.…”
Section: Interpretation Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the DT traits, especially men's psychopathy, exerted both actor and partner effects on various mate retention behaviors (Kardum et al, 2019), and men's psychopathy and Machiavellianism have been consistently related to mate poaching in both men and women (Kardum et al, 2022). Furthermore, the DT traits, particularly psychopathy, exerted actor and partner effects on aggression and argumentativeness (Webster et al, 2016), and men's psychopathy and Machiavellianism had deleterious actor and partner effects on health‐promoting behaviors (Hudek‐Knezevic et al, 2021). The first study that examined actor and partner effects of the DT traits on relationship satisfaction showed the most damaging effects of psychopathy on romantic relationships, and much weaker effects of other two traits (Smith et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%