8/10/2019 The Allure of the Dark Side

1/4

Personalitys Big One Revisited: The

Allure of the Dark Side

In a previouspost, I discussed evidence for and against a general factor ofpersonality(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 traitsare 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 ofneuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness,conscientiousness, and

openness to experience. A more recent model which has become increasingly

popular, theHEXACO, 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, traitemotional intelligence, and

even generalintelligenceapparently. 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. ThisK-factor supposedly applies to a whole range of human characteristics

that are said to have co-evolved, includingaltruism,intelligence,attachmentstyles,

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

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/personalitys-big-one-reality-or-artifacthttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/personalityhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/neuroticismhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/personality-intelligence-and-race-realismhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201209/opening-the-mind-where-skepticism-and-superstition-meethttp://hexaco.org/http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/self-esteemhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201209/emotional-intelligence-not-relevant-psychopathshttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201305/intelligence-and-politics-have-complex-relationshiphttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/personality-intelligence-and-race-realismhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/altruismhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/intelligencehttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/attachmenthttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/sexhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/sexhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/attachmenthttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/intelligencehttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/altruismhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/personality-intelligence-and-race-realismhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201305/intelligence-and-politics-have-complex-relationshiphttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201209/emotional-intelligence-not-relevant-psychopathshttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/self-esteemhttp://hexaco.org/http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201209/opening-the-mind-where-skepticism-and-superstition-meethttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/personality-intelligence-and-race-realismhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/neuroticismhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/personalityhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/personalitys-big-one-reality-or-artifact

8/10/2019 The Allure of the Dark Side

2/4

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 physicalhealthand 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,lyingand cheating are costly to society but maybenefit 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 evaluativebiases. Because the slow strategy is so sociallynormative, 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

http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/161206http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/deceptionhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/biashttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/biashttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/deceptionhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/node/161206

8/10/2019 The Allure of the Dark Side

3/4

8/10/2019 The Allure of the Dark Side

4/4

characters both from fiction and real life. Casanova for example was not the most

moralperson 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 personalitydimension than with the coordination of several independent ones.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/ethics-and-moralityhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/ethics-and-morality