The Depraved Mind: Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy and Sadism

Written By Dr Harry

This section examines the Dark Tetrad — one of the more provocative and unsettling areas within personality psychology. The Dark Tetrad consists of four traits which, like the Big Five, are dimensional — meaning that we all possess each to some degree. However, they differ from the Big Five in a critical respect: the Big Five traits are not morally defined — they do not concern themselves with what is considered morally right or wrong. The Dark Tetrad, by contrast, explicitly does. It focuses on socially aversive traits, examining not only certain personality dispositions but also the individual's incentive structures and moral orientation — thereby helping to explain what drives particular behaviours.

The four traits are Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy, and the more recently conceptualised addition — Sadism [1]. These traits often manifest subtly across a range of domains: social media, the workplace, social settings, and even personal relationships [2][3]. They are frequently masked by charm, charisma, or — more commonly today — performative displays of insincere compassion. Yet beneath this veneer lies a psychological configuration shaped by manipulation, deceit, and an underlying readiness to exploit. A more detailed examination of these elements of the human psyche now follows — elements that thrive in darkness, where the question is not whether we possess these traits, but rather to what extent.

Before addressing the traits themselves, it is worth clarifying a point about the terminology often used in research on the Dark Tetrad — specifically, the term ‘subclinical’, which will be deliberately avoided in this overview. While this is a valuable area of research, the language surrounding it requires tightening. The term ‘subclinical’ is often applied inconsistently in psychiatry and psychology and, unlike in medicine — where it has a precise, objective meaning — it tends to create confusion in the more subjective disciplines.

In medicine, ‘subclinical’ implies a measurable, borderline state just shy of diagnostic criteria. But in psychology, its use is often ambiguous. Sometimes it is used to suggest traits just below a clinical threshold — but in trait theory, there is no such fixed cut-off. Traits are dimensional, not categorical. If the aim is to measure where someone falls on a trait spectrum such as Narcissism, then that is all that is being done: identifying the level of expression, not implying a problem or pathology. Just as everyone has a heart rate, everyone has traits. Just as the term ‘subclinical heart rate’ would not be used when a reading falls within the normal range — it is simply considered normal — the same logic should apply to personality traits.

At this point, the term ‘subclinical’, as it is used in this context, is poorly defined, inconsistently applied, and generally unhelpful. Rather than being a matter of pedantry, avoiding the term is an attempt to reduce unnecessary ambiguity in an area where conceptual clarity is essential.

Conceptual Origins

To understand the development of this model, it is helpful to begin with its origins. The original framework, known as the Dark Triad, was introduced in 2002 by psychologists Delroy Paulhus and Kevin Williams [4]. It brought together three socially aversive, yet non-pathological, traits: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. The idea was simple but powerful — while each of these traits had been studied in isolation, grouping them allowed researchers to explore their shared features.

What distinguished the Dark Triad from earlier models in psychology was that it was not solely concerned with clinical diagnosis or the study of rare personality disorders. Rather, it was a trait-based framework, grounded in the premise that these darker tendencies exist dimensionally — that is, along a spectrum — within the general population. This distinction is crucial: it opened the door to examining how these traits manifest functionally, not just pathologically. Not everyone with narcissistic traits has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Not everyone who lacks empathy is a psychopath. But these traits can still shape behaviour — often in subtle, yet consequential ways.

In the years that followed, a growing number of researchers began to question whether the triad was complete. Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy certainly overlapped — particularly in their shared antagonism and lack of empathy — but all appeared primarily instrumental in nature: they involved exploiting others for personal gain. What the model lacked was a construct that captured gratuitous cruelty — harm inflicted not for utility, but for pleasure. This is where Sadism entered the picture [1].

Sadism — the enjoyment of another’s suffering — had historically been confined to clinical or forensic contexts. However, emerging research began to demonstrate that sadistic tendencies also exist within the general population. Acts of everyday cruelty — such as bullying, online trolling, or even taking pleasure in the failure of others — may reflect what is now referred to as everyday sadism [5]. With its addition, the model evolved into what is now known as the Dark Tetrad.

The Dark Tetrad’s explicit concern with morality makes it a valuable tool — not only for understanding aberrant behaviour, but also for assessing everyday personality in its more socially corrosive forms. Crucially, however, the model is not purely theoretical. These traits manifest in the real world — in relationships, workplaces, leadership roles, and online environments [2][3][6] — often concealed behind charm, confidence, or superficial likeability. 

With this context in place, the next step is to examine each of the four traits in turn.

Machiavellianism: Instrumental Manipulation

Machiavellianism, as a psychological construct, derives its name from Niccolò Machiavelli — the Renaissance political philosopher best known for his work The Prince [7], a treatise written as a guide for new rulers of the time. His teachings on how to acquire power at any cost, and maintain it regardless of the consequences, were — and remain — both highly influential and deeply controversial.

In psychology, however, Machiavellianism is not a direct reflection of Machiavelli’s writings, but rather a construct developed in the 1970s by psychologists seeking to study the thought processes and behaviours of individuals who manipulate others — such as political ideologues and religious extremists [8]. While there is conceptual overlap, the trait as defined in psychological research is distinct and not determined by Machiavelli’s original work.

Defined succinctly, Machiavellianism is a personality trait characterised by manipulativeness, moral indifference, and a calculated focus on self-interest. Manipulativeness is widely regarded as the defining feature of this trait [8]. The manipulator, in this context, is typically understood to behave in this way due to the following factors:

  • They exhibit a lack of affect in interpersonal relationships: the more empathy an individual has towards those they intend to manipulate, the less willing they are to do so [8].

  • They demonstrate little regard for conventional morality: what society deems morally right or wrong has minimal influence on their actions [8].

  • They show low ideological commitment: individuals high in Machiavellianism tend to adopt an instrumental view of the world, one that leans towards a pragmatic perspective [8]. Ideological frameworks are often seen as rigid and limiting. While such individuals may align themselves with particular group ideologies, it is typically for strategic, self-serving purposes — as a means to an end — rather than from any genuine emotional identification with that group’s values. Consider the news anchor who is dismissed from Fox News and begins working for CNN the very next day, or the political figure who portrays themselves as representing a particular group’s perspective, yet at the same time appears to stand for nothing — consistently avoiding direct answers to straightforward questions.

This trait is most commonly measured using instruments such as the Mach-IV scale, which assesses agreement with statements reflecting manipulation, amoral reasoning, and distrust of others [9]. High scorers on this scale typically believe that others are inherently self-interested and therefore view manipulation not as deviance, but as a rational strategy for social navigation.

Machiavellianism and Psychopathy exhibit considerable overlap, with some researchers arguing that the traits should be merged [10]. However, the key distinction — and likely the reason they remain separate — lies in differences in impulsivity and emotional regulation. Unlike Psychopathy, individuals high in Machiavellianism are generally capable of delaying gratification and engaging in long-term strategic planning. They are typically more socially adept — able to maintain a façade of prosocial behaviour when it serves their objectives — and are, as a result, rarely reckless [4].

Neurocognitively, research suggests that Machiavellianism is associated with enhanced cognitive empathy (cold empathy) and diminished affective empathy (hot empathy) [11]. Cold empathy refers to the individual’s ability to intellectually understand or predict the emotional reactions of others, whereas hot empathy involves the individual’s own internal emotional response to the emotions of others.

Consider the example of observing someone in distress: cold empathy enables one to intellectually interpret and anticipate the person’s internal state or behavioural response, while hot empathy refers to the emotional reaction evoked in the observer upon witnessing the other’s suffering [12]. Individuals high in Machiavellianism tend to exhibit high levels of cold empathy and low levels of hot empathy — enabling them to accurately infer others’ thoughts and emotions (a capacity often referred to as Theory of Mind), while remaining emotionally detached.

Philosophically, Machiavellianism raises important questions about the boundary between prudence and manipulation, and between strategic thinking and moral disengagement. It reflects a worldview in which trust is considered naïve, and where relationships are viewed as tools for personal gain rather than ends in themselves.

As the exploration of the Dark Tetrad continues, it is important to keep in mind that these traits often overlap — but their distinctions matter. Individuals high in Machiavellianism are the calculated, detached manipulators. It feels fitting to end this section with two quotes from Machiavelli. The first captures the essence of this trait: “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.” The second offers a satirical reflection of many contemporary political figures: “There is nothing more important than appearing to be religious.”

Narcissism: Entitled Self-Preoccupation

Narcissism is perhaps the most recognisable of the four traits — a term that has almost become cultural shorthand for arrogance, vanity, or self-obsession. Yet in psychological terms, Narcissism is far more complex than this.

At its core lies an entitled sense of self-importance, which manifests as selfishness, entitlement, a lack of empathy, and the devaluation of others [13]. Two main forms of Narcissism are generally recognised: grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism.

Grandiose narcissism, often referred to as the ‘thick-skinned’ type, is marked by an antagonistic core and a temperamental boldness. It aligns with the common stereotype: individuals with a high opinion of themselves, who are dominant, authoritative, self-promoting, and often exploitative. They believe they are uniquely talented or important, and expect others to recognise and affirm that perceived superiority [13]. There is an ongoing debate as to what truly drives the grandiose narcissist. Some argue that it stems from underlying insecurity — that admiration is not merely desired but psychologically necessary to preserve their sense of worth. However, while this remains a point of contention, the prevailing consensus suggests otherwise: that they typically possess genuinely high self-esteem regardless of feedback, which often leads to the dismissal or devaluation of those they perceive as inferior [14]. Antisocial tendencies frequently stem from this dynamic — a kind of dehumanisation of others, paired with the expectation that others treat them in accordance with the grandiose self-image they hold.

Vulnerable narcissism, by contrast, is less visible — though arguably more insidious. These individuals also exhibit entitlement and self-focus, but they are more defensive, hypersensitive to criticism, and prone to shame and social withdrawal. Their self-esteem is fragile and requires constant regulation [13]. What may appear as confidence on the surface is, in fact, entirely dependent on external feedback — their sense of self is not internally anchored, but contingent upon how others respond to them. This external dependency is precisely what renders vulnerable narcissism socially corrosive: relational dynamics may become needy, obsessive, and when their need for admiration is unmet, spite and vengefulness often emerge in its place.

Both vulnerable narcissism and grandiose narcissism are the two widely accepted manifestations of the trait. Occasionally referenced is what is termed ‘malignant narcissism’ — a proposed construct used to describe particularly severe forms of narcissism that incorporate sadistic and psychopathic tendencies. Unsurprisingly, this often results in disturbing and cruel behavioural expressions. While not a formal clinical diagnosis nor a widely established construct, it remains a concept of interest. As the subsequent sections will explore several of the traits it encompasses, it will not be expanded upon here.

In summary, the narcissist — whether of the vulnerable type, the grandiose type, or somewhere in between — may exhibit differing patterns of behaviour. Excluding other personality factors, this variation is largely shaped by differences in self-esteem, sensitivity, and underlying incentive structures. However, core themes that narcissistic individuals invariably share include a sense of entitlement, self-preoccupation, and the pervasive belief that they are the central figure in the world they inhabit [13].

Psychopathy: The Empathy Gap

Of all the constructs within the Dark Tetrad, Psychopathy is perhaps the most mythologised. In popular imagination, the term ‘psychopath’ evokes images of sadistic killers, serial predators, and criminal masterminds. Such depictions, drawn largely from forensic psychiatry and the criminal justice system, reflect a clinical diagnosis — not the personality traits under discussion within the framework of the Dark Tetrad.

What is being addressed here is not a psychiatric disorder, but a set of personality characteristics observable across the general population. These traits include emotional coldness, a lack of empathy or remorse, manipulativeness, and often, impulsivity or a disregard for conventional morality [4]. Individuals who score highly on these traits may never engage in criminal behaviour. They may never raise suspicion. Yet they often leave behind a trail of interpersonal damage, broken trust, and moral dissonance.

To study these traits, researchers rely on psychometric tools designed for non-clinical populations. One of the most widely used is the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI). The PPI does not assess criminal behaviour — it assesses personality. It is structured around two higher-order dimensions, referred to as Factor 1 and Factor 2 [15]:

  • Fearless Dominance (Factor 1): characterised by social boldness, low anxiety, stress immunity, thrill seeking, assertiveness, emotional stability, and reduced affective empathy.

  • Self-Centred Impulsivity (Factor 2): encompassing irresponsibility, egocentrism, impulsivity, externalisation of blame, substance misuse, and aggression — either towards others or oneself (e.g., self-harm).

An individual may score at varying levels across these two factors; however, it is the combination of scores that determines the overall trait profile. Some versions of the inventory also isolate a third dimension — Coldheartedness — capturing the emotional detachment at the core of Psychopathy.

From a developmental standpoint, Psychopathy appears to have both heritable and environmental components. Traits associated with fearlessness and reduced empathy show moderate to high heritability. However, early relational trauma, neglect, and inconsistent parenting can contribute to more impulsive and emotionally dysregulated manifestations of Psychopathy [16].

This leads to another distinction, which maps closely onto the Factor 1 and Factor 2 dimensions of Psychopathy — Factor 1 aligns with what is termed primary psychopathy, and Factor 2 with secondary psychopathy [16]:

  • Primary psychopathy is thought to be more genetically based — characterised by emotional detachment, low anxiety, and affective deficits.

  • Secondary psychopathy, by contrast, involves greater emotional reactivity, heightened anxiety, and is often associated with adverse environmental conditions.

As outlined previously, cognitive (cold) empathy and affective (hot) empathy refer to distinct processes — with affective empathy being the capacity to feel concern, remorse, or compassion in response to another's suffering, and cognitive empathy referring to the ability to read others' emotions and predict behaviour effectively [12]. To aid in conceptualising this distinction, consider someone who scores high on Factor 2 — the self-centred impulsivity dimension, aligning with secondary psychopathy. Such individuals tend to exhibit low levels of both empathy types. This profile is associated with career difficulties, fractured relationships, substance misuse, poor mental health, and frequent conflict with the law [17].

Now contrast this with someone who scores high on Factor 1 — the fearless dominance dimension, aligning with primary psychopathy. These individuals typically lack affective empathy but retain cognitive empathy [12]. This pattern closely mirrors trait Machiavellianism. Their ability to understand but not feel others’ emotions is precisely what enables them to function — and sometimes thrive — in society. This occurs frequently enough that researchers have explored the controversial notion of ‘successful psychopathy’ [18]: individuals who display these traits yet operate effectively in high-status social or professional roles — beneath which often lie estranged families, superficial relationships, and the exploitation of those drawn too close.

It is important to emphasise that Psychopathy is assessed as a whole, rather than in isolated parts. What is described here are not discrete trait divisions, but conceptual subtypes — heuristics that assist in understanding the variance in how trait Psychopathy is expressed. It is also important to clarify that Psychopathy, as a trait, is not necessarily defined by cruelty or violence, but rather by an absence of moral emotion — a void where guilt, remorse, or compassion should reside. Not pleasure from others’ suffering, but rather an emotional indifference to it. And while this disposition may occasionally confer social or professional advantage, it carries a deeper cost: the corrosion of trust, the instrumentalisation of others, and the neglect of moral responsibility in everyday life.

The next section turns to Sadism — where malevolence takes a more active form: the deliberate pursuit of cruelty for pleasure.

Sadism: A Hunger for Harm

Sadism as a concept has existed for some time, but Sadism as a trait — sometimes referred to as ‘everyday sadism’ — is a more recent development. Much of the literature on the topic continues to focus on Sadism in its extreme form, typically involving a clinical diagnosis. Theoretically, both refer to the same underlying disposition, but the behavioural manifestations differ significantly.

Unlike the other traits, which are generally characterised by an absence of concern for others’ suffering, Sadism involves an active interest in it. In psychological terms, trait Sadism refers to a tendency to derive enjoyment from inflicting or observing suffering, even when such behaviour serves no instrumental purpose [19].

When Sadism manifests within clinical contexts — and when, as is often the case, it is combined with other malevolent characteristics — its expression often assumes distinctly disturbing and morally perverse forms. One of the darker insights that emerges from the literature is the frequency with which highly sadistic individuals derive pleasure from harming others through sexual acts — a condition clinically defined as Sexual Sadism Disorder. In such cases, witnessing or inflicting harm elicits not only pleasure, but also sexual arousal [19]. If acted upon, this represents the epitome of malevolence. Thankfully, such cases are rare and represent Sadism in its most extreme and pathological form.

In contrast to the clinical or criminal realms, Sadism as a trait — often referred to as ‘everyday sadism’ — is studied within the general population, where it can manifest in subtle and, at times, socially tolerated forms. Researchers have recently developed psychometric tools to measure everyday sadism. The Short Sadistic Impulse Scale (SSIS) and the Comprehensive Assessment of Sadistic Tendencies (CAST) are commonly used to assess this construct in non-clinical subjects [20][21]. These scales evaluate behaviours such as enjoying cruelty-themed media, engaging in humiliating mockery, or deriving satisfaction from asserting dominance over others — particularly when it causes discomfort.

Sadism, though newer to the Dark Tetrad, has demonstrated unique predictive power in studies of online behaviour, bullying, and aggressive humour. Cyber-sadism, in particular, has gained attention as a contemporary manifestation — evident in behaviours such as doxxing (the act of publicly exposing someone’s private information without consent), trolling (posting deliberately offensive or provocative content), and deriving amusement from public shaming in digital spaces [22]. This behaviour is not impulsive or reactive — it is often calculated and perversely recreational.

This points to a different kind of moral deficit — not a blind spot, but a perversion of moral emotion, wherein another’s suffering is not overlooked but actively enjoyed. While the other traits within the Dark Tetrad tend to cause harm through indifference or opportunism [1], Sadism is uniquely distinct in that the witnessing or infliction of harm is deliberately sought out. It is autotelic — the suffering of others is not merely tolerated or used instrumentally; it constitutes the source of gratification itself [19].

Developmentally, Sadism may emerge from early experiences of powerlessness, where cruelty becomes a learned mechanism for reasserting control. It may also co-develop with low empathy, elevated aggression, and other externalising behaviours [23]. This trait is arguably more pressing to understand now than ever — particularly in a digital age where those who derive pleasure from the degradation of others can do so with relative ease and minimal consequence. If nothing else, recognising this dynamic may help targets of such behaviour to better compartmentalise these actions for what they are — and the ill-fated individual responsible for them.

Closing Remarks

That concludes this overview of the Dark Tetrad — comprising the four core traits: Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Sadism. These traits, particularly in their more extreme forms, tend to capture our interest — perhaps because they appear distant from what we consider typical human behaviour. Yet it can be unsettling to recognise that these traits exist dimensionally, and to varying degrees, within us all. Nonetheless, while the flaws of human nature are undeniable, it remains important to recognise that they are often redeemed by our capacity for reflection, restraint, and moral growth.

Key Takeaways

  • The Dark Tetrad evolved from the original Dark Triad model, which was introduced in 2002. It consists of four traits: Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Sadism.

  • As with the Big Five, the Dark Tetrad represents a distinct model within the broader framework of trait theory. It focuses on socially aversive traits and their link to moral orientation and behavioural motivation. These traits exist dimensionally, and to varying degrees within us all.

  • Empathy is typically categorised into two types: cognitive (cold) empathy — understanding others’ emotions; and affective (hot) empathy — emotionally responding to them.

  • Machiavellianism is defined by manipulativeness, moral detachment, and calculated self-interest — with manipulativeness being its core feature.

  • Narcissism involves entitlement and self-preoccupation, expressed primarily as either grandiose narcissism or vulnerable narcissism, differentiated primarily by self-esteem stability.

  • Psychopathy is defined by an empathy deficit and moral disregard, measured via two key dimensions: Fearless Dominance (Factor 1) and Self-Centred Impulsivity (Factor 2).

  • Sadism refers to the tendency to derive enjoyment from inflicting or witnessing the suffering of others, even when such behaviour serves no instrumental purpose. As a trait, it is often referred to as ‘everyday sadism’, with cyber-sadism representing a modern manifestation of this disposition.

References

1. Međedović, J., & Petrović, B. (2015). Structural properties and location in the personality space: The Dark Tetrad. Journal of Individual Differences, 36(4), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000179 

2. Hughes, S., & Samuels, H. (2020). Dark desires: The Dark Tetrad and relationship control. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, Article 110548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110548 

3. Thibault, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (2020). The Dark Tetrad at Work: Human performance. Human Performance, 33(5), 406–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2020.1802728 

4. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

5. Meere, M., & Egan, V. (2017). Everyday sadism, dark triad, personality and disgust sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, Article 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.056 

6. Shahnawaz, M. G., Nasir, S., & Rehman, U. (2019). Sadism and cyber aggression: Moral identity as a possible moderator. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29(8), 969–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2019.1575302 

7. Machiavelli, N. (1532/2005). The Prince (P. Bondanella, Trans.). Oxford University Press.

8. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-10497-7 

9. Láng, A. (2017). Machiavellianism Scale (Mach-IV). In V. Zeigler‑Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (Living reference work entry). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1246-1 

10. Miller, J. D., Hyatt, C. S., Maples‑Keller, J. L., Carter, N. T., & Lynam, D. R. (2017). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism: A distinction without a difference? Journal of Personality, 85(4), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12251 

11. Paal, T., & Bereczkei, T. (2007). Adult theory of mind, cooperation, Machiavellianism: The effect of mindreading on social relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(3), 541–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.021 

12. Cox, C. L., Uddin, L. Q., Di Martino, A., Castellanos, F. X., Milham, M. P., & Kelly, C. (2012). The balance between feeling and knowing: Affective and cognitive empathy are reflected in the brain’s intrinsic functional dynamics. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(6), 727–737. 10.1093/scan/nsr051  

13. Edershile, E., & Wright, A. G. C. (2021). Narcissism dynamics. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(1), e12649. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12649

14. Edershile, E. A., & Wright, A. G. C. (2021). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissistic states in interpersonal situations. Self and Identity, 20(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1627241 

15. Uzieblo, K., Verschuere, B., & Crombez, G. (2007). The Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Construct validity of the two-factor structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 657–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.008  

16. Sethi, A., McCrory, E., Puetz, V., Hoffmann, F., Knodt, A. R., Radtke, S. R., Brigidi, B. D., Hariri, A. R., & Viding, E. (2018). Primary and secondary variants of psychopathy in a volunteer sample are associated with different neurocognitive mechanisms. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(12), 1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2018.04.002  

17. Wai, M., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(7), 794–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.008 

18. Wallace, L., Fido, D., Sumich, A. L., & Heym, N. (2022). A systematic review on the current conceptualisations of successful psychopathy. Forensic Science International: Mind and Law, 3, 100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsiml.2022.100076 

19. Paulhus, D. L., & Dutton, D. G. (2016). Everyday sadism. In V. Zeigler-Hill & D. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of human nature (Chapter 5, pp. 109–117). Wiley & Sons. 

20. O’Meara, A., Davies, J., & Hammond, S. (2011). The psychometric properties and utility of the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale (SSIS). Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022400  

21. Buckels, E. E. (2023). Multifaceted assessment of sadistic tendencies: The varieties of sadistic tendencies and comprehensive assessment of sadistic tendencies measures. In P. K. Jonason (Ed.), Shining light on the dark side of personality: Measurement properties and theoretical advances (pp. 194–204). Hogrefe. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-84375-019  

22. Sest, N., & March, E. (2017). Constructing the cyber-troll: Psychopathy, sadism, and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.038

23. Cazala, F., Sajous-Turner, A., Caldwell, M. F., & et al. (2024). Childhood trauma predicts sadistic traits and violent behavior in incarcerated youth. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 55, 1582–1591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-023-01494-0 

Dr Harry
Previous

Personality Psychology: How the Big Five Traits Shape Our Lives