The hierarchies of good and evil personality traits

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00850

Abstract

Abstract:

The question of good and evil is an important topic in people's social life. What is the first information that people care about when they perceive others, and do they weigh different types of good and evil traits? Based on the perspective of personality psychology, this study explored the issue through four studies. Firstly, the paper explored the differences between good and evil when the moral concept of personality is activated, and then examined the differences in the core degree of different types of good and evil traits by using representativeness, desirability, the scope of trait, and importance as the measurement indicators. The results show that the hierarchies of good and evil personality traits are embodied in two aspects: (1) the hierarchy between good and evil personalities, in the moral category of personality, there exists the priority effect of the good personality; (2) the hierarchies within good and evil personalities, The core of good from the inside to out is: conscientiousness and integrity, benevolence and amicability, tolerance and magnanimity, altruism and dedication; the core of evil from the inside to out is: atrociousness and mercilessness, faithlessness and treacherousness, calumniation and circumvention, mendacity and hypocrisy. The study helps to further understand the Chinese view of good and evil, and provides a new way of thinking for the exploration of the field of good and evil.

Key words: good and evil personalities, personality structure, hierarchy, scope of trait, Chinese culture

JIAO Liying, XU Yan, TIAN Yi, GUO Zhen, ZHAO Jinzhe. (2022). The hierarchies of good and evil personality traits. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(7), 850-866.

Figures/Tables 8

References 94

[1]	Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751-763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751 URL
[2]	Allen, N., Birch, S., & Sarmiento-Mirwaldt, K. (2018). Honesty above all else? Expectations and perceptions of political conduct in three established democracies. Comparative European Politics, 16(3), 511-534. doi: 10.1057/s41295-016-0084-4 URL
[3]	Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt.
[4]	Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 272-279. pmid: 5666976
[5]	Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150-166. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294907 URL
[6]	Baumert, A., Halmburger, A., & Schmitt, M. (2013). Interventions against norm violations: Dispositional determinants of self-reported and real moral courage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 1053-1068. doi: 10.1177/0146167213490032 pmid: 23761924
[7]	Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289-300. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x URL
[8]	Berkowitz, L. (1999). Evil is more than banal: Situationism and the concept of evil. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 246-253. pmid: 15661675
[9]	Book, A., Visser, B. A., & Volk, A. A. (2015). Unpacking “evil”: Claiming the core of the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 29-38. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.016 URL
[10]	Book, A. S., Quinsey, V. L., & Langford, D. (2007). Psychopathy and the perception of affect and vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(4), 531-544. doi: 10.1177/0093854806293554 URL
[11]	Brambilla, M., Rusconi, P., Sacchi, S., & Cherubini, P. (2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 135-143. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.744 URL
[12]	Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Menegatti, M., & Moscatelli, S. (2016). Honesty and dishonesty don’t move together: Trait content information influences behavioral synchrony. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(3), 171-186. doi: 10.1007/s10919-016-0229-9 URL
[13]	Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Rusconi, P., & Goodwin, G. P. (2021). The primacy of morality in impression development: Theory, research, and future directions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 187-262.
[14]	Buss, D. M. (2011). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th Edition). Pearson Education.
[15]	Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2012). Cybernetic control processes and the self-regulation of behavior. In The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation. Oxford University Press.
[16]	Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic theoretical and factual study. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[17]	Cawley, M. J., Martin, J. E., & Johnson, J. A. (2000). A virtues approach to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(5), 997-1013. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00207-X URL
[18]	Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J. P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219-251. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x URL
[19]	Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 208-231. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208 URL
[20]	Dai, J. (2007). The human standards and social standards of good and evi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Jilin University, China.
[21]	de la Iglesia, G., & Solano, A. C. (2018). The positive personality model (PPM): Exploring a new conceptual framework for personality assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2027. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02027 URL
[22]	de Raad, B., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2011). A psycholexical study of virtues in the Dutch language, and relations between virtues and personality. European Journal of Personality, 25(1), 43-52. doi: 10.1002/per.777 URL
[23]	Ellemers, N. (2017). Morality and the regulation of social behavior: Groups as moral anchors. Taylor and Francis.
[24]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 URL
[25]	Fazeli, S. A. (2019). Meanings of foundational virtue in islamic mystical ethics: A case study of honesty. Religious Inquiries, 8(15), 59-80.
[26]	Feng, X., Xue, X. D., & Cai, S. S. (2016). Scope of trait: Inductive reasoning in the process of interpersonal perception. Academics in China, (1), 110-115.
[27]	Ge, X., & Hou, Y. (2021). Confucian ideal personality traits (Junzi personality) and mental health: The serial mediating roles of self-control and authenticity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(4), 374-386. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00374 URL
[28]	Gidron, D., Koehler, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1993). Implicit quantification of personality traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(5), 594-594. doi: 10.1177/0146167293195011 URL
[29]	Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Moral character in person perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 38-44. doi: 10.1177/0963721414550709 URL
[30]	Goodwin, G. P., Piazza, J., & Rozin, P. (2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 148-168. doi: 10.1037/a0034726 URL
[31]	Gouveia, V., Vasconcelos de Oliveira, I. C., de Moura Grangeiro, A. S., Pereira Monteiro, R., & Lins de Holanda Coelho, G. (2021). The bright side of the human personality: Evidence of a measure of prosocial traits. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(3), 1459-1480. doi: 10.1007/s10902-020-00280-2 URL
[32]	Gray, K., Schein, C., & Ward, A. F. (2014). The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1600-1615. doi: 10.1037/a0036149 URL
[33]	Gray, K., Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2012). The moral dyad: A fundamental template unifying moral judgment. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 206-215. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.686247 URL
[34]	Guo, Y. (2016). Personality research. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
[35]	Guo, Y. (2010). Establishment for moral personality vocabulary assessment (Unpublished master thesis). Zhengzhou University, China.
[36]	Hartung, J., Bader, M., Moshagen, M., & Wilhelm, O. (2021). Age and gender differences in socially aversive (“dark”) personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 36(1), 3-23. doi: 10.1177/0890207020988435 URL
[37]	Hill, P. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2010). Propositions for the study of moral personality development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 380-383. doi: 10.1177/0963721410389168 URL
[38]	Huang, X., Zhang, S. (1992). Desirability, meaningfulness and familiarity ratings of 562 personality trait adjectives. Journal of Psychological Science, (5), 17-22+63.
[39]	Jiao, L. (2021). Good and evil personalities: Structures, the differential patterns of trait inference, and applications (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Beijing Normal University.
[40]	Jiao, L., Yang, Y., Guo, Z., Xu, Y., Zhang, H., & Jiang, J. (2021). Development and validation of the good and evil character traits (GECT) scale. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 62(2), 276-287. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12696 URL
[41]	Jiao, L., Yang, Y., Xu, Y., Gao, S., & Zhang, H. (2019). Good and evil in Chinese culture: Personality structure and connotation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(10), 1128-1142. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01128 URL
[42]	Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420-432. doi: 10.1037/a0019265 pmid: 20528068
[43]	Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 521-531. doi: 10.1002/per.1893 URL
[44]	Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 12-18. doi: 10.1177/1948550609347591 URL
[45]	Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28-41. doi: 10.1177/1073191113514105 URL
[46]	Kant, I. (1986). The metaphysics of morals (L. Miao, Trans.). Shanghai People's Publishing House, Shanghai.
[47]	Kaufman, S. B., Yaden, D. B., Hyde, E., & Tsukayama, E. (2019). The Light vs. Dark Triad of personality: Contrasting two very different profiles of human nature. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-26. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00001 URL
[48]	Klein, N., & Epley, N. (2014). The topography of generosity: Asymmetric evaluations of prosocial actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2366-2379. doi: 10.1037/xge0000025 URL
[49]	Klein, N., & O’Brien, E. (2016). The tipping point of moral change: When do good and bad acts make good and bad actors? Social cognition, 34(2), 149-166. doi: 10.1521/soco.2016.34.2.149 URL
[50]	Kong, F. (2006). Zhonghua Lunli Fanchou·Shan. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
[51]	Kupperman, J. (1991). Character. New York: Oxford University Press.
[52]	Landy, J., Piazza, J. R., & Goodwin, G. (2018). Morality traits still dominate in forming impressions of others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(25), E5636.
[53]	Landy, J. F., Piazza, J., & Goodwin, G. P. (2016). When it’s bad to be friendly and smart: The desirability of sociability and competence depends on morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1272-1290. doi: 10.1177/0146167216655984 URL
[54]	Marcus, D. K., Preszler, J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2018). A network of dark personality traits: What lies at the heart of darkness? Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 56-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.003 URL
[55]	Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: Wiley.
[56]	Morales-Vives, F., de Raad, B., & Vigil-Colet, A. (2014). Psycho-lexically based virtue factors in Spain and their relation with personality traits. Journal of General Psychology, 141(4), 297-325. doi: 10.1080/00221309.2014.938719 pmid: 25302585
[57]	Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2018). The dark core of personality. Psychological Review, 125(5), 656-688. doi: 10.1037/rev0000111 pmid: 29999338
[58]	Mu, S., & Gu, H. (2010). Development of the Virtue Adjectives Rating Scale and research on its reliability and validity. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18(3), 310-313.
[59]	Neumann, C. S., Kaufman, S. B., ten Brinke, L., Yaden, D. B., Hyde, E., & Tsykayama, E. (2020). Light and dark trait subtypes of human personality - A multi-study person-centered approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 1-11.
[60]	Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6 URL
[61]	Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press.
[62]	Piazza, J., Goodwin, G. P., Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2014). When a virtue is not a virtue: Conditional virtues in moral evaluation. Social Cognition, 32(6), 528-558. doi: 10.1521/soco.2014.32.6.528 URL
[63]	Piazza, J., Landy, J. F., & Goodwin, G. P. (2014). Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important, overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing. Cognition, 131(1), 108-124. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.013 pmid: 24462925
[64]	Reeder, G. D. (1993). Trait-behavior relations and dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(5), 586-593. doi: 10.1177/0146167293195010 URL
[65]	Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86(1), 61-79. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.86.1.61 URL
[66]	Roivainen, E. (2013). Frequency of the use of English personality adjectives: Implications for personality theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 417-420. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.004 URL
[67]	Roivainen, E. (2016). A folk-psychological ranking of personality facets. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 4(4), 187-195. doi: 10.5114/cipp.2016.62698 URL
[68]	Rothbart, M., & Park, B. (1986). On the confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 131-142. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.131 URL
[69]	Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2016). Moralization and harmification: The dyadic loop explains how the innocuous becomes harmful and wrong. Psychological Inquiry, 27(1), 62-65. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2016.1111121 URL
[70]	Shklar, J. N. (1984). Ordinary vices. Harvard University Press.
[71]	Shryack, J., Steger, M. F., Krueger, R. F., & Kallie, C. S. (2010). The structure of virtue: An empirical investigation of the dimensionality of the virtues in action inventory of strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(6), 714-719. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.007 URL
[72]	Smith, K. D., Smith, S. T., & Christopher, J. C. (2007). What defines the good person? Cross-cultural comparisons of experts’ models with lay prototypes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(3), 333-360. doi: 10.1177/0022022107300279 URL
[73]	Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 330-348. doi: 10.1037/a0021717 URL
[74]	Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30-90. doi: 10.1037/bul0000217 pmid: 31841013
[75]	Walker, L. J. (2004). Gus in the gap:Bridging the judgment-action gap in moral functioning. In D. K. Lapsley, & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development, self, and identity (pp.1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[76]	Walker, L. J., & Hennig, K. H. (2004). Differing conceptions of moral exemplarity: Just, brave, and caring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 629-647. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.629 URL
[77]	Walker, L. J., & Pitts, R. C. (1998). Naturalistic conceptions of moral maturity. Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 403-419. pmid: 9597350
[78]	Wang, D., & Cui., H. (2005). Explorations of Chinese personality. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press (China).
[79]	Wang, Y., & Guo, B. (2011). A preliminary study on the characteristics of undergraduates’ moral personality. Journal of Psychological Science, 34(6), 1436-1440.
[80]	Wei, Q., Li, M., & Chen, X. (2018). Social class and social perception: Is warmth or competence more important? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(2), 243-252. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00243 URL
[81]	Weiss, A., Michels, C., Burgmer, P., Mussweiler, T., Ockenfels, A., & Hofmann, W. (2020). Trust in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 95-114. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000334 URL
[82]	Welner, M. (2009). The justice and therapeutic promise of science-based research on criminal evil. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(4), 442-449.
[83]	Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impression: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592-598. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x URL
[84]	Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1251-1263. doi: 10.1177/01461672982412001 URL
[85]	Wood, D. (2015). Testing the lexical hypothesis: Are socially important traits more densely reflected in the English lexicon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 317-335. doi: 10.1037/a0038343 URL
[86]	Yan, G., & Liu, T. (2005). The traditional five-fact or personality theory of ancient China. Journal of Psychological Science, 28, 780-783.
[87]	Yu. F. (2014). Psychology of virtue: What, why and how (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tsinghua University, Beijing.
[88]	Yu, F., Peng, K., Dong, R., Chai, F., & Han, T. (2013). The psychological research paradigms of moral personality. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(12), 2235-2244. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.02235 URL
[89]	Yu, F., & Xu, L. (2018). Chinese moral structure:a moral differential circle. Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Social Science Edition), (6), 65-74.
[90]	Yuan, X., & Guo, S. (2017). Differential mode of association in Chinese interpersonal relationship affection: Evidence from Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST). Journal of Psychological Science, 40(3), 651-656.
[91]	Zhang, H., Huang, J., Huang, C., Wang, W., & Hu, C. (2019). Are wise men necessarily benevolent? A reﬂection upon the relationship between wisdom and virtue. Journal of Psychological Science, 42(3), 761-767.
[92]	Zhang, H., Zhao, H., & Xu, Y. (2018). The structure of Chinese virtuous personality and questionnaire development. Psychological Exploration, 38(3), 221-227.
[93]	Zhou, M., Li, F., Mu, W., Fan, W., Zhang, J., & Zhang, M. (2022, in press). Round outside and square inside: The latent profile structure and adaptability of Chinese interpersonal relatedness. Acta Psychologica Sinica.
[94]	Zuo, B., Dai, T., Wen, F., & Suo, Y. (2015). The big two model in social cognition. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(4), 1019-1023.

The dimension of good	Representativeness		The dimension of evil	Representativeness
The dimension of good	M	SD	The dimension of evil	M	SD
conscientiousness and integrity	7.41	1.22	atrociousness and mercilessness	7.27	1.48
altruism and dedication	6.49	1.59	mendacity and hypocrisy	5.58	1.87
benevolence and amicability	6.94	1.27	calumniation and circumvention	6.68	1.91
tolerance and magnanimity	6.90	1.41	faithlessness and treacherousness	6.78	1.67

The dimension of good	Representativeness		The dimension of evil	Representativeness
The dimension of good	M	SD	The dimension of evil	M	SD
conscientiousness and integrity	7.41	1.22	atrociousness and mercilessness	7.27	1.48
altruism and dedication	6.49	1.59	mendacity and hypocrisy	5.58	1.87
benevolence and amicability	6.94	1.27	calumniation and circumvention	6.68	1.91
tolerance and magnanimity	6.90	1.41	faithlessness and treacherousness	6.78	1.67

Dimensions	Scope of trait		Desirability
Dimensions	M	SD	M	SD
conscientiousness and integrity	8.13	1.24	6.45	0.54
altruism and dedication	7.15	1.49	5.92	0.66
benevolence and amicability	7.84	1.36	6.32	0.64
tolerance and magnanimity	7.86	1.50	6.29	0.65
atrociousness and mercilessness	2.12	2.32	1.56	0.87
mendacity and hypocrisy	2.63	2.28	1.80	0.85
calumniation and circumvention	2.34	2.28	1.63	0.84
faithlessness and treacherousness	2.32	2.29	1.70	0.99

Dimensions	Scope of trait		Desirability
Dimensions	M	SD	M	SD
conscientiousness and integrity	8.13	1.24	6.45	0.54
altruism and dedication	7.15	1.49	5.92	0.66
benevolence and amicability	7.84	1.36	6.32	0.64
tolerance and magnanimity	7.86	1.50	6.29	0.65
atrociousness and mercilessness	2.12	2.32	1.56	0.87
mendacity and hypocrisy	2.63	2.28	1.80	0.85
calumniation and circumvention	2.34	2.28	1.63	0.84
faithlessness and treacherousness	2.32	2.29	1.70	0.99

Personality	Trait sets	Dimensions	n	M	SD	z
Good	Group 1	Trustworthy	108	1.43	0.50	-2.04^*
	Group 1	Dedicated	80	1.57	0.50	-2.04^*
	Group 2	Honest	129	1.31	0.47	-5.11^***
	Group 2	Acts bravely for a just cause	59	1.69	0.47	-5.11^***
	Group 3	Conscientious	92	1.51	0.50	-2.92
	Group 3	Selfless	96	1.49	0.50	-2.92
	Group 4	Righteous	130	1.31	0.46	-5.25^***
	Group 4	Public-spirited	58	1.69	0.46	-5.25^***
Evil	Group 1	Commits all manner of evil things	136	1.28	0.45	-6.13^***
	Group 1	Hypocritical	52	1.72	0.45	-6.13^***
	Group 2	Cruel	139	1.26	0.44	-6.56^***
	Group 2	Good at faking	49	1.74	0.44	-6.56^***
	Group 3	Ferocious	132	1.30	0.46	-5.54^***
	Group 3	Duplicitous	56	1.70	0.46	-5.54^***
	Group 4	Cruel and devoid of human feelings	148	1.21	0.41	-7.88^***
	Group 4	Deceptive	40	1.79	0.41	-7.88^***