DARK TRIAD AND UTILITARIAN CHOICES: A STUDY FROM TURKEY

Abstract

Purpose of this study is to examine effects of dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy) on the utilitarian choices. Data is collected from university students with an online survey using convenience method for sampling. To measure research variables, a version of dictator game that presents a salary raise case to participants and Short Dark Triad Scale (SD3) is used. Reliability analysis is conducted to SD3 which returned 0.611, 0.651 and 0.684 Cronbach’s alpha values for Dark Triad personality traits. Binary logistic regression analysis is used to test research hypotheses. Findings indicate that psychopathy has a significant and positive effect on the utilitarian choice whereas Machiavellianism and narcissism has not. Implications of the results are discussed and future research areas are suggested.

Full text

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
35
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
DARK TRIAD AND UTILITARIAN CHOICES: A STUDY FROM TURKEY
Asst. Prof. Murat BOLELLİ
Istanbul Okan University, Faculty of Business and Administrative Sciences
ORCID: 0000-0002-9707-1387
Abstract
Purpose of this study is to examine effects of dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism
and psychopathy) on the utilitarian choices. Data is collected from university students with an
online survey using convenience method for sampling. To measure research variables, a
version of dictator game that presents a salary raise case to participants and Short Dark Triad
Scale (SD3) is used. Reliability analysis is conducted to SD3 which returned 0.611, 0.651 and
0.684 Cronbach’s alpha values for Dark Triad personality traits. Binary logistic regression
analysis is used to test research hypotheses. Findings indicate that psychopathy has a significant
and positive effect on the utilitarian choice whereas Machiavellianism and narcissism has not.
Implications of the results are discussed and future research areas are suggested.
Keywords: Dark Triad, utilitarian choice, narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy.
KARANLIK ÜÇLÜ VE FAYDACI SEÇİMLER: TÜRKİYE’DEN BİR ÖRNEK
Özet
Bu çalışmanın amacı karanlık üçlünün (narsisizm, Makyavelizm ve psikopati) faydacı
seçimler üzerindeki etkilerinin incelenmesidir. Araştırma değişkenlerinin incelenebilmesi
amacıyla kolayda örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak, üniversite öğrencilerine internet üzerinden
anket uygulanmıştır. Katılımcılara diktatör oyunun bir türevi olan ücret artışı problemi
senaryosu ile birlikte karanlık üçlü kişilik özelliklerinin ölçümüne yönelik olarak Karanlık
Üçlü Kısa Ölçeği (SD3) sunulmuştur. Güvenilirlik analizi neticesinde yapılara ilişkin
Cronbach Alfa değerlerinin 0.611, 0.651 ve 0.684 olduğu belirlenmiş, araştırma hipotezleri
ikili lojistik regresyon analizi yapılarak test edilmiştir. Sonuçlar psikopatinin faydacı seçimi
pozitif yönde etkilediğini, Makyavelizm ve narsisizmin ise istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir
etkisinin bulunmadığını göstermektedir. Araştırma bulguları sonuç bölümünde tartışılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Karanlık Üçlü, faydacı seçim, narsisizm, Makyavelizm, psikopati.
INTRODUCTION
“How can I be substantial if I do not cast a shadow?
I must have a dark side also if I am to be whole.”
― C.G. Jung, Modern Man in Search of a Soul
Dilemmas in the forms of essays or games are popular tools which are intensively used
particularly on decision making, judgment, normative and descriptive ethics, philosophy and
game theory studies adopting an interdisciplinary approach, having contributions of
economics, psychology, sociology, decision sciences and organizational behavior fields. After
the early examples known as “Bystander” and “Surgery” presented by Philippa Foot in 1967,
various other dilemma cases are developed and used trying to examine choices and the drivers
of them in win-win, win-lose, lose-win or lose-lose situations. One of the best-known examples
is Footbridge (Thomson, 1985) in which participants are asked:

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
36
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
“In the path of a runaway train car are five railway workmen who will surely be killed
unless you, a bystander, do something. You are standing on a pedestrian walkway that arches
over the tracks next to a large stranger. Your body would be too light to stop the train, but if
you push the stranger onto the tracks, killing him, his large body will stop the train. In this
situation, would you push the man?” (Bartels and Pizarro, 2011).
After more than three decades of research conducted by various disciplines using
variations of the dilemma cases, results indicated that as many as 90% of the participants
rejected the response that require sacrifice (i.e. one herself or ones interests needs to be traded
off in order to secure more) when presented with such dilemma (Mikhail, 2007). If this finding
is indicating to or laying foundation of “normal” behavior which conform the norms that are
widely accepted and expected thoughts, feelings and behaviors shared by the group (society in
this sense), than the 10% of the people who choose sacrificial solution can be considered as
deviations, although they presumably made the choice which brings the greatest total well-
being for majority. Hence, results beg such questions as what is different about this minority
or does 10% of the responders has different psychological characteristics that lead to utilitarian
choices?
Considering the generally accepted assumptions suggesting that human behaviors are
related to rational choices derived from stable and well defined preferences aiming to maximize
profit, well-being and happiness, actions shall fall into anomaly category if it is difficult to
rationalize them or implausible assumptions are needed to explain them (Thaler, 1988). In line
with these arguments, previous research on the topic provide evidence of the link between
rational thinking and utilitarian judgments (Amiri and Behnezhad, 2017; Bartels, 2008; Feltz
and Cokely, 2008; Greene et al., 2001; Moore et al., 2008). Moreover, decisions based on non-
utilitarian judgment and principles are found to lead to such results that are not as good as the
best that could be achieved or to dangerous errors which can be potentially damaging (Baron
and Ritov, 2009; Greene et al., 2009; Sunstein, 2005). Game theory studies also worked on
similar questions by using various scenarios such as ultimatum game, dictator game, prisoner’s
dilemma that lead to parallel results. In 1982, Güth, Schmittberger, and Schwarze conducted
an experimental study named as “ultimatum game” in which one player (proposer) makes an
offer to other (responder) dividing some amount of money between herself and the other player.
Responder does not have the right to counteroffer but to accept or reject only. If responder
accepts then both parties receive the specified amount, nothing otherwise. Although theory
suggests that players should make the choices that maximize their own payoffs, research
showed that proposers offered an average of 40% of the money and responders rejected small
offers of 20% or so half the time which clearly contradicts game theoretical or utilitarian
assumptions (Camerer, 2011). In order to examine the case further, variations of ultimatum
game is developed. One of them is dictator game which is basically an ultimatum game with
responders ability to reject the offer is removed. In this game proposer makes a one-time offer
to the responder. Responder can either take it or leave it. First experiment using dictator game
is conducted by Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler (1986) where proposer choose between
dictating an uneven ($18/$2) or an even split of $20 with responder. Results of the study
showed three quarters of proposers chose the equal split ($10, $10) which is in line with the
other research indicated allocations between 20% and 50% conducted later using dictator game
(Camerer, 2011).

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
37
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
So why majority of the people make non-utilitarian, non-rational choices which does not
maximize their and/or total welfare when in circumstances such as footbridge or dictator game?
Research on the question above showed a number of variables that induce non-utilitarian
choices such as moral concerns, intuitional thinking style, emotional processes, inclination to
normativity (others should agree), cognition, conformity, altruism and personality (Amiri and
Behnezhad, 2017; Bartels, 2008; Djeriouat and Trémolière, 2014; Karandikar et al., 2019;
Skitka et al., 2005). Among them personality, particularly the relationship between dark traits
and utilitarian judgment-decision making are subjected to a great number of studies especially
on the last decade that showed such tendencies and behaviors can be predicted by dark triad
consisting of Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy with significant reliability. These
findings are rather interesting because they are indicating to a counterintuitive conclusion that
people who are least prone to moral fallacies are also the ones who possess immoral
characteristics (Bartels and Pizarro, 2011).
Hence, purpose of this research is to examine effects of dark triad (narcissism,
Machiavellianism and psychopathy) on the utilitarian choices. The study is organized as
follows, after the introduction, first section briefly reviews concepts, second section presents
research methodology and findings, final section concludes and discusses findings.
1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Dark triad is a term asserted by Paulhus and Williams in their 2002 study that refers to
Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy, which are reported to be conceptually distinct
and empirically overlapping subclinical level traits. Research indicates that dark triad exists in
about 10% of the population (Gustafson and Ritzer, 1995; Pethman and Erlandsson, 2002).
Although regarded as separate constructs, dark triad components are found to share common
characteristics such as low agreeableness, lack of empathy, callousness, duplicity,
exploitativeness and manipulation (Ali et al., 2009; Egan and McCorkindale, 2007; Jones and
Figueredo, 2013; Jones and Paulhus, 2011; Jonason et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2010).
Machiavellianism is named after Niccolo Machiavelli who wrote the notorious book
“The Prince” at early 1500’s, reflecting his philosophy and moral approach regarding to public
administration and politics. Studying selected statements of Machiavelli, Christie and Geis
(1970) developed a questionnaire that is used in various experiments which showed subjects
who agree with Machiavellian propositions tend to behave cold and manipulative both in
laboratory and real life studies. Machiavellianism is associated with inclinations such as
coldness, manipulativeness, cynical, unprincipled and immoral worldviews (Djeriouat and
Trémolière, 2014; Jones and Paulhus, 2009; Kessler et al., 2010). Construct is not considered
as a personality disorder since characteristics of it is asserted to exist in everyone up to a certain
degree which can be modified, developed and improved with experience (Jones and Paulhus,
2011). Machiavellians are also described as social chameleons that can alter their appearances
as well as behaviors to manipulate people around them, seeking to obtain personal gains
(Kessler et al., 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2016).
Narcissism is a concept coined by Havelock Ellis in his 1898 study which manifests itself
with extreme confidence and self-love, need for praise, admiration and attention, lack of
empathy and respect for others, being close to criticism and negative feedback, hyper
competitiveness, opportunism, self-promotion, exhibitionism, and exploitativeness (Busch and

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
38
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
Hofer, 2012; Ekşi, 2016; Foster et al., 2009; Jakobwitz and Egan, 2006; Maccoby, 2000;
Raskin and Terry, 1988). Narcissists are asserted to be socially dominant individuals who need
power and control over others whom they see as inferiors (Smith et al., 2016). Inclined to
exhibit behaviors associated with the common characteristics of the concept such as
grandiosity, entitlement, dominance and superiority (Raskin and Hall, 1979; Corry et al., 2008),
narcissists have a unhealthy understanding of social exchange that disables them to engage in
helping, compassionate, charitable behaviors unless they have a hidden agenda or something
valuable for them in return (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Although narcissism is a malevolent concept,
it is seen as a personality type and not necessarily a disorder by many psychologists that may
help achieving to goals (Campbell et al., 2000; Rhodewalt and Peterson, 2009).
Psychopathy is the most malicious dark triad construct which brought in to the literature
by Ray and Ray with their 1982 study. Concept has an exploitative nature that contains such
characteristics as thrill-seeking , high levels of impulsivity, low levels of empathy and anxiety,
inability to feel remorse, lack of concern and respect for others, lack of social regulatory
mechanisms and tendency to display unethical behaviors (Hare, 1985; Lilienfeld and Andrews,
1996; Mealey, 1995; Paulhus and Williams, 2002; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Özsoy and Ardıç,
2017; Rauthmann, 2012). Although psychopaths are charismatic and skilled impression
managers, in relation with their malevolent characteristics they tend to exhibit anti-social
behaviors that serve as a barrier to have meaningful relationships as well as mutually beneficial
exchanges with others (Hare, 2003). Psychopaths are also asserted to adopt parasitic life styles
that often lead them to engage in criminal activities (Forsyth et al. 2012; Hare and Neumann,
2009).
Previous studies on the relationship between dark triad and utilitarian decision making
showed that high levels of Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy traits -individually
or jointly- are positively related to rational, utilitarian judgment and choices (Amiri and
Behnezhad, 2017; Bartels and Pizarro, 2011; Djeriouat and Trémolière, 2014; Karandikar et
al., 2019). Considering that dark triad traits have common characteristics such as empathy
deficit, emotional callousness, low concern for others and apathy for moral values, it can be
asserted that individuals high on such traits are likely to behave more exploitatively and less
empathetically which may help to explain the inclination towards utilitarian decisions and
behaviors. Strongest contribution to such tendencies is related to lack of empathy which allows
hypothesizing that psychopathy is the most powerful predictor of utilitarianism among all,
since construct is strongly correlated to it. The weakest predictor of utilitarian decisions is
expected to be narcissism which is related to empathy although the correlation is weak (Jonason
and Krause, 2013; Wai and Tiliopoulos, 2012). Machiavellians on the other hand, are expected
to exhibit utilitarian behaviors that serves to their pleasure since they are manipulative, self-
beneficial and emotionally detached individuals who tend behave as occasion require.
In the light of literature presented above, the conceptual model is prepared.

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
39
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
H1: Narcissism has a positive effect on utilitarian choice
H2: Machiavellianism has a positive effect on utilitarian choice
H3: Psychopathy has a positive effect on utilitarian choice
2. METHODOLOGY
Data for this research is collected from university freshmen studying in Turkish
universities using convenience method for sampling via free of charge online survey platform
that presents the scenario and survey questions to participants for eight week period starting
from October, 2020.
Scenario: Company you are working for is preparing for salary increases. Your manager
gives you two alternatives. According to your choice you and the other employee working in
the same department will have raise. Other employee does not have the right to reject or
negotiate your decision. You will determine the increase for both employees. Considering that
you and the other employee have the same qualifications (i.e. education, experience, seniority,
performance etc.) please choose from the options below.
a. 5% increase for you, 5% increase for other employee
b. 8% increase for you, 12% increase for other employee
Along with the scenario above, Short Dark Triad (SD3) is given to the participants to
measure Dark Triad personality traits. SD3 is developed by Paulhus and Williams (2002),
consisting of twenty seven items representing three subscales. Each of the subscales contains
nine items which are used to assess Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy.
Respondents are asked to answer such questions as “I like to use clever manipulation to get my
way”, “Make sure your plans benefit yourself, not others”, “I’ll say anything to get what I
want.” considering the extent to which they agree or disagree with each, using a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).
After sorting and removing duplicate submissions, a net sample of 247 usable
questionnaires obtained.
2.1 Participants
Out of 247 participants, 58.7% are answered as male (n=145) and 41.3% are answered
as female (n=102), all of them are reported as single and ages are reported to vary between 18
to 31 years where majority of the participants (83%) are reported to be in between 18 and 20
years old. Demographic profile of sample is presented in Table 1.

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
40
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
Table-1: Demographic Profile of Sample
Frequency
Percentage
Gender
Female
102
41.3%
Male
145
58.7%
Marital Status
Single
247
100%
Age
18-20
205
83.0%
21-25
34
13.8%
26-31
8
3.2%
2.2. Analysis
2.2.1. Reliability of Instruments
Short Dark Triad (SD3) is used to measure Dark Triad constructs which is a generally
accepted and validated instrument. Therefore, reliability analysis is performed directly to
research variables which returned Cronbach’s Alpha values between 0.611 and 0.684 (Table
2). Since all the values are greater than 0.60, constructs are considered as reliable and consistent
(Sipahi et al., 2010).
Table 2: Mean, Standard Deviation and Cronbach’s Alpha Values
Instrument Mean
(M)
Standard
Deviation
(SD)
Cronbach’s
Alpha ()
Dark Triad
0.779
Machiavellianism
3.34
0.595
0.651
Narcissism
3.25
0.536
0.611
Psychopathy
2.13
0.629
0.684
2.2.2. Binary Logistic Regression Analysis
The hypotheses of the research are tested with binary logistic regression analysis. Tables
3,4 and 5 demonstrates the results of analyses.
Table 3. Model Verification
Both Hosmer & Lemeshow and -2 Log likelihood function values showed final model
fitness (-2LL=323.718; sig=0.773). Forward Wald method is used to analyze variables.
Multicollinearity assumption of the independent variables is checked by using variance
inflation factor (VIF). VIF values are found between 1.101 and 1.422, indicating that the
correlation among narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism can be tolerated since the
results are below 10 (Ekizler, 2020).
Variable
Value
Summary
-2 Log likelihood
323.718
Cox & Snell R²
0.056
Nagelkerke R²
0.075
Hosmer & Lemeshow
Test result
X²
4.853
Degree of freedom
8
Significance level
0.773

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
41
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
Table-4: Model Estimation Result
Variable
β
S.E.
Wald
Sig.
Odds
Ratio
exp (
β
) 95% C.I.
Min
Max
Psychopathy
-0.798
0.219
13.270
0.000
0.450
0.293
0.692
Constant
1.977
0.489
16.360
0.000
7.224
Table-5: Classification Table
Predicted
8%-12%
Increase
5%-5%
Increase
Percentage
Correct
Salary
Increase
Choice
8%-12%
Increase 37 70 34,6
5%-5% Increase 26 114 81,4
Overall
Percentage 61,1
Results showed that psychopathy has a negative and significant effect on the salary
increase choice (Cox & Snell R²=0.056; Nagelkerke R²=0.075; Wald=13.270; p value=0.000;
Odds Ratio=0.45). More specifically, if psychopathy increases one unit, probability of
utilitarian choice (8%-12% increase) is found to increase by 45%. On the other hand, findings
aren’t indicated to a statistically significant effect of Machiavellianism and narcissism on the
model.
The model predicted non-utilitarian choice (5% - %5 raise) with 81.4% probability,
utilitarian choice (8% - %12 raise) with 34.6% probability and overall probability prediction
of the model is found to be 61.1%.
On the other hand results indicate that out of 247 total participants;
• 140 participants choose 5%-5% raise (56.68%),
• 107 participants choose 8% - 12% raise (43.31%).
Taking results into consideration H1, and H2 is rejected, H3 cannot be rejected.
CONCLUSION
Aim of this research is to examine effects of dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism
and psychopathy) on the utilitarian choices. A scenario is developed for this purpose in which
participants are asked to choose salary raise for both themselves and other employee.
Considering that rational, utilitarian approaches dictate the choice that maximizes individual
payoff, it is expected from participants to pick the option that provides higher salary increase.
On the other hand, taking into account that previous research showed evidence of the
relationship between triad constructs and utilitarian tendencies, it is also hypothesized that
narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy has a positive effect on utilitarian choices due
to their interpersonally aversive characteristics such as empathy deficit, emotional callousness,
low concern for others etc.
First finding of this study is that majority of the participants choose (56.68%), 5%-5%
raise which is the option that does not maximize not only theirs but other employees profits as
well. This result is in line with previous dictator game studies that returned mean split value

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
42
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
between 20% and 50%, indicating that proposers tend to be altruistic, equalitarian and conflict
avoidant to some degree especially when they feel a moral decision –even in appearance- is
the best solution for the problem. The effect of collective culture can be another explanation
for this result. Considering that Turkish culture is highly collective which means people belong
in groups, harmony has to be maintained and relations has a moral base, participants may have
chosen the egalitarian option in order to obtain and sustain status quo with their colleagues.
Second important finding of this study is analyses results indicated that psychopathy has
a positive and significant effect on the probability of utilitarian salary increase choice which is
confirming findings of the previous research (Amiri and Behnezhad, 2017; Bartels and Pizarro,
2011; Djeriouat and Trémolière, 2014). Literature asserts that individuals who has higher
scores on psychopath measures are more likely to endorse rational and utilitarian solutions to
the problems they encounter (Greene et al., 2001). Considering that psychopathy is defined
with high antisocial characteristics such as high impulsivity, empathy deficit, lack of concern
for others and remorselessness even at the subclinical level, possible triggering effect of them
on the utilitarian proneness can help to explain this finding. Contrary to the findings of previous
studies, statistically significant effects of Machiavellianism and narcissism on the utilitarian
choice is not found in this research which brings into question if cultural elements are
moderating the relationship or if a different sample in which participants have more work
experience lead to different results.
Finally, model predicted equal (non-utilitarian) choice with 81.4% probability and
overall prediction probability of the model is found to be 61.1%.
Self-report tools which have the potential of producing biased results are used in this
research. Future studies are suggested to examine relationships between personality traits,
altruism, equalitarianism, culture, conflict avoidance and utilitarian choice concepts by
conducting field and experimental studies to establish a basis for comparison for normative and
descriptive approaches and to expand the scope of this discussion. Also using a large scale,
longitudinal, cross cultural research containing different age groups can contribute to the
literature as well.
REFERENCES
Ali, F., Amorim, I. S., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Empathy deficits and trait
emotional intelligence in psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47, 758–762.
Amiri, S., & Behnezhad, S. (2017). Emotion recognition and moral utilitarianism in the
dark triad of personality. Neuropsychiatria i Neuropsychologia, 12(4), 135.
Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (2009). Protected values and omission bias as deontological
judgments. In D. M. Bartels, C. W. Bauman, L. J. Skitka, & D. L. Medin (Eds.). Moral
judgment and decision making: The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 50, pp. 133–
167). San Diego: Elsevier.
Bartels, D. M. (2008). Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment
and decision making. Cognition, 108, 381–417.
Bartels, D. M., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial
personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121(1), 154-161.

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
43
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
Busch, H., & Hofer, J. (2012). Self-regulation and milestones of adult development:
Intimacy and generativity. Developmental Psychology, 48, 282–293.
Camerer, C. F. (2011). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction.
Princeton University Press.
Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C. ve Elliot, A. (2000), Narcissism and
comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 329-347.
http://doi.org/cg9
Christie, R., and 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.
Djeriouat, H., & Trémolière, B. (2014). The Dark Triad of personality and utilitarian
moral judgment: The mediating role of Honesty/Humility and Harm/Care. Personality and
Individual Differences, 67, 11-16.
Ekizler, H. (2020). Mental İyi Oluşun Covid-19 ile İlgili Kaygılar Üzerindeki Etkisi.
Journal of Current Researches on Business and Economics, 10 (2), p. 173-186. Doi:
10.26579/jocrebe.81.
Eksi, F. (2016). The Short Form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory: Psychometric
Equivalence of the Turkish Version. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 1081-
1096.
Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-eroticism: A psychological study. Alienist and Neurologist, 19,
260-299.
Egan, V., and McCorkindale, C. (2007). Narcissism, vanity, personality and mating
effort. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2105–2115.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.034
Feltz, A., & Cokely, E. T. (2008). The fragmented folk: More evidence of stable
individual differences in moral judgments and folk intuitions. In Proceedings of the 30th
annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1771-1776). Austin, TX: Cognitive
Science Society.
Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark
Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 97(3),
557.
Foster, J. D., Shenesey, J. W., & Goff, J. S. (2009). Why do narcissists take more risks?
Testing the roles of perceived risks and benefits of risky behaviors. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47, 885–889.
Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford
Review, No. 5. Included in Foot, 1977/2002 Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral
Philosophy.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001).
An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.
Greene, J. D., Cushman, F. A., Stewart, L. E., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen,
J. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in
moral judgment. Cognition, 111(3), 364–371.

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
44
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
Gustafson, S. B., and Ritzer, D. R. (1995). The dark side of normal: A psychopathy-
linked pattern called aberrant self-promotion. European Journal of Personality, 9(3), 147–183.
doi:10.1002/per.2410090302.
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of
ultimatum bargaining. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 3(4), 367-388.
Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(1), 7-16. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.53.1.7
Hare. R. D. (2003). Manual for the revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.). Toronto.
ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2009). Psychopathy: Assessment and forensic
implications. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54,791–802
Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331–339.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., and Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad:
Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality: Published
for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 23(1), 5-18. doi:10.1002/per.698
Jonason, P. K., & Krause, L. (2013). The emotional deficits associated with the Dark
Triad traits: Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Personality and
Individual Differences, 55(5), 532-537.
Jones, D. N., and Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary and R. H.
Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (p. 93–108). New York:
Guilford.
Jones, D. N., and Paulhus, D. L. (2011). Differentiating the Dark Triad within the
interpersonal circumplex. In L.M. Horowitz and S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal
Psychology: Theory, Research, Assessment and Therapeutic Interventions (pp. 249–268). New
York: Wiley.
Jones, D. N., and Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of
the Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 521-531. doi:10.1002/per.1893
Jung, C. G. (2001). Modern man in search of a soul. Psychology Press.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit
seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American economic review, 76, 728-741.
Karandikar, S., Kapoor, H., Fernandes, S., & Jonason, P. K. (2019). Predicting moral
decision-making with dark personalities and moral values. Personality and Individual
Differences, 140, 70-75.
Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., Nelson, C. E., & Penney,
L. M. (2010).
Re-examining Machiavelli: A three-dimensional model of Machiavellianism in the
workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1868–1896.
Lilienfeld, S. O., and Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of
a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal population. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488-524. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3
Machiavelli, N. (2008). The prince. Hackett Publishing.
Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons.
Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 68–78.

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
45
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model.
Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 18, 523–599.
Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., and Campbell, W. K. (2010).
Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism,
and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78(5), 1529-1564.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00660.x
Mikhail, J. (2007). Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends
in cognitive sciences, 11(4), 143-152.
Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A., & Kane, M. J. (2008). Who shalt not kill? Individual
differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment.
Psychological Science, 19, 549–557.
O’Boyle, E. H. J., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-
analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579.
Özsoy, E. and Ardiç, K. (2017). Karanlık Üçlü'nün (Narsisizm, Makyavelizm ve
Psikopati) İş Tatminine Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 24(2), 391.
doi:10.18657/yonveek.297733
Paulhus, D. L., and Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563.
doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Pethman, T. M., and Erlandsson, S. I. (2002). Aberrant self-promotion or subclinical
psychopathy in a Swedish general population. The Psychological Record, 52(1), 33–50.
doi:10.1007/BF03395413
Rauthmann, J. F., and Kolar, G. P. (2012). How “dark” are the Dark Triad traits?
Examining the perceived darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 884-889. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.020
Ray, J. J., and Ray, J. A. B. (1982). Some apparent advantages of subclinical
psychopathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 117(1), 135-142.
doi:10.1080/00224545.1982.9713415
Rhodewalt, F., & Peterson, P. (2009). Narcissism. In M. R. Leary & R. H.Hoyle (Eds.),
Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp.547–560). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Psychological
Reports, 45, 590.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principle-components analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(5), 890-902.
Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S., & Çinko, M. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi
(3. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another
contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88, 895–917.

PEARSON JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
& HUMANITIES
ISSN: 2717-7386
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.46872/pj.217
46
2021 Volume 6 Issue 11 http://www.pearsonjournal.com/
Smith, M. B., Craig Wallace, J., & Jordan, P. (2016). When the dark ones become darker:
How promotion focus moderates the effects of the dark triad on supervisor performance ratings.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 236-254.
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 531–542.
Thaler, R. H. (1988). Anomalies: The ultimatum game. Journal of economic
perspectives, 2(4), 195-206.
Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal, 94, 1395–1415.
Wai, M., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the
dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(7), 794-799.