CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 127Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorPersonality Traits and PsychologyAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

What Have You Done for Me Lately? Friendship-Selection in the Shadow of the Dark Triad Traits

Open access
Jonason, Peter K., Schmitt, David P.·2012·Evolutionary Psychology
DOI 10.1177/147470491201000303PMC PMC10480828
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The current studies examined how the Dark Triad personality traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) facilitate the strategic structuring of an individual's social environment in terms of same- and opposite-sex friends. In one study using normative questions ( N = 267) and another using a budget-allocation task ( N = 114), we found that the Dark Triad traits were associated with choosing friends for strategic purposes and to create a volatile environment. Narcissistic individuals reported relatively more reasons to form friendships, such as shared interests, makes me feel good, and intelligence. Women high in narcissism chose same-sex friends who were attractive and women high on Machiavellianism chose same-sex friends who have social status. Men high on psychopathy devalued traits associated with good social relationships in favor of friends who could facilitate their mating efforts and to offset risks incurred in their life history strategy. Results are discussed using the selection-manipulation-evocation framework for explaining how personality traits interact with social environments and integrated with findings from evolutionary biology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/147470491201000303

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Narcissists often demonstrate an increased preference for high-status friends and trophy partners.

    “They often demonstrate an increased preference for high-status friends (Jonason & Schmitt, 2012) and trophy partners (Campbell, 1999), perhaps because they can bask in the reflected glory of these people.”

    From The "Why" and "How" of Narcissism: A Process Model of Narcissistic Status Pursuit (2020) · cites this paper as Jonason & Schmitt, 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Ackerman J.M., and Kenrick D.T. (2009). Cooperative courtship: Helping friends raise and raze relationship barriers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1285– 1300. 19458093
  2. Alexander R.D. (1979). Natural selection and social exchange. In Burgess R.L., and Huston T.L. (Eds), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 197– 221). New York: Academic Press.
  3. Alvarez H.P. (2000). Grandmother hypothesis and primate life histories. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113, 435– 450. 11042542
  4. Axelrod R., and Hamilton W.D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390– 1396. 7466396
  5. Benenson J.F. Markovits H. Fitzgerald C. Geoffroy D. Flemming J. Kahlenberg S.M., and Wrangham R.W. (2009). Males' greater tolerance of same-sex peers. Psychological Science, 20, 184– 190. 19170940
  6. Bleske-Rechek A.L., and Buss D.M. (2001). Opposite-sex friendships: Sex differences and similarities in initiation, selection, and dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1310– 1323.
  7. Bulmer M. (1979). Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Review, 27, 651– 677.
  8. Buss D.M. (1984). Toward a psychology of person-environment (PE) correlation: The role of spouse selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 361– 377.
  9. Buss D.M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1214– 1221. 3320336
  10. Buss D.M. (1992). Manipulation in close relationships: The five factor model of personality in interactional contexts. Journal of Personality, 60, 477– 499. 1635051
  11. Buss D.M. Gomes M. Higgins D.S., and Lauterbach K. (1987). Tactics of manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1219– 1229. 3598864
  12. Caine N.G. (1993). Flexibility and co-operation as unifying themes in Saguinus social organization and behavior: The role of predation pressures. In Rylands A.B. (Ed.), Marmosets and Tamarins (pp. 200– 219). New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Christie R., and Geis F.L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
  14. Connor R.C., and Krützen M. (2003). Levels of and patterns of dolphin alliance formation. In de Waal F., and Tyack P. (Eds.), Animal social complexity (pp. 115– 120). London: Harvard University Press.
  15. Cosmides L., and Tooby J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In Barkow J. Cosmides L., and Tooby J. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163– 228). New York: Oxford University Press.
  16. de Waal F. (2000). Chimpanzee politics: Power and sex among apes. New York: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  17. Dunbar R. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  18. Fischer C.S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in towns and cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  19. Goldberg L.R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216– 1229. 2283588
  20. Gordon D.S., and Platek S.M. (2009). Trustworthy? The brain knows: Implicit neural responses to faces that vary on in the Dark Triad personality characteristics and trustworthiness. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3, 182– 200.
  21. Hrdy S.B. (2009). Prologue: Allomothers across species, across cultures, and through time. In Bentley G., and Mace R. (Eds.), Substitute parents: Biological and social perspectives on alloparenting across human societies (pp. xi– xviii). New York: Berghahn Books.
  22. Jonason P.K. Li N.P. Webster G.W., and Schmitt D.P. (2009). The Dark Triad: Facilitating short-term mating in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5– 18.
  23. Jonason P.K., and Webster G.D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420– 432. 20528068
  24. Kenrick D.T., and Funder D.C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23– 34. 3279875
  25. Kowalski R.M., (Ed.) (2001). Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  26. Lewis D.L. Conroy-Beam D. Al-Shawaf L. Raja A. DeKay T., and Buss D.M. (2011). Friends with benefits: The evolved psychology of same- and opposite-sex friendship. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 543– 563. 22947994
  27. Li N.P., and Kenrick D.T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468– 489. 16594832
  28. Lyons M., and Aitken S. (2010). Machiavellian friends? The role of Machiavellianism in friendship formation and maintenance. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4, 194– 202.
  29. Nisbett R., and Wilson T., (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231– 259.
  30. Nunnally J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
  31. Paulhus D.L. Neumann C.S., and Hare R.D. (in press). Self-report psychopathy scale (SRP-III). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
  32. Raskin R.N., and Terry H. (1988). A principle components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890– 902. 3379585
  33. Rushton J.P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers.
  34. Rushton J.P. (1987). Toward a theory of human multiple birthing: Sociobiology and r/K reproductive strategies. Acata Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae, 36, 289– 296. 3330387
  35. Sear R., and Mace R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 1– 18.
  36. Silverman I., and Choi J. (2005). Locating places. In Buss D.M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 177– 199). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
  37. Silverman I. Choi J., and Peters M. (2007). The hunter-gatherer theory of sex differences in spatial abilities: Data from 40 countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 261– 268. 17351740
  38. Thornhill R., and Palmer C.T., (2004). Evolutionary life history perspective on rape. In Crawford C., and Salmon C. (Eds.), Evolutionary psychology, public policy, and personal decisions (pp. 249– 274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  39. Trivers R.L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35– 57.
  40. Vigil J.M. (2007). Asymmetries in the friendship preferences and social styles of men and women. Human Nature, 18, 143– 161. 26181847
  41. Wilson E.O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  42. Wrangham R.W. (1999). Evolution of coalitionary killing. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 110, 1– 30. 10601982

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jonason, P. K., & Schmitt, D. P.
Affiliations
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • Bradley University (US)
Corresponding author
Jonason, Peter K.
ORCID
Venue
Evolutionary Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-07-01
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
400-421
ISSN
1474-7049 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/147470491201000303
PMC
PMC10480828
OpenAlex
W2151001352
Cited by
127
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
9.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Evolutionary Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Harvard University
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Royal Society
  • University of Oxford
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
Dark Triad, Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, friendship selection, same-sex friendships, opposite-sex friendships, social environment, mating strategies, life history strategies, gender differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Machiavellianism, Male, Narcissism, Psychological Theory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Factors, Social Environment, Friends

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