Correlation between dark triad and big five

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 TraitPsychopathyMachiavellianismNarcissismαM (SD)AuthorYear
Open.07 (s n/a).11 (s n/a).24 (s n/a).863.50 (.55)Zhang2019
Cons-.14 (s n/a)-.17 (s n/a).13 (s n/a).893.36 (.63)Zhang2019
Extra-.02 (s n/a)-.05 (s n/a).35 (s n/a).893.33 (.65)Zhang2019
Agree-.29 (s n/a)-.26 (s n/a)-.13 (s n/a).793.79 (.45)Zhang2019
Neuro.07 (s n/a).11 (s n/a).24 (s n/a).863.50 (.55)Zhang2019
Open-.031.116***.166***.713.207 (.541)van Geel2017
Cons-.270***-.113***.023.663.271 (.541)van Geel2017
Extra.126***.058*.372***.743.487 (.643)van Geel2017
Agree-.506***-.281***-.185***.653.455 (.517)van Geel2017
Neuro-.032-.004-.247***.752.934 (.620)van Geel2017
Open.24*-.03.38*n/an/aPaulhus and Williams2002
Cons-.24*-.34*-.06n/an/aPaulhus and Williams2002
Extra.34*-.05.42*n/an/aPaulhus and Williams2002
Agree-.25*-.47*-.36*n/an/aPaulhus and Williams2002
Neuro-.34*.12.02n/an/aPaulhus and Williams2002
Open-.24-.17.10.71n/aJakobwitz and Egan2006
Cons-.21-.27*-.24*.79n/aJakobwitz and Egan2006
Extra.08-.13.10.60n/aJakobwitz and Egan2006
Agree-.43**-.41**-.43**.65n/aJakobwitz and Egan2006
Neuro.30**.38**-.10.85n/aJakobwitz and Egan2006
Open-.05-.19*-.15.83n/aJonason et. al.2013
Cons-.28**-.10-.09.85n/aJonason et. al.2013
Extra-. et. al.2013
Agree-.57**-.47**-.14.78n/aJonason et. al.2013
Neuro. et. al.2013
Open.12-17.20*n/a3.52 (1.25)Carter et. al.2014
Cons-.29**-.34**-.34**n/a3.89 (1.31)Carter et. al.2014
Extra.49**.66**.57**n/a3.45 (1.47)Carter et. al.2014
Agree-.08-.39**-.23*n/a3.45 (1.33)Carter et. al.2014
Neuro-.56**-.47**-.42**n/a3.07 (1.42)Carter et. al.2014

Correlation significance: * p < .1 ** p < .05 *** p < .0005