The Dark Triad of Personality in Personnel Selection E-Book

Dominik Schwarzinger

• Herausgeber: Hogrefe Publishing
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Seitenzahl: 530

Beschreibung

How to use the dark triad in personnel selection Presents the latest research and theories Highlights the gains and risks of these traits Provides concrete recommendations for use in selection processes Summarizes legal and professional guidelines More about the book This book explores the theoretical basis and state of the art of research on narcissism, Machiavellianism, and subclinical psychopathy. It also answers complex questions on the structure of the dark triad and its measurement for practical applications. Learn about how people high in these characteristics can, on the one hand, experience individual career success and high work performance and, on other hand, present risks in the workplace with abusive and destructive leadership and counterproductive behavior. In addition, the author summarizes the legal and professional guidelines when assessing the dark personality characteristics of job applicants, examines the acceptance and social validity of such assessments, evaluates the available instruments, and makes recommendations for practical applications and further research. With the focus on practical applications, the book presents the development, quality, and application of a test designed for use in organizations to capture the dark triad in the workplace. Concrete recommendations are given on how to use the characteristics narcissism, Machiavellianism, and subclinical psychopathy in personnel selection. Researchers and practitioners interested in applying the dark triad in personnel work will find this book full of valuable information on how to undertake legally compliant processes and how to utilize the great potential these personality characteristics have in making decisions on aptitude.

Leseprobe

The Dark Triad of Personality in Personnel Selection

Dominik Schwarzinger

In loving memory of Erika Schwarzinger

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication information for the print version of this book is available via the Library of Congress Marc Database under the Library of Congress Control Number 2022948271

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Title: The dark triad of personality in personnel selection / Dominik Schwarzinger.

Other titles: Die Dunkle Triade der Persönlichkeit in der Personalauswahl. English

Names: Schwarzinger, Dominik, 1983- author.

Description: The present volume is a translation of D. Schwarzinger: Die Dunkle Triade der

Persönlichkeit in der Personalauswahl, published under license from Hogrefe Verlag GmbH & Co.

KG, Göttingen, Germany. © 2020 by Hogrefe Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. | Includes bibliographical

references.

Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 2022045180X | Canadiana (ebook) 20220451834 | ISBN 9780889376182

(softcover) | ISBN 9781616766184 (PDF) | ISBN 9781613346181 (EPUB)

Subjects: LCSH: Psychology, Industrial. | LCSH: Employee selection—Psychological aspects. | LCSH:

Psychology, Pathological. | LCSH: Machiavellianism (Psychology) | LCSH: Narcissism.

Classification: LCC HF5548.8 .S39 2023 | DDC 158.7—dc23

© 2023 by Hogrefe Publishing

www.hogrefe.com

The authors and publisher have made every effort to ensure that the information contained in this text is in accord with the current state of scientific knowledge, recommendations, and practice at the time of publication. In spite of this diligence, errors cannot be completely excluded. Also, due to changing regulations and continuing research, information may become outdated at any point. The authors and publisher disclaim any responsibility for any consequences which may follow from the use of information presented in this book.

Registered trademarks are not noted specifically as such in this publication. The use of descriptive names, registered names, and trademarks does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

Cover image: © DragonImages – iStock.com

The present volume is a translation of D. Schwarzinger: Die Dunkle Triade der Persönlichkeit in der Personalauswahl, published under license from Hogrefe Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen, Germany. © 2020 by Hogrefe Verlag GmbH & Co. KG

PUBLISHING OFFICES

USA:

Hogrefe Publishing Corporation, 44 Merrimac Street, Suite 207, Newburyport, MA 01950

Phone [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

EUROPE:

Hogrefe Publishing GmbH, Merkelstr. 3, 37085 Göttingen, Germany

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

SALES & DISTRIBUTION

USA:

Hogrefe Publishing, Customer Services Department, 30 Amberwood Parkway, Ashland, OH 44805

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

UK:

Hogrefe Publishing, c/o Marston Book Services Ltd., 160 Eastern Ave., Milton Park, Abingdon, OX14 4SB

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

EUROPE:

Hogrefe Publishing, Merkelstr. 3, 37085 Göttingen, Germany

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

OTHER OFFICES

CANADA:

Hogrefe Publishing Corporation, 82 Laird Drive, East York, Ontario M4G 3V1

SWITZERLAND:

Hogrefe Publishing, Länggass-Strasse 76, 3012 Bern

Copyright Information

The eBook, including all its individual chapters, is protected under international copyright law. The unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted or proprietary content is illegal and could subject the purchaser to substantial damages. The user agrees to recognize and uphold the copyright.

License Agreement

The purchaser is granted a single, nontransferable license for the personal use of the eBook and all related files.

Making copies or printouts and storing a backup copy of the eBook on another device is permitted for private, personal use only. This does not apply to any materials explicitly designated as copyable material (e.g., questionnaires and worksheets for use in practice).

Other than as stated in this License Agreement, you may not copy, print, modify, remove, delete, augment, add to, publish, transmit, sell, resell, create derivative works from, or in any way exploit any of the eBook’s content, in whole or in part, and you may not aid or permit others to do so. You shall not: (1) rent, assign, timeshare, distribute, or transfer all or part of the eBook or any rights granted by this License Agreement to any other person; (2) duplicate the eBook, except for reasonable backup copies; (3) remove any proprietary or copyright notices, digital watermarks, labels, or other marks from the eBook or its contents; (4) transfer or sublicense title to the eBook to any other party.

These conditions are also applicable to any files accompanying the book that are made available for download. Should the print edition of this book include electronic supplementary material then all this material (e.g., audio, video, pdf files) is also available with the eBook edition.

Format: EPUB

ISBN 978-0-88937-618-2 (print) • ISBN 978-1-61676-618-4 (PDF) • ISBN 978-1-61334-618-1 (EPUB)

http://doi.org/10.1027/00618-000

Citability: This EPUB includes page numbering between two vertical lines (Example: |1|) that corresponds to the page numbering of the print and PDF ebook versions of the title.

Contents

Preface

1  Introduction

1.1  The Dark Triad of Personality – A Trending Topic in Organizational Psychology

1.2  Do We Need to Consider Dark Personality Traits in the Workplace?

1.3  The Structure of This Book

2  (Dark) Personality, Work Performance, and Professional Success

2.1  From Physiognomy to the Five-Factor Model and the DSM-5

2.1.1  “Normal” Personality and Personality Disorders

2.1.2  The Big Five and the Absence of Dark Factors

2.2  Predicting Job Performance with Personality Traits

2.2.1  Job Performance and Success

2.2.2  Professional Aptitude Diagnostics with Personality Traits

2.3  Dark Personality Traits as a New Approach in Personnel Psychology

2.3.1  A General Taxonomy of Dark Personality in DSM-5?

2.3.2  Defining and Delimiting the Dark Properties

2.3.3  Dark Personality Traits in the Workplace

3  The Dark Triad of Personality

3.1  A Short History of Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy

3.1.1  Narcissism

3.1.2  Machiavellianism

3.1.3  Psychopathy

3.2  Selected Findings of the Joint Consideration of the Characteristics

3.2.1  (Evolutionary) Biological Aspects

3.2.2  Emotional Deficits and Moral Concepts

3.2.3  Broad Personality Models

3.2.4  Cognitive Skills and Related Characteristics

3.2.5  Interpersonal Behavior and Lifestyle

3.3  Structural and Measurement-Methodological Separation of the Dark Triad

3.3.1  Structural Concept of the Dark Triad

3.3.2  Methodological Approaches to the Assessment of the Dark Triad

3.3.3  The Subfacets of the Dark Triad

4  Findings on the Dark Triad Relevant to Aptitude Diagnostics

4.1  Predicting Counterproductive Behavior in the Workplace

4.2  Predicting Job Performance and Success

4.2.1  Leadership Effectiveness and Abusive Supervision

4.2.2  Criteria of Individual Performance

4.2.3  Career Success

4.3  Further Fields of Application in Personnel Psychology

4.3.1  The CEO and President Personality, and Entrepreneurship

4.3.2  Vocational Interests and Career Orientation

4.3.3  Occupational Motivation, Political Skills, and Well-Being at Work

5  Requirements for a Diagnostic Procedure for Assessing the Dark Triad in Organizational Practice

Background of the Issue

The SIOP Principles as a Reference for Evaluating Dark-Side Assessments

5.1  Overview of the Different Measurement Approaches and Their Special Features

5.1.1  Faking Test Results

5.1.2  External Assessments and Information Technology-Based Measurements

5.1.3  Self-Assessment Procedures with Forced-Choice vs. Likert-Type Formats

5.2  Legal and Technical Requirements for Practical Operational Use

5.2.1  Legal, Subclinical Measurement of Dark Personality Traits

5.2.2  Technically Correct Measurement: Quality Criteria of Established Standard and Short Procedures for the Assessment of the Dark Triad

5.2.3  Social Validity

5.2.4  Occupation-Related Measurement

6  Work-Related Measurement of the Dark Triad – The Example of TOP

6.1  Design of the TOP

6.1.1  The Requirements, Objectives, and Database of Test Development and Item Construction

6.1.2  Item Analyses and Dimensionality Testing: The Structure of the TOP

6.2  Reliability, Validity, and Standardization

6.2.1  Objectivity, Reliability, and Distributional Characteristics

6.2.2  Construct-Related Validity: Standard Scales, Personality Models, and Relationships to Procedures and Constructs Used in Aptitude Diagnostics

6.2.3  Relationships to Integrity, Prosocial, and Counterproductive Behavior

6.2.4  Criterion-Related Validity: Relationships to Job Performance and Success

6.3  Evaluation of the TOP

6.3.1  Legal and Professional Requirements

6.3.2  Feedback of Results and Social Validity

6.3.3  Acceptance

6.3.4   Standardization

6.3.5  Research-Practice Effects

7  Recommendations for Practice and Further Research

7.1  Recommendations for Research

7.1.1  The Need for Further Theoretical Foundation and Methodological Consolidation

7.1.2  The Need for Further Practical Research and Practical Experience

7.2  Recommendations for Practice

7.2.1  Requirements and Recommendations for the Practical Application of the Dark Triad

7.2.2  Personnel Selection with the TOP – Possibilities and Limitations

7.3  Conclusion: The Dark Triad of Personality in Personnel Selection

References

Peer Commentaries

|vii|Preface

In recent years, three classics of psychology have once again gained greater scientific and, above all, public recognition – narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Under the appealing title of the “Dark Triad of Personality” (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), they are increasingly being considered in many different areas, from couple psychology to management research. Just a few years have seen the compilation of an enormous breadth of knowledge about the Dark Triad. Currently, however, a growing number of critical voices are complaining that the depth and stringency of some research have been partly neglected; this hinders scientific progress, often creates misunderstandings, and may ultimately pose considerable risks, especially for applied purposes.

This book discusses the Dark Triad of Personality in Personnel Selection, an applied field that is not only highly regulated legally and professionally, but that, because of its significance for both individuals and organizations, also requires a special sense of proportion and quality, not at least for reasons of professional ethics. The following text addresses all relevant aspects for such an application, evaluates the current state of research, and provides practitioners with a solid basis for operative applications of the Dark Triad in the workplace.

There are many individuals and organizations without whom the present book would not have been possible; I can only honor the most important ones here. My greatest thank goes to Professor Heinz Schuler for many years of inspiration and collaboration; to the Hogrefe Publishing Group for the excellent cooperation on the present book project and the test TOP, especially Tanja Ulbricht and Sara Wellenzohn for the original German versions; to Lisa Bennett, Regina Pinks-Freybott, and Robert Dimbleby for the present English language adaptation; and, finally, to Anne Konz, on behalf of all readers, for her invaluable linguistic revisions and corrections to the manuscript.

Dominik Schwarzinger

Berlin, August 2022

|1|1  Introduction

1.1  The Dark Triad of Personality – A Trending Topic in Organizational Psychology

The traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and subclinical psychopathy have become a big topic in psychological research since first considered together under the term Dark Triad of personality over the last two decades. We see this in the number and the breadth of content of scientific articles published on the Dark Triad. The initial work of Paulhus and Williams (2002), for example, has been cited several thousand times, and Muris et al. (2017) included almost 100 papers in their meta-analysis, each comprising all three Triad components. The vast majority of these papers have been published in recent years, thus witness to a nearly exponential increase in the number of articles (see Figure 1).

In 2019 – only 3 years after the editorial deadline of that meta-analysis and 17 years after the introduction of the Dark Triad – several hundred specific specialist publications had become available. The journal Personality and Individual Differences alone published more than 20 per year. A selection of the topics explored in these articles on the Triad illustrates the breadth of the burgeoning interest: number of children, intelligence, preferences for place of residence, academic misconduct, insomnia, violence in relationships, sporting activity, behavior in social media.

Figure 1.  Publications on the Dark Triad since the creation of the term, based on a web-of-science search. Reprinted with permission from “The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy),” by P. Muris, H. Merckelbach, H. Otgaar, & E. Meijer (2017), Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 185. © 2017 Sage.

|2|The trend extends so far that several publications now contain considerable criticism (e.g., Adam, 2019; Miller et al., 2019). This criticism is leveled not so much toward the concept of the Dark Triad itself as toward how studies are conducted, such as the theoretical foundations and the measurement methods used – but above all toward how the multitude of findings was not cumulatively studied and integrated. In other words, these questions concern some of the very principles of serious scientific research. We can understand this criticism as being directed at both those undertaking the research and at the system that has generated and permitted an excessive number of such uncritically verified publications, all of which contributed to the current, partially confused state of the research on the Dark Triad.

This situation is something that occurs from time to time in various scientific fields, which the scientific community concerned is in the process of trying to rectify, and as a result is perhaps not such a serious matter. A comparatively greater problem, however, is that, before the above-mentioned corrections and without recourse to the admonitions of the relevant experts, the Dark Triad has also attracted overwhelming interest in disciplines related to psychology, such as business management and human resources research but above all in the popular scientific and general press. This interest has arisen primarily because of the impact the Dark Triad has on the working world, a research focus that has recently become increasingly important (e.g., Cohen, 2016; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Spain et al., 2014; Wille et al., 2013). The results of this research are readily adopted outside academia, in particular in online media of all types and quality, but also in the career sections of major daily and weekly newspapers. Indeed, there has been real hype about the impact of these features in professional life.

For example, we read articles with titles such as “The Dark Triad – Why Radically Ruthless People Get Ahead” which discuss narcissists and psychopaths in top management positions. The popular debate thus emphasizes the enhanced values of the Dark Triad as partly conducive to professional success, especially in leadership positions, whereas, according to the definition of the characteristics and the traditional colloquial use of the terms, they are primarily and predominantly associated with negative consequences for third parties. A fact that has been well proven empirically in the last few years.

Based on the previous scientific findings (or the media coverage?), it cannot surprise that employers would like to “detect, remove, punish, [or] retrain employees with these characteristics” (Jonason et al., 2014, p. 122). For the characteristic of psychopathy, there have been several calls for the use of screening measures to keep dangerous persons away from certain positions (Skeem et al., 2011). Several relevant authors explicitly refer to possible aptitude-diagnostic use, namely, personnel selection based on the Dark Triad (e.g., O’Boyle et al., 2012; Schyns, 2015; Wu & LeBreton, 2011) – which has now turned it an object of recent personnel psychology research.

Further research into the effects of the Dark Triad in the workplace is urgently needed if it is to be used not only for the accumulation of scientific knowledge and for public discussion, but also in everyday human resources work. To justify the actual operative use of the Dark Triad traits as a basis for personnel decisions, one must first be able to reliably predict criteria relevant to this purpose – and here the findings are far less clear than public reception would suggest. Luckily, based on data stemming from companies and professionals, there is now enough high-quality empirical work available to allow statements about the extent to which the use of the Dark Triad may be beneficial in personnel work – and for which purposes.

|3|However, the applied use of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy in aptitude diagnostics generates several potential problems, ranging from ethical considerations and professional-legal guidelines, to still unclarified theoretical issues and the basic psychometric demands on the standard test procedures used for this purpose. In contrast to the criteria relationships that have so far been the subject of most research, these questions are still largely unresolved, primarily because Triad research was not oriented toward work and organization from the beginning, and because a broader occupation with this matter has taken place only in the last 10 years. Above all, however, we have little experience in the organizational context concerning how the Dark Triad can be applied succesfully in practical personnel work, what reactions it provokes, and how valuable the results obtained really are. This book makes initial contributions to this and examines whether the hype about the Dark Triad of personality is justified from a personnel-psychological point of view.

1.2  Do We Need to Consider Dark Personality Traits in the Workplace?

The present focus on dark personality traits in work and organizational psychology arose mostly from the desire to identify features responsible for employees or executives “derailing” their careers – a risk some authors perceive for more than half of all managers (Dalal & Nolan, 2009). Based on expert estimates, Simonet et al. (2018) assume that the cost of a single “derailed” executive can run into the millions, making them costly and as we will see, also common.

In De Fruyt et al. (2013), 20% of the managers tested had a potential personality disorder. The authors make clear that every HR manager should deal with this issue, since 15% of the population (here: USA) display at least one personality disorder or its symptoms during their lifetime: Every HR manager thus inevitably encounters affected employees. This also demonstrates that the problem affects not only managers or employees from the higher hierarchical levels of an organization; on the contrary, the “dark side” of a person’s personality (especially if one includes not only clinical disorders but also their much more widespread subclinical forms) is one of the main factors influencing deviant behavior at all levels and in all sectors of the economy (see Sections 2.2 and 4.1).

Although the study of dark personality traits is certainly relevant and not new, only in recent years has it attracted widespread interest in industrial and organizational psychology and management sciences (Harms & Spain, 2015). This even led to two special journal issues on the subject of dark personalities in the workplace (Murphy, 2014; Stephan, 2015). These show that a wide variety of mental disorders and more harmless abnormalities – and even excessive manifestations of actually positive characteristics, such as perfectionism – are usually negatively associated with job performance (e.g., McCord et al., 2014). Other studies also discuss the positive effects of dark characteristics, although these are not unequivocally the case and do not apply in the same way to all characteristics and occupations (e.g., Gaddis & Foster, 2015).

|4|In summary, the literature recognizes the potential added value of looking at the dark side of personality while pointing out the unclear and sometimes contradictory state of research – especially for the practical application in personnel work – and the considerable limitations and risks that are still largely unexplained and often not researched. Jackson (2014) states that job-related research is appropriate for maladaptive personality traits in general, but that the step toward applying it to actual staffing decisions presents challenges that are anything but trivial. Harms and Spain (2015) see dark traits eventually becoming mainstream in research, while for the application of these traits in organizational practice unresolved questions remain regarding their theoretical foundation, primarily those that address the practical detection of dark personality traits.

Spain et al. (2014), for example, point out in their review that the most widely used inventories for measuring the Dark Triad have been criticized for their psychometric quality while also raising practical and even potentially legal problems, especially regarding their use in applied professional contexts. O’Boyle et al. (2012) see extreme limitations to the commonly used measures, which they describe as inadequate specifically for personnel selection. That drives their clear recommendation – shared they say by many other authors – that future research on the Dark Triad be concerned with better job-related measurement.

The great interest in the Dark Triad and its presumed aptitude-diagnostic benefits thus is juxtaposed against a multitude of unresolved questions concerning its actual usefulness and applicability for practical personnel assessment – first and foremost concerning the measurement methods to be employed for this purpose. The present book addresses these problems and closes the gaps in our knowledge regarding the Dark Triad in personnel selection. However, because of the great damage that accompanies these dark characteristics as well as the great opportunities offered by observing the dark side, I call for more efforts to be made – both in research and practice – to fully exploit the potential of these characteristics while also preventing serious mistakes from being made with dealing with other people (applicants). It is paramount in this pursuit that we do not switch to the dark side by displaying noncompliant behavior ourselves.

1.3  The Structure of This Book

As mentioned in the previous section, there is a need for further research on the effects of the Dark Triad of personality at the workplace along with considerable skepticism about its practical applicability, viz. the use of existing measurement methodology for purposes of personnel selection. The present book, therefore, aims to clarify the extent to which – and how – the Dark Triad may be applicable in operational personnel work. To this end, I present findings from the current literature that can be used to evaluate the basic aptitude-diagnostic usefulness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and subclinical psychopathy as well as discuss the general conditions and requirements for their practical use, especially for personnel selection. I then present a test procedure to meet the requirements regarding legal and professional guidelines and practical applicability in the target field of an organization. Thus, like the “grand migration” (Furnham, Richards et al., 2013, p. 200) from the clinical to the subclinical sphere, this text attempts to establish a “small migration” (Schwarzinger, 2020, p. 13) of the Dark Triad from the subclinical to the sphere of work.

|5|The necessary steps of this migration movement can be divided into two large blocks: the basics and practical application. Chapters 1 to 3 comprise the basics, Chapters 4 to 6 the practical application. Chapter 7 presents a conclusion with recommendations.

Following this Introduction, I present the basics for the main topic in Chapter 2, which is therefore kept rather concise. Section 2.1 concerns the status of personality structure research and the systems developed in clinical psychology. Regarding the former, I discuss the widely recognized Big Five and HEXACO models, and regarding clinical psychology, I primarily touch on the DSM system of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Section 2.2 regards central findings on personnel-psychological applications of general personality traits and common conceptualizations of professional success and failure. Building on this, in Section 2.3 I deal with the concept of so-called dark personality traits, describing in more detail the background to the ever-growing occupation-related interest, the genesis of the term, and the characteristics it covers. In addition, I differentiate it from the DSM system and describe the new, alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders.

Chapters 3 and 4 are devoted to the Dark Triad of personality. Section 3.1 provides an introduction to the historical development and the current state of research on the (isolated) consideration of the three characteristics of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Section 3.2 describes selected (non-occupation-related) findings on the characteristics of the issues that have received the most attention in research. These findings serve to provide a basis for understanding the typical motivation and behavior of Dark Triad characteristic bearers, which is also important for developing an occupational understanding of these characteristics. Section 3.3 compares different views on the structure of the Dark Triad, typical analytical methods used in its study, and the methodological criticism formulated in recent years, especially concerning these aspects. It also distinguishes the Dark Triad components from each other and describes their respective characteristics.

Chapter 4 presents a wide range of evidence for the basic aptitude-diagnostic usefulness of the Dark Triad. Section 4.1 turns, first, to their relationships with counterproductive behavior in the workplace, whereas Section 4.2 regards their relationships with criteria of job performance and success as well as (destructive) leadership behavior. Section 4.3 discusses further aptitude-diagnostic fields of application of the Dark Triad as well as occupationally relevant correlates of interest in practical personnel work and career guidance.

Chapter 5 deals with the professional, legal, and ethical demands placed on the operational use of the Dark Triad. Section 5.1 concerns the various measurement approaches proposed so far for the Dark Triad and then evaluates them regarding their quality and usability in personnel practice. Building on this, Section 5.2 discusses the necessity of job-related measurement procedures and the professional and legal requirements for the use of such procedures in the context of applied aptitude diagnostics. Finally, Section 5.3 focuses on the viewpoint of the applicants and associated ethical aspects.

Chapter 6 provides an overview of the test procedure Dark Triad of Personality at Work (TOP; Schwarzinger & Schuler, 2016, 2019) as an example of an explicitly work-related inventory of the Dark Triad. Section 6.1 first summarizes the objectives of test development and describes the construction of the TOP, from the formulation of items to item analysis to the factorial exploration of the item material. Section 6.2 reports the results of the reliability and validity studies regarding the relationships to external variables, their effects on third parties, and measures of individual and collective performance and professional |6|success. The final part of this chapter, Section 6.3, addresses questions about the practical use of the TOP, the legitimacy of its application against the background of professional formal and legal standards, and its acceptance by the test participants.

In a joint consideration of the theoretical work on the content and structure of the Triad, its measurement methodology and occupation-related findings, as well as the operative application requirements of legal and professional nature, Chapter 7 draws some conclusions and provides practical recommendations for the use of the Dark Triad of personality in both empirically researched (Section 7.1) and practically applied vocational-aptitude diagnostics (Section 7.2).

|7|2  (Dark) Personality, Work Performance, and Professional Success

Before I explore the focal topic of the Dark Triad of personality in Chapter 3, I would like to devote this chapter to an overview of the different approaches to the question of what constitutes human personality in general, the dark side of personality, and the job-related application of “bright” and “dark” characteristics. Because of the breadth and depth of these lines of research, I do not claim completeness. Nevertheless, an overview of the commonly studied major personality traits and how they affect work performance as well as the concepts and classifications chosen in clinical psychology for the most common personality disorders is important as a basis for understanding the structure of the Dark Triad, its kinship relations, and previous profession-related findings.

In addition, I present various conceptualizations of job performance and job success, to define the criteria for assessing the aptitude-diagnostic suitability of personality traits and the Dark Triad.

2.1  From Physiognomy to the Five-Factor Model and the DSM-5

The study of the human personality looks back on a long and varied history that has failed to produce a singular and unambiguous system comparable to that of natural scientific theory, “not to mention [the absence of] a periodic table of the psychic elements” (Schuler, 2014a, p. 143). It is therefore not surprising that, through the ages, personality has been defined quite differently depending on the time and language background (Amelang & Bartussek, 1997). This ranges from early attempts to address differences in character traits from the “outside,” that is, from someone’s appearance or behavior, examples being Lersch’s phenomenological personality theory and – already linked to aptitude-diagnostic expectations – Lavater’s physiognomic interpretation of character (Schuler, 2014a); to investigations from the “inside,” using modern neuroscientific or molecular genetic methods (see Asendorpf, 2009).

2.1.1  “Normal” Personality and Personality Disorders

Today, a multitude of personality theories still exist side by side. The most widespread and accepted view resulted from empirical research on personality using a trait-based approach to differentiate and classify personality by (empirically) reducing it to a few statistically independent dimensions. There is currently widespread agreement that human personality |8|in the normal range can be described completely with varying degrees of expression on these broad dimensions – between three and seven depending on the author – which can be explained by fewer higher-order factors or can be divided into two central aspects and further subfacets (Guenole, 2014).

Research on hierachical models also managed finding two higher-order factors, designated alpha and beta (Digman, 1997) or stability and plasticity (DeYoung et al., 2002), and a general factor of personality (e.g., Erdle & Rushton, 2010; Musek, 2007) as well as confirming the usefulness of finer-grained subfacets (e.g., DeYoung et al., 2007) – especially for application-related questions. Below, I will come back to this approach in my treatment of the Dark Triad of personality. Neuroimaging or molecular genetic methods increasingly confirm the assumptions of the trait-based approach and point out specific differences for personality factors in brain anatomy (e.g., DeYoung et al., 2010).

The findings described, however, refer to the so-called “normal” area of personality. Although there are some connections between this area and mental disorders – and the latter are sometimes simply seen as extreme manifestations of human character traits (see Moscoso & Salgado, 2004) – classification schemes have emerged in clinical psychology which are virtually independent of this area. These include the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM for short (DSM-5; APA, 2013), and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, ICD for short (ICD-11; WHO, 2019).

The ICD is much more broadly based on diseases in general, whereas the DSM focuses exclusively on mental diseases, which is why it can also map more disturbance patterns and more finely broken-down diagnostic criteria. The ICD-11, in the section on personality disorders check lists only general characteristics of the group (though, for example, neither narcissism nor psychopathy is further explained or their diagnostic criteria detailed). Section 3.1.1 of this volume provides some criteria for narcissistic personality disorder according to DSM-5 as an example of such a classification scheme. A diagnosis can be made, for example, using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders (SCID-5-CV; First et al., 2019). However, only persons with a corresponding license, such as psychotherapists, are authorized to officially diagnose and treat personality disorders.

In contrast to the dimensional view of distinctive traits outlined above, the DSM and the ICD agree in their focus on typical clinical profiles manifested by certain symptoms: a categorical model of mental disorders.

Yet, the domains of clinical and normal personality are not completely independent of each other, as evidenced in conceptual work, for example, on the Big Five and DSM disorders (Widiger et al., 2002) or on the meta-analytically confirmed correlation patterns for these domains (Samuel & Widiger, 2008a) as well as the shared latent dimensions of both sides and proposals for a common version under a hierarchical model (Markon et al., 2005). In the clinical field, the “phenomenological view” (or categorical view) is therefore increasingly being supplemented by a dimensional one (e.g., Eaton et al., 2011). This is why the DSM also includes an approach to a dimensional conceptualization of personality disorders in Part III of its latest version (DSM-5) – although the previous categories remain in the main part of the DSM-5.

In my reflections on dark personality traits in Section 2.3.1, I discuss the DSM-5 and the new dimensional approach contained therein in more detail. But first, I want to present a concise outline of the state of the art of research on normal personality traits and then (in Section 2.2) its possible applications in personnel psychology.

|9|2.1.2  The Big Five and the Absence of Dark Factors

The so-called Five-Factor Model of Personality (FFM) by Costa and McCrae (1985) with its five broad bipolar dimensions (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) is today generally accepted as a frame of reference. The synonym Big Five is also used for this model or its components (Goldberg, 1993). I discuss the development of this model in more detail in the following, as it is possibly one of the principal reasons for the long disregard of dark characteristics. The question is: Why are the dark traits not part of the classic, broad personality models such as the Big Five?

As early as 1933, Thurstone first reported on an FFM, and other well-known authors such as Cattell or the Guilfords found solutions like today’s Big Five (Digman, 1996). A milestone in personality structure research was the lexical approach of Allport and Odbert (1936) to extract personality descriptions from a standard dictionary. On this basis, Cattell (1947) initially identified 35 trait clusters, which Fiske (1949) reduced to five factors (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997). Tupes and Christal (1958, 1961) first found a clear and generalizable factor-solution in Cattell’s variable clusters that consisted of five traits: enthusiasm/extraversion, tolerance, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and culture (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997), which is why they are called the “true fathers” of the Big Five (Goldberg, 1993, p. 27). By the late 1980s and 1990s, there was a “near-consensus on the number and nature of the basic dimensions of personality differences” (Lee & Ashton, 2006, p. 182), and with the spread of the first inventory based on the five factors, the “hegemonic position” of the FFM was manifested (Schuler & Höft, 2006, p. 117).

But why are there no dark characteristics in such an elaborate model? Spain et al. (2014) attribute this to a lack of dark personality aspects in the lexical approach. According to Tellegen (1993), for example, evaluative descriptions such as “evil” were removed from the basic adjective list of Allport and Odbert (1936) that was later factor-analytically condensed into the Big Five (see also Saucier, 2019). That certain “negative” aspects are missing is shown by the fact that the inclusion of corresponding adjectives in new and independent lexical studies not only produced new extreme aspects of existing factors but also led to completely new ones that point in precisely this direction (see HEXACO, Ashton & Lee, 2008; Big-7, Waller & Zavala, 1993).

Of the other models under discussion, I would like to briefly discuss only that of Ashton and Lee (2008) in more detail (see box HEXACO model): Here, new lexical analyses (of seven European and Asian languages as well as in other language families of different origins) enabled to identify a factor that encompasses central aspects of dark personality traits (via their exact opposite).

HEXACO Model

In the HEXACO model of personality structure, the new factor Honesty-Humility is found as the sixth main dimension of personality, in addition to Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience.

Emotionality and Agreeableness are not direct equivalents of the FFM factors, merely their rotated variants; the factors Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience of the HEXACO model, on the other hand, very closely resemble those of the |10|FFM (Lee & Ashton, 2006). Although the model thus does not simply represent a “Big Five +1” model, its central contribution lies in the new factor of Honesty-Humility or the “H-factor.” In simple terms, this sixth factor represents a kind of opposite of those traits often associated with or subsumed under the Dark Triad, which is why Paulhus (2014) sees low values on the “H-factor” as a common core of the Dark Triad (see Section 3.3).

Lee et al. (2005, p. 182) examined and described the content of this new factor and its added value to the Big Five in predicting workplace delinquency as follows: “[Honesty-Humility] represents individual differences in a reluctance versus a willingness to exploit others, a tendency that is not adequately captured by any of the Big Five factors.” As discussed below, precisely this tendency to exploit others for one’s own benefit is a key characteristic of the Dark Triad. Further findings on the overall connection of the “H-factor” and the personality models presented with the Dark Triad may be found in Chapter 3. The next section deals with the criteria of professional success and their connections with “bright” personality traits.

2.2  Predicting Job Performance with Personality Traits

I now present common operationalizations of job performance and success because the connections of the Dark Triad with these criteria serve as the main justification for using narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy for aptitude diagnostics. I subsequently discuss findings on the validity of general personality factors for the prediction of these criteria.

2.2.1  Job Performance and Success

Job performance is one of the most researched criteria in industrial and organizational psychology, as reflected in the number of published articles on the subject (see Cascio & Aguinis, 2008). Job performance can be understood as a multidimensional concept that includes the total contribution of an individual to organizational success (Motowidlo, 2003). This makes instantly clear there is no single job performance, but rather it presents a construct consisting of many interconnected subaspects in a longer-term perspective, all of which contribute to the overall performance – and all of which are based on an overarching factor (Lohaus & Schuler, 2014; Viswesvaran et al., 2005). Attempts to measure job performance can therefore capture only individual aspects of the overall performance in each case; single performance criteria are deficient, i.e., they fail to capture all relevant parts of the total performance and are contaminated, having been exposed to influences unrelated to the actual performance of the person (Lohaus & Schuler, 2014).

To distinguish from actual work performance is professional success, the hallmark of which is not the contribution to the success of the organization, but the individual result (also beyond the concrete workplace). Especially in the case of dark personality traits do the differential relationships to these two criteria – individual success and the company’s |11|success – seem very likely. To measure success, we often use objective measures such as salary, salary increases, or promotions as criteria (Henslin, 2005), though these are deficient because in many occupations, and for many people, success cannot be validly measured in monetary terms or according to classical hierarchies. In addition, success at work can also be measured based on the purpose of the activity, one’s own satisfaction with it, the feeling of personal fit with the workplace and the organization, or the concrete activity for one’s own interests (Schuler, 2014a). Although research usually focuses on the relationship between different predictors and job performance, one can also consider subjective measures of success such as job satisfaction or career satisfaction. Both areas are interdependent but should be understood or measured as independent constructs (Henslin, 2005).

In addition to job satisfaction, (organizational) commitment is a second, important variable that describes value attitudes toward work. One measures the subjective perception of one’s own task or job, the other one’s perception of the fit and binding to the organization (Sanecka, 2013). Both thus represent indicators of a successful professional placement or development. I discuss various forms of measuring objective and subjective success and job performance again at the end of this section, but let us start here by introducing the most important aspects of the latter criterion.

A widespread differentiation of job performance is the classical one forwarded by Borman and Motowidlo (1993) into task performance and contextual performance. Task-related performance comprises the clearly describable or required performance at a workplace; contextual performance comprises such contributions toward colleagues, teams, or the organization which are often not formally required, i.e., are voluntary and do not serve the actual fulfillment of the job. A closely related or very similar concept, often used synonymously, is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Smith et al., 1983), which distinguished early on between behavior related to individuals, such as helping a colleague, and pro-organizational behavior, such as speaking positively about the company (Sackett et al., 2006).

Task- and contextual performance have a high, meta-analytically generalizable correlation and can, as described, be understood as components of the construct of general job performance. However, they must also be considered independently, at least in the peripheral areas. For example, we find a curvilinear effect such that too much commitment to others (from about half a standard deviation above average) leads to a decline in one’s own task-related performance (Rubin et al., 2013).

Counterproductive Behavior in the Workplace

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is a concept that cannot be strictly counted as job performance but, on the contrary, describes behavior that decisively reduces or even negatively impacts a person’s overall value to the organization. CWB comprises all intentional actions that are principally capable of causing damage to the organization or one of its members (Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Nerdinger, 2008). Although situation-specific factors and overall conditions also play a role here, the personality of an employee is central to the probability of their showing counterproductive behavior – theoretically explainable with specific Big Five profiles, low integrity, or lack of self-control (Marcus, 2000).

|12|The latter approach to explaining counterproductive behavior represents a possible link to the Dark Triad, as it is also associated with a lack of self-control or impulsiveness (see Section 3.2.5). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) postulated low self-control as a cause of criminal acts in general and it is considered a driver of counterproductive behavior (Mussel, 2003). Lack of self-control was proposed as the first explicitly theoretical explanation for the CWB phenomenon, and it has since been empirically confirmed that the influence of this in-person variable is greater than that of situational conditions (Marcus & Schuler, 2004).

Bennett and Robinson (2000) demonstrated the great relevance of CWB for companies by compiling studies showing high levels of employee theft, absenteeism, drug abuse, and sexual harassment in the workplace. Apart from the resulting individual consequences for the victims, companies and the national economy suffer losses of billions each year as a result of each of these areas of counterproductive employee behavior (Marcus, 2000).

Like job performance, CWB is also assumed to have an underlying factor that can be broken down into different targets or victims or types of offenses (Marcus et al., 2016; Sackett, 2002). Well-known conceptualizations are the division into behaviors counterproductive toward the individual and toward the organization (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) and a comprehensive model by Gruys and Sackett (2003), which condenses CWB items from the literature into 66 individual behaviors on 11 facets.

Structurally, some authors see more evidence for hierarchical structures consisting of a general factor with two underlying factors or several facets, whereas others argue for the one-dimensionality of the feature. In any case, meta-analytical findings reveal high correlations while also confirming the advantages of considering the features separately (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Dalal, 2005). Marcus et al. (2016) compared the different views: The best fit was provided by a bifactor model in which the CWBs simultaneously load on the 11 content scales and one of the three targets organization, another person, or own person.

OCB and CWB are negatively linked but are both independent concepts and not poles along a continuum, which can be determined by structural analyses, bivariate relationships, and relationships to external criteria (Sackett et al., 2006). Various authors have therefore proposed to distinguish at least three areas of job performance – task-related performance, OCB, and CWB (e.g., Dalal, 2005). Several methods of measurement can be used for these criteria of job performance and for job success, each with its own specific advantages and limitations (see Box 1).

Chapter 4 reports on the connections between the Dark Triad and task- and environment-related criteria of job performance, OCB and CWB, and various criteria of objective and subjective success, which were recorded with self- and other-assessments as well as objective measures. The work-related inventory for the Dark Triad presented in Chapter 6 (TOP) was also validated for all the criteria and measurement approaches mentioned. To provide a solid background for evaluating these findings, the following Section 2.2.2 provides an overview of the possibilities for predicting performance with bright or normal personality traits.

|13|Box 1:Approaches to Recording the Criteria (Based on Lohaus and Schuler, 2014)

Objective data have the advantage of clear definitions and measurability as well as low falsifiability. However, in most cases, they are highly deficient as they capture much too narrow a section of an activity, or they are contaminated if they are too broadly operationalized and a lot of external influences determine the performance criterion.

With subjective performance assessments, the criterion deficiency can be countered by parallel consideration of a broader spectrum of aspects and the integration of aspects that cannot be observed objectively. However, they are potentially subject to greater judgment bias or conscious response behavior.

Nevertheless, subjective assessments by supervisors, a classic form of performance assessment, are considered the method of choice in research on professional performance.

External assessments by colleagues or managed employees are also useful, especially if the performance criteria such as leadership behavior can only be assessed by them.

In addition, self-assessments are possible since the evaluators have the most comprehensive and long-term access to the criterion. Depending on the purpose, however, they show the highest distortion of the judgment of all subjective methods. Nevertheless, in particular counterproductive behavior is almost always captured by self-assessments, since many offenses are not even discovered in the first place or are not – or should not be – known to anyone else (on the faking of self-assessments, see also Section 5.1.1).

As many different measures and methods as possible should therefore be used to approach the hypothetical constructs of performance and success (Lohaus & Schuler, 2014).

2.2.2  Professional Aptitude Diagnostics with Personality Traits

As mentioned in Section 2.1, early attempts tried to find connections between various individual differences in personality traits and job-related behavior or effects. For example, one of the decisive investigations that contributed to the development of the Big Five was conducted in the US Air Force for aptitude-diagnostic purposes (see Tupes & Christal, 1958, 1961). Sackett et al. (2017) describe individual differences (and their application in the workplace, especially in personnel selection) as one of the central and most important practical issues in applied psychology over the last 100 years. One of the main areas of interest was individual differences in personality – understood as the stable characteristics people “bring” to work, for example.

According to Sackett et al. (2017), however, the evaluation of the use of personality for job-related questions resembles a “rollercoaster,” characterized by four phases: After the original discovery of its basic usefulness, there followed a phase of increasing evidence of occupationally related correlates of personality from 1917 into the 1960s. After Guion and Gottier (1965) and Mischel (1968) denied the usefulness of personality tests for aptitude-diagnostic questions, research in this area subsequently collapsed, and not until 1991 was there a revival through conceptual and methodological developments, in particular, meta-analysis, to prove the usefulness of personality tests for the prognosis of occupational criteria. The present situation, since 2004, is characterized by the critical examination and refinement of our state of knowledge, i.e., theoretical-conceptual questions, the methodology of measurement, sources of judgment, and prognostic validity, in part also new factors such as the “H-factor” of the HEXACO model, and maladaptive aspects such as the Dark Triad (Sackett et al., 2017).

|14|As diverse as they are, almost all of these research streams have one thing in common: They refer to the reference model FFM. For this reason, I present the validity of personality for the prediction of job performance using the example of FFM, and I also use this model as a frame of reference in the chapter on the Dark Triad (together with the HEXACO model).

Following the line of development shown above, one observes a decreasing interest in the job-related application of personality factors after “initially active use ... from 1973 onward” (Schuler & Höft, 2006, p. 119). The meta-analysis by Barrick and Mount (1991) and the subsequent second-order meta-analysis (Barrick et al., 2001) generalized the validity of the factor Conscientiousness, which has the highest criterion-related validity across all criteria and occupational groups. A few other relevant connections were found, for example, for Neuroticism, but no general validity was determined for all factors across all criteria and occupational groups (Schuler & Höft, 2006). Several recent meta-analyses come to similar conclusions, which is why Pelt et al. (2017) consider the Barrick et al. (2001) findings to be still valid and good estimates of the prognostic validity of personality factors.

In addition, other factors (such as the general factor of personality) and their underlying facet level were examined regarding the Big Five, whereby in some cases the superordinate general factor and individual facets show higher correlations to job performance than the individual Big Five dimensions. In a comparison of three hierarchical levels of personality – facets, global factors, and general factor – by Sitser et al. (2013), the general factor showed the highest and most consistent relationships to performance criteria; and meta-analytically, Pelt et al. (2017) also demonstrated higher predictive power for it than for a single Big Five factor to general job performance, the Big Five proved to have prognostic validity for other job performance and perception criteria, although they were also criticized for being too broad to predict specific professional behavior (see Schuler et al., 2014).

In summary, both subtle nuances and broad factors have proven to be useful predictors of human behavior at work. Which level of abstraction seems to be most suitable for personnel-psychological purposes depends on the criterion of interest, which is generally discussed under the term bandwidth-fidelity dilemma (Cronbach, 1990). This term describes the trade-off between a high bandwidth to enable the most comprehensive, broad prediction of job performance possible, and a very fine-toothed, accurate measurement for predicting specific aspects. Pelt et al. (2017) summarize the findings on this question: Broad constructs are generally preferable, they say, especially when predicting broad outcome variables such as occupational performance, whereas only very specific aspects can be better predicted by narrow facets. Ideally, the predictor and the criterion are well matched. Following the symmetry hypothesis (Cronbach & Gleser, 1965), Paunonen (1998) already proposed in principle an equivalence of the width of predictor and criterion for the greatest possible prognostic quality: coarse factors for general, broad, and more finely graded ones for specific, narrow criteria.

Compound Traits

An approach that deviates from the level of abstraction and also pursues the goal of high prognostic validity is the combination of different content areas that are best adapted to the respective criterion. Such scales, developed to achieve the highest possible predictive quality, are the Criterion-Focused Occupational Personality Scales (COPS), which represent |15|a mixture of different definable properties, so-called compound traits; these are relevant in the workplace and were developed specifically for use in this context (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001). COPS have shown superior practical suitability over clearly definable factors, such as the Big Five, for predicting occupational performance (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001).

A prime example of COPS is integrity tests, usually questionnaires employed in personnel selection to identify individuals who are more likely to exhibit counterproductive behavior, for example, theft or substance consumption in the workplace. The term integrity was first used in the 1980s for this class of rather heterogeneous instruments in practical use since the 1920s (Sackett & Wanek, 1996). Integrity is thus not meant as a delimitable personality trait, and the tests are not based on any explicit theory. Only recently has there been a more intensive preoccupation in this respect (Berry, Sackett, & Wiemann, 2007). The meta-analysis by Ones et al. (1993) assigns general validity to integrity tests in predicting counterproductive behavior as well as predicting job performance across different criteria, predictors, and occupational groups. Schmidt and Hunter (1998) assigned the highest incremental validity to intelligence in predicting job performance for integrity test results because they are not correlated with cognitive performance (compared to, say, work samples). More recent meta-analyses (e.g., Van Iddekinge et al., 2012) confirmed their basic validity but estimated significantly lower values. Yet, the results cannot be compared, mainly because of the mostly proprietary data material of the analyses (integrity tests are almost exclusively commercially distributed). Thus, the actual amount of variance explained remains unclear, though the fundamental validity of integrity tests remains undisputed (Sackett et al., 2017).

Because of their design, compound traits and especially integrity tests have proven to be particularly suitable for aptitude-diagnostic applications. In terms of content, integrity represents in part the exact opposite of the dark-side personality traits, which in turn are conceptually considered compound traits (Dilchert et al., 2014). Dark content is too weakly represented in general personality models, which explains why there is a growing interest in researching the effects of dark traits in professional life, as they may represent useful additions to research on personality and job performance. For this reason, Section 2.3 deals with the description of the dark side of personality and its occupational application.

2.3  Dark Personality Traits as a New Approach in Personnel Psychology

Guenole (2014) notes that, in the field of work-related personality research, there have been no significant new developments since the establishment of the Big Five and the method of meta-analysis in the 1990s. According to Kaiser et al. (2015, p. 58), “Over the last several decades, the overwhelming majority of applied personality research has been based on the FFM, and therefore concerns the bright side.” This is increasingly being recognized as a limitation, which explains the increased recent focus on dark personality traits.

The following section concerns the concept of dark-side personality traits, its conceptual genesis, and the current understanding of this group of traits. It clarifies which |16|characteristics are included and how they can be distinguished from each other, the DSM-5 model, and general clinical perspectives. Further, it also explores why these traits are increasingly being considered from an occupational perspective and what the central findings for this field are, namely, whether consideration of the dark side of personality is fundamentally a beneficial and thus good approach to personnel psychology.

2.3.1  A General Taxonomy of Dark Personality in DSM-5?

Until recently, dark traits had received little attention in personality research. According to Spain et al. (2014), despite growing interest, no standard textbook contains a separate section on this topic. In the meantime, this has changed, and recently separate books were published on both the dark side of personality (Spain, 2019; Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016) and the Dark Triad (Lyons, 2019). Nevertheless, various concepts are discussed in parallel under the term dark traits, so that there “… is the lack of a generally accepted taxonomy of dark personality traits” (Spain et al., 2014, p. 49).

This situation could change in the coming years due to the introduction of a new taxonomy of maladaptive personality traits in the DSM-5. Apart from the omission or changes to the naming of old disorders and the inclusion of many new ones, at first glance, the DSM-5 made no changes to the category of personality disorders relevant to the dark side. Indeed, all criteria for the disorders on Axis II of the predecessor DSM-IV remained unchanged and are listed in Part II in the section on personality disorders.

Conceptually more significant than the reorganization undertaken in DSM-5 (personality disorders are no longer listed under Axis II in DSM-5 because of the elimination of the so-called multiaxial system) is the development of a new approach to the diagnosis of personality disorders – the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. Because of the complexity of the changes that would then be required in psychiatric practice, the authors did not consider completely replacing the original disorder types but included the model in Section III of DSM-5 to aid further research (see APA, 2013).

This model is a mixture of a dimensional and a categorical model and is therefore also referred to as a hybrid model (Zimmermann et al., 2015). This agrees with ongoing developments in clinical psychology, which is seeing a growing number of findings concerning the benefits of a dimensional view (e.g., Eaton et al., 2011; Krueger & Eaton, 2010; see also Section 2.1.1). A dimensional variable enables a “quantitative rather than a qualitative distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ personality” (Wille et al., 2013, p. 174), the characteristic is thus present – more or less pronounced – in every person. This is an essential prerequisite not only for measurability but above all for operational applicability in the (working) general population. Because this is an important question for practice, I deal with it in greater detail in Section 5.2.1.

Spain et al. (2014, p. 51) see the transition from DSM-IV to DSM-5 as a potential breakthrough in understanding the nature of dark personality. Guenole (2014, p. 86) states “the field of personality at work is now at a point reminiscent of the 1990s, where substantive developments in the field of personality are ready to be integrated to advance understanding of personality at work.”

The model has a hybrid character because of its trait-based structure (a so-called maladaptive trait model) and the possibility to infer from that six of the existing categorical |17|disorders (antisocial, avoidant, borderline, narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive, and schizotypal). The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 Maladaptive Trait Model (PID-5; APA, 2013; Krueger et al., 2012) is available for basic assessment. Box 2 outlines the diagnostic procedure in a simplified way for better understanding.

Box 2:An Overview of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

A personality disorder is diagnosed by examining the functional level of personality (Criterion A) and the five dark personality traits: Antagonism, Psychoticism, Disinhibition, Negative Affectivity, and Detachment (Criterion B), with a total of 25 facets of characteristics, i.e., a hierarchical, dimensional model (Zimmermann et al., 2015). These "maladaptive traits" are recorded using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5).

The assessment of the functional level of the personality is carried out regarding the areas of self-(identity and direction) and interpersonal relationships (empathy and intimacy) on a continuum (or five degrees of severity from no or minor impairment to extreme impairment). There must be at least one moderate impairment to make a diagnosis of a personality disorder (as further diagnostic features for a disorder, framework parameters such as constancy, duration, possible alternative explanations (other mental disorder or physiological effects), and first occurrence must also be considered as Criteria C through to G).

For the initial diagnosis, the functionality of a person (Criterion A) and the specific combinations of aspects of the five dimensionally measured factors (Criterion B) can be used to draw conclusions about borderline, avoidant, obsessive-compulsive, schizotypical, antisocial, and narcissistic personality disorders (see APA, 2013).

The new model thus represents a link between “normal” dimensional personality traits and categorical, official clinical disorders.

The hybrid nature marks the main conceptual difference regarding assessment between the alternative DSM-5 model and the Dark Triad of personality and the other research efforts on Axis II disorders that have so far been grouped together under the term dark side, as all these are purely dimensional in nature (Guenole, 2014). The significant difference between the dark traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) and the maladaptive trait model, on the other hand, is that they are specific mixtures of different aspects or narrow facets, i.e., compound traits. The maladaptive trait model, with its 5 factors and 25 subfactors, in contrast, has an empirically definable, hierarchical order like that of the FFM system. It is sometimes referred to as the negative equivalent of the Big Five (Marcus & Zeigler-Hill, 2015), and four of the five problematic personality trait domains are even explicitly assigned Big Five opposites in the DSM: (1) Negative Affectivity vs. Emotional Stability, (2) Detachment vs. Extraversion, (3) Antagonism vs. Agreeableness, (4) Disinhibition vs. Conscientiousness (see APA, 2013).

The use of these terms is problematic, however, because the Big Five poles already exist, for example, Neuroticism in the case of Emotional Stability, whose relationship and position to Negative Affectivity is thus unclear. On the other hand, for example, low Conscientiousness cannot be equated with the attributes of the antipole Disinhibition, such as Impulsivity or Irresponsibility. Dark qualities are not merely extreme versions or fringe areas of normal personality traits; rather, they broaden the focus beyond the ends of the normal continuum (Benson & Campbell, 2007) and not only by the mere extent of their |18|expression but by their specific content. For example, maladaptive items of PID-5 for Neuroticism address suicide, those for Openness seeing things that are not real.