PREDICTING RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION: DARK TRIAD PERSONALITY TRAITS, LOVE ATTITUDES, ATTACHMENT DIMENSIONS

1.   INTRODUCTION

Being capable of love is one of the most important aspect of our nature. Having healthy intimate relationships are essential for general psychological well-being. This research aimed to explore the influence of particular personality characteristics -known as Dark Triad-, love styles and attachment dimensions on relationship satisfaction, for the better understanding of the factors interfering with healthy and satisfactory relationships.

Many research revealed the importance of good, healthy relationships and great degrees of relationship satisfaction, as they increase psychological well-being, and linked with better physical and mental health (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, Guerrero, Anderson & Afifi, 201l).

Research indicated that are many underlying psychological processes that influence the relationship quality, such as personality traits (Bradbury & Karney, 2004), attitudes toward love (Morrow, Clark & Brock, 1995) and attachment (Simpson, 1990).

Regarding relationship satisfaction, one important area to study has been the examination of love styles, which refers to six different types of attitude toward love (Lee, 1973). Another important concept related to relationship satisfaction is adult attachment. Attachment motivates us to create affectionate bonds with others, throughout our lifespan (Bowlby, 1982).

Recently, a new constellation of particular personality characteristics emerged in literature, namely, The Dark Triad. The Dark Triad refers to an assemblage of three characteristics: subclinical narcissism, Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

It is important to study the potential factors related to relationship satisfaction to learn more about improving relationships. Although previous research investigated the associations between adult attachment dimensions and love attitudes related to relationship satisfaction (Fricker & Moore, 2002), there were not any research investigated the joint influences of Dark Triad traits, attachment dimensions, and love attitudes on romantic relationship satisfaction. At present, the extent to which dark triad traits, attachment dimensions and love

attitudes are associated with the satisfaction in adult romantic relationships is not clear, and it is also not clear that how these relationship related elements are associated with relationship satisfaction in Turkey.

1.1   Introducing the Key Concepts

1.1.1    Narcissism

1.1.1.1    Origins of Narcissism in Mythology and Psychology

The origin of the term “narcissism” comes from Greek mythology, the story of Roman poet Ovid, about Narcissus. Narcissus is a very good looking young man who disdains the ones who fell in love with him and rejects many potential lovers, because in his eyes nobody matches him and none were worthy of him. One of the ones he spurns is the cursed nymph Echo, named after the fact that she can only echo the other people’s sounds because of the curse. After Narcissus rejects Echo, the gods grow tired of his behavior and they make him not recognize his own reflection and fall in love with himself in the waters of a spring. When he realized that the reflection cannot reciprocate his feelings, he dies out of misery.

Narcissism as a psychological concept was first brought in by Ellis (1898) to psychoanalytic theory. Ellis introduced narcissism to the psychiatry, by realizing the similarity between the myth of Narcissus to the concept of “auto-eroticism”, which he observed in a patient and refers to being sexually attracted to oneself. Later, Freud (1914/1957) utilized the term to describe extreme levels of love for oneself and self-centeredness. His presentation of narcissism was different than Ellis, because Freud presented narcissism by highlighting its importance on normal human development and normal adult psychology, as well as its importance in psychopathology. He theorized that narcissism was a normal part of developmental pathway, before the libidinal energy is invested to other people, instead of themselves. Freud argued an individual’s libidinal energy is limited, and can be directed toward only oneself or the others at the same time. Thus, he believed that the progression from primary narcissism to object love results in a decrease in self-regard. A healthy relationship is reciprocal, and because of the fact that both people invest their libidinal energy into the other, none of them experiences a loss. However, when the individual’s object of love doesn’t return the investment, a regression to the unhealthy state of narcissism

occurs, which is called as “secondary narcissism”, which serves as a compensatory mechanism, in order to love and gratify oneself.

In his famous monograph On Narcissism: An Introduction (1914/1957), Freud differentiated between two types of individual experiences of love. He explained that the “anaclitic” or attachment-type individuals focus their love outward, preferably to love objects that are reminiscent of early attachment figures. On the other hand, narcissistic-type individuals focus their love inward, toward the self. In other words, Freud was explaining that love could be about the connection with the other (anaclitic), or about the self (narcissistic).

He later suggested that narcissism is a personality variable which usually gets others’ attention, and characterized by being independent, self-preserved, confident, and inability to love or commit (Freud, 1931/1950).

Later, Karen Horney (1939/1966) described the concept of narcissism as “self-inflation”. She argued that narcissism indicates love and admiration for self when there is no basis for doing so. She indicated that admire and value oneself for actual qualities is real self- esteem. Horney shared the idea of the origin of narcissism comes from not getting adequate love by parents. She suggested that the unloved child creates a false and inflated self to get admiration. She believed that narcissism derives from not being able to love self or others, and the excessive self-love of a narcissist is just a display, and not real, in contrast with Freud’s theory that narcissistic people invest all their love to themselves thus cannot give it to others.

Years after the expanded conceptualization of narcissism by Freud and Horney, Kohut and Kernberg provide improvements to understanding of narcissistic personality. Heinz Kohut (1971, 1977) narcissism occurs due to inadequate mirroring and idealization from caregivers

.He argued that pathology emerges if the infant could not properly develop self-assertive ambitions or internalized values and ideals.

Kernberg (1975) emphasized the difference between pathological narcissism and normal adult narcissism, describing that normal narcissism includes a realistic self-concept as a combination of good and bad, not an unrealistically perfect self-image. Kernberg indicated

that a pathological narcissist avoids depending on others, and display emotional coldness, and self-love serves a defense mechanism protects them from frustration and fear of abandonment that comes from early childhood.

1.1.1.2    Subclinical Narcissism and Measurement

Narcissistic Personality Disorder definition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—5 (DSM–5; APA, 2013) includes need for admiration, lack of empathy, and grandiosity. In the past years, many studies revealed that narcissism is more of a continuum than a dimensional construct (e. g., Raskin & Hall, 1979; Samuel & Widiger, 2008), therefore, it was started to be studied in normal populations, as a subclinical trait (e.g., Miller & Campbell, 2008).

Narcissism has been studied as a personality characteristic since Freud (1931/1950), first described a narcissistic type person. Finally, Henry Murray (1938) developed the first measurement instrument for narcissism, which he named as “Narcism Scale”. Later, Raskin & Hall developed Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; 1979), the most popular scale regarding narcissism. Many researchers have been shortened the inventory in later studies (e.g. Raskin & Terry, 1988; Rose, 2002). The NPI was designed based on DSM definition, but it enlighted a new path in the study of narcissism, because it was also applicable to be used in normal population.

Although the validation studies of NPI was conducted in clinical settings (Prifitera & Ryan, 1984), the results revealed that NPI indicates higher functioning than other narcissism inventories specified for clinic environments (Wink & Gough, 1990).

1.1.2            Machiavellianism: Origins of the Term and Measurement

The term Machiavellianism is originally inspired from Niccolo Machiavelli, who was Medici family’s chief political advisor in the 16th century. Machiavelli wrote about his counselling advices to maintain political control in his book The Prince (1513/1968), including the practice of manipulation and deceit to maintain political control and reach personal  goals  in  public  life.  Based  on  his  strategic,  self-serving  advices,  the     term

‘Machiavellian’ has become a concept synonymous with cunning and deceit. After four centuries, the personality psychologist Richard Christie, realized that these strategies of Machiavelli had also parallells with daily social behavior. Based on his writings, Christie and Geis (1970) identified an individual who successfully uses manipulation to achieve personal goals, and they use the term Machiavellianism to identify this type of interpersonal behavior.

Machiavellist people behave toward others in a manner that is manipulative, goal-oriented, and exploitative, and they have a sensitive, cynical view toward others, and pragmatic morality (Ali, Amorim, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009; McIlwain, 2003). Machiavellians’ world view includes strategical tactics and behaviours (McIllwain, 2003).

Machiavellian people do not care about conventional morality and perform deception tactics in order to achieve personal rewards, and they also use deception to prevent others’ benefits (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). Research revealed their unability to recognize other people’s emotions (McIlwain, 2003), and they are not affected by emotional situations and they can keep their aloof attitude (McIlwain, 2003; Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996).

Christie and Geis (1970) published a book including questionnaires developed by Christie, to reveal individual differences in Machiavellianism. Among these measures, the most well- known and widely used one has become the Mach IV. Later, Mach V, was designed to be an improved version, but it was more problematic than expected (Wrightsman, 1991), therefore, Mach IV was continued to be broadly used for measurement of Machiavellianism.

1.1.3            Psychopathy

1.1.3.1  The Construct of Psychopathy and Measurement

The term psychopathy similar to our modern description as personality disorder was originated in Cleckley's The Mask of Sanity (1941/1988) in which he discussed the core aspects of psychopathy and summarized the characteristics of psychopaths: “superficial charm and above average intelligence, absence of delusions or other signs of irrational thinking, absence of nervousness or psychoneurotic manifestations, unreliability, untruthfulness and insincerity, lack of remorse and shame, inadequately motivated and

poorly planned antisocial behavior,  poor  judgment  and  failure  to  learn  from  experience, pathological egocentricity and an incapacity for love and attachment, general poverty in major affective reactions, specific loss of insight, general interpersonal unresponsiveness, fantastic and uninviting behavior --such as vulgarity, rudeness, quick mood shifts--, after drinking and sometimes even when not drinking, suicide rarely carried out, impersonal and poorly integrated sex life, and failure to follow any life plan” (Cleckley, 1941/1988).

Generally, the characteristics that Cleckley defined still preserve their importance in today’s description of psychopathy, except for high intelligence, absence of delusions/irrational thinking, and suicide rarely carried out (Hare, 2003; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Later, the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) was developed by Hare (1980), and it has created a milestone in psychopathy research. It was designed to identify forensic psychopaths. PCL and revised version (PCLR; Hare, 1991/2003) have been considered as the pioneers of forthcoming instruments assessing psychopathy (Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006; Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007). Hare’s (1980) PCL instrument did not involve an item about Cleckley’s low anxiety (nervousness), as Hare noted that Cleckley's item was unrelated to the other core elements of psychopathy in validation studies. Later, Hare (2003) indicated that the researches demonstrate that self-reported anxiety and fear had weak and mostly negative correlations with PCL-R scores.

Afterwards, the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale was developed by Hare, as a self-report form of PCL (SRP; Hare, 1985). SRP-III (Paulhus et al., in press) was developed as a current version of SRP. The four PCL-R factors have four factors which corresponds with four factors of SRP-III (Williams et al2007). Williams and colleagues (2007) found that SRP-III have good reliability and validity.

1.1.3.2  Subclinical Psychopathy and Measurement

Many researches have suggested that psychopathy, which is characterized by emotional shallowness, manipulation in interpersonal relationships, and antisocial behavior, can predict many behavioral outcomes in forensic settings (Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1996). While there  are  many  researches  about  the  individual  differences  –regarding  behavior    and

personality- of psychopath and non-psychopath criminals (Newman & Schmitt, 1998; Rice, Harris, & Cormier, 1992; Smith & Newman, 1990), another literature has begun to emerge about self-reported psychopathic traits in normal populations (e.g., Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995).

As seen in the early psychopathy literature, which encompasses many studies using the PCL- R to assess psychopathy specifically in forensic populations, the construct of psychopathy has generally been linked with antisocial and criminal behaviour, although years ago Cleckley (1941/1988) emphasized psychopathy do not have to essentially include antisocial behaviour, and antisocial behavior is not synonymous with psychopathology. Recently, Skeem & Cooke (2010) also emphasized that criminal behaviour is not the definitive feature of psychopathy. This point of view led the way toward developing self-report instruments that can be applicable to the nonclinical and noncriminal population, and researching about psychopathy as a personality trait in normal populations (Benning et al, 2005). There are three well-known measurements of self-reported subclinical psychopathy: Levenson's Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales (LPSP; Levenson et al., 1995), the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) and the Self-Report Psychopathy III (SRP-III; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press).

The LPSP was developed to assess primary and secondary psychopathy in civil populations. The PPI was developed by Lilienfeld & Andrews (1996) generally based on Cleckley's description, to assess the prototypical personality characteristics of psychopathy, not the antisocial behavior features in PCL-R Factor 2.

The newest version of Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Hare, 1985), the SRP-III (Paulhus et al., in press) is also one of the popular instruments used for measurement of subclinical psychology.

1.1.1.4 Dark Triad: As A Constellation Of Three Dark Traits

Paulhus and Williams (2002) were the first researchers who emphasized the concept of ‘Dark Triad’, a constellation of three personality traits that are distinct but also have some similar qualities, namely narcissism, Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy. It refers to the

variables which are in the subclinical range, that do not require clinical attention. The development of measurement instruments of subclinical narcissism starting with NPI (Raskin & Hall, 1979) and subclinical psychopathy with SRP (Hare, 1991) has enabled research of the three dark personality variables in normal populations.

Narcissism shifted from clinical literature into the mainstream personality research when Narcissistic Personality Inventory was published (Raskin & Hall, 1979). The consistency between the subclinical version and the clinical definition made this transfer smoother (Campbell & Foster, 2007).

Ray & Ray (1982) has anticipated that psychopathy will transfer into the mainstream personality literature when the only questionnaire for psychopathy was the one within the MMPI. Psychopathy is identified by low empathy with high levels of impulsivity and thrill- seeking (Hare, 1985; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Even when it is subclinical, psychopathy is still considered as the most dangerous and malign trait of the Dark Triad concept (Rauthmann, 2012).

On the other hand, Machiavellianism has never been considered as a clinical syndrome. It has derived from the notes of Machiavelli, which represents cynical, pragmatic and manipulative behavior in order to reach success and personal goals (Christie & Geis, 1970).

Although these traits -narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy- had distinct origins, there are overlapping elements, as all three include a dark character with socially undesirable nature with behavioral dispositions such as emotional coldness, grandiosity, aggressiveness and manipulation (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

McHoskey and colleagues (1998) reported that psychopathy and Machiavellianism may co- occur in non-clinical populations. Recently, a study by Nathanson & Paulhus (2006) including anonymous revenge anecdotes revealed that there is a significant overlap between The Mach IV and subclinical psychopathy measures (McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Morever, the correlation between revenge and Machiavellianism was entirely derived from the overlapping of Mach and subclinical psychopathy (Nathanson & Paulhus, 2006).

The association between psychopathy and narcissism has been reported in the clinical literature (Hart & Hare, 1998). Gustafson & Ritzer’s (1995) research provided empirical evidence for the overlap of narcissism and psychopathy. Another studies indicated a positive correlation between psychopathy and narcissism, which encompasses grandiosity, superiority, entitlement, and dominance (Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

These correlations lead the questioning about Dark Triad members: if they are separate constructs, why they are always found to be positively associated no matter what measurement instrument was used. Paulhus & Williams (2002) noted that this possibly derives from an underlying element that is common for three constructs (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Jones & Paulhus’ (2011a) further research revealed that callousness is the common element and the core of the triad. Research indicated that callousness (low empathy) appears to be having close relationship with using manipulation and exploitation in interpersonal settings (Miller et al., 2010).

There are two multivariate instruments to measure Dark Triad personality traits: Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010), and the Short Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). The results of these two scales are generally similar, however, 27 items of Short Dark Triad enhances its validity comparing to 12 items of Dirty Dozen (Maples, Lamkin, & Miller, 2014). Also, the intercorrelations among narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy subscales are lower in Short Dark Triad, implying the better differentiation of overlapping constructs. Short Dark Triad was found to be have more predictive power, comparing to Dirty Dozen (Egan, 2012; Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Lee et al., 2013).

1.1.2            Introducing Love Attitudes

1.1.2.1               Early Theories of Love & Lee’s Colors of Love

Paulo Coelho said in his novel The Zahir: A Novel of Obsession, “Love is an untamed force. When we try to control it, it destroys us. When we try to imprison it, it enslaves us. When we try to understand it, it leaves us feeling lost and confused.” (p. 79). Love has been a part of being human, it is a primitive function of humanity, thus, throughout history, love has been one of the primary topics for many philosophers, authors, and poets. Despite its intriguing nature, the difficulty of operationally defining love has challenged researchers.

During the past decade, love finally has gained importance as a respectable study area for psychologists, and studies have gained a rise to understand the depth of love and how it affects human interaction (e.g. Kelley, 1983; Rubin, 1984, as cited in Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). Researchers began to propose theories of love which describes different types of love, beginning with describing passionate love, and later adding companionate love, altruistic love, and pragmatic love (Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Walster & Walster, 1978; Kelley, 1983; as cited in Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). Sternberg (1986) developed the well-known triangular theory of love, in which love is categorized on three dimensions as intimacy (feelings of closeness and affection), passion (the arousal that you experience when you are attracted to another person), and commitment (desire to maintain a relationship over time). He claimed that different love styles base on these three components, and emphasized that a relationship including two or more of these components is stronger than including only one.

One approach to understand the concept of love and different types of love, was proposed by Lee (1973/1976), who claimed a typology of six distinct love styles, each given a Greek name. Lee’s first primary love style is Eros, which describes romantic, passionate love. The individuals who have this love style are driven by passion in romantic relationships. The second primary love style is Ludus, game-playing love, which implicates a tendency to deceive, aversion to commitment and emotional involvement, and willingness to seek other potential partners when in a relationship. The last primary love style is named as Storge, friendship love, which refers to slow-developing relationship based on trust and companionship. First of Lee’s three main secondary styles is Mania, possessive love, which is dominated by a possessive, dependent attitude toward partner, involving feelings of jealousy. Another secondary love style is Pragma, which can be explained as logical and pragmatic, shopping list kind of love, based on suitability and practicality over emotional involvement. The third and final secondary love style is Agape, which describes self- sacrificing love. These individuals regard the best interest of the partner, and sacrifice their own desires and needs. Lee suggested that these secondary styles can be considered as base primary elements of pairs of three primary styles, but they are also distinct types of love. In other words, each of them are compounds of a pair of the primary love styles (Pragma is a compound of Storge and Ludus, Mania is a compound of Eros and Ludus, and Agape is a compound of Eros and Storge) but they each are also qualitatively different from each of the

primary styles (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986).

Lee’s typography of love is important because it embodies the earlier proposed theories of love, and provides theoretical basis for developing scales to measure these six distinct love styles (e.g.: Hatkoff & Lasswell, 1979, as cited in Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). Lee's research provided basis for the development of a 50-item true/false questionnaire to examine these love styles (Hatkoff & Lasswell, 1979; as cited in Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). However, further research (Hendrick, Hendrick, Foote, & Slapion-Foote, 1984) combining the items in Lasswells' questionnaire with new Likert-type items, revealed some problems about factor structure of three main love styles (Eros, Ludus, and Storge), as they didn’t emerge as separate factors and tend to combine with another love style, triggered studies to develop a new measurement instrument for love attitudes. Hendrick & Hendrick (1986) developed Love Attitudes Scale (LAS), a 42-item-questionnaire with 6 subscales representing Lee’s six distinct love styles. Love Attitudes Scale has been used for many researches about attitudes toward love, and the initial studies generally focused on differences between men and women.

Previous studies about love styles frequently revealed sex differences. Generally, men were found to be more Erotic and Ludic lovers than women, whereas women reported more Pragma and Mania than men (e.g. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1995). In other words, men are more likely to have romantic and game-playing attitudes, whereas women tend to be pragmatic and possessive. Another previous study of Hendrick & Hendrick’s (1986) also revealed almost same results, as males scored higher on Ludus, and females scored higher on Storge, Pragma and Mania. These findings are indicating different behavioral tendencies of men and women in romantic settings.

Frazier and Esterly (1990) reported that men were found to be more Ludic and Erotic lovers, however, results did not indicate that women score higher on Storge, Pragma and Mania. On the other hand, results revealed that men were significantly more Agapic than women. Although this finding contrasts with previous studies’ findings (e.g Hendrick et. al, 1984), later, another study conducted by Fricker and Moore (2002) reported similar findings. In general, men have more game-playing attitudes in romantic relationships, whereas women tend to have more practical, friendship and possessive styles.

1.1.3           Adult Attachment

1.1.3.1               Early Theories & Assessment

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) was originally proposed as a general theory of personality development. He claimed that our early experiences and availability expectations regarding our caregiver shapes our “internal working models” of the self and significant others.

According to Bowlby’s (1982) theory, attachment serves both an evolutionary role for the species and a developmental function for the individual. The interactions between infant and caregiver develop into affect-laden schemas that guide the attached individual’s perceptions of self and others (so-called internal working models) and shape behaviors related to biological and psychological needs (Mikulincer et al., 2002). There are different categorizations regarding sense of security in adult attachment, such as Bartholomew’s (1990) model of “secure, preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful attachment”; however, taxometric findings strongly support a latent dimensional structure of human attachment (Fraley & Waller, 1998); in turn, these findings prompted the development of multiple-item scales, which typically assess aspects of attachment anxiety and avoidance dimensionally (Fraley & Waller, 1998).

As many attachment theorists explained (e.g Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), experiences from early attachments with significant other are internalized to shape cognitive working models that guide individuals’ beliefs and expectations about later social interactions in life. If an individual fails to develop a secure attachment based on basic trust with the caregiver, a compensatory adaptive strategy is needed in order to maintain an intact identity and a coherent self image (Bowlby, 1982). Ainsworth and her colleagues (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978) suggested if an infant could not form a secure attachment to its caregivers in its early emotional development, it develops one of the two alternative adaptive strategies to compensate its lack of security, and form an Avoidant attachment or Anxious Ambivalent attachment. Research revealed that these attachment categories can be applicable to adult attachment as well (Hazan & Shaver 1987). Shaver & Mikulincer (2002) defined these three attachment styles as “systemic patterns of expectations, needs, emotions, emotion-regulation strategies, and social behaviour that result

from the interaction of an innate attachment behavioural system” (p.134).

The theory of attachment facilitates understanding the phenomenon of love in terms of personality and evolutionary psychology. As a theoretical framework, attachment theory gives a basis for the understanding human affectional bonds, including romantic relationships.

Hazan and Shaver (1987, 1988) by focusing on the secure attachment, avoidant attachment and anxious/resistant attachment in their research, explained the typical romantic processes of adults and differences between styles of relating. Results revealed that the attachment styles of adults were similar to their infancy, which leads individual differences in experiencing love. Their attachment styles were related to childhood memories about relationships with parents and inner working models, which were shaped by the early childhood experiences with parents.

Secure attachment in adulthood is characterized by trusting the partner and getting close without completely merging with another. These individuals considered “the self” as worthy of care, they feel comfortable about being dependent upon and being dependent on their partner, and they are not concerned with feeling of abandonment. (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Anxiously attached adults experience great desire to merge with their partner, and have constant concerns about abandonment. They crave for emotional closeness and constant reassurance for partner’s love (Collins & Read, 1990). Individuals with avoidant attachment feel discomfort with intimacy and interdependence. They want to keep emotions at low intensity (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Adult attachment is evaluated by two underlying dimensions, namely “attachment related anxiety and avoidance” (Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1998). Anxiety, indicates constant rumination and worry about being abandoned or rejected by partner. On the other hand, avoidance indicates the extent of feeling comfortable with emotional intimacy and closeness with partner. People scoring high on this dimension are typically reluctant about investing in relationships and want to maintain emotional and psychological independence., Securely attached people score low on both dimensions (they are more comfortable with emotional intimacy  and  are  not  habitually  concerned  about  abandonment  or  rejection). Research

revealed that even though individuals score high on attachment anxiety want to be able to trust their partners, they are skeptical about trusting them completely. Therefore, they are likely to have low or moderate degrees of trust in romantic partners (Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1998).

1.1.4            Relationship Satisfaction

1.1.4.1               Definition and Psychometric Assessment

Relationship satisfaction is generally the most broadly studied variable in romantic relationship research literature. There are many terms in previous researches that have been used to indicate the overall quality of a romantic relationship and are considered synonymous, such as marital (or relationship) satisfaction, happiness, quality, and adjustment (Heyman, Sayers, & Bellack, 1994). Rusbult and collagues (1998, p.359) explained it as the “positive versus negative affect experienced in a relationship and is influenced by the extent to which a partner fulfils the individual’s most important needs”. Many research revealed that high levels of romantic relationship satisfaction increases well- being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Also, recent research revealed that good, healthy relationships are linked with better physical and mental health (Guerrero, Anderson & Afifi, 201l). These findings lead the research focus upon the factors which are linked with healthy relationship satisfaction.

Many components of romantic relationship has been studied in relation to relationship satisfaction. Because of the proposition that attachment manifest itself in close relationships and strongly connected to individual’s romantic attitude, research on relationship satisfaction generally includes attachment style (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989; Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990). Link between love and relationship satisfaction also has been investigated (Contreras et. al, 1996; De Andrade et. al., 2015) which revealed significant relationships between components of love and satisfaction, indicating that romantic love is an important predictor of relationship satisfaction. Hendrick, Dicke & Hendrick’s (1998) research yielded that attitude toward love and therefore, the love style of individual also has contribution to the satisfaction from the relationship.

Relationship satisfaction has been generally measured by using self-report instruments to assess thoughts and feelings about relationship. The most popular measurement instruments of relationship quality include the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959), Spouse Observation Checklist (Patterson, 1976), Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), and Marital Satisfaction Inventory (Snyder, 1979). Although all of these are widely used, several of them are relatively long with more than two hundred items, which make them unpractical, and all of them are oriented to marital relationships. There was a need for a shorter and general measure of relationship satisfaction, and 7-item Relationship Assessment Scale was developed by Hendrick (1988). Relationship Assessment Scale includes items that are worded as not specific to marriages, thus, it can be applied to other forms of intimate relationships.

1.2 Linking the Key Concepts

1.2.1 Love Attitudes and Relationship Satisfaction

Lee’s romantic love styles have been widely investigated in the literature and reported to be related with many consequences in everyday life, including relationship outcomes (e.g., relationship satisfaction, Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987; relationship longevity, Kimberly & Hans, 2012).

Eros love style is characterized by passion and deep physical attraction. Results revealed that Erotic lovers report high emotional intimacy and satisfaction in their relationships (Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987; Hendrick, Hendrick & Adler, 1988). Eros lovers also have high level of concern for well-being of partner and high relationship investment, therefore they tend to demonstrate healthy and successful communication and self-disclosure skills (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987). Morrow and colleagues (1995) also reported that Erotic and Agapic lovers tend to find their romantic relationships more rewarding, more committed and more satisfying.

Ludus is also characterized by intense sexual attraction, but it differs from Eros in lack of emotional intimacy. Ludus lovers prioritize personal satisfaction and having fun, and may be comfortable maintaining multiple partners simultaneously (Lee, 1973). Hendrick et al. (1988) reported that Ludus love style indicated relationship dissatisfaction. Ludus love style

is found to be negatively correlated with intimacy and commitment (Morrow, Clark & Brock, 1995) and Ludus love style is found to be associated with the least satisfaction in relationships (Meeks, Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998).

Storge love is also known as friendship style of love, and storge lovers emphasize companionship and compatibility over physical attraction (Lee, 1973). Storge lovers indicated high levels of intimacy and relationship satisfaction (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1993; Meeks, Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998).

As a secondary love style, Agape can be seen as a combination of two primary styles: Eros and Storge. It is characterized by sacrificing own desires and needs on behalf of the best interest of the partner (Lee, 1973; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986), and Agape lovers were found to be extremely forgiving, committed, and supportive partners (Hahn & Blass, 1997). Agape love is linked with high commitment, relationship satisfaction and intimacy (Lin & Huddleston-Casa, 2005; Hendrick, Hendrick & Adler, 1988; Morrow, Clark & Brock, 1995). Similar to Eros lovers, they have high levels of relationship investment and concern for partner’s well-being (Richardson et al., 1989). Individuals who are or have been in loving or committed relationships are more likely to adopt Agape love than those have never been in love (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986).

Pragma love emphasizes on rational decision making about a relationship based on concerns such as personal and social compatibility, family values, or education over physical attraction (Hahn & Blass, 1997). Results demonstrated gender differences in characteristics of pragma lovers. For instance, Hendrick & Hendrick (1991) found that pragmatic females were more tend to pursue closeness in romantic relationships than males. Lower relationship satisfaction has been related with Pragma for men (Frazier & Esterly, 1990), and Morrow and colleagues (1995) reported that Pragma and Storge are linked with some relationship quality measures. This finding is inconsistent with some previous findings reported by others (Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987; Shaver & Hazan, 1988). In summary, there are not any findings indicating a direct correlation between Pragma love style and relationship satisfaction. Therefore, no significant association is expected between pragma and relationship satisfaction.

Mania is characterized by rapid progression to intimacy, excessive preoccupation with one’s

partner and constant need of great deal of attention and affection, and Mania lovers tend to be emotional, obsessive and jealous (Lee, 1973; Hahn and Blass, 1997). Hendrick, Hendrick & Adler (1988) found that Mania is more likely to result in a negative predictor of relationship satisfaction for women, than for their men counterparts.

Overall, mostly studies have reported higher relationship satisfaction for Erotic and Agapic lovers, and lower for Ludic lovers (Contreras, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1996; Fricker & Moore, 2002).

Büyükşahin and Hovardaoğlu’s (2004) study in Turkey revealed that Ludus is linked with lower relationship satisfaction, while Agape and Eros love styles are linked with higher relationship satisfaction. All these findings reveal that love style of an individual can have a profound impact on relationship satisfaction.

1.2.2. Love Attitudes and Attachment

As Hendrick & Hendrick (1989) emphasized, the attachment styles focus on two themes: trust and intimacy, while the love styles extend this focus with communication themes essential to love. They suggested that attachment styles are typically “the building blocks of interpersonal relationships” (Hendrick & Hendrick, p.792), whereas the love styles reflect the many beliefs and attitudes regarding love that result.

Hazan & Shaver (1987) used the theory of attachment as a pathfinder to understand adult love. Based on the characteristics of Lee’s six love styles, Hazan and Shaver (1988) have argued this typology of love is corresponding to the three attachment styles. They claimed that Pragma and Storge were not qualified as romantic love forms; secure attachment would be associated with Eros and Agape, anxious-ambivalent attachment with Mania, and avoidant attachment with Ludus. Levy and Davis (1988) also reported similar findings, with positive relationships between Eros and Agape love styles-secure attachment, Ludus- avoidant attachment, and Mania-anxious attachment. Another study by Hendrick & Hendrick (1989) used the same attachment items used by Hazan and Shaver (1987). In accordance with previous research, avoidant attachment was associated with Ludus, and anxious-ambivalence attachment style was associated with Mania. Moreover, an additional relationship was reported between avoidant attachment and Pragma (Hendrick & Hendrick,

1989). On the other hand, later study by Fricker & Moore (2002) reported null findings for Ludus-avoidant attachment and Agape-secure attachment links. Also, previous studies reported that greater infidelity is linked with both avoidant (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999) and anxious attachment (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002).

Another study of Hendricks et al. (1989) investigating gender differences in love styles, can also shed some light on gender differences in romantic attachment styles. Results revealed that indicating that there were no significant gender differences on Eros and Agape, however, men reported higher Ludic love style –which is related to avoidant attachment- than female participants. Morrow et al. (1995) also reported similar findings, indicating that Eros and Agape lovers reported higher commitment, whereas Ludus lovers reported lower. Similar results were reported by others (Neto, 1993; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002; Neto, 2007). These finding demonstrates there are gender differences in attachment and love styles, which fundamentally can lead to differences in levels of relationship satisfaction.

1.2.3    Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction

Because of the fact that securely attached individuals are comfortable with emotional closeness and don’t experience feelings of abandonment, they tend to define their relationship as happy and positive (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989), and they generally report greater trust, satisfaction, commitment and interdependence in their relationship (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990).

Anxiously attached people usually idealizes their partner, but they feel uncertain about partner’s responsiveness, so they exhibit clingy and needy behavior. Their self worth is low, and they find it hard to believe their partners’ love toward them, so they habitually wait for reassurance from their partner. They tend to report lower interdependence, commitment, trust and relationship satisfaction in relationship (Simpson, 1990).

Avoidantly attached individuals experience discomfort with emotional intimacy and closeness, thus, expectedly, they have difficulties about trusting and they expect that partners will be unresponsive. They report lower commitment, trust and relationship satisfaction (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990).

Mikulincer & Shaver’s (2007, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015) research revealed that the

linkage between relationship satisfaction and attachment dimensions (anxiety and avoidance) is constructed by using one of the two underlying strategies called as “hyperactivation” or “deactivation” of attachment system. Attachment related anxiety acts on hyperactivation strategies including ruminating about negative life events and adopting emotion-focused coping strategies. As research supported, these hyperactivation strategies are highly correlated with high degrees of stress and low relationship satisfaction (Allison, Bartholomew, Mayless, & Dutton, 2008; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015). Attachment avoidance, on the other hand, activates deactivation strategies that include fear of intimacy and avoiding to depend on other individuals. These individuals with high avoidance also do not feel comfortable about providing support to their partner, therefore, attachment avoidance is linked with relationship dissatisfaction (Feeney, 2008, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015).

Studies showed that insecure attachment which includes high attachment anxiety or avoidance has been linked with romantic jealousy, greater partner aggression, and higher levels of reactivity and anger during conflict (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer, 1998, as cited in Miga et. al, 2010). Research revealed that both anxiously and avoidantly attached individuals reported lower satisfaction, commitment and trust in romantic relationships (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990).

Another research indicated that in contrast to securely attached ones, anxious individuals consider conflict as a threat toward relationship and their reactions include intense negative emotions (Paley, Cox, Burchinal, & Payne, 1999, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015) and behaviors that damage their relationship (Simpson, Rholes, & Philips, 1996, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015). This also might imply that individuals high on attachment anxiety are likely to be more dissatisfied in their relationship. Moreover, as Li & Chan (2012) noted, attachment anxiety was reported to be linked with more conflict in relationship, comparing to attachment avoidance. This finding might be derived from anxious individuals’ low threat threshold and their hypervigilance to problems in their relationship (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015). Another explanation might be the high rejection sensitivity of highly anxious individuals, which makes them more inclined to perceive daily interactions as conflictual (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005, as cited in  Harma

& Sümer, 2015). On the other hand, Mikulincer and Florian’s (1998, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015) research revealed that avoidant individuals usually deactivate feelings related to attachment, therefore, they are less likely to perceive conflict in relationship and tend to withdraw, rather than engaging in disagreements. This might indicate that highly anxious individuals might report lower satisfaction than avoidant individuals.

Previous research reveals that there are gender differences in predictive power of attachment anxiety and avoidance on relationship satisfaction. Both attachment dimensions seem to have almost equally associations with relationship dissatisfaction of women, while avoidance was found to be mostly linked with relationship dissatisfaction of men (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015).

1.2.4    Dark Triad Personality in Relationships

1.2.4.1    Narcissism in Relationships

There is considerable interest in the construct of narcissism across subfields within psychology (Miller & Campbell, 2008). Recent social psychological research revealed that Narcissism is linked to many dysfunctional behaviors related to interpersonal relationships, and findings include that they are unable to maintain healthy long-term interpersonal relationships, they have low levels of commitment in romantic relationships, and they display aggression in response to perceived threats to self-esteem (Foster & Campbell, 2005; Paulhus, 1998).

When we look at the interpersonal dynamics of narcissistic traits, two of the core aspects of narcissism gains importance. First, as mentioned before, narcissism is associated with an excessively inflated self-view on agentic traits such as physical attractiveness, importance, power (e.g., Campbell, Rudich & Sedikides, 2002). Another one is that narcissism is linked with extraversion, although narcissists do not prefer having emotionally close relationships with other people (Campbell, 1999).

Narcissists prefer partners who can provide esteem and status for them both in a direct and indirect way (Campbell, 1999). They consider physical attractiveness and agentic traits such as status and success, and they report that the reason they are drawn to these successful and

attractive partners is partly because these people are similar to them (Campbell, 1999).

Horney (1939/1966) saw dire consequences in romantic relationships of narcissistic individuals if children’s “narcissistic trend” was not outgrown. They prefer shallow relationships that improve their prestige and status, tend to have dysfunctional social behaviours such as being self-centered and they have excessively inflated self-view. They always need other people’s admiration and support, but they have difficulty in finding partners who will constantly do this for them. Thus, Horney argues that narcissistic individuals always in a alienation from the self and other people.

Kernberg (1975) noted that narcissistics generally formed clearly exploitative and even parasitic relationships with others, they control and exploit other people without guilt, and although they are charming on the surface, behind that, there is coldness and ruthlessness. He noted that these individuals appeared to be dependent because of their constant need of adoration from others, but deep inside they are actually unable to truly depend on to anyone because they depreciate others and do not trust in them (p .227-28).

Further research reveals results that strengthen these general opinions such as Horney’s theory about narcissists seek relationships which contribute their prestige and Kernberg’s thoughts about they are charming at the surface. Based on the fact that narcissism is defined by grandiosity, entitlement, vanity, and exploitativeness (Raskin & Terry, 1988), Campbell (1999) reported that narcissists generally don’t pursue relationships in order to fulfill intimacy needs, and they are attracted to people whose status are high and full of admiration for them (Campbell, 1999). Their extraversion and energy are attract others at first for a short period of time (Paulhus, 1998; Oltmanns, Friedman, Fielder, & Turkheimer, 2004), but results reveals that this attraction tends to fade, as their partners report that the relationship can be satisfying and exciting especially at first, but that they lack intimacy (Foster, Shira, & Campbell, 2003).

Many researches reveal that narcissistic people tend to report high Ludus love style in relationships and always seek for better options, even when they are a part of a serious committed relationship (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002). Narcissists game-playing serve to maintain their power and autonomy, and their low empathy allows them to avoid developing emotionally close bonds (Campbell, Foster, &

Finkel, 2002; Le, 2005). In summary, the relationship of subclinical narcissist brings many positive outcomes to the self, at least in the short-term, whereas it brings many negative consequences to their partner, at least in the long-term.

Ahmadi and colleagues (2013) study shows that both ambivalent and avoidant attachment are associated with high levels of narcissism, whereas secure attachment is negatively correlated with high narcissism, similar to previous findings (e.g Bennet, 2006; Moemeni et al., 2011; Ahmadi, 2012; as cited in Ahmadi et. al, 2013).

Research also yielded that avoidant attachment is linked with overt narcissism or grandiosity, characterized by self-praise and denial of personal weaknesses, whereas attachment anxiety is associated with covert narcissism, which includes exaggerated sense of entitlement, self- focused attention and hypersensitivity to others’ evaluations (Wink, 1991). As Kernberg (1975) speculated to understand the causes of narcissism, there could be genetic factors that creates tendecy toward low anxiety tolerance or aggressiveness.

At the same time, Campbell et al. (2006, as cited in Rohmann et al, 2012) noted that approach orientation toward other people is a fundamental narcissistic quality. This assumption is supported by further research by Rohmann and colleagues (2012), in which they reported that grandiose narcissism related to low attachment avoidance, whereas vulnerable narcissism was positively correlated with attachment anxiety. The positive association between narcissm and attachment anxiety is supported by many other studies (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Neumann & Bierhoff, 2004; Smolewska & Dion, 2005), while there are some research yielding different results considering avoidance, indicating that narcissism is positively related to attachment avoidance (Popper, 2002, as cited in Rohmann et al., 2012), or there is no relation at all (Smolewska & Dion, 2005, as cited in Rohmann et al, 2012). Therefore, further research is required to clarify the association between narcissism and attachment avoidance.

Several studies (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Otway & Vignoles, 2006; Smolewska & Dion, 2005) consistently reported an association between attachment anxiety and vulnerable/hypersensitive narcissism. No significant links between grandiose narcissism and attachment were found in these studies, with the possible exception of the high rate of

dismissive attachment observed among grandiose narcissists by Dickinson and Pincus (2003).

These findings indicating strong associations with vulnerable narcissm with attachment can probably be explained by the emphasis that although vulnerable narcissism substantially overlaps with grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism turns out to be the key predictor of attachment –especially anxiety- and love styles (Rohmann et al, 2012), compared to grandiose narcissism. Anxiety which is associated with vulnerable narcissism, seems to influence to the formation of relational styles either in terms of attachment related anxiety or in terms of different personal love attitudes.

Previous researches investigated narcissism in romantic relationships, however, research rarely examined the relation of narcissism to relationship satisfaction. Lam (2012) found that narcissism has a negative correlation with relationship satisfaction, however, the association is mediated by positive love perception discrepancy.

1.2.4.2    Machiavellianism in Relationships

Although research rarely examined Machiavellianism in romantic relationships, existing studies shows that Machiavellian people lack warmth and emotional bonding in interpersonal communications, and they tend to avoid emotionally close relationships (Ali, Amorim, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009; Bereczkei, Birkas & Kerekes, 2010; McIllwain, 2003; Wai & Tiliopulous, 2012; Wastell & Booth 2003; Wilson et al., 1996). They have an utilitarian approach toward personal relationships, and they see other people as tools to reach personal goal (Christie & Geis, 1970; Wastell & Booth, 2003; Pilch, 2008). Expectedly, Machiavellianism is associated with lower quality friendships in adulthood (Lyons & Aitken, 2010).

Christie and Geis (1970) theorized that the main differentiating component between low and high Machiavellians is the extent of their emotional investment into relationships. The emotionally detached interpersonal orientation is considered as an essential component of Machiavellianism and the degree of this orientation identifies high Machiavellians by the term “cool syndrome” opposing to low Machiavellians described by the term “soft   touch”

(Christie & Geis, 1970). More recently, Wastell and Booth (2003) supported this idea by finding that Machiavellian individuals are characterised by alexithymia, which refers to having poor inner experiences, they are unaware of their own emotions. Consequently, as many researchers reported, they are unable to empathize with others (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Paál & Bereczkei, 2007).

Many studies suggest that Machiavellianism, partly derives from early relationships with unexpressive and restrictive parents, similar to the development of dismissive-avoidant attachment (Christie & Geis, 1970; Guterman, 1970; Ojha, 2007). As Sherry, Hewitt, Besser, Flett, & Klein (2006) argue, Machiavellian individuals prefer to show their positive abilities to the others and they do not disclosure their feelings or flaws based on the belief that sharing feelings or personal vulnerabilities indicate weakness which led others to exploit them. This finding is compatible with previous research, reported that Machiavellian individuals’ view of other people is highly negative, and they think that people are cheaters (Mudrack, 1993). These features are likely to negatively affect the Machiavellian individual’s intimate relationships. Research shows that high Machiavellist individuals avoid to establish committed, emotionally intimate bonds and they prefer short-term relationships with low emotional investment (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009).

Although the results reported that Machiavellians are mostly dismissing-avoidant, avoidance seems to be accompanied by some attachment anxiety characteristics in their close relationships. Many research emphasized that high Machiavellians have dysfunctional qualities including unbalanced emotional functioning, the experience of negative affect such as increased anxiety, depressive symptoms, and negative and hostile attitudes (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; McHoskey, 2001b; McHoskey et al., 1998; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Ináncsi, Láng and Bereczkei (2015) has found that four anxious attachment dimensions is closely related to Machiavellianism: individuals high on Machiavellianism feel lower separation anxiety, greater attachment-related anger, more desire to merge with their partner and they are more uncertain about their feelings towards their partners.

Research revealed that high Machiavellianism is linked with hostile sexual attitudes, selfish/deceptive sexual tactics (i.e cheating), and promiscuity (Linton & Wiener, 2001, Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009; McHoskey, 2001a). However, these links seem to be absent or weakened in females (McHoskey, 2001a). This finding is similar to the gender

differences in general Machiavellianism scores, that men scores higher in Machiavellianism than women (Christie & Geis, 1970), because women have more long-term-oriented reproductive strategies (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).

Although research examining the link between Machiavellianism and relationship satisfaction is very rare, Ali & Chamorro-Premuzic (2010) reported that Machiavellianism has negative associations with the two of Sternberg’s (1988) intimate love components related to a satisfactory relationship : commitment and intimacy. Recently, Hyla (2015) noted that Machiavellianism is negatively correlated with and predicted relationship satisfaction, for both women and men.

1.2.4.3    Psychopathy in Relationships

Psychopaths are described as selfish, lacking guilt and empathy, and desire to dominate and manipulate others for personal gains (Hare, 1999). As expected, their friendships and romantic relationships generally tend to be short-lived (Jonason et al. 2009). Promiscious behavior is generally known as a defining feature of psychopathy (Cleckley 1941/1988; Hare, 2003). Previous studies has reported that promiscuous sexual behavior is positively related with psychopathy, in both community settings (Seto, Khattar, Lalumiere, & Quinsey, 1997), and forensic settings (Harris, Rice, Hilton, Lalumiere, & Quinsey, 2007). Williams and colleagues (2005) reported that psychopathy appears to be linked with infidelity. Results showed that psychopaths are constantly thinking about or actively seeking other potential short-term sexual partners, even when they are or their target is in a relationship. This research also revealed that it is not important for psychopaths to know about their target, it can even be a stranger.

Although the research examining the link between attachment styles and psychopathy is relatively little, recently, Mack, Hackney, and Pyle (2011) conducted a study including college students and indicated that individuals that scored high on attachment avoidance (dismissing) and attachment anxiety (preoccupied) reported both more primary psychopathy traits, such as low empathy and manipulativeness, and secondary psychopathy traits, e.g their degree of engaging in antisocial behavior. Overall, this finding reveals that individuals who have hyperactive and deactivated attachment systems tend to have more interpersonal and affective psychopathy traits.

Savard and colleagues (2015) recent research examining the relationship between attachment dimensions and psychopathy traits using actor-partner interdependence model, indicated that men’s scoring in high primary psychopathy traits during the first test predicted higher attachment related avoidance in the second test, although the finding is not true for women. Moreover, the association between primary psychopathy and attachment anxiety got stronger over the one year period, but only for men, indicating that men that has reported more psychopathy also reported higher fear of intimacy. The secondary psychopathy scores predicted greater attachment anxiety and avoidance over time, for both genders. Results also showed that, over time, the impulsive and irresponsible behavior, becomes increasingly associated with both to fear of rejection and tendency to withdraw from partner.

Williams, Spidel and Paulhus’s (2005) research also showed that psychopaths have lower levels of trust and commitment in relationships, and they are generally more dismissive- avoidant. They also reported that negative correlations between psychopathy and relationship commitment and trust in relation to one’s partner. As Williams and colleagues (2005) noted, their dismissive attachment style and lack of commitment might be partly responsible for their infidelity. On the other hand, early adolescent attachment anxiety predicts both the presence and frequency of risky sexual behaviour over the adolescence period (Kobak, Zajac, & Smith, 2009).

Smith and her collagues (2014) also reported that men’s psychopathy is negatively linked with their relationship satisfaction, and there is a negative association between psychopathy and relationship commitment for both genders.

1.2.4.4    Dark Triad Personality in Relationships

Although the concept of Dark Triad personality has gained importance in this decade, there is still not much work that examines the functioning of overall Dark Triad in relationship contexts. Dark Triad traits are defined as malevolent due to their exploitive and manipulative behaviors — acts upon own personal goals without considering other people or sacrificing others’ benefit (Jones & Paulhus, 2011b). Thus, social behaviours of individuals high on Dark Triad generally include manipulation and exploitation, and lack warmth (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). In spite of the constellation of these three traits are generally related with negative personal  traits  such  as  impulsive behavior, self-centeredness,   callousness,  and

exploitation of other people (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Jonason, Koenig & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2011a), recent work on Dark Triad has revealed that Dark Triad traits can provide advantages in mating, especially by increasing success in exploitative, short-term mating (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009). According to the researchers, these traits creates an opportunistic and aggressive short-term mating strategy which leads to effective, successful results (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009; Jones & Paulhus, 2010), and their engagement with deceptive mechanisms such as insincere commitment and feigned mate value, facilitates their success in short-term relationships (Seto, Khattar, Lalumiere, & Quinsey, 1997). This emphasizes the role of Dark Triad personality traits on attitude toward relationships and love.

Research revealed that individuals –especially men- who are scoring high on these traits - especially men- report higher numbers of sexual partners, and they seek for low-commitment relationships (Jonason et al., 2009; Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012). They are also more engaged in infidelity because of their callous and manipulative behavioral pattern (Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010). Based on these findings, it can be seen that Dark Triad personality traits have an influence on shaping general attitude toward romantic relationships.

Ludus love style has previously been shown to be positively correlated with psychopathy and narcissism (Campbell et al., 2002; Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010; Miller, Gentile, & Campbell, 2013). Jonason & Kavanagh’s (2010) research validated this proposition by yielding that individuals that score high on DT reported more Ludus and pragma love style. The association with Ludus is compatible with previous research indicating that Dark Triad shows a disposition to prefer immediate and short-term rewards instead of long-term benefits, (e.g., Jonason et al, 2009) and they prefer sexually-driven, short-term relationships (Jonason et al., 2009). Considering the high scoring on Pragma, Jonason & Kavanagh (2010) suggested that this can be expected because individuals scoring high on DT might pursue ‘‘love’’ relationships because of the other person’s usefulness for them, rather than of their affections toward them. These suggestion parallels with previous research indicating that various emotional dysfunctions (i.e lack of empathy) are associated with Dark Triad traits (e.g., Ali et al., 2009), and their competitive and individualistic nature (Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010). Research revealed that relationship quality is negatively related with some of these Dark Triad characteristics such as low scoring on conscientiousness (Jonason &

Webster, 2010), using strategies oriented toward short-term mating (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009) and high scoring on Ludus (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010). Research indicates that Ludus love style is linked with greater negative relationship maintenance behaviors and lower commitment and satisfaction level (Goodboy & Myers, 2010, as cited in Smith et. al, 2014). Moreover, dating and married individuals –both men and women- having low conscientiousness were found to be less satisfied in their relationships if their partners are also have low conscientiousness (Decuyper, de Bolle, & de Fruyt, 2012, as cited in Smith et al, 2014). On the other hand, a study conducted by Jones & Paulhus (2010) indicated that individuals high in Dark Triad also have various long-term-oriented strategies, especially Machiavellians seemed to adjust their strategies according to the their benefit toward their long-term goals.

1.3  Aims of the Study

Although there are studies focusing on the reflections of narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy as dark triad traits in relationships, they are mainly focused on mating behaviours (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009), love attitudes (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010) and attachment (narcissism; Ahmadi et. al, 2013; Machiavellianism; Ináncsi, Láng and Bereczkei, 2015; psychopathy; (Savard et al, 2015), and they rarely explore the influence of these traits on the relationship satisfaction of individuals. Moreover, dark triad traits is relatively new area of the study, therefore, there are only a few studies investigating these traits in Turkey (e.g Yetişer, 2014).

Research suggests that there are some links between dark triad personality, love attitudes and attachment, and many research indicates that each of these are also linked with satisfaction in a relationship. Lee’s six love styles were found to be linked with several relationship outcomes, including relationship satisfaction, (Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987). Hendrick & Hendrick (1989) emphasized the connection between attachment and love styles by describing attachment styles are the foundations of interpersonal relationships, and the love styles reveals beliefs and attitudes about love that based on these attachment orientations. Research revealed that attachment dimensions are also linked with relationship outcomes, by indicating that both anxiously and avoidantly attached individuals reported

lower levels of commitment, trust and satisfaction in romantic relationships (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990).

Previous literature indicates that there are relationships between some qualities of dark triad traits and low relationship quality such as having ludic (game-playing) love style (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010), using short-term mating strategy (Jonason et al, 2009), having low conscientiousness (Jonason & Webster, 2010).

These connections imply that love styles, attachment dimensions and dark triad characteristics (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) might predict relationship satisfaction.

The present study aims to explore the associations between dark triad traits, attachment dimensions, love attitudes and relationship satisfaction in Turkish population, and extend previous findings regarding relationship research in our country. More specifically, the present study aims to investigate the relationship between dark triad personality traits, love attitudes, attachment dimensions, and the extent to which relationship satisfaction could be predicted by dark triad traits, love styles, attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. This study also aims to compare dark triad personality traits, love attitudes, attachment dimensions and relationship satisfaction across different relationship status groups, age and gender. Based on previous literature, it was hypothesised that:

1.        Males will report more Machiavellianism and Psychopathy than women.

2.        Males will report more Ludus love style, whereas females will report more Mania love style.

3.        Eros and Agape love styles will be significantly positively correlated with relationship satisfaction.

4.        Ludus love style will negatively correlate with and predict relationship satisfaction.

5.        Dark Triad traits would be negatively associated with and predict relationship satisfaction.

6.        Anxiety and avoidance would be negatively associated with and predict relationship satisfaction.

7.        Attachment related anxiety would be positively correlated with Mania.

8.        Attachment avoidance would be positively correlated with Ludus.

9.        Narcissism and Machiavellianism would be positively correlated with both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance.

10.     Psychopathy would be positively associated with attachment avoidance.

11.     Machiavellianism and Psychopathy will be significantly associated with Ludus.

12.     Narcissism will be significantly associated with Eros and Ludus.

2.   METHOD

2.1   Participants

This study was conducted with 336 volunteer participants consisting of 131 male and 205 female undergraduate students who were taking courses from Arts and Science faculty at the Dogus University and Dokuz Eylül University. They were given extra credit for their participation. Age of participants ranged from 19 to 43, with a mean age of 24.09 years (SD=3.10).

2.2   Data Collection Instruments

2.2.1   
Demographic Information Form

Demographic information form (See Appendix B) was given to collect information regarding participants’ gender, age, socioeconomic status, income level, education level, and occupation.

2.2.2    Experiences in Close Relationships Scale – Revised (ECR-R)

Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) was developed by Fraley, Waller & Brennan (2000). The questionnaire includes 36 likert-type items that assesses two dimensions: Anxiety and Avoidance, 18 items for each subscale. High Avoidance scores indicates finding discomfort with intimacy and seek independence, whereas high Anxiety scores indicates tendency to fear rejection and abandonment. Cronbach alpha values for Avoidance and Anxiety subscales were 0.90 and 0.86, respectively. Turkish adaptation of the scale was conducted by Selçuk, Günaydın, Sümer and Uysal (2005). Test-retest reliability coefficients for the subscales were 0.81 and 0.82, respectively.

2.2.3    Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS)

Relationship Assessment Scale was developed by Hendrick (1988) as a measure of general relationship satisfaction. It contains 7 Likert-type items with responses ranging between 1 (low satisfaction) and 5 (high satisfaction). Items 4 and 7 are reverse scored to avoid respondent bias. Scoring is kept continuous, mean score obtained by adding up the items and

dividing by 7. Higher score indicates the respondent is more satisfied with his/her relationship. This instrument was originally developed based on 5-item Marital Assessment Questionnaire used in previous research (Hendrick, 1981), aiming to widen the focus to romantic relationships in general. Principal Components Factor Analysis, with an eigenvalue greater than one, revealed one factor, explaining 46% of the variance. Intercorrelations among the RAS scale items mostly in moderate range, and the item-total correlations were between .573 and .760, all at p<.05. Turkish translation of the RAS was conducted by Curun (2001), with 140 university students who had romantic relationships. Factor analysis revealed one single factor. Internal consistency coefficient of the scale was .86.

2.2.4   
Short Dark Triad (SD3)

Short Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) includes 27 items regarding subclinical narcissism, subclinical psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Items’ responses range between 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). To avoid respondent bias, 5 items were reverse coded. SD3 has 3 subscales and each of these subscales includes 9 items. The subscales are named as: Machiavellianism, Narcissism and Psychopathy. Since each subscale consists of equal number of items, the subscale scores calculating by the mean of 9 items within each subscale. Psychometric properties of the scale were investigated by Jones and Paulhus (2013). Reliability of the SD3 was evaluated by examining the Cronbach alpha values. The subscales showed modest, but acceptable reliabilities (Machiavellianism a = .71, Narcissism

a = .74, Psychopathy a = .77). Machiavellianism correlated positively with psychopathy, r

= .50, and with narcissism, r =.18. Psychopathy correlated with narcissism at r = .34. (p<.001). Turkish standardization of the scale was conducted by Eremsoy, Gültekin, Uysal & Bahçekapılı (2015). Turkish version consists of 12 items, due to deleted 15 items according to study results. Cronbach alpha values for narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism subscales are .75, .82, and .74, respectively.

2.2.5    Love Attitudes Scale (LAS)

Love Attitudes Scale (Hendricks & Hendricks, 1986) contains 42 Likert-type items with responses  ranging  between  1  (strongly  agree)  and  5  (strongly  disagree).  It  has      six

dimensions, each includes 7 questions regarding different attitudes toward love, based on a theory of love proposed by Lee (1973/1976) who suggested a typography of six love approaches, namely Eros (passionate love), Ludus (game-playing love), Storge (friendship love), Pragma (practical love), Mania (possessive love), Agape (altruistic love). Sum scores for each subscale is measured separately. Because of the items were scored as (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree), lower score indicates that subject is more subscribed to the love style measured by a given item. Reliability of the Love Attitudes Scale was evaluated by examining the Cronbach alpha values for Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania, and Agape as .70, .76, .62, .81, .73, and .84, respectively. The lowest alpha coefficient belonged to the Storge factor. Furthermore, test-retest correlations after 4 to 6 weeks were between .60 (Eros) and .78 (Pragma). A second study was conducted after Love Attitudes Scale was subjected to a minor revision, and reported that Cronbach alpha values ranged from .68 for Storge  to

.83 for Agape.

2.3 Procedure

Before administering the instruments, necessary ethical approval were obtained from Ethic Committee of Doğuş University. Volunteer participants were either sent an online survey through SurveyMonkey web site to complete the scales, or were given the scales in hard copy in class. Before the administration, participants read and signed a page in which they were informed about the purpose of the study, anonymity of their responses and confidentiality of the data. Then, the participants completed demographic information form, the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R), Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), Short Dark Triad, and Love Attitudes Scale (LAS). Completing the whole instruments took approximately 25 minutes per participant.

3.   RESULTS

In this stage, four stages of analyzing data will be explained. In the first stage, descriptive statistics will be demonstrated, in second stage, the basic correlations between the variables will be given, in third stage, regression analysis will be provided, and in the fourth and final stage, the proposed model will be explained.

3.1   Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations between the Study Variables

In this section, descriptive statistics and basic correlations among study variables are provided. To examine gender differences in the study variables, we run independent sample t-test. Results yielded that male participants reported more Machiavellian characteristics (M

= 2.96, SD = .96) than female participants (M = 2.73, SD = .92); t (334) = 2.20, p < .05, r=.12. Similarly, males showed higher psychopathy levels (M = 2.35, SD = .82) than females (M = 2.17, SD = .80); t (334) = 2.06, p < .05, r=.11. Male participants also more reported Ludus love style (M = 19.33, SD = 5.95) than female participants (M = 16.55, SD = 5.30); t

(334) = 4.33, p < .01, r=.24. Results also revealed that female participants displays Mania love style (M = 21.69, SD = 5.21) more than male participants (M = 20.42, SD = 5.40); t (334) = 2.09, p < .05, r=.12.

Table 1. Descriptives and gender differences in the study variables

Total Sample					Male		Female
	M	SD	Ma x	Min	M	SD	M	SD	t
Machiavellianis m	2.82	0.9 4	1.00	5.00	2.96	0.9 6	2.73	0.9 2	2.20*
Narcissism	2.87	0.9 0	1.00	5.00	2.99	0.9 2	2.80	0.8 8	1.91
Psychopathy	2.24	0.8 1	1.00	5.00	2.35	0.8 2	2.17	0.8 0	2.06*
Anxiety	3.49	0.8 5	1.00	7.00	3.45	0.8 7	3.51	0.8 4	0.60
Avoidance	4.35	0.6 5	1.00	7.00	4.37	0.7 3	4.34	0.5 9	0.39
Eros	23.9 0	5.9 6	1.00	35.0 0	23.8 7	5.7 5	23.9 0	6.1 3	0.05
Ludus	17.6 4	5.7 1	1.00	35.0 0	19.3 3	5.9 5	16.5 5	5.3 0	4.33* *
Storge	20.1 8	5.4 0	1.00	35.0 0	20.4 0	5.6 6	20.0 2	5.2 4	0.61
Pragma	22.4 7	5.9 6	1.00	35.0 0	21.9 7	6.3 2	22.7 8	5.7 3	1.19
Mania	21.2 0	5.3 2	1.00	35.0 0	20.4 2	5.4 0	21.6 9	5.2 1	2.09*
Agape	22.4 3	6.0 7	1.00	35.0 0	22.7 8	6.4 0	22.2 1	5.8 7	0.81
Relationship Satisfaction	3.35	0.5 6	1.00	5.00	3.29	0.6 3	3.39	0.5 1	1.23

*p < .05; **p < .01

A series of one-way ANOVAs was conducted to examine relationship status differences in the study variables (for the statistics see Table 2). Results indicated that there were main effects of relationship status groups on psychopathy, eros, and agape, F (2, 336) = 5.81, p <

.01, h2  = .03; F (2, 336) = 7.00, p < .001, h2  = .04; F (2, 336) = 4.61, p < .01, h2  =.03,

respectively. Further, Scheffe post-hoc tests indicated that individuals with having relationship reported more psychopathy (M = 2.37, SD = 0.86) than individuals that are not into anyone/not in a relationship and individuals that are into someone but not currently in a relationship with them (M = 2.08, SD = 0.75; M = 2.05, SD = 0.69, respectively) (see Table 2).

Moreover, results yielded that individuals that are in a relationship reported higher Eros love style (M = 24.68, SD = 5.84) than individuals that are not into anyone/not in a relationship and individuals that are into someone but not in a relationship (M = 24.15, SD = 5.83; M = 21.57, SD = 5.89, respectively) (see Table 2).

Results also showed that individuals who are not into anyone/not in a relationship reported more Agape love style (M = 24.18, SD = 5.48) than individuals who are in a relationship and individuals who are into someone but not in a current relationship (M = 22.40, SD = 6.09; M

= 21.00, SD = 6.19, respectively).

In a Relationship			Into someone but not in a relationship		Not into anyone and not in a relationship
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F
Machiavellianism	2.90	.92	2.62	.92	2.82	.99	2.49
Narcissism	2.96	.89	2.76	.91	2.74	.91	2.26
Psychopathy	2.37	.86	2.05	.69	2.08	.75	5.81**
Anxiety	3.43	.86	3.56	.83	3.57	.83	0.99
Avoidance	4.32	.64	4.33	.68	4.43	.68	0.72
Eros	24.68	5.84	21.57	5.89	24.15	5.83	7.00***
Ludus	17.68	6.01	17.52	5.55	17.66	4.99	0.20
Storge	20.52	5.50	19.92	4.80	19.43	5.74	1.06
Pragma	22.90	5.89	22.09	6.14	21.59	5.94	1.30
Mania	21.39	5.37	20.61	5.47	21.30	4.99	0.57
Agape	22.40	6.09	21.00	6.19	24.18	5.48	4.61**

*p < .05; **p < .01

Bivariate correlations indicated significant associations between the study variables. As presented in Table 3, zero-order correlations yielded that Machiavellianism was positively associated with narcissism, psychopathy, attachment related anxiety, attachment avoidance, and ludus. Narcissism was positively correlated with psychopathy, eros and ludus love styles. Psychopathy was found to be positively associated with attachment related anxiety, ludus and storge love styles, whereas negatively linked with relationship satisfaction of participants. Attachment related anxiety was positively associated with attachment avoidance and mania love style, and surprisingly, with storge, pragma, and agape love styles. Expectedly, attachment  anxiety was negatively associated with relationship     satisfaction.

Attachment avoidance was positively correlated with eros, storge, pragma, mania, agape love styles and unexpectedly, with relationship satisfaction. (see Table 3). Eros love style was found to be positively linked with mania and agape love styles, and higher Eros individuals also report higher relationship satisfaction. Surprisingly, ludus love style was positively correlated with storge love style, whereas negatively linked with mania and agape love styles and expectedly, with relationship satisfaction. Storge love style was positively associated with pragma, mania and agape love styles. Pragma love style was positively correlated with mania and agape love styles, and mania love style was found to be positively correlated with agape love style. Results yielded that only eros, mania and agape love styles were found to be positively linked with relationship satisfaction.

It should be noted that there was similar pattern for age-controlled correlations with zero- order correlations. Results yielded that when age was controlled, there was no significant association between Machiavellianism and attachment related avoidance, and the association between narcissism and eros was disappeared. Psychopathy was not significantly related with attachment anxiety and storge love style, whereas the negative relationship between psychopathy and relationship satisfaction was increased (i.e., from .18 to -.28, see Table3). Association between attachment anxiety and agape disappeared, but there was an emerged positive association with ludus.

Results yielded that when age is controlled, the negative association between eros and ludus love styles became significant, whereas the significant associations of ludus with storge (positive) and mania (negative) disappeared. Agape was no longer positively related with storge, pragma love styles, and relationship satisfaction.

3.2 Predicting Relationship Satisfaction from Personality Characteristics, Attachment, and Love Attitudes

A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to predict individuals’ relationship satisfaction scores from Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, attachment anxiety, avoidance, and love attitudes. In the first step, participants’ age and gender were added to the equation. In the second step, participants’ dark triad personality characteristics were entered into the equation. After controlling for age, gender, and personality characteristics, attachment anxiety and avoidance were added to the regression model in the third step. Finally, in the last step, love attitudes were entered into the equation to predict relationship satisfaction.

Hierarchical regression analysis yielded significant results. Specifically, as seen in Table 4, individuals’ age and gender did not make any significant contributions in predicting relationship satisfaction reports (R2 =.01, ns, ). In the second step, only psychopathy negatively predicted relationship satisfaction (β = -.29, p < .001), signifying individuals with higher psychopathy also reported lower relationship satisfaction. In the third step, attachment anxiety negatively predicted self-reported relationship satisfaction (β = -.14, p < .01). Surprisingly, attachment related avoidance positively predicted relationship satisfaction  (β

= .39, p < .001). Finally, out of the 6 love attitudes, only ludus negatively predicted relationship satisfaction (β = -.25, p < .01).

Relationship Satisfaction
	β	Δ R2
Step 1. Demographics		.01
Gender	.04
Age	.05
Step 2. Personality Characteristics		.08**
Machiavellianism	-.03
Narcissism	-.02
Psychopathy	-.29***
Step 3. Attachment Dimensions		.16***
Anxiety	-.14**
Avoidance	.39***
Step 4. Love Attitudes		.18***
Eros	-.08
Ludus	-.25**
Storge	.01
Pragma	.05
Mania	.08
Agape	-.02

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .01

Overall, hierarchical regression analysis suggested that there might be potential mediators explaining the link between personality characteristics and relationship satisfaction. Thus, a path analysis was conducted to test the proposed model. The proposed model examined the associations between dark triad personality characteristics and relationship satisfaction via attachment dimensions and love attitudes. Specifically, dark triad personality characteristics, including Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, would predict attachment dimensions (i.e., anxiety and avoidance), and in turn they would predict love attitudes (i.e., eros, ludus, storge, pragma, mania, and agape) and relationship satisfaction of participants (see Figure 1). The proposed model was estimated by using MPlus 6.12 (Muthén & Muthén,

2002), to test the mediational role of attachment dimensions and love attitudes in the        43

relations between personality characteristics and relationship satisfaction. Also, the pathways from personality characteristics to individuals’ attitudes toward love via attachment dimensions were examined. Similarly, the link between attachment dimensions and relationship satisfaction via love attitudes was tested. We utilized maximum likelihood estimation for parameters.

The estimated model yielded adequate fit to the data (χ2(39) = 129.67, p< .001, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .06 (90% CI=.04 - 08), SRMR = .05). Accordingly, Machiavellianism and narcissism (but not psychopathy) predicted attachment dimensions. Increased Machiavellianism was associated with higher attachment anxiety (β = .24, p < .001) and avoidance (β = .15, p < .01), whereas increased narcissism predicted lower levels of attachment anxiety (β = -.20, p < .001). Besides, the estimated model showed that only attachment anxiety predicted love attitudes. Specifically, attachment anxiety positively predicted ludus, mania, and agape (β = .18, p < .01; β = .31, p < .001; and β = .19, p < .01, respectively). Finally, only ludus predicted self-reported relationship satisfaction negatively (β = -.23, p < .001).

To estimate the bias-corrected bootstrap standard errors and obtain CIs for the estimates, 1,000 samples were drawn. Confirming the presence of mediation(s), the indirect association of Machiavellianism to relationship satisfaction through anxiety and ludus was significant. Machiavellianism was positively related to attachment anxiety, which in turn predicted increased ludus and lessened relationship satisfaction (95% CI = .29, - .09). Besides, narcissism was inversely associated with attachment anxiety; in turn anxiety predicted ludus and lowered relationship satisfaction (95% CI = -.16, -.02).

 (Machiavellianism and Narcissism) predicted attachment dimensions, especially attachment anxiety. Attachment related anxiety characterized by need for approval and clingy for not being rejected predicted ludus, mania, and agape. In other words, individuals with higher attachment anxiety reported more short-term sexual relationships, they are more possessive and jealous in relationships, and they regard best interest of partner more than own needs. Finally, individuals’ relationship satisfaction was negatively predicted by only ludus, signifying that individuals who display promiscuous relationships were more dissatisfied in romantic relationships.

4. DISCUSSION

The present study mainly aimed to investigate the predictive power of dark triad personality traits, love styles and attachment dimensions on relationship satisfaction.

This section aims to discuss the findings of the present study. In the first part, gender and relationship status differences between variables are discussed. Second, a discussion of the association between dark triad personality traits, love styles, attachment dimensions, and relationship satisfaction are presented. Thirdly, a proposed model indicating the predictors of relationship satisfaction is presented.

4.1 Discussion Regarding Gender and Relationship Status Differences

Firstly, it was hypothesized that men will report more psychopathy and Machiavellianism compared to women. Results revealed that men reported significantly higher psychopathic and machiavellistic traits. In the literature, most research have found that men generally have higher scores in psychopathy than women in both forensic settings (e.g Verona et al., 2012) and in civil population (e.g Grann, 2000). Moreover, previous studies reported that men score higher in Machiavellianism than women (Christie & Geis, 1970; Ali & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010). Therefore, our first hypothesis was supported, in correspondence with previous research.

Results also supported that men reported more Ludic love style, whereas females reported more Manic love style. Therefore, the second hypothesis considering gender differences (men will adopt Ludus style more and women adopt Mania love style more) was supported. This finding is compatible with previous research indicating men are more likely to have game-playing attitudes, whereas women tend to be more possessive (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). There was not found any significant gender differences in attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance or relationship satisfaction.

Results indicated that among dark traits, only psychopathy is related with relationship status, signifying that individuals who are in a relationship have more psychopathic traits. Previous literature reported that people who are high in the dark triad are generally rated by others as

46

more physically attractive (Fowler et al, 2009), and dark triad traits are positively correlated with ‘dressed-up’ attractiveness (Holtzman and Strube, 2013). Being perceived as attractive might be making finding a partner easy for them.

Moreover, results revealed that individuals in a relationship reported more adoption of Eros love style more than individuals not into anyone/not in a relationship and individuals into someone but not in a relationship with them. Considering Eros is characterized by passion and deep physical attraction, and completely ‘in love’ situation, it is expected that it is more reported by individuals in a current reciprocal relationship, rather than individuals who is into someone but not in a current relationship, or individuals with neither into someone nor in a current relationship.

Surprisingly, another significant finding was regarding Agape, indicating that individuals who are not into anyone/not in a relationship reported more Agapic love style. One explanation for this controversial finding might be these individuals’ willingness to be in love. Agape is characterized by an idealized approach to love, with sacrificing their own needs and desires for the best interest of the partner. Because they are not in a current relationship and they are not into someone, these individuals might be idealizing a non- existing significant other whom they can display an agapic lovestyle. Results supported the third hypothesis of the current study.

4. 2 General Associations and Predictions Regarding Dark Triad Traits, Love Attitudes, Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance, and Relationship Satisfaction

In this section, correlations and regressions among measures is discussed. Research revealed that there is no significant effect of age and gender in predicting relationship satisfaction.

4. 2. 1 Love Attitudes and Relationship Satisfaction (Hypotheses 3 and 4)

Results showed that as predicted, eros and agape love styles were found to be positively related to relationship satisfaction. This finding is similar to many existing research reporting eros and agape positively related to relationship satisfaction (Hendrick, Hendrick & Adler, 1988; Morrow, Clark & Brock, 1995). Results supported the third hypothesis of the study. Surprisingly,  results  yielded  that  individuals  with  manic  love  style  also  have   higher

47

relationship satisfaction. This unexpected finding may derive from the fact that mania love style is highly correlated with passion aspect of relationship quality (Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987). Another explanation might be the fact that obsessive love is positively correlated with relationship satisfaction for short term (new) relationships, whereas it is negatively correlated for long term relationships (Acevedo & Aron, 2009). Hence, individuals with manic love style might be in a new relationship and answer accordingly.

As expected, results supported that ludic love style is negatively related with relationship satisfaction. Ludus love style is found to be a predictor of lower relationship satisfaction. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis was supported. These finding is consistent with previous findings indicating that ludus love style is associated with lower levels of satisfaction in relationships (Hendrick et al., 1988; Frazier & Esterly, 1990; Meeks, Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998).

4.2.2            Love Attitudes and Attachment (Hypotheses 7 and 8)

As predicted, results revealed that manic love style is positively related to attachment anxiety. Therefore, the hypothesis regarding a positive link between mania and anxiety was supported. However, attachment related anxiety is also found to be related to storgic, agapic and pragmatic love style.

The most distinguishing characteristic of Agapic love is that its altruistic and self-sacrificing nature, with no expectation of reciprocation from partner (Lee, 1998). Agape lovestyle and anxious attachment share some similarities as they both have an idealized approach to love, they desire to be close and think of the loved one. Research suggests that individuals with attachment anxiety need to satisfy the needs of their partners in a relationship (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). These similarities may account for the correlation between Agape and anxious attachment.

On the other hand, the correlation between Pragma and anxious attachment might be derive of the present research’s finding that pragma is associated with storge and agape love styles. These correlations might be account for the association of Pragma with attachment anxiety.

48

As Lee (1973) indicated, storge is characterized by slow-developing relationship based on companionship. Storge lovers emphasize companionship and compatibility over physical attraction. Storge lovers indicated high levels of intimacy (Meeks, Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998). Therefore, the association between attachment anxiety might be related to the fact that their high concern for partner’s well-being and being afraid to lose companion.

Also, in our research, pragma, storge, agape were found to be positively correlated with manic love style, suggesting they are sharing some common elements. Previous research revealed that culture is one of the important factors that determines jealousy, and the degree of jealousy is heightened in cultures which favor marriage and being in a relationship and which restrict sexuality and favor monogamy in sexuality (Davis 1998, Hupka 1981; as cited in Demirtaş & Dönmez, 2006). This might imply that in our culture, jealousy, which is a characteristic of manic love style, is a common element in romantic relationships, therefore it can be a part of many love styles. However, further research regarding prevalence of jealousy in intimate relationships in Turkey is warranted.

A recent research in Turkey regarding jealousy -the core element of mania love style- revealed that expressed level of jealousy is positively related to relationship satisfaction. (Demirtaş & Dönmez, 2006). This finding supported many previous research indicating that jealousy is associated with relational rewards and relational satisfaction (Buunk, 1981; 1986; Hansen, 1983; Hansen 1985; as cited in Demirtaş-Madran, 2011). As Buunk, (1991; as cited in Demirtaş-Madran, 2011) suggested, people evaluate their relationships as more satisfying based on their rewards and costs from the relationship. Therefore, it can be suggested that the more individuals are satisfied with their relationships, the more they have to lose when the relationship ends; as they gain more from the relationship, they feel more jealous (Demirtaş & Dönmez, 2006).

Results yielded that attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance are positively correlated. It was hypothesized that attachment avoidance will report ludic love style. Unexpectedly, results showed that attachment avoidance is correlated with eros, storge, pragma, mania, agape love styles. Therefore, results did not support the eighth hypothesis of the research.

49

Theoretical perspectives include that Bartholomew (1990) conceptualized four attachment styles described as secure, preoccupied (anxious), fearful (avoidant) and dismissive (avoidant), suggesting that avoidance has two distinct forms. Fearful individuals deny the desire for closeness as a defensive strategy, while they are in fact craving for emotional intimacy but afraid of rejection. Consequently, they experience high levels of attachment related anxiety and high avoidant behaviour. On the other hand, dismissive-avoidant individuals, have mistrust for relationships and they value for independence over closeness. Therefore, they experience lower anxiety and high avoidant behaviour.

In the light of our findings, it can be concluded that individuals with high anxiety also reported high avoidant behaviour, suggesting that our participants’ form of attachment might be fearful-avoidant. Considering all these associated love styles -eros, storge, pragma, mania and agape- related signifying care for their partner and include closeness at some level, possible explanation for the association with avoidance might because of these fearfully avoidant individuals have lower self-esteem and fear of rejection, this might lead them to display -and report- defensively avoidant behavior.

This suggestion is also consistent with the finding of the present research describing an association between attachment anxiety and avoidance, and the previous discussion also compatible with individuals with storge, pragma, mania, and agape love styles also reported high levels of anxiety. Mania love style is characterized by insecure, possessive type of love, constantly obsessive about partner’s attention, therefore, it was expected that these individuals report higher levels of anxiety. The finding that mania is associated with higher anxiety is supported our hypothesis.

4.2.3           Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction (Hypotheses 6)

Results also revealed that as predicted, attachment anxiety is negatively linked with relationship satisfaction.

In the literature, it was found that anxiously attached individuals tend to report lower levels of relationship satisfaction, commitment, trust and interdependence in relationship (Simpson,  1990).  Previous  research  also  indicated that  individuals  especially with high

50

levels of attachment anxiety consider conflict as a threat toward their relationships and their reactions include intense negative emotions (Paley, Cox, Burchinal, & Payne, 1999, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015) and relationship-damaging behaviors (Simpson, Rholes, & Philips, 1996, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015). This also might imply that individuals with attachment anxiety tend to report more dissatisfied with their relationship.

Moreover, results also revealed that highly avoidant individuals reported more relationship satisfaction, and attachment avoidance predicts higher relationship satisfaction.

Therefore, our hypothesis that highly anxious individuals and highly avoidant individuals will report lower relationship satisfaction, was partially supported. This controversial finding might be stem from the fact that avoidant individuals do not have a low threat threshold such as anxious individuals, and their deactivation strategies allows them to deactivate attachment related feelings and make them less likely to perceive conflict and likely to withdraw, rather than engage further, if disagreements occur (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998, as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015). This might lead the avoidant individual to be reluctant about reviewing existing relationship problems within the relationship, therefore, individuals with higher attachment avoidance might have illusions regarding their relationship quality. Moreover, self-reported relationship satisfaction may not adequately measure satisfaction from relationships. Previous research suggests that individuals with high attachment avoidance are likely to suppress their emotions, and reluctant to resolve them (Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2007). Their tendency to leave their emotions unresolved might influence their realistic view toward the relationship.

4.2.4            Dark Triad and Love Styles (Hypotheses 11 and 12)

It was hypothesized that Machiavellistic and psychopathic individuals will report more ludic love style, whereas individuals high on narcissism will report both erotic (passionate) and ludic love style. Results supported the hypothesis, signifying that machiavellistic and psychopathic individuals prefer more game-playing love style, and narcissistic individuals prefer passionate and game-playing love styles. In the literature, it was found that individuals with psychopathy traits constantly contemplate or pursue short-term sexual opportunities, without considering neither their relationship status nor their potential

51

targets’ (Williams et al., 2005). On the other hand, many research emphasized that Machiavellian individuals believe that that sharing feelings or personal vulnerabilities indicates weakness which led others to exploit them, therefore, prefer to show their positive abilities to others and they do not disclose their feelings or flaws. These features probably have negative reflections on Machiavellian individuals’ romantic relationships. Research shows that individuals high on Machiavellianism inclined to avoid being committed, emotionally intimate with others and they prefer short-term, sexually-driven relationships with low emotional investment (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009).

Therefore, our findings regarding Machiavellianism and psychopathy are compatible with previous research. Previous research indicates narcissists value physical attractiveness and agentic traits such as status and success, and they prefer attractive and successful partners partially because they identify themselves with their partner (Campbell, 1999). Research also emphasized that narcissistic individuals prefer partners who can provide esteem and status for them both in a direct and indirect way (Campbell, 1999). Therefore, the present findings are in line with the literature.

However, results also yielded that surprisingly, high psychopathy individuals reported more storgic love style, although the correlation disappeared when age is controlled. This inconsistent finding may derive from the fact that psychopaths avoid passionate long term relationships and consider relationships more of a ‘friend with benefits’ style rather than ‘dedicated lover’ relationship, which enabled them to pursue other alternatives for sexual relationships. This finding is consistent with another finding describing a positive association between psychopathy and ludus love style and that ludus love style is positively correlated with storge love style.

4.2.5            Dark Triad and Attachment (Hypotheses 9 and 10)

On the other hand, as predicted, Machiavellianism was found to be related to both attachment avoidance and anxiety, whereas there was no association between narcissism and either attachment avoidance or attachment anxiety. Despite the regression findings, path analysis revealed associations regarding attachment dimensions with both Machiavellianism and narcissism. These findings will be discussed further.

52

Moreover, in contrast with the hypothesis that psychopathic individuals have higher attachment avoidance, results yielded that psychopathy is also related with attachment anxiety, indicating that individuals high on psychopathy reported more concern about their relationship. Thus, results did not support the eleventh hypothesis of this research.

However, this controversial finding was disappeared when age was controlled. Considering our participants mostly young adults at university, this finding may suggest that young adults have higher attachment anxiety. On the other hand, Blackburn (1993) reported that although displaying antagonistic interpersonal styles is a shared characteristic of both primary and secondary psychopathy, primary psychopathy lack anxiety while secondary psychopathy includes experiencing negative affects such as anxiety. This finding is consistent with present findings, considering SRP-III scale including items regarding both primary and secondary psychopathy.

4.2.6            Dark Triad and Relationship Satisfaction (Hypothesis 5)

It was hypothesized that all three dark triad traits would be linked with low degrees of relationship satisfaction. Results partially supported the hypothesis, by revealing that only psychopathy is negatively linked with relationship satisfaction and predict lower relationship satisfaction. Previous research suggests that psychopaths demonstrate less commitment and trust towards their partner (Williams, Spidel and Paulhus, 2005), this finding implies that psychopaths might have low relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, a recent research reported that men’s psychopathy is negatively linked with their relationship satisfaction, whereas it is negatively related to relationship commitment for both genders (Smith et. al, 2014). Therefore, our finding is consistent with the previous literature.

4.3         Discussions of the Proposed Model Regarding Dark Triad Traits, Love Attitudes, Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance, and Relationship Satisfaction

Regression analysis suggested that there might be potential mediators explaining the link between personality characteristics and relationship satisfaction. In this section, the proposed model examining the associations between dark triad personality characteristics and relationship satisfaction via attachment dimensions and love attitudes are discussed.

In    detail,    this    research    predicted    that   dark    triad    personality    characteristics    - 53

Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy-, would predict attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, and in turn they would predict love attitudes and relationship satisfaction of participants.

Results indicated that there is indeed an indirect influence of Machiavellianism to relationship satisfaction through attachment anxiety and ludus love style. Overall, Machiavellianism predicted higher attachment anxiety, which in turn predicted adoption of ludus love style and lower relationship satisfaction.

Results also yielded that individuals who score low in narcissism, have higher levels of anxiety, and in turn, it leads them to seek other partners, therefore, have lower relationship satisfaction. Conversely, individuals with narcissistic traits have lower attachment anxiety, therefore, they display low game-playing love attitude, and they have higher relationship satisfaction.

In this research, it was predicted that Machiavellianism and Narcisissm will be positively related with both attachment anxiety and avoidance. As mentioned before, regression results revealed that high Machiavellianism is associated with high attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety, whereas there was no association between narcissism and attachment dimensions. However, further path analysis revealed that high Machiavellianism positively predicts attachment anxiety, whereas high Narcissism negatively predicts attachment anxiety. These findings supoorted our hypothesis.

Many previous studies noted that high Machiavellian individuals have dysfunctional emotionality including unbalanced emotional functioning, the experience of negative affect such as increased anxiety, negative and hostile attitudes, and depressive symptoms (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; McHoskey, 2001b; McHoskey et al., 1998; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Moreover, the positive association between narcissism and attachment anxiety is supported by many other studies (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Neumann & Bierhoff, 2004; Smolewska & Dion, 2005). Therefore, the finding of the present research is in line with the literature.

In this research, results  yielded that when age is controlled, there emerged a positive        54

association between attachment anxiety and ludus. Moreover, our proposed model indicated that attachment anxiety predicts ludus love style.

This connection might be explained by the fact that anxious individuals craving for affection and fear of neglect might lead them to constant efforts to get the affection and attention they need from their partner. Schachner & Shaver (2004) emphasized that sexual behavior of an individual with anxious attachment is guided by their need for emotional intimacy, reassurance from their partner, and to reduce their stress. This finding might be implying that others’ attention (acquired by sex) might be used by them as a coping strategy for heightened stress in their relationship. Therefore, pursuing other partners for sexual encounters might be one of their attention-seeking strategies to get their current partner’s attention.

Previous research revealed that early adolescent attachment anxiety predicts both the presence and frequency of risky sexual behaviour over the adolescence period (Kobak, Zajac, & Smith, 2009).

One explanation for that connection might be cultural-fit hypothesis (Friedman et. al., 2010; as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015), describing culturally incongruent attachment characteristics negatively affecting relationship functioning. Patterns of attachment anxiety and avoidance culturally vary, based on the cultural norms regarding emotional closeness in relationships. Many research signified that attachment anxiety is more common in collectivist cultures, whereas attachment avoidance is more prevalent in individualistic cultures (Rothbaum et al., 2002; Schmitt et al., 2003, 2004; Sümer & Kağıtçıbaşı, 2010; as cited in Harma & Sümer, 2015). Recent research by Harma & Sümer (2015) emphasized that attachment anxiety is more common than attachment avoidance in the Turkish cultural context. Therefore, it might explain the dominant influence of attachment anxiety in our research.

Path analysis also supported that Ludus negatively predicts relationship satisfaction, consistent with the regression analysis and previous studies, as mentioned above (see Hypothesis 5).

55

4.4         Limitations and Further Implications

Firstly, the sample exclusively comprised university students, thus, the results obtained can not be generalized to a wider population. Moreover, because of the participants were mostly young adults, further research including older populations is needed to better understanding of the relationship satisfaction.

Secondly, all variables were measured with self~report instruments rather than indirect measurements, implying that there might be faking good effect. Although self-report measures are beneficial and widely used, as some researchers argue, they are inclined to response distortion, or in other words, “faking” (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998, as cited in MacNeil, 2008). Previous research suggests that psychopathy might enable faking on self- report personality tests (MacNeil & Holden, 2006; as cited in MacNeil, 2008) Furthermore, research yielded that individuals that score high on psychopathic traits are more successful to lower their scores on psychopathy, when they are asked to do so (Edens et al., 2001; Rogers, Vitacco, Jackson, Martin, Collins, & Sewell, 2002; as cited in MacNeil, 2008).

Another limitation of the present study was regarding Love Attitudes Scale. This 42-item- version of the scale was translated into Turkish by the researcher and edited by the thesis supervisor. Although there is a Turkish adaptation of the short version 24-item-short version of Love Attitudes Scale (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998) by Büyükşahin ve Hovardaoğlu (2004), with generally acceptable with reliabilities ranging from .47 (ludus) to .80 (agape), present research used the original long version of the scale because of its usage in literature regarding dark triad (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010) and attachment (Neto, 2007).

The discrepancy between the results of regression analysis and path analysis (the former indicating   that narcissism   is   not   associated    with    attachment    dimensions    and  the latter indicating   that   narcissism   is   a   negative   predictor   of   attachment   anxiety) necessitates further research. Moreover, due to the potentially dishonest answers to the questions related to the number of long-term, emotional relationships and number of short-term, sexually-focused relationships, these variables could not be included in the research. Further research might investigate how these attitudes, attachment dimensions and

56

relationship satisfaction are related with the actual pattern of relationship preferences.

The studies regarding Dark Triad in our country are very rare, and none of these studies has explored the role of these traits in romantic relationships. Furthermore, in our country, none of the researches regarding relationship satisfaction has investigated the associations between the influences of dark triad, love styles, attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance on romantic relationship satisfaction. Although some controversial findings were found, the present study is a pioneering research that investigates dark triad traits in relationship contexts of Turkish individuals.

In summary, this dissertation clarified that Machiavellianism and narcissism predict relationship satisfaction via attachment anxiety and ludus love style. The mediator effect of attachment dimensions and love styles regarding the relationship satisfaction should be investigated further across broader contexts in future studies.
Aşkım Nur Uysal