Discussion 2: Organizational Injustice and Deviant Behavior

OP05CH16_LeBreton ARI 9 December 2017 11:8

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior

The Dark Triad and Workplace
Behavior
James M. LeBreton, Levi K. Shiverdecker,
and Elizabeth M. Grimaldi
Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802;
email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018.
5:387–414

First published as a Review in Advance on
November 16, 2017

The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior is online at
orgpsych.annualreviews.org

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
032117-104451

Copyright c© 2018 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved

Keywords

dark triad, Machiavellianism, narcissism, personality, psychopathy

Abstract

Over the last 15 years, there has been growing fascination among scholars in
studying “dark behaviors” and “dark traits,” especially as they are expressed
in organizational contexts. One taxonomy of dark traits that has garnered
special interest is the dark triad (DT), which is comprised of three toxic
and malevolent traits: psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. This
chapter offers a review of DT research, with a particular focus on research
relevant to the organizational sciences. We begin with a definition of person-
ality in general and the traits of the DT in particular, including a discussion
of the clinical and subclinical variants of these traits. We then review liter-
ature linking the DT traits to an array of organizational outcomes, discuss
how the DT traits may be assessed, and conclude with recommendations for
future work.

387

Click here to view this article’s
online features:

• Download figures as PPT slides
• Navigate linked references
• Download citations
• Explore related articles
• Search keywords

ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further

A
nn

u.
R

ev
. O

rg
an

. P
sy

ch
ol

. O
rg

an
. B

eh
av

. 2
01

8.
5:

38
7-

41
4.

D
ow

nl
oa

de
d

fr
om

w
w

w
.a

nn
ua

lr
ev

ie
w

s.
or

g
A

cc
es

s
pr

ov
id

ed
b

y
W

al
de

n
U

ni
ve

rs
it

y
on

0
5/

04
/2

1.
F

or
p

er
so

na
l

us
e

on
ly

.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104451

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104451

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104451

OP05CH16_LeBreton ARI 9 December 2017 11:8

INTRODUCTION

At some point, each of us will encounter someone in either our work or social lives that would
be aptly described as a conniving cheat, an arrogant braggart, or a callous hedonist. These labels
capture the cardinal characteristics that define the cluster of personality traits referred to as the
dark triad (DT): Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. Over the last 15 years, there has
been growing fascination among scholars in studying “dark behaviors” and “dark traits,” especially
as they are expressed in organizational contexts. The DT represents a taxonomy of dark personality
traits that has been extensively studied, with researchers seeking to understand how these traits are
related both to other models of personality [e.g., the Five Factor Model (FFM) or Big Five] and to
an array of organizationally relevant processes and outcomes (e.g., counterproductive workplace
behaviors and leadership). Given the rapid accumulation of research on the DT, we believe now
is the time to pause and reflect on the state of the science, with a particular focus on studies that
may be informative to scholars working within the organizational sciences.

Our review is structured as follows: (a) We offer a formal definition of personality and dis-
tinguish between the implicit and explicit aspects of personality; (b) we introduce and define the
traits comprising the DT, including a discussion of clinical and subclinical variants of these traits;
(c) we review literature linking the DT traits to an array of organizational outcomes; (d ) we dis-
cuss how these traits have been measured in the organizational sciences; and (e) we conclude with
recommendations for where researchers and practitioners may focus future work linking the DT
traits to organizational outcomes.

PERSONALITY DEFINED

As noted above, the DT refers to a constellation of personality-related constructs. James &
LeBreton (2012, p. 3) defined personality as the “dynamic mental structures (e.g., scripts, schemas,
motives, needs) associated with mental processes (e.g., perceiving, framing, encoding, analyzing,
inferring) that determine an individual’s cognitive, affective, and behavioral adjustments to his or
her environments.” The authors further distinguished between the implicit and explicit compo-
nents of personality, with the former referring to those aspects of personality that reside outside
of conscious awareness (e.g., defense mechanisms) and the latter referring to those aspects of
personality of which one is consciously aware (e.g., introspectively accessible thoughts, feelings,
and patterns of behavior). To date, the majority of research (in general and in the organizational
sciences) has focused on the explicit components of the DT, most notably in the form of explicit
traits. Thus, our review focuses on those aspects of the DT that are accessible via introspection
and (most commonly) measured via self-report surveys.

THE DARK TRIAD DEFINED

Machiavellianism

Some of the most important conceptual and empirical work on Machiavellianism was summarized
in the classic book by Christie & Geis (1970), which included a chapter on the assessment of
Machiavellianism using a 20-item survey denoted the MACH-IV. The construct of Machiavel-
lianism has been defined as “a strategy of social conduct that involves manipulating others for
personal gain” (Christie & Geis 1970, p. 285; Wilson et al. 1996). More recently, Dahling et al.
(2009) suggested that Machiavellianism might be conceptualized as “a tendency to distrust others,
a willingness to engage in amoral manipulation, a desire to accumulate status for oneself, and a de-
sire to maintain interpersonal control” (p. 227). Kessler et al. (2010) offered a similar description by

388 LeBreton · Shiverdecker · Grimaldi

A
nn

u.
R

ev
. O

rg
an

. P
sy

ch
ol

. O
rg

an
. B

eh
av

. 2
01

8.
5:

38
7-

41
4.

D
ow

nl
oa

de
d

fr
om

w
w

w
.a

nn
ua

lr
ev

ie
w

s.
or

g
A

cc
es

s
pr

ov
id

ed
b

y
W

al
de

n
U

ni
ve

rs
it

y
on

0
5/

04
/2

1.
F

or
p

er
so

na
l

us
e

on
ly

.

OP05CH16_LeBreton ARI 9 December 2017 11:8

noting that Machiavellianism described a “belief in the use of manipulation, as necessary, to achieve
one’s desired ends in the context of the work environment” (p. 1871). Finally, Paulhus (2014)
succinctly summarized the construct thus: “Machiavellians are master manipulators” (p. 421).

Although scholars have advanced different definitions of Machiavellianism, there is a general
recognition that the core defining feature of Machiavellianism is a tendency toward manipulation,
often accompanied by (a) lack of empathy, (b) lower levels of affect, (c) a focus on pursuing one’s
own goals (often at the expense of others), and (d ) an aberrant view of morality (i.e., one that
offers a greater acceptance of behaviors that would normally be described as immoral or unethical,
such as lying, manipulating, and exploiting others; see Christie & Geis 1970, Dahling et al. 2009,
Kessler et al. 2010, Paulhus & Williams 2002, Rauthmann & Will 2011, Spain et al. 2014, Wu &
LeBreton 2011). Although measures of Machiavellianism often posit distinct facets or dimensions,
it is normative in the organizational sciences to compute scores on a single omnibus measure of
overall Machiavellian tendencies.

Narcissism

Narcissism has been studied using an array of theoretical models spanning applied psychology,
personality psychology, and clinical psychology. Although there are notable differences across
models, there are also areas of overlap and similarity. For example, nearly all models recognize
that individuals with higher levels of narcissism are likely to (a) harbor feelings of superiority driven
by an inflated or grandiose sense of self, (b) have a dysfunctional need for excessive attention and
admiration, (c) have a propensity for engaging in exploitive acts or behaviors, and (d ) lack empathy,
tending toward callousness (see Morf & Rhodewalt 2001, Paulhus & Williams 2002, Raskin & Hall
1979, Raskin & Terry 1988, Rhodewalt & Morf 1995, Wright et al. 2013, Wu & LeBreton 2011).

Although we agree that these traits form the core of narcissistic personalities, we also recog-
nize that other dimensions have been offered, falling largely from the factor analysis of existing
self-report measures [especially the most popular measure, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI); see Raskin & Hall 1979]. For example, while reviewing previous factor (component) anal-
yses on the NPI, Boldero et al. (2015) observed that authors had settled on factor solutions that
ranged from two to seven factors. These authors also reported the results of several new factor
analyses and concluded that although the data were consistent with a multifactor model, unidi-
mensional models explained more than half of the variance in the latent trait, and therefore it
would be acceptable to estimate an overall composite measure of narcissism using NPI items.

In general, the factors extracted from the NPI tend to be consistent with the core features of
narcissism noted above, which Pincus et al. (2009) referred to as “narcissistic grandiosity” (p. 367).
The authors noted that this aspect of narcissism is often manifested as “interpersonally exploitive
acts, lack of empathy, intense envy, aggression, and exhibitionism” (p. 367). In addition, Pincus
et al. suggested that “narcissistic vulnerability,” which referred to “the conscious experience of
helplessness, emptiness, low self-esteem, and shame” (p. 367) represents another important aspect
of narcissism. However, most research in the organizational sciences has focused on narcissistic
grandiosity and paid little attention to narcissistic vulnerability. This emphasis on grandiosity (and
the use of a single global scale measuring narcissism) has stemmed largely from the dominance of
the NPI in the organizational sciences.

Psychopathy

The third, and arguably most toxic, partition of the DT is psychopathy. Researchers have
been studying the clinical aspects of psychopathy for over 100 years (Millon et al. 1998), but

www.annualreviews.org • The Dark Triad 389

A
nn

u.
R

ev
. O

rg
an

. P
sy

ch
ol

. O
rg

an
. B

eh
av

. 2
01

8.
5:

38
7-

41
4.

D
ow

nl
oa

de
d

fr
om

w
w

w
.a

nn
ua

lr
ev

ie
w

s.
or

g
A

cc
es

s
pr

ov
id

ed
b

y
W

al
de

n
U

ni
ve

rs
it

y
on

0
5/

04
/2

1.
F

or
p

er
so

na
l

us
e

on
ly

.

OP05CH16_LeBreton ARI 9 December 2017 11:8

contemporary models of psychopathy can be traced to two highly influential scholars. In 1941,
Hervey Cleckley summarized his clinical experiences with psychopaths in his now classic text
The Mask of Sanity (Cleckley 1976). In part three of his text, Cleckley offered a list of 16 defining
characteristics that would provide the initial foundation for the measurement of psychopathy via
the Psychopathy Checklist (developed by Robert Hare and colleagues). The 30-year research
program of Hare and colleagues was summarized in Hare’s (1993) book titled Without Conscience:
The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us, and the organizational implications of psychopaths
were recently summarized by Babiak & Hare (2006) in their popular book titled Snakes in Suits:
When Psychopaths Go To Work.

Hare (1993) succinctly described individuals falling on the high end of a psychopathy continuum
as:

social predators who charm, manipulate and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad
trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. . . . [They are completely] lacking in
conscious and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please. . .without
the slightest sense of guilt or remorse. (p. ix)

Over the last 30 years, a number of dimensional models of psychopathy have been offered
that seek to provide an overall structure to the lengthy list of characteristics that describe psy-
chopaths. Early dimensional models emphasized two core areas of dysfunction, namely emo-
tional/interpersonal deviance (e.g., lack of remorse, interpersonal manipulation, grandiosity, lack
of empathy) and behavioral deviance (e.g., impulsivity, sensation seeking, antisocial behavior; see
Hare 1993). More recently, scholars have offered three- and four-dimensional models as more
appropriate for summarizing psychopathic characteristics (see Cooke & Michie 2001, Mathieu
et al. 2015, Williams et al. 2007).

For our purposes, we adopt the four-dimensional model offered by Williams et al. (2007), which
summarizes psychopathy along four key dimensions: interpersonal manipulation (e.g., grandiosity,
lying, superficial charm); callous affect (e.g., lack of empathy, lack of remorse); erratic lifestyle
(e.g., impulsivity, irresponsibility, sensation seeking); and criminal tendencies (e.g., antisocial or
counterproductive behavior). It is worth noting that there is debate concerning whether the fourth
dimension reflects personality characteristics (e.g., generalized rule breaking) or it simply reflects
the behavioral manifestation of the other psychopathy traits (see Cooke & Michie 2001; Neumann
et al. 2005, 2007; Skeem & Cooke 2010).

Although the literature comprises more complex structural models of psychopathy, most of
the traits/dimensions they include tend to easily map onto the more parsimonious models noted
above. Notable exceptions include the work of Scott Lilienfeld, Chris Patrick, and colleagues, who
have argued that contemporary models of psychopathy overlook at least one important dimension
labeled boldness or fearless dominance, which reflects social and physical dominance, as well as the
tendency for those with higher levels of psychopathy to have elevated thresholds for experiencing
anxiety or fear (cf. Lilienfeld & Andrews 1996; Lilienfeld et al. 2015, 2016; Patrick & Drislane
2015). Although the majority of psychopathy-related work in the organizational sciences has
adhered to the models offered by Paulhus, Hare, and their colleagues (Neumann et al. 2005, 2007;
Williams et al. 2007), we think it is important to acknowledge these alternative models and revisit
them in our recommendations for future work and practice.

Delimiting the Scope of the Dark Triad

As originally presented by Paulhus & Williams (2002), the omnibus traits of the DT were con-
ceptualized as subclinical expressions of their well-known clinical counterparts. The authors aptly

390 LeBreton · Shiverdecker · Grimaldi

A
nn

u.
R

ev
. O

rg
an

. P
sy

ch
ol

. O
rg

an
. B

eh
av

. 2
01

8.
5:

38
7-

41
4.

D
ow

nl
oa

de
d

fr
om

w
w

w
.a

nn
ua

lr
ev

ie
w

s.
or

g
A

cc
es

s
pr

ov
id

ed
b

y
W

al
de

n
U

ni
ve

rs
it

y
on

0
5/

04
/2

1.
F

or
p

er
so

na
l

us
e

on
ly

.

OP05CH16_LeBreton ARI 9 December 2017 11:8

described the DT as “offensive,” “aversive,” and consistent with a “malevolent social character”
(pp. 556–57); however, these toxic traits were deemed less problematic and more prevalent than
their pathological or clinical counterparts. In addition, long before the tripartite packaging of
the DT traits, other psychologists had been studying subclinical variants of these exact traits (cf.
Gustafson & Ritzer 1995, Hogan & Hogan 1997).

The organizational sciences rarely focus on the identification of pathologically impaired indi-
viduals. As Wu & LeBreton (2011) noted, “focusing on clinical levels of the Dark Triad would
virtually nullify” the importance and relevance of these traits to the organizational sciences (p. 616).
This nullification follows from the extremely low base rates associated with the clinical expressions
of the DT traits, which are likely well below 1% in the general population. These authors also
noted that “many individuals with clinical personality dis s are often housed in criminal or
psychiatric settings (Hare 1999), further reducing the likelihood of encountering these individuals
on a frequent basis in employment settings” (p. 615). In contrast, subclinical expressions of the
DT occur with much greater frequency, with some researchers concluding that the base rates may
be as high as 15% of the general population (Gustafson & Ritzer 1995, Pethman & Earlandsson
2002).

The importance of distinguishing between clinical and subclinical variants of the DT, in terms
of both construct definition and psychological measurement, is even more important when con-
sidering the potential legal ramifications of screening for these traits in organizational settings. If
practitioners embrace assessments designed to identify clinical or pathological manifestations of
the DT traits, they may unwittingly be opening themselves up to litigation under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 42 U.S.C. § 12101)—at
least to the extent that the courts (a) continue to view personality dis s as constituting dis-
abilities/impairments under the ADA and (b) continue to view the use of pre-employment tests
(designed to identify such clinical impairments) as constituting pre-offer medical examinations.

LeBreton et al. (2006) distinguished between clinical and subclinical psychopathy; we simply
apply their definition to all of the DT traits:

The difference [between clinical and subclinical traits] is not in the types or categories of behavior, af-
fect, interpersonal relationships, or rationalizations but instead in the degree, magnitude, or frequency
of those behaviors and cognitions. . . . [Clinical traits consist of] an all-encompassing pattern of aberrant
and dysfunctional behavior, affect, and cognition that permeates multiple spheres or aspects of an indi-
vidual’s life (e.g., work, family, social). The individual is a clinically-impaired, chronically-dysfunctional
employee, spouse, parent, and friend . . . . In contrast, [subclinical traits consist of the] same patterns
of dysfunctional behaviors, affects, and cognitions; however, the pervasiveness and levels of impaired
functioning are not as extreme because the individual manifests the symptoms at a commensurately
lower level and rate. (p. 389)

Thus, by focusing on the subclinical expressions of the DT, practitioners are less likely to find
themselves under scrutiny by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for a potential
civil rights violation, and both practitioners and researchers may be more likely to detect important
relationships between the DT and organizationally relevant phenomena.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE DARK TRIAD
AND ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES

Within the organizational sciences, researchers seek to better understand the impact that the mal-
adaptive behaviors associated with DT personality traits may have on organizational, interpersonal,

www.annualreviews.org • The Dark Triad 391

A
nn

u.
R

ev
. O

rg
an

. P
sy

ch
ol

. O
rg

an
. B

eh
av

. 2
01

8.
5:

38
7-

41
4.

D
ow

nl
oa

de
d

fr
om

w
w

w
.a

nn
ua

lr
ev

ie
w

s.
or

g
A

cc
es

s
pr

ov
id

ed
b

y
W

al
de

n
U

ni
ve

rs
it

y
on

0
5/

04
/2

1.
F

or
p

er
so

na
l

us
e

on
ly

.

OP05CH16_LeBreton ARI 9 December 2017 11:8

and individual outcomes. This increased attention is evidenced by the number of recent theoretical
and empirical publications linking the DT personality traits to an array of topics, including team
processes (Baysinger et al. 2014), leadership (Kaiser et al. 2015, Krasikova et al. 2013), and counter-
productive workplace behaviors (Scherer et al. 2013, Wu & LeBreton 2011). Additionally, several
recent qualitative and quantitative review articles have focused on the dark side of personality,
with a particular focus on the traits of the DT (see O’Boyle et al. 2012, Spain et al. 2014).

This research has established that the DT traits are related to many organizational criteria;
however, the relationships between DT traits and organizational outcomes are extremely com-
plex and varied. Indeed, the mixed empirical findings observed in primary studies as well as the
heterogeneity in the effect sizes reported in meta-analytic reviews make it clear that even seem-
ingly simple bivariate relationships are often qualified by moderator variables or may be better
represented as being channeled through one or more mediating variables.

In this section, we review the findings concerning the relationships between each of the DT
personality traits and a number of topics in the organizational sciences. Our article extends prior
reviews by (a) providing readers with a brief recap of key findings from existing reviews before
(b) delving into a review of the most recent literature (i.e., articles published after 2012). We
refrain from including recommendations for future work in this section, preferring to save such
recommendations for the concluding section of our article. Our review spans a range of topics
including job performance (including task, contextual, and counterproductive behaviors), lead-
ership, creativity and innovation, workgroups and teams, employee selection, and job attitudes.
When possible, we review the empirical evidence for direct, mediated, and moderated effects
linking DT traits to these topics.

Job (Task) Performance

In this section, we summarize prior reviews that examined the relationships between the DT traits
and job performance. Here, we focus on the task-based aspects of performance that comprise
the essential behaviors and activities that define the criterion space of each job/role within an
organization. We then transition to a review of more recent literature examining how the DT
traits are related to job performance.

Prior reviews. Historically, research on the link between DT traits and job performance has been
inconclusive, with some empirical research suggesting that DT traits are positively related to job
performance and other research suggesting the opposite. To clarify these mixed findings, O’Boyle
et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analytic review examining the criterion-related validity of the DT
traits for predicting job performance and counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs). The
authors found that Machiavellianism (sample weighted mean r = −0.06) and psychopathy (sample
weighted mean r = –0.08) both had small but significant relationships with job performance. In
addition, they reported a small but nonsignificant relationship between narcissism and job perfor-
mance (sample weighted mean r = −0.02). Even after correcting for measurement error, none of
the corrected correlations between DT traits and job performance exceeded −0.10.

Although this meta-analytic evidence may provide a more stable representation of the direct
relationship between DT traits and job performance, the authors qualify their findings by remind-
ing the reader that the effect sizes found were small and there was nontrivial variability in effect
sizes across samples. Additionally, the authors investigated the moderating effect that holding
positions of authority (e.g., as managers, leaders, police officers, corrections officers) and group
culture (e.g., in-group collectivism) exerted on the relationship of the DT to job performance.
Results indicated that the relationship between narcissism and performance was negative and

392 LeBreton · Shiverdecker · Grimaldi

A
nn

u.
R

ev
. O

rg
an

. P
sy

ch
ol

. O
rg

an
. B

eh
av

. 2
01

8.
5:

38
7-

41
4.

D
ow

nl
oa

de
d

fr
om

w
w

w
.a

nn
ua

lr
ev

ie
w

s.
or

g
A

cc
es

s
pr

ov
id

ed
b

y
W

al
de

n
U

ni
ve

rs
it

y
on

0
5/

04
/2

1.
F

or
p

er
so

na
l

us
e

on
ly

.

OP05CH16_LeBreton ARI 9 December 2017 11:8

significant for individuals working in positions of authority; similarly, the relationship between
narcissism and performance was negative and stronger for cultures with higher levels of in-group
collectivism. Overall, these findings suggest that a simple bivariate relationship between DT traits
and job performance may be an oversimplification and that researchers should consider possible
moderators of the relationships between DT and job performance. In addition to moderators,
researchers may wish to expand their theoretical perspectives to better accommodate curvilinear
models (e.g., quadratic trends consistent with the Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing effect; Pierce &
Aguinis 2013).

Recent literature. Fortunately, researchers heeded the call for a more thorough investigation
of the relationship between DT and job performance and responded by examining alternative
moderating variables as well as various mediational links. For instance, Guedes (2017) concluded
that the mixed findings for the bivariate relationship between narcissism and job performance may
be partially attributable to the way in which job performance is measured. Specifically, narcissistic
individuals tended to provide more positive self-evaluations, leading to a significant positive rela-
tionship when job performance was subjectively self-rated. On the other hand, this relationship
was no longer significant when performance was objectively measured. Utilizing a moderated me-
diation model, Reina et al. (2014) examined the potential positive effect of CEO narcissism on firm
performance and found that narcissism had an indirect impact on firm performance, because it
was mediated via top management team behavioral integration. Moreover, these authors reported
that organizational identification moderated the relationship between CEOs’ narcissism and top
management team behavioral integration, such that narcissistic CEOs who identified strongly
with their organization were associated with higher rates of top management team behavioral in-
tegration, which in turn led to better firm performance. Conceptualizing narcissism as a boundary
condition of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational perfor-
mance (i.e., return on assets), Petrenko et al. (2016) found a weaker relationship between corporate
social responsibility and organization performance in organizations with highly narcissistic CEOs
versus organizations with less narcissistic CEOs.

No recently published research examined potential moderators of the link between Machi-
avellianism and job performance; however, a recent study did examine moderators of the rela-
tionship between psychopathy and performance. Specifically, Blickle & Schütte (2017) examined
how a two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy based on self-centered impulsivity and fearless
dominance (Lykken 1995) was related to performance. These authors found that neither of the
psychopathy factors had a significant bivariate relationship with job performance (r = −0.12 and
r = 0.08 for self-centered impulsivity and fearless dominance, respectively). However, education
level did moderate the relationship between fearless dominance and job performance, such that
this relationship was positive for high levels of education but negative for low levels of education.
This study is important for two reasons. First, the authors examined additional moderators of
the relationship between psychopathy and performance; second, one of these moderator variables
included the different facets of psychopathy. The authors found differential predictive validity for
two of these facets, suggesting that information may be lost when aggregating over the facets of
the DT traits.

Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors

In this section, we summarize prior reviews that examined the relationships between the DT traits
and counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs). CWBs represent a form of toxic workplace
behaviors that are typically conceptualized as occurring outside one’s focal employment role/job.

www.annualreviews.org • The Dark Triad 393

A
nn

u.
R

ev
. O

rg
an

. P
sy

ch
ol

. O
rg

an
. B

eh
av

. 2
01

8.
5:

38
7-

41
4.

D
ow

nl
oa

de
d

fr
om

w
w

w
.a

nn
ua

lr
ev

ie
w

s.
or

g
A

cc
es

s
pr

ov
id

ed
b

y
W

al
de

n
U

ni
ve

rs
it

y
on

0
5/

04
/2

1.
F

or
p

er
so

na
l

us
e

on
ly

.

OP05CH16_LeBreton ARI 9 December 2017 11:8

We then transition to a review of more recent literature examining how the DT traits are related
to CWBs.

Prior reviews. O’Boyle and colleagues’ (2012) meta-analytic review found that all three DT traits
were positively related to CWBs, with sample weighted average correlations of 0.20, 0.35, and
0.06 for Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, respectively. Interestingly, the near-zero
bivariate relationship between psychopathy and CWBs was moderated by the level of authority
held by the respondents, such that the relationship was weaker for jobs conferring greater authority.
Finally, a culture of in-group collectivism weakened the relationship between narcissism and
CWBs but had no moderating effect for Machiavellianism or psychopathy. Again, these results
illustrate that the simple bivariate relationship between DT traits and CWBs may be …