4.5 Review

How much can people fake on the dark triad? A meta-analysis and systematic review of instructed faking

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111622

关键词

Psychopathy; meta-analysis; Faking; Response distortion; Personality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reviewed the changes in mean scores of the dark triad personality traits under instructed faking. The findings revealed that psychopathy scores significantly decreased under fake good instructions and significantly increased under fake bad instructions, while narcissism and Machiavellianism showed inconsistent results.
Prior meta-analyses demonstrate that people can intentionally distort Big Five personality scores when instructed. As yet, there is no equivalent meta-analysis addressing instructed faking on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Therefore, we review mean score changes to the dark triad domains and facets under instructed faking. Due to insufficient k for meta-analysis, narcissism and Machiavellianism were systematically reviewed alongside psychopathy. The systematic review revealed inconsistent findings for narcissism and Machiavellianism with several effects in the opposite direction than expected. The psychopathy meta-analysis showed that: (a) scores were significantly lower under fake good compared to answer honestly instructions (d = -0.40); and (b) scores were significantly higher under fake bad compared to answer honestly instructions (d = 1.88). Subgroup analyses revealed significant score decreases under fake good instructions for both primary (d = -0.56) and secondary psychopathy (d = -0.96), and a significant score increase under fake bad instructions for primary (d = 1.69) and secondary psychopathy (d = 1.50). We conclude that dark triad measures are fakeable to a similar extent as the Big Five, and discuss the relevance of our findings for dark triad assessment in several applied contexts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据