Revisiting the vulnerable dark triad hypothesis using a bifactor model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Miller et al. (2010) previously suggested that borderline pathology, vulnerable narcissism, and Factor 2 psychopathy share a common "Vulnerable Dark Triad" (VDT) core. The present study (N = 1,023 community participants) aims to test that hypothesis using exploratory and confirmatory bifactor analyses. We found support for a bifactor model that obtained satisfactory fits and other adequate validity indices, which included a general VDT factor and three group factors (Reckless, Entitled, Hiding). The general VDT factor was mostly saturated with borderline symptoms items reflecting self-hatred and worthlessness, which did not form a group factor; these results add to previous research suggesting that features of borderline pathology may represent the core of personality pathology. The three group factors had distinctive relationships with Dark Triad traits, pathological trait domains, and aggression. In contrast with the three group factors, the general VDT factor more strongly incremented the prediction of negative affectivity and hostility; the group factors more strongly incremented the prediction of grandiosity, egocentrism, callousness, Machiavellianism, and direct (physical/verbal) aggression. Alignment of the retained bifactor model with influent models of personality pathology and conceptual/methodological implications of the present results for research on the hypothesized VDT are discussed, as well as some clinical implications of the findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".