backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by MrBlastman.. on Jun 23 at 1:44 PM

Results suggests trolls aren't seeking praise or wanting to manipulate; other studies indicate they may breed more

While it's important to preface what is to follow with a reminder that correlation doth not causation make, a new study has found seemingly clear ties between internet trolling and a person's likelihood of being predisposed to the "Dark Tetrad".  But more interestingly it finds that only one particular negative personality trait is stroked by trollish behavior -- and its findings suggest trolls may be breeding.

I. Wait, What's a "Dark Tetrad"?

Psychologists have long sought to quantify what personality traits make a person unlikeable and viewed by their peers as a "bad person".  

Perhaps the best-accepted term to describes these traits originates in a 2002 paper by graduate researcher Kevin M. Williams, and Dr. Delroy L. Paulhus of the Univ. of British Columbia.  Published in the J. Research on Personality, the paper identifies what it calls the "Dark Triad" of traits.  These personality variables -- commonly considered undesirable -- include Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy.
The dark triad
The paper's critical finding was that the "Dark Triad" of personality traits were often correlated, or in other words someone who was narcissistic would be more likely to be psychopathic, and so on, statistically speaking.

The "subclinical" tag attached to some of these symptoms means that they are not directly indicative of an underlying disease.  Unlike more serious symptoms of clinical psychopathy and/or narcissism, which can be used to form a diagonosis, some would argue that these symptoms may simply be a person's natural personality and not symptomatic of a true mental illness.

What do these personality variables mean?  Here's a brief definition from Dr. Paulhus's original work
  • Machiavellianism:
    • "the manipulative personality"
    • cold
    • manipulative
  • subclinical or ‘normal’ narcissism
    • grandiosity
    • entitlement
    • dominance
    • superiority
  • subclinical psychopathy
    • high impulsivity
    • thrill-seeking
    • low empathy
    • anxiety
    • anti-social behavior
Since the 2002 paper by Dr. Paulhus, the buzzword "Dark Triad" has been embraced as research shorthand for these undesirable personality variables.  Dr. Natalène Séjourné, a psychology professor and researcher at the Université de Toulouse (University of Toulouse), France in a 2009 paper suggested the sadism be added to the so-called "Dark Triad".  She and her colleagues wrote:

As in the studies by Paulhus and Williams’ study (2002) and Vaughn et al. (2008), psychopathic, narcissistic, and Machiavellian traits were moderately correlated. Furthermore, they correlated moderately with sadistic traits in our study. This suggests that all four of these constructs are overlapping but distinct. We propose calling the association of psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian and sadistic traits the ‘Dark Tetrad’ of personality traits.

50 shades handcuffed
Recent work ties sadism to the Dark Triad. [Image Source: After-Set]

The term "Dark Tetrad" has also gained growing acceptance as subclinical sadism has been confirmed to be correlated to the members of the Dark Triad.

II. Send in the Trolls

The new work -- published in the peer-reviewed psychology journal Personality and Individual Differences -- examines how so-called internet "trolls" -- as well as other internet denizens -- rank when it comes to the Dark Tetrad.

Dr. Paulhus is the paper's senior author, while Erin E. Buckels -- a graduate researcher at the University of Manitoba -- gets the first author credit.  Also on the paper is Dr. Paul Trapnell, a personality researcher at the University of Winnipeg (Winnipeg is the capital of Manitoba, Canada).

Professor Del Roy, et al.
Professor Delroy Paulhus (right, front) is seen here with his lab in 2009.

The authors first surveyed 418 people (42 percent female) via an online survey target only U.S. users.  The survey participants were paid 50 cents via Amazon.com, Inc.'s (AMZN) Mechanical Turk (MTurk) service, which matches up people willing to answer surveys for pay to those looking to ask questions.  The first survey gave people a basic personality test to determine whether they showed strong signs of any of the Dark Tetrad traits, then they were asked to pick their favorite activity on sites from: non-commenter, chatting, debating, trolling, making friends/other.

Using the first personality test, the study looked at correlation among various preferred activities and the four traits of the Dark Tetrad, dividing subclinical sadism into two categories -- "vicarious sadism" (those who enjoy observing others suffer or experience discomfort at the hands of others) and "direct sadism" (those who looks to personally make others suffer or experience discomfort).

Mechanical Turk
Both surveys use Amazon's Mechanical Turk.

A second survey used 609 American participants via MTurk and 188 Canadian psychology student.  One key difference in the second study was that it differentiated direct sadism into two categories -- verbal and physical.  The study also allowed users to rank how much they like each of the aforementioned activities (e.g. lurking on a site without commenting, chatting, etc.) versus the first study which only allowed a single "favorite" response.

III. What a Troll Wants, What a Troll Needs

Unsurprisingly, both studies found that older users spent less time commenting on the internet, generally than young folks.  Men spent, on average 52 minutes a day commenting on the internet, while women spent only 29 minutes a day commenting, on average.

One good piece of news is that the study suggests trolls are in the minority on the internet, as noisy as they are.  In the first study, only about 1 in 20 individuals (5.6 percent) identified trolling others as their preferred internet activitity.  The most popular active activities were debating issues (23.8 percent) and chatting with other users (21.3 percent) -- each of which appealed most to roughly 1 in 5 users.  And of course the very most popular activity of all was passive -- internet lurking.  Roughly 2 in 5 users (41.3 percent) reported not commenting on internet articles and forums.

Trolling v. Dark Tetrad
Trolls show the highest rates of sadism, much higher than those who prefer other activities. [Image Source: Personality and Individual Differences]

Generally non-commenters and those who used the net for "other" reasons (e.g. friendship) had the lowest rates of negative personality traits, but they were more predisposed to narcissism.

The most common personality flaw among the chatty Cathys (those who preferred chatting) was vicarious sadism, but perhaps predictably those who debate issues saw much higher scores for most of the personality flaws.  While their vicarious sadism correlation was roughly the same as the chatters, their most common Dark Tetrad trait was Machiavellianism.  Both groups saw relatively low rates of narcissism.

When it comes to narcissism of commenters versus non-commenters, non-commenters with a correlation to at least one Dark Tetrad trait were more likely to be narcissitic than the chatters/debaters with at least one of the negative traits.  However, when you include those with no correlation to any of the Dark Tetrad traits, you see more narcissistic chatters/debaters than lurkers.  So you could make a compelling argument that either group is the bigger egotist.

Troll Doll
[Image Source: Word of the Nerd]

Turning finally to the trolls, they were by far the most out of control, showing dramatically higher rates of sadism and the rest of the Dark Tetrad (even narcissism).  Interestingly, they narrowly preferred watching others flame each other (vicarious sadism) than engaging in flaming themself (direct sadism).  In other words, trolls love to see trolling even more than they like to do it themselves (although they also like to do it themselves).

IV. Pleasure-Seeking Sadists

The second study found some additional information via first looking at the user's ranking of how they felt about trolling and then comparing this with survey quesitions which would seemingly identify a troll -- a so-called Global Assessment of Internet Trolling (GAIT).

Most internet narcisissist are actually non-trolls.  Of all the Dark Tetrad, it was the weakest correlated (-0.09 w/ those who like trolling on the enjoying rating scale; 0.18 w/ GAIT).  By contrast, subclinical sadism (0.52 w/ enjoying rating 0.68 w/ GAIT) followed by psychopathy (0.38 w/ enjoying rating, but 0.55 w/ GAIT) were the strongest correlations.  The correlation between Machavellianism and trolling was also rather weak (0.37 w/ enjoying rating; 0.34  w/ GAIT).
Troll typing

Perhaps most interestingly the enjoyment ratings showed that those who enjoy trolling somewhat, but also enjoy other activities (e.g. chatting or debating) were skewing those groups to appear more strongly correlated to the Dark Tetrad than they really were.  And when it came to the Dark Tetrad the correlation to other personality flaws -- psychopathy, Machavellianism, and narcissism -- appeared to be driven by the fact that people with sadism tend to be some of those other things.  However, analysis indicated that trolling only appeared to be an enjoyable outlet for one Dark Tetrad trait -- sadism.

It seemed that trolls most enjoyed direct physical sadism, followed by direct verbal sadism.  Performing other forms of analysis, researchers concluded that those who identify as trolls appear to do so largely because it offers them a pleasurable outlet for the sadistic side -- a premise that led to the paper's title -- "Trolls Just Want to Have Fun".

The authors write:

In fact, the associations between sadism and GAIT scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.... Our research suggests that, for those with sadistic personalities, that ideal self may be a villain of chaos and mayhem – the online Trickster we fear, envy, and love to hate: the cyber-troll.

They add that when you remove those who enjoy a mix of trolling and other activities, virtually none of the people involved in other activities were inclined to sadism.  In other words, the study indicates that if you're a troll you're probably a mild sadist (at least) and if you're a mild sadist (at least) you'd probably become a troll, if given the opportunity.

The Sadist
[Image Source: VHS Movies]

On the other hand, the studies indicate that while those enjoy trolling tend to be predisposed to manipulative behavior (Machavellianism) and subclinical psychopathy, they don't really enjoy doing those things when trolling.  Trolls appear disinterested in manipulating their marks (Machavellianism), winning their adoration (narcissism), or creating chaos for chaos's sake (psychopathy).  They troll to express one Dark Tetrad trait and one alone -- sadism, the desire to hurt others and/or make them uncomfortable.

V. Other Studies, Combined With This Work Suggest Trolls May be Breeding at an Alarming Rate

The paper said that one major question left unresolved was whether the internet was making people score higher on the Dark Tetrad (and hence more anti-social) or whether it was simply letting people be themselves -- including those inclined to sadism (the trolls) or other forms of antisocial behavior.

The good news if you're a troll, and the bad news for the generally internet audience who suffers their presence is that it turns out the Dark Tetrad isn't wholly negative.  Other studies -- including a 2009 study by Dr. Peter K. Jonason (was then at New Mexico State University) and Dr. David P. Schmitt (Bradley University) shows that those with the Dark Triad of traits tend to be more likely to breed.  

A 2006 analysis by Victor Nell suggested similar advantages might be confered upon the sadist, writing:

Cruelty has fitness beneits in solving problems of survival and reproduction in forager, pastoral, and urban societies.

Troll baby
Trolls' sadistic cruelty may be genetics: studies suggest cruelty and sadism improve reproduction chances. And that means more baby trolls. [Image Source: NeithTK/DeviantArt]

In other words, trolls will survive, as long as they know how to troll that's how they will survive, and they got all their life to live, and all their love to give (and will likely get more opportunities to give it).

While they may be less likely to be able to form stable relationships, trolls' potential advantage in achieving temporary, permiscuous one night stands leads to a startling potential conclusion -- the trolls are breeding, and may be favored over non-trolls by natural selection.

Source: Personality and Individual Differences



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: On nerds who become late bullies
By Petre4333 on 6/22/2014 8:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
You have the right to your religion and to express your views. I accept that within it entirety and it would be wrong as well as hypocritical of me to question your faith. Who and how you engage within your faith is your decision, but I believe that I am also entitled to express my view.

My post is more concerned with that fact that a gay or lesbian person's sexual orientation can be used as a justification to deny them spiritual enlightenment. We all have our views, but I feel that it is wrong to impose a view on someone, as to question their faith by removing them from their community. It is essentially this stance, which seems to replicated within other areas of the community on both sides of the debate towards gay marriage. Both sides believe that they have the moral high ground, which they may, but both sides also have flaws in their arguments when using this position as a justification: no side is perfectly equal.

quote:
Now in regards to the "anger" we have towards particularly Christians, well that's each person's issue.


It certainly is, but I would like to mention that I am not targeting a single religion: it is not my intention but it could be argued. I feel that the exclusion of anyone from any religion within the context I discussed is flawed, in my personal opinion, which people can agree or disagree with.

My view again, is that I just do not like the idea of a person being denied spiritual enlightenment from any religion, as I have read many stories of people running away or killing themselves: I am not certain on the exact authenticity to these stories. However, it is saddening that a person becomes excluded because of a factor beyond their control and then destroys the life they once had. A waste of a life and human potential...

quote:
You can't very well think I'm going to just let that slide, as I was taken from my mother at 4 and indoctrinated into your culture. You reap what you sow.


I will never expect you to move on your position or views, as that is your view and it would be unfair of me to a force a view on you. My purpose behind the post was to bring another side, as I did not feel that the issue was being covered within its entirety correctly, in my opinion. If you read my post then agree or disagree that is your choice, but I would hope that people from both sides can read it and understand that the debate on either side is flawed even with a differing opinion on the core issues.

The destruction of culture and the assimilation of people has happened in Australia with the Australian Aboriginals, the first people of Australia. I cannot not and will not ever be be able to feel their pain, which may be similar to yours, but I do feel and understand that I can reflect upon the tragedy that has occurred and still is. The 'issues' that are created around the first people of Australia still haunt our history, as the country did destroy their language, traditions and their sense of community. It may be many generations before these strong people get back on their feet.

However, this may be completely different to your struggle and again, I will never be able to understand your pain, but I can attempt to understand to a very limited degree.

The main point being that I feel is that there are two sides to every story. I do not like blanket views and I do not like assumptions that seem to lack an understanding of the context about these groups of "other" people, which may be treating the current cultures of society: on both sides of the debate. If you do not know these people, do have experiences with them or have any evidence to contribute to the debate, I feel that regardless of your position, you should not get involved in the debate: this is for anyone. Mostly because it seems to feed the hatred on either side, which does not achieve anything but more hatred and violence. That, however, should not limit your capacity or anyone's capacity to their freedom of speech, as it is my personal view, but I feel that if you don't have anything new to contribute, please do not talk publicly about your views: on any issue unless you want to feed the cycle of hatred. We both live in free countries.


RE: On nerds who become late bullies
By Felix_Kumbaya on 6/22/2014 9:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
Think of it like sitting on Ellis Island, hoping to get American citizenship. Now if you are angrily denouncing the US leadership, and openly state that you refuse to follow their laws. Then you are not getting in.

This is our position towards heaven. And I can assure you, spiritual enlightenment is to understand that homosexuality is a consequence of people not caring to know God. As explained by the Bible. Homosexuality is a sign of the fall of man.

In the end, the Devil shall stand before the alter, and change everything. Is he going to Heaven because he says so? No, he is not, and those who follow him aren't either. But in this time man sees fit to start changing everything. But who can he give eternal life? Surely he is paving the way for the Devil to come soon.

You and I are going to die. And that's the default. Salvation is in Jesus Christ, and not in ourselves.

Now they will not accept homosexual practice in Heaven, and that's that.


RE: On nerds who become late bullies
By Petre4333 on 6/22/2014 11:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think of it like sitting on Ellis Island, hoping to get American citizenship. Now if you are angrily denouncing the US leadership, and openly state that you refuse to follow their laws. Then you are not getting in.


I am not certain if there is a historical context behind that, but it seems completely contradictory. As a citizen of a new state you agree to follow the law and those people need to stop talking before becoming citizen: I would not want a non-law abiding citizen in my country.

However, once you are citizen you can say what ever you want to a degree in America. You can ignore the views of people you do not like and speak out against these views in public. That is the best part of being in a free democratic state that people cannot force a view on you and you can say whatever you want.

quote:
And I can assure you, spiritual enlightenment is to understand that homosexuality is a consequence of people not caring to know God. As explained by the Bible. Homosexuality is a sign of the fall of man.


This is your interpretation, which is pushing a direct view onto someone and I doubt you will change anyone with that view: if that is 'good' thing to do. Could you please cite the exact areas which indicate that identifying as a homosexual is an issue in the bible, as that is what most of those students are targeted for: not any passages on the acts themselves. What they do behind closed doors is their businesses, which is between them and any of their religious beliefs.


RE: On nerds who become late bullies
By Spuke on 6/23/2014 12:38:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Could you please cite the exact areas which indicate that identifying as a homosexual is an issue in the bible, as that is what most of those students are targeted for: not any passages on the acts themselves.
If I remember correctly, it seems the sexual acts of homosexuals are the "frowned upon" things in the bible not the orientation of the persons. My main issue with "christians" that oppose homosexuality is that most are imposing judgments on that group of people which is "wrong". It is only God that can judge, not christians. Also, one sin is not greater than another in the eyes of God so sex outside of marriage, stealing, murder should ALL get outrage with christians. Yet it does not. Granted, no one is perfect but it seems christians, at least the vocal one's, are hypocrites.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki