In the field of personality psychology, Machiavellianism (sometimes abbreviated as MACH) is the name of a personality trait construct characterized by manipulativeness, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest. "In sum, the key elements of Machiavellianism appear to be (a) manipulativeness, (b) callous affect, and (c) a strategic-calculating orientation." —- Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis created the construct in the 1960s. They devised a set of statements to study variations in human behaviors and named it after Niccolò Machiavelli. The construct has no relation to the historical figure outside of bearing his name. Their Mach IV test, a 20-question, Likert-scale personality survey, became the standard self-assessment tool and scale of the Machiavellianism construct. Those who score high on the scale (High Machs) are more likely to have a high level of deceitfulness, exploitativeness and a cold, unemotional temperament.
It is one of the dark triad traits, along with the subclinical versions of narcissism and psychopathy.
Origin of the construct
The creation of a manipulation scale
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. He found that there was much literature on those who followed organizations and movements, but very little on those who led them. He began by conceptualizing what qualities a potential manipulator would have, such as a lack of empathy and affect, and being unconcerned with moral standards. Then as Christie was developing a psychometric for interpersonal manipulation, he thought it necessary to utilize the style of the various authors he was researching to better suit the needs of the construction of the test.See the chapter "Why Machiavelli" in Studies in Machiavellianism, 1970. pages 1-9 In the 1960s, Christie and his colleagues would then develop a test using a selection of their own statements which they viewed were discriminatory enough to measure personality differences, naming the construct "Machiavellianism". They wanted to assess whether or not those who were in agreement with the statements would behave differently than others who disagreed, specifically in regards to manipulative actions. Christie and his research partner Florence L. Geis published their results in their book, titled "Studies in Machiavellianism", in 1970.
The test items used were their own statements which they viewed Machiavelli could say, and were not direct statements from his works.
On the name of the scale
While the construct is named "Machiavellianism", it does not refer to the political theory espoused in Machiavelli's books (also called Machiavellianism)."Note that the definition of Machiavellianism in psychology is simply a collection of specific traits (a person being cold, calculating, etc.). This is different from how the term has been used in, e.g., political theory." Laakasuo, M., Sundvall, J. R., Berg, A., Drosinou, M., Herzon, V., Kunnari, A., ... & Palomäki, J. (2021). Moral psychology and artificial agents (Part two): The transhuman connection. In Machine law, ethics, and morality in the age of artificial intelligence (pp. 189-204). IGI Global."...The Machiavellian personality in Mach-IV has little, if anything, to do with Machiavelli, either the man or his work." Cohen, A. (2018). Counterproductive work behaviors: Understanding the dark side of personalities in organizational Life. Routledge. pg 121"Because of the reactivity association with its nomenclature, the personality orientation, Machiavellianism, has frequently been confused with a political philosophy which is in conflict with democratic principles." Richford, M. (1981). A study of the Machiavellian orientation locus of control and job satisfaction of a selected sample of Virginia public school secondary level principals. Because the two concepts share the same name, they can be confused for and conflated with one another, even though his political ideas are not relevant to psychology.Cohen, A. (2018). Counterproductive work behaviors: Understanding the dark side of personalities in organizational Life. Routledge. pg 121 Scholars have asserted that the variable has no relation to Machiavelli outside of bearing his name, and that it has nothing to do with Machiavelli's politics. Christie himself makes clear that he used sentences inspired by Machiavelli's works only as a sort of litmus test to study deceptive and manipulative behavior, and that his concern was not with Machiavelli's historical or political influence, stating specifically that:
Historians disagree as to whether Machiavelli was a cynic who wrote political satire, a patriot, or the first modern political scientist. The present concern is not with Machiavelli as an historic figure, but as the source of ideas about those who manipulate others.
Christie stated that he chose the name "Machiavellianism" out of convenience seeing as other names such as "M scale" (M for manipulation) and "Ma scale" (which was used by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for hypomania) were taken. Names also considered were the "manipulator" or "operator" scale, but these terms had issues regarding behavioral validity. He also accepts that by using the name "Machiavellianism", the scale would "create problems of public misunderstanding" due to the pre-existing political meaning of the term. In a later essay, Christie even states that some have viewed the name problematic and that "the use of the word Machiavellianism to describe the content of the scales has been questioned".Christie, R. Geis, F. "Some Consequences with Taking Machiavelli Seriously" in Edgar F. Borgatta and William W. Lambert (eds.). Handbook of Personality Theory and Research Many have called for the concept to be renamed entirely.
MACH-IV 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. Those who score highly on the scale are classified as high Machs, while those who score low are classified as low Machs. "Machiavellian" is also used but has a far more technical use in this context, and has been adopted by psychologists to refer to this scale and those who score high on it. "The terms dark personalities, narcissists, Machiavellians, and psychopaths are not used as diagnostic labels, but as abbreviations only for people scoring (highly) on respective personality dimensions. Further, no pathology is implied; the terms are solely used for subclinical forms of the respective personality dimensions"----Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and interpersonal perception: Similarities and differences in the social consequences of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 487-496. Furtner, M. R., Maran, T., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2017). Dark leadership: The role of leaders' dark triad personality traits. Leader development deconstructed, 75-99. "Machiavellians—individuals who have high scores on Mach scales—display a specific emotion regulation style."----Deak, A., Bodrogi, B., Biro, B., Perlaki, G., Orsi, G., & Bereczkei, T. (2017). Machiavellian emotion regulation in a cognitive reappraisal task: An fMRI study. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17, 528-541. "Individuals with high scores on Mach scales—that is "high Machs" (HM) in short or "Machiavellians"—have a tendency to be callous, selfish, and malevolent in their interpersonal dealings." ------Bereczkei, T., Szabo, Z. P., & Czibor, A. (2015). Abusing good intentions: Machiavellians strive for exploiting cooperators. SAGE Open, 5(2), 2158244015593119. "According to research conducted on the Machiavellianism scale, respondents with high scores on a Machiavellianism scale are titled as Machiavellians or high Machs; those with low scores on the scale have been called non-Machiavellians or low Machs."--------- Crotts, J. C., Aziz, A., & Upchurch, R. S. (2005). Research note: Relationship between Machiavellianism and sales performance. Tourism Analysis, 10(1), 79-84. "The term Machiavellian is used here and hereafter not as a diagnosis or label, but as a term denoting someone who scores highly on Machiavellianism."--Rauthmann, J. F., & Will, T. (2011). Proposing a multidimensional Machiavellianism conceptualization. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 39(3), 391-403. Using their scale, Christie and Geis conducted multiple experimental tests that showed that the interpersonal approaches and behavior of "high Machs" and "low Machs" differ. People scoring high on the scale tend to endorse manipulative statements, and behave accordingly, contrary to those who score lowly. People scoring high on the scale tend to endorse statements such as, "Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so," (No. 1) but not ones like, "Most people are basically good and kind" (No. 4), "There is no excuse for lying to someone else" (No. 7) or "Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives" (No. 11) Their basic results have been widely replicated. Measured on the Mach IV scale, males score, on average, slightly higher on Machiavellianism than females.
The Mach IV test influenced the creation of an assessment called the Dirty Dozen, which contains 12 items, and the Short Dark Triad, composed of 27 items. The MACH-IV (and other Machiavellianism tests) also feature questions loosely inspired by other thinkers such as Chinese political authors.
High vs Low Machiavellianism
Like all personality traits, Machiavellianism is a characteristic that exists on a spectrum or continuum. Christie and others noted that High Machs were more likely to cheat in experimental games, manipulate others around them, and were generally detached in their interactions. This was opposed to the behavior of Low Machs, who found such behaviors immoral, and refrained from them.
The higher a person is on the Machiavellianism scale, the more likely they are to deceive and exploit at the expense of someone else, engage in unprincipled behavior, and have a lack of empathetic feelings.
Core features In developing the construct, Christie theorized that a "manipulator" or "operator" would possess the following characteristics:
1. A relative lack of affect in interpersonal relationships: Manipulators do not empathize with their victims. The more empathy one has, Christie says, the less likely one will manipulate a person to do their bidding.
2. A lack of concern for conventional morality: Christie asserts that the manipulator is not concerned with the morality of behaviors such as lying and cheating.
3. A lack of gross psychopathology: Christie states that manipulators usually have an instrumentalist view of the world, which shows a lack of psychosis or other mental impairments.
4. Low ideological commitment: Manipulators prefer to focus on getting things done pragmatically rather than focus on ideological allegiances. 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.
Five-Factor Model Under the Five-Factor Model of Machiavellianism, three characteristics underlie the construct: Antagonism: manipulativeness, cynicism, selfishness, callousness, and arrogance. Planfulness: deliberation and orderliness. Agency: achievement-striving, assertiveness, self-confidence, emotional invulnerability, activity and competence.
Causes Genetics and upbringing