Search

This study investigates the Dark Triad in relation to the Big Five facets and the putative redundancy of Machiavellianism and psychopathy. A sample of 442 participants completed measures of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, as well as the Big Five. Bivariate correlations and multivariate regression analyses with age, sex, and facets of the Big Five as predictors of each dark trait were examined. We found that 13 of the correlations between the Big Five facets and Machiavellianism and psychopathy differed significantly (p < .01; z values ranging from -3.61 to -3.77 and 2.36 to 4.99). Specifically, the relationships between Machiavellianism and anxiety, depression, self-consciousness, vulnerability, assertiveness, excitement-seeking, values, straightforwardness, compliance, modesty, dutifulness, and deliberation differed significantly from the relationships of psychopathy and these facets. Moreover, Machiavellianism and psychopathy differed in terms of their Big Five facet predictors. Of the Big Five facets, psychopathy was independently predicted by excitement-seeking, straightforwardness, altruism, and compliance, facets purported to underlie psychopathy (O'Boyle et al. Journal of Personality, 83, 644-664, 2015 (See CR44)). Machiavellianism, on the other hand, was independently predicted by self-consciousness, fantasy, values, trust, and straightforwardness. Narcissism was independently predicted by assertiveness, fantasy, ideas, and modesty. Future research is needed to further clarify these differences, and future directions on how to further the Dark Triad redundancy debate are discussed., Author(s): Christopher Marcin Kowalski [sup.1] , Philip A. Vernon [sup.1] , Julie Aitken Schermer [sup.2] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.39381.30, 0000 0004 1936 8884, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, [...]

Gardner [Gardner, H. (2006-this issue). On failing to grasp the core of MI theory: A response to Visser et al. "Intelligence"] criticized some aspects of our empirical examination [Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006-this issue). Beyond "g": Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test. "Intelligence"] of his "Theory of Multiple Intelligences". Specifically, Gardner questioned the construct validity of "g," and suggested that the measures we used to test his theory were contaminated with verbal and logical demands. In this reply, we explain that the construct validity of "g" is well established, pointing out (a) that "g" is expressed in a wide variety of tasks (not all of which are "school-like" tasks), (b) that "g" predicts many important criterion variables (not only academic achievement), and (c) that "g" has a well-established biological basis. With regard to the measures used in our study, we point out that the verbal content of those tasks is unlikely to contribute to individual differences in task performance, and that the logical content of those tasks is consistent with Gardner's description of his intelligence domains.

We investigated Gardner's "Theory of Multiple Intelligences" in a sample of 200 adults. For each of the hypothesized eight "intelligence" domains--Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Spatial, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Musical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Naturalistic--we selected two tests based on Gardner's description of its content. Factor analysis revealed a large "g" factor having substantial loadings for tests assessing purely cognitive abilities--Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Spatial, Naturalistic, Interpersonal--but lower loadings for tests of other abilities, especially Bodily-Kinesthetic. Within most domains, the two tests showed some (weak) non-"g" associations, thus providing modest support for the coherence of those domains, which resemble the group factors of hierarchical models of intelligence. Results support previous findings that highly diverse tests of purely cognitive abilities share strong loadings on a factor of general intelligence, and that abilities involving sensory, motor, or personality influences are less strongly "g"-loaded.

In 1992, Reed and Jensen ["Intelligence" 16 (1992) 259-272] reported a positive correlation (0.26; "p"= 0.002; 0.37 after correcting for restricted intelligence range) between a brain nerve conduction velocity (NCV) and intelligence level in 147 normal male students. In the first follow-up of their study, we report on a study using similar NCV methodologies, but testing both male and female students and using more extensive measures of cognitive abilities. One-hundred eighty-six males and 201 females, aged 18-25 years, were tested in three different NCV conditions and with nine cognitive tests, including Raven Progressive Matrices as used by Reed and Jensen. None of the 27 independent correlations in either the males or in the females are significant at Bonferroni-corrected probability levels, but 25 of 27 correlations in males and 20 of 27 correlations in females have positive signs. The exact binomial probabilities for these results are 5.6 x 10[to the negative sixth power] and 0.002, respectively. We discuss possible reasons for the differences between the results of Reed and Jensen and our results. We also find that males have four percent faster NCVs than females with each of the three test conditions, probably due to their faster increase of white matter in the brain during adolescence.

Created an adaptation of the Digit Symbol subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Digit Symbol Rotation test, and evaluated its "g" loading with 54 adults. Results suggest the Digit Symbol Rotation test has more factorial validity than Digit Symbol, but remains equally easy to administer and score. (SLD)