Received:
20 February 2018
Revised:
25 February 2018
Accepted:
7 March 2018
Cite as: Danilo Garcia,
Bj€orn N. Persson,
Ali Al Nima,
Joel Gruneau Brulin,
Max Rapp-Ricciardi,
Petri J. Kajonius. IRT
analyses of the Swedish Dark
Triad Dirty Dozen.
Heliyon 4 (2018) e00569.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.
e00569
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018
2405-8440/
 2018 The Authors. Pub
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bIRT analyses of the Swedish
Dark Triad Dirty Dozen
Danilo Garcia a,b,c,∗, Bj€orn N. Persson c,d,e, Ali Al Nima a,c, Joel Gruneau Brulin f,
Max Rapp-Ricciardi a,b,c, Petri J. Kajonius b,c,e,g
aBlekinge Center of Competence, Blekinge County Council, Karlskrona, Sweden
bDepartment of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
cNetwork for Empowerment and Well-Being, Sweden
dDepartment of Psychology, University of Turku, Finland
eDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy, University of Sk€ovde, Sweden
fDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
gDepartment of Behavioral Sciences, University West, Sweden
∗Corresponding author.
E-mail address: danilo.garcia@icloud.com (D. Garcia).Abstract
Background: The Dark Triad (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and
psychopathy) can be captured quickly with 12 items using the Dark Triad Dirty
Dozen (Jonason and Webster, 2010). Previous Item Response Theory (IRT)
analyses of the original English Dark Triad Dirty Dozen have shown that all
three subscales adequately tap into the dark domains of personality. The aim of
the present study was to analyze the Swedish version of the Dark Triad Dirty
Dozen using IRT.
Method: 570 individuals (nmales ¼ 326, nfemales ¼ 242, and 2 unreported),
including university students and white-collar workers with an age range
between 19 and 65 years, responded to the Swedish version of the Dark Triad
Dirty Dozen (Garcia et al., 2017a,b).
Results: Contrary to previous research, we found that the narcissism scale provided
most information, followed by psychopathy, and finally Machiavellianism.
Moreover, the psychopathy scale required a higher level of the latent trait for
endorsement of its items than the narcissism and Machiavellianism scales. Overall,
all items provided reasonable amounts of information and are thus effective for.e00569
lished by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
y-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe00569discriminating between individuals. Themean item discriminations (alphas) were 1.92
for Machiavellianism, 2.31 for narcissism, and 1.99 for psychopathy.
Conclusion: This is the first study to provide IRT analyses of the Swedish version
of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. Our findings add to a growing literature on the Dark
Triad Dirty Dozen scale in different cultures and highlight psychometric
characteristics, which can be used for comparative studies. Items tapping into
psychopathy showed higher thresholds for endorsement than the other two
scales. Importantly, the narcissism scale seems to provide more information
about a lack of narcissism, perhaps mirroring cultural conditions.
Keywords: Psychology, Psychiatry, Clinical psychology
1. Introduction
The Dark Triad (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy; Paulhus and
Williams, 2002) can be captured quickly using the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen, which
is a 12-item scale designed to measure malevolent character (Jonason and Webster,
2010; Jonason and Luevano, 2013; Haddad et al., 2016; Gonzalez et al., 2017). Previ-
ous studies have established a reliable three factor structure for the original Dark Triad
Dirty Dozen English version (Jonason andWebster, 2010) and, among other versions,
also for the Swedish one (Garcia et al., 2017a,b). Moreover, previous Item Response
Theory (IRT) analyses of the original EnglishDark TriadDirtyDozen have shown that
all three subscales adequately tap into these three dark domains of personality (Webster
and Jonason, 2013; see also Kajonius et al., 2016). Nevertheless, validation studies of
Dark Triad measures have mostly been conducted using Classic Test Theory methods
and in very few cases using IRTmethods. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, no one
has studied the Swedish version using IRT. Importantly, IRT enables researchers to
study the performance of individual scale items against the underlying trait.
In this context, validation studies using IRTmethodsmight shed some light onwhat the
Swedish version of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen actually measure. Item quality in
survey-instruments can be quantifiedwithin the framework of IRT,which helps in clari-
fying how items contribute information across the trait distribution (referred to as theta
or q). In this particular IRT analysis, two parameters are calculated for each item. The
first parameter, the slope coefficient or alpha (a), shows the extent to which an item re-
lates to the underlying construct, theta (q). Items with larger alpha values provide more
information than itemswith lower values (normally ranging from0.5 to 2 in personality
research; Morizot et al., 2007). The second parameter is the threshold or difficulty co-
efficient, called beta (b). The beta-parameters indicate the level of the underlying
construct (q) atwhich the item scale categories havemore than 50%probability of being
endorsed (e.g., b1 denotes the probability of answering option 1 vs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).
Beta-parameters are often reported in standard deviation units, but extreme valueson.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe00569(i.e.,>3 and <3), are not uncommon, especially in clinical settings. Given that pre-
vious research has shown deviations from unidimensionality (e.g., Garcia et al.,
2017a,b; Jonason and Webster, 2010), we chose to separate each subscale into its
own IRT model. Our aim was to present the functioning of the Swedish version of
the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen at the item-level.2. Method
2.1. Ethical statement
After consulting with the University of Gothenburg’s Network for Empowerment and
Well-Being’s Review Board and according to law (2003: 460, section 2) concerning
the ethical research involving humans we arrived at the conclusion that the design of
the present study (e.g., all participants’ data were anonymous and will not be used for
commercial or other non-scientific purposes) required only informed verbal consent
from participants and that no ethical approval was necessary for the study. Of course,
ethical guidelines for universities in Sweden were followed.2.2. Participants
The study comprised 570 individuals (nmales ¼ 326, nfemales ¼ 242, and 2 unre-
ported). The data were collected in a diverse sample, including university students
and white-collar workers with an age range between 19 and 65 years (agemean ¼
27.45  10.52). The data was collected within two different projects:
1. Dark Character Theory: The Dark Cube and other Person-Centered Methods in
the Study of Malevolent Character. In this project we use person-centered
methods to investigate malevolent character as a concept and how to measure it.
2. Narcissism(s) and Self-esteem(s) in Cross-cultural Context. This is an international
project aimed to examine the strength of relationships between communal-agentic
narcissism (both individual-level and collective-level) and self-esteem (individual,
relational and collective) in different cultures (individualistic vs collectivistic).2.3. Measures
The Swedish version (see Table 1) of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (Garcia et al.,
2017a,b) is a 12-item self-report questionnaire of the threeDarkTriad traits. Participants
are asked to rate howmuch they agree (1¼ Strongly disagree; 7¼ Strongly agree) with
statements such as: “I tend to manipulate others to get my way” (Machiavellianism), “I
tend to lack remorse” (psychopathy), and “I tend to want others to admire me” (narcis-
sism). Items were averaged to create each dimension. Reliability estimates in the form
of coefficient alpha were computed using the R package psych version 1.7.5. Alphas
were .77 for Machiavellianism, 71 for psychopathy, and .81 for narcissism.on.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Table 1. The Swedish version of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen.
Trait Item No. English Swedish Haller inte
alls med
[Strongly
disagree]
Haller
inte med
[Disagree]
Haller
delvis
inte med
[Slightly
disagree]
Varken
eller
[Neither
agree nor
disagree]
Haller
med delvis
[Slightly
agree]
Haller
med
[Agree]
Haller
med helt
[Strongly
agree]
MACHIAVELLIANISM 1 I tend to manipulate
others to get my way.
Jag tenderar att manipulera
andra f€or att fa det jag vill.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 I have used deceit or
lied to get my way.
Jag har bedragit eller ljugit
f€or att fa det jag vill.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 I have use flattery
to get my way.
Jag har anv€ant mig av
smicker f€or att fa min
vilja igenom.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 I tend to exploit
others towards
my own end.
Jag tenderar att utnyttja
andra f€or att na mina egna mal.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PSYCHOPATHY 5 I tend to lack remorse. Jag tenderar att saknaanger. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 I tend to be unconcerned
with the morality
of my actions.
Jag tenderar att inte bry
mig om moralen i mina
handlingar.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 I tend to be callous
or insensitive.
Jag tenderar att vara
kall eller ok€anslig.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 I tend to be cynical. Jag tenderar att vara cynisk. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
NARCISSISM 9 I tend to want others
to admire me.
Jag tenderar att vilja att
andra beundrar mig.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 I tend to want others
to pay attention to me.
Jag tenderar att vilja att andra
uppm€arksammar mig.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11 I tend to seek prestige
or status.
Jag tenderar att s€oka
prestige och status.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 I tend to expect special
favors from others.
Jag tenderar att
f€orv€anta mig speciella
tj€anster av andra.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Note. From Garcia, D., Rosenberg, P., MacDonald, S., R€ais€anen, C., & Rapp Ricciardi, M (2017). Measuring Malevolent Character: Data Using the Swedish Version of Jonason’s Dark Triad Dirty
Dozen. Data in Brief, 14, 648e652. doi:10.1016/j.dib. 2017.08.020.
4
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00569
2405-8440/

2018
T
he
A
uthors.Published
by
E
lsevier
L
td.T
his
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
C
C
B
Y
-N
C
-N
D
license
(http://creativecom
m
ons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A
rticle
N
ow
e00569
5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe005693. Results
Descriptive statistics for the items and scales are available in Table 2. Contrary to
previous research (Webster and Jonason, 2013), we found that the narcissism scale
provided most information, followed by psychopathy, and finally Machiavellianism
(see Fig. 1). Additionally, in Fig. 2 we present the item trace lines for each item
(based on the three distinct models) and in Fig. 3 an information function for the
entire Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (i.e., based on the unidimensional model with all
12 items). However, the respective scales did behave as expected in terms of their
locations. The psychopathy scale requires a higher level of the latent trait for
endorsement of its items than does narcissism and Machiavellianism, which is
consistent with previous Dark Triad Dirty Dozen research (Webster and Jonason,
2013). In Table 3, we show the IRT parameters for three unidimensional IRT models
are presented. In Table 4, the same parameters are presented, but for one unidimen-
sional model (i.e., all items were included in the same model). Model fit statistics
could not be calculated as there were too few degrees of freedom, but based on
both logic (simplicity) and previous empirical findings on the English Dark Triad
Dirty Dozen, the three separate models ought to yield more precise parameter esti-
mates than the unidimensional model. Overall, all items provided reasonable
amounts of information and are thus effective for discriminating betweenTable 2. Descriptive Statistics for each item of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen and
each subscale.
Items M SD Skewness Kurtosis
Machiavellianism 1: Manipulate 2.65 1.54 0.72 0.49
Machiavellianism 2: Deceit 2.91 1.78 0.69 0.65
Machiavellianism 3: Flattery 3.89 1.79 0.11 1.08
Machiavellianism 4: Exploit 2.25 1.34 0.97 0.05
Narcissism 1: Admire 3.74 1.72 0.07 0.99
Narcissism 2: Attend 4.23 1.59 0.39 0.58
Narcissism 3: Prestige 3.34 1.69 0.25 0.91
Narcissism 4: Favors 2.30 1.38 0.99 0.27
Psychopathy 1: Remorse 1.88 1.36 1.77 2.64
Psychopathy 2: Unconcerned 1.63 1.18 2.40 5.83
Psychopathy 3: Callous 1.98 1.38 1.52 1.74
Psychopathy 4: Cynical 2.56 1.68 0.81 0.48
Subscales
Machiavellianism 11.70 4.98 0.36 0.65
Narcissism 13.61 5.11 0.07 0.44
Psychopathy 8.04 4.13 1.32 1.92
Note. Means are reported for all items and sum scores are reported for composite subscales (final three
rows).
on.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Fig. 1. Scale Information Curves for each of the subscales of the Swedish version of the Dark Triad Dirty
Dozen.
Fig. 2. Item Trace Lines for each item in the Swedish version of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen.
6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe00569individuals. The mean item discriminations (alphas) were 1.92 for Machiavel-
lianism, 2.31 for narcissism, and 1.99 psychopathy. An important observation was
that the Narcissism item 1 (“Admire”) had a particularly large alpha of 3.23.
Items assessing Machiavellianism and in particular psychopathy, followed a pattern
whereby high level of thetas were required for item endorsement. This means that
most of the scales’ information was only efficiently retrieved at the higher end of
the underlying trait distribution (i.e., q). For instance, for all four psychopathy items,
the b2 coefficients are positive, which means that an above average level of the latenton.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Fig. 3. Scale Information Curve for the unidimensional model of the Swedish version of the Dark Triad
Dirty Dozen.
7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe00569trait is required for endorsement of Likert scale categories 3e7. A similar pattern,
although to a lesser extent, is true for Machiavellianism. This means that the Machi-
avellianism and psychopathy scales are appropriate for assessing only average to
high levels of those traits. The narcissism items deviated from this pattern (with
the exception of narcissism 4, which behaved much like the psychopathy items)Table 3. Item Response Analysis of the Swedish version of the Dark Triad Dirty
Dozen.
Item a b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6
Machiavellianism 1: Manipulate 2.33 0.72 0.25 0.72 1.23 2.11 2.89
Machiavellianism 2: Deceit 1.46 0.93 0.11 0.74 1.12 1.95 2.71
Machiavellianism 3: Flattery 1.61 1.71 0.85 0.28 0.21 1.33 2.24
Machiavellianism 4: Exploit 2.29 0.38 0.57 1.08 1.67 2.82 3.43
Narcissism 1: Admire 3.23 1.21 0.63 0.21 0.34 1.13 1.93
Narcissism 2: Attend 2.62 1.72 1.13 0.55 0.05 0.91 1.96
Narcissism 3: Prestige 2.05 1.19 0.44 0.13 0.71 1.56 2.45
Narcissism 4: Favors 1.32 0.50 0.58 1.35 2.21 3.22 4.60
Psychopathy 1: Remorse 1.42 0.34 1.19 1.81 2.40 2.84 3.87
Psychopathy 2: Unconcerned 2.16 0.53 1.39 1.86 2.08 2.54 3.24
Psychopathy 3: Callous 2.81 0.11 0.80 1.25 1.74 2.21 2.71
Psychopathy 4: Cynical 1.58 0.35 0.39 0.92 1.44 2.29 3.24
Note. b1 to b6 reports the item locations, reflecting the threshold level of the latent trait necessary to have
at least a 50% probability of endorsing the next scale-step.
on.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Table 4. Further Item Response Analysis for the whole Swedish version of the
Dark Triad Dirty Dozen.
Item a b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6
Machiavellianism 1: Manipulate 2,00 0,72 0,29 0,76 1,28 2,24 3,12
Machiavellianism 2: Deceit 1,14 1,06 0,13 0,86 1,30 2,28 3,17
Machiavellianism 3: Flattery 1,30 1,92 0,92 0,30 0,23 1,48 2,52
Machiavellianism 4: Exploit 2,33 0,34 0,58 1,07 1,63 2,79 3,53
Narcissism 1: Admire 1,55 1,62 0,81 0,23 0,48 1,50 2,53
Narcissism 2: Attend 1,22 2,50 1,67 0,81 0,06 1,30 2,81
Narcissism 3: Prestige 1,61 1,34 0,49 0,16 0,81 1,74 2,71
Narcissism 4: Favors 1,57 0,43 0,54 1,23 1,98 2,86 4,10
Psychopathy 1: Remorse 0,87 0,48 1,67 2,57 3,44 4,08 5,66
Psychopathy 2: Unconcerned 1,31 0,67 1,77 2,39 2,67 3,32 4,37
Psychopathy 3: Callous 1,10 0,14 1,17 1,89 2,70 3,60 4,63
Psychopathy 4: Cynical 1,08 0,45 0,44 1,10 1,77 2,91 4,21
Note. b1 to b6 reports the item locations, reflecting the threshold level of the latent trait necessary to have
at least a 50% probability of endorsing the next scale-step.
8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe00569insofar as they reliably assessed the latent trait between approximately -2SD and
þ2SD (see Fig. 2). These findings have implications for interpretation of test scores,
where the narcissism scale may provide more information about a lack of narcissism,
which is unlikely to be the same for the psychopathy and Machiavellianism scales.4. Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to present the functioning of the Swedish
version of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen at the item-level. Given that previous research
has shown deviations from unidimensionality (e.g., Garcia et al., 2017a,b; Jonason
and Webster, 2010), we chose to separate each subscale into its own IRT model. The
results showed that the items in the Swedish version of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen
inventory performed adequately. Many items were “difficult”, in the sense that they
required a high level of the latent trait for endorsement of even the middle categories.
Based on previous research, this was expected (Webster and Jonason, 2013), as the
Dark Triad Dirty Dozen inventory is known to be inefficient in discriminating be-
tween lower levels of the underlying dark personality construct (Carter et al.,
2015; Kajonius et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2013; Miller and Lynam, 2012; Paulhus
and Jones, 2014). The items performed similarly to a recent French-Canadian trans-
lation of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (Savard et al., 2017). All of the 12 items
contributed with substantial information. Items tapping into psychopathy showed
higher thresholds for endorsement than items from Machiavellianism, and in partic-
ular the narcissism scale. The present study was able to show adequate psychometric
properties and thus support the future use of this Swedish version of the Dirty Dozen.on.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe00569This is the first study to provide IRT analyses of the Swedish version of the Dark
Triad Dirty Dozen. Our findings add to a growing literature on the Dark Triad in
different cultures and highlight the psychometric characteristics of the Dark Triad
Dirty Dozen, which can be used for comparative studies (for contrasting studies
pointing to similarities, rather than differences, between Classic Test Theory and
IRT see: Fan, 1998; MacDonald and Paunonen, 2002). That being said, one limita-
tion of the present study was that we have no record of whether Swedish was the
participants’ first language. Moreover, future studies should test the Swedish ver-
sions of other measures of the Dark Triad, such as, the Short Dark Triad (Jones
and Paulhus, 2014; Persson et al., 2017a,b) and also single measures of each malev-
olent character trait, such as, the Mach-IV and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(see Garcia and Sikstr€om, 2014). Additionally, for the Swedish version of the Dark
Triad Dirty Dozen we opted to use a 7-point Likert scale, as in Jonason and
Luevano’s study (2013), but other studies have used a 5-point Likert scale (e.g.,
Jonason et al., 2012, 2013), yet others a 9-point Likert scale (e.g., Jonason and
Webster, 2010). Hence, we recommend that future research on the Swedish version
of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen scrutinizes the most accurate number of points to use
for the scale. This in order to avoid the incongruences found when researchers use
the original English version. For instance, as shown here, for all four psychopathy
items, an above average level of the latent trait is required for endorsement of Likert
scale categories 3e7. In this context, it would be interesting to see how these param-
eters differ between a version with 4 or 5 points from the 7-points version used here.
Another venue of research is the use of, besides Classic Test Theory and IRT, Quan-
titaive Semantic Test Theory, which uses computerized methods to addresses how
concepts are represented in natural language (see Garcia and Sikstr€om, 2013a,b,
2014; Garcia et al., 2015a, 2016; Rosenberg et al., 2013), and person-oriented
methods, which often are data-driven or bottom-up methods that focus on differ-
ences between individuals by taking into consideration the existence of sub-
populations and the properties of complex adaptive systems, such as in this case, ma-
levolent character (Lundh, 2015; Garcia et al., 2015b; Garcia, 2018a,b; Garcia and
Rosenberg, 2016; Garcia and Gonzalez, 2017; Garcia et al., 2018).
Finally, we found that the narcissism scale may provide more information about a
lack of narcissism, which is unlikely to be the same for the psychopathy and Machi-
avellianism scales. This specific finding for the narcissism scale stands in contrast to
research on the original English version. Despite the fact that Sweden is an individ-
ualistic culture (Kjell et al., 2013), it is widely known for “Jantelagen” (Law of
Jante). Jantelagen was first made popular by Aksel Sandemose (1933) as 10 rules
that all are variations of one single social rule, that is, “You are not to think you’re
anyone special or that you’re better than us.”. Jantelagen, is used generally in collo-
quial speech in the Nordic countries as a sociological term to describe a condescend-
ing attitude towards individuality and success, the term refers to a mentality that de-on.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe00569emphasizes individual effort and places all emphasis on the collective, while simul-
taneously denigrating those who try to stand out as individual achievers (Fayolle
et al., 2005). In other words, suggesting that Swedes have a tendency to not show
off by presenting themselves as better than someone else (Fayolle et al., 2005),
thus, probably enhancing cultural differences found in the narcissism scale of the
Swedish version of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen.
1. You’re not to think you are anything special.
2. You’re not to think you are as good as we are.
3. You’re not to think you are smarter than we are.
4. You’re not to imagine yourself better than we are.
5. You’re not to think you know more than we do.
6. You’re not to think you are more important than we are.
7. You’re not to think you are good at anything.
8. You’re not to laugh at us.
9. You’re not to think anyone cares about you.
10. You’re not to think you can teach us anything.
From En flyktning krysser sitt spor [A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks] by Aksel San-
demose from 1933.Declarations
Author contribution statement
Danilo Garcia, Bj€orn Persson: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed
the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed materials, analysis
tools and data; Wrote the paper.
Ali Al Nima: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed data; Wrote the paper.
Joel Gruneau Brulin, Max Rapp-Ricciardi, Petri Kajonius: Contributed data; Wrote
the paper.Funding statement
This work was supported by a grant from the Swedish Research Council (Dnr. 2015-
01229). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, deci-
sion to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Competing interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.on.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe00569Additional information
The raw data is available upon request to the Network for Empowerment and Well-
Being, lead researcher Danilo Garcia: http://ltblekinge.se/Forskning-och-utveckling/
Blekinge-kompetenscentrum/Summary-in-English/.References
Carter, G.L., Campbell, A.C., Muncer, S., Carter, K.A., 2015. A Mokken analysis
of the Dark Triad ‘Dirty Dozen’: sex and age differences in scale structures, and
issues with individual items. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 83, 185e191.
Fan, X., 1998. Item response theory and classical test theory: an empirical compar-
ison of their item/person statistics. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 58, 357e381.
Fayolle, A., Kyr€o, P., Ulijin, J., 2005. The entrepreneurship debate in Europe: a
matter of history and culture? In: Fayolle, A., Kyr€o, P., Ulijin, J. (Eds.), Entrepre-
neurship Research in Europe: Outcomes and Perspectives. Edward Elgar, Chelten-
ham, UK.
Garcia, D., 2018a. Affective profiles model. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T.
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham,
Switzerland.
Garcia, D., 2018b. Dark cube. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T. (Eds.), Encyclo-
pedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
Garcia, D., Anckars€ater, H., Kjell, O.N.E., Archer, T., Rosenberg, P.,
Cloninger, C.R., Sikstr€om, S., 2015a. Agentic, communal, and spiritual traits are
related to the semantic representation of written narratives of positive and negative
life events. Psychol. Well-Being: Theor. Res. Pract. 5, 1e20.
Garcia, D., Gonzaĺez, F.R., 2017. The Dark Cube: dark profiles character profiles
and OCEAN. PeerJ 5, e3845.
Garcia, D., Kjell, O.N.E., Sikstr€om, S., Archer, T., 2016. Using language and affec-
tive profiles to investigate differences between individuals. Clin. Exp. Psychol. 2.
Garcia, D., MacDonald, S., Archer, T., 2015b. Two different approaches to the af-
fective profiles model: median splits (Variable-Oriented) and cluster analysis (Per-
son-Oriented). PeerJ 3, e1380.
Garcia, D., MacDonald, S., Rapp-Ricciardi, M., 2017a. Factor analysis of the
Swedish version of the dark triad dirty dozen. PsyCh J. 2, 166e167.
Garcia, D., Rosenberg, P., 2016. The dark cube: dark and light character profiles.
PeerJ 4, e1675.on.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe00569Garcia, D., Rosenberg, P., Gonzaĺez, F.R., Rapp Ricciardi, M., 2018. Dark time
matter: dark character profiles and time perspective. Psychology 9, 63e79.
Garcia, D., Rosenberg, P., MacDonald, S., R€ais€anen, C., Rapp Ricciardi, M.,
2017b. Measuring malevolent character: data using the Swedish version of Jona-
son’s dark triad dirty dozen. Data Brief 14, 648e652.
Garcia, D., Sikstr€om, S., 2013a. Quantifying the semantic representations in adoles-
cents’ memories of positive and negative life events. J. Happiness Stud. 14,
1309e1323.
Garcia, D., Sikstr€om, S., 2013b. A collective theory of happiness: words related to
the word happiness in Swedish online newspapers. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc.
Netw. 16, 469e472.
Garcia, D., Sikstr€om, S., 2014. The dark side of facebooke dark triad of personality
predicts semantic representation of status updates. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 67, 92e94.
Gonzaĺez, F.R., Nima, A.A., Garcia, D., 2017. Sex and dark times’ strategy: dark
triad and time perspective. PsyCh J. 6, 98e99.
Haddad, B., Angman, M., Archer, T., Garcia, D., 2016. Dark triad, sociosexual
orientation and religious affiliation: an association and moderation study. Clin.
Exp. Psychol. 2.
Jonason, P.K., Luevano, V.X., 2013. Walking the thin line between efficiency and
accuracy: validity and structural properties of the Dirty Dozen. Pers. Indiv. Differ.
55, 76e81.
Jonason, P.K., Li, N.P., Czarna, A.Z., 2013. Quick and Dirty: some psychosocial
costs associated with the Dark Triad in three countries. Evol. Psychol. 11,
172e185.
Jonason, P.K., Slomski, S., Partyka, J., 2012. The Dark Triad at work: how toxic
employees get their way. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 52, 449e453.
Jonason, P.K., Webster, G.D., 2010. The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark
triad. Psychol. Assess. 22, 420e432.
Jones, D.J., Paulhus, D.L., 2014. Introducing the short Dark Triad (SD3): a brief
measure of dark personality traits. Assessment 21 (1), 28e41.
Kajonius, P.J., Persson, B.N., Rosenberg, P., Garcia, D., 2016. The (mis)measurement
of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen: exploitation at the core of the scale. PeerJ 4, e1748.
Kjell, O.N.E., Nima, A.A., Sikstr€om, S., Archer, T., Garcia, D., 2013. Iranian and
Swedish adolescents: differences in personality traits and well-being. PeerJ 1, e197.on.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliy
2405-8440/
 2018 The Auth
(http://creativecommons.org/li
Article Nowe00569Lee, K., Ashton, M.C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J.S., Visser, B.A., Gallucci, A.,
2013. Sex, power, and money: prediction from the dark triad and honestyehumil-
ity. Eur. J. Pers. 27, 169e184.
Lundh, L.-G., 2015. The person as a focus for research e the contributions of wind-
elband, stern, allport, lamiell, and magnusson. J. Person-Oriented Res. 1, 15e33.
MacDonald, P., Paunonen, S.V., 2002. A Monte Carlo comparison of item and per-
son statistics based on item response theory versus classical test theory. Educ. Psy-
chol. Meas. 62, 921e943.
Miller, J.D., Lynam, D.R., 2012. An examination of the Psychopathic Personality
Inventory’s nomological network: a meta-analytic review. Pers. Disord.: Theor.
Res. Treat. 3, 305e326.
Morizot, J.M., Ainsworth, A.T., Reise, S.P., 2007. Towards modern psychometrics:
application of item response theory models in personality research. In:
Robins, R.W., Fraley, R.C., Krueger, R.F. (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods
in Personality Psychology. Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 407e423.
Paulhus, D.L., Jones, D.N., 2014. Measuring dark personalities. In: Boyle, G.J.,
Saklofske, D.H., Matthews, G. (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psycho-
logical Constructs. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Paulhus, D.L., Williams, K.M., 2002. The dark triad of personality: narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. J. Res. Pers. 36, 556e563.
Persson, B.N., Kajonius, P.J., Garcia, D., 2017a. Revisiting the structure of the
Short dark triad. Assessment.
Persson, B.N., Kajonius, P.J., Garcia, D., 2017b. Testing construct independence in
the Short dark triad using item response theory. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 117, 74e80.
Rosenberg, P., Sikstr€om, S., Garcia, D., 2013. The difference between living bibli-
cally and just imagining it: a study on experiential-based learning among Swedish
adolescents. Sch. Psychol. Int. 34, 565e571.
Sandemose, A., 1933. En Flyktning Krysser Sitt Spor [A Fugitive Crossess His
Tracks]. Aschehoug (Repr. 2005), Oslo.
Savard, C., Simard, C., Jonason, P.K., 2017. Psychometric properties of the French-
Canadian version of the dark triad dirty dozen. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 119, 122e128.
Webster, G.D., Jonason, P.K., 2013. Putting the “IRT” in “dirty”: item response
theory analyses of the dark triad dirty dozendan efficient measure of narcissism,
psychopathy, and machiavellianism. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 54, 302e306.on.2018.e00569
ors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
censes/by-nc-nd/4.0/).