The Dark Triad: Beyond a ‘male’ mating strategy

Abstract

The Dark Triad (DT: sub-clinical narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy) is argued to facilitate a male short-term mating strategy. The trait constellation in women and its potential adaptive benefits has received less attention. We examined the prevalence and correlates of DT in a large community sample (N = 899). Despite finding expected sex differences in Sensation-seeking, Competitiveness, strength of sexual motivation, recreational sex behaviors and neuroticism, we found no sex difference in DT scores. Furthermore, within-sex multiple regressions identified the same predictors of DT score with similar weightings. Moderation analysis confirmed regression equations did not differ by sex. We propose that focus on DT as a male adaptation to short-term mating has been overstated and that men's greater preference for casual sexual encounters is not explained by DT traits.

Full text

The Dark Triad: Beyond a ‘male’ mating strategy
Gregory Louis Carter
a,
⇑
, Anne C. Campbell
a
, Steven Muncer
b
a
University of Durham, Psychology Department, UK
b
University of Teesside, Psychology Department, UK
article info
Article history:
Received 23 May 2013
Received in revised form 29 August 2013
Accepted 3 September 2013
Available online 27 September 2013
Keywords:
Dark Triad
Sex differences
Sensation-seeking
Impulsivity
Big Five
abstract
The Dark Triad (DT: sub-clinical narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy) is argued to facilitate a
male short-term mating strategy. The trait constellation in women and its potential adaptive benefits has
received less attention. We examined the prevalence and correlates of DT in a large community sample
(N= 899). Despite finding expected sex differences in Sensation-seeking, Competitiveness, strength of
sexual motivation, recreational sex behaviors and neuroticism, we found no sex difference in DT scores.
Furthermore, within-sex multiple regressions identified the same predictors of DT score with similar
weightings. Moderation analysis confirmed regression equations did not differ by sex. We propose that
focus on DT as a male adaptation to short-term mating has been overstated and that men’s greater pref-
erence for casual sexual encounters is not explained by DT traits.
Ó2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that short-term
mating strategies may be more adaptive for males than females.
This view is based on the higher parental investment of females
which constrains their reproductive output and that of monoga-
mous partners. Polygynous males can attain high reproductive
success by inseminating and abandoning multiple females. Polyg-
ynous male inclinations have been widely-documented (e.g. Sch-
mitt et al., 2012). Women report a less promiscuous socio-sexual
orientation, concordant with their lower fitness variance, obligate
parental investment and short-term mating costs (Buss & Schmitt,
1993).
Not all men can successfully pursue polygyny, however. It is
high-risk and competitive, requiring individuals to seize sexual
opportunities while avoiding emotional engagement. It has been
suggested that the Dark Triad (DT) personality (narcissism, Machi-
avellianism and psychopathy) is well-suited to this challenge
(Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010; Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010; Jonason,
Valentine, Li, & Harbeson, 2011). DT is associated with promiscuity
and desire for extra-pair sex. DT men report more lifetime sex part-
ners and hold less restrictive socio-sexual attitudes (Jonason, Li,
Webster, & Schmitt, 2009). DT personality is also attractive to
women, independent of a man’s physical appearance (Carter,
Campbell, & Muncer, 2013). DT is associated with deceptive sexual
tactics, including love-feigning (Jonason et al., 2009). It is
correlated with mate-poaching (Schmitt & Buss, 2001) and mate-
abandonment (Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010; Schmitt & Buss, 2001).
Recently, however, the view that short-term mating confers few
benefits on women has been challenged. Short term mating can
secure fertilization by men of high genetic quality (Smith, 1984).
Extra-pair mating can provide an assessment of alternative mates’
quality (Greiling & Buss, 2000) and increase the genetic diversity of
offspring (Fossoy, Johnsen, & Lifjeld, 2008). Nevertheless, the align-
ment of DT with short-term strategies often considered more
typical of men has resulted in less attention on the prevalence
and correlates of DT in women. We address this in the present arti-
cle. Research on DT has reported higher male scores for DT (e.g.
Jonason & Webster, 2010). However, most studies use undergrad-
uate samples (e.g. Jonason et al., 2009). The first aim of the present
study is to examine the sex difference in a national sample.
Our second aim concerns correlates of DT in both sexes. In male
and female undergraduates, correlations of similar magnitude have
been reported between DT and measures assessing standards for
long-term mates (Jonason et al., 2011), altruism (Jonason, Li, & Tei-
cher, 2010) and specific social influence tactics (Jonason & Web-
ster, 2010). Sex differences have been found in correlations with
sexual tactics or game-playing love styles (Jonason & Buss, 2012;
Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010), empathy (Jonason, Lyons, Bethell, &
Ross, 2013), forms of impulsivity (Jones & Paulhus, 2011) and
friendship choices (Jonason & Schmitt, 2012). However, in many
studies, correlations are not disaggregated by sex so we have an
incomplete understanding of whether DT correlates constitute dif-
ferent ‘profiles’ in men and women.
In the present study, we compare DT profiles of women and
men across three major domains: mating style (Importance of
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.001
⇑
Corresponding author. Postal address: Psychology Department, Durham
University, DH13LE, UK. Tel.: +44 7941879935
E-mail address: g.l.k.carter@durham.ac.uk (G.L. Carter).
Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 159–164
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Romance, Attachment, and Sex in relationships; Recreational Sex-
ual Behaviors), lifestyle orientation (Sensation-seeking; Impulsiv-
ity; Competitiveness) and broader personality (Big Five). We
have briefly reviewed evidence that, in men, DT is associated with
short-term mating strategy markers. This strategy is thought to be
mediated by lifestyle and personality characteristics that equip DT
men with the psychological tools necessary for its execution. Be-
low, we consider what is known about these correlates in relation
to short-term mating and DT.
1.1. Lifestyle orientation
It is relatively well-documented that DT is associated with high-
er levels of Sensation-seeking (Emmons, 1991; McHoskey, Worzel,
& Szyarto, 1998). High sensation-seekers (attracted to thrill in the
face of possible risk) rate potential partners as more attractive and
express a stronger desire to date them. They are more inclined to
discount the likelihood that a short-term partner may have sexu-
ally-transmitted diseases and are more likely to engage in unpro-
tected sex (Henderson et al., 2005). Furthermore, impulsivity (a
tendency to act without consideration of long-term consequences)
has been associated with short-term and risky sexual behaviors
(e.g. Khurana et al., 2012). DT also shows association with self-con-
trol levels, future discounting, and dysfunctional impulsivity (Jon-
ason & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2011).
The pursuit of short-term mating involves within-sex competi-
tion for mate access (Daly & Wilson, 1988). A recent study con-
firmed DT is correlated with the adoption of competitive,
assertive, and dominating tactics (Jonason et al., 2011). Forms of
social influence can be dichotomized into ‘hard’ (threatening,
manipulating) and ‘soft’ (charming, ingratiating) tactics. DT is asso-
ciated with both, but more closely with the former. In a money-
allocation task, DT participants were characterized by competitive-
ness, rather than prosociality or individualism (Jonason, Li, & Tei-
cher, 2010).
1.2. Personality
Relationships between DT and Big Five personality constructs
have been well-documented. The most robust finding is the nega-
tive correlation between DT and agreeableness (Paulhus & Wil-
liams, 2002; Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008; Veselka,
Schermer, & Vernon, 2012). DT (Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010), psy-
chopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) and narcissism (Lee & Ash-
ton, 2005; Vernon et al., 2008; Veselka et al., 2012) correlate
positively with extraversion. This combination of high extraversion
and low agreeableness has been proposed to facilitate a short-term
mating style (Jonason et al., 2009). Openness correlates positively
with DT (Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010), narcissism and psychopathy
(Paulhus & Williams, 2002), whilst conscientiousness correlates
negatively with DT (Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010) Machiavellianism
(Lee & Ashton, 2005), psychopathy (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Paul-
hus & Williams, 2002; Vernon et al., 2008; Veselka et al., 2012) and
narcissism (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). Finally, neuroticism corre-
lates negatively with DT composite (Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010)
and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), but positively with
Machiavellianism (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Vernon et al., 2008;
Veselka et al., 2012).
Although the constellation of attitudes, behaviors and traits
associated with DT individuals seems characteristic of men and
‘male’ mating strategies, women scoring highly for DT do exist.
The aims of the current study are (1) to examine sex differences
in DT in a large national sample, and (2) determine whether corre-
lates of DT personality (mating style, lifestyle orientation, and Big 5
traits) differ by sex.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
One thousand and three participants were recruited via a mar-
keting company to participate in an online questionnaire. After
dropping non-heterosexual participants (this study being focused
on heterosexual mating attitudes and behaviors), 899 heterosexual
respondents remained. The final sample consisted of 440 females
and 459 males, aged 25–55 (mean = 39.5 years).
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. The Dirty Dozen
The Dirty Dozen (DD) is a twelve-item questionnaire that cre-
ates an overall DT score (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Participants
indicate agreement with statements including ‘I have used deceit
or lied to get my way’. The inventory contains three four-item
sub-scales pertaining to each of narcissism, Machiavellianism,
and psychopathy. The DD has proven reliable, considering its brev-
ity, and had good internal consistency in the present study
(
a
= .75).
2.2.2. BFI-10 personality inventory (BFI-10)
The BFI-10 (Rammstedt & John, 2007) is a concise measure used
to assess the Big 5 with two items pertaining to each of Extraver-
sion, Openness, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. Following
the authors’ recommendation, we used a third item to assess
Agreeableness given its relevance to DT. Participants rate how
accurately each descriptor captures their personality. It has been
found valid and reliable (Thalmayer, Saucier, & Eigenhuis, 2011).
2.2.3. Impulsivity and Sensation-Seeking (ImpSS)
The 19-item ImpSS scale from the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Person-
ality Questionnaire (Zuckerman & Kuhlman, 1993) was used. Par-
ticipants answered ‘false’ or ‘true’ to statements such as ‘‘I
usually think about what I am going to do before I do it’’ (Impulsiv-
ity) and ‘‘I’ll try anything once’’ (Sensation-seeking). Two separate
scales were constructed since Impulsivity and Sensation-seeking
have been found to be independent dimensions (Cross, Copping,
& Campbell, 2011). (Alpha values:
a
= .72 (Impulsivity) and
a
= .82 (Sensation-seeking)).
2.2.4. Competitiveness
Six items were taken from the Hyper-Competitive Attitude
Scale (Ryckman, Hammer, Kaczor, & Gold, 1990). This scale
(
a
= .66) included items such as ‘‘Winning in competitions makes
me feel more powerful as a person’’.
2.2.5. Attitudes towards Romance, Attachment and Sex
Fifteen questions assessing Romance, Attachment, and Sex atti-
tudes were put to participants, who were asked to answer with ref-
erence to their current intimate relationship (or a previous one if
single). For Romance, five items pertained to thoughts about their
partner and desire for union with them (
a
= .71). For Attachment,
six items pertained to giving and receiving emotional support
(
a
= .85). Sexual attitudes were dichotomized into two items
assessing frequency and strength of their sexual desire for their
partner (Sexual Desire (Partner),
a
= .60), and two assessing fre-
quency and strength of sexual desire for members of the opposite
sex other than their partner (Sexual Desire (Others),
a
= .70).
2.2.6. Recreational Sexual Behavior
The Laddish Behavior Inventory (Muncer & Campbell, 2012)is
designed to assess exhibitionistic and boisterous behavior typically
160 G.L. Carter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 159–164

associated with ‘laddish’ culture. For the current study, eight items
pertaining to sexual behavior were used. The items included: ‘‘I
prefer sex to romance’’ and ‘‘I have cheated on a boyfriend/girl-
friend’’ (full list available on request). This measure, too, had good
internal consistency (
a
= .76).
2.3. Procedure
Participants were asked to provide their sex, age, and sexual
orientation. They then completed the ‘Dirty Dozen’, BFI-10 person-
ality inventory, ZKPQ Impulsive Sensation-Seeking scale, Romance,
Attachment and Sex scales, Competitiveness scale and Laddish
Sexual Behavior Inventory.
1
3. Results
To examine sex differences, we used MANOVA with sex as the
independent variable and 14 scale scores as dependent variables.
The multivariate effect of sex was significant, F(13, 742) = 14.75,
p< .001. Univariate descriptive statistics and tests are presented
in Table 1. Strikingly, the sex difference in DT was not significant,
although men scored marginally higher than women, d= 0.12. Be-
cause previous studies have used younger samples, we examined
the sex difference for DT in those respondents aged 30 or under
(n= 188). The result was non-significant, F(1, 186) = 0.01, p= .91.
The bulk of the remaining sex differences replicated those reported
by others. Women scored higher than men on Neuroticism
(d=0.25) and Conscientiousness (d=0.21), whilst men scored
higher on Competitiveness (d= 0.32) and Sensation-seeking
(d= 0.27), with moderate effect sizes. No sex differences were
found for Impulsivity (d= 0.03). The largest effect size was for Sex-
ual Desire Others (d= 0.83) and there was a significant though less
extreme sex difference for Recreational Sexual Behaviors (d= 0.34).
Regarding intimate relationships, men scored significantly higher
than women on Sexual Desire (Partner) (d= 0.37), although men
and women did not differ in feelings of Romance (d=0.12) or
Attachment (d=0.05) toward partners.
We then examined correlations between DT and mating style,
lifestyle orientation and personality variables as a function of sex
(Table 2). The pattern was remarkably consistent across sex. In
neither sex was DT associated with partner-directed Romance,
Attachment or Sexual Desire. However, in both sexes, DT was
positively and significantly correlated with the extra-partner
variables: Sexual Desire Others and Recreational Sexual Behaviors.
In both sexes, DT correlated positively with all three measures of
lifestyle orientation: Impulsivity, Sensation-seeking, and Competi-
tiveness. With regard to the Big Five, DT was associated positively
with Extraversion and negatively with Agreeableness in both
sexes. For women only, DT was negatively correlated with Consci-
entiousness. These results are broadly in keeping with existing lit-
erature on DT and its relationship with other personality
constructs.
The similarity between the sexes in the direction and magni-
tude of correlations was marked, and suggested DT has similar pre-
dictors in the two sexes. Nonetheless, given the possibility of
different inter-correlations between variables in men and women,
we performed regression analyses separately.
Because age was weakly correlated with DT (r=.07, p= .04),
we controlled for age in the regression analyses by entering it in
the first step, followed by all predictor variables in step two. (A
regression in which age was not controlled resulted in the same
set of significant predictors.) Results are presented in Table 3.
The final models explained 41 percent of the variance in women
and 35 percent in men. Results were extremely similar: In both
sexes, DT was associated with greater Impulsivity, Competitive-
ness, and Recreational Sexual Behavior, and with lower levels of
Agreeableness. These four variables were the only significant pre-
dictors in both sexes. We therefore conducted a moderation anal-
ysis to confirm respondent sex did not moderate the relationship
between the predictors and DT (Frazier, Tix, & Baron, 2004). To
do this, we added sex-by-variable interaction terms in the final
step of a hierarchical regression. The addition of interaction terms
1
The design and analyses of this study conform to the recommendations of
Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn (2011).
Table 1
Means and standard deviations by sex for all variables.
Domain Measure Women Men Fd
Dark Triad 3.72 (2.55) 4.03 (2.50) 3.41 0.12
Lifestyle Impulsivity 2.37 (2.13) 2.30 (2.00) 0.23 0.03
Sensation-seeking 5.08 (3.27) 5.93 (3.09) 16.07
***
0.27
Competitiveness 2.70 (0.62) 2.90 (0.64) 22.99
***
0.32
Mating strategy Romance 3.58 (0.70) 3.66 (0.69) 2.61 0.12
Attachment 4.19 (0.69) 4.22 (0.62) 0.49 0.05
Sexual Desire (Partner) 4.06 (1.29) 4.51 (1.14) 27.58
***
0.37
Sexual Desire (Others) 2.12 (1.40) 3.36 (1.59) 138.70
***
0.83
Recreational Sexual Behavior 2.53 (1.89) 3.19 (1.99) 26.68
***
0.34
Personality Neuroticism 6.16 (1.83) 5.71 (1.84) 13.58
***
0.25
Extraversion 5.98 (1.82) 5.78 (1.81) 2.78 0.11
Openness 7.24 (1.63) 7.31 (1.61) 0.35 0.04
Agreeableness 10.94 (1.88) 10.88 (1.76) 0.25 0.03
Conscientiousness 7.69 (1.56) 7.37 (1.51) 9.66
**
0.21
***
p< .001.
**
p< .01.
Table 2
Correlations between Dark Triad and all variables by sex.
Domain Measure Women Men
Mating style Romance .06 .01
Attachment .08 .05
Sexual Desire (Partner) .06 .05
Sexual Desire (Others) .23
***
.15
***
Recreational Sexual Behavior .48
***
.37
***
Lifestyle orientation Competitiveness .41
***
.39
***
Sensation-seeking .32
***
.29
***
Impulsivity .31
***
.30
***
Personality Neuroticism .04 .06
Extraversion .17
***
.17
***
Openness .07 .08
Agreeableness .31
***
.30
***
Conscientiousness .13
***
.07
***
p< .001.
G.L. Carter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 159–164 161

did not improve the model,
D
R
2
= .003, p= .36, confirming men’s
and women’s models did not differ. Evidence of moderation by
sex was absent for Impulsivity b= .01, t= .24, p= .81; Competitive-
ness b=.01, t=.35, p= .73; Agreeableness b=0.08, t=1.06,
p= .29), and Recreational Sexual Behavior b=.13, t=1.75,
p= .08.
In previous work (Jonason et al., 2009), DT has been found to
partially mediate sex differences in short-term mating strategy.
Although we found sex differences in Sexual Desire Others and
Recreational Sexual Behavior, DT was not tested as a mediator be-
cause the requirement of a significant correlation between the
independent variable (gender) and mediator (DT score) was not
met.
4. Discussion
Our data demonstrate that (1) in a large national sample, there
is no significant sex difference in DT personality and (2) the corre-
lates of DT personality are nearly identical in the two sexes. We
consider these in turn.
In the main, our pattern of sex differences replicated those
previously reported. Men scored higher than women on Sensa-
tion-seeking and Competitiveness, and showed stronger sexual
motivation, reflected in stronger Sexual Desire (for Partner and
Others), as well as Recreational Sexual Behavior. We found no
sex difference in Impulsivity in line with a recent meta-analysis
suggesting Impulsivity and Sensation-seeking are conceptually
and empirically distinct, with sex differences confined to the latter
(Cross et al., 2011). Women scored higher than men on Neuroti-
cism and Conscientiousness. Despite this replication of established
sex differences over a range of measures, we found no significant
sex difference in DT scores. Given our large sample, with ample
power (85%) to detect even a small effect size (d= .20), the absence
of a sex difference merits consideration. Many previous studies
have used undergraduate samples. Younger age is associated with
a riskier lifestyle, particularly among men. This has been dubbed
‘Young Male Syndrome’ (Wilson & Daly, 1985). To the extent that
DT is correlated with (or is a manifestation of) that syndrome,
sex differences might be expected to be most apparent at younger
ages. However, when we restricted our analysis to respondents
aged 30 or younger, there was no evidence of a sex difference. Nev-
ertheless, we acknowledge that our youngest participant was aged
25, compared with average ages between 21 and 24 in previous DT
studies (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jonason et al., 2009). College stu-
dents differ from the general population not only in age, but on a
range of measures including individualism and internal locus of
control (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Despite this, they
account for two-thirds of participants used in psychological studies
in the United States. As noted (Jonason & Buss, 2012), studies of DT
in relation to demographic indictors such as gender require large
community samples, preferably with a wide age range, for valid
generalizations.
In men and women, DT personality was associated with lower
Agreeableness, greater Extraversion and a more Competitive, Sen-
sation-seeking and Impulsive lifestyle. Although DT was not corre-
lated with intra-relationship variables (Romance, Attachment and
Sexual Desire (Partner)), it was positively correlated with extra-
relationship variables (Sexual Desire (Others) and Recreational
Sexual Behavior). This suggests the main impact of DT on mating
strategy is on casual sexual adventures. Indeed, for both sexes, cor-
relations between DT and Recreational Sexual Behavior were
among the highest of all. Individuals high on DT do not lack feel-
ings of romance and attachment toward their partners, but they re-
tain a lively interest in extra-pair sexual possibilities. This ‘lust for
life’ (or ‘life of lust’) is also manifest in a willingness to act sponta-
neously and seize opportunities (Impulsivity), to value excitement
even when risky (Sensation-seeking), to enjoy social stimulation
and interaction (Extraversion), and to embrace interpersonal riv-
alry (Competitiveness). These motivations sit against a backdrop
of low Agreeableness, with a premium on personal satisfaction at
the expense of trustworthiness, modesty and compliance. This per-
sonality is congruent with a ‘fast’ life history strategy prioritizing
immediate gratification, of which short-term mating is one mani-
festation (Jonason & Tost, 2010).
Multiple regression analyses for men and women identified the
same predictors of DT score with similar weightings, and this was
confirmed by moderation analysis. A high degree of similarity be-
tween the sexes has been found in previous studies where partic-
ipants have been disaggregated by sex (Jonason & Buss, 2012;
Jonason, Li, & Buss 2010; Jonason & Tost, 2010; Paulhus & Williams,
2002). Indeed, an absence of moderation by sex has been explicitly
noted in studies of DT and mating strategy (Jonason & Buss 2012;
Jonason et al., 2011). Despite this, researchers have emphasized DT
personality constellation as especially relevant to men’smating
strategy (Jonason et al., 2009). For example, Jonason, Webster, Sch-
mitt, Li, and Crysel (2012) characterize male ‘antiheros’ of popular
culture (such as James Bond) as classic examples of DT personality.
In explaining the apparent paucity of female antiheros, they sug-
gest ‘‘fast life strategies in women are simply manifested through
different indicators than for men’’ (Jonason et al., 2012, p. 197).
In our data, the absence of significant sex differences in DT and
its correlates suggests DT may facilitate a short term-mating strat-
egy in much the same way for women as for men. Evolutionary
psychology increasingly recognizes strategic pluralism in both
sexes (e.g. Schmitt et al., 2012; Thornhill & Gangestad, 2008). Tra-
ditional assumptions about sex roles in relation to mating strate-
gies are being challenged: Aspects of the Bateman principles
have been questioned empirically (Gowaty, Kim, & Anderson,
2012) and theoretically (Kokko & Jennions, 2008). Multiple mating
can bring a range of advantages to females by improving offspring
quality, increasing genetic diversity, and exploiting male resources
in the short term (Jennions & Petrie, 2000). Women’s willingness to
engage in short-term relationships may be a form of intrasexual
competition whereby sex is used to undercut the competition:
Table 3
Multiple regression of all variables on Dark Triad score by sex controlling for age.
Variable Women Men
BSEBbBSEBb
Step 1
Age .03 .02 .10 .02 .02 .06
Step 2
Age .03 .01 .09 .02 .01 .06
Recreational Sexual
Behavior
.45 .07 .32
***
.31 .07 .25
***
Competitiveness 1.25 .18 .31
***
.99 .17 .26
***
Agreeableness .28 .06 .20
***
.39 .07 .28
***
Impulsivity .16 .06 .13
**
.14 .06 .11
**
Romance .21 .21 .06 .33 .20 .09
Attachment .12 .21 .03 .11 .22 .03
Openness .05 .07 .04 .07 .07 .05
Sensation-seeking .04 .05 .05 .07 .05 .08
Sexual Desire (Others) .01 .09 .01 .07 .08 .04
Sexual Desire (Partner) .03 .10 .01 .10 .10 .05
Neuroticism .00 .07 .00 .02 .06 .01
Conscientiousness .00 .08 .00 .12 .08 .07
Extraversion .01 .07 .01 .10 .07 .07
R
2
Step 1 .01 .00
R
2
Step 2 .41 .35
Ffull model 17.22
***
14.61
***
**
p< .05.
***
p< .001.
162 G.L. Carter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 159–164

Offering ‘cheaper’ sex, women can gain (temporary) access to
highly-desirable mates, with the prospect of retaining some over
a longer term (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). Furthermore, women’s
adoption of a short-term strategy is supported by contemporary
cultural shifts, including rejection of sexual ‘double standards’
and support for gender equality in private and public spheres.
Notwithstanding the positive association with DT, women in
our study were less likely to engage in Recreational Sexual Behav-
ior than men and showed less marked desires for sex beyond
current relationships. This is convergent with research showing
women’s lesser willingness to engage in uncommitted, casual
and short-term sex (e.g. Schmitt et al., 2012). DT has been offered
as an explanation of this sex difference in mating preferences, yet
our data indicate no sex difference in DT or its personality and life-
style correlates. Although DT explained a significant percentage of
the variance in Recreational Sexual Behavior and Sexual Desire
(Others) in both sexes, it did not explain the sex difference per
se. In a previous study in which a sex difference in DT was found
(Jonason et al., 2009), DT only partially mediated the relationship
between gender and mating strategy; the residual effect of gender
remained significant. The most likely candidate linking gender to
preferred mating strategy is the marked universal sex difference
in sexual drive, including men’s greater desire for sexual variety,
willingness to engage in sex after minimal acquaintance and high-
er preferred rate of intercourse. Our data do not suggest DT traits
predispose men more strongly than women to a desire for sexual
variety.
Overall, our findings add to calls for the use of larger and more
representative samples if we are to develop a fuller understanding
of DT. Moreover, the tendency to focus on DT as facilitating a ‘male’
sexual strategy should be reconsidered. Future work could usefully
consider manifestations of the Dark Triad in women and give
greater consideration to the benefits of DT personality beyond
the domain of mating strategies.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank attendees at ISHE 2012; in par-
ticular, Maryanne Fisher, for helpful comments on our findings.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for
social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 8, 339–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary
perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.
Carter, G.L., Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (2013) The Dark Triad personality:
Attractiveness to women. Personality and Individual Differences 56, 57–61.
Cross, C. P., Copping, L. T., & Campbell, A. (2011). Sex differences in impulsivity: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 97–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0021591.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Edison, NJ: Transaction Books.
Emmons, R. A. (1991). Relationship between narcissism and sensation seeking.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 943–954. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.1981.48.1.247.
Fossoy, F., Johnsen, A., & Lifjeld, J. T. (2008). Multiple genetic benefits of female
promiscuity in a socially monogamous passerine. Evolution, 62, 145–156. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00284.x.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator
effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,
115–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115.
Gowaty, P. A., Kim, Y., & Anderson, W. W. (2012). No evidence of sexual selection in
a repetition of Bateman’s classic study of Dropsophila melanogaster.Proceedings
of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 109,
11740–11745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207851109.
Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension
of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929–963. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00151-8.
Henderson, V. R., Hennessy, M., Barrett, D. W., Curtis, B., McCoy-Roth, M.,
Trentacoste, N., et al. (2005). When risky is attractive: Sensation seeking and
romantic partner selection. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 311–325.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.04.010.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0140525X0999152X.
Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The Dark Triad and normal personality traits.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2005.07.006.
Jennions, M. D., & Petrie, M. (2000). Why do females mate multiply? A review of the
genetic benefits. Biological Reviews, 75, 21–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0006323199005423.
Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for
implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 606–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.015.
Jonason, P. K., & Kavanagh, P. (2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the Dark
Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 606–610. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.030.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Buss, D. M. (2010). The costs and benefits of the Dark Triad:
Implications for mate-poaching and mate-retention tactics. Personality and
Individual Differences, 48, 373–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.
11.003.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Teicher, E. A. (2010). Who is James Bond? The Dark Triad as
an agentic social style. Individual Differences Research, 8, 111–120.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad:
Facilitating short-term mating in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.698.
Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Bethell, E. J., & Ross, R. (2013). Different routes to limited
empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and
empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 572–576. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.009.
Jonason, P. K., & Schmitt, D. P. (2012). What have you done for me lately? Friendship
selection in the shadows of Dark Triad traits. Evolutionary Psychology, 10,
400–421.
Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The Dark Triad and self-
control. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 611–615. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.031.
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., & Harbeson, C. L. (2011). Mate-selection and
the Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile
environment. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 759–763. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.025.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the
Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0019265.
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, 192–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027914.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 679–682. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.011.
Khurana, A., Romer, D., Betancourt, L. M., Brodsky, N. L., Giannetta, J. M., & Hurt, H.
(2012). Early adolescent sexual debut: The mediating role of working memory
ability, sensation seeking, and impulsivity. Developmental Psychology, 48,
1416–1428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027491.
Kokko, H., & Jennions, M. D. (2008). Parental investment, sexual selection and sex
ratios. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 919–948. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1420-9101.2008.01540.x.
Lee, K. B., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in
the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1571–1582. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016.
McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and
psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 192–210. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.192.
Muncer, S., & Campbell, A. (2012). Laddish behavior scale. Durham, UK: Unpublished
manuscript, Psychology Department, University of Durham.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36,
556–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A
10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of
Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.
02.001.
Ryckman, R. M., Hammer, M., Kaczor, L. M., & Gold, J. A. (1990). Construction of a
hypercompetitive attitude scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 630–639.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5503&4_19.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations
for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80, 894–917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.894.
Schmitt, D. P., Jonason, P. K., Byerley, G. J., Flores, S. D., Illbeck, B. E., O’Leary, K. N.,
et al. (2012). A re-examination of sex differences in sexuality: New studies
reveal old truths. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 135–139. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721412436808.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology:
Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting
anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0956797611417632.
G.L. Carter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 159–164 163

Smith, R. L. (1984). Human sperm competition. In R. L. Smith (Ed.), Sperm
competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (pp. 601–659). New
York: Academic Press.
Thalmayer, A. G., Saucier, G., & Eigenhuis, A. (2011). Comparative validity of brief to
medium-length big five and big six personality questionnaires. Psychological
Assessment, 23, 995–1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024165.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human female
sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic
investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44, 445–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.007.
Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). The Dark Triad and an expanded
framework of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 417–425.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.002.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young
male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 59–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0162-3095(85)90041-X.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1993). Norms for the zuckerman–kuhlman
personality questionnaire (ZKPQ). Newark: Unpublished manuscript, Department
of Psychology, University of Delaware.
164 G.L. Carter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 159–164