Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:56:20.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Machiavellianism: Dimensionality of the Mach IV and its Relation to Self-Monitoring in a Spanish Sample

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Susana Corral  and
Esther Calvete
Susana Corral
Affiliation:
University of Deusto
Esther Calvete*
Affiliation:
University of Deusto
*
Correspondence concerning this article, as well as requests for the Spanish versions of both questionnaires, should be addressed to Esther Calvete, Department of Psychology.University of Deusto. Apdo. 1. 48080 Bilbao (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the measurement model of a Spanish version of the Mach IV Scale (Christie, 1970b), used to measure Machiavellianism, and its relation with the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). 346 undergraduate students (70 males and 276 females) filled in both scales. The results of confirmatory factor analyses showed a four-factor structure to be the most adequate model for the Mach IV, with the following factors: Positive Interpersonal Tactics, Negative Tactics, Positive View of Human Nature, and Cynical View of Human Nature. These results are not in accordance with the original factor structure but are consistent with other authors' findings. A structural model between Machiavellianism and self-monitoring was tested, showing statistically significant paths between interpersonal tactics and one self-monitoring subscale.

El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el modelo de medida de una versión española de la escala Mach IV (Christie, 1970b), utilizada para medir el maquiavelismo, y su relación con la escala de Auto-observación (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). 346 estudiantes universitarios (70 hombres y 276 mujeres) completaron ambas escalas. Los resultados de los análisis factoriales confirmatorios realizados mostraron que, para el Mach IV, el modelo más adecuado era una estructura de cuatro factores: Tácticas Interpersonales Positivas, Tácticas Interpersonales Negativas, Visión Positiva de la Naturaleza Humana y Visión Cínica de la Naturaleza Humana. Estos resultados difieren de la estructura factorial original, pero son congruentes con las aportaciones de otros autores. Se sometió a prueba un modelo estructural entre maquiavelismo y auto-observación, encontrando relaciones estadísticamente significativas entre tácticas interpersonales y una subescala de auto-observación.

Keywords

Machiavellianismself-monitoringconfirmatory factor analysismaquiavelismoauto-observaciónanálisis factorial confirmatorio
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 3 , May 2000 , pp. 3 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, S.M.S., & Stewart, R.A.C. (1981). Factor analysis of the Machiavellian scales. Social Behaviour and Personality, 9,113–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allsopp, J., Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1991). Machiavellianism as a component in psychoticism and extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avia, M.D., Carrillo, J.M., & Rojo, N.(1987). Personalidad y diferencias sexuales. Proyecto de investigación. Instituto de la Mujer.Google Scholar
Bakir, B., Yilmaz, U.R., & Yavas, I. (1996). Relating depressive symptoms to Machiavellianism in a Turkish sample. Psychological Reports, 78, 1011–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. T. & Rettinger, J. (1992). Awareness of crime-relevant information and the Guilty Knowledge Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, S.R., & Cheek, J.M. (1988). On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 663–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, S.R., Cheek, J.M. & Buss, A.H. (1980). An analysis of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 679–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K.A. & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Christie, R. (1970a). Why Machiavelli? In Christie, R. & Geis, F.L. (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 1–9). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Christie, R. (1970b). Scale construction. In Christie, R. & Geis, F.L. (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 10–34). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christoffersen, D., & Stamp, C. (1995). Examining the relationship between Machiavellianism and paranoia. Psychological Reports, 76, 67–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corzine, J. B. (1997) Machiavellianism and management: A review of single-nation studies exclusive of the USA and cross-national studies. Psychological Reports, 80, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, B., Samsom, D., & Pauhlus, D.L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. Advances in Personality Assessment, 9, 77–116.Google Scholar
Gable, M., & Dangello, F. (1994). Locus of control, Machiavellianism, and managerial job performance. Journal of Psychology, 128, 599–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gable, M., & Topol, M.T. (1987). Job satisfaction and Machiavellian orientation among department store executives. Psychological Reports, 60, 211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, S.D., & Chonko, L.B. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism. Journal of Marketing, 48, 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J.E., Gerbing, D.W., & Boster, F.J. (1982). Machiavellian beliefs and personality: Construct invalidity of the Machiavellian dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1293–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ickes, W., Reidhead, S., & Patterson, M. (1986). Machiavellianism and self-monitoring: As different as “me” and “you”. Social Cognition, 4, 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1996a). PRELIS2 user's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1996b). LISREL8 user's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kraut, R.E., & Price, J.D. (1976). Machiavellianism in patients and their children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 782–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lennox, R.D., & Wolfe, R.N. (1984). Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349–1364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lykken, D.T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHoskey, J. (1995). Narcissism and Machiavellianism. Psychological Reports, 77, 755–759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McHoskey, J.W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 192–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montag, I., & Levin, J. (1990). The location of the Self-Monitoring Scale in the factor space of the EPQ and the 16PF. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, S., Katz, B., & Holder, J. (1995). Machiavellianism and medical career choices. Psychological Reports, 76, 803–807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pastor, G. (1982). Síndrome frío de personalidad sagaz. Psicología social del maquiavelismo. Salamanca, Spain: Bibliotheca Salmanticensis.Google Scholar
Raskin, D. C. (1979). Orienting and defensive reflexes in the detection of deception. In Kimmel, H.D., Van Olst, E.H., & Orbeleke, J.F. (Eds.). The Orienting Reflex in Humans (pp. 587–605). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rojo, N., & Carrillo, J.M. (1995). La presentación de uno mismo a los demás: ¿habilidad o defensa? In Avia, M.D. & Sánchez-Bernardos, M.L. (Eds.), Personalidad: aspectos cognitivos y sociales (pp. 413–425). Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Romero, A., Luengo, M. A., Garra, A., & Otero-Lopez, J.M. (1994). An analysis of the dimensionality of self-monitoring. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 102–110.Google Scholar
Skinner, N.F., Giokas, J.A., & Horstein, H. A. (1986). Personality correlates of Machiavellianism: I. Consensual validation. Social Behaviour and Personality, 4, 273–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-Monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wertheim, E.G., Widom, C.S., & Wortzel, L. H. (1978). Multivariate analysis of male and female professional career choice correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 234–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.S., Near, D., & Miller, R.R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zook, A., & Sipps, G.J. (1986). Reliability and sex differences with a gender-free Mach IV. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 131–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar