People who exhibit traits like narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism often believe they are morally superior to others, even when evidence suggests otherwise, according to new research published in the journal Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. The study found that individuals with higher levels of these “Dark Tetrad” traits tend to see themselves as better than the average person in terms of moral character, despite also showing tendencies towards immoral behavior. This disconnect between self-perception and reality may help explain why such individuals are resistant to changing their harmful behaviors.
The Dark Tetrad refers to a group of four distinct but related personality traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism—that are often associated with antagonistic and harmful behaviors. These traits are considered “dark” because they typically involve a disregard for others’ well-being and a focus on self-interest at the expense of others.
Each trait has its unique characteristics: narcissism is marked by an inflated sense of self-importance and entitlement; Machiavellianism involves manipulativeness, cynicism, and a strategic approach to social interactions; psychopathy is characterized by a lack of empathy, impulsivity, and antisocial behavior; and sadism involves deriving pleasure from others’ suffering.
The motivation behind the study on the Dark Tetrad was to explore a long-standing question in psychology: how do people with antagonistic personality traits perceive their own moral character? Previous research has produced mixed results, with some studies suggesting that individuals with these traits are aware of their moral shortcomings, while others imply they might view themselves as morally superior despite their harmful behaviors.
The researchers aimed to clarify this ambiguity by examining whether people with high levels of these traits exhibit what is known as the “better-than-average effect” — the tendency to see oneself as superior to others, particularly in areas of social desirability, such as moral character.
“There is not a lot of data on whether people with antagonistic personalities actually regard themselves as immoral (as others may regard them); if anything, it seemed that most of the research was hinting at the ironic idea that, despite their enhanced tendencies to do immoral things (e.g., lie, cheat, and steal), they may generally regard themselves as more moral than average others. So, we thought it would be interesting to check on that possibility,” said study author William Hart, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Alabama.
The study involved 515 undergraduate students who completed a series of online surveys assessing their levels of antagonistic personality traits and their self-perceived moral character. Participants were asked to rate themselves on a variety of moral and immoral character traits, such as honesty, kindness, selfishness, and cruelty. To ensure the robustness of their findings, the researchers used two different methods to measure better-than-average effects.
The first method involved direct comparisons, where participants were explicitly asked to rate how they compared to the average person on moral traits. The second method was more indirect, asking participants to rate themselves and others separately on both moral and immoral traits, with the researchers later comparing these ratings to determine whether participants viewed themselves as more moral than others.
The researchers found that, on average, participants exhibited very strong better-than-average effects. This effect was present even among those who scored high on the Dark Tetrad traits, which was somewhat surprising given the known associations between these traits and immoral behavior. In other words, even individuals with strong tendencies towards narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, or sadism still believed they were more moral than the average person.
However, the study did reveal some nuances. Individuals with higher levels of psychopathy and sadism were somewhat less likely to exhibit the better-than-average effect compared to those with high levels of narcissism and Machiavellianism. Despite this, even those with elevated psychopathy and sadism still generally viewed themselves as morally superior to others.
“Keep in mind that nearly no one thinks they are ‘bad’ or ‘evil,'” Hart told PsyPost. “Nearly everyone thinks they are more moral than average, even people that, for example, acknowledge being somewhat sadistic (enjoying others’ pain). Nearly everyone wants to think they are a good person, even people that do a lot of bad things. And, people that do a lot of bad things are still capable of reaching this favorable conclusion.”
One of the more interesting aspects of the findings was that participants, especially those with high levels of antagonistic traits, tended to have a low opinion of others’ moral character. They often viewed the average person as having a relatively equal mix of good and bad traits, which could have bolstered their own sense of moral superiority. This suggests that their better-than-average effect might be driven not only by an inflated view of their own morality but also by a particularly cynical view of others’ morality.
“The main findings were as predicted (it was all preregistered), but non-central aspects of the data surprised us,” Hart said. “For example, it was surprising that people in our study tended to evaluate others as an equal mix of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ traits. In other words, the bar seems really low when we compare ourselves to others on morality. If you are, for example, just slightly more prosocial than antisocial (which seems possible for almost everyone), you got the ‘average person’ beat.”
While this study sheds light on the self-perception of antagonistic individuals, it has some limitations that future research should address. For instance, the study relied on self-report measures, which are subject to biases like social desirability and self-deception. In addition, the data was based on a sample of undergraduate students, who may not be representative of the general population or of individuals with clinical levels of antagonistic personality traits.
“There is nothing representative about the sample,” Hart explained. “It was a convenience sample of students in a U.S. university, albeit we are hard pressed to provide any good theoretical reason why the findings would only apply to college students or people in the United States. Related to the sample, although we had people that could be regarded as pretty ‘sadistic’ and ‘psychopathic,’ these people were relatively rare.”
Future studies could benefit from examining more diverse and clinically relevant samples, including those diagnosed with personality disorders. Future research could incorporate other methods, such as peer reports or behavioral assessments, to gain a more objective understanding of how antagonistic individuals perceive their own moral character.
Another promising direction for future research involves testing interventions that might reduce these individuals’ unrealistic views of their moral character. For example, could providing feedback that challenges their better-than-average effect judgments lead to greater self-awareness and, ultimately, behavioral change?
“We think that antagonistic people may be more motivated to change their personalities if they knew they were struggling to be moral relative others,” Hart said. “We are interested, then, in understanding the process that is producing these evaluations. If we understand that, we can reduce the bias and make these people more realistic and ready for change. Change would probably be good for them and society (less harm caused).”
The study, “Antagonistic but Holier Than Thou: Antagonistic People Think They Are (Way) Better-Than-Average on Moral Character,” was authored by William Hart, Braden T. Hall, Joshua T. Lambert, Charlotte K. Cease, and Danielle E. Wahlers.
