A Belgrade-based study published in the International Journal of Psychology has found that two psychological vulnerabilities—dark personality traits and flawed cognitive reasoning—both predict rule-breaking, but operate independently rather than forming a single causal pathway.
The researchers recruited 514 participants from the general population, most of whom were university students, and conducted the study online. They measured levels of the Dark Tetrad—psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and sadism—and assessed cognitive styles that influence decision-making and self-perception.
Within the Dark Tetrad, individuals scoring highly on psychopathy, Machiavellianism and sadism were more likely to report rule-breaking behaviour, while narcissism did not emerge as a predictor in this sample.
On the cognitive side, participants who gave more incorrect answers on a logic and maths test tended to report more antisocial behaviour. Overconfidence also predicted higher levels of rule-breaking, particularly in intellectual ability, physical appearance, and performance on the logic test, whereas overconfidence about one’s moral quality was linked to less antisocial behaviour.
The study found that all four dark traits were associated with dichotomous thinking, indicating a shared tendency to view the world in absolute terms. They were also linked to overconfidence in physical appearance. By contrast, only narcissism showed a link to overconfidence in intellectual ability and social maturity.
An unexpected pattern emerged regarding moral overconfidence. Participants scoring high for psychopathy, Machiavellianism and sadism displayed lower levels of overconfidence in their moral quality, a finding the researchers suggest could reflect some awareness of deviation from conventional standards or a preference among rule-breakers to present themselves as nonconformists rather than morally superior.
When the researchers tested their central hypothesis—that flawed cognitive styles mediate the relationship between dark personality traits and antisocial actions—the results showed no mediation effect. The cognitive styles linked to dark traits were largely distinct from those associated with antisocial behaviour, indicating two separate psychological pathways to rule-breaking.
The researchers say the findings have practical implications. Interventions that foster logical thinking and more realistic self-assessment might reduce rule-breaking in individuals whose antisocial acts stem from poor decision-making. However, such cognitive programmes would likely be ineffective for those whose antisocial behaviour is driven primarily by dark personality traits.
Several limitations are acknowledged. The sample was heavily skewed towards university students, a group that typically reports lower levels of serious antisocial behaviour, which may limit broader applicability. Because the study is cross-sectional, it cannot establish causation, and self-reported measures might bias results. The authors also note that the use of short scales could miss subtler effects, suggesting future work incorporate official records or experimental tasks to better capture the dynamics at play.
The study, titledDark Personalities and Cognitive Styles: Two Distinct Dispositions Toward Antisocial Behaviour, was authored by Janko Mededović, Marija V. Čolić, Svetlana Pavlović, Nikola Drndarević, and Đorđe Volarević of the Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research in Belgrade, Serbia.
