The Dark Tipping Points in Social Relationships

Antisocial or, more broadly, ethically and socially aversive tendencies can create significant challenges in interpersonal relationships. Aversive behaviors—often accompanied by a lack of remorse—can manifest in various forms such as bullying, cheating in a romantic relationship, (online) trolling, or even domestic violence. Clearly, any of these would pose risks for social relationships.

Whereas individuals with aversive tendencies are known to rationalize their behavior as justified or even necessary, the repercussions on their social environment are often profound. Indeed, the inability to empathize and maintain good relationships with others is a key feature of what clinicians call “personality dysfunction” or “personality pathology.” This type of dysfunction refers to long-term patterns of behavior, thinking, and feelings that cause problems in relationships and daily life. For example, one may suffer from friendships never lasting long or from significant job stress because teamwork often causes severe conflict. More generally, personality dysfunction makes it hard to adapt to different situations, leading to difficulties in functioning socially, at work, or emotionally.

Now, specifically in the case of aversive personality tendencies, placing one’s wants and needs above those of others may initially come with short-term benefits, such as success in business, increased social status, or mere pleasure in the moment. However, these gains frequently come at a cost as time goes by, leading to resentment, mistrust, and ultimately more dysfunctional relationships. In other words, there is often a trade-off between (immediate) gains and the risk to social bonds (in the long run).

The obvious question, then, is this: at which point does this trade-off tip? How much aversive personality does it take to become dysfunctional and potentially clinically relevant? Based on data from five large studies about the core of all aversive tendencies and its link to personality dysfunction, we can shed some light on this question.

The aversive core

Recent research has shown that all aversive tendencies, both those considered subclinical (e.g., egoism, entitlement, or spitefulness) and those considered clinical (e.g., deceitfulness, grandiosity, or manipulativeness), share one single common core, the so-called dark factor of personality (or D for short). D is the general tendency to pursue one’s own gains and pleasure at the expense of others, accompanied by beliefs that serve as justification for such behavior. As one might expect, higher levels in D are associated with greater personality dysfunction. But where exactly is the tipping point?

The tipping point(s)

To get a better understanding when and to what extent D becomes dysfunctional, we can look at the statistical correspondence between levels of D and various clinically defined cut-offs for dysfunction. The result can be found in the figure, which shows the distribution of D scores in the general population based on a sample of about 90,000 participants. Specifically, the higher the bar, the more people have that level of D, with colors representing the associated level of clinically relevant dysfunction (based on defined cut-offs). The green-to-yellow section (D scores between 1.0 and about 2.1) indicates little to no impairment. Even average levels of D (around 2.3) fall just outside this range, into the yellow-to-orange section of subclinical or 'mild' impairment. At a D score above 3.3 (orange-to-red section), we can expect 'moderate' dysfunction and thus a clinically relevant level of impairment. And extreme levels of D (a score above 4.4; red-to-purple section) imply severe dysfunction and a high likelihood of clinically relevant impairment.

So, statistically speaking, a D-level of up to about 2.1 is functional from a clinical perspective and the good news is that the distribution of D is slightly skewed so about 57% of people are at or below this point. The tipping point to clinically relevant dysfunction is at a D-level of about 3.3 and 'only' 6% of people have this D score or higher. This number is very well in line with prevalence estimates of socially aversive psychiatric “personality disorders” (antisocial, borderline, narcissism, paranoid) in the population that, taken together, sum up to about 6%. (see here).

D in the general population (N ≈ 90,000) and levels of impairment.

Source: David D. Scholz & Benjamin E. Hilbig, used with permission

Risk and protective factors

Importantly, other traits and tendencies can shift these tipping points. Some traits and tendencies are risk factors that shift the tipping point to the left, so that even lower levels of D become dysfunctional (again, based on cut-off points). Others are protective factors, shifting the tipping point to the right, so that it takes a higher level of D to become dysfunctional. From the recent studies (see references), we see that impairments in emotion regulation and self-control, as well as the presence of paranoid-delusional thoughts, are risk factors that lower the tipping point. For instance, if someone has strong impairments in emotion regulation (lower 25%), the tipping point for clinically relevant impairment drops from 3.3 to about 2.6, making this D-level (on average) already sufficient to be related to clinically relevant dsyfunction. On the other hand, high self-control can serve as a protective factor, shifting the tipping point upwards. Specifically, if someone has strong self-control (top 25%), it would take a literally off-the-chart (above 5.0) D-level to tip into clinically relevant dysfunction.

Conclusion

Overall, it can be thought of as good news that average levels of D generally imply only mild dysfunction and thus only rarely lead to clinically relevant impairment. This can be thought of as good news because the distribution of D is slightly skewed (as shown in the figure), so this applies to the majority of the population. However, a level of D likely to cause clinically relevant impairment is still found in about 6% of people. Additionally, some risk and protective factors significantly shift the tipping point.

Relationships Essential Reads

Love and Money: How Financial Stress Affects Relationships

Navigating the Murky Waters of Situationships

In clinical settings or personal lives (e.g., when selecting friends or even romantic partners), it would generally seem advisable to have an eye out for people with high D-scores. That’s kind of a truism. But in addition, it would seem particularly sensible to look for poor emotion regulation, lack of self-control, or paranoid-delusional thoughts, as these are major risk/protective factors when if comes to the likelihood of a D-level leading to clinically relevant impairment. Clearly, the sketched relations should be interpreted from a general perspective, meaning that certain levels of D are generally (not) related to specific clinical cut-off points. For each of us, the link between our specific level of D and the quality of our relationships may vary.