Personalitys Big One Revisited: The

Allure of the Dark Side

In a previous post, I discussed evidence for and against a general factor of
personality (GFP). Existing theories of personality organise personality traits in a
hierarchical structure, in which a small number of broad factors, say five or six,
subsume a vast number of narrower traits. Some psychologists have proposed a
higher order general factor that combines all the broad traits into one super-factor
composed of all the socially desirable features of personality. According to one
theory, the general factor of personality emerges out of an evolved slow life
history strategy associated with long-term mating as opposed to a fast strategy
associated with short-term mating. However, a recent study suggests that both slow
and fast life history strategies each combine mixtures of desirable and undesirable
traits. The findings of this study might help explain not only why so many people
have dark personalities embodying socially undesirable traits, but why these traits
are often actually attractive to others. A complete set of socially desirable traits
would involve striking an ideal balance between conflicting life demands. However,
such a combination of traits is unlikely to reflect a single underlying dimension of
personality variation.
Currently, the most widely accepted model of personality traits is the Big Five,
which consists of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
openness to experience. A more recent model which has become increasingly
popular, the HEXACO, adds a sixth factor of honesty-humility to the Big Five.[1]
Although they disagree about the exact number, both of these models agree that the
top of the personality hierarchy consists of multiple and distinct factors. However,
some psychologists, have argued that these broad factors are not actually
independent and that there is a higher order super-factor atop the personality
hierarchy that combines all of them into one (Musek, 2007). For example, Rushton
and Irwin (2011) argued that this general factor is a dimension of good
personality as opposed to a difficult personality, with desirable traits manifested
at one end, e.g. someone who is friendly, cooperative, relaxed, reliable, and clever
compared to someone who does not get along with others, and is selfish,
manipulative, irritable and dense. Studies on the GFP have found that it is positively
correlated with subjective well-being, self-esteem, trait emotional intelligence, and
even general intelligence apparently. If so, perhaps this combination of traits should
be called the best personality rather than merely good?
Rushton and Irwing proposed that this general factor of personality reflects a single
broad dimension that has been selected for human evolutionthey call it the
K-factor. This K-factor supposedly applies to a whole range of human characteristics
that are said to have co-evolved, including altruism, intelligence, attachment styles,
growth, longevity, sexuality, and fecundity and which form a coherent whole
(Rushton & Irwing, 2011). The idea of a K-factor is the basis for life history theory

which looks at individual differences in human reproductive strategies. According to

this theory, people with a slow life history strategy (characterised by a preference
for long-term mating) exhibit a high K-factor, whereas people with a fast life
history strategy (characterised by a preference for short-term mating and
promiscuity) exhibit a low K-factor.[2]
According to a number of studies, slow life history strategy is associated with better
mental and physical health and subjective well-being and with greater relationship
satisfaction. On the other hand, fast life history strategy has been linked with
socially undesirable characteristics, such as criminality and antisocial behaviour
including sexual coercion (Sherman, Figueredo, & Funder, 2013). If this is true, then
it would seem that from an evolutionary standpoint the slow strategy is desirable in
every way, while the fast strategy is completely undesirable. This is problematic
because if one strategy is better in every way, the alternative strategy surely
would have died out long ago for failure to compete. However, the fact that so many
people still utilise a fast strategy suggests that it may be adaptive under some
circumstances.
In spite of the alleged global adaptive superiority of the slow strategy, there is
evidence that this strategy involves costs as well as benefits and conversely that the
fast strategy enjoys its own advantages, in spite of its drawbacks. This is because
socially desirable behaviours are generally those that are good for other people but
not necessarily oneself, while socially undesirable behaviours inflict costs on other
people rather than on the self. Social norms then tend to favour behaviour that is
closer to the slow end of the continuum. Hence, even though the slow strategy is
desirable from the viewpoint of society, it is not always in the interests of the
individual. For example, being honest and altruistic benefits society but may be
costly to the individual. Conversely, lying and cheating are costly to society but may
benefit the individual, at least in the short term. The slow strategy might be smarter
in the long-term, but generally requires individuals to make sacrifices for the good
of others.
Recently Sherman et al. (2013) tested the idea that the slow and fast strategies
respectively each combine both adaptive and maladaptive traits. Previous studies on
life history strategy that found that the slow strategy was associated with just about
every benefit imaginable have been based on self-report measures of behaviour and
personality. Similarly, most studies that have been used to validate a GFP have relied
on self-report as well. A problem with self-report measures is that peoples
responses may reflect evaluative biases. Because the slow strategy is so socially
normative, peoples responses may be biased towards reporting what is considered
normal. This could explain to some extent why the slow strategy is supposed to be
associated with physical and mental health, considering that the latter are also
normative. Sherman et al.s research therefore used studies based on direct
observations of behaviour as well as participants reports of their behaviour in the
last 24 hours to overcome some of the limitations of self-report measures. Trained
raters were asked to assess how closely individual participants matched a template

for either a slow or fast life history strategy based on assessments of their behavior.
The template for the slow pattern included qualities such as responsible, warm,
compassionate and capable of close relationships. The fast template included
qualities of unpredictable, deceitful, manipulative, and non-conforming. The
resulting pattern of results that emerged was that those who more closely matched
the slow template were described as kind, considerate, and hard working, yet also
socially awkward, insecure, shy, lacking expressiveness and emotionally
over-controlled. Those who more closely matched the fast template were described
as unpredictable, hostile, moody, manipulative and impulsive, yet also talkative,
socially skilled, dominant, assertive, charming and interesting.
What these results suggest is that both the slow and fast strategies have their
respective strengths and weaknesses. This is consistent with the idea that each one
may be adaptive under some circumstances, yet maladaptive under others. On the
other hand, the results appear to contradict the notion that one strategy is globally
better than the other. Furthermore, in terms of personality traits expressed, neither
strategy appears to fit in with the notion of a general factor of personality which
combines all socially desirable traits in a uniform way. Participants who
demonstrated a slow strategy could be described as agreeable, conscientious, and
honest, yet also introverted and to a certain extent neurotic. On the other hand,
those who demonstrated a fast strategy showed an opposite pattern of
disagreeableness, dishonesty, and low conscientiousness, but were also more
extraverted and emotionally stable. The fast life history strategy also seems
consistent with a group of socially undesirable traits known as the dark triad of
psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. One study found that people who
are high in dark triad traits tend to manifest a pattern of being selfish, disagreeable
and low in conscientiousness, yet also extraverted, confident and socially dominant
(Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010). This particular pattern of traits may allow people to
successfully exploit others for selfish reasons and yet escape social punishment due
to their social skills and charms. The authors of this paper identified James Bond as
an exemplar of this personality configuration. Another real life exemplar is the
Italian adventurer Giacomo Casanova. This fascinating fellow, notorious for his
many love affairs, was noted as a sparkling conversationalist and a brilliant writer.
He stated in his autobiography that "the chief business of his life" was cultivating
sensory pleasure and also admitted to swindling gullible people who were
convinced that he had magical powers.
Researchers have argued that dark triad traits may have evolved to facilitate
short-term mating. Evidence for this comes from a study which found that women
rated men with dark triad traits as having more attractive personalities than men
who were low in these traits (Carter, Campbell, & Muncer). Another study found that
men who were high in psychopathic traits (one of the components of the dark triad)
were rated by female observers as being more physically attractive than men who
were low in these traits (Visser, Pozzebon, Bogaert, & Ashton, 2010). Perhaps, these
findings might help to explain why so many people are so fascinated by dark

characters both from fiction and real life. Casanova for example was not the most
moral person but he certainly knew how to live in style!
What these findings suggest is that people following a slow life history strategy have
a good personality not in a global sense of being generally better, but good in the
sense of being unselfish and respecting societys rules of good behaviour. However,
these people may tend to be less socially skilled and may not experience as much
immediate pleasure as their more selfish fast strategy counterparts. The latter are
more focused on having a good time, often at the expense of other people. One of the
differences that emerged between the two strategies, is that people with the slow
style appear over-controlled and lacking expressiveness, whereas those with the
fast style are more lively and impulsive. This suggests that one of the key differences
may be in how much people inhibit expression of their impulses. Some people may
be overly concerned with not doing anything that might give offense to others,
whereas other people are more focused on expressing themselves and are less
anxious about what other people might think.
The findings from Sherman et al. suggest that neither a fast nor a slow life history
strategy is associated with a complete set of desirable traits that a general factor of
personality would entail. In my previous post, I suggested that a general factor of
personality might not represent a unitary dimension underlying all personality
traits, but instead a particular cluster of separate traits combined in a way that
maximises a persons well-being. Humans have a need to strike a balance between
the potentially conflicting demands of meeting the needs of others and of advancing
ones own interests, between expressiveness and self-control. Perhaps what appears
to be a GFP manifests in people who are successful in finding a satisfactory balance
between these conflicting demands. However, a set of traits organised around
conflicting demands seems less consistent with the idea of a unitary personality
dimension than with the coordination of several independent ones.