Personality and Individual Differences 128 (2018) 49–54

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The Dark Triad of personality and infidelity intentions: The moderating role T
of relationship experience
⁎
Masoumeh Alavia, , Teo Kye Meib, Seyed Abolghasem Mehrinezhada
a
Psychology Department, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
b
Psychology Department, Faculty of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, UCSI University, 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Romantic relationship infidelity jeopardizes the romantic partner's mental health and the relationship.
Machiavellianism Personality differences may predispose individuals to infidelity. According to life history strategy, people with
Narcissism higher Dark Triad of personality are more likely to commit infidelity. In this study, 52 men and 88 women aged
Psychopathy from 18 to 40 completed a questionnaire in Malaysia. Partial least square path modeling revealed that intentions
Infidelity
towards infidelity have significant relationships with Machiavellianism and psychopathy, but non-significant
Relationship experience
relationship with narcissism. In addition, partial least square multi-group analysis revealed that relationship
experiences moderate the association between narcissism and intentions towards infidelity, as well as the re-
lationship between psychopathy and intentions towards infidelity, but did not moderate the relationship be-
tween Machiavellianism and infidelity intentions. This study raises opportunities for future research to refine
and elaborate the links between dark personalities and adverse relationship outcomes. Findings and future di-
rections are outlined taking an evolutionary psychological approach.

1. Introduction
Different individuals have different likelihoods of committing ro-
mantic infidelity. The infidelity rate is rapidly increasing in different
societies. For instance, Durex, a condom manufacturer, conducted a
survey among 29,000 people in 36 countries and the results revealed
that 33% of Malaysian respondents admitted their engagement in in-
fidelity behaviors (The Nation, 2012). Infidelity could lead to irre-
trievable impacts on romantic relationships, as well as marital dis-
solution (Hall & Fincham, 2005; Ravhudzulo, 2012), increased risk of
sexually transmitted diseases (Hall & Fincham, 2005; Jones, Olderbak,
& Figueredo, 2011), emotional impacts or disturbances (Jones et al.,
2011), and even death (Hall & Fincham, 2005). Therefore, it is im-
portant to understand the likelihood of people with different person-
alities and relationship experiences.
The Dark Triad of personality is a key element in understanding
infidelity in romantic relationships (Jones et al., 2011). The Dark Triad
of personality, namely Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy
are socially aversive and destructive personalities (Paulhus & Williams,
2002). These personality traits are associated with a set of immoral
behaviors and influence communication and romantic relationship be-
haviors (Atari & Chegeni, 2017; Horan, 2014). Infidelity, as one of the
immoral behaviors in a romantic relationship, is associated with
personality. For example, Jones and Weiser (2014) and Weiser and
Weigel (2015) have gathered evidences that there is a positive re-
lationship between personality and infidelity. Specifically, the Dark
Triad of personality is more connected to infidelity, as people with
higher scores on Dark Triad of personality divulge more infidelity in
current or recent relationships and appear to involve in romantic
cheating deliberately (Jones & Weiser, 2014).
Moreover, individual differences in the Dark Triad of personality
can be expounded by life history strategy in terms of reproductive
strategies (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). These strategies are
categorized into fast and slow life strategies. While mating is prioritized
by people who adopt fast life strategy as they value the present, par-
enting is prioritized by people who adopt slow life strategy as they
value the future (Griskevicius, Tybur, Robertson, & Delton, 2011).
People who score higher on the Dark Triad of personality have fast life
strategy with low self-control, high impulsivity, short-term mating or-
ientation, unrestricted sociosexuality, exploitativeness, and antisocial
behaviors (Furnham et al., 2013; Jones & Paulhus, 2011; McDonald,
Donnellan, & Navarrete, 2011). Personality traits of fast life strategy are
socially undesirable because individuals with these traits attempt to
acquire immediate rewards by investing reproductive effort pre-
ponderantly (Baughman, 2015).
However, fast life strategies are inherent to individuals and they

⁎
Corresponding author at: Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail addresses: masoum.2011@gmail.com, m.alavi@alzahra.ac.ir (M. Alavi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.023
Received 14 December 2017; Received in revised form 11 February 2018; Accepted 13 February 2018
Available online 22 February 2018
0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Alavi et al.
manipulate personality traits (Griskevicius et al., 2011). Dark Triad of
personality, therefore, increases one's intentions towards infidelity as
their reproductive strategies. In a large scale study by Jones and Weiser
(2014), on Caucasians, East Asian, South Asian, and mixed ethnicities
aged from 18 to 74, findings demonstrated that Machiavellianism is
positively linked with infidelity in a present or recent relationship. In-
terestingly, Brewer, Abell, and Lyons (2016) focused on heterosexual
women in the age range of 17 to 57 and found that women with higher
Machiavellianism inclined to infidelity because of alternative mates.
The association between Machiavellianism and infidelity can also be
explained in terms of characteristics. This is because Machiavellianism
is a personality trait that represents promiscuity demonstrating low
commitment in relationships (Ali & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010; Brewer
& Abell, 2015). In the Dark Triad of personality, Machiavellianism
explains the largest amount of variance in mate retention behaviors
(Chegeni, Pirkalani, & Dehshiri, 2018).
In addition to machiavellianism, narcissism has some associations
with infidelity. Narcissism is reported as a personality trait that predicts
emotional infidelity online (Browne, 2015). In a longitudinal study
among 123 married couples, sexual narcissism was positively asso-
ciated with infidelity (McNulty & Widman, 2014). Furthermore, a study
on 102 heterosexual women aged between 18 and 42 indicated that
women with higher level of narcissism had greater committed infidelity
and intentions towards infidelity in the future (Brewer, Hunt, James, &
Abell, 2015). Researchers like Jones and Weiser (2014) reported that
narcissism was not associated with committed infidelity in women, but
was fairly associated with committed infidelity in men.
Psychopathy is another Dark Triad of personality that links with
infidelity. Visser, Pozzebon, Bogaert, and Ashton (2010) studied 100
men and 100 women aged from 18 to 32 and found that people with
higher scores on psychopathy tend to commit infidelity, and have early
sexual activity, and more sexual partners. This is aligned with the
findings of another study by Jones and Weiser (2014) on 884 partici-
pants aged from 18 to 74, with the conclusion that psychopathy is a
strong predictor of infidelity in recent or current romantic relationship.
Likewise, a research on 102 heterosexual women aged from 18 to 42
suggested that the level of psychopathy was positively related to the
intentions towards infidelity and susceptibility to partner's infidelity
(Brewer et al., 2015). It was also found that psychopathic individuals
have greater promiscuity, which represents low commitment in a re-
lationship (Ali & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010; Brewer & Abell, 2015).
Apart from the association between Dark Triad of personality and
infidelity, the Dark Triad of personality is also associated with re-
lationship preferences or experiences (Adams, Luevano, & Jonason,
2014; Atari & Chegeni, 2017; Atkinson, Koladich, & Vernon, 2016;
Chegeni et al., 2018; Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012).
The relationship experiences in the present study are one-night-
stand relationships, booty-call relationships, friends-with-benefits re-
lationships, and serious romantic relationships. One-night stands,
booty-call relationships, and friends-with-benefits relationships (i.e.,
short-term mating orientation) are casual relationships. Casual re-
lationships are low-commitment and short-term relationships, whereas
serious romantic relationships are high-commitment and long-term
relationships.
Although the relationship between Dark Triad of personality and
infidelity is explored extensively (Brewer et al., 2015; Brewer et al.,
2016; Browne, 2015; Jones & Weiser, 2014; McNulty & Widman, 2014;
Visser et al., 2010; Weiser & Weigel, 2015), the finding were incon-
sistent and less focused on men. In investigating the relationship be-
tween Dark Triad of personality and infidelity the literature is almost
silent in considering the possibility that experience could affect one's
behavior. Consequently, we have an incomplete picture of the re-
lationship between Dark Triad of personality and infidelity. There is a
need for further research on infidelity in Malaysia, bearing in mind that
the country has an alarming rate of infidelity (The Nation, 2012).
This study further aims to add to the knowledgebase of the previous
50
Personality and Individual Differences 128 (2018) 49–54
studies (Brewer et al., 2015; Jones & Weiser, 2014; Weiser & Weigel,
2015) by investigating the moderating role of relationship experiences
in the relationship between Dark Triad of personality and intentions
towards infidelity among young adults in Malaysia. The infidelity
likelihood of individual for sustaining a relationship or marriage
longevity, fidelity, and physical health, such as avoiding sexually
transmitted diseases are explored in this research.
2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
The participants were young Malaysian adults who experienced a
romantic relationship. With purposive sampling, 140 respondents,
whose age ranged from 18 to 40 (M = 22.57, SD = 3.45) from pre-
defined population were collected. The number of respondents (sample
size) was representative enough for the use of Partial Least Square. Hair
et al. (2017) suggests rule of thumb which requires a sample size of 10
times the most complex relationship within the research model. The
most complex relationship is the larger value between the dependent
variable with the largest number of independent variables influencing
it. The responses were collected through social media platforms in-
cluding Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn by online questionnaire.
Table 1 presents the respondents' demographic details.
2.2. Measures
Relationship experiences were categorized into casual relationships
(short-term mateships) and serious romantic relationships (long-term
mateships). Since casual relationship refers to one-night-stands, booty-
call relationships, and friends-with-benefits relationships, participants
were asked about their experiences in one-night-stands, booty-call re-
lationships, friends-with-benefits, and serious romantic relationships.
Definitions for each type of relationship adapted from Adams et al.
(2014) were provided in the questionnaire, followed by a dichotomous
type of question asking if they had ever participated in each type of the
mateships. Reliability for relationship experiences using the Cronbach's
Alpha was acceptable in this study (α = 0.84).
Short Dark Triad (SD3) is a scale that measures three personalities,
namely Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (Jones &
Paulhus, 2014). It consists of 27 items with 9 items for each subscale. It
is a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The
SD3 has an acceptable reliability (Atari & Chegeni, 2016). Using
Cronbach's Alpha, the reliability rates of the SD3 subscales were ob-
tained as α = 0.79 for Machiavellianism, α = 0.75 for narcissism and
α = 0.73 for psychopathy, which represents an appropriate indication
of internal consistency (Hair, Joseph, Ringle, Christian, & Sarstedt,
Table 1
Demographic profile of respondents.
Frequency Percent
Gender
Male 52 37.1
Female 88 62.9
Ethnicity
Malay 8 5.7
Chinese 116 82.9
Indian 10 7.1
Bumiputera Sabah/Sarawak 3 2.1
Other 3 2.1
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual 132 94.3
Homosexual 4 2.9
Bisexual 4 2.9
Total 140 100.0
M. Alavi et al. Personality and Individual Differences 128 (2018) 49–54

Table 2 Table 3
Relationship experiences profile of respondents. Assessment results of the measurement model.

Relationship experiences n % Construct Items Loading CR AVE

Respondents who experienced casual relationship 67 47.86 Intentions to Infidelity I1 0.839 0.891 0.623
One night stand 40 I2 0.822
Booty call relationship 28 I5 0.666
Friends with benefits relationship 46 I6 0.800
Respondents who only experienced serious romantic relationship 73 52.14 I7 0.808
Machiavellianism MI 0.893 0.915 0.612
M2 0.852
2013). M5 0.626
M6 0.662
Intentions towards Infidelity Scale measures the behavioral inten-
M7 0.666
tions towards infidelity (Jones et al., 2011). It consists of seven items M8 0.851
with a Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 7 (extremely likely). M9 0.872
Intentions towards Infidelity Scale has an consistently acceptable re- Narcissism N1 0.836 0.892 0.544
N2 0.744
liability (α = 0.70 to α = 0.81) (Jones et al., 2011). Using Cronbach's
N3 0.659
Alpha, the reliability of this scale was acceptable (α = 0.81). N4 0.726
N5 0.644
N7 0.801
3. Results N9 0.733
Psychopathy P1 0.744 0.920 0.625
Respondents had different levels of Dart Triad traits, and had ex- P3 0.835
perienced long term and short term romantic relationships. The data P4 0.694
P5 0.844
indicates that 47.86% of respondents (n = 67) experienced at least one P6 0.799
kind of the casual relationship (short-term mateships), and 52.14% P8 0.713
(n = 73) only experienced serious romantic relationships (long-term P9 0.884
mateships). Table 2 provides a profile of respondents' relationship ex-
periences. Note: CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted.

The relationships were tested with Structural Equation Modeling

(SEM) using the SmartPLS. PLS-SEM is distinguished from the classical Table 4
Discriminant validity.
method by being component based (Hair et al., 2013). Compared to
traditional multivariate techniques structural equation modeling, as a Latent variables 1 2 3 4
second-generation technique is a family of multivariate statistical
techniques assesses direct and indirect relationships between one or 1. Intentions to Infidelity 0.790
2. Machiavellianism 0.320 0.851
more independent latent variables and dependent variables in a more
3. Narcissism 0.150 0.210 0.738
powerful way. The advantage of SEM methodology is that it is possible 4. Psychopathy 0.403 0.315 0.378 0.790
to model the relationships of multiple independent and dependent
constructs simultaneously. The two-stage analytical procedure in-
cluding measurement model and structural model (Anderson & the diagonal) (Table 4). This indicates that Larker and Fornell's cri-
Gerbing, 1988) was used to validate the model and test the relation- terion was met, therefore, discriminant validity was achieved.
ships.

3.2. Structural model

3.1. Measurement model
Next, the relationships and hypotheses were tested using boot-
In testing measurement model, convergent validity including factor strapping method with resampling of 5000 as suggested by Hair et al.
loading, Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (2017) to estimate the significance of the path coefficients. Table 5 il-
(AVE) must be measured (Hair et al., 2013). lustrates the hypothesis testing results for the relationship between
Factor loading represents indicators' reliability. Factor loadings are Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy with intentions towards
varied from 0.626 to 0.893 (Table 3). The items that exceeded the re- infidelity.
commended value of 0.6 were retained and items below the cutoff value The coefficient of determination of intentions towards infidelity is
including item 3, and 4 from Intentions to Infidelity, item 3 and 4 from
Machiavellianism, and item 2, and 7 from Psychopathy were removed Table 5
as they demonstrated poor indicator reliability, as recommended by Results of hypotheses testing.
Chin (1998).
Hypothesis Std Beta Std Error t-value Decision R2
CR, which is a better estimate than Cronbach's alpha, represents
internal consistency of constructs (Hair et al., 2013). An internal con- H1: 0.199 0.101 2.730⁎⁎ Supported 0.390
sistency of 0.7 and above is reliable (Hair et al., 2017). CR is varied Machiavellianism-
between 0.89 and 0.92 which represents an appropriate indication of → Intentions
towards Infidelity
internal consistency (Table 3). H2: Narcissism → 0.011 0.106 1.57 Not supported 0.390
If AVE is > 0.5, it reflects that at least 50% of items explain the Intentions towards
construct (Hair et al., 2017). AVE ranged from 0.544 to 0.625, which Infidelity
was acceptable for the variables (Table 3). H3: Psychopathy → 0.360 0.107 4.197⁎⁎⁎ Supported 0.390
Intentions towards
To test measurement model, discriminant validity using Fornell and
Infidelity
Larcker (1981) represents that all square roots of AVE were bigger than
the off-diagonal elements within their corresponding column and row. ⁎⁎
Significant at p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
All off-diagonal values were lower than the AVE's square roots (bold on Significant at p < 0.001.

51
M. Alavi et al.
Table 6
Results of hypotheses testing, moderation analysis.
Path Relationship Ex
H4: Machiavellianism → Intentions towards Infidelity Casual Relationship (n = 67)
Serious Romantic Relationship (n = 73)
H5: Narcissism → Intentions towards Infidelity Casual Relationship (n = 67)
Serious Romantic Relationship (n = 73)
H6: Psychopathy → Intentions towards Infidelity Casual Relationship (n = 67)
Serious Romantic Relationship (n = 73)
⁎
Significant at p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
Significant at p < 0.01.
0.390. This means that Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy
moderately explained 39% of the variance in intentions towards in-
fidelity. First, the relationship between Machiavellianism and inten-
tions towards infidelity is significant at the level of 0.01 (β = 0.199,
t = 2.730, p < 0.01). Second, the association between narcissism and
intentions towards infidelity is non-significant with t-statistic of 0.16.
Third, the relationship between psychopathy and intentions towards
infidelity is significant at the level of 0.001 (β = 0.360, t = 4.197,
p < 0.001).
Table 6 presents the hypothesis testing results with PLS Multi-Group
Analysis for the moderating role of relationship experiences in the re-
lationship of Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy with in-
tentions towards infidelity.
The path coefficients between casual and serious romantic re-
lationship were compared. First, relationship experiences did not
moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism and intentions
towards infidelity, because the path coefficients for respondents with
casual relationship experience and respondents with serious romantic
relationship experience were not significantly different
(ßcasual = 0.1555, ßserious = 0.2271, t = 0.916, p = 0.362). Second,
there was a significant moderating role of relationship experiences
between narcissism and intentions towards infidelity as the path coef-
ficients for respondents with casual relationship experience and re-
spondents with serious romantic relationship experience are sig-
nificantly different (ßcasual = 0.1317, ßserious = 0.1367, t = 2.592,
p < 0.01). Third, the relationship between narcissism and intentions
towards infidelity was slightly stronger for people with serious ro-
mantic relationship experience (ßserious = 0.136) than for people with
casual relationship experience (ßcasual = 0.131). Finally, relationship
experiences moderated the relationship between psychopathy and in-
tentions towards infidelity as the path coefficients for respondents with
casual relationship experience and for respondents with serious ro-
mantic relationship experience were significantly different
(ßcasual = 0.4136, ßserious = 0.222, t = 2.107, p < 0.05). Specifically,
the relationship between psychopathy and intentions towards infidelity
was stronger for people with casual relationship experience
(ßcasual = 0.4136) than for people with serious romantic relationship
experience (ßserious = 0.222).
4. Discussion
This study shows that Machiavellianism and psychopathy have
significant relationships with intentions towards infidelity. However,
narcissism does not influence intentions towards infidelity. In addition,
relationship experiences have an influence on narcissism and intentions
towards infidelity, as well as psychopathy and intentions towards in-
fidelity. However, relationship experiences do not influence the re-
lationship between Machiavellianism and intentions towards infidelity.
Machiavellianism, as one of the Dark Triad of personality, was
correlated with intentions towards infidelity significantly. Consistent
with the findings of the studies by Jones and Weiser (2014), and Brewer
et al. (2016), Machiavellianism was identified to have a significant
association with infidelity inclination. A possible explanation of the
52
Personality and Individual Differences 128 (2018) 49–54
Std Beta t-Value Decision
0.155 0.916 Not supported
0.227
0.131 2.592⁎⁎ Supported
0.136
⁎
0.413 2.107 Supported
0.222
relationship between Machiavellianism and intentions towards in-
fidelity could be the promiscuity characteristics of Machiavellians (Ali
& Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010; Brewer & Abell, 2015) and manipula-
tiveness characteristics of people who engage in infidelity (Egan &
Angus, 2004). The promiscuous characteristic of Machiavellians may
raise intentions towards infidelity to satisfy sexual or emotional needs.
Besides, people who engage in infidelity may have a higher level of
manipulativeness as they may think they are able to control their
partner by behaving in ways that make the relationship feel safe even
when they engage in infidelity. Another explanation for the relationship
between Machiavellianism and intentions towards infidelity lies in the
motivation of Machiavellian individuals to engage in infidelity. As
suggested by Brewer and Abell (2015), the motivations of infidelity are
receiving rewards, mate guarding, revenge, decreasing stress, in-
creasing self-esteem, searching experience, responsibility, pressure, and
social status.
Narcissism had no significant relationship with intentions towards
infidelity. However, there is lack of consensus and limited evidence
regarding this finding. Whereas Jones and Weiser (2014) claimed that
narcissism has no association with infidelity, McNulty and Widman
(2014) reported that sexual narcissism was associated with infidelity.
Browne (2015) reported narcissism was associated with emotional in-
fidelity online, and Brewer et al. (2015) reported that women with
higher level of narcissism tend to have greater committed infidelity and
intentions towards infidelity in the future. The non-significant re-
lationship between narcissism and intentions towards infidelity could
be attributed to the characteristics of narcissism as in line with
Westhead and Egan (2015) who characterized narcissism as grandi-
osity, superiority, egoism, self-exaggeration, self-idealization, and in-
terpersonal arrogance. Consequently, narcissists may need an emo-
tional connection with people to satisfy their ego, instead of merely
sexual or behavioral connection. However, due to lack of enough evi-
dence by the previous studies, the findings of the present study do not
suffice to draw a firm conclusion in this regard.
This research also supports the relationship between psychopathy
and intentions towards infidelity. Intentions towards infidelity have the
strongest correlation with psychopathy out of the Dark Triad of per-
sonality. The findings of the present study are aligned with the studies
that claim psychopathy is correlated with intentions towards infidelity
(Brewer et al., 2015; Jones & Weiser, 2014; Visser et al., 2010). For
instance, Visser et al. (2010) reported that people with higher level of
psychopathy tend to have early sexual activity, more sexual partners,
tendency towards infidelity. Besides that, people with higher level of
psychopathy were in bigger risk of overt risking sexual behaviors
(Kastner & Sellbom, 2012). The reason could be people with high level
of psychopathy may have higher sexual and emotional desires and
demands, therefore, they are likely to have early sexual activity, more
sexual partner, and involve in overt risking sexual behavior. These are
promiscuous behaviors that lead an individual to engage in infidelity if
the person is engaged in a romantic relationship Psychopathy is char-
acterized as promiscuous (Ali & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010; Brewer &
Abell, 2015) and manipulative (Ali & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010). In
this case, the strong significant relationship between psychopathy and
M. Alavi et al.
intentions towards infidelity could be explained by the promiscuous
and manipulative characteristic of psychopathy.
The influence of relationship experiences, specifically casual re-
lationship and serious romantic relationship, was investigated between
Dark Triad of personality and intentions towards infidelity.
Relationship experiences had no significant moderating role in the re-
lationship between Machiavellianism and intentions towards infidelity.
Although Machiavellianism does not correlate with experiences in any
relationship types (Adams et al., 2014), it has a secondary and even
irrelevant association with relationship preferences (Jonason et al.,
2012). However, Atkinson et al. (2016) found that Machiavellianism
had a positive correlation with preferences for casual relationships and
negative correlation with the serious romantic relationship. A possible
explanation of the non-significant moderating effect of relationship
experiences between Machiavellianism and intentions towards in-
fidelity could be the insignificant yet inconsistent relationship between
Machiavellianism and relationship experiences. Considering an unclear
relationship between Machiavellianism and relationship experiences,
individuals with high level of Machiavellianism may have higher in-
tentions towards infidelity regardless of the relationship the individual
had experienced. This could also contribute to the characteristics of
Machiavellianism and the motivations of Machiavellians to engage in
infidelity. Even if individuals with high level of Machiavellianism have
experienced casual relationship or serious romantic relationship, their
relationship experiences will not influence their motivations towards
infidelity.
Furthermore, relationship experiences significantly moderate the
relationship between narcissism and intentions towards infidelity. The
relationship between narcissism and intentions towards infidelity was
stronger for people with serious romantic relationship experience than
those with casual relationship experience. Previous studies prove that
narcissism has a positive correlation with preferences for casual re-
lationships (Adams et al., 2014; Atkinson et al., 2016), and has a ne-
gative correlation with the serious romantic relationship (Jonason
et al., 2012). The relationship choices of narcissists reflect their desire
to participate in different types of relationships (Atkinson et al., 2016).
A possible explanation of the stronger moderating effects of serious
romantic relationship than a casual relationship between narcissism
and intentions towards infidelity could be due to the characteristics of
narcissism. Narcissists who experienced serious romantic relationship
may less likely to be grandiose, ego, or arrogance when they are in a
serious romantic relationship, so they may have higher intentions to-
wards infidelity to satisfy their ego, grandiosity, and interpersonal ar-
rogance. This also explained the negative relationship between narcis-
sism and serious romantic relationship as indicated by Jonason et al.
(2012) because serious romantic relationship could restrict narcissist in
being grandiose, ego, or arrogance.
The relationship between psychopathy and intentions towards in-
fidelity was moderated by relationship experiences, and was stronger
for people with casual relationship experience than for people with
serious romantic relationship experience. Psychopathy has a positive
correlation with preferences for casual relationships (Adams et al.,
2014; Atkinson et al., 2016), and negative correlation with serious ro-
mantic relationship (Atkinson et al., 2016; Jonason et al., 2012). In
addition, people with high level of psychopathy have significant ex-
periences in one-night-stand relationships, as a casual relationship
(Adams et al., 2014). As psychopathy is characterized as promiscuous
and manipulative, their preference towards casual relationship is within
expectation. Therefore, the moderating effect of casual relationship is
stronger than serious romantic relationship between psychopathy and
intentions towards infidelity could be explained by the characteristics
of psychopathy. People with high level of psychopathy who experi-
enced casual relationship may have experienced satisfaction of their
sexual needs and demands through casual relationship. As a result, they
may have higher intentions towards infidelity to a casual relationship
with merely sexual purposes.
53
Personality and Individual Differences 128 (2018) 49–54
5. Conclusion
Malaysia has an incredibly high rate of committed infidelity.
Infidelity is different from one person to another, as explained by life
history strategy (Furnham et al., 2013). Prediction of individuals' in-
tentions towards infidelity is critical for relationship longevity and fi-
delity. This study viewed infidelity from the perspective of individuals'
personalities and relationship experiences. Additionally, the findings
provide further information for similar topics in future, which could be
valuable because of insufficient relevant research in the Malaysian
context. It could be concluded that intention towards infidelity has a
significant relationship with Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Psy-
chopathy, as a Dark Triad of personality, has the strongest relationship
with intentions towards infidelity. Relationship experiences moderate
the relationship between narcissism and intentions towards infidelity,
and the relationship between psychopathy and intentions towards in-
fidelity. Also, the relationship experiences influence committing in-
fidelity. Since relationship experiences cannot be undone, the findings
can be applied in educating people with tendency of committing in-
fidelity, and the consequences of committing infidelity to decrease in-
fidelity rate.
This research had several limitations. First, a purposive sampling
limits the number of participants because purposive samples are de-
fined based on researcher's judgments. Second, this research assesses
the relationship experiences of participants, but people might have
strong desires to engage in a relationship, but never have a chance to
engage in it. This might indirectly influence the accuracy of the strength
of Dark Triad of personality and intentions towards infidelity.
Future research may address similar studies in different cultural
contexts because contradictory findings from this study with the finding
of previous studies could be due to socio-cultural differences. It would
also be ideal to obtain a balanced number from different age groups
because the participants of the study are all considered young.
Moreover, a modified scale according to the research context and cul-
ture should be used, or even other scales to measure Dark Triad of
personality, such as Mach IV, Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Self-
Reported Psychopathy, and the Dirty Dozen Scale. As Machiavellianism
and psychopathy have significant relationships with intentions towards
infidelity, manipulative characteristics of both Machiavellianism and
psychopathy appear to have an impact on individual's intentions to-
wards infidelity. This is because being manipulative is a characteristic
of Machiavellianism and psychopathy, but not of narcissism. Future
research may address the manipulative characteristics of individuals in
relation to infidelity and the alternative methods for people with ma-
nipulative tendency to fulfil their desires of manipulation in a romantic
relationship, instead of engaging in infidelity.
References
Adams, H., Luevano, V., & Jonason, P. (2014). Risky business: Willingness to be caught in
an extra-pair relationship, relationship experience, and the Dark Triad. Personality
and Individual Differences, 66, 204–207.
Ali, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). The dark side of love and life satisfaction:
Associations with intimate relationships, psychopathy and Machiavellianism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 228–233.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Atari, M., & Chegeni, R. (2016). Assessment of dark personalities in Iran: Psychometric
evaluation of the Farsi translation of the Short Dark Triad (SD3-F). Personality and
Individual Differences, 102, 111–117.
Atari, M., & Chegeni, R. (2017). The Dark Triad and long-term mate preferences in
Iranian women. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 333–335.
Atkinson, B., Koladich, S., & Vernon, P. (2016). The Dark Triad and relationship pre-
ferences: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 94,
253–255.
Baughman, H. M. (2015). Relationships between the dark triad and delayed gratification: An
evolutionary perspective (Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository)The University
of Western Ontario.
Brewer, G., & Abell, L. (2015). Machiavellianism and sexual behavior: Motivations, de-
ception and infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 186–191.
Brewer, G., Abell, L., & Lyons, M. (2016). Machiavellianism, pretending orgasm, and
M. Alavi et al.
sexual intimacy. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 155–158.
Brewer, G., Hunt, D., James, G., & Abell, L. (2015). Dark Triad traits, infidelity and ro-
mantic revenge. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 122–127.
Browne, A. (2015). Online infidelity; gender, narcissism and extraversion as predictors of
behaviour and jealousy responses. Dublin Business School.
Chegeni, R., Pirkalani, R. K., & Dehshiri, G. (2018). On love and darkness: The Dark Triad
and mate retention behaviors in a non-Western culture. Personality and Individual
Differences, 122, 43–46.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295–336.
Egan, V., & Angus, S. (2004). Is social dominance a sex-specific strategy for infidelity?
Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 575–586.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39–50.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A
10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Robertson, T. E., & Delton, A. W. (2011). The influence of
mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1015–1026.
Hair, Joseph, F., Ringle, Christian, M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Editorial-partial least squares
structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance.
Hair, J., Joseph, F., Hult, G., Tomas, M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed). Sage
Publications.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Relationship dissolution following infidelity. In M. A.
Fine, & J. H. Harvey (Eds.). The handbook of divorce and romantic relationship. NJ:
Erlbaum.
Horan, S.. Dating the dark triad. Retrieved from Psychology Today. (2014). https://www.
psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-dating/201406/dating-the-dark-triad
(June 4).
Jonason, P., Luevano, V., & Adams, H. (2012). How the dark triad traits predict
54
Personality and Individual Differences 128 (2018) 49–54
relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 180–184.
Jones, D., & Weiser, D. (2014). Differential infidelity patterns among the dark triad.
Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 20–24.
Jones, D. N., Olderbak, S. G., & Figueredo, A. J. (2011). The intentions towards infidelity
scale. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of
sexuality-related measures (pp. 251–253). New York: Routledge.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the dark triad of per-
sonality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 679–682.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3): A brief
measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41.
Kastner, R., & Sellbom, M. (2012). Hypersexuality in college students: The role of psy-
chopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 644–649.
McDonald, M. M., Donnellan, M. B., & Navarrete, C. D. (2011). A life history approach to
understanding the dark triad. Personality and individual differences.
McNulty, J., & Widman, L. (2014). Sexual narcissism and infidelity in early marriage.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 1315–1325.
Paulhus, D., & Williams, K. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.
Ravhudzulo, A. (2012). Riding the wave of the sting of infidelity in a marriage: We all have
those moments that are called “suddenly's”. Xlibris Corporation.
The Nation. Thai infidelity claim brings strong denials. The Nation. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Thai-infidelity-claim-brings-strong-
denials-30189315.html (August 29).
Visser, B., Pozzebon, J., Bogaert, A., & Ashton, M. (2010). Psychopathy, sexual behavior,
and esteem: It's different for girls. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 833–838.
Weiser, D., & Weigel, D. (2015). Investigating experiences of the infidelity partner: Who is
the “Other Man/Woman”? Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 176–181.
Westhead, J., & Egan, V. (2015). Untangling the concurrent influences of the dark triad,
personality and mating effort on violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 86,
222–226.