When it comes to personality research, literature has shown that findings are very hard to reproduce. This can come from different sample construction but also different instrument choice for assessing personality traits. Usually, it gives a good feeling and already some confirmation when our results on descriptive level are in line with previous literature. It also reinforces existing assessments/techniques reliability.
Since first step of any research oriented method should be a look into the data on descriptive level, i provide on this page the correlation coefficients between dark triad and the widely used big five personality assessment based on existing literature.
This list is subject to change and i kindly ask everyone to have a look into the papers linked for the respective entry before using the data. For simplification reasons i go without displaying e.g. the internal consistency for the dark triad. Also the used instruments will vary strongly. Nevertheless, this table gives researchers an overview and confirmation for their own descriptive data analysis in the area of dark triad and the big five.
I try to update it frequently. If you would like to add to this list, just write me an e-mail.
| Big 5 Trait | Psychopathy | Machiavellianism | Narcissism | α | M (SD) | Author | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | .07 (s n/a) | .11 (s n/a) | .24 (s n/a) | .86 | 3.50 (.55) | Zhang | 2019 |
| Cons | -.14 (s n/a) | -.17 (s n/a) | .13 (s n/a) | .89 | 3.36 (.63) | Zhang | 2019 |
| Extra | -.02 (s n/a) | -.05 (s n/a) | .35 (s n/a) | .89 | 3.33 (.65) | Zhang | 2019 |
| Agree | -.29 (s n/a) | -.26 (s n/a) | -.13 (s n/a) | .79 | 3.79 (.45) | Zhang | 2019 |
| Neuro | .07 (s n/a) | .11 (s n/a) | .24 (s n/a) | .86 | 3.50 (.55) | Zhang | 2019 |
| Open | -.031 | .116*** | .166*** | .71 | 3.207 (.541) | van Geel | 2017 |
| Cons | -.270*** | -.113*** | .023 | .66 | 3.271 (.541) | van Geel | 2017 |
| Extra | .126*** | .058* | .372*** | .74 | 3.487 (.643) | van Geel | 2017 |
| Agree | -.506*** | -.281*** | -.185*** | .65 | 3.455 (.517) | van Geel | 2017 |
| Neuro | -.032 | -.004 | -.247*** | .75 | 2.934 (.620) | van Geel | 2017 |
| Open | .24* | -.03 | .38* | n/a | n/a | Paulhus and Williams | 2002 |
| Cons | -.24* | -.34* | -.06 | n/a | n/a | Paulhus and Williams | 2002 |
| Extra | .34* | -.05 | .42* | n/a | n/a | Paulhus and Williams | 2002 |
| Agree | -.25* | -.47* | -.36* | n/a | n/a | Paulhus and Williams | 2002 |
| Neuro | -.34* | .12 | .02 | n/a | n/a | Paulhus and Williams | 2002 |
| Open | -.24 | -.17 | .10 | .71 | n/a | Jakobwitz and Egan | 2006 |
| Cons | -.21 | -.27* | -.24* | .79 | n/a | Jakobwitz and Egan | 2006 |
| Extra | .08 | -.13 | .10 | .60 | n/a | Jakobwitz and Egan | 2006 |
| Agree | -.43** | -.41** | -.43** | .65 | n/a | Jakobwitz and Egan | 2006 |
| Neuro | .30** | .38** | -.10 | .85 | n/a | Jakobwitz and Egan | 2006 |
| Open | -.05 | -.19* | -.15 | .83 | n/a | Jonason et. al. | 2013 |
| Cons | -.28** | -.10 | -.09 | .85 | n/a | Jonason et. al. | 2013 |
| Extra | -.08 | .11 | .12 | .88 | n/a | Jonason et. al. | 2013 |
| Agree | -.57** | -.47** | -.14 | .78 | n/a | Jonason et. al. | 2013 |
| Neuro | .10 | .08 | .04 | .85 | n/a | Jonason et. al. | 2013 |
| Open | .12 | -17 | .20* | n/a | 3.52 (1.25) | Carter et. al. | 2014 |
| Cons | -.29** | -.34** | -.34** | n/a | 3.89 (1.31) | Carter et. al. | 2014 |
| Extra | .49** | .66** | .57** | n/a | 3.45 (1.47) | Carter et. al. | 2014 |
| Agree | -.08 | -.39** | -.23* | n/a | 3.45 (1.33) | Carter et. al. | 2014 |
| Neuro | -.56** | -.47** | -.42** | n/a | 3.07 (1.42) | Carter et. al. | 2014 |
Correlation significance: * p < .1 ** p < .05 *** p < .0005