Machiavellianism (psychology)

In the field of personality psychology, Machiavellianism (sometimes abbreviated as MACH) is the name of a personality trait construct characterized by interpersonal manipulation, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest. Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis named the construct after Niccolò Machiavelli, as they used truncated and edited statements inspired by his works to study variations in human behaviors. 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 manipulativeness, deceitfulness and a cynical, unemotional temperament.

It is one of the dark triad traits, along with the subclinical versions of narcissism and psychopathy.

Adapting Machiavelli for psychometric use
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. As Christie was developing a psychometric model for interpersonal manipulation, he was reminded of his encounter with Machiavelli's writings as an undergraduate, and wanted to use them in his research. In the 1960s, Christie and his colleagues would then develop a test using a selection of statements, including truncated and edited sentences that were similar to certain phrases found in Machiavelli's works such as The Prince and The Discourses on Livy as test items, naming the construct "Machiavellianism" after him. 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".

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. Christie used more colloquial, everyday wording when creating the scale items, as most taking the test would have difficulties understanding the questions in their original prose. Thus Christie used test items that were "theoretically congruent with" or loosely based on Machiavelli's tone, instead of literal, direct statements from his works.

While the construct is named "Machiavellianism", it does not refer to the political theory espoused in Machiavelli's books. Because the two concepts share the same name, they can be confused for one another, even though his actual political ideas are not relevant to psychology. In fact, some questions on the MACH-IV are not from Machiavelli at all. For example, two of them reference P.T. Barnum (born 1810) and voluntary euthanasia, both of which are unrelated to Machiavelli's ideas. One researcher commented that despite the name, Machiavellianism 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."

Researcher and Psychology Today author Dale Hartley made this point more clear in his book, Machiavellians: Gulling The Rubes: "When psychologists refer to the terms, Machiavellian or Machiavellianism, they do not mean Machiavelli's political advice. They refer instead to the underlying personality traits of cynicism, duplicity and scheming by which master manipulators conceive and execute their agendas."

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. Using their scale, Christie and Geis conducted multiple experimental tests that showed that the interpersonal strategies 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.

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 one 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 studying manipulators, Christie theorized that they 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 recently devised 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.

Genetic and environmental
Several behavioral genetics studies on the dark triad have shown that Machiavellianism has both significantly genetic and environmental influences. Researchers have noted that while Machiavellianism is heritable to a substantial degree, it can also be influenced by the shared-environment (i.e. sibling groups) slightly more than narcissism and psychopathy. Other traits associated with machiavellianism are influenced by genetics as well, as one study notes that "The co-occurrence of alexithymia and Machiavellianism was most heavily influenced by genetic factors, and to a lesser but significant extent by non-shared environmental factors." Machiavellianism is also heavily correlated with primary psychopathy which is itself strongly heritable. A study on the "core" of dark triad traits also emphasized that the residual traits of Machiavellianism had "significant genetic components". 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. A study noted that the emotionality of Machiavellianism may also be genetically determined, with the authors stating that "it can be expected that in the case of Machiavellianism, the genetic influence may manifest itself by affecting the emotional sphere. That affective insensitivity – as McIlwain (2003) designates it--makes Machiavellians similar to psychopaths. 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. The genetically determined “cool syndrome” makes it easier for the child to use effective manipulation, leading to the development of a permanent behaviour strategy, at the same time protecting the child from internal punishments such as shame or guilt."

Studies have found a link between Machiavellianism and a blunted cortisol awaking response (CAR). A person's cortisol awaking response has been associated with a lack of affective empathy, and is highly heritable.

Environmental causes

The environmental causes (such as shared, and non-shared environment) that contribute to the development of machiavellianism were childhood maltreatment and neglect, social reinforcement of manipulative behaviors from an early age, and poor family functioning. 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". In many studies, Machiavellianism has been heavily correlated with negative home atmospheres, loneliness, and adverse parental experiences. One study noted that punishment specifically led to the "emergence of deceitful and exploitative interpersonal tactics." 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". 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. Irregular parent care, such as a mother being neglectful and a father being overprotective, has also been correlated with Machiavellianism. The hereditary influence on Machiavellianism may make it challenging to disentangle the genetic underpinnings from the effects of parental upbringing and environmental factors.

In general, Jones (2020) asserts that "there may be a myriad of reasons, including some environmental reasons, as to why someone would become cynical, habitually ignore morality, or use manipulative persuasion. There may be others who are born cynical, manipulative, and amoral. Thus, there may be differences in etiology that lead to differences in how fixed the trait is, and how it is expressed".

Machiavellianism in children
Ever since the creation of the construct in the 1960s, there has been extensive research on Machiavellianism in young children and adolescents, via a measure dubbed the "Kiddie Mach" test. The first study was done in 1966 as a part of Dorothea Braginsky's doctoral dissertation, with the subjects being as young as 10 years old. Studies have shown that traits of Machiavellianism and other dark triad traits were already present in preschool children, and more pronounced in adolescents aged 11–17. There have been studies to measure Machiavellianism in 6 year olds using adult informants to analyze the child's behavior. Deceptive behaviors by children even as young as 3 were also investigated heavily. 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. Children who score highly on the Machiavellianism scale tend to be more successful in manipulation, do it more frequently, and are judged as better at manipulation than those who score lower. Parental levels of Machiavellianism seem to have a slight effect on the child's own level. Machiavellianism levels in fathers was positively correlated with the Machiavellianism levels of their children, but the mother's level had no significant effect. One study concluded that "parental Machiavellianism is a predictor and perhaps a cause of children's Machiavellian beliefs and their manipulative success". Machiavellianism is also correlated with childhood aggression, especially concerning the control of social hierarchies. One study found a trend upwards with respect to Machiavellianism from late childhood to adolescence, when levels of Machiavellianism are thought to peak. From adolescence throughout adulthood there is a significant and steady downward trend with regard to levels of Machiavellianism, until the age of 65 where an overall lifetime minimum is reached.

Peer ratings of children high on Machiavellianism are inconsistent, with some researchers reporting that juvenile High Machs are rated as popular, and some reporting that they are less well liked by peers. A study involving Greek children ages 8–12 noted that the children highest in Machiavellianism showed aggressive tendencies and were more likely to bully others, though the tactics varied by gender.

Dark triad
In 1998, John McHoskey, William Worzel, and Christopher Szyarto proposed that narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy are more or less interchangeable in normal samples. 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. Delroy Paulhus and Kevin Williams found enough differences between the traits to suggest that they were distinct despite their similarities, thus the concept of a "triad" of offensive personality traits was conceptualized. There has been research on Machiavellianism using various dark triad measures, including the Short Dark Triad (SD3), and the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen test.

Psychopathy
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. As this is a recurring theme in the Machiavellianism literature, this list is by no means exhaustive:
 * Kowalski, C. M., Rogoza, R., Saklofske, D. H., & Schermer, J. A. (2021). Dark triads, tetrads, tents, and cores: Why navigate (research) the jungle of dark personality models without a compass (criterion)?. Acta Psychologica, 221, 103455.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. 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. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * Kowalski, C. M., Rogoza, R., Saklofske, D. H., & Schermer, J. A. (2021). Dark triads, tetrads, tents, and cores: Why navigate (research) the jungle of dark personality models without a compass (criterion)?. Acta Psychologica, 221, 103455.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. 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. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. 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. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. 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. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. 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. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. 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. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. 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. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.
 * There is an immense and ongoing debate amongst researchers as to whether or not Machiavellianism and psychopathy should be treated as the same construct, or at least view Machiavellianism as a trait of psychopathy. When tested, High Machs scored consistently high on measures of psychopathy, more than Low Machs. Primary psychopaths also scored higher on the Machiavellianism scale than secondary psychopaths. 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. Many have stated that the Machiavellianism scale measures nothing more than "successful" psychopathy, or psychopathy without the extreme clinical characteristics. Even compared to other "dark" traits, research has shown that Psychopathy correlates with Machiavellianism far more than it correlates with narcissism.  Some authors have stated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy represent the issue of a jangle fallacy, as both constructs are named differently yet describe the same concept. A recent paper published in 2022 stated that Machiavellianism "is theoretically distinct from psychopathy, but empirically they are nearly indistinguishable". Beverly Fehr even suggested that psychopaths may be simply "High Machs who have had run up against the law". Robert Hare, author of the Psychopathy Checklist, stated that Machiavellianism is more closely related to PCL Factor 1, affective detachment, than to Factor 2, an antisocial lifestyle. According to Christopher Patrick, high Psychopathy Checklist scores correlated with much higher Machiavellianism scores, as well as higher scores on boldness and aggressiveness.

Researchers note that Machiavellianism is well represented in every measure of psychopathy, such as the Factor 1 characteristics on the Psychopathy Checklist, more specifically traits such as "conning/manipulative", "pathological lying,” "callous/lack of empathy", and “glibness/superficial charm”. Donald Lynam and others noted that Machiavellianism is also represented in the "Interpersonal Manipulation" factor in Hare’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III and in the "Manipulation" scale in the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. The researchers state that "ultimately, measures of psychopathy and MACH appear to be measuring the same construct, and MACH assessments fail to capture the construct as articulated in theoretical descriptions". Michael Levenson, author of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale disagreed with the notion of distinguishing machiavellianism from psychopathy, stating that it "does not accord" with empirical research which shows Machiavellianism being heavily related to primary psychopathy. Machiavellianism has a strong relationship with both primary and secondary psychopathy on Levenson's self report test. In experiments High Machs also scored highly on the Psychopathic Deviate subscale on the MMPI. On the Psychopathic Personality Inventory, created by Scott Lilienfeld and Brian Andrews, there is even a subscale similarly named "Machiavellian Egocentricity". The subscale is said to assess a "ruthless and self centered willingness to exploit others". Machiavellianism and psychopathy have both been negatively correlated with the recognition of facial emotions, with one study stating that "if the ability to recognise facial expressions is exclusively an affective empathy task, it indeed accounts for the facial recognition deficits found in primary psychopathy and Machiavellianism." High scores on the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure questionnaire strongly correlated with Machiavellianism.

Machiavellianism and psychopathy overlap so heavily that researchers have proposed merging the two traits into each other, preferably Machiavellianism as a facet of psychopathy. There have been attempts to combine Machiavellianism and psychopathy into one construct, such as the creation of a "Dark Dyad" as opposed to a "Dark Triad", with the exclusion of narcissism.

A recent study done on criminal psychopaths noted that Machiavellianism showed the strongest association with the affective aspect of psychopathy.

Difference between constructs:Impulse control
Many other psychologists state that while Machiavellianism and psychopathy overlap heavily, there is much evidence to suggest that they are distinct personality constructs. 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. Delroy Paulhus and others have stated that this difference between the two traits is often underappreciated. Scholars also note that those high on Machiavellianism can delay gratification, and have more sensitivity to punishment and awareness of consequences than psychopaths. Though both traits have a heritable basis, Machiavellianism is more influenced by the environment than psychopathy. High Machs have been described as "master manipulators" and far better at manipulation than psychopaths and narcissists.

Daniel Jones notes that even though both psychopaths and High Machs share a manipulative and callous nature, the difference between Machiavellianism and psychopathy lies in the type of manipulation employed by the two constructs. Machiavellianism is marked by calculated planning, and manipulating only when something is to be gained, while psychopathy is marked by rashness, and manipulating regardless of situation. 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.

Narcissism
Individuals high in Machiavellianism and narcissism both manipulate to improve their reputations, and how they appear to others. Individuals high in the two traits do this as a form of self aggrandizement to help their chances of success in a given situation. Machiavellianism scores were positively associated with aspects of narcissism such as entitlement and exploitativeness, and inversely associated with adaptive narcissistic tendencies, like self-sufficiency. Studies have also shown that those higher on Machiavellianism are more realistic about their character, while narcissists are less realistic about theirs. Compared to High Machs, narcissists are less malevolent and show a more socially positive personality. They also have higher levels of self-rated happiness.

Machiavellianism and narcissism both share a lack of empathy and a focus on self-interest, though the two traits differ in how they manifest in people, and what their motivations are. High Machs have tendencies to be driven by personal gain, whereas narcissists are driven by a need for validation and admiration. Opposed to those high on narcissism, High Machs tend to be more strategic and calculating in their interpersonal interactions, while narcissists may be more impulsive and attention-seeking.

In terms of social relationships, High Machs are more likely to be more exploitative towards others, while narcissists may be more likely to seek out relationships that serve to bolster their self-esteem and provide them with the admiration they desire.

Compared to narcissists, High Machs exhibit a greater lack of empathy, because of the emotional deficiencies inherent within Machiavellianism.

White collar crime
Research has shown that individuals high in Machiavellianism may be more willing to engage in white collar crimes. Psychologist Daniel Jones has stated that "individuals higher on Machiavellianism are well suited for crimes in the financial world, especially crimes that skirt the legal system". Delroy Paulhus has stated that Machiavellianism is the main trait for white collar criminals and con artists, and not psychopathy, stating that:

"Although direct research on this topic is difficult, it seems clear that malevolent stockbrokers such as Bernie Madoff do not qualify as psychopaths: They are corporate Machiavellians who use deliberate, strategic procedures for exploiting others. A genuine psychopath, even at the subclinical level, lacks the self-control to orchestrate the schemes of a shrewd stockbroker."

In a research paper, Daniel Jones and others stated that a person high on Machiavellianism would also be possibly drawn to cybercrime, noting that "although we did not directly assess crimes, we did find patterns of system infiltration that were different among the three traits, with Machiavellianism being associated with the stealthiest approach among the three traits." They also stated that Machiavellianism would only be associated with crime if the "benefits outweighed the risks". They went on to clarify that this is opposed to individuals high in psychopathy, whom are prone to crime regardless of the situation.

DSM: Trait, not disorder
Machiavellianism has never been considered a disorder, nor has it been referenced in any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It has been treated as strictly a personality construct. It is primarily studied by personality psychologists, as it is a non-clinical personality style.

Relations with other personality traits
There is immense literature concerning the relationships between Machiavellianism and other personality dimensions, such as the traits in the Big Five trait model. Machiavellianism has also been related to interpersonal aggression and hostile behavior.

Big Five
Mach-IV scores are negatively correlated with agreeableness (r = −0.47) and conscientiousness (r = −0.34), two dimensions of the Big Five personality model (NEO-PI-R). The FFMI corrects for this by including aspects of high conscientiousness in the scale (e.g. order, deliberation). Additionally, Machiavellianism correlates more highly with the honesty-humility dimension of the six-factor HEXACO model than with any of the big five dimensions. Machiavellianism has also been located within the interpersonal circumplex, which consists of the two independent dimensions of agency and communion. Agency refers to the motivation to succeed and to individuate the self, whereas communion refers to the motivation to merge with others and to support group interests. Machiavellianism lies in the quadrant of the circumplex defined by high agency and low communion. Machiavellianism has been found to lie diagonally opposite from a circumplex construct called self-construal, a tendency to prefer communion over agency. This suggests that people high in Machiavellianism do not simply wish to achieve, they wish to do so at the expense of (or at least without regard to) others.

Hot and cold empathy
There are two distinct types of empathy which people use to relate to each other which are referred to as hot and cold empathy. Cold empathy (or cognitive empathy) refers to the understanding of how others might react to one's actions or a certain event. Hot empathy (or emotional/affective empathy) refers to the emotional reaction others might have to the emotions of another person. Machiavellianism was consistently negatively correlated with affective empathy in nearly every study. Machiavellianism was also negatively correlated with affective resonance (feeling good when others feel good) and positively associated with affective dissonance (e.g. feeling happy when others are sad). People high in Machiavellianism tend to have a better understanding of cold empathy and do not feel hot empathy which explains why they seem cold and uncaring. Research results have also suggested that High Machs are deficient only at the level of affective empathy (sharing of emotions), whereas their cognitive empathy is intact, even high. Another study suggested that high Machs are deficient at both kinds of empathy. Studies also assert that high Machs do not feel guilt or remorse over the consequences of their manipulations. High Machs are less likely to be altruistic, and they are less likely to be concerned with the problems of others. One study proposed that High Machs have more automatic (that is, un-conscious) recognition of other's negative emotions more than low Machs, and that this understanding of emotions may in fact aid in the manipulation of others. Children who scored higher on Machiavellianism showed a lack of empathy and more delinquent behaviors compared to those who scored lower, such as a lack of guilt, lying, cheating, and truancy.

Some authors have stated that since Machiavellianism is so diametrically opposed to empathy, it should be included in empathy scales as the polar opposite. Total scores on Machiavellianism and empathy were "significantly negatively correlated".

Unemotionality
One of the primary traits of machiavellianism is a detached, unemotional attitude and lack of affect in regards to others. Christie and Geis noted that the primary difference between high machs and low machs was the degree of emotion invested in interpersonal relations, with those scoring high having the lowest. Research has been done on the extent of the low emotionality of those who score high on the Machiavellianism scale. Doris Mcllwain noted that "Machiavellians do not inhabit the realm of emotion in the same way as others, yet they use it to manipulate others. They do not experience feelings, empathy, or morality in normative ways. yet they are consummate manipulators and deceivers precisely by playing upon these sentiments and convictions in others. Thus they induce in others the guilt they hardly feel themselves." A study done by Farah Ali and others noted that Machiavellianism seems to have emotional reactions to stimuli similar to primary psychopathy, differing only in higher levels of anxiety, which those who score highly on machiavellianism may be prone to. Machiavellianism has an unclear relation with anxiety levels, some researchers have found positive correlations, while some have found no relation at all. Researchers have noted that High Machs may experience intense worries when things do not go their way, but are unable to express it.

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. They concluded that "this study confirmed previous findings that High Machs have a cool and rational character and a proself orientation and showed that their lack of group orientation may account for their low cooperation in social dilemmas."

Alexithymia is also considered a key trait that is correlated heavily with Machiavellianism. It is the lack of awareness of one's own emotions as well as the emotions of others. When tested, healthy alexithymic individuals have been found to obtain high Machiavellianism scores. This was not surprising to researchers, seeing as the unemotionality of Machiavellianism shows similarities to what alexithymics experience. One study examined the relationship between alexithymia and endorsement of beliefs associated with Machiavellianism amongst university students. Results showed a positive correlation between alexithymia and exploitative beliefs, suggesting those with higher levels of alexithymia were more likely to endorse the view that manipulating others is an effective strategy.

Neuroticism/Depression
Researchers have often debated the potential links between Machiavellianism and a neurotic, anxious disposition. In a study done by psychologists Hans Eysenck, his wife Sybil, and John Allsopp, they note that they found "virtually no relationship" between Machiavellianism and neuroticism, unlike the relationships they found with Machiavellianism and Extraversion-Psychoticism respectively. However John McHoskey found links between Machiavellianism and neuroticism, along with the other personality traits popularized by Eysenck. Studies using measures of the Big Five personality traits have variously found positive or no correlation between Machiavellianism and Neuroticism.

Machiavellianism has very scant correlations with depression, and the higher one's Machiavellianism score was, the lower their depression level was. One study even noted that depressed males "were significantly less Machiavellian than were nondepressed males". They then estimate that "depression in males, then, may be of a more self-aggressive, self-destructive nature". High Machs who have higher levels of emotional intelligence scores show less depressive symptoms.

Motivation
A 1992 review described the motivation of those high on the Machiavellianism scale as related to cold selfishness and pure instrumentality, and those high on the trait were assumed to pursue their motives (e.g. sex, achievement, sociality) in duplicitous ways. More recent research on the motivations of high Machs compared to low Machs found that they gave high priority to money, power, and competition and relatively low priority to community building, self-love, and family commitment. High Machs admitted to focusing on unmitigated achievement and winning at any cost.

The research on behaviors which high Machs engage in suggest that they are willing to achieve their goals by bending and breaking rules, cheating, and stealing. People high in Machiavellianism are able to easily switch between working with others to taking advantage of others to achieve their goals, and they are more willing to do things others see as terrible or immoral.

Intelligence and other cognitive skills
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. Recent research provides some support for this assumption. However, other research has established that Machiavellianism is unrelated to IQ. Paulhus and Williams found "significant associations of psychopathy and Machiavellianism with a relatively higher nonverbal to verbal IQ score".

Studies on emotional intelligence have usually found that high Machiavellianism is associated with low emotional intelligence as assessed by both performance and questionnaire measures.

Research has examined the relationship between trait emotional intelligence (EI), Machiavellianism, and the personality trait of agreeableness. 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. Specifically, those high in trait EI tended to be low in Machiavellianism primarily because they were high in agreeableness, reflecting a cooperative and prosocial nature. One study found that Machiavellianism was negatively associated with most facets of socio-emotional intelligence (SEI), including social expressivity, social sensitivity, emotional expressivity, and emotional sensitivity. However, Machiavellianism showed no significant relationship with emotional control, which involves regulating one's own emotional displays. Machiavellianism was positively associated with emotional manipulation, the tendency to strategically influence others' emotions. Despite this association, Machiavellianism did not moderate the relationship between any facet of SEI and emotional manipulation. This suggests that while High Machs have a propensity for emotionally manipulative behavior, they may not be utilizing socio-emotional skills towards that end. The authors propose this could be due to the High Mach's externally-oriented and unemotional perspective.

Both emotional empathy and emotion recognition have been shown to have negative correlations with Machiavellianism. Additionally, research has shown that Machiavellianism is unrelated to a more advanced theory of mind, that is, the ability to anticipate what others are thinking in social situations. However, research results have suggested the contrary viewpoint that high Machiavellianism is associated with excellent theory of mind skills.

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". They also are incredibly perceptive to the presence of others, and are able to feign altruism to enhance their reputation. A recent study investigated whether Machiavellianism is associated with the production of "bullshit" - inaccurate or meaningless information intended to impress, persuade or mislead. The researchers found that the manipulative aspect of Machiavellianism (Machiavellian approach) was linked to "persuasive bullshitting", aimed at gaining desired resources. The distrustful aspect (Machiavellian avoidance) was associated with "evasive bullshitting", spreading vague information to prevent disadvantages. Those high in Machiavellian avoidance were even better at distinguishing misinformation from valuable information.

Neurological studies
There have been few studies on the neural correlates of Machiavellianism. Research has shown that Machiavellianism has been correlated with changes in gray matter in the areas of the basal ganglia, left prefrontal cortex, bilaterally in the insula, and in the right hippocampus and the left parahippocampal gyrus. Researcher Tamas Bereczkei stated that the manipulation skill in High Machs is associated with neural correlates that are responsible for decision making. He also noted that behaviors associated with Machiavellianism need to "recruit more neural resources than a honest behavior, especially when manipulators face a cooperative partner as a potential victim. Machiavellians have to inhibit the norm of reciprocity and, additionally, generate an opposite response." Machiavellianism has also been linked with lesions in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Frontal dysfunction was also linked with Machiavellianism. Daniel Jones also concluded that those who score high on Machiavellianism have the "neurological structure of a strategic manipulator". The activation of the task-positive network (TPN) and the default mode network (DMN) have also been associated with a lack of genuine empathy, and also have been observed in Machiavellianism. A recent study linked regional gray matter volume in the left superior frontal gyrus to both Machiavellianism and social aggression, which is "intentional antisocial behavior directed to damage others’ social reputations or interpersonal relationships through socially manipulative tactics".

Social relationships
The effects that one's level of Machiavellianism has on a person's socialization and interpersonal relationships, such as friendships and romantic relationships, has been studied extensively. High Machs are highly likely to ingratiate themselves within social groups via compliments and conforming their opinions to those around them. High Machs are more than likely to choose better quality friends, as they have a better time at guessing who is a good person and thus more pliable for manipulation. Machiavellianism was also correlated with withdrawal and avoidance in romantic relationships. Individuals high in all dark triad traits find it easy to end relationships, and tend to prefer short-term relationships over long term ones. 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". 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. High machs report lower relationship satisfaction than those lower on the scale. Though there has been research on the potential "attractiveness" of the dark triad traits, out of all of the traits in the dark triad, Machiavellianism was the least attractive to the opposite sex. 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." Another study claimed that this was because high Machs tend to be way less extroverted than narcissists and psychopaths, and that "it is possible that individuals do not like cynical, manipulative, aggressive, remorseless, and duplicitous people such as Machiavellians and psychopaths".

Like the other dark triad traits, those high on Machiavellianism have been reportedly more willing to troll or flame others on the internet, however a 2021 study found no particularly strong connection between trolling and dark personality traits. Machiavellianism has also been correlated with a higher than average belief in conspiracy theories. Because of their emphasis on hierarchy, high scorers in Machiavellianism were also found with higher levels of prejudice, and higher social dominance orientation scores.

Gender differences
Research has consistently shown that men score higher than women in Machiavellianism. There is evidence to suggest that Machiavellianism is represented differently in both sexes, with men being more opportunistic, self confident, and willing to take risks, while women higher in Machiavellianism are more likely to be avoidant and have anxious features. While psychopathy was an indicator of future infidelity amongst both men and women, Machiavellianism was a predictor amongst women. The findings of one research paper showed that men, but not women, high in Machiavellianism were non-impulsive and high in planning, which suggests that the apparent impulsivity of Machiavellianism may be a question of gender. Peter Jonason suggested that the reason why men score much higher than women in dark triad traits is because men require less emotional connection in order to get ahead in life.

Cross-cultural studies
There have been many studies on how Machiavellianism is presented in people from different countries and with different cultures. Multiple studies found that in nearly all countries, men scored higher than women in Machiavellianism, and that the gender differences were notable. The populations of many other countries varied from their western counterparts in their levels of dark triad traits overall, which the authors of one study attributed to sociopolitical factors and levels of economic engagement. In another cross cultural study, Machiavellianism also showed associations with limited interactive or normative values. A study investigated the relationship between emotion recognition and dark personality traits (including Machiavellianism) across cultures. The effects were gender and culture-dependent. Among both German males and females, Machiavellianism showed strong positive associations with emotionally manipulative tactics. Some scholars noted an issue with many cross cultural studies on machiavellianism, primarily that "researchers have used measures of Machiavellianism (Mach IV) which were derived from Western concepts and which may not have similar meanings when applied to non-Western groups."

Aggression and antisocial behavior
Machiavellianism has little association with the outright display of overt aggression. Those high in Machiavellianism tend to be more more aggressive to short term as opposed to long term partners. While Machiavellianism is associated with hostility, those high on the trait may mask it depending on the manipulation tactic used. Machiavellianism also is associated with the tuning of aggression to the benefit long term objectives, only engaging in antisocial behavior when the stakes are low and it proffers benefits, unlike psychopathy and narcissism. 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. The authors then state that High Machs may cheat under high risk scenarios, but only when "ego-depleted", which then makes their behavior appear similar to those of psychopaths. 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". He also suggested that Machiavellianism is correlated with an extensive focus on financial gain, and is also correlated with antisocial behaviors such as stealing, vandalism, and cheating as opposed to prosocial actions like helping others.

In the workplace
Machiavellianism is also studied by organizational psychologists, especially those who study manipulative behaviors in workplace settings. Workplace behaviors associated with this concept include flattery, deceit, coercion, and the abuse of others through one's position of leadership. These behaviors in the workplace are ultimately done to advance personal interests. Research has shown that one's level of Machiavellianism can be a major factor in situations where workplace manipulation is involved because this trait can have an effect on the ability for an individual to "fit" into a highly political work environment. Research has found individuals with Dark Triad traits are drawn to entrepreneurship. Certain qualities found in the Dark Triad are similar to traits needed for effective entrepreneurship, such as confidence, charisma and risk taking.

Career choice and advancement
Individuals high in machiavellianism tend to gravitate towards particular careers, especially those that require a high degree of competitiveness needed to succeed. High Machs are ambitious enough to cut corners and use aggressive means if it is necessary to get ahead in their careers. One study found that "Machiavellianism was positively related to leadership position and career satisfaction". Individuals high in machiavellianism are especially drawn to leadership and management positions, which became an important subject in the primary literature. Sales careers also attract dark triad individuals, with one study stating that such individuals are "prevalent" in the industry. One study noted that those who possess high Machiavellianism levels "are more productive but received lower overall managerial ratings", and that "Machiavellianism may in certain circumstances, be somewhat advantageous for long-term sales performance." Machiavellianism was also associated with the use of "hard" (i.e. aggressive and hostile behavior) and "soft" (i.e. joking/kidding, offering compliments) tactics in the workforce. One's political skill in the workplace and elsewhere may even mask the behaviors and characteristics associated with machiavellianism.

It was shown that those high on Machiavellianism are more drawn to academic majors like economics, law, and politics, as opposed to the "person-oriented" majors like education, nursing, and social work that were associated with lower Machiavellianism scores.

Dimensions of the MACH scale
Although there have been a myriad of proposed factor structures, two dimensions emerge most consistently within factor-analytic research which separates the views from the behaviors in Machiavellianism. Although many posit that the Mach IV scale is unable to reliably capture the two dimensions, a 10-item subset of the scale known as the "two-dimensional Mach IV" (TDM-V), reproduces the views and tactics dimensions across countries, genders, sample types, and scale category length. The "Views" dimension appears to capture the neurotic, narcissistic, pessimistic, and distrustful aspects of Machiavellianism, while the "Tactics" component captures the more unconscientious, self-serving, and deceitful behavioral aspects. More recently, in response to criticisms of the Mach-IV, researchers developed the Five-Factor Machiavellianism Inventory (FFMI), which attempts to include concepts (like being calculated and planful) that are not adequately captured by the Mach-IV.

Construct validity and criticism
There has been debate on how valid scales of Machiavellianism are in tapping the construct. It is often stated by those critical of Machiavellianism scales that it does not actually measure the theoretical trait, but something nearly identical to psychopathy and narcissism. For example, it is often stated that Machiavellianism is marked by less impulsivity and better long term thinking as opposed to psychopathy, but some empirical research shows that even High Machs can act impulsive in certain scenarios. Lynam and others stated "we suggest that existing measures of Machiavellianism are functioning as proxy measures of psychopathy." Psychologist John Rauthmann viewed the MACH-IV as more of a measure of cynicism, and that it doesn't really capture other qualities of Machiavellianism.

Most of the research done on Machiavellianism has been done with either the Mach IV or Mach V, though the Mach V is no longer in use due to psychometric issues. Many have expressed concerns with the reliability of the Mach IV scale to capture all of the features of Machiavellianism, thus many proposals have been made in favor of other Machiavellianism scales.

John Rauthmann and others have stated that, while the MACH-IV is "a generally reliable and valid scale", it has its shortcomings. These include the response styles of the test takers, the varying factor structures, and "insufficient content and construct validity". The researchers developed their own scale instead to study Machiavellianism multidimensionally instead of unidimensionally to prevent the construct from becoming hard to study effectively. Psychologist Jason Dahling and others have created another measure of Machiavellianism, dubbed the Machiavellian Personality Scale (or MPS for short).

Application of the scale in other research
In 2002, the Machiavellianism scale of Christie and Geis was applied by behavioral game theorists Anna Gunnthorsdottir, Kevin McCabe and Vernon L. Smith in their search for explanations for the spread of observed behavior in experimental games, in particular individual choices which do not correspond to assumptions of material self-interest captured by the standard Nash equilibrium prediction. It was found that in a trust game, those with high Mach-IV scores tended to follow Homo economicus' equilibrium strategies while those with low Mach-IV scores tended to deviate from the equilibrium, and instead made choices that reflected widely accepted moral standards and social preferences.

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. Wilson also noted that since those who are high in Machiavellianism often come across as charming and attractive in brief social encounters, it is unclear whether they are being deceitful or just very skilled socially. The researchers had people who scored high and low on Machiavellianism write first-person stories. Other participants then evaluated these stories. The results showed that people with low Machiavellianism tended to be more cooperative, while those with high Machiavellianism were more exploitative. Based on these stories, high Machs were generally rejected as social partners, except when their manipulative skills could be used against members of other groups.