Giving the benefit of the doubt: the role of vulnerability in the perception of Dark Triad behaviours.

The 'Dark Triad' of socially aversive personality traits (Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy) is typically associated with grandiosity, callousness, and exploitation. Despite this, people with such traits can be very successful in life, especially in the occupational context. This study investigated the characteristics of individuals who enable and abet people high on Dark Triad traits (e.g. through tolerating unpleasant behaviours, not challenging unethical conduct, etc.). High Dark Triad individuals may be able to identify individuals who are susceptible to social manipulation and who are therefore less likely to challenge their behaviours. This study used a 20-item Vulnerability Scale to capture the characteristics of individuals who fall victim to people high on the Dark Triad traits. Cronbach's alpha for the Vulnerability Scale was .80. Pearson's correlation between total vulnerability scores and each of the Big Five personality traits revealed that predictors of vulnerability to social manipulation include low extraversion, low conscientiousness, high neuroticism, and high agreeableness. The vignette method was used to elicit perceptions of Dark Triad behaviours from those who are found to demonstrate signs of social vulnerability. Differences in response styles on Likert-type statements and open-ended questions were found between the high and low vulnerability groups.

Public feedback - but personal feedforward?

Academic feedback is taken here as the reporting to student writers of the strengths and weaknesses of their submitted draft work, while academic feedforward refers to constructive advice regarding possible strengthening of students’ next work. Both originate from a tutor’s initial judgement of a student’s work. Feedback and feedforward on work showing need for improvement are problematic in a Confucian Heritage Culture. Even gently constructive advice within a programme seeking evidence for assessment of critical thinking may lead to perception of hurtful criticism by Taiwanese students. Some could withdraw from class activity accordingly. So the writers adjusted their response style. They now choose between different approaches featuring tutorial feedback or feedforward, depending on the standard of work being judged. When individual postings feature poor critical thinking, the writers opt for private messages concentrating on constructive feedforward. For better postings, they provide positive feedback with reasons for their judgements, and summarise to the class these exemplars of generic strengths in critical thinking. They also offer private prompting when they see scope for further enrichment of an able student’s critical thinking. This might also be a useful practice when tutoring solely in the West. (192 words) Keywords: Confucian Heritage Culture, public feedback, private feedforward, assessment