You’ve undoubtedly heard the term “dark triad,” the unpalatable collection of the three personality traits of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism (tendency to exploit and manipulate others). The “dark” in this term is self-explanatory, and if you know someone who fits the definition, you’d certainly agree that it seems appropriate. So, why would researchers in this very field decide to excise it from psychology’s vocabulary?
The Problem with the Dark Triad Label
Issuing the call to drop the dark triad is a trio of researchers: Virginia Commonwealth University’s David Chester, Purdue University’s Donald Lynam, and University of Georgia’s Joshua Miller (2025). Having published their own share of studies on this constellation of traits, they now advocate for its removal from the psychological literature. Here’s why:
Reason 1: Stigma
Labeling anyone as equal to a term that most would regard as awful creates what’s known as a “stigma,” or a sign that a person should be avoided if not ostracized. With the dark triad, the problem is that two of the three qualities, psychopathy and narcissism, are central to two personality disorders. As diagnosable conditions, Chester et al. argue that “Applying an amorphous and evil-adjacent term to these individuals is inconsistent with mainstream thinking about appropriate language for clinically relevant constructs.”
People with diagnosable psychological disorders, even ones that seem “evil,” struggle throughout their lives with their symptoms. They can be imprisoned, rejected in relationships, and unable to find employment. Indeed, a diagnosable condition by definition involves significant distress and impairment. Plopping a stigmatizing and, as you’ll learn shortly, vague label onto their lives only creates more challenges in their daily lives.
Reason 2: Sensationalism
It is true many people love a murder mystery, especially one featuring a seemingly incorrigible protagonist. It’s also true that people are drawn to seemingly charismatic leaders who seem convinced of their own glory, often using this outward charm to advance their own nefarious ends. But these aren’t reasons, the VCU-led research team says, for psychology to dignify the dark triad concept with an attention-grabbing label.
Unbelievably, titles of published articles in the psychology literature will often adopt wording that seems more appropriate for a TV show or horror film: “The Making of Darth Vader…”, “Creatures of the Night,” and “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.” Such wording, the authors argue, “cheapens” this area of inquiry, calling into question the scientific objectivity needed for any field of enterprise.
Reason 3: Imprecision
The term “dark” is inherently vague. Does it mean shady, hidden, tragic, or immoral? Add to this one of the most popular measures that researchers use in its study, “dirty.” Thus, we have a combination of vague and stigmatizing terms; either alone would be grounds for questioning its use, but together they just create a metaphoric thunder cloud above the heads of those who receive scores that put them over the threshold.
This actually brings up another problem with the term, which is how to define a cutoff for when a person goes from light to dark. Unlike the diagnostic process for personality disorders, the dark triad/dirty dozen measures don’t have clear cut criteria. What’s more, the studies on the dark triad rarely involve clinical samples but instead rely on university students. This means that many of the people on whom the research findings are based are just ordinary folks who might have a touch or two of these qualities, not high enough to make them truly “dark” (if even that term was defined clearly).
Perhaps for these reasons, researchers trying to connect the dark triad with other existing personality theories, such as the Five Factor (FFM) or HEXACO model (two prominent trait theories), have trouble establishing clear associations. The dark triad should fit at least one rather than stand out on its own.
Dark Triad Essential Reads
Reason 4: “Potentially Problematic”
Included in this last criticism of the dark triad is the idea that the “pairing of two concepts” can form “illusory correlations.” You hear the dark triad term so often that you automatically assume it exists. Not only lay people, but clinicians, can therefore go on to treat people on the basis of stereotypes rather than the actual qualities of those they encounter and/or treat.
What’s Next?
As you follow along these arguments, you may agree with each point but still wonder what to do with this information. Fortunately, there is a solid body of research on the specific personality trait of “antagonism,” or the opposite of “agreeableness,” a trait in both the FFM and HEXACO models.
“A domain found in almost every modern model and diagnostic taxonomy of general and pathological personality with a large research base,” antagonism gives us a quality we can describe as a continuum rather than as a category (“dark” vs. “bright”). suggest the authors.
Because the term is part of a larger and well-established way to describe one aspect of personality, it is precise, non-sensationalistic, and non-stigmatized. Just as importantly, people aren’t just the sum of one trait, they are a complex collection of multiple attributes. You can be high on antagonism but also high on other qualities such as openness to experience and even conscientiousness. An antagonistic person might, in other words, have a number of other redeeming qualities.
Vowing never to use the term again in their research, this highly respected team has now laid down the gauntlet for others in the psychological community. To be sure, some authors and bloggers (myself included!) have written about and studied dark triad qualities, but the raising of these issues provides a cogent reason for all of us to scour it out of our vocabulary.
To sum up, there’s no need to eliminate the concept of less-than-desirable personality qualities from your own vocabulary. The Chester et al. paper shows how switching to antagonism will be not only more scientifically valid, but more humane as well.