Couple dominance dark personality traits and power motivation: Difference between revisions
| Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
<div style="text-align: left;"><b>Figure 2.</b> Mediation model with power (explicit) mediating the association between grandiose narcissism and couple dominance (Indirect effects: ''B'' = -0.13, ''b'' = -0.02, ''SE'' = 0.015, 95%BootCIs [-0.054, 0.007]). Unstandardized regression coefficients shown for each relationship, with ''*p'' < 0.05, ''**p'' < 0.01, ''***p'' < 0.001. Direct effect from grandiose narcissism to couple dominance (c’ path) is shown in parentheses. Squared multiple correlation (R<sup>2</sup>) are given for each endogenous variable.</div> | <div style="text-align: left;"><b>Figure 2.</b> Mediation model with power (explicit) mediating the association between grandiose narcissism and couple dominance (Indirect effects: ''B'' = -0.13, ''b'' = -0.02, ''SE'' = 0.015, 95%BootCIs [-0.054, 0.007]). Unstandardized regression coefficients shown for each relationship, with ''*p'' < 0.05, ''**p'' < 0.01, ''***p'' < 0.001. Direct effect from grandiose narcissism to couple dominance (c’ path) is shown in parentheses. Squared multiple correlation (R<sup>2</sup>) are given for each endogenous variable.</div> | ||
[[File:Dario Maestripieri Couple dominance dark personality traits and power motivation Figure 3.jpg|600px|centre]] | |||
<div style="text-align: left;"><b>Figure 3.</b>Mediation model with power (explicit) mediating the association between Machiavellian egocentricity and couple dominance (Indirect effects: ''B'' = -0.008, ''b'' = -0.022, ''SE'' = 0.013, 95%BootCIs [-0.053, -0.005]). Unstandardized regression coefficients shown for each relationship, with ''+p'' < 0.10, ''*p'' < 0.05. Direct effect from Machiavellian egocentricity to couple dominance (c’ path) is shown in parentheses. Squared multiple correlation (R<sup>2</sup>) are given for each endogenous variable.</div> | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 11:47, 5 January 2024
Javier I. Borráz-León(1), Coltan Scrivner(1,4), Oliver C. Schultheiss(2), Royce Lee(3), Dario Maestripieri(1,4)
(1) Institute for Mind and Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
(2) Institute of Psychology, Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
(3) Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
(4) Department of Comparative Human Development, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Correspondence: Dario Maestripieri, dario@uchicago.edu
| Published |
| January 5, 2024 |
| Title |
| Couple dominance, dark personality traits, and power motivation |
| Authors |
| Javier I. Borráz-León(1), Coltan Scrivner(1,4), Oliver C. Schultheiss(2), Royce Lee(3), Dario Maestripieri(1,4) |
| Keywords |
| Couple dominance; explicit power; implicit power; psychopathy; borderline; narcissism; autistic-like trait |
| Downloads |
 |
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Author Contributions
JIB-L: Data Analysis, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing. CS: Data collection, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing. OCS: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Data Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing. RL: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing. DM: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing.
Funding
The authors have no funding sources to report.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the late Scott O. Lilienfeld for helpful discussions of conceptual and methodological aspects of this research.
Abstract
In romantic couples, there is usually an asymmetry in decisional power such that one partner is dominant and the other is subordinate. This study investigated the role of sex, ethnicity, self-assessed social status, personality traits, and power motivation (both explicit and implicit) as potential determinants or correlates of couple dominance in a mixed-sex sample of 50 college students. Through a previously validated questionnaire, participants indicated whether they were dominant or subordinate in their romantic relationship, or whether the latter was egalitarian. Major personality domains, narcissism, psychopathy, borderline, autistic-like traits, and explicit power were assessed through questionnaires. Participants also underwent a Picture Story Exercise to evaluate their implicit motives. Being dominant and having high explicit, but not implicit, power motivation were associated with some psychopathic, narcissistic, and/or borderline traits, while autistic-like traits were associated with being subordinate. Traits such as extraversion, conscientiousness, and honesty-humility had weak associations with couple dominance and/or explicit or implicit power motivation. Our findings have implications for the understanding of dominance dynamics within couples and the relationship between personality traits and power motivation.
Introduction
Dyadic dominance constitutes the building block for status hierarchies and both are ubiquitous in socially living vertebrates, including many species of nonhuman primates as well as humans [1]. In human romantic couples, and especially in those in which the relationship has lasted more than a few weeks or months, there is usually an asymmetry in decisional power such that one partner is dominant and the other is subordinate [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. In heterosexual couples, and especially in older couples or couples in which the man is much older than the woman, men are more likely to be dominant and women are more likely to be subordinate [5, 7; but see 8]. When decisional power is roughly shared within a couple and there is no clear-cut dominance, the relationship is considered to be egalitarian [5, 7].
Clear asymmetries in characteristics other than age (e.g., cultural beliefs associated with ethnicity, explicit or implicit power motivation, attractiveness, status in society, earning power, personality traits, etc.), may or may not be associated with couple dominance. Explicit motivation refers to conscious interest in attaining a particular goal (e.g., power), whereas implicit motivation refers to unconscious dispositions [9, 10].
In this study, we investigated the role of sex, ethnicity, self-assessed social status, personality traits, and power motivation (both explicit and implicit) as potential determinants or correlates of couple dominance. We are careful here to clarify that our use of the term ‘traits’ is specific to the instruments and the constructs that they measure, with no assumption that they are static over the life course, inherently genetically transmitted, or inherently pathological. We also will try to sidestep the debate over the precise boundaries between personality traits and personality disorders, given that our real interest here is understanding how personality constructs are related to dyadic relationships.
Previous research on personality traits assessed with the Big-Five Inventory has suggested that extraversion and introversion may be associated with dominance and subordination, respectively [11]. Assessments of personality with the HEXACO or the Autistic Quotient (AQ) questionnaire have suggested that honesty-humility and autistic-like traits may be associated with subordination in dyadic relationships as well [12, 13]. In contrast, dominance may be predicted by narcissistic, psychopathic, and borderline personality traits, all of which seem to be characterized by some degree of self-assertiveness, aggressiveness, and attempts to control, manipulate, and exploit others [14, 15, 16, 17]. Psychopathy, in particular, seems to be characterized, at least in high-functioning, socially successful individuals, by ‘fearless dominance’, that is the tendency to threaten, intimidate, control, and coerce others without any fear of the consequences of such behavior [18, 19, 20]. The hypothesis, however, that personality styles or traits associated with interpersonal aggression (narcissistic, psychopathic, or borderline), in both their dimensional and their pathological manifestations, may be characterized by high power motivation and the tendency to achieve dominance in dyadic relationships has not been systematically investigated (but see [21]).
In this study, we tested two non-mutually exclusive hypotheses: H1) that some personality traits (e.g., extraversion/introversion, honesty-humility, autistic-like traits, narcissism, psychopathy, and borderline) and explicit/implicit power motivation can independently predict or be associated with dominance or subordination in young romantic couples; H2) that explicit/implicit power motives are psychological mechanisms mediating the association between personality traits and couple dominance.
Whether H1) or H2), or both, are supported, we expect that greater power motivation (both explicit and implicit) is positively associated with narcissism, psychopathy, and borderline personality traits, and negatively associated with autistic-like personality and honesty-humility [13, 15, 22, 23]. We further hypothesize that some of these associations may be moderated by sex (H3), such that the association between, for example, narcissism and power motivation, and between psychopathy and power motivation, would be stronger for men than for women, while the association between borderline personality traits and power motivation would be stronger for women than for men. The rationale for this hypothesis is that traits associated with interpersonal aggression can be interpreted as strategies to achieve social success, and that men and women, on average, may use different strategies to pursue and maintain power (i.e., dominance) [21, 24, 25] in heterosexual relationships, especially long-lasting ones.
Methods
Participants and study procedure
A sample of 50 subjects with an age range of 18-53 years participated in this study (nmales = 18, age: M = 27.38, SD = 8.89; nfemales = 32, age: M = 22.71, SD = 3.40); the difference in age between males and females was statistically significant (t = 2.141, p = 0.045). Participants were recruited on the University of Chicago campus through fliers, Marketplace, and a human subject recruitment website (Sona System). Study participants were all heterosexual and were not recruited from a clinical sample. Approximately 32% of the participants reported being Asian, 18% Black, 18% Hispanic/Latino, 28% White, and 2% Other. All study participants signed a written informed consent letter in which the procedure and objectives were clearly explained to them. The study adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Social Science Institutional Review Board at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Study participants were asked to remotely complete the questionnaires listed below before they came in person to the lab in the Institute for Mind and Biology to undergo some experimental procedures not reported in this article. Since some components of the project required in person testing, data collection, which had begun in the Summer of 2019 had to be interrupted in January 2020, in conjunction with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in the U.S. and new research guidelines issued by the University of Chicago, which prohibited in person laboratory testing of human subjects.
Couple dominance
The Couple Dominance Assessment questionnaire (CDA; [5, 7]) was used to assess dominance in a romantic relationship. Dominance was operationalized as having more decisional power [5, 7]. From this perspective, one individual is dominant and the other is subordinate. If decisional power is perceived to be roughly equal within the couple, the relationship is described as egalitarian (this is more commonly the case for relationships at an early stage, in which two individuals just started dating, or for relationships that did not last more than a few months) [5, 7]. A previous study in which two partners in each couple were separately interviewed showed a high degree of concordance in assessing who is dominant and who is subordinate, or whether the relationship is egalitarian [7]. This study also showed that couple dominance is generally consistent across many different domains of the relationship [7].
The CDA consists of a single question: in your romantic relationship, who is dominant and who is subordinate? Participants can answer the question with a score from 1 to 5, where 1 = I am definitely dominant over my partner; 2= I am somewhat dominant over my partner; 3= neither I nor my partner is dominant; 4= my partner is somewhat dominant over me; 5 = my partner is definitely dominant over me. If a participant is single at the time of the study, he or she is told to answer the CDA with reference to their most recent romantic relationship. The lower the score the higher the dominance.
Subjective social status
The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status was used to assess self-perceptions of social status in relation to a group of reference [26]. It presents a drawing of a ladder, a “social ladder”, and asks individuals to place an “X” on the rung on which they feel they stand. In this study, participants were asked to estimate their social status within their community of close acquaintances and friends.
Explicit power motivation
An early version of the Feeling Powerful and Desiring Power Scales (FPDPS; [27]) was used to evaluate participants’ explicit motivation and propensity for power. This scale contains 20 items (e.g., I always try to spot the dominant people in any situation) grouped into three subscales: feeling powerful, desire for power, and attention to power (see [27] for further details). Power scores are obtained through a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = disagree strongly to 5 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s α in this study was 0.86.
Implicit motives
A Picture Story Exercise (PSE) was administered to assess participants’ implicit motivational needs (n) for power, achievement, and affiliation (i.e., nPower, nAchievement, and nAffiliation) as well as activity inhibition, a frequent moderator of these motives and a predictor of leadership success [28, 29]. Participants were instructed to write imaginative stories in response to the following four picture cues: Nightclub Scene, Boxer, Trapeze Artists, and Ship Captain. These pictures were selected because two of them suggested heterosexual relationship themes and all were suitable for eliciting power imagery, but also to a lesser extent imagery related to achievement and affiliation [30]. The third author (OCS), who was blind to the specific hypotheses tested in the present research and who had no knowledge of any of the other data collected from participants (including information related to participants’ sex), coded all PSE stories based on Winter’s [31] running-text system. According to the manual, power imagery is coded for themes related to strong forceful action; control and regulation of others; convincing or persuading others; providing unsolicited help or advice; concern with fame and prestige (or a lack thereof); and eliciting strong emotional reactions in others. Achievement imagery is coded for goals or performances that are positively evaluated; competing with others or winning; negative affect in response to failure; and unique accomplishments. Affiliation imagery is coded for positive interpersonal affect; sadness about disruption or loess of relationships; affiliative activities; and nurturant helping. The coder had achieved > 85% agreement with expert-coded materials contained in the manual, routinely teaches courses on coding motive imagery, and has extensive coding experience, with more than 10,000 stories coded. Word count and activity inhibition was determined by word count and search functions of the text processing software. For each participant, motive and activity inhibition (AI) scores were summed across picture stories to yield total nPower, nAchievement, and nAffiliation scores.
Following the recommendations by Schönbrodt et al. [32], motive and AI scores were partialled for total word count and the residuals, after conversion to z scores, used in all inferential statistical analyses. Two participants were excluded due to their word count being less than 120 words. Thus, all statistical analyses including implicit motives were run on a sample of 48 participants. Raw scores of each measure were as follows: nPower M = 19.63, SD = 11.92; nAchievement: M = 10.06, SD = 6.79; nAffiliation: M = 9.56, SD = 5.70; activity inhibition: M = 3.75, SD =3.35; word count: M = 466.98, SD = 152.56.
Major personality domains
The HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO-PI-R; [33]) was used to assess the six major domains of human personality [(i.e., Honesty-Humility (α = 0.74), Emotionality (α = 0.79), Extraversion (α = 0.70), Agreeableness (α = 0.71), Conscientiousness (α = 0.77), and Openness to experience(α = 0.72)] through 60 items (e.g., I wouldn't use flattery to get a raise or promotion at work, even if I thought it would succeed). The scores were obtained using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Autistic-like personality traits
Autistic-like personality traits were assessed using the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ; [34]) which contains 50 items (e.g., I like to plan activities I participate in carefully) rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s α in this study was 0.50.
Borderline traits
Borderline personality traits were assessed using the Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale (PAI-BOR; [35]). This scale contains 24 items (e.g., “my moods get quite intense”) grouped into four subscales [(i.e., affective instability (α = 0.77), identity problems (α = 0.75), negative relationships (α = 0.68), and self-harm (α = 0.74)], and rated on a 4-point Likert-scale ranging from 0 = false / not at all true to 3 = very true. Cronbach’s α for the general borderline score was 0.90.
Psychopathic traits
Psychopathic traits were assessed using the revised version of the Psychopathic Personality Questionnaire (PPI-R; [36]). This scale consists of 144 items [i.e., Machiavellian egocentricity (α = 0.72), fearlessness (α = 0.81), rebellious nonconformity (α = 0.79), blame externalization (α = 0.86), stress immunity (α = 0.75), cold heartedness (α = 0.80), social influence (α = 0.77), and carefree nonplanfulness (α = 0.73)], and rated on a 4-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = false to 4 = true. Cronbach’s α for the general psychopathic score was 0.82.
Narcissistic traits
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; [37]) was used to assess grandiose narcissism using 40 paired statements (e.g., I would do almost anything on a dare or, I tend to be a fairly cautious person) where participants have to choose which one of the options is closest to their feelings. Cronbach’s α in this study was 0.80.
The Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS; [38]) was used to assess vulnerable narcissism through 10 items (e.g., my feelings are easily hurt by ridicule or the slighting remarks of others). The scores were obtained using a 5-point Likert (1 = very uncharacteristic or untrue, strongly disagree, 5 = very characteristic or true, strongly agree). Cronbach’s α in this study was 0.74.
Statistical analyses
Data that did not meet the normality criteria was log-transformed to improve normality. Partial correlations, controlling for the confounding effects of age and sex, were used to study associations between couple dominance, power motivation (both explicit and implicit), and personality traits. Mediation analyses using explicit power motivation (the global score) as mediator were performed. In bootstrap analyses (10,000 bootstrap samples), mediation was considered statistically significant if the 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for the indirect effect did not include zero. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 26 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and its complement PROCESS version 4.1 [39]. The package ‘corrplot’ version 0.92 [40] from R version 4.2.2 [41] was used to create Figure 1 in this study. All tests were two-tailed, and statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.
Results
Couple dominance
Eleven participants reported being definitely dominant over their partners, nine reported being somewhat dominant over their partners, twenty-two reported an egalitarian couple relationship, five reported their partners being somewhat dominant over them, one reported his/her partner being definitely dominant over him/her. Two participants did not report information about couple dominance.
Sex, ethnicity, and psychological variables
Sex differences in psychological variables are presented in Table 1. In brief, men scored lower than women in the implicit motive “nAchievement” and in the HEXACO trait “agreeableness”, but higher in “honesty-humility”. Men also scored lower than women in the borderline traits “identity problems”, “negative relationships”, and in the global borderline score; they scored higher than women in the psychopathic trait “stress immunity”. Tendencies for men to score lower than women in the borderline trait “self-harm”, and higher than women in the psychopathic trait “carefree nonplanfulness” were also found. No significant sex differences were found for the other personality measures.
There were no significant differences in relation to ethnicity for any of the dependent variables of interest in this study (F(4,44) < 1.700, p > 0.150 in all cases).
Correlates and predictors of couple dominance
Couple dominance did not differ significantly in relation to participants’ sex (t = -0.613, p = 0.544) or ethnicity (F(4,42) = 0.141, p = 0.966). Couple dominance was not significantly associated with self-assessed social status (r = -0.146, p = 0.333) and tended to be negatively correlated to extraversion (r = -0.270, p = 0.069) and positively correlated to conscientiousness (r = 0.269, p = 0.071). Couple dominance was positively correlated to autistic-like traits (r = 0.311, p = 0.035) and negatively associated with grandiose narcissism (r = -0.382, p = 0.009) and with the psychopathic trait “Machiavellian egocentricity” (r = -0.291, p = 0.050). A tendency for a negative correlation between couple dominance and the psychopathic trait “fearlessness” (r = -0.275, p = 0.075), and for a positive correlation between couple dominance and the psychopathic trait “cold heartedness” (r = 0.279, p = 0.061) was also observed. No significant associations were found between couple dominance and the other psychopathy measures (r < 0.16, p > 0.20 in all cases), vulnerable narcissism (r = -0.041, p = 0.788), or any borderline trait (r < 0.04, p > 0.80 in all cases).
Couple dominance was negatively correlated with desire for power, attention to power, and the global power score (Figure 1), suggesting that dominant individuals have higher explicit power motivation than subordinate individuals (but there was no significant correlation between couple dominance and feeling powerful). A positive correlation between couple dominance and activity inhibition was also found (r = 0.346, p = 0.021). No significant associations were found for couple dominance and any measures of implicit motives (r < 0.19, p > 0.21 in all cases).
Based on the results of the correlational analyses, we tested with mediation models whether explicit power motivation, as measured by the global power score, was the mechanism mediating the association of grandiose narcissism and the psychopathy measure of “Machiavellian egocentricity ” and couple dominance, since regression analyses showed that grandiose narcissism and “Machiavellian egocentricity” predicted explicit power motivation (B = 1.319, β = 0.644, t = 5.837, p < 0.001 and B = 0.964, β = 0.278, t = 2.004, p = 0.051, respectively), and that explicit power motivation predicted couple dominance (B = -0.006, β = -0.356, t = -2.583, p = 0.013).
For the first model, we found that power does not significantly mediate the association between grandiose narcissism and couple dominance (Figure 2). For the second model, we found that power fully mediates the association between Machiavellian egocentricity and couple dominance (Figure 3).
