Resource control strategies and personality traits

Virgil Zeigler-Hill
a,
, Ashton C. Southard
b
, Avi Besser
c,
a
Oakland University, United States
b
University of Southern Mississippi, United States
c
Sapir Academic College, Israel
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 October 2013
Received in revised form 19 March 2014
Accepted 26 March 2014
Keywords:
Resource control
Personality
Big Five
Dark Triad
Narcissism
Machiavellianism
Psychopathy
a b s t r a c t
Resource control strategies refer to the approaches that individuals adopt in order to acquire material
resources and status. The present study examined whether individuals who adopt particular resource
control strategies would report different personality traits. This was accomplished by asking 966 Jewish
Israeli community participants to complete self-report measures concerning their resource control strat-
egies and their personality traits. The results showed that individuals who adopted particular resource
control strategies often reported different personality traits than those who adopted other strategies.
For example, those who adopted a bistrategic control strategy reported relatively high levels of the Dark
Triad of personality, modest levels of openness, neuroticism, and extraversion, as well as low levels of
agreeableness. Discussion focuses on the implications of these results for understanding the connection
between resource control strategies and personality traits.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The attainment of goals is a fundamental aspect of life that
often involves the acquisition of material resources and status
(see Hawley, 2006 for a review). According to resource control the-
ory (Hawley, 2002), individuals can adopt either coercive or proso-
cial resource control strategies. Coercive strategies for resource
control are derived from traditional models of agonistic social
dominance and involve behaviors that are direct, aversive, and
immediate (e.g., using physical force or threats of force to take
resources from someone else). In contrast, prosocial strategies for
resource control involve indirect attempts to gain access to
resources through the use of reciprocity, cooperation, unsolicited
help, and alliance formation. It is important to note that coercive
strategies are generally employed without consideration for the
goals or motivations of other individuals in ones social environ-
ment, whereas prosocial strategies use a cooperative approach
and generally attempt to move away from zero-sum strategies
and nd ways for both individuals to benet from interactions to
some extent (Hawley, 2011).
Although prosocial and coercive resource control strategies
have important differences with regard to their execution, resource
control theory argues that they are generally serving the same
basic function (i.e., controlling resources) and are actually two
sides of the same coin (Hawley, 2002). Resource control theory
attempts to capture the complexity of resource control strategies
by using the combination of coercive and prosocial strategies to
identify more specic resource control strategies (see Hawley,
Johnson, Mize, & McNamara, 2007 for an extended discussion).
This is typically accomplished by focusing on the relative degree
of Resource Control Strategy employment. More specically, the
distributions for coercive and prosocial resource control strategies
are divided into tertiles and the placement of a particular individ-
ual in each of these distributions is identied. This approach results
in ve types of resource control strategies: bistrategic controllers
(those who are in the top tertiles of both coercive and prosocial
strategies), coercive controllers (those who are in the top tertile
for coercive strategies only), prosocial controllers (those who are
in the top tertile for prosocial strategies only), noncontrollers (those
who are in the lowest tertile of both coercive and prosocial strate-
gies), and typical controllers (those who are in the middle tertile for
one or both strategies). These resource control strategies have been
identied using self-reports (e.g., Hawley, 2003a) and observer
reports (Hawley, 2003b; Hawley, Little, & Card, 2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.037
0191-8869/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding authors. Address: Department of Psychology, Oakland Univer-

sity, 212A Pryale Hall, Rochester, MI 48309, United States. Tel.: +1 248 370 2676;
fax: +1 248 370 4612 (V. Zeigler-Hill). Address: Department of Behavioral Sciences
and Center for Research in Personality, Life Transitions, and Stressful Life Events,
Sapir Academic College, D.N. Hof Ashkelon 79165, Israel (A. Besser).
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Zeigler-Hill), [email protected]
(A. Besser).
Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 118123
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ pai d
Coercive controllers use strategies that are direct and aversive
(e.g., physical force). It is not surprising that these individuals tend
to be less agreeable, less morally mature, and more aggressive than
others (Hawley, 2003a,b). Prosocial controllers use strategies that
are less direct (e.g., reciprocal helping) but are ultimately self-serv-
ing and instrumental (Hawley, Shorey, & Alderman, 2009). Proso-
cial controllers are perceived as agreeable and generally liked by
their peers (e.g., Hawley, 2002, 2003a; Hawley, Little, & Card,
2008). Bistrategic controllers use a blend of coercive and prosocial
strategies which leads themto experience both favorable and unfa-
vorable outcomes. However, bistrategic controllers tend to display
social and physical aggression (Hawley et al., 2007) which may
explain their relatively low levels of peer approval (Hawley et al.,
2008). Noncontrollers employ low levels of both coercive and pro-
social strategies which may explain their weak connections to their
peer groups and their lack of control over outcomes (Hawley,
2003b, 2010). Overall, bistrategic controllers have been shown to
be the most successful at controlling resources followed by proso-
cial and coercive controllers, with the typical controllers and non-
controllers being less successful (see Hawley, 2011 for a review).
The existing body of research supports the idea that coercive and
prosocial strategies are effective and this is especially true if they
are used in combination (i.e., bistrategic control).
The existing evidence clearly suggests that different resource
control strategies are associated with a variety of psychological
and social outcomes such as aggression (e.g., Hawley, 2011). One
particularly interesting difference concerns the personality traits
possessed by individuals who employ each Resource Control Strat-
egy. For example, it has been shown that bistrategic controllers
exhibit Machiavellian tendencies, prosocial controllers report high
levels of agreeableness, and coercive controllers are viewed as
being aggressive (see Hawley, 2011 for a review). We believe that
it may be benecial to examine an even broader array of personal-
ity traits and their connections with resource control strategies
because this may provide additional insight into the reasons that
individuals employ particular resource control tactics.
1.1. Overview and predictions
The purpose of the present study was to examine whether indi-
viduals who rely on different resource control strategies also differ
in terms of their personality traits. This was accomplished by ask-
ing participants to complete measures concerning their resource
control strategies as well as self-reports of their personality traits.
We expected our results to replicate previous results such that
individuals who employ bistrategic resource control strategies
would report high levels of Machiavellianism and prosocial con-
trollers would report high levels of agreeableness. However, we
wanted to extend previous ndings concerning the link between
resource control strategies and personality traits by examining
the Big Five personality dimensions (i.e., extraversion, agreeable-
ness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness) and the Dark
Triad of personality (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psy-
chopathy; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). We expected that bistrategic
and coercive controllers would report high levels of the Dark Triad
personality traits because these traits have been found to be asso-
ciated with a generally manipulative and malicious interpersonal
style (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). We also expected that bistrategic
and coercive controllers would report low levels of agreeableness
and conscientiousness because it has been suggested that individ-
uals who employ these strategies tend to be interpersonally hostile
and lack the ability to delay gratication (Hawley, 1999, 2006).
Prosocial controllers were expected to report high levels of agree-
ableness and low levels of each of the Dark Triad personality traits.
Our rationale for this prediction was that prosocial controllers
avoid antagonistic encounters which would be consistent with
high levels of agreeableness (Hawley, 1999, 2006). However, the
Dark Triad traits share an antagonistic interpersonal style so it is
unlikely that prosocial controllers would report relatively high lev-
els of these personality traits (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002). We
expected typical controllers and noncontrollers to report low levels
of the Dark Triad personality traits. The basis for this prediction
was that each of the Dark Triad traits shares a willingness to
manipulate and exploit others which is inconsistent with the
approach that characterizes typical controllers and noncontrollers.
Previous studies concerning resource control strategies have
found that men and women report similar strategies (e.g.,
Hawley et al., 2008). However, sex differences have consistently
emerged for the Big Five dimensions of agreeableness and neurot-
icism such that women consistently score higher than men on
these dimensions (e.g., Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001). Sex
differences for extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness have
been either inconsistent or negligible in size (e.g., Costa et al.,
2001). For the Dark Triad, men have consistently been found to
report higher levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychop-
athy (e.g., Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010). As a result of the sex differ-
ences in personality traits that have emerged in previous studies,
we included sex as a moderator in the present study. We expected
that men who employed bistrategic and coercive resource control
strategies would report the lowest levels of agreeableness and neu-
roticism as well as the highest levels of narcissism, Machiavellian-
ism, and psychopathy.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
Our sample consisted of 966 Jewish Israeli community partici-
pants (465 men, 501 women) who responded to requests posted
in various public areas (e.g., clubs, hotels, restaurants, shops) that
asked for volunteers to take part in a study concerning personality
and behaviors. Participants were unmarried young adults in their
mid-20s (range 2035 years; M = 24.31, SD = 2.85) with an average
of 12.78 years of formal education (ranged from 10 to 22 years,
SD = 1.38). Participation in the study was voluntary and partici-
pants were not paid or compensated for their participation. Partic-
ipants completed measures of the Big Five personality dimensions
and the Dark Triad personality traits along with other measures
that are not relevant to the present study (e.g., self-esteem level)
during an individual laboratory session. Participants returned to
the laboratory 11 days later for a second laboratory session during
which they completed a measure of resource control strategies
along with other measures that were not relevant to the present
study (e.g., consumerism). All questionnaires were administered
in Hebrewwith the original English versions being translated using
the back-translation method.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Resource control
The Resource Control Strategy Inventory (Hawley, 2006) was
used to assess prosocial and coercive resource control strategies.
This instrument consists of 12 items concerning prosocial resource
control strategies (6 items; e.g., I access resources [material,
social, informational] by promising something in return
[a = .79]) and coercive resource control strategies (6 items; e.g.,
I access resources [material, social, informational] by dominating
others [a = .86]). Respondents rated their level of agreement with
each statement using scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Resource control strategies are considered to be a
relative differential (e.g., Hawley & Little, 1999) so resource control
V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 118123 119
groups were created by dividing the distributions of the responses
to the prosocial and coercive strategies into tertiles (e.g., Hawley,
2003a,b): (1) bistrategic controllers scored in the top 66th percentile
on both prosocial and coercive control strategies (n = 146, 15.11%),
(2) coercive controllers scored in the top 66th percentile on coercive
control strategies but average or lowon prosocial control strategies
(n = 150, 15.53%), (3) prosocial controllers scored in the top 66th
percentile on the prosocial control strategies but average or lower
on the coercive control strategies (n = 191, 19.77%), (4) typical con-
trollers scored less than the 66th percentile on both prosocial and
coercive control strategies but only in the lower 33rd percentile
on no more than one of these control strategies (n = 335, 34.68%),
and (5) noncontrollers scored in the lower 33rd percentile on both
prosocial and coercive strategies (n = 144, 14.91%).
2.2.2. Big Five personality dimensions
The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) was
used to capture basic personality dimensions. The BFI is a 44-item
questionnaire that assesses the Big Five personality dimensions of
Extraversion (8 items; e.g., I see myself as someone who is talka-
tive [a = .78]), Neuroticism (8 items; e.g., I see myself as someone
who worries a lot [a = .81]), Agreeableness (9 items; e.g., I see
myself as someone who is considerate and kind to almost every-
one [a = .72]), Conscientiousness (9 items; e.g., I see myself as
someone who does a thorough job [a = .77]), and Openness (10
items; e.g., I see myself as someone who is original, comes up with
new ideas [a = .77]). The BFI has been shown to possess adequate
psychometric properties in previous studies (e.g., John et al., 1991).
2.2.3. Narcissism
Narcissism was assessed using the 40-item version of the Nar-
cissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979). The NPI
is well validated and is often considered to be the standard mea-
sure of subclinical narcissistic personality traits (Paulhus &
Williams, 2002). Items on the NPI are presented in a forced-choice
format such that participants must choose between a narcissistic
and a non-narcissistic statement for each item (e.g., I like having
authority over other people or I dont mind following orders).
The internal consistency of the NPI was a = .86 for the present
study.
2.2.4. Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism was measured via the Mach-IV (Christie &
Geis, 1970). The Mach-IV is a 20-item instrument that was devel-
oped to measure manipulative and deceitful tendencies as well
as cynical and immoral beliefs (e.g., The best way to handle people
is to tell them what they want to hear). Participants were asked to
rate their level of agreement with the items of the Mach-IV using
scales that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
In the current sample, the internal consistency for the Mach-IV
was a = .70.
2.2.5. Psychopathy
Psychopathy was measured using the Self-Report Psychopathy
Scale (SRP-III; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press). The SRP-III
was based on the revised version of Hares Psychopathy Checklist
(PCL-R; Hare, 2003) and was intended to serve as a measure of psy-
chopathy in non-criminal samples. The version of the SRP-III
employed in the current study consists of 34 items and is based
on factor analysis conducted by Mahmut, Menictas, Stevenson,
and Homewood (2011). Participants were instructed to indicate
their agreement with each of the 34 statements on scales ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal consis-
tency of the SRPS was a = .86 for the present study.
3. Results
Data from the present study were analyzed using a multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA). This was a 5 (Resource Control
Strategy: Bistrategic Controllers vs. Coercive Controllers vs. Proso-
cial Controllers vs. Typical Controllers vs. Noncontrollers) 2 (Sex:
Men vs. Women) MANOVA with 8 outcome variables (i.e., extra-
version, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, openness,
narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Main effects
emerged for Resource Control Strategy (F[32,3501] = 9.88,
p < .001, Wilks K= 0.73, partial g
2
= .08) and Sex (F[8,949] =
30.20, p < .001, Wilks K= 0.80, partial g
2
= .20). The interaction
of Resource Control Strategy Sex only approached statistical sig-
nicance (F[32,3501] = 1.40, p = .07, Wilks K= 0.95, partial
g
2
= .01). This signicant MANOVA was followed by a series of 5
(Resource Control Group: Bistrategic Controllers vs. Coercive
Controllers vs. Prosocial Controllers vs. Typical Controllers vs.
Noncontrollers) 2 (Sex: Men vs. Women) ANOVAs to examine
which Big Five personality dimensions and Dark Triad traits dif-
fered between those who exhibited different resource control
strategies. The results of the analyses for each of the Big Five
personality dimensions and the Dark Triad personality traits are
presented in Table 1.
3.1. Extraversion
The main effect of resource control was signicant and post hoc
Tukey tests revealed that participants who were typical controllers
reported lower levels of extraversion than bistrategic controllers
(p < .001) and prosocial controllers (p = .006). The main effect of
sex was signicant such that women reported higher levels of
extraversion than men. The interaction of resource control and
sex did not approach conventional levels of signicance.
3.2. Agreeableness
The main effect of resource control was signicant and post hoc
Tukey tests revealed that prosocial controllers and noncontrollers
reported higher levels of agreeableness than typical controllers
(ps < .05) who reported higher levels of agreeableness than bistra-
tegic controllers (p < .001) and coercive controllers (p < .001). The
main effect of sex was not signicant and the interaction of
resource control and sex failed to emerge from this analysis.
3.3. Neuroticism
The main effect of resource control was signicant and post hoc
Tukey tests revealed that bistrategic controllers reported higher
levels of neuroticism than prosocial controllers (p = .02) and non-
controllers (p = .02). The main effect of sex was signicant such
that women reported higher levels of neuroticism than men. The
interaction of resource control and sex did not emerge.
3.4. Conscientiousness
The main effect of resource control was signicant and post hoc
Tukey tests revealed that coercive controllers reported lower levels
of conscientiousness than bistrategic controllers (p = .04), prosocial
controllers (p < .001), typical controllers (p < .001), and noncontrol-
lers (p < .001). Further, bistrategic controllers reported lower levels
of conscientiousness than noncontrollers (p = .006). The main
effect of sex was not signicant nor was the interaction of resource
control and sex.
120 V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 118123
3.5. Openness
The main effect of resource control was signicant and post hoc
Tukey tests revealed that bistrategic controllers and prosocial con-
trollers reported higher levels of openness than coercive control-
lers (ps < .04), typical controllers (ps < .03), and noncontrollers
(ps < .02). The main effect of sex was signicant such that men
reported higher levels of openness than women. The interaction
of resource control and sex was not signicant.
3.6. Narcissism
The main effect of resource control was signicant and post hoc
Tukey tests revealed that bistrategic controllers reported higher
levels of narcissism than coercive controllers (p = .008) who, in
turn, reported higher levels of narcissism than prosocial controllers
(p = .04), typical controllers (p < .001), and noncontrollers
(p < .001). The main effect of sex was signicant such that men
reported higher levels of narcissism than women. The interaction
of resource control and sex was not signicant.
3.7. Machiavellianism
The main effect of resource control was signicant and post hoc
Tukey tests revealed that bistrategic controllers and coercive con-
trollers reported higher levels of Machiavellianism than prosocial
controllers (ps < .001) or typical controllers (ps < .001) who, in turn,
reported higher levels of Machiavellianism than noncontrollers
(p = .009). The main effect of sex was not signicant nor was the
interaction of resource control and sex.
3.8. Psychopathy
The main effects of resource control and sex were signicant.
These main effects were qualied by the interaction of resource
control and sex which emerged. Men reported higher levels of
psychopathy than women for the bistrategic controllers (F[1,144]
= 32.46, p < .001, g
2
= .18), coercive controllers (F[1,148] = 10.72,
p < .001, g
2
= .07), prosocial controllers (F[1,189] = 10.15, p = .002,
g
2
= .05), and typical controllers (F[1,333] = 26.03, p < .001,
g
2
= .07) but not for the noncontrollers (F[1,142] = 2.77, p = .10,
g
2
= .02). It is important to note that the magnitude of these differ-
ences varied across the groups such that the largest differences
emerged for bistrategic and coercive controllers which reects
the fact that the highest levels of psychopathy were reported by
bistrategic and coercive controllers who were men.
4. Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine whether indi-
viduals who rely on different resource control strategies also differ
in terms of their personality traits. Results revealed differing pat-
terns of personality traits for individuals who tend to adopt differ-
ent resource control strategies. Individuals who adopted a
bistrategic control strategy reported high levels of the Dark Triad
of personality, modest levels of openness, neuroticism, and extra-
version, as well as low levels of agreeableness. Individuals who
adopted a coercive control strategy reported high levels of the Dark
Triad of personality as well as low levels of agreeableness and con-
scientiousness. Those who adopted a prosocial control strategy
reported high levels of agreeableness as well as low levels of psy-
chopathy and Machiavellianism. Individuals who employed a typ-
ical control strategy reported low levels of the Dark Triad of
personality. Noncontrollers reported low levels of the Dark Triad
as well as high levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness.
The results of the present study suggest that the adoption of par-
ticular resource control strategies are linked with different person-
ality traits. Self-reported levels of agreeableness and
conscientiousness differed between those who adopted different
resource control strategies. High levels of agreeableness were
reported by prosocial controllers and noncontrollers whereas low
levels of agreeableness were reported by bistrategic and coercive
Table 1
Summary of Two-Way ANOVAs for Resource Control Strategy and Sex.
Bistrategic
Controllers M
(SD)
Coercive
Controllers M
(SD)
Prosocial
Controllers M
(SD)
Typical
Controllers M
(SD)
Noncontrollers
M (SD)
Two-Way ANOVAs
Resource Control
Strategy (RCS) F(4,956)
Sex
F(1,956)
RCS Sex
F(4,956)
Extraversion 4.49
***
10.91
***
0.96
Men 3.66 (0.55) 3.40 (0.71) 3.48 (0.62) 3.28 (0.63) 3.41 (0.69)
Women 3.63 (0.65) 3.64 (0.72) 3.63 (0.72) 3.86 (0.58) 3.86 (0.58)
Agreeableness 27.67
***
2.10 1.65
Men 3.56 (0.55) 3.49 (0.59) 4.12 (0.50) 3.87 (0.54) 4.08 (0.48)
Women 3.60 (0.62) 3.54 (0.57) 3.95 (0.52) 3.86 (0.58) 3.86 (0.58)
Neuroticism 4.04
***
109.65
***
0.52
Men 2.71 (0.76) 2.59 (0.58) 2.36 (0.71) 2.56 (0.68) 2.42 (0.62)
Women 3.19 (0.62) 3.02 (0.71) 2.99 (0.84) 3.02 (0.69) 3.02 (0.69)
Conscientiousness 6.89
***
0.01 1.79
Men 3.63 (0.59) 3.58 (0.61) 3.79 (0.68) 3.67 (0.63) 3.87 (0.66)
Women 3.67 (0.57) 3.42 (0.67) 3.77 (0.60) 3.82 (0.62) 3.82 (0.62)
Openness 3.61
**
3.85
*
0.41
Men 3.85 (0.65) 3.67 (0.59) 3.83 (0.57) 3.71 (0.60) 3.69 (0.70)
Women 3.82 (0.60) 3.67 (0.62) 3.72 (0.63) 3.59 (0.67) 3.59 (0.67)
Narcissism 29.81
***
4.38
*
1.96
Men 24.41 (6.67) 22.52 (6.64) 20.80 (6.62) 17.06 (6.48) 17.24 (7.34)
Women 24.23 (6.02) 22.13 (5.67) 21.41 (6.31) 19.42 (6.16) 19.42 (6.16)
Machiavellianism 27.92
***
0.98 1.08
Men 2.97 (0.41) 2.95 (0.43) 2.62 (0.40) 2.71 (0.41) 2.50 (0.39)
Women 2.87 (0.38) 2.90 (0.44) 2.66 (0.41) 2.64 (0.41) 2.64 (0.41)
Psychopathy 36.64
***
73.19
***
3.65
**
Men 2.61 (0.52) 2.51 (0.49) 2.10 (0.42) 2.16 (0.43) 2.00 (0.38)
Women 2.14 (0.47) 2.24 (0.48) 1.91 (0.40) 1.93 (0.38) 1.93 (0.38)
(p-Values are two-tailed).
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 118123 121
controllers. High levels of conscientiousness were reported by pro-
social controllers and noncontrollers whereas low levels of consci-
entiousness were reported by coercive controllers. These results
areconsistent withthe idea that the useof prosocial resourcecontrol
strategies is associated with more interpersonally attractive quali-
ties such as agreeableness and cooperation as well as characteristics
such as impulse control (e.g., Hawley, 2003a, 2006). Further, nearly
opposite patterns of results emerged for agreeableness and the Dark
Triad of personality which is consistent with previous research sug-
gesting that a lack of agreeableness is a unifying theme among the
traits of the Dark Triad (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002).
Our results regarding narcissism revealed that individuals who
adopted bistrategic and coercive resource control strategies
endorsed higher levels of the trait, whereas individuals who
adopted noncontrolling and typical strategies endorsed lower lev-
els of the trait. These ndings are in line with the agency model of
narcissism which asserts that individuals with narcissistic person-
ality traits tend to endorse more agentic traits (e.g., dominant,
assertive) and less communal traits (e.g., cooperative, generous)
as being self-descriptive (e.g., Campbell, Bosson, Goheen, Lakey, &
Kernis, 2007). Taken together, these ndings suggest that narcissis-
tic individuals may utilize dominance and assertiveness to gain
control of resources in their social environment.
Individuals who adopted bistrategic and coercive resource con-
trol strategies reported higher levels of Machiavellianism, whereas
individuals who adopted noncontrolling, prosocial, and typical con-
trol strategies were lower in Machiavellianism. These results are
consistent withprevious researchwhichfoundthat individuals with
high levels of Machiavellianismwere skilled at resource control and
employed both prosocial and coercive control strategies quite effec-
tively (e.g., Hawley, 2003a, 2006). Additionally, it has been sug-
gested that Machiavellianism should have the most in common
with certain aspects of psychopathy (e.g., McHoskey, Worzel, &
Szyarto, 1998). Our results support this contention such that a sim-
ilar pattern of results emerged for Machiavellianism and psychopa-
thy. Higher levels of psychopathy were endorsedby individuals who
adopted bistrategic and coercive strategies. Further, the fact that
men reported higher levels of psychopathy in each resource control
groupmost notablyinthe bistrategic andcoercive control groups
is not surprising given that men generally report higher levels of
psychopathy than women (e.g., Lee & Ashton, 2005).
Although the present study has a number of strengths (e.g.,
large community sample, included a broad array of personality
traits), it is important to acknowledge several potential limitations.
The rst potential limitation is the correlational nature of the study
which precludes an understanding of the causal nature of the rela-
tionship between resource control strategies and personality traits.
Although the underlying process model of the present study was
that certain personality traits would lead individuals to adopt spe-
cic resource control strategies, this cannot be established using
the present data. For example, it is possible that the use of resource
control strategies may lead to the development of personality
traits (e.g., using bistrategic control strategies may increase levels
of Machiavellianism over time). It is also possible that both
resource control strategies and personality traits are both due to
some third variable that was not assessed in the present study
(e.g., life history). The second potential limitation is that the pres-
ent study relied exclusively on self-report measures of resource
control strategies and personality traits which make it possible
that our ndings may have been inuenced by socially desirable
response biases. For example, some individuals may have been
reluctant to endorse more aversive resource control strategies
and personality characteristics. Future studies would benet by
adopting long-term longitudinal crossed-lagged designs or
utilizing strategies for capturing resource control strategies and
personality traits that are not reliant on self-report such as obser-
ver ratings. The third potential limitation is that our sample was
comprised solely of educated, unmarried Jewish Israeli participants
which may limit the extent to which these results can be general-
ized. The extent to which the present results would replicate in
other regions of the world or with other age groups is an important
empirical question that should be addressed given the importance
of gaining a better understanding of resource control strategies.
5. Conclusion
In the present study, individuals who adopted particular
resource control strategies generally reported differences in their
personality traits. For example, bistrategic controllers reported
high levels of Dark Triad personality traits, modest levels of open-
ness, neuroticism, and extraversion, as well as low levels of agree-
ableness. Despite its limitations, the results of the present study
shed light on the personality traits of individuals who adopt differ-
ent resource control strategies and suggest that individuals who
employ bistrategic and coercive resource control strategies are
likely to report relatively dark personality traits.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the research assistants of Sapir
Academic College, Israel and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev,
Eilat Campus, Israel for their valuable assistance with the data col-
lection. Our grateful thanks are also extended to all those who par-
ticipated in this study.
References
Campbell, W. K., Bosson, J. K., Goheen, T. W., Lakey, C. E., & Kernis, M. H. (2007). Do
narcissists dislike themselves deep down inside? Psychological Science, 18,
227229.
Christie, R., & Geis, R. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in
personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising ndings. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322331.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The hare psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R) (2nd ed.). Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based
evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97132.
Hawley, P. H. (2002). Social dominance and prosocial and coercive strategies of
resource control in preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
26, 167176.
Hawley, P. H. (2003a). Prosocial and coercive congurations of resource control in
early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 49, 279309.
Hawley, P. H. (2003b). Strategies of control, aggression and morality in
preschoolers: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 85, 213235.
Hawley, P. H. (2006). Evolution and personality: A new look at Machiavellianism. In
D. Mroczek & T. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 147161).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hawley, P. H. (2010). The role of competition and cooperation in shaping
personality: An evolutionary perspective on social dominance,
Machiavellianism, and childrens social development. In D. M. Buss & P. H.
Hawley (Eds.), The evolution of personality and individual differences
(pp. 76110). New York, NY: Oxford.
Hawley, P. H. (2011). The role of competition and cooperation in shaping
personality: An evolutionary perspective on social dominance,
Machiavellianism, and childrens social development. In D. M. Buss & P. H.
Hawley (Eds.), The evolution of personality and individual differences
(pp. 76110). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hawley, P. H., Johnson, S. E., Mize, J. A., & McNamara, K. A. (2007). Physical
attractiveness in preschoolers: Relationships with power, status, aggression and
social skills. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 499521.
Hawley, P. H., & Little, T. D. (1999). Winning some and losing some: A social
relations approach to social dominance in toddlers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45,
185214.
Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (2007). The allure of a mean friend:
Relationship quality and processes of aggressive adolescents with prosocial
skills. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 170180.
Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (2008). The myth of the alpha male: A new
look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and
females. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 7688.
122 V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 118123
Hawley, P. H., Shorey, H. S., & Alderman, P. M. (2009). Attachment correlates of
resource-control strategies: Possible origins of social dominance and
interpersonal power differentials. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
26, 10971118.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentel, R. L. (1991). The Big Five inventory: Versions 4a
and 54 [Technical report]. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of
Personality and Social Research.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Buss, D. M. (2010). The costs and benets of the Dark Triad:
Implications for mate poaching and mate retention tactics. Personality and
Individual Differences, 48, 373378.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in
the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 15711582.
Mahmut, M. K., Menictas, C., Stevenson, R. J., & Homewood, J. (2011). Validating the
factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in a community sample.
Psychological Assessment, 23, 670678.
McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and
psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 192210.
Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. Manual for the Self-Report Psychopathy
Scale. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems (in press).
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36,
556563.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological
Reports, 45, 590.
V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 118123 123