Cited by 269Personality Traits and PsychologyPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Psychopathy and machiavellianism: a distinction without a difference?

Miller, Joshua D., Hyatt, Courtland S., Maples‐Keller, Jessica L., Carter, Nathan T., Lynam, Donald R.·2017·Journal of Personality

Abstract

A robust literature has emerged on the Dark Triad (DT) of personality-Machiavellianism (MACH), psychopathy, and narcissism. Questions remain as to whether MACH and psychopathy are distinguishable and whether MACH's empirical and theoretical networks are consistent. In Study 1 (N = 393; MTurk research participants), factor analyses were used to compare two-factor (MACH and psychopathy combined + narcissism) and three-factor models, with both fitting the data equally well. In Studies 1 and 2 (N = 341; undergraduate research participants), DT scores were examined in relation to a variety of external criteria, including self- and informant ratings of personality, adverse developmental experiences, and psychopathological symptoms/behaviors. In both studies, MACH and psychopathy manifested nearly identical empirical profiles and both were significantly related to disinhibitory traits thought to be antithetical to MACH. In Study 3 (N = 36; expert raters), expert ratings of the Five-Factor Model traits prototypical of MACH were collected and compared with empirically derived profiles. Measures of MACH yielded profiles that were inconsistent with the prototypical expert-rated profile due to their positive relations with a broad spectrum of impulsivity-related traits. Ultimately, measures of psychopathy and MACH appear to be measuring the same construct, and MACH assessments fail to capture the construct as articulated in theoretical descriptions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jopy.12251

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, J. D., Hyatt, C. S., Maples‐Keller, J. L., Carter, N. T., & Lynam, D. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Joshua D.
Venue
Journal of Personality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-04-06
Volume
85
Issue
4
Pages
439-453
ISSN
  • 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6494
OpenAlex
W2295804258
Cited by
269
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4
FWCI
27.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
Dark Triad, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, construct validity, factor structure, impulsivity, disinhibition, Big Five personality traits, personality assessment, psychiatric symptoms
MeSH terms
Adult, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Female, Humans, Machiavellianism, Male, Middle Aged, Narcissism, Personality Disorders, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review