Machiavellianism (psychology)
[1][2][3][4] Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis created the construct and named it after Niccolò Machiavelli, as they used truncated and edited statements similar to his writing style to study variations in human behaviors.
[11][12][13] In 1955, psychologist Richard Christie set out to study the thought processes and actions of those who manipulated others, such as political ideologues and religious extremists.
Then as Christie was developing a psychometric for interpersonal manipulation, he was reminded of his encounter with Machiavelli's writings as an undergraduate, and wanted to adapt them to suit his research.
[18] Christie made light of the difficulty in adapting Machiavelli's writings into a non-political test, joking that his advice was "better suited for Renaissance princes" than for college undergraduates.
[32] Christie and Geis's MACH IV test, a 20-question, Likert-scale personality survey, became the standard self-report tool to measure one's level of Machiavellianism.
Christie states that while manipulators are to be found in organizations of differing ideals, they are more likely to be interested in tactics that achieve individual ends than inflexible idealistic ones.
[56] One particular study found a gene responsible for dopamine reception was positively associated with individuals who scored high on the MACH IV, but it is unclear what specific mechanisms cause this effect.
In the study by Vernon et al (2008), genetic factors for Machiavellianism and psychopathy were correlated, which suggests that the variability of both qualities is greatly affected by the same genes.
[63][64] One study even stated that "the etiology of Machiavellianism, similarly to the development of a dismissing-avoidant pattern, partly originates from childhood experiences obtained in relationships with unexpressive, less understanding, highly punitive or restrictive caregivers".
The authors of the study concluded that these results "might give further support for the idea that Machiavellian personality traits are possible strategic responses to childhood adversities".
[64] Another study found the traits of Machiavellianism to be a response to early maladaptive schemas (EMS), essentially coping mechanisms for emotional deprivation, mistrust, abuse, and caregiver rejection.
[76] Peer reports suggest that children higher in Machiavellianism exhibit behaviors such as using both prosocial and coercive strategies based on how much is to be gained in a situation, and they tend to manipulate indirectly.
[87][88] Delroy L. Paulhus and McHoskey debated these perspectives at an American Psychological Association conference, inspiring a body of research that continues to grow in the published literature.
[92] Many psychologists consider Machiavellianism to be essentially indistinguishable from psychopathy, as they both share manipulative tendencies, disregard for morality, and cold callousness as their primary attributes.
[96] According to John McHoskey, the MACH-IV test is merely "a global measure of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized populations", and that this is a result of the disconnect between clinical and personality psychology.
[41][42][120] Psychologists who stress the differences between Machiavellianism and psychopathy state that, in total contrast to high Machs, psychopaths are impulsive, tend to be reckless, and lack long term planning skills.
[69] O'Boyle and others found however that the notion that Machiavellianism is marked by cautiousness does not match empirical research which shows that it can be correlated with reckless behavior in certain situations.
This means that people who score high in Machiavellianism tend to exhibit behaviors that prioritize their own benefit over others' which correlate with characteristis that align with the D factor.
[178][179] A recent analysis discovered that, in addition to acting for mostly self interest and profit, High Machs used significantly less words when referring to emotional involvement.
[161][191][192] Due to their skill at interpersonal manipulation, there has often been an assumption that high Machs possess superior intelligence, or ability to understand other people in social situations.
The findings of one paper revealed that while trait EI and the ability to manage others' emotions were negatively correlated with Machiavellianism, this relationship was mediated by agreeableness.
[196][163] When it comes to manipulation, individuals high in Machiavellianism may, according to Bereczkei, "have certain cognitive and social skills that enable them to properly adapt to the challenges of environmental circumstances".
[198] A recent study investigated whether Machiavellianism is associated with the production of "bullshit", which is defined as inaccurate or meaningless information intended to impress, persuade or mislead.
[200] Researcher Tamas Bereczkei stated that the manipulation skill in High Machs is associated with neural correlates that are responsible for decision making.
[211] Studies done on courtship showed that women higher on machiavellianism tend to go on dates not for sexual reasons but for free food, a phenomenon known as a "foodie call".
[212] Because a lack of empathy and affect with regards to others is one of the main features of Machiavellianism, individuals high on the trait tend to act in a utilitarian, self interested manner, prefer emotionally detached relationships, and are not concerned with the other person's needs.
[218][219][220] One of the studies concluded that "The third DT trait, Machiavellianism, was significantly negatively associated with being chosen and mate appeal for STR (short term relationships) in women.
[120][232] In a study by Delroy Paulhus and Daniel Jones, High Machs were found to refrain from cheating under risky situations, preferring to sustain their reputation for the long term than to engage in short-term financial gain.
[234] McHoskey found that MACH is associated with "cheating, divulging intimate sexual secrets to third parties, and both feigning love and inducing intoxication to secure sex".
[254] A study done by David Wilson and other researchers noted that while High Machs tend to defect from their groups, they are also unlikely to succeed in the long term simply by manipulating others, and that some cooperation is necessary for further success and to avoid a situation in which they are retaliated against.
