The convergent validity between self- and peer ...

Author's personal copy Current Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9906-7

The convergent validity between self- and peer-ratings of the Dark Triad personality Marta Malesza 1 & Magdalena Claudia Kaczmarek 2

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Researchers examining the accuracy of observers ratings of others are devoting increased attention to peer-reported personality traits. Thus, the main purpose of this study was to investigate convergent validity of the three-factor Dark Triad model of personality framework, using two different rating methods: self-ratings and peer-ratings. Each participant (N = 266) was asked to collect three peer ratings (total peers N = 798). First, respondents completed three Dark Triad measures—Mach IV, SRP-III, and NPI-17 instruments. The peer-report forms of these instruments consisted of the same items as in the self-report version, but the rephrasing was appropriate to a third-person perspective. With the exception of one subscale of narcissism, Dark Triad measures demonstrated substantial convergent validity. These findings challenge views that at least two dark personality characteristics, i.e. psychopathy and Machiavellianism, are accurately observable phenomenon. The influences of agreement between self and other raters are discussed in relation to the degree of ratability and social desirability. Keywords Dark Triad . Construct validity . Self-rating . Other-rating

Introduction The Dark Triad model (Paulhus and Williams 2002) is identified as three overlapping but distinct socially aversive traits. The Dark Triad traits, consisting of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, represent a set of socially aversive and subclinical maladaptive personality characteristics. Machiavellianism is defined by self-interest and tendencies toward deceptiveness and the exploitation and manipulation of others (Christie and Geis 1970). Individuals high in narcissism tend to focus, for the most part, on themselves and are characterized by self-absorption, dominance, and feelings of entitlement (Emmons 1987). Finally, psychopathy is characterized by high thrill-seeking, callousness, interpersonal antagonism and manipulation (Hare and Neumann 2008). A number of studies showed that the Dark Triad traits are related

* Marta Malesza [email protected] 1

Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Germany, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, OT Golm, 14476 Potsdam, Germany

2

Institute for Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Stoystrasse 3, 07740 Jena, Germany

to many negative outcomes including counter-productive behaviour in the workplace, for instance being a Btoxic leader^ (Harms et al. 2011), engaging in criminal offence (Lee et al. 2005), being dishonest during education (cheating for psychopathy, essay plagiarism for Machiavellianism (Nathanson et al. 2006). Moreover, the dark individuals tend to interpersonal manipulation in distinctive styles (Jones and Paulhus, 2011). In contrast, the Dark Triad refers also to several adaptive aspects. For instance, the Dark Triad traits may lead to acquire positions of leadership, if are connected with other factors (intelligence, physical attractiveness) (Furnham 2016) and these traits may be useful for successful short-term mating (Jonason et al. 2009). In conclusion, it is worth noting that despite an aversive and psychopathology nature of the Dark Triad, these traits have some adaptive elements (see Furnham et al. 2013). Efforts to study individual differences in the Dark Triad traits obviously require valid measuring instruments. Many recent studies have used three separate assessment tools for the Dark Triad characteristics (for review, see Furnham et al. 2013). The adaptive implications of these measures have been confirmed in association with a wide array of psychological constructs (e.g., Jonason et al. 2009, 2010; Malesza 2018; Malesza and Ostaszewski 2016). Moreover, the results of the previous studies generally support replication of the

Author's personal copy Curr Psychol

three-factor model of the Dark Triad framework (see Furnham et al. 2013), suggesting that the three-factor model is one out of many possible models that focuses on three constructs and their interrelations for describing personality traits. A key limitation of the previous research, however, is that all of the well-established measurement methods of the Dark Triad were evaluated among self-reported ratings. In establishing the validity of a psychological construct, it clearly is important to consider non-self-report data as well (Cronbach and Meehl 1955). The accuracy of personality ratings from self-raters and from other-raters is an intriguing and long-debated topic (Baker et al. 2004). In fact, some researchers recommend peer- instead of self-ratings, arguing that observer-ratings are more objective (e.g., Ready et al. 2000) and valid (Kolar et al. 1996) than self-perception. Self-reported measures are more sensitive to bias and are influenced by socially desirable responses (Stöber 1998). The confidence in the use of observer ratings for these purposes is enhanced if the other-ratings consistently show a substantial correlation with self-rating data (Bratko et al. 2006; Connelly and Ones 2010; Connolly et al. 2007; Funder and Colvin 1988; Pozzebon and Ashton 2009), including intuitively appealing findings that peer-ratings agree moderately well with self-ratings from individuals they know and that this agreement increases as acquaintanceship or knowledge about an individual increase (Baker et al. 2004; Funder et al. 1995; Paulhus and Bruce 1992; Ready et al. 2000). For example, in a study with well-acquainted undergraduate college students, Ready et al. (2000) found self-peer agreement correlations averaged .47. In examining the variation in self- and observer-ratings of personality, the question arises whether the degree of convergence depends only on the personality dimension examined. Additional findings regarding some factors affecting self-peer agreement level are robust. Evidence regarding these factors can be summarized using the traits of social desirability and ratability (Ready et al. 2000). Social desirability may influence the way individuals behave, report on themselves, and, subsequently, the way they are rated by others (e.g., Baker et al. 2004; Ready et al. 2000). Previous research has shown small to moderately negative correlations between measures of social desirability and self-peer agreement (McCann et al. 1991; Stöber 1998), suggesting that people high in social desirability may possibly inaccurately report some personality traits—and thus provide less valid ratings. Another speculative reason for the variations in rater agreement includes the ratability of items. Ratability is a measure of ease versus difficulty in rating traits for another person (Ready et al. 2000). Also, ratability is better for this investigation, rather than observability, because ratability captures a broader range of aspects than just one feature (i.e., visibility) of rating the difficulty of items. Some researchers have argued that self-peer agreement is higher when peers are asked to make judgments on items that are more easily ratable (Connolly et al. 2007; Ready et al. 2000).

Overview of the Present Research The current report contributes to the literature on self–peer personality agreement by directly investigating the convergent validity of the three-factor Dark Triad traits using two different ratings methods: self and peer. Also, the effects of trait ratability and social desirability on self–peer agreement are investigated. Finally, the study also replicates the factor structures of self- and peer-rated personality. The importance of this analysis lies in providing a more detailed picture of measurement characteristics across raters and whether the traits and structure converge across rating sources. A strong meta-analysis integrated research on personality referring to observers’ accuracy and predictive validity (Conelly and Ones 2010) indicted, among other results, that the accuracy of other-ratings from well-acquainted observers surpassed .30 validity barrier and there are more and less accurate traits. Moreover, a mentioned studies (Conelly and Ones 2010; McCann et al. 1991; Stöber 1998) showed impact of social desirability on self-peer agreement (Stöber 1998). Therefore, we formulated the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Self–peer agreement correlations will be significant and positive, averaging between .30 and .45, and will vary across traits. Hypothesis 2. Scales with items judged more difficult (than items judged less difficult) for a peer to rate (i.e., low ratability) by an independent sample will be associated with lower self–peer agreement (than with higher self-peer agreement). Hypothesis 3. Trait social desirability will correlate negatively with self–peer agreement responses. Hypothesis 4. The factor structure of ratings by selves and peers will be similar, indicating parallel conceptualizations of personality.

Method Procedure Students were recruited for participation from two universities. Participants were asked to sign up in groups of four with three close friends of either gender. These friends could be an acquaintance, roommate, or significant other. To ensure that participants and peers knew each other rather well, a minimum acquaintanceship level of 1 year was selected for the study. During the session, participants first completed the self-rating and then the peers’ nomination procedure. These peers had to answer the same questionnaires from an observer-perspective. Peers were instructed to determine the extent to which each statement applied to the person they were rating, based upon his or her actual behavior. Emphasis was placed on obtaining


unbiased ratings. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and their raters to attend this study.

Participants Self-Peer Study A total of 266 participants from two universities in central Germany took part in the study (68% women), with a mean age of 22.9 years (SD = 1.3). Each participant was asked to collect three peer ratings. This resulted in a sample of 798 peer raters (519 female). Mean age was 29.2 years (SD = 8.8). Thirty-nine percent of the participants arrived in mixedgender foursomes and the rest participated with same-gender partners (11% male foursomes, 50% female foursomes). Overall, the peers appeared to be well-acquainted with the participants: 68% reported knowing the participant ‘for some years’; 82% talked with the participant ‘daily’ or ‘once a week’; 29% reported that the participant asked them for help or advice ‘often’ and 45% ‘sometimes’; 85% reported that the participant told them confidential, private things (15% ‘very often’, 37% ‘often’, and 33% ‘sometimes’). Acquaintanceship lengths averaged 3.5 years (SD = 1.1, range 1.3 to 7.2). The average familiarity rating, made on a 5-point rating scale (1 = not at all,2 = slightly,3 = moderately, 4 = well, and 5 = very well), was 4.2 (SD = .35, range 3 to 5). All participants volunteered their time for free for their participation in the study. Ratability Study An additional sample of 215 participants provided the ratability data. Participants in the ratability study were majority female (73%) with a mean age of 23.7 years (SD = 2.1).

Measures For the purposes of this study, three Dark Triad measures were selected—Mach IV, SRP-III, and NPI-17. Psychopathy was assessed using a 30-item version of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III (SRP-III; Williams et al. 2003; authors’ own translation into German). The answers were given using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0 (not at all like me) to 4 (totally like me). Narcissism was measured using the 17-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; von Collani 2008) with a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0 (not at all like me) to 4 (totally like me). Machiavellianism was assessed using an 18-item scale (MACH IV; Henning and Six 2008). The answer format was given using a 6-point Likert-type scale from 0 (not at all like me) to 5 (totally like me). Finally, social desirability level was measured with the 17-item Social Desirability Scale (SDS-17; Stöber 2001) using a true-false answer format. Previous research (Stöber 2001) investigated the convergent and discriminant validity of the SDS-17. In case of the convergent validity, SDS-17 scores showed significant correlations with other measures of social desirability. In

case of the discriminant validity, SDS-17 scores showed nonsignificant correlations with neuroticism, extraversion, psychoticism, and openness to experience, whereas there was some overlap with agreeableness and conscientiousness. In sum, results indicate that the SDS-17 is a valid measure of social desirability (Stöber 2001). All of the above instruments were also administered to each participant in a peer-report format. The peer-report forms of these instruments consisted of the same items as in the self-report version, but with rephrasing appropriate to a third-person perspective. In the Dark Triad instruments, the answer scale was changed to range from 1 (not at all typical of him/her) to 5 (totally typical of him/her). Following previous research (e.g., Jones and Paulhus 2014; Malesza et al. 2017), the Dark Triad measures were broken into their respective facets. Other researchers (Graham and Lachman 2014) also concluded that there is a need for a systematic analysis of personality facets that may underlie trait level associations. The Mach-IV was partitioned into its two major facets: Cynical Worldview and Manipulative Tactics (Christie and Geis 1970). Similarly, the NPI-17 was broken into two facets: Leadership/Authority and Exploitative/ Entitlement (von Collani 2008). Finally, the SRP-III was broken into its four facets, i.e. Manipulation, Callous Affect, Erratic Lifestyle, and Antisocial Behavior (Williams et al. 2003). Ratability Measure Participants in the ratability study were asked to think of someone they knew for at least 1 year and to judge how difficult it would be to answer each measured Dark Triad item, if they were asked to rate this person. Ratings were made on a 4-point scale (1 = very hard to rate, 2 = somewhat hard to rate, 3 = somewhat easy to rate, and 4 = very easy to rate). The ‘ratee’ is the person the individual kept in mind while completing this task. Ratees were close friends (69%), significant others (18%; e.g., siblings, parents), and other relationships (13%; e.g., roommates). Mean ratee age was 22.6 years (SD = 1.3) and mean length of relationship was 6.3 years (SD = 4.1).

Results Self-Peer Agreement First, agreement across peer raters was examined by calculating intraclasscorrelations, ICCs (type 1, k; Shrout and Fleiss 1979; equivalent to the average correlation between all possible pairs of peers). Agreement among raters was substantial for psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism composites and their subscales scores (Table 1). Pair-wise correlations were in the .40s, which was comparable to the measured agreement for personality-trait ratings gathered from


Social Desirability

well-acquainted peers (McCrae and Costa 1987; Ready et al. 2000). Only Exploitative/Entitlement– narcissism subscale– showed ICC values below .40. Second, Pearson’s correlations for self-peer agreement averaged .43 (range = .16–.58; Table 1), somewhat higher than predicted (Hypothesis 1), indicating that selves and peers in this sample agreed quite well about selves’ personality. The correlations between self-ratings and aggregated peer ratings were .46 (psychopathy) and .49 (Machiavellianism), indicating substantial self-peer agreement for the Dark Triad measures. The same held also for narcissism (.33), again with the exception of the Exploitative/Entitlement subscale measurements between the peer- and self-method (.16), indicating poor convergent validity. Also, the reliabilities were calculated separately using Cronbach’s alpha to measure internal consistency for comparison between self- and peer-ratings (see Table 1). The reliability coefficients for the peer-ratings were excellent (.98, .93, and .97 for psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism, respectively). The reliabilities for the selfrating method were consistently much lower than the peerrating method but in the moderate to high range (.79, .77, and .83 for psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism, respectively).

Moreover, self-peer agreement was not moderated by social desirability. Mean social desirability ratings were not significantly associated with self–peer agreement. Specifically within a correlational analysis framework, a moderator (social desirability) did not significantly affect the zero-order correlation between two other variables (self- and peer-ratings). This finding does not support our prediction (Hypothesis 3) because it suggests that selves do not distort responses when rating themselves on potentially ego-involving traits. Results from the present study are not consistent with previous findings, indicating a much stronger association between self–peer agreement and social desirability (e.g., Stöber 1998).

Factor Analysis To examine the factor structure, we performed the Confirmatory Factor Analyses with the AMOS statistical package (Arbuckle 1997) on the items in the three Dark Triad scales to examine whether the empirical factor structure would follow our a priori classification of three domains (i.e., to investigate the replicability of the three-factor structure of dark personality across self- and peer-rating techniques). The estimation method was Maximum Likelihood (ML). Note that, ML makes assumption about multivariate normality. As both skewness and kurtosis were less than or equal to 1.6 for all items, indicating that the item-distributions were similar to the rest of the items in the instrument and that the item distributions were rather symmetrical, the ML estimation was considered appropriate (see Mulaik 2007). We used several criteria of model fit (see Bollen and Long 1993). A well-fitting model should ideally have a

Ratability Mean ratability judgments for the Dark Triad instruments are displayed in Table 1; higher ratability values indicate decreased difficulty in making a peer rating. Consistent with predictions (Hypothesis 2), mean ratability scores for each scale correlated positively with self–peer agreement (r = .48, p < .01). That is, scales with high self–peer agreement levels in one sample of individuals were the scales judged easier to rate by an independent sample. Table 1

Descriptive statistics, reliability, and cross-rater correlations

Dark Triad measures

M

SD

αself

αpeers

ICCa

rspa

Ratability

SRP facets Manipulation Callous Affect Erratic Lifestyle Antisocial Behavior NPI facets Leadership/Authority Exploitative/Entitlement Mach-IV facets Machiavellian Tactics Cynical Worldview

17.90 4.23 4.80 3.95 4.92 8.19 4.10 4.09 14.13 8.29 5.84

5.33 1.61 1.12 .98 1.62 3.88 1.51 2.37 4.67 2.94 1.73

.79 .76 .77 .71 .69 .77 .76 .71 .83 .80 .86

.98 .94 .90 .98 .91 .93 .91 .89 .97 .96 .95

.45 .49 .45 .46 .40 .37 .49 .24 .49 .47 .51

.46 .52 .46 .49 .34 .33 .47 .16 .49 .40 .58

3.36 3.04 3.36 3.18 3.85 3.11 3.49 2.73 3.48 3.40 3.56

SRP-III Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III, Mach-IV Machiavellianism Scale, NPI Narcissistic Personality Inventory, α Cronbach’s alpha, ICC intraclass correlation (average correlation between pairs of peer ratings), rsp correlation between self-ratings and averaged peer ratings a

all correlations are significant at p < 0.01


nonsignificant χ2 statistic (p > .05). Because the χ2 statistic tends to be inflated in large samples (> 200 subjects), the ratio χ2/df was determined, which should not be much larger than 2.0. The χ2/df is a measure of the absolute fit of the model with the data, indicating how closely the model fits compared to a perfect fit. The model is considered to have an excellent fit if the GFI (goodness-of-fit index), TLI (Tucker–Lewis index), and CFI (comparative fit index) values are approximately .95 or above (or .90–.95 for an acceptable fit). The RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) represents reasonable errors of approximation in the population; a value of approximately .05 or less would indicate a close fit, and a value of up to .08 would represent a reasonable fit of the model. Finally, the SRMR (standardized root mean square residual) value not greater than .05 can be said to indicate a good fit to the analyzed data of the model. Note that, however, the choice of indices and cutoff values is a topic surrounded by considerable controversy (see, e.g., Mulaik 2007).

Gender Differences Gender differences were examined using a t-test. After including a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, tests for gender differences in a self-rating sample revealed men scored slightly higher than women on the scales of psychopathy, t(264) = 8.93, p < .05. In case of the peer-rating sample, men scored higher than women on the measure of psychopathy as well, t(796) = 17.78, p < .01; and narcissism, t(796) = 19.51, p < .01. The present study replicated prior findings indicating that high scores on these variables are more prevalent among men (Furnham et al. 2013). The gender differences in the Dark Triad traits can be described by the evolutionary perspective, in which men are thought to benefit more from social exploitation (Jonason et al., 2009). Thus, consequently, men gain higher scores on personality traits related to social exploitation.

Discussion Model Fit The factor solutions were compared by calculating factor scores for each data set (self and peer). Consistent with our prediction (Hypothesis 4), the two data sets converged on highly similar three-factor solutions: each yielded factors identifiable as narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. The three-factor model had a good fit to the data from self-rating sample: χ2 (117 df) = 244.85, p > .05; χ2/df = 2.09; RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05; GFI = .96, CFI = .97, TLI = .98. Second, for the purpose of comparison, a one-factor model, which presupposes that all the items pertain to the same factor, was also assessed. According to the χ2 statistic and the p-value, the model would have to be rejected (χ2 [124 df] = 505.17, p < .01; RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .10; GFI = .84, CFI = .86, TLI = .80). The value χ2/df = 4.07 obtained here also indicates an unacceptable fit. The three-factor model had a much better fit than a one-factor model of general Dark Triad, Δχ2(7) = 260.32, p < .01. The three-factor model had a good fit to the data from peer-rating sample as well. The fit indices were as follows: χ2 (96 df) = 205.87, p > .05; χ2/df = 2.14; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .05; GFI = .96, CFI = .97, TLI = .96. The outcome of the CFA suggested that a three-factor solution yielded the best model fit. As with the data from self-rating sample, CFI, GFI, TLI, RMSEA, and χ2/df, respectively, indicated a good or an acceptable model fit. For the purpose of comparison, a one-factor model, which presupposes that all the items pertain to the same factor, was also assessed (χ2 [101 df] = 349.15, p < .01; χ2/df = 3.46; RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .09; GFI = .81, CFI = .88, TLI = .84), indicating an unacceptable fit. The three-factor model had a much better fit than a one-factor model of general Dark Triad, Δχ2(5) = 143.28, p < .05.

The aim of the present study was to provide additional information on the psychometric properties of the Dark Triad measures. More specifically, the relationship between self-and other-ratings of the Dark Triad traits was examined, particularly with respect to convergent validity and to factor structure replicability using self- and peer-ratings while controlling for social desirability and ratability. Results of this study indicate that selves and peers attained high levels of agreement on dark personality ratings. Furthermore, a ratability factor that is associated with high self–peer agreement on personality ratings was identified.

Self-Peer Agreement The results from the present study provide general support for t h e ac c u r a c y o f o t he r- r a t i n gs w i t h r a t i n g s f r o m well-acquainted observers, surpassing the .30 validity barrier (Mischel 1968). The results suggest that there is clear overlap in self- and other-perceptions of personality traits among those who are familiar with the target. Other-ratings are evidently linked to targets’ personality traits, and targets behave consistently enough for other-raters to rate their personality accurately. The strongest coefficients for the self–peer correlations were found across the psychopathy trait and the weakest were across the narcissism trait. The lack of high convergent validity for self- and peer-rated narcissism presents an interesting picture. People judge narcissists more negatively after prolonged interactions (Emmons 1987). For example, narcissists may be initially described as charming, agreeable, competent, and entertaining but later with longer interaction they become arrogant, hostile, antagonistic, and are seen less favorably (Rauthmann 2012; Wink 1991). This suggests that


narcissists can have, at least initially, positive qualities that can make them popular, but, in the long run, they lose their positive reputation and their likeability decreases. In cases of narcissism, other-ratings contain some degree of unique, trait-relevant information, and, consequently, other-ratings may enrich the theoretical understanding of the role of personality traits in areas that would otherwise be neglected. This confirms previous findings from the personality literature, which showed that there are some traits that are more easily observable and, therefore, generate higher levels of self–observer agreement than other traits (Baker et al. 2004). The internal consistency coefficients were acceptable and unusually high for peers and somewhat lower for selves’ nominations but very consistent across the three factors. Still, they were all within the range typically viewed acceptable for personality, according to self- and other raters (Baker et al. 2004). Strong internal reliabilities were proposed as influenced by the relationship or acquaintanceship between rater and target and by aggregating scores across raters. First, the selection of a rater who was well-familiar with oneself could result in reliabilities for the peer ratings that reflected the importance of the relationship or acquaintanceship between rater and target (Funder and Colvin 1988; Funder et al. 1995). Second, the peer-rated method used aggregated scores from two raters, and aggregated scores have been shown to increase the reliability ratings (Baker et al. 2004).

Item Ratability and Social Desirability Effects The Dark Triad instruments’ self-peer validity was proposed to be influenced by ratability level. Indeed, the ratability and the self-peer agreement were positively correlated. The strength of this correlation is especially noteworthy because the data assessing these two variables came from independent samples. It appears that when peers are asked to rate difficult (i.e., low-ratability) items, they rely more on their own personality. The perceivers’ ratings are affected by their tendency to rate others in a particular fashion (Ready et al. 2000).The subscale that was judged hardest to rate was Exploitative/ Entitlement. This trait is difficult to judge in another person because it is related to internal behaviors and feelings and are not highly associated with observable actions (Ready et al. 2000). For example, the Exploitative/Entitlement subscale assesses feelings related to being ‘special and talented’ and to notions that one possesses qualities that others should envy. Also, in the hypothesis, social desirability was proposed to be an important influence affecting the self-peer agreement of the Dark Traits and eventually indicated that correcting for social desirability does not influence criterion-related validity. However, contrary to previous studies (e.g., McCann et al. 1991; Stöber 1998), while high social desirability was not related to low reported worry, it did not attenuate the validity of the self-peer reports.

Factor Analysis Another significant contribution of the report is that it shows the factor structures of self- and peer-reported personality are highly similar. Confirmatory factor analytic results supported a three-factor solution in both groups, reflecting the anticipated dimensions of the Dark Triad model. These factors were closely associated with the theoretical three dimensions proposed by Paulhus and Williams (2002). The pattern of a factor structure was fairly consistent for both rating methods, indicating that both types of raters conceptualize personality factors in a similar manner (Ready et al. 2000), and that selves and peers observe and detect similar patterns of covariations in behavior and reflect these patterns in their ratings.

Limitations The results of our study must be considered in light of some limitations. First, an analysis on a more diverse sample, containing not only students, is required. Second, in the present report, the self–observer convergence was examined when the observer was an acquaintance. Future research is needed to explore the implications of different level of acquaintanceship (e.g., strangers and close family members). Third, in the present study the manner by which peer-rater’s own personality enters into or contributes to a rating of another’s personality was not controlled. In previous research, this condition was termed: self-based heuristic, that is Bthe relationship between how a person sees others and how the person sees himself and herself^ (Ready et al. 2000, p. 209). Ready et al. (2000) found that the self-based heuristic was significantly and negatively associated with self-peer agreement in friendship and marital dyads. Thus, future research should examine if the self-based heuristic is associated with low self–peer agreement. Fourth, in current study only the degree of ratability and social desirability were taken into account as moderators of self-other agreement. It is worth pointing out that other variables and methods mentioned by Funder et al. (1995) describing the Realistic Accuracy Model and by Kenny (1994) setting forth the Social Relations Model should be considered in the future studies. Finally, studies should determine if self-peer Dark Triad agreement can demonstrate coherent patterns of convergent relations with other relevant variables of personality that have proven to be important in prior research on the Dark Triad, that is, the Big Five personality factors and aggression level (for review, see Furnham et al. 2013). Additionally, it would be interesting to examine Dark Tetrad, which is consisted of the Dark Triad and the additional factor i.e. sadism (Buckels, Jones and Paulhus 2013), in similar methodological approach. In the future studies one may also consider using other tools for measure of the Dark Triad traits. Interest in the Dark Triad result in a number of scales (see Furnham et al. 2013), which different in content and which have many


versions depends on adaptations. It is inconvenience to compare results from research and it opens a need to standardize existing measures. Despite the limitations of the present study, which analyzed correlational data from a relatively small sample with a specific educational level, the present findings suggest that peer ratings are valuable sources of personality information and may be used to supplement the self-reported personality under appropriate circumstances. Funding This research was supported, in part, by a scholarship from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).

Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of Interest Author Marta Malesza declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Magdalena Claudia Kaczmarek declares that she has no conflict of interest. Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

References Arbuckle, J. (1997). Amos users' guide, version 3.6. Marketing Division, SPSS Incorporated. Baker, S. R., Victor, J. B., Chambers, A. L., & Halverson Jr., C. L. (2004). Adolescent Personality: A Five-Factor Model Construct Validation. Assessment, 11(4), 303–315. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, Sage. Bratko, D., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Saks, Z. (2006). Personality and school performance: Incremental validity of self- and peer-ratings over intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 131– 142. Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Behavioral confirmation of everyday sadism. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2201– 2209. Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An Other Perspective on Personality: Meta-Analytic Integration of Observers’ Accuracy and Predictive Validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1092–1122. Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The Convergent Validity between Self and Observer Ratings of Personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(1), 110–117. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11–17. Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149–158. Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity,

and acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 656–672. Furnham, A. (2016). The elephant in the boardroom: The causes of leadership derailment. Berlin: Springer. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10-year review. Social and Personality Compass, 7, 199–216. Graham, E. K., & Lachman, M. E. (2014). Personality traits, facets and cognitive performance: Age differences in their relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 89–95. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217– 241. Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 495–509. Henning, H., & Six, B. (2008). Machiavellismus. In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. ZIS Version 12.00. Bonn: GESIS. Jonason, P. K., Koenig, B. L., & Tost, J. (2010). Living a fast life strategy: The DarkTriad and life history theory. Human Nature, 21, 428–442. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. W., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad: Facilitating short-term mating in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 679–682. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York City: Guilford Press. Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1996). Comparing the accuracy of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others. Journal of Personality, 64, 311–337. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K. H. (2005). Personality Correlates of Workplace Anti-Social Behavior. Applied Psychology, 54(1), 81– 98. Malesza, M. (2018). The effects of the Dark Triad traits in prisoner’s dilemma game. Current Psychology, 38, 1–8. Malesza, M., & Ostaszewski, P. (2016). Dark side of impulsivity— Associations between the Dark Triad, self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 197–201. Malesza, M., Ostaszewski, P., Büchner, S., & Kaczmarek, M. C. (2017). The Adaptation of the Short Dark Triad Personality Measure–Psychometric Properties of a German Sample. Current Psychology, 1–10. McCann, S. J., Stewin, L. L., & Short, R. H. (1991). Sex differences, social desirability, masculinity, and the tendency to worry. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152, 295–310. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Mulaik, S. (2007). There is a place for approximate fit in structural equation modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 883– 891. Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006). Predictors of a behavioral measure of scholastic cheating: Personality and competence but not demographics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 97–122. Paulhus, D. C., & Bruce, M. N. (1992). The effect of acquaintanceship on the validity of personality impressions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 816–824.

Author's personal copy Curr Psychol Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. Pozzebon, J. A., & Ashton, M. C. (2009). Personality and values as predictors of self- and peer-reported behavior. Journal of Individual Differences, 30(3), 122–129. Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and interpersonal perception: Similarities and differences in the social consequences of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 487–496. Ready, R. E., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Westerhouse, K. (2000). Selfand peer-reported personality: Agreement, trait ratability, and the Bself-based heuristic^. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 208–224. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.

Stöber, J. (1998). Reliability and validity of two widely-used worry questionnaires: Self-report and self-peer convergence. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 887–890. Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222–232. von Collani, G. (2008). Modifizierte deutsche Versionen des NarcissisticPersonality Inventory (NPI-d). In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. ZIS Version 12.00. Bonn: GESIS. Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2003). Structure and validity of the self-report psychopathy scale-III in normal populations. Toronto: Presentation at the 111th annual convention of the American Psychological Association. Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 590–597.