European Journal of Personality,Eur. J.Pers. (2016) PublishedonlineinWileyOnlineLibrary(wileyonlinelibrary.com)DOI:10.1002/per.2040 How Alluring Are Dark Personalities? The Dark Triad and Attractiveness in Speed Dating EMANUEL JAUK1*,ALJOSCHA C.NEUBAUER1, THOMAS MAIRUNTEREGGER1, STEPHANIE PEMP1, KATHARINA P.SIEBER1 and JOHN F. RAUTHMANN2 1Karl-Franzens-UniversitätGraz,Austria 2Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin,Germany Abstract: DarkTriadtraits(narcissism,psychopathy,andMachiavellianism)arelinkedtothepursuitofshort-term matingstrategies,buttheymayhavedifferentialeffectsonactualmatingsuccessinnaturalisticscenarios:Narcissism maybeafacilitatorformen’sshort-termmatingsuccess,whileMachiavellianismandpsychopathymaybedetrimen- tal. To date, little is known about the attractiveness of Dark Triad traits in women. In a speed-dating study, we assessedparticipants’DarkTriadtraits,BigFivepersonalitytraits,andphysicalattractivenessinN=90heterosex- ualindividuals(46womenand44men).Eachparticipantratedeachpartner’smateappealforshort-andlong-term relationships.Acrossbothsexes,narcissismwaspositivelyassociatedwithmateappealforshort-andlong-termre- lationships.Furtheranalysesindicatedthattheseassociationswereduetothesharedvarianceamongnarcissismand extraversioninmenandnarcissismandphysicalattractivenessinwomen,respectively.Inwomen,psychopathywas also positively associated with mate appeal for short-term relationships. Regarding mating preferences, narcissism was found to involve greater choosiness in the rating of others’ mate appeal (but not actual choices) in men, while psychopathy was associated with greater openness towards short-term relationships in women. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology Keywords: Dark Triad;narcissism; Machiavellianism; psychopathy; mating; speed dating A large body of literature (e.g. Furnham, Richards, & considered socially undesirable, they seem to convey adap- Paulhus, 2013; Paulhus & Williams, 2002) suggests that tive advantages in several domains, such as leadership and sub-clinical forms of so-called dark personality traits come entrepreneurship (Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis, & in the flavours of three grand traits: narcissism, Machiavel- Fraley, 2015; Mathieu & St-Jean, 2013) as well as in the lianism,andpsychopathy.Narcissismcircumscribestenden- mating domain(Geher &Kaufman, 2013).‘Dark’traitslike cies of seeking admiration and attention, a grandiose yet narcissism can be attractive to opposite-sex individuals, vulnerable self-view, vanity and arrogance, exhibitionism especiallyinshort-termmating(STM)contexts(e.g.Dufner, andcharm,manipulationandexploitation,andfeelingsofsu- Rauthmann, Czarna, & Denissen, 2013; Rauthmann & periority and entitlement (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Raskin Kolar, 2013). In their evolutionary theory, Holtzman and & Hall, 1979). Machiavellianism circumscribes tendencies Strube (2011)hypothesize thatnarcissism isassociated with ofimmoral,pragmatic,andcynicalthinking,detachedaffect higher mate value, which might be due to a (small) correla- andcoldness,agenticstrivings(e.g.money,status,andpower), tion between physical attractiveness (PA) and narcissism and deceit, exploitation, and strategic long-term manipulation (Holtzman & Strube, 2010). Moreover, narcissists1 are per- tactics (Christie & Geis, 1970; Fehr, Samsom, & Paulhus, ceivednotonlyasphysicallyattractivebutalsoascharming 1992;Rauthmann,2012;Rauthmann&Will,2011).Psychop- (Back,Schmukle,&Egloff,2010),whichseemstobeafruit- athycircumscribestendenciesofcallousness,interpersonalma- ful constellation for mating success. Besides their nipulation,impulsivity,andthrillseeking,aswellasanti-social charmingness at first sight, however, people with dark per- behaviours(Cleckley,1941/1964;Hare,2003). sonalities may follow through with their reproductive inter- These three traits, all positively intercorrelated, form the ests at the disregard or even expense of their mates (Rowe, ‘Dark Triad of Personality’ (DT; Paulhus & Williams, 1995) and pursue specific mating strategies. Holtzman and 2002). They share an agentic and exploitative behavioural Strube(2013a)proposedanellipticaltwo-dimensionalmodel style at the expense of or disregard for others’ welfare in which STM and long-term mating (LTM) strategies are (Jonason&Webster,2010;Jones&Paulhus,2011;Paulhus conceptualized as two moderately negatively correlated & Williams, 2002). Although DT traits are usually 1Weusetermslike‘narcissists’,‘Machiavellians’,‘psychopaths’,or‘dark personalities’asabbreviationsforpeoplescoringhighon(scalesof)there- *Correspondenceto:EmanuelJauk,DepartmentofPsychology,Universityof spectivecontinuoustrait(s).Thisdoesnotimplyacategorization(intermsof Graz,Universitätsplatz2,8010Graz,Austria.E-mail:[email protected] persontypes)oraclinicaldiagnosis. Received 20February2015 Copyright©2016EuropeanAssociationofPersonalityPsychology Revised 12November2015, Accepted 13 November 2015 E. Jauk et al. dimensions.TheyfoundthatDTtraitswereassociatedwitha Luevano,&Adams,2012b)orhypotheticalexperimentalsit- high STM and low LTM strategy, whereas Big Five traits uations (Carter et al., 2014a; Dufner et al., 2013, Study 1; such as conscientiousness and agreeableness predicted the Rauthmann&Kolar,2013).Todate,onlyonestudydirectly oppositestrategy. In thisline, ithasalso beentheorized that linked narcissism—the probably most important DT trait in exploitative traits have explicitly evolved to facilitate STM the mating domain (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013)—to attrac- (e.g.Jonason,Li,Webster,&Schmitt,2009;Jonason,Web- tiveness in real-life situations (Dufner et al., 2013, Study ster, Schmitt, Li, & Crysel, 2012a; Jonason, Li, & Buss, 3). However, it is unclear whether the high mate appeal of 2010), although the longitudinal interplay between mating narcissism might also generalize to women and to the other behaviour and DT traits remains elusive to date (Holtzman two DT traits. Thus, the current study seeks to investigate & Strube,2013a). with a speed-dating paradigm to what extent and how DT In this article, we investigate mate appeal and mating traits sampled for both sexes are associated with attractive- preferences associated with DT traits in a naturalistic nessin actual, genuine STM contexts. speed-dating design. By this means, it is possible to study how individuals with dark personality traits are perceived Mating preferences associated with DarkTriad traits byothers (mateappealof DTtraits) andhow theygenerally tend to perceive others (mating preferences associated with Darkpersonalitiesareopportunistic,casual,volatile,andex- DTtraits)inareal-lifescenario.Inaddition,weconsiderim- ploitative in mating contexts (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010; portantcovariatesofmateappealandDTtraits(PAandBig Jonason et al., 2012b; Jonason, Valentine, Li, & Harbeson, Five traits; refer to succeeding discusions). 2011).Theyarethusmoredrawntovolatilerelationshipcon- textsandfollowSTMratherthanLTMstrategies(Holtzman & Strube, 2013b; Jonason & Webster, 2010; Jonason et al., Mate appeal of Dark Triad traits 2009; Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010). This is true for narcis- What makes self-centred, manipulative, and anti-social peo- sism (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992; Campbell & Foster, 2002; ple appealing mates? Narcissism has been linked to outgo- Campbell,Foster,&Finkel,2002;Foster,Shrira,&Campbell, ingness, boldness, charmingness, and popularity (e.g. Back 2006),Machiavellianism(Jones&Paulhus,2011;McHoskey, et al., 2010; Küfner, Nestler, & Back, 2013) so that narcis- 2001; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), and psychopathy sistsmayappearattractiveforSTM(Dufneretal.,2013),al- (Lalumière & Quinsey, 1996; Lalumière, Harris, Quinsey, thoughtheycanbeperceivedasunattractiveafterprolonged & Rice, 2005; McHoskey, 2001; Vernon, Villani, Vickers, interaction(Leckelt,Küfner,Nestler,&Back,2015;Paulhus, & Harris, 2008). Moreover, as mentioned earlier, DT traits 1998), which might make them unattractive for LTM. might specifically predict the tendency to follow a STM Rauthmann and Kolar (2013) used vignettes of all DT strategy without an interest for LTM (Holtzman & Strube, traits to study how a fictitious opposite-sex narcissist, 2013b).However,therearealsodifferencesbetweentheDT Machiavellian, and psychopath were perceived regarding traits. Narcissism goes along with entitlement and devalua- theirlikeability,attractiveness,friendappeal,andmateappeal tion of others (Back et al., 2010, 2013) so that it should be (shortandlongterm).Ingeneral,narcissistswereratedmore linked to ascribing others less mate appeal. Psychopathy is favourablythanMachiavelliansandpsychopaths(despiteall linked to a particularly impulsive and exploitative mating three not obtaining high scores on any dimension). On the style (e.g. Figueredo et al., 2006; Jonason et al., 2009; basisoftheassumptionthattheDTtraitsevolvedasspecific Mealey,1995),whereasMachiavellianismtoamanipulative, facilitators of men’s STM strategies, Carter, Campbell, and deceptive,andcoerciveone(e.g.McHoskey,2001;Jones& Muncer (2014a) had women rate male character vignettes Paulhus,2011).However,Machiavellianismmightnotbecen- and found that they rated fictitious high DT characters as traltoSTMoncevariancefromnarcissismandpsychopathyis more attractive than low DT characters. Notably, this at- controlled for (Jonason et al., 2011), which fits to the finding traction was not related to or explainable by perceived that Machiavellians opportunistically pursue STM and LTM Big Five traits. In a series of three studies, Dufner et al. (e.g.Jones&Paulhus,2011).Turningtosexdifferences,Carter, (2013)foundthatnarcissismwasassociatedwithmateappeal Campbell, and Muncer (2014b) showed that associations of fictitious opposite-sex (Study 1) and also real same-sex between DT traits and mating style (i.e. attitudes towards ro- persons(Study2).Finally,inStudy3,theyhadmenapproach mance,attachment,andsex;recreationalsexualbehaviour)were womeninanecologicallyvalidfieldstudy.Morenarcissistic thesameforbothsexes.Theauthorsthusconcludedthat‘focus menweremoresuccessfulinobtainingwomen’scontactde- on DT as a male adaptation to short-term mating has been tailsandwereratedhigheronmateappealbytheapproached overstated and that men’s greater preference for casual sexual women. Interestingly, these effects were mediated by men’s encounters is not explained by DT traits’ (p. 159). Hence, the PA and social boldness(whichis closely linked to extraver- currentstudyexaminedactualbehaviouraswellasmateappeal sion;e.g.Cattell,Eber,&Tatsuoka,1970).Thus,thecurrent ratingsinareal-lifescenarioforbothwomenandmen. study will also examine PA and extraversion as potential explanatorsofDTeffects. The speed-datingparadigm While the aforementioned studies have already allowed importantinsightsintothelinksbetweenDTtraitsandinter- In heterosexual speed dating, a group of women and men personal attraction, they almost exclusively relied on self- dateeachotherforabrieftime(usuallyonlyafewminutes), reportsofmatingstrategy(e.g.Jonasonetal.,2009;Jonason, while partners are rotated such that each woman has dated Copyright©2016EuropeanAssociationofPersonalityPsychology Eur.J.Pers.(2016) DOI:10.1002/per The Dark Triad and speed dating eachman(andviceversa).Utilizingaspeed-datingparadigm Robert& Robins,2000).We seektoaddress twograndques- withinacontrolledlaboratorysettinghasseveraladvantages tions(eachwiththreesub-questions). comparedwithotherstrategies.First,arelativelylargenum- berof dates canbeeconomically studiedwithin asingle de- Question I: Mate appeal and the DarkTriad sign. Second, a speed-dating set-up—even under controlled conditions—still allows for genuine interactions between QuestionIa:RelationshipbetweentheDarkTriadandbeing people,andrealmatechoicesaremade.Suchactualchoices chosen by others (target effects) havebeenshowntobebasedondifferentprocessesthanself- Isactual‘speed-datingsuccess’(i.e.beingchosenasapoten- reports(e.g.Todd,Penke,Fasolo,&Lenton,2007).Assuch, tial mate) associated with DT traits? For narcissism, we ex- they could be seen as superior to self-reports of recalled or pected a positive association, and for Machiavellianism and hypothetical mate choices and thus ensure higher ecological psychopathy, we expected a neutral or negative association. validity. Finally, the use of sophisticated statistical tech- niquessuchasmultilevelanalysesofsocialrelationsmodels QuestionIb:RelationshipbetweentheDarkTriadandmate (SRMs; refer to Method section) allows decomposing appeal asperceivedbyothers (target effects) ratings made within each date into perceiver, target, and Ispeer-ratedmateappealforSTMandLTMrelationshipsas- uniqueness/relationship components (Kenny, 1994). Such sociated with DTtraits? Again, weexpectedpositiveeffects variance decomposition (and the extraction of effect scores) fornarcissismandneutralornegativeeffectsforMachiavel- allowsforamorefine-grainedpictureofprocessesandrela- lianism and psychopathy. tions studied (e.g.Back et al., 2011a). Given their desirable properties, speed-dating paradigms Question Ic: Robustness of findings have been used in psychological research for several con- AretheassociationsfoundinQuestionsIaandIbdependent texts.Forexample,theyhavebeenemployedtostudymating upon other characteristics of women and men, most notably preferences in dependence of PA andsocial status(Li et al., PA and extraversion? While we expected positive effects of 2013); how attachment anxiety affects early stages of rela- thesevariablesonbeingchosenandmateappealasperceived tionshipinitiation(McClure&Lydon,2014);howreciprocal by others (e.g. Asendorpf et al., 2011; Back et al., 2011c; mate choices are (Back et al., 2011c); to what extent people Luo&Zhang,2009),wewereprimarilyinterestedifassoci- accurately judge their mate value (Back, Penke, Schmukle, ations between DT traits and being chosen as well as mate &Asendorpf,2011b);andtowhatextentspeeddatingleads appeal still hold when controlling for PA and extraversion. to mating and relating up until 1year after the speed-dating This should grant insights into some driving forces behind event (Asendorpf, Penke, & Back, 2011). However, there is dark traits’ potential appeal. to date no published study on the mate appeal and mating preferences associated with the DTtraits in speed dating. Question II: Mating preferences and the Dark Triad Question IIa: Relationship betweenthe Dark Triad and THE CURRENT WORK choosing others (perceiver effects) The DT traits should be generally linked to STM rather than Previous literature postulated that the DT can be appealing in LTMstrategies,buttowhatextentareindividualsscoringhigh STM contexts and that individuals high on DT traits pursue on DT traits more or less choosy in selecting mates? Because more STM than LTM strategies. However, several questions previousstudiesfocusedonratingsandself-reportsofhypothet- remain unanswered. First, it is unclear to what extent such icalsituations,littleisknownabouttheactualmatechoicesre- STM facilitation extends to both sexes as most studies have lated to DT traits. Narcissists, for instance, could be choosy only employed male samples. It could be possible that men becausetheydesirehigh-qualitymatesthatmatchtheirownpre- scoringhighonDTtraitsareappealingtowomen(e.g.Dufner sumedhighquality,ortheycouldbelesschoosytokeepmany et al., 2013), but women scoring high on DT traits not to options‘open’.Giventheseconsiderationsandthelackofprior men. Second, it is also unclear to what extent dating/mating research,wecouldnotformulateapriorihypotheses. success generalizes across all three of the DT traits. Prior evidence points towards narcissism being the most attractive Question IIb: Relationship betweenthe Dark Triad and trait(e.g.Rauthmann&Kolar,2012,2013),buthowdonarcis- perceiving others’ mate appeal(perceiver effects) sism,Machiavellianism,andpsychopathypredictinterpersonal Are DT traits associated with how partners’ STM or LTM attraction vis-à-vis each other? Third, and most importantly, mate appeal is perceived? Again, people scoring high in the dating/mating success of the DT traits, as measured in DT traits should pursue STM rather than LTM strategies, women and men, has not been investigated in naturalistic, butnarcissismhasalsobeenshowntocorrelatewithentitle- real-lifesettingssofar.Additionally,wewillincludetwoimpor- mentanddevaluationofotherssothatitshouldbelinkedto tantcorrelatesofmatingsuccessandtheDTascovariatesinthis ascribing others less mate appeal. No concrete predictions study: PA as the most important predictor of speed-dating were made apriori for Machiavellianism and psychopathy. success(Asendorpfetal.,2011)andoneofthemostimportant predictors of mating success in general (Feingold, 1990) as Question IIc: Robustness of findings well as extraversion as the most robust Big Five correlate of Again, we investigated whether the associations found in narcissism (Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; QuestionsIIaandIIbmightdependuponothercharacteristics Copyright©2016EuropeanAssociationofPersonalityPsychology Eur.J.Pers.(2016) DOI:10.1002/per E. Jauk et al. ofwomenandmen,mostnotablyPA(whichgoesalongwith know him/her personally?), five items for estimating the choosiness;Backetal.,2011a)andextraversion(asacentral date’s Big Five traits (Five-Item Personality Inventory; BigFivecorrelateofnarcissism). Rammstedt, Koch, Borg, & Reitz, 2004), and one item for estimating the date’s PA, likeability, and intelligence (each on a 7-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree to METHOD strongly agree; but these data will not be analysed here). The date’s appeal for different relationship types was Participants assessed with one item each (e.g. ‘I would like this person fora onenightstand’ona 7-point Likert-type scale ranging Participants were approached mostly via social media (e.g. fromstronglydisagreetostronglyagree)forfriendship,one- Facebook) as well as the electronic calendar of the Univer- nightstand,bootycall(i.e.arrangingmeetingspurelyforsex sity of Graz. They were invited to participate in an elec- onanadhocbasis),friends-with-benefits(i.e.friendshaving tronic survey and were offered the participation in a speed a sexual relationship without being emotionally involved), dating without any fees. Students of psychology (33%) ad- and for long-term relationship. In the following, we refer to ditionally received course credits. One hundred and seventy these scales as friend and mate appeal. Finally, participants individuals completed an online test battery. After this, they were asked to indicate for each date whether they wanted were informed about modalities of the speed dating via toseeherorhimagainornot,3towhichwerefertoasactual email. Finally, 90 participants (46 women) aged 18 to mate choice. 32years (M=22.87, SD=3.10) attended one of three speed-dating events (ratios of women:men were 14:11, Physical attractiveness 19:18, and 13:15 in the three speed-dating sessions, respec- Ratingsofparticipants’PAwereobtainedfromfourexternal tively), resulting in a total number of 691 dates. Only six raters (two men and two women) who did not participate in women and three men had formerly participated in a speed thespeed-datingevents.Photosweretakenbyaprofessional dating. Most participants were single; six indicated being in a relationship,2 and one in a polyamorous relationship. photographer prior to the speed-dating sessions and were standardized with respect to size and lighting conditions. Eighty-three participants were students, and 29 had jobs. All raters judged the PA of each participant on a 7-point No participant had children. Sixteen women (34.8%) used Likert-typescalerangingfromnotattractiveatalltoveryat- hormonal contraceptives. tractive(Asendorpfetal.,2011;Backetal.,2011c).Ratings showed good intraclass correlation coefficient agreement Measures (Table1).BecausePAratingsgivenbyspeed-datingpartici- pants were highly correlated with their likeability ratings Pre-event internet survey (r=.73),weusedtheexternalPAratingsforfurtheranalyses Via LimeSurvey (www.limesurvey.com), participants com- to avoid overly confounding effects of appearance and pleted German versions of inventories measuring the DT personality/behaviour. PA ratings obtained from external traits, Big Five, and sociosexual orientation (with the latter raters and participants’ likeability ratings correlated only at notbeingrelevanttothisresearch;refertotheSupportingIn- r=.41. formationfor descriptivesand correlations). DarkTriad. NarcissismwasassessedwiththeNarcissistic Personality Inventory (Revised German version by Speed-dating procedure Zimmermann, 1994) with 40 Items on a 4-point Likert-type scale. Psychopathy was assessed with the Levenson Self- We mostly followed the procedure of Asendorpf et al. Report Psychopathy Scale (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, (2011). All three speed-dating sessions took place at 5PM 1995) with 26 items on a 4-point Likert-type scale. on regular working days. Men and women entered the main Machiavellianism was assessed with the Machiavellianism building of the University of Graz from different streets scale (Christie & Geis, 1970; German version by Henning and were guided to separate waiting rooms to avoid any & Six, 1977) with 18items on a 5-point Likert-type scale. meetingbeforethespeeddating.Afterhavingtakenstandard Big Five. The Big Five traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, photosofthefaceandreportedtheirheightandweight,each Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) were person received a badge with a code and a block of score assessed with the short Big Five Inventory (Rammstedt & cards. The dates took place in specially prepared booths in John, 2005) with 21 items ona 5-point Likert-type scale. theAulaMagnaoftheuniversity,eachequippedwithoppos- ingchairs.Womenwereaskedtotakeseatsintheboothsbe- Speed dating fore the men entered the Aula and were led to the booths. They sat with the back to the booth entrance and stayed in Upon arrival at the speed-dating event, each participant re- ceived a booklet of score cards containing two items on ac- theirboothuntiltheyhadinteractedwith allmen.Eachdate quaintanceship (Have you met this person before? Do you lasted 3minutes; the man left the booth upon a ringing of a bell after which he proceeded to the next booth. After men 2Analyseswerealsocarriedoutwithoutthesepersons.Thepatternofresults didnotchange.Moreover,allofthesepersonsindicatedthattheywantedto 3Contrarytotheratingdata,thisinformationwasactuallyusedforinforming seeothersforfurtherdates.Thus,thesepersonswerekeptinthesampleto participants about their contact details in case of mutual matches. Partici- maximizepowerinsubsequentanalyses. pantswereawareaboutthisprocedure. Copyright©2016EuropeanAssociationofPersonalityPsychology Eur.J.Pers.(2016) DOI:10.1002/per The Dark Triad and speed dating Table1. Descriptivestatistics,reliabilities,andintercorrelationsoftheindividualdifferencemeasures Variables Min–max Mean(SD) Rel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Narcissism(1) 1.70–3.38 2.57(0.35) .89 .55 .62 (cid:1).29 .37 (cid:1).06 (cid:1).12 .07 .51 2.00–3.65 2.66(0.34) .88 Psychopathy(2) 1.35–2.77 1.99(0.34) .81 .31 .69 .04 .22 (cid:1).12 (cid:1).23 (cid:1).35 .39 1.42–3.50 2.13(0.38) .86 Machiavellianism(3) 1.39–4.44 2.60(0.62) .83 .29 .67 .01 .01 .04 (cid:1).24 .03 .22 1.61–4.83 2.91(0.68) .86 Neuroticism(4) 1.75–4.75 3.10(0.80) .76 (cid:1).40 .05 .17 (cid:1).22 .09 (cid:1).27 (cid:1).06 (cid:1).08 1.00–4.25 2.47(0.97) .83 Extraversion(5) 2.25–5.00 3.81(0.76) .74 .62 (cid:1).01 (cid:1).05 (cid:1).64 .12 .21 .07 .28 1.00–5.00 3.63(0.85) .79 Openness(6) 1.00–5.00 4.11(0.78) .83 .40 .18 .37 .08 .16 .10 .22 (cid:1).14 1.75–5.00 4.03(0.74) .77 Agreeableness(7) 2.00–4.25 3.26(0.60) .30 (cid:1).24 (cid:1).49 (cid:1).16 (cid:1).09 .01 .02 .12 (cid:1).18 1.50–4.75 3.13(0.78) .64 Conscientiousness(8) 1.75–4.75 3.58(0.71) .75 .37 .06 .06 (cid:1).01 .25 .57 .11 (cid:1).29 2.00–4.25 3.11(0.75) .69 Physicalattractiveness(9) 2.00–6.50 4.05(1.19) .80 .09 (cid:1).14 (cid:1).12 (cid:1).08 .17 .16 .11 (cid:1).03 1.75–6.25 3.76(1.08) .76 Note:Women(n=46)arerepresentedintheupperrow/abovethediagonalandmen(n=44)inthebottomrow/belowthediagonal.Statisticallysignificantas- sociations(p<.05)areindicatedinbold. Rel.,internalconsistency(Cronbach’salpha). had left a booth but before entering the next, both sexes en- appealing a person generally is for one-night stands (mate tered their responses on one score card for each date. After appeal).Relationshipanderror(whichcannotbecommonly filling in the score cards, another bell ringing signalled men disentangled unless using latent variable models with multi- to enter the next booth. After half of the dates, a pause ple indicators per variable; Schönbrodt, Back, & Schmukle, allowed the participants to visit rest rooms in different parts 2012) indicate the unique interaction between a perceiver of the building, ensuring that no contact between men and andatargetbeyondthemaineffectsofperceiverandtarget. women waspossible. We assessed perceiver and target effects using multilevel AlsofollowingtheprocedureofAsendorpfetal.(2011), modelling (MLM). MLM allows for the estimation of per- a revision of each rating (except Big Five) was allowed on ceiverandtargeteffectsineachratingvariableand,mostim- separatescorecardsaftertheendofasession.Toaidremem- portantly, provides the opportunity to incorporate individual bering each date, photos of all partners were shown for the differencepredictorsoftheseeffectsdirectlyintothemodel. revision procedure (revisions were performed silently in Model estimation was performed in SPSS 22 using the groups of men and women in separate rooms). Finally, the MIXEDmodulewithrestrictedmaximumlikelihoodestima- score cards were collected, and participants received a tion. In the MLM, dyadic interactions (level 1) are nested debriefing and were asked for permission to use the photos. within individuals (level 2) who are again nested in dating Within the next days, participants’ choices were processed, groups (level 3). All factors were modelled in exact corre- and in case of matching mutual choices, they were sent the spondence to the syntax provided by Ackerman, Kashy, dating partners’ contact details via email. and Corretti (2015), which give a detailed tutorial on how to model SRM parameters usingMLM in asymmetric block designs such as speed dating (see also Kenny, 2007). As Data-analyticalstrategy common in speed-dating research, parameter estimation Speed-dating studies yield a complex hierarchical data wasperformedseparatelyforwomenandmenintheMLMs, structurerangingfromthedyadoverthepersontothegroup as sexisthemostclearly distinguishing variable inthemat- level. According to the SRM (Kenny, 1994; Kenny, Kashy, ing domain (e.g.Buss, 2003). In themainanalysesof target & Cook, 2006), rating scores in dyadic data can be and perceiver effects, we additionally considered sex as a decomposed into different variance sources: perceiver (also moderatingvariable.Inallanalyses,onlydatesinwhichpar- called actor), target (also called partner), and relationship ticipants werenotfamiliar toeachother(88–100%ofdyads (perceiver×targetinteraction)pluserrorvariance.SRMdoes per speed-dating session, or 143, 313, and 182 dates in the allow not only quantifying those variance sources in ratings three sessions, respectively) were taken into account. but also deriving individual-level effect scores. A perceiver Prior toestimating perceiver and targeteffects onthein- effectindicateshowindividualsgenerallyviewothers,while dividual level, weassessed the significance of perceiver and a target effect how they are generally perceived by others. target variance (i.e. is there significant variability in actual For instance, for the variable ‘(I want this person as a) one mate choice and each of the rating variables?). As common nightstand’,theperceivereffectreflectsaperson’stendency in SRM research, we also report reciprocity correlations of to generally rate others as appealing for one-night stands the involved interpersonal rating variables (Back et al., (mating preference), while the target effect reflects how 2011c). To this end, generalized reciprocity refers to the Copyright©2016EuropeanAssociationofPersonalityPsychology Eur.J.Pers.(2016) DOI:10.1002/per E. Jauk et al. correlation between a person’s perceiver and target effects correlation between narcissism and Machiavellianism failed (i.e.Is a person who rates others as desirable also perceived toreachstatisticalsignificanceinmen;p=.06).Extraversion as desirable by others?), while dyadic reciprocity refers to wasrelatedtonarcissisminbothsexes,whilethiscorrelation the correlation between a particular dyad’s relationship ef- was more pronounced in men (although not statistically fects(i.e.Doeslikingaparticularpersongoalongwithbeing different from women’s correlation; Steiger’s z=1.58, likedbythat particular person?). p =.11). PA ratings did not differ significantly be- two-tailed To examine the relationship between perceiver/target tween the sexes (p=.22, d=0.27) and were significantly effects for different relationship types and the DT traits correlatedwithnarcissismandpsychopathyinwomen,while (Questions Ia, Ib, IIa, and IIb), we used DT variables as therewerenocorrelationsbetweenPAandpersonalitytraits person-levelpredictorsintheMLMs.Inordertoobtainstan- inmen. dardized regression coefficients, all involved predictor and criterionvariableswerez-transformed acrosstheentiresam- Social relations modelling ple (i.e. across sexes and dating groups) as described in Ackermanetal.(2015).4ThethreeDTvariableswereincor- Variance partitioning porated as fixedeffects in oneregression model for each re- As target and perceiver effects for STM ratings (one-night lationship type. In a further step, we added potential control stand, booty call, and friends-with-benefits) were highly variables (PA and extraversion) to the MLMs to test for the intercorrelated (rs=.96–.98 and .82–.94 for target and per- robustness of the obtained findings, thus addressing our ceiver effects, respectively), we aggregated these scores to QuestionsIcandIIc.Finally,toensurecomparabilitytopre- an average short-term relationship indicator prior to further vious studies that did not use MLM, we also report zero- analyses. Thus, all subsequent analyses focus on SRM pa- ordercorrelationsbetweentargeteffects(obtainedbyregular rameters of actual mate choice, friendship (FS), short-term SRManalyses usingthe formulae provided byKenny et al., relationship (STR), andlong-term relationship (LTR). Each 2006) and personality and individual difference variables in ofthesescoresdisplayedsignificantperceiverandtargetvar- the Supporting Information. Data and syntax in SPSS format iance (Table 2). Perceiver and target components accounted canbeobtainedviatheopenscienceframeworkosf.io/jvk3u. for6%to34%ofvarianceinthedifferentscores,whilerela- tionship plus error variance accountedfor 48% to 80%. Reciprocities RESULTS As can be seen in Table 3, there was a negative generalized reciprocity for LTRs in both sexes (i.e. a woman/man who Preliminary analyses: Descriptives, sex differences, and generally indicated interest in LTR to other men/women intercorrelations was generally perceived as an unattractive LTR partner by her/hispartners).Thesametrendwasapparentforactualmate Normality of all variables was assessed by means of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, which was not significant for choices,althoughreciprocitycorrelationsdidnotreachstatis- any of the involved measures (ps>.12). Mean differences ticalsignificance(p=.06forwomenandmen,respectively). wereexaminedbyt-testsforindependentsamples;corrected Significant positive dyadic reciprocity correlations were ob- servedforactualmatechoicesandFSratings,indicatingthat degreesoffreedomwereusedincaseofvarianceinhomoge- thoseindividualswhowantedtoseeaparticulardatingpart- neitybetween the groups. ner again or rated a particular dating partner as desirable as On average, women were chosen for further dates by 48% (SD=27%) of men, while men were chosen by 30% afriendreceivedsimilarratingsfromthisdatingpartner.This (SD=21%) of women, and this difference was significant, t was the case for STR only by trend (p=.06), while no evi- (88)=3.55, p<.001, d=0.76. Women were also perceived dencefordyadicreciprocitywasobservedforLTR(p=.63). asmoreappealingforallrelationshiptypesinvolvingsexual contact [one-night stand: t(78.60)=9.56, p<.001, d=2.16; Question I booty call: t(69.93)=9.76, p<.001, d=2.33; friends-with- benefits:t(70.73)=8.86,p<.001,d=2.11;long-termrelation- QuestionIaandb:TheDarkTriadandtargeteffectsofmate ship: t(88)=4.18, p<.001, d=0.89], but not for friendships, choices and mate appeal t(88)=(cid:1)0.21,p=.83. We tested the specific effects of DT traits on actual choices and mate appeal using MLM in which all three predictor Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and intercorrela- variables were entered simultaneously (i.e. unique effects tions of all individual difference variables. Regarding of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism control- self-reported DT and Big Five personality traits, there were significantmeandifferencesbetweenthesexesinMachiavel- ling for the other two; Table 4). In women, narcissism and lianism,t(88)=(cid:1)0.24, p=.03, d=(cid:1)0.48,neuroticism, t(88) psychopathy displayed positive effects on being chosen as =3.39, p<.001, d=0.72, and conscientiousness, t(88) a mate (Question Ia) and STRratings (Question Ib). Narcis- =3.03, p<.001, d=0.65. The three DT traits showed sub- sism also significantly predicted LTR (Question Ib) ratings. stantial intercorrelations in both sexes (although the Machiavellianism, in contrast, was negatively associated with being chosen (Question Ia) and STR ratings (Question Ib). In men, none of the DT traits were significantly associ- 4StandardizationwasperformedonthebasesofpairwisedataforSRMvar- iablesandpersonwisedataforindividualdifferencevariables. ated with being chosen as a mate, but there was a trend for Copyright©2016EuropeanAssociationofPersonalityPsychology Eur.J.Pers.(2016) DOI:10.1002/per The Dark Triad and speed dating Table2. SRMvariancepartitioningfortheinvolvedratingvariables RelativepercentageofvarianceindatingrecordvariableaccountedforbySRMcomponent Total Variables Perceiver Target Relationshippluserror variance Actualchoice(yes/no) M→W 15.26** 20.69** 64.05 0.25 W→M 8.10** 17.83** 74.07 0.21 Friendship M→W 34.00** 6.03** 59.97 2.96 W→M 10.78** 9.44** 79.78 3.60 Short-termrelationship M→W 23.31** 28.71** 47.98 3.47 W→M 27.61** 17.73** 54.65 1.94 Long-termrelationship M→W 27.86** 23.65** 48.49 3.35 W→M 28.33** 11.87** 59.81 2.84 Note:W→M,womenratingmen;M→W,menratingwomen.Thepercentagesineachrowaddupto100%.Thefirstrow,forexample,readsasfollows: Men’s ratings of women were accounted for by 15.26% perceiver variance (men’s characteristics), 20.69% target variance (women’s characteristics), and 64.05%relationshipanderrorvariance.SRM,socialrelationsmodel. **p<.01usingtheWaldtestsprovidedbySPSS. Question Ic: Target effects associated with the Dark Triad Table3. Reciprocitycorrelationsfortheinvolvedratingvariables corrected for important covariates Generalizedreciprocity We sought to evaluate to what extent the relationships be- coefficients Dyadic tween DT traits and mate appeal ratings were independent reciprocity Variables Women Men coefficients of PA and extraversion (note that narcissism and PA were substantially correlated in women, while narcissism and ex- Actualchoice (cid:1).39 (cid:1).35 .13** traversion were substantially correlated in men; Table 1). Friendship .19 (cid:1).14 .13** Table 5 shows the MLMs from Questions Ia and b with Short-termrelationship (cid:1).08 (cid:1).13 .08 Long-termrelationship (cid:1).38* (cid:1).38* .02 PA and extraversion as additional predictors. As soon as PAiscontrolled(ModelI),nosignificanteffectsofDTtraits Note: were evident in women. In men, controlling for PA also led *p<.05; to insignificant effects of DT traits, but narcissism still **p<.01. displayed tendencies towards positive effects on STR and LTRratings(ps=.06–.07).PA byitself wasassociated with narcissism (p=.09; Question Ia). Narcissism was signifi- being chosen as a mate and all mate appeal ratings in both cantly associated with STR and LTR ratings (Question Ib). sexes. These effects appear to be more pronounced in The effects of all DT traits on STR were significantly mod- women. erated by sex (ps=.02–.03) in the way that slopes were The same analyses were performed for extraversion as a higherforwomenthanformen(Table4).Theeffectofpsy- controlvariable(notethatextraversionwastheonlyBigFive chopathyonactualchoiceswasalsosignificantlymoderated trait related to actual mate choices and mate appeal ratings; (p<.05;positiveassociationinwomen,insignificantassoci- Supporting Information). Table 5 (Model II) shows the ation in men; Table 4). The other effects were not moder- MLM effects. In women, narcissism still had significant ef- ated (ps=.09–.61). fects on being chosen as a mate and STR as well as LTR Table4. MLMstandardizedestimatesoftargeteffectsregressedonDarkTriadtraits Actualchoice Friendship Short-termrelationship Long-termrelationship β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p Women Narcissism .24(.05to.42) .01 .01((cid:1).11to.14) .81 .36(.17to.54) .00 .21(.02to.40) .03 Psychopathy .21(.01to.42) .04 .10((cid:1).03to.24) .14 .25(.04to.45) .02 .14((cid:1).06to.35) .17 Machiavellianism (cid:1).25((cid:1).46to(cid:1).03) .03 (cid:1).10((cid:1).25to.04) .16 (cid:1).28((cid:1).49to(cid:1).06) .01 (cid:1).08((cid:1).30to.13) .45 Men Narcissism .13((cid:1).02to.28) .09 .09((cid:1).04to.22) .18 .12(.01to.23) .03 .13(.01to.25) .04 Psychopathy (cid:1).08((cid:1).28to.12) .44 (cid:1).02((cid:1).20to.16) .81 (cid:1).05((cid:1).20to.09) .47 (cid:1).06((cid:1).22to.10) .44 Machiavellianism .00((cid:1).19to.19) .99 (cid:1).05((cid:1).22to.13) .59 .00((cid:1).14to.14) .98 .02((cid:1).14to.17) .83 Note:Statisticallysignificantassociations(p<.05)areindicatedinbold. MLM,multilevelmodelling. Copyright©2016EuropeanAssociationofPersonalityPsychology Eur.J.Pers.(2016) DOI:10.1002/per E. Jauk et al. Table 5. MLM standardized estimates of target effects regressed on Dark Triad traits and physical attractiveness (Model I)/extraversion (ModelII) Actualchoice Friendship Short-termrelationship Long-termrelationship β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p ModelI Women Narcissism .02((cid:1).08to.12) .73 (cid:1).04((cid:1).17to.08) .48 .08((cid:1).10to.25) .37 .00((cid:1).19to.18) .96 Psychopathy .07((cid:1).04to.18) .21 .06((cid:1).08to.19) .39 .06((cid:1).12to.24) .50 .00((cid:1).19to.19) .98 Machiavellianism (cid:1).10((cid:1).22to.01) .08 (cid:1).06((cid:1).21to.08) .37 (cid:1).06((cid:1).25to.13) .51 .07((cid:1).13to.27) .46 Physicalattractiveness .35(.27to.44) .00 .11(.01to.21) .03 .43(.29to.56) .00 .35(.21to.49) .00 Men Narcissism .09((cid:1).04to.22) .19 .07((cid:1).06to.20) .29 .09(.00to.18) .06 .10((cid:1).01to.20) .07 Psychopathy (cid:1).03((cid:1).20to.15) .76 .01((cid:1).17to.18) .93 (cid:1).01((cid:1).14to.11) .83 (cid:1).02((cid:1).16to.12) .79 Machiavellianism .00((cid:1).17to.17) .98 (cid:1).05((cid:1).21to.12) .57 .00((cid:1).12to.12) .98 .02((cid:1).12to.15) .81 Physicalattractiveness .25(.11to.38) .00 .14(.01to.27) .04 .19(.10to.29) .00 .20(.10to.31) .00 ModelII Women Narcissism .21(.01to.40) .04 (cid:1).06((cid:1).18to.06) .29 .32(.12to.52) .00 .21(.01to.40) .04 Psychopathy .19((cid:1).02to.40) .07 .05((cid:1).08to.18) .42 .22(.00to.43) .05 .14((cid:1).07to.35) .20 Machiavellianism (cid:1).21((cid:1).44to.02) .07 (cid:1).02((cid:1).16to.12) .77 (cid:1).23((cid:1).46to.00) .05 (cid:1).08((cid:1).31to.15) .51 Extraversion .08((cid:1).08to.23) .33 .16(.06to.26) .00 .09((cid:1).06to.24) .23 .01((cid:1).14to.16) .89 Men Narcissism .06((cid:1).14to.27) .53 .07((cid:1).12to.26) .45 .08((cid:1).07to.23) .29 .11((cid:1).06to.28) .22 Psychopathy (cid:1).07((cid:1).27to.13) .49 (cid:1).02((cid:1).20to.16) .84 (cid:1).05((cid:1).19to.10) .52 (cid:1).06((cid:1).22to.10) .47 Machiavellianism .02((cid:1).18to.21) .87 (cid:1).04((cid:1).22to.14) .63 .01((cid:1).13to.16) .86 .02((cid:1).14to.18) .78 Extraversion .09((cid:1).10to.28) .34 .03((cid:1).14to.19) .76 .05((cid:1).09to.19) .45 .03((cid:1).12to.18) .69 Note:Statisticallysignificantassociations(p<.05)areindicatedinbold. MLM,multilevelmodelling. ratings.Extraversionwasnotassociatedwithbeingchosenas Whencontrollingforextraversion(Table7,ModelII),FS amateormateappealratings(STRandLTR)butonlywith ratingswerenegativelyassociated withnarcissismandposi- FS ratings. In men, nosignificant effects or tendencies were tivelyassociatedwithextraversioninwomen.Inmen,extra- observed as soon as extraversion was controlled for version was negatively associated with FS andSTRratings. (ps=.22–.87). Complementary commonality analyses for target effects of mate choices and mate appeal Question II We observed substantial amounts of shared variance between QuestionIIaandb:TheDarkTriadandperceivereffectsof narcissism and PA in women and narcissism and extraversion mate choices andmate appeal ratings of others in men. To further investigate the role of these variables for Again, we used MLM to investigate the specific effects of SRM target effects, we additionally conducted commonality DTtraitsonchoosingandperceivingothers(Table6).Noef- analyses that allow for the estimation of unique and common fectsemergedwithrespecttoactualmatechoiceinwomenor portions of variance of a set of variables. For instance, given men(QuestionIIa).Psychopathywassignificantlyassociated twovariablesAandBpredictingoutcomeY,commonalityanal- with perceiver effects of STR ratings in women (Question ysis allows for the estimation of the unique effect of A, the IIb).Inmen,narcissismdisplayednegativeassociationswith unique effect of B, and the common (shared) effect of A+B. STR and LTR ratings (Question IIb). None of the perceiver Theseeffectsaddupto100%,whichreflectsR2(i.e.theportion effects were significantly moderated bysex(ps=.08–.81). ofvarianceinYthatcanbeexplainedbyA,B,andA+B).Addi- tionally,thetotaleffectofeachvariablecanbeexpressedasthe Question IIc: Perceiver effects associated with the Dark sum of its unique and common effects. This renders a more Triad corrected for important covariates completepictureofthepracticalrelevanceofpredictorvariables Asalsointheanalysisoftargeteffects,wewereinterestedin asnotonlyuniquecontributionsbutalsocommoncontributions the robustness of findings when controlling for variables of ofcertainvariablesareestimated(Nimon&Oswald,2013). interest (i.e. PA and extraversion). When controlling for PA Weconductedcommonalityanalysesusingthe‘yhat’pack- (Table7,ModelI),psychopathydisplayedapositiveassoci- age(Nimon,Lewis,Kane,&Haynes,2008)fortheopenstatis- ation with actual mate choices and STR ratings in women. ticssoftwareR.Analyseswereperformedseparatelyforwomen MachiavellianismandPAshowednegativeassociationswith andmenusingeithernarcissismandPA(women)ornarcissism matechoicesandLTRratings.Inmen,narcissismwasnega- andextraversion(men)aspredictors.Targeteffects(according tively associated with STR and LTR ratings, while PA was to the SRM formulae; Kenny et al., 2006) of actual choice, positively associated with STR ratings. STR,and LTR were usedas dependent variables (FS was not Copyright©2016EuropeanAssociationofPersonalityPsychology Eur.J.Pers.(2016) DOI:10.1002/per The Dark Triad and speed dating Table6. MLMstandardizedestimatesofperceivereffectsregressedonDarkTriadtraits Actualchoice Friendship Short-termrelationship Long-termrelationship β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p Women Narcissism (cid:1).06((cid:1).20to.09) .43 (cid:1).08((cid:1).24to.09) .34 (cid:1).01((cid:1).18to.16) .89 .00((cid:1).22to.21) .98 Psychopathy .04((cid:1).12to.20) .61 (cid:1).03((cid:1).21to.15) .72 .19(.00to.37) .05 (cid:1).01((cid:1).25to.23) .92 Machiavellianism (cid:1).02((cid:1).20to.16) .80 (cid:1).09((cid:1).29to.11) .36 (cid:1).15((cid:1).35to.06) .15 (cid:1).17((cid:1).43to.09) .19 Men Narcissism (cid:1).03((cid:1).19to.12) .67 (cid:1).17((cid:1).36to.02) .07 (cid:1).19((cid:1).35to(cid:1).02) .03 (cid:1).22((cid:1).39to(cid:1).04) .02 Psychopathy .10((cid:1).10to.31) .30 (cid:1).17((cid:1).42to.07) .16 (cid:1).01((cid:1).22to.21) .96 (cid:1).18((cid:1).40to.05) .12 Machiavellianism (cid:1).11((cid:1).30to.09) .28 .16((cid:1).08to.39) .19 (cid:1).03((cid:1).24to.18) .77 .13((cid:1).09to.35) .24 Note:Statisticallysignificantassociations(p<.05)areindicatedinbold. MLM,multilevelmodelling. Table7. MLMstandardizedestimatesofperceivereffectsregressedonDarkTriadtraitsandphysicalattractiveness(ModelI)/extraversion (ModelII) Actualchoice Friendship Short-termrelationship Long-termrelationship β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p β(95%CI) p ModelI Women Narcissism .08((cid:1).02to.18) .11 (cid:1).03((cid:1).21to.15) .74 .06((cid:1).12to.24) .52 .18((cid:1).03to.38) .09 Psychopathy .14(.03to.24) .01 .00((cid:1).19to.19) .99 .23(.03to.42) .02 .10((cid:1).12to.32) .36 Machiavellianism (cid:1).12((cid:1).24to(cid:1).01) .04 (cid:1).12((cid:1).32to.08) .24 (cid:1).20((cid:1).41to.01) .06 (cid:1).29((cid:1).53to(cid:1).05) .02 Physical (cid:1).26((cid:1).34to(cid:1).18) .00 (cid:1).09((cid:1).23to.05) .20 (cid:1).11((cid:1).25to.04) .15 (cid:1).30((cid:1).47to(cid:1).14) .00 attractiveness Men Narcissism (cid:1).02((cid:1).18to.14) .77 (cid:1).16((cid:1).35to.03) .10 (cid:1).22((cid:1).37to(cid:1).06) .01 (cid:1).22((cid:1).40to(cid:1).04) .02 Psychopathy .10((cid:1).11to.30) .36 (cid:1).19((cid:1).44to.06) .14 .03((cid:1).18to.23) .78 (cid:1).17((cid:1).41to.06) .14 Machiavellianism (cid:1).11((cid:1).31to.09) .28 .16((cid:1).08to.39) .19 (cid:1).03((cid:1).22to.17) .78 .13((cid:1).09to.35) .24 Physical (cid:1).06((cid:1).22to.10) .44 (cid:1).08((cid:1).27to.11) .42 .17(.01to.32) .04 .01((cid:1).17to.19) .90 attractiveness ModelII Women Narcissism (cid:1).08((cid:1).24to.08) .33 (cid:1).17((cid:1).33to.00) .04 (cid:1).05((cid:1).23to.13) .58 .00((cid:1).24to.23) .99 Psychopathy .03((cid:1).14to.20) .72 (cid:1).08((cid:1).26to.09) .33 .16((cid:1).03to.36) .09 (cid:1).01((cid:1).26to.24) .93 Machiavellianism .00((cid:1).19to.19) .97 .00((cid:1).20to.20) 1.00 (cid:1).11((cid:1).33to.11) .32 (cid:1).17((cid:1).45to.11) .22 Extraversion .04((cid:1).10to.17) .58 .18(.04to.32) .01 .07((cid:1).08to.23) .33 (cid:1).01((cid:1).20to.19) .96 Men Narcissism .02((cid:1).19to.23) .85 .02((cid:1).23to.26) .90 (cid:1).04((cid:1).25to.18) .74 (cid:1).08((cid:1).31to.16) .51 Psychopathy .10((cid:1).11to.30) .34 (cid:1).20((cid:1).43to.04) .10 (cid:1).02((cid:1).23to.18) .81 (cid:1).19((cid:1).42to.03) .08 Machiavellianism (cid:1).12((cid:1).32to.08) .24 .11((cid:1).12to.34) .34 (cid:1).07((cid:1).27to.13) .51 .09((cid:1).12to.31) .38 Extraversion (cid:1).07((cid:1).26to.12) .47 (cid:1).25((cid:1).47to(cid:1).03) .03 (cid:1).20((cid:1).40to(cid:1).01) .04 (cid:1).19((cid:1).40to.02) .08 Note:Statisticallysignificantassociations(p<.05)areindicatedinbold. MLM,multilevelmodelling. usedaswefoundnoeffectsofnarcissismonFS).Figure1dis- appeal, some important preliminary findings shall be playstheuniqueandcommoncontributionstoR2separatelyfor outlined: In our sample, we found substantial intercorrela- both sexes. The total (unique+common) effects of narcissism tionsamongtheDTtraitsinbothsexes.Asexpected,narcis- on choice, STR, and LTR were 29%, 38%, and 38%, respec- sism was substantially correlated with extraversion in both tively (and were thus virtually equal to the common variance sexes, but we did not find the frequently reported negative ofnarcissismandPA;Figure1).Inmen,thetotaleffectsofnar- association with agreeableness (which is probably due to cissismwere65%,81%,and27%forchoices,STR,andLTR. the low reliability of the scale). All rating variables of mate Theuniqueeffectsofnarcissismonchoice,STR,andLTRwere choice and mate appeal displayed significant target and per- 1%, 2%, and 2% in women, and 7%, 18%, and 20% in men, ceivervarianceinwomenandmen,respectively.Thus,inter- respectively. personal perceptions of mate appeal were not only due to relationship(i.e.howa particularpersonisperceived byan- DISCUSSION other particular person) plus error variance but also due to significant inter-individual differences in being perceived Beforewedealwithourmainresearchquestionsofrelations by others (target variance) and perceiving others (perceiver betweenDTtraitsandbeingchosenasamateaswellasmate variance). Most importantly, these differences were related Copyright©2016EuropeanAssociationofPersonalityPsychology Eur.J.Pers.(2016) DOI:10.1002/per E. Jauk et al. Figure1. Commonalityanalysesofnarcissismandphysicalattractiveness. to personality traits in a systematic manner. The effect sizes findinginspeed-datingresearch(Ackermanetal.,2015;Back ofassociationsbetweentarget/perceivereffectsandpersonal- etal.,2011a;Eastwick,Finkel,Mochon,&Ariely,2007). itytraitsweregenerallysmalltomoderatebutofcomparable size with that of previous research (e.g. Ackerman et al., 2015).Tothisend,itisimportanttoconsiderthattheeffects The appeal of narcissists (target effects) wereobtainedbymeansofMLM,whichmeansthatsmallef- fectscanbesignificantbecausetheywereobtainedonalarge Accordingtopreviousfindings,weexpectedapositiverela- basis of dyadic data. tionshipbetweennarcissismandactualspeed-datingsuccess Moreover,itisinterestingtonotethatgeneralizedreciproc- (being chosen for further dates; Dufner et al., 2013) as well itycorrelationsweresignificantonlyforLTRandwerenega- as mate appeal as perceived by others (Carter et al., 2014a; tive such that both women and men who tended to view Holtzman & Strube, 2013a; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). otherpartnersasdesirableforLTRswerenotviewedasdesir- Ourfindingslargelyconfirmthepositiverolethatnarcissism ablepartnersbyothersonaverage.Bytrend,thisalsoapplied plays for (short and long term) mate appeal in men: We toactualmatechoices:Individualswhomaysomehowappear found that narcissistic men were perceived as more tobe‘indesperateneed’forapartnerarelesslikelytobecho- favourable partners for STR as well as LTR, but not for senbyothers(andviceversa).Dyadicreciprocitycorrelations FS. The same trend was evident for actual mate choices. (i.e. the correlation between a person’s rating of a particular Sucheffects werenotfound fortheother twoDTtraits. Im- partner and this particular person’s mutual rating) were—in portantly,wefoundthatthispatternofresultsgeneralizedbe- contrast—positive,markedlylowerthangeneralizedreciproc- yondmentonarcissisticwomenalso(whichhavetodatenot ityestimatesandstatisticallysignificantforactualmatechoices been explicitly studied as targets in real-life interactions), in andFSratings.Thissuggeststhatthereisatleastsomeagree- which the effect was even more pronounced (in terms of a mentbetweendatingpartnerswhenitcomestoactualchoices significant sex moderation for STR). Results show that fe- andFS,whichwasnotthecaseforrelationshipratingsinvolv- male narcissists were indeed chosen more often for further ingsexualcontact(STRandLTR).Negativegeneralizedreci- dates and were perceived as more favourable partners for procity alongside positive dyadic reciprocity is a common STRand LTR (but, again, not FS) bymen. Copyright©2016EuropeanAssociationofPersonalityPsychology Eur.J.Pers.(2016) DOI:10.1002/per