Shedding light on the Dark Side of Entrepreneurship:

(1)

Master's thesis

Shedding light on the Dark Side of Entrepreneurship:

An explorative study on the influence of the dark triad

on predictors of entrepreneurial intention

Abstract

Negative aspects of the entrepreneur are often left unaddressed in research on entrepreneurship. This study examines the effect of the dark triad – Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy – of personality traits on the predictors of entrepreneurial intention. A survey was developed to conduct theory testing of the relations between the dark triad and entrepreneurial intention in order to connect the two fields of literature. The entrepreneurial intention model is a derivative of Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. We tested our combined model on 91 responses from students of the University of Groningen. Results were inconclusive with the exceptions of the positive relations between narcissism and perceived behavioral control. Additionally support was found for the argument that the dark triad constructs are related but distinct. Finally suggestions are made for further research.

Keywords: dark triad; narcissism; Machiavellianism; psychopathy; theory of planned

behavior; entrepreneurial intention; entrepreneurship. by

Student: Joost J. Gierveld Student Number: 1906739

Msc. Business Administration: Small Business and Entrepreneurship Date: 19-4-2016

Supervisor: dr. A. J. Rauch Co-assessor: dr. O. Belousova

(2)

Preface

This thesis represents the accumulation of my journey through the Msc. Business Administration program. Along the way there were many ups and downs. Irrespective of the outcome I am proud of what I have achieved. Hereby to present you the report of my conducted research.

Before continuing I want to thank the people that have helped me along the way.

First I would like to cease the opportunity to thank dr. E.P.M. Croonen. It was through her compassion and guidance that I was able to keep moving forward and overcome the obstacles on my path. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude towards dr. A.J. Rauch for supervision my thesis. In particular with regards to the technical aspects of theory testing and statistical analyses his assistance proved to be of great value. Subsequently, I want to thank dr. O. Belousova for her role in co-assessing this report. Then I want to thank Pim Holthof for his role as objective devil's advocate. His support helped me keep me focused and on track towards the completion of my thesis project.

Finally, I am very grateful for the support of my fiancé. Her patience and understanding has proven to be invaluable.

(3)

List of figures

figure 1: Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (1991) ... 8

figure 2: Conceptual model ... 12

List of Tables

table 1: Constructs and definitions ... 10

table 2: Means, standard deviations, and correlations ... 14

table 3: Results of regression analysis for H1a regarding PA ... 15

table 4: Results of regression analysis for H1b regarding SN ... 15

table 5: Results of regression analysis for H1c regarding PBC ... 16

table 12: Summary of hypothesis results ... 19

table 13: Summary of simple multiple regression for the effect of DT variables on EI predictors (N=91) ... 22

(5)

1. Introduction

As one of the earlier academics to study the field of entrepreneurship, Joseph Schumpeter acknowledged the beneficial role of entrepreneurs in the economy. He stated that entrepreneurs continually try to evolve, or rather revolve, the capitalist society through product, process and marketing innovation in a process called creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942). A more recent systematic review on the literature of entrepreneurship reaffirms their importance in the economy on issues like employment, productivity growth and innovations (van Praag & Versloot, 2007). Entrepreneurs also often enjoy a certain esteem in the modern society, being regarded as leaders and brave adventurers. When we look at personality traits the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator (MBTI) describes a typical entrepreneur as an extraverted, sensing, thinking and perceiving (ESTP) personality1.

So do entrepreneurs merely serve a beneficial role? Baumol elaborated on the role that entrepreneurs play. Innovation is regarded as productive entrepreneurship, yet there is unproductive, or even destructive, entrepreneurship which is of a questionable value to society (Baumol, 1990).

A relatively new development in personality psychology field is research on the dark triad of personality traits initiated by Paulhus and Williams (2002). The dark triad consists of a particular set of negative traits – Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy – which overlap in their callous and manipulative nature (Jones & Paulhus, 2011a). A plethora of examples can be found. Mainstream media are often quick to judge entrepreneur and presidential candidate Donald Trump. His grandiosity and the lack of empathy in his statements about immigrants could be an indication of narcissism. Sticking to the presidential theme, the successful Netflix television series "House of Cards" portrays the manipulative character of Machiavellian congressman Frank Underwood in his rise to power.

This study explores these darker side of entrepreneurs, their personality traits that can have negative personal and societal outcomes. Though the entrepreneurial personality has received a lot of attention, the negative aspects of the entrepreneurial personality have been ignored (Miller, 2015). Many of the positive characteristics are Janus-faced, high levels of need for achievement and independence can turn into aggressiveness and social deviance (Kets de Vries, 1985; Miller, 2015). Through this study we attempt to bolster DT research and establish a link with entrepreneurship. Hence we ask the question:

"What is the influence of the dark triad personality traits on the predictors of entrepreneurial intention?"

No precedent peer-reviewed study was found on the EBSCOhost online library. A further search via Google Scholar produced one (1) conference contribution of a comparable study among students of a German university2.

1_{16Personalities. (n.d.). ESTP Personality ("The Entrepreneur"). Retrieved January 14th, 2016 from}

http://www.16personalities.com/estp-personality

(6)

2. Theory and hypotheses

This chapter provides the theoretical framework of the paper. First, we briefly discuss relevant literature that makes up the background that guides the study. Second, the main concepts will be elaborated. The chapter concludes with an overview of definitions of the relevant concepts, hypotheses and a conceptual model .

2.1 The dark triad

The dark triad of personality traits (hereafter DT) consist of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. The selection of traits are related but are not equivalent, they are distinctive enough to warrant separate measurement (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) their overlap leads to the plea to study them as a triad. The field of research has drawn a lot of attention since a study completed by Paulhus and Williams (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). Answering to a debate about the overlap of the three traits (Gustafson & Ritzer, 1995; McHoskey J. , 1995; McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998), their research found evidence that narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy are distinct but share similarities.

In the recent history of DT several studies have compared them with the traditional Big Five in order to identify differences and similarities (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008). Almost all studies agree that the DT shares low agreeableness. Of the aforementioned studies all found that Machiavellianism and psychopathy score significantly low in agreeableness. The only exception is the Lee and Ashton study (2005) which did not find any significant relations between narcissism and low agreeableness.

Next to finding correlations between DT and the Big Five, several attempts have been made to study DT using the HEXACO model (Lee & Ashton, 2005; Jonason & McCain, 2012). In the HEXACO model the factors Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness and Emotionality differ from the Big Five. The addition of the Honesty-Humility factor is of interest to DT research as it is closely related to ethical behavior (Lee, et al., 2013). In general, behavior related to one or more DT traits can be regarded as immoral and often focused on manipulating others for personal gain.

2.1.1 Narcissism

The most important characteristic of narcissism in the DT is represented by grandiosity (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Grandiosity can be expressed by arrogance, bragging and pride. This also comes to light in their sense of self entitlement and a preoccupation with success an demand for admiration (Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) Additionally the narcissistic personality tends to be impulsive in a functional manner. Especially in short term social interactions where accuracy is less important narcissists will prosper. However their

personality: How narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy relate to entrepreneurial intention”.

(7)

impulsiveness is bound to damage interpersonal relationships in the long term (Vazire & Funder, 2006) as their arrogance and bragging interferes with their desire to attain status.

2.1.2 Machiavellianism

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Machiavellianism as the principles and practices of Machiavelli ("Machiavellianism", 2015). It refers to the cunning, unscrupulousness and duplicity in behavior as described in the works of Italian Renaissance diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli, most notable in his work The Prince (1532). Originally the term Machiavellian describes the manipulative nature of conduct in statecraft and politics. Compared to psychopaths Machiavellians are more strategic and less impulsive. In a manner that will not harm their reputation (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Though impulsive, Machiavellians refrain from counterproductive behaviors (Jones & Paulhus, 2011b).

2.1.3 Psychopathy

Psychopathy can be described as the most unstable trait of the DT. Like narcissists, and to certain extent Machiavellians, psychopaths are impulsive but in a very dysfunctional manner (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Within the literature of psychopathy subdivisions are sometimes mentioned. For instance some studies make a distinction between two factors of psychopathy, namely primary and secondary psychopathy (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). Primary psychopathy (factor 1) refers to the affective and interpersonal items selfishness, callous, lack of interpersonal affect, superficial charm and remorselessness. Secondary psychopathy (factor 2) refers to behavioral items like "chronically unstable and antisocial lifestyle; social deviance" (Hare, 1991) and antisocial impulses (Foster & Trimm, 2008). There is even research that suggests three facets of psychopathy or more (Cooke & Michie, 2001; Hare & Neumann, 2008). The original description of the DT by Paulhus and Jones (2002) does not make an explicit distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy but clearly caters towards the primary kind. Yet further research by Jakobwitz and Egan (2006) found clear evidence that secondary psychopathy has a unique variance unrelated to the DT. In line with these finding we adhere to the primary facet of psychopathy when discussing DT.

2.2 Entrepreneurial intention

(8)

Though SEE is catered to entrepreneurial behavior, we focus on the TPB in this study. Both models explain the formation of intentions yet it is the broader applicability of the TPB making it more frequently subjected to scrutiny within the field of entrepreneurship as well as in different contexts. Validated standardized measurements are therefore more readily available. According to Liñán and Chen (2009) results have shown that the TPB can be applied to entrepreneurship. One does not start a business unintentionally without any planning or forethought. Becoming an entrepreneur is a career choice resulting from active decision-making, hence per definition it is planned behavior. In this study we define EI as the effort that someone is willing to exert to carry out entrepreneurial behavior. Illustrations of this behavior in practice entail activities like planning one's education and career path towards becoming an entrepreneur or making serious efforts to start one's own company.

Ajzen (1991) explains intentions as the motivational factors indicating the amount of effort someone is willing and planning to exert. They are the single best predictor of any planned behavior, this includes entrepreneurial behavior (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). According to this theory and subsequent studies over the last two decades (Ajzen, 2011), there is extensive empirical support for the predictive validity of intentions and consequent behaviors (Bagozzi, Baumgartner, & Yi, 1989; Armitage & Conner, 2001; Schlaegel & Koenig, 2014). Intentions are a direct antecedent to behavior and can be predicted by three determinants: attitude towards the behavior, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control (figure 1).

figure 1: Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (1991)

2.2.1 Personal attitude

(9)

2.2.2 Subjective norm

According to the TPB the second determinant that shapes intentions is the subjective norm (hereafter SN). The subjective norm is the perceived social pressure to perform or to not perform the behavior (Ajzen I. , 1991). The subjective norm is formed by the normative beliefs a person has which are in their turn formed by the reference groups the person affiliates with. As suggested by Liñán and Chan (2009), in this research the subjective norm is focused on the reference groups: family, friends and colleagues. There are indications that the subjective norm is the least strong predictor of intentions (Armitage & Conner, 2001). This has two main causes. First, people with a strong internal locus of control are less susceptible for opinions and outside influences. Second, to action orientated people, attitudes are more important than subjective norms in shaping intentions (Bagozzi, Baumgartner, & Yi, 1992).

2.2.3 Perceived behavior control

Perceived behavioral control (hereafter PBC) implies one's own perception of his ability to perform desired behavior (Ajzen I. , 1991). It is the PBC variable that distinguishes the TPB from its predecessor the theory of reasoned action. High PBC indicates that a person expects to be able to perform a given behavior with ease (van Gelderen, et al., 2008).

(10)

table 1: Constructs and definitions

Constructs Definition References

Narcissism A callous, outgoing, and

impulsive personality characterized by grandiosity.

(Jones & Paulhus, 2014)

Psychopathy A personality characterized by

dysfunctional impulsiveness, selfishness and remorselessness towards others.

(Hare, 1991; Jones & Paulhus, 2011b)

Machiavellianism Orientation of a deceitful,

manipulative, callous and strategic-calculating

personality.

(Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Jones & Paulhus, 2011b)

Personal attitude The degree to which the

individual holds a positive or negative personal evaluation about being an entrepreneur.

(Ajzen I. , 1991; Liñán & Chen, 2009)

Subjective norm The perceived social pressure to

carry out — or not to carry out — entrepreneurial behaviors.

Perceived behavioral control The perception of the ease or difficulty of becoming an entrepreneur.

Entrepreneurial intention The effort that someone will

exert to carry out

entrepreneurial behavior.

2.3 Hypotheses

Based upon the previous literature review we can now discuss the reasoning for the hypotheses to be tested. We already have indicated that, though distinct, the DT traits have a certain overlap with each other. This might also cause overlap in the argumentation for the relations between the individual DT traits and the TPB constructs.

The first hypotheses we will discuss are related to narcissism. Looking back at the narcissistic personality as mentioned earlier, there are some characteristics that need to be considered. Their preoccupation with success and demand for admiration in particular. Entrepreneurship can be seen as a stage to excel and display your success. Hence, entrepreneurs are often met with a certain esteem. Therefore narcissists will have a positive evaluation about being an entrepreneur, leading to an increased personal attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior. This leads to our first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1a: Narcissism positively influences personal attitude.

(11)

Hypothesis 1b: Narcissism negatively influences the subjective norm.

PBC indicates the subject's perception of his ability to perform a given behavior. Considering the grandiosity of the narcissistic personality we assume that narcissists will overestimate their perceived behavioral control. Hence we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1c: Narcissism positively influences perceived behavioral control.

We now continue with Machiavellianism related hypotheses. Machiavellians are strategic and cunning. They are used to employing deception and manipulation to attain their personal goals (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). Unlike working as an employee – i.e. working under the supervision of a superior – being an entrepreneur entails all aspects of doing business. Hence, as entrepreneur, Machiavellians can exert more control and have a better ability to execute their strategies. For that reason we expect the Machiavellian to have a positive evaluation about being an entrepreneur and we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2a: Machiavellianism positively influences personal attitude.

Like narcissists, Machiavellians are associated with features of arrogance and feelings of superiority and grandiosity (McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998). Where narcissists are preoccupied with self-admiration, Machiavellian characteristics occur in the interaction with other people. While manipulation is the modus operandi of a Machiavellian, we expect them to be experienced with exerting control. This experience coupled with the aforementioned sense of superiority leads us to expect that subjects displaying Machiavellian traits will be less susceptible to social pressure and display higher levels of PBC. Hence we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2b: Machiavellianism negatively influences the subjective norm.

Hypothesis 2c: Machiavellianism positively influences perceived behavioral control. The last hypotheses to discuss are related to psychopathy. Like the narcissist a subclinical psychopath has a grandiose sense of self-worth (Cooke & Michie, 2001). Therefore we have similar expectations for the effect of psychopathy on personal attitude. Their deficits in interpersonal affect leads us to believe that, unlike the narcissist, the subclinical psychopath is not pre-occupied with displaying his grandiosity and is in a sense more self-reliant. This adds to the already selfish character of the psychopath and leads us to the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3a: Psychopathy positively influences personal attitude.

Emotional coldness and duplicity is a common behavior tendency shared among all of the DT traits. Therefore we assume that, like narcissism and Machiavellianism, psychopathy is not susceptible to social pressure. Hence we state:

Hypothesis 3b: Psychopathy negatively influences the subjective norm.

(12)

outcome, or the actual behavior, PBC depicts one's personal expectations about their ability to perform a behavior. Given the aforementioned self-reliance and selfishness we discussed, we expect that psychopathy leads to a higher PBC. Hence we state:

Hypothesis 3c: Psychopathy positively influences perceived behavioral control. A summary of the proposed hypotheses can be found in the conceptual model (figure 2).

figure 2: Conceptual model

3. Methodology

To connect two literature fields, this study tests existing theories on DT and EI. This study follows a quantitative research strategy. To test the aforementioned hypotheses a questionnaire has been developed. The questionnaire is based on the literature reviewed in the previous section. The resulting dataset is analyzed to test the relations between

3.1 Sample

In order to gather data we compiled a questionnaire measuring DT and EI. The questionnaire was dispersed among students and fresh alumni of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen. These students were sampled as they would have a natural inclination towards the business community and would most likely host aspiring entrepreneurs.

We screened alumni for their current occupation, any participants that were already in employment for over a year were excluded from the sample. We assume that being in wage labor for an extended period would have an impact on a subject's perspective on entrepreneurial intentions.

(13)

3.2 Measures

The questionnaire was compiled of two standardized measures (see appendix 1: SD3; appendix 2: EIQ). Therefore we did not conduct a factor analysis, instead we conducted a reliability analysis on all items per construct using Cronbach's alpha. We accept Cronbach's alpha values above 0.60 (Cronbach, 1951; Leliveld & Blaauwendraad, 2014).

3.2.1 The dark triad

The first part of the questionnaire is focused on DT traits. There is an abundance of questionnaire measures available. For example the Narcissism Personality Inventory (NPI-40), and the briefer NPI-16, identify narcissistic traits (Raskin & Hall, 1979; Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006). To assess Machiavellianism the "golden standard" is Christie and Geis' (1970) MACH-IV (Rauthmann, 2013). However, in order to overcome responder fatigue we applied the Short Dark Triad (SD3) to measure the constructs of Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Each construct was measured by means of 9 items, all on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All items were tested on reliability using the Cronbach’s alpha. Machiavellianism (α = 0.710) and psychopathy (α = 0.772) had an alpha higher than 0.7. The highest alpha for narcissism (α = 0.638) was attained after the deletion of three items. After the reliability analysis we combined the remaining items into sum variables for each construct.

3.2.2 Entrepreneurial intention

In order to measure EI we used the Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ) by Liñán & Chen (2009). This questionnaire is based upon the Theory of Planned Behavior by Ajzen (1991). It measures personal attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurial intention on a scale of 1 (total disagreement) to 7 (total agreement). Personal attitude (α = 0.954) was measured using 5 items. In the case of subjective norm the 7-point Likert scale expressed levels of approval rather than agreement. Subjective norm (α = 0.699) was measured by three items. Perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurial intention were measured using six items each, both were reliable with an alpha of respectively 0.907 and 0.965. After confirming the internal consistency via the Cronbach’s alpha we made a sum variable of each construct to use in the regression analysis.

3.3 Control variables

Previous research in the field has demonstrated a disposition of males in the dark triad. Males score significantly higher on all three of the DT traits (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009). Hence, we opted to control for gender in the collection and analysis of our data. In addition we controlled for age.

3.4 Quality criteria

To ensure validity we adhered to existing, validated instruments. The SD3, developed in 2011, is the integration of several decades of extensive research in each individual field of psychology3. The SD3 employs the aforementioned NPI, MACH-IV and the Self-Report

3

(14)

Psychopathy Scale (SRP) to measure each respective construct. Additionally the EIQ is a validated instrument.

The reliability of this study might be compromised due to the low sample size. Despite our efforts we unfortunately were unable to recruit more respondents. Ideally, a reproduction would require a sample size larger than n=100 to be able to be able to realize more conclusive findings.

4. Results

In this section we will present the results of the conducted analyses. As part of the descriptive statistics of our dataset we conducted a two-tailed correlation test in order to explore possible relations between the constructs and to describe the nature of these relationships. After the correlation analysis we will continue with the regression analysis. Each hypotheses was tested by conducting a linear regression analysis.

4.1 Correlation analysis

Through a bivariate correlation analysis we explored possible relations between dependent and independent variables. The results of the Pearson's correlation analysis can be found in table 2. The correlation matrix shows that Machiavellianism has a significant positive relationships with narcissism (r = .33, p < .01) and psychopathy (r = .607, p < .01). Additionally there is a significant positive relationship between narcissism and psychopathy (r = .391, p < .01). Narcissism also has a significant positive correlation with PBC (r = .232, p < .05). Looking at the TBP constructs, a significant positive relationships was found between PA and PBC (r = .683, p < .01). Finally, EI shared significant positive correlations with PA (r = .867, p < .01) and PBC (r = .690, p < .05).

table 2: Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Machiavellianism 28.68 5.7 - 2 Narcissism 28.20 4.8 .330** - 3 Psychopathy 21.31 6.0 .607** .391** - 4 PA 24.46 7.9 .142 .162 .201 - 5 SN 16.87 3.0 -.053 -.035 -.104 .193 6 PBC 27.16 7.4 .192 .232* .111 .683** .184 7 EI 24.32 11 .146 .178 .204 .867** .203 .690* * p < .05 (2-tailed) ** p < .01 (2-tailed) 4.2 Regression analysis

After the correlation analysis each hypotheses was subjected to a linear regression analysis.

4.2.1 Narcissism related hypotheses

(15)

relationship between narcissism and PA found in the regression analysis (table 3) was also not significant. Hence we can conclude that hypotheses 1a is rejected.

table 3: Results of regression analysis for H1a regarding PA

Model 1 Model 2

Step and variables B SE B SE

Intercept 2.11 (10.82) -5.12 (11.92) Control Age .68 (0.48) .72 (0.48) Gender 3.56 (1.83) 3.23 (1.83) Main effects Narcissism .24 (0.17) R Square .01 .12* Δ R Square .02

a. Dependent variable: Personal attitude

b. Significance levels: * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

H1b stated that narcissism has a negative effect on the subjective norm (SN). We expected a higher degree of narcissism would relate to a lower degree of perceived social pressure. In the correlation analysis no significant correlation was found between narcissism and SN. Nonetheless we attempted a linear regression analysis (table 4), again no significant relation was found. Hence we can conclude that hypotheses 1b is rejected.

table 4: Results of regression analysis for H1b regarding SN

Intercept 22.85*** (4.23) 23.56*** (4.7) Control Age -.24 (0.19) -.25 (0.72) Gender -.09 (0.71) -.06 (0.07) Main effects Narcissism -.02 (0.07) R Square .02 .03 Δ R Square .00

a. Dependent variable: Subjective norm b.* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < 0.001

(16)

between narcissism and PBC, B = .36, p < .05. This implies that subjects with higher degrees of narcissism are also likely to have higher degrees of PBC. Hence we conclude that hypothesis H1c is accepted.

table 5: Results of regression analysis for H1c regarding PBC

Intercept 11.16 (10.38) .21 (11.24) Control Age .62 (0.46) .69 (0.45) Gender .64 (1.75) .14 (1.73) Main effects Narcissism .36* (0.16) R Square .03 .08* Δ R Square .05

a. Dependent variable: Perceived behavioral control b. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < 0.001

4.2.2 Machiavellianism related hypotheses

H2a examines whether Machiavellianism has a effect on one's personal attitude (PA) towards entrepreneurial behavior. We expected this relationship to be positive. In the correlation analysis no significant correlation was found between Machiavellianism and PA. The positive relationship between Machiavellianism and PA found in the regression analysis (table 6) was also not significant. Hence we can conclude that hypotheses 3a is rejected.

Intercept 2.11 (10.82) -1.04 (11.50) Control Age .68 (0.48) .70 (0.48) Gender 3.56 (1.83) 3.20 (1.88) Main effects Machiavellianism .12 (0.15) R Square .01 .10* Δ R Square .01

a. Dependent variable: Personal attitude

b. Corr. significance levels: * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < 0.001

(17)

We expected a higher degree of Machiavellianism would relate to a lower degree of perceived social pressure. In the correlation analysis no significant correlation was found between Machiavellianism and SN. Nonetheless we attempted a linear regression analysis (table 7), again no significant relation was found. Hence we can conclude that hypotheses 2b is rejected.

Intercept 22.85*** (4.23) 23.45*** (4.51) Control Age -.24 (0.19) -.25 (0.19) Gender -.09 (0.71) -.02 (0.74) Main effects Machiavellianism -.02 (0.06) R Square .02 .03 Δ R Square .00

a. Dependent variable: Subjective norm

H2c stated that Machiavellianism would have a effect on one's perceived behavioral control (PBC). We expected this relationship to be positive. In the exploratory correlations analysis there was no significant positive relationship found between Machiavellianism and PBC. The positive relationship between Machiavellianism and PBC found in the regression analysis (table 8) was also not significant. Hence we can conclude that hypotheses 2c is rejected. table 8: Results of regression analysis for H2c regarding PBC

Intercept 11.61 (10.38) 4.91 (10.90) Control Age .62 (0.46) .65 (0.46) Gender .64 (1.75) -.08 (1.78) Main effects Machiavellianism .24 (0.14) R Square .03 .06 Δ R Square .03

a. Dependent variable: Perceived behavioral control

(18)

4.2.3 Psychopathy related hypotheses

H3a examines whether psychopathy has an effect on one's personal attitude (PA) towards entrepreneurial behavior. We expected this relationship to be positive. In the correlation analysis no significant correlation was found between psychopathy and PA. The relationship between psychopathy and PA found in the regression analysis (table 9) was slightly positive but also far from significant. Hence we can conclude that hypotheses 3a is rejected.

Intercept 2.11 (10.82) 1.26 (10.91) Control Age .68 (0.48) .66 (0.48) Gender 3.56 (1.83) 2.96 (2.00) Main effects Psychopathy .12 (0.15) R Square .01 .10 Δ R Square .06*

a. Dependent variable: Personal attitude

Hypothesis 3b states that psychopathy has a negative effect on the subjective norm (SN). We expected a higher degree of psychopathy would relate to a lower degree of perceived social pressure. In the correlation analysis no significant correlation was found between psychopathy and SN. In the subsequent linear regression analysis (table 10), we did not find a significant relation. Hence we can conclude that hypotheses 3b is rejected.

Intercept 22.85*** (4.23) 23.15*** (4.26) Control Age -.24 (0.19) -.23 (0.19) Gender -.09 (0.71) .12 (0.78) Main effects Psychopathy .09 (0.15) R Square .02 .03 Δ R Square .01

a. Dependent variable: subjective norm

(19)

Hypothesis 3c examines whether psychopathy has an effect on one's personal attitude (PA) towards entrepreneurial behavior. We expected this relationship to be positive. In the correlation analysis no significant correlation was found between psychopathy and PA. The relationship between psychopathy and PA found in the regression analysis (table 11) was also not significant. Hence we can conclude that hypotheses 3c is rejected.

table 11: Results of regression analysis for H2c regarding PBC

Intercept 11.61 (10.38) 10.50 (10.48) Control Age .62 (0.46) .60 (0.47) Gender .64 (1.75) .17 (1.92) Main effects Psychopathy .09 (0.15) R Square .03 .03 Δ R Square .04

a. Dependent variable: Perceived behavioral control

We conclude this section with a brief overview of the hypotheses and their related results in table 12.

table 12: Summary of hypothesis results

H. Description Result

1a Narcissism positively influences personal attitude rejected

1b Narcissism negatively influences subjective norm rejected

1c Narcissism positively influences perceived behavioral control accepted 2a Machiavellianism positively influences personal attitude rejected

2b Machiavellianism negatively influences subjective norm rejected

2c Machiavellianism positively influences perceived behavioral control rejected

3a Psychopathy positively influences personal attitude rejected

3b Psychopathy negatively influences subjective norm rejected

3c Psychopathy positively influences perceived behavioral control rejected 4.3 Further exploration

(20)

independent variables. Multicollinearity can inflate the standard error for the coefficients. For all following multiple regressions we will apply a standard method, rather than a stepwise method, as we are interested in: 1) the overall size of the relationships between the independent DT variables and each single dependent EI predictor; 2) and how much each independent variable contributes uniquely to the relationship.

Before starting the multiple regression to analyze the effect of the 3 independent DT variables on each respective EI variable we subject the variable to the seven main assumptions regarding multiple regression. Therefore each section will start with discussing outliers, collinearity of data, independent errors, random normal distribution of errors, homoscedasticity and linearity of data and non-zero variances. All assumptions should be met in order for the variables to be eligible for further analysis.

4.3.1 The effect of the dark triad on personal attitude

In our first analysis we look at the effects of DT on PA. The sample passed all aforementioned assumptions for multiple regressions. An analysis of standard residuals was carried out, which showed that the data contained no outliers (Std. Residual Min = -2.61, Std. Residual Max = 1.55) as the minimum and maximum values were between -3.29 and 3.29. Subsequently, tests to see if the data met the assumption of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (narcissism, tolerance = .83, VIF = 1.20; Machiavellianism, tolerance = .62, VIF = 1.61; psychopathy, tolerance = .59, VIF = 1.69). The data met the assumption of independent errors (Durbin-Watson value = 1.86) as its Durbin-Watson value is close to 2 and not under 1 or over 3. After that we looked at the assumptions of random normally distributed errors and homoscedasticity and linearity (see appendix 3). Looking at the histogram of standardized residuals we can see the data contained errors that are most likely normally distributed. This was reaffirmed in the P-P plot of standardized residuals, all points are in close proximity of the line. To see if our data meets the assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity we analyze the scatterplot of standardized predicted values. The scatterplot suggests that the assumptions are met. Finally the data also met the assumption of non-zero variances (narcissism, variance = 23.07 ; Machiavellianism, variance = 32.00; psychopathy, variance = 35.42; personal attitude = 63.63).

(21)

4.3.2 The effect of the dark triad on the subjective norm

We continued with the regression between DT and SN. In preparations of the multiple analysis we analyzed our data to see if they would meet the seven main assumptions regarding multiple regression. We already confirmed that the independent variables met the assumptions regarding collinearity in the first multiple regression regarding DT and PA. An analysis of standard residuals was carried out, which showed that the data contained no outliers (Std. Residual Min = -2.77, Std. Residual Max = 1.49). The data met the assumption of independent errors (Durbin-Watson value = 1.71) as its Durbin-Watson value is close to 2 and not under 1 or over 3. We continued with testing the assumptions of random normally distributed errors and homoscedasticity and linearity (see appendix 4). Looking at the histogram of standardized residuals we can see the data contained errors that are most likely normally distributed. This was reaffirmed in the P-P plot of standardized residuals, all points are in close proximity of the line. To see if our data meets the assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity we analyze the scatterplot of standardized predicted values. The scatterplot suggests that the assumptions are met. Finally the data also met the assumption of non-zero variances. We already established the non-zero variance of the DT variables. The SN variable also met the assumption of non-zero variance (subjective norm, variance = 8.98).

Subsequently, a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to predict SN based on narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. In line with the original hypotheses on SN we expected the relation to be negative. The relation found was insignificant. The regression equation – controlled for age and sex – found (F(5,85) = .502, p = .774), with an R2 of .169. SN is equal to 23.335 - .006 (narcissism) - 0.0 (Machiavellianism) - .038 (psychopathy). The multiple linear regressions tells us we cannot reject the null hypothesis, meaning that the model cannot accurately predict the outcome. Outcomes of this model are based on chance.

4.3.3 The effect of the dark triad on perceived behavioral control

(22)

After passing the main assumptions for multiple regressions we can continue the actual regression to see if the levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy predict the value of personal PBC. In line with the original hypotheses on we expected the relation between DT and PBC to be positive. The relation found was insignificant. Though the insignificance would render further reporting of the regression equation irrelevant, we do report it as it might benefit the process of uncovering any mistakes made. The regression equation – controlled for age and sex – found (F(5,85) = 2.278, p = .054), with an R2 of .107. PBC is equal to - 4.545 + .350 (narcissism) + .242 (Machiavellianism) - .180 (psychopathy). This leads us to fail to reject the null hypothesis, meaning that the model cannot accurately predict the outcome. Outcomes of this model are based on chance.

A summary of the multiple regression for all the tested relations can be found in table 12. table 13: Summary of simple multiple regression for the effect of DT variables on EI predictors (N=91)

Personal Attitude Subjective Norm Perc. Behavioral control

Variable B SE β B SE β B SE β Narcissism .06 .18 .043 .00 .07 .00 .24 .17 .19 Machiavellianism .21 .19 .129 -.01 .07 -.01 .35 .17 .23 Psychopathy .00 .20 .003 -.08 .08 -.08 -.18 .18 -.15 R2 .12 .03 .11 F 2.28 .50 2.03

Corr. significance levels: * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < 0.001

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study examined the influence of the narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy (also known as the dark triad of personality traits) on the personal attitude, the subjective norm and perceived behavioral control as predictors of entrepreneurial intention among students of the Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB) of the University of Groningen. The preparatory correlation analysis immediately questioned the correlations we suggested based on our literature review. Only one (1) of the nine proposed correlations was significant, the relation between narcissism and perceived behavioral control (PBC). In the following linear regression analyses all nine relations between DT variables and the predictors of EI were researched. Once more, of the nine aforementioned relationships eight were insignificant. The one (1) significant relation we found was the positive relation between narcissism and PBC (B = .36, p < .05.). This empirical support allowed us to accept hypothesis 1c, indicating that individuals with a higher level of narcissism are correlated to a higher degree of PBC.

5.1 Findings

(23)

of the relation between narcissism and leadership. The study states that moderate levels of narcissism were ideal for leadership effectiveness whereas high levels of narcissism hinder leadership.

Additionally, we found clear evidence that the DT variables in this dataset are not multicollinear. This finding was contrary to our expectations given the strong (p < .01) correlations found in the preparatory bivariate correlation analysis. This affirms Paulhus and Jones (2002) opposing reactions towards the suggestion that narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy are interchangeable (Gustafson & Ritzer, 1995; McHoskey J. , 1995; McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998). In line with the modern consensus on the dark triad (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013) we found that the three variables are related but distinct.

5.2 Research limitations and further research

Reverting back to our proposed research question, "What is the influence of the dark triad personality traits on the predictors of entrepreneurial intention?" we have to acknowledge that the actual results do not compare with the expected results. The influence of the DT traits on the predictors of EI was only found in narcissism.

So does failing to find more significant relationships mean that DT has no influence on the predictors of EI? We cannot make that conclusion either. The nonfindings of this study suggest three possible arguments. There could indeed be no relation between DT and the predictors of EI. But there are also other options to be considered, there could be flaws in the theory or in the methodology. In other words our hypotheses might be incorrect or our methods cannot produce definitive evidence to support these hypotheses. We have indications that the latter is a likely culprit.

During our analysis we came across strong indications that the inconclusive results from our research are due to a low sample size (N = 91). The particular abnormality that caught our attention was the discrepancy between each model's R2 and adjusted R-squared. The discrepancies between the R2 and the adjusted R-squared of each model indicate that the sample size is too low. The calculated R2 is too optimistic and most likely overestimates the model. Each model and their respective R2 and adjusted R-squared can be found in table 14. table 14: R2 and adjusted R square found per relation in the simple multiple regression (N=91)

Relation R2 Adj. R Square

DT predicting PA .118 .066

DT predicting SN .169 .029

DT predicting PBC .327 .107

(24)

students of a Bsc. program and 4% were non-business students. However, in retrospect it would be reasonable to assume that at this level of education business students are the most perseverant and ambitious. At the Msc. level, students have already passed requisite Bsc. and pre-master level degrees and made an active decision to continue their entrepreneurship education. Student with less ambition or interest in entrepreneurship might have pursued different paths. Paulhus and Jones (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) state that common behavior of the DT traits contains self-promotion, duplicity, aggressiveness. Though socially malicious, these behaviors can all be of use in attaining entrepreneurial goals in the modern business environment The ambition to fulfill their entrepreneurial goals might reflect a higher than average score on the DT scales among the students surveyed.

As a last remark for further research, the questionnaire compiled and the extended conceptual model, containing the full theory of planned behavior (Ajzen I. , 1991), can be employed to test the full relation between DT and EI. A research design based on a structural equation model can investigate the full relation of the DT variables on entrepreneurial intentions and behavior via the mediators attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. This would provide a more in-depth analysis and might uncover latent constructs.

5.3 Conclusion

Overall, this study suggested and tested a relation between the dark triad of personality traits and the predictors of entrepreneurial intention. We found that narcissism has a significant positive relationship with perceived behavioral control. All other relationships were insignificant. Further exploration of the dataset revealed that the independent variables of the dark triad, namely narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, are not multicollinear. It should be noted that this study was conducted on a limited sample size consisting of business students. Therefore further research is suggested on a larger and more diverse group of respondents before generalized conclusions can be drawn.

References

"Machiavellianism". (2015). Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/233583?redirectedFrom=machiavellianism.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Pyschology and Health, 26(9), 1113-1127.

Ajzen, I., & Fischbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, J. B. T., & Z. M. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

(25)

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499.

Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., & Yi, Y. (1992). State versus action orientation and the theory of reasoned action: An application to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 505-518.

Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, J., & Yi, Y. (1989). An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(1), 35-62.

Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893-921.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic. Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a

hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 171-188.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcisssm and approach-avoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 1004-1017.

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216.

Gustafson, S. B., & Ritzer, D. R. (1995). The dark side of normal: A psychopathy-linked pattern called aberrant self-promotion. European Journal of Personality, 9(3), 147-183.

Hare. (1991). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217-246.

Harms, P. D., Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1-47.

Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331-339.

(26)

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23(1), 5-18.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011a). Differentiating the Dark Triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz, & S. Strack, Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 249-269). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011b). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 679-682.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3): A brief measure of Dark Personality Traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28-41.

Kets de Vries, M. F. (1985). The dark side of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 63(6), 160-167.

Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411-432.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571-1582.

Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., & Gallucci, A. (2013). Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the dark triad and honesty-humility. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 169-184.

Leliveld, M., & Blaauwendraad, G. (2014, Juli). Stap 3: correlatie en betrouwbaarheidsanalyse. In M. Leliveld, & G. Blaauwendraad, SPSS Handboek. Gebruik, tips, toepassingen & technieken. Rapportage (pp. 12-16). Groningen: Faculteit Economie & Bedrijfskunde, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Liñán, F., & Chen, Y.-W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593-617.

McHoskey, J. (1995). Narcissism and Machiavellianism. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 755-759.

McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 192-210.

Miller, D. (2015). A downside to the entrepreneurial personality. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 39(1), 1-8.

(27)

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563.

Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Pscychological Reports, 45(2), 590-590.

Rauthmann, J. F. (2013). Investigating the MACH–IV with item response theory and proposing the trimmed MACH*. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(4), 388-397. Schlaegel, C., & Koenig, M. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta-analytic

test and integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(2), 291-332.

Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Roe Publishers.

Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sextion, & K. Vesper, The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72-90). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Van Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van der Bij, H. (2007). Quality criteria for research. In J. Van Aken, H. Berends, & H. Van der Bij, Problem solving in organizations: A methodological handbook for business students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E., & van Gils, A. (2008). Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of planned behaviour. Career Development International, 13(6), 538-559.

van Praag, M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351-382.

Vazire, S., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 154-165.

(28)

Appendix 1: Delroy L. Paulhus' Short Dark Triad test (SD3)

SD3.1.1 – 27 items

Please rate your agreement or disagreement with each item using the following guidelines.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree

Agree Strongly agree

Machiavellianism subscale

1. It's not wise to tell your secrets.

2. I like to use clever manipulation to get my way.

3. Whatever it takes, you must get the important people on your side.

4. Avoid direct conflict with others because they may be useful in the future. 5. It’s wise to keep track of information that you can use against people later. 6. You should wait for the right time to get back at people.

7. There are things you should hide from other people because they don’t need to know. 8. Make sure your plans benefit you, not others.

9. Most people can be manipulated.

Narcissism subscale

1. People see me as a natural leader. 2. I hate being the center of attention. (R)

3. Many group activities tend to be dull without me.

4. I know that I am special because everyone keeps telling me so. 5. I like to get acquainted with important people.

6. I feel embarrassed if someone compliments me. (R) 7. I have been compared to famous people.

8. I am an average person. (R)

9. I insist on getting the respect I deserve.

Psychopathy

(29)

Appendix 2: EIQ - Measures of Core Entrepreneurial Intention Model

Elements

Derived from Liñán, & Chen (2009)

Personal attitude

Indicate your level of agreement with the following sentences from 1 (total disagreement) to 7 (total agreement).

1. Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages to me. 2. A career as entrepreneur is attractive for me.

3. If I had the opportunity and resources, I’d like to start a firm. 4. Being an entrepreneur would entail great satisfactions for me. 5. Among various options, I would rather be an entrepreneur.

Subjective norm

If you decided to create a firm, would people in your close environment approve of that decision? Indicate from 1 (total disapproval) to 7 (total approval).

1. Your close family. 2. Your friends. 3. Your colleagues.

Perceived Behavioral Control

To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding your entrepreneurial capacity? Value them from 1 (total disagreement) to 7 (total agreement).

1. To start a firm and keep it working would be easy for me. 2. I am prepared to start a viable firm.

3. I can control the creation process of a new firm. 4. I know the necessary practical details to start a firm. 5. I know how to develop an entrepreneurial project.

6. If I tried to start a firm, I would have a high probability of succeeding.

Entrepreneurial Intention

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7 (total agreement)

1. I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur. 2. My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur. 3. I will make every effort to start and run my own firm. 4. I am determined to create a firm in the future.

(30)

(31)

(32)

Shedding light on the Dark Side of Entrepreneurship:

Master's thesis