Machiavellianism among convicts article. General conclusions based on the results of the conducted methods
What is Machiavellianism? What is the etymology of this term? What does the Italian philosophy of the Renaissance have to do with this psychological phenomenon?
Man is a social being. The ability of representatives of the genus Homo Sapiens to verbal communication (articulate speech) is often considered one of the fundamental features that distinguish humans from animals. Communication is attributed the most important role in the processes of onto- and anthropogenesis. Every day and every hour, people enter into a variety of processes of communicative interaction, and, therefore, constantly perceive the influence of interlocutors, in turn, influencing others.
It is precisely because of this total “sociality”, because of the constant interdependence of people in society that humanity has long sought to know the mechanisms of influence that play a crucial role in the communicative process, to unravel the essence of the phenomena of influence, persuasion and suggestion.
The study of the mechanisms of suggestion had not only cognitive, but also narrowly pragmatic goals - since ancient times, people have tried to master the art of managing their own kind. The phenomenon of suggestion has always occupied an important place in the arsenal of means to achieve power and has been actively used by experienced politicians in the implementation of their intentions.
A special place among other methods of suggestion is occupied by manipulation - a hidden psychological impact on the interlocutor, aimed at inducing the latter to achieve the goal indirectly invested by the manipulator (Dotsenko, 1997). This phenomenon attracts increased attention of researchers precisely because of its secrecy, and, as a result, the potential danger to the victim of the manipulator. The tendency of a person to manipulate people in interpersonal relationships is considered as an independent phenomenon - Machiavellianism.
The term "Machiavellianism" is derived from the surname of the Italian Renaissance thinker Niccolo Machiavelli, who wrote the well-known treatise The Emperor. Therefore, in order to understand the essence of the phenomenon of Machiavellianism we are studying, we first need to turn to a brief biography of this famous philosopher and statesman.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) lived in very turbulent times for Italy: the country was split into several warring camps, and there was a constant struggle for power between politicians. Soon after Florence, the small homeland of Machiavelli, restored the status of an independent republic as a result of a long struggle, Niccolò was accepted into the civil service as secretary and ambassador. As a member of the State Council, Machiavelli showed noticeable political activity and successfully led many diplomatic missions. However, the Florentine Republic was short-lived: it was overthrown as a result of the return to power of the Medici. The new Italian government accused Machiavelli of conspiracy and removed him from public service. He retired to his estate near Florence and began to write philosophical and political treatises, which later became known to the whole world.
One of the most significant works of Machiavelli is the treatise
"The Sovereign" ("Prince"), written by the author in 1513 and published only in 1532, five years after the death of Machiavelli. In this book, the author advises those in power to disregard the norms of public morality in order to achieve their own goals. The work is replete with numerous references to the need to use all sorts of tricks (flattery, deceit, cruelty, etc.) in the political struggle. The correlate of the views of Machiavelli, set forth in his book, is considered to be the catchphrase “The end justifies the means”, which has already become a catch phrase.
In general terms, the essence of Machiavelli's advice to the sovereign boils down to the need to seize and retain as much power as possible by any available means, while remaining virtuous in the eyes of his subordinates.
It is precisely such characteristics as subtle cynicism, cold reason, disregard for moral standards in the pursuit of dominance and power over other people, and in most cases are invested in the concept of "Machiavellianism". The same personality traits are attributed to Machiavellians - adherents of Machiavellianism as a style of behavior.
Most people who are more or less familiar with the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli see the author of The Prince as a cold cynic and cruel immoral person, believing that the advice given in this widely known book reflects the personal position of Machiavelli himself. However, a careful analysis of the treatise "The Prince" strikes a direct discrepancy between the modern content of the concept of "Machiavellianism" and the image of the personality of Niccolò Machiavelli.
Machiavelli was fully aware of the tragedy of the existing contradiction between universal morality and real politics, leading to success. Evidence of this is the fact that Niccolo Machiavelli himself in his work emphasizes that murder, treason, lack of pity and faith cannot be called valor. It is likely that such contradictions encountered in the book are the result of a clash of two opposing positions: Machiavelli the politician and the "true Machiavelli", Machiavelli the writer, who from time to time allows himself to speak from his purely authorial point of view.
This assumption is quite consistent with the opinion that "Machiavelli the moralist condemned the methods of action formulated by himself."
Another proof of the "non-Machiavellianism" of the author of "The Sovereign" is the presence in the book of the ideas of the so-called "alternative altruism" - the implementation of manipulative behavior in the name of achieving high social goals, and not just selfish selfish intentions.
Among other things, when analyzing the immortal creation of Machiavelli, one must also take into account the historical context in which the book was created. There is no doubt that the atmosphere of bloody wars of conquest and a fierce struggle for power that prevailed in Italy at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century had a noticeable impact on the semantic content of the "Sovereign".
All of the above makes us think about the impossibility of completely identifying the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli with the content of the term “Machiavellianism” generally accepted today. We can agree with I. N. Kalutskaya, who insists on the need for extremely careful projection of Machiavelli's ideas onto the plane of modern interpersonal relations (Kalutskaya I.N., Poddyakov A.N. Ideas about Machiavellianism: a variety of approaches and assessments / / Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2007 .No. 4. S. 78-89.). We believe that the accuracy and scrupulousness dictated by the values of scientific professionalism in the use of borrowed terms will help us better understand the psychological essence of the phenomenon of Machiavellianism and draw up a consistent personal portrait of a Machiavellian.
As a result of a comparative analysis of the concepts of "manipulation" and "Machiavellianism", we come to the conclusion that most often manipulation is defined as a deliberate and hidden inducement of another person to experience certain states, make decisions and perform actions necessary for the initiator to achieve his own goals.
The manipulator wins not by force, but by cunning and endurance. Its task is to force a person to do something necessary, but in such a way that it seems to a person that he himself decided to do it, and he made this decision not under the threat of punishment, but of his own free will. In fact, he acts under the influence of those thoughts and feelings that the manipulator could evoke in him, affecting the "strings of the soul" or motives that are significant for the addressee. EL Dotsenko (1994) called it the exploitation of personal (motivational) structures. The manipulator is a master of playing on other people's motivational structures, or the strings of the soul. The most frequently touched “strings of our soul” are feelings: guilt, fear, anger. However, it can also hurt our other feelings.
What drives the personality of a manipulator? What are the reasons for manipulation? Is the manipulator really successful or is it an illusion?
There are five main reasons for manipulation.
The main reason for manipulation, according to Frederick Perls, is in the eternal conflict of a person with himself, since in everyday life he is forced to rely both on himself and on the external environment. A person never trusts himself completely. Consciously or subconsciously, he always believes that his salvation lies in others. However, he does not fully trust others. Therefore, he embarks on a slippery path of manipulation so that the “others” are always on his leash, so that he can control them and, under this condition, trust them more. Therefore, this first, and main, reason for manipulation is called mistrust.
The second reason for manipulation is normal relationships between people. These relationships involve knowing the person as he is, with respect for his personal dignity.
The third reason for manipulation is risk and uncertainty surrounding us on all sides. Anything can happen to us at any moment. A person feels absolutely helpless when faced with an existential problem.
The fourth reason for manipulation is fear of close interpersonal contacts.
The fifth reason for manipulation is the need to get approval from everyone and everyone.
Many people develop a tendency to be manipulative because they have given up hope of achieving anything by direct means. Many of them lost this hope in early childhood. For example, when a child finds a way to make an adult pay attention to him. He may fall, twist his leg, get sick, etc. Similar methods of pseudo-compensation for the feeling of one's own insignificance, smallness, insufficiency were described by Alfred Adler as "the power of water" and "care for the disease" (Adler A., 1932). Where it is impossible to take by force, you can take it by cunning, putting forward weakness as its strength. Therefore, the relationships in the mutual influence of people are not transitive, that is (in this case) one-to-one.
Many people manipulate because they are used to it, and all other methods are unusual or even unfamiliar to them. According to E.L. Dotsenko, one of the factors contributing to the development of manipulativeness is "the sweet experience of managing adults, acquired at a very early age." A person has a deep semantic fixation of this type of relationship with other people. He considers the second factor in the development of manipulativeness to be "the need to introduce certainty and stability into the surrounding world, in particular, to make the behavior of others stable and predictable." The third factor is the invention of manipulative techniques independent of other people.
The goals of manipulation can be protective: it can play the role of a psychological defense mechanism that protects a person from loss of self-esteem, lowering self-esteem, etc.
We can become victims of manipulators because of the desire to be "good", gentle, courteous, delicate, considerate, forgetting that it is impossible to be good to everyone. This desire is often based on the “stereotype of an outcast”: if I am rude, they will condemn me, I must “be good”, then they will accept me. Manipulators feel our fear of condemnation very subtly and skillfully use it.
Thus, a manipulator is a person who treats people ritually, going out of their way to avoid intimacy in a relationship and a predicament.
According to E. Shostrom, a person is a manipulator, that is, a dysfunctional person who seeks to control himself and those around him, moreover, he treats people as things and is not aware of his falsity and lifelessness.
In accordance with the definition, the following distinctive features of manipulation can be distinguished:
1. Awareness by the manipulator of his goals and means.
2. The concealment of the manipulator's goals.
3. The concealment of the means of the manipulator.
4. Acceptance by the addressee of responsibility for what is happening.
The main features of manipulation are:
- feeling of discomfort, internal struggle (you don’t want to do something, say, but it’s inconvenient to refuse, otherwise you will “look bad”)
- violation of ethics, awareness of danger, verbal and non-verbal signs of manipulation (violation of the rules of ethics is an indisputable sign of manipulation)
- feelings of guilt or danger(you have become “owed” to someone, or dependent on some circumstance, which was not there before meeting this person)
- manipulator gestures talking about his insincerity, secrecy, doubts, superiority, threat
- a certain oddity in the behavior of the manipulator (excessive excitement or ostentatious indifference)
- analysis of statements manipulator
- feeling dependent from the opinions of others
- manipulator and his victim - main roles, without which the manipulation will not take place
All this should not only alert, but mobilize us to fight back. A person who does not analyze his behavior in terms of the material presented above becomes an easy prey for those who want to control him, since each of the prescriptions creates a target for hidden control. A simple awareness is enough to pull yourself together and defend yourself.
Manipulative influence takes place at four main levels: value (our system of values), mental (our thoughts, consciousness), emotional (our emotions and feelings) and effective (the level of direct actions). Both one predominant level and mixed levels of manipulative influence can be used. The duration of the manipulation depends on the purpose of the manipulator and the victim's awareness of what is happening.
Unlike the concept of "manipulation", Machiavellianism as a scientific category is widely used in foreign psychological research, and is less commonly used in Russian psychology. Machiavellianism can be defined as a psychological syndrome based on a combination of interrelated cognitive, motivational and behavioral characteristics; as a person's tendency to manipulate other people in interpersonal relationships.
The main psychological components of Machiavellianism as a personality trait are: 1) the belief of the subject that when communicating with other people, they can and even need to be manipulated; 2) skills, specific skills of manipulation. The latter include the ability to convince others, to understand their intentions and reasons for their actions.
Variety of Machiavellian goals. We proceed from the premise that the characteristic that makes a Machiavellian a Machiavellian is not the tendency to manipulate others for one's own gain, but the use of manipulation as the primary means to achieve one's goals. These goals can be very different.
a) Purely selfish goals. This includes both socially disapproved egoistic goals and socially approved ones. We are talking about the legally and morally legitimate protection of their own interests. For example, many manuals on behavior when meeting with a criminal (potential murderer, robber, rapist, etc.) give a list of Machiavellian stratagem tricks designed to ensure successful psychological manipulation of the aggressor by a physically weaker victim. And in these manuals, we have never met the advice "Honesty is the best policy in all situations."
b) Purely altruistic, unselfish good intentions: the subject uses manipulation to help another subject who is otherwise impossible or very difficult to influence - at least in the opinion of this altruistic manipulator;
c) "Disinterestedly evil" goals. The concept of selfless evil was widely used by S. Lem, analyzing situations in which some people, on their own initiative, cause damage to other people (up to their massacres), without receiving any benefit from this or even incurring some damage (and we are not talking about sadistic pleasure). , the receipt of which could be considered a selfish, selfish goal). S. Lem believed that the underestimated and little-studied desire to create disinterested evil plays an important role both in human relations and in the development of civilization.
d) The goals are complex, complex in relation to other people - for example, involving altruistic help to one subjects while simultaneously and interrelated damage to others, since without this damage help is impossible for the subject. Apparently, N. Machiavelli set such goals. These are the goals of the mole from the story “Rabbits and Boas” by F. Iskander, a character, unlike Machiavelli, who is unequivocally positive, but nevertheless deceived and made the boa constrictor hunting the main character, the rabbit, stray. Realizing that he was deceived, the boa constrictor was shocked by the lack of benefits, and therefore the seeming senselessness of this deception. In Iskander's aphoristic explanation is given in the text: "If wisdom is powerless to do good, it does the only thing it can - it lengthens the path of evil."
Strategies. Strategies for achieving Machiavellian goals are assessed differently in different theories: as rigid, rigidly associated with unambiguous manipulative attitudes, or, conversely, as especially flexible compared to ordinary people, allowing for both competition and high-level cooperation.
Morality of the Machiavellian. Any theory that postulates certain goals and strategies of a Machiavellian one way or another gives an appropriate assessment of the level of his morality: a) low; b) neutral-objectivist; c) intensely ambivalent; d) relatively positive (relatively - because the use of manipulation seems to require justification even for good purposes).
Following ethical standards. Machiavellianism defines insensitivity to the violation of ethical norms. The connection of Machiavellianism with immorality is common to both men and women, but is gender specific: while men have higher levels of Machiavellianism on average, women score higher on some scales of Machiavellianism - deception and the desire to impress, and also surpass men in self-disclosure , which in some situations is one of the strategies of Machiavellianism.
A more or less unambiguous picture (neglect of ethical norms with high Machiavellianism) is also found in research conducted in organizational psychology, for example, in the analysis of emotional experiences and tactics for resolving moral problems that arise in marketing.
Machiavellianism and locus of control. It is convincingly shown that Machiavellianism is associated with an external (external) locus of control. Even 20 years ago, P. Madrak conducted a meta-analysis of the results of the work of the 1970s and 1980s. (20 studies, total sample of 3046 people). The correlation between Machiavellianism and externality, after adjusting for questionnaire reliability and sample error, was 0.382. As one of the reasons for the connection between Machiavellianism and externality, the desire for the immediate achievement of the desired goal was considered. Because internal tactics (such as hard work, perseverance, etc.) cannot produce quick results, Machiavellians resort to manipulation and deceit. Ethical problems are removed by the belief that the surrounding reality is hostile, and any tactics, including lying and ingratitude, are good if they help to survive and succeed.
More recent studies have confirmed the relationship between Machiavellianism and locus of control. It was also shown that under high Machiavellianism, not only the possibility of achieving the goal is attributed to external factors, but the goals themselves can be externally set.
Based on the fact that Machiavellians have an external locus of control, it has been hypothesized that Machiavellianism would be associated whole line characteristics that show positive connections with the locus of control - achievement motivation, a successful self-concept, self-confidence, the level of moral development, job satisfaction, etc. Accordingly, the connections of Machiavellianism with these characteristics will be negative. Expectations were largely justified. For example, low Machiavellianism and an internal locus of control were simultaneously associated with a high level of moral development of students; with a prosperous self-concept of gifted high school students, regardless of gender and age; etc.
Studies of professional adaptation, despite some disagreements, form a holistic picture. It has been shown, for example, that among university graduates starting to work, Machiavellianism is negatively associated with labor motivation, job satisfaction, and assessment of management competence.
Machiavellianism (like narcissism) defines individual differences in life satisfaction.
The relationship between Machiavellianism and achievement motivation is less definite. In the early works, no connections were found, and, according to R. Christie, they should not be, since the content of the phenomenon of Machiavellianism does not imply this. However, later on a sample of students, a negative correlation was obtained between these characteristics - the higher the Machiavellianism, the lower the orientation towards achievements, and after a few more years, on the contrary, it was positive, but not on the general sample, but only on business school students. It was concluded that there are connections, but only on specific samples.
In the 80s. Organizational psychologists have become interested in Machiavellianism, and countless studies have been conducted on samples of those involved in business, marketing, or managing teams. In these studies, associations of high Machiavellianism with achievement motivation are often found, but the overall picture is mixed.
Personal type A was considered as another variant of a specific sample, the characteristic features of which are a high pace of activity, energy, competitiveness, achievement motivation, etc. Type A, as some studies have shown, is more common among those with high Machiavellianism, which indirectly testifies in favor of the connection between Machiavellianism and achievement motivation.
Machiavellianism and the triad of personal properties G. Eysenck. Studies that aimed to determine the relationship of Machiavellianism with psychological traits, the content and correlates of which are well known, undoubtedly include G. Eysenck's triad - extraversion, neuroticism and psychotism. The studies used two main experimental designs - comparison of extreme groups and analysis of relationships between traits on representative or at least large samples. Let us give examples of such studies.
When analyzing everyday ideas about Machiavellianism (what people who have high level Machiavellianism, and whether there are any specific groups with high or, conversely, low levels of Machiavellianism) - it has been shown that a high level of Machiavellianism is often attributed to those associated with business. Based on this notion of ordinary consciousness, Skinner formed two groups of undergraduate students - those specializing in a business program and those not associated with a business education. In both groups, those who received high scores on the Machiavellian scale were selected. A comparison on the Eysenck questionnaire of Machiavellians from two groups (business and non-business) revealed significant differences in extraversion and psychotism: both traits were significantly higher in Machiavellians receiving a business education (Skinner, 1983). Thus, the Machiavellians, who, in addition to their personal characteristics, have also chosen a profession that stimulates the development of Machiavellianism, have more extreme values in terms of other personality traits.
A study conducted on an unselected student sample of more than 1000 people found links between Machiavellianism and extraversion and psychotism (but not neuroticism). Higher Machiavellianism was, as in the previous study, associated with extraversion and more pronounced psychotism.
However, the connections of Machiavellianism with extraversion have not been reproduced in recent studies, and the connections with neuroticism and psychotism have been controversial from the very first works to this day. The connections with the subfactors of the G. Eysenck triad are also contradictory, for example, with dominance and impulsiveness.
Machiavellianism and the Big Five personality traits. Works devoted to the connections of Machiavellianism with the most generalized personality traits have reliably established the connection of Machiavellianism with only one trait of the Big Five: Benevolence (the tendency to agree) The higher the Machiavellianism, the lower the goodwill). Correlations reported from studies are at the level of 0.4-0.50.
In addition, according to some works, the indicators of different scales of Machiavellianism are negatively correlated with Consciousness/impulse control. Correlations at the level of 0.2-0.4.
In the Swedish sample, using an analogue of the Big Five (NEXASO), it was shown that Machiavellianism correlates with an additional factor Honesty - Propensity to deceive (-0.57). Analogues of this factor (which are given different names in the works - Trust, Honesty, Values), as a rule, reveal connections with Machiavellianism.
Machiavellianism and the Dark Triad of personality traits. When evaluating and predicting behavior, it is considered appropriate to consider Machiavellianism together with two psychological traits - narcissism and psychopathy, understood as subclinical traits. Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy form a syndrome called the Dark Triad. The personality structure, defined by the dark triad, is characterized by an orientation towards social dominance with all its attendant features, such as intergroup hostility. The triad reveals associations with antisocial behavior and a propensity for violence. However, in the norm (with some excess of the average level), the combination of three traits can determine an adaptive and successful interaction.
It is shown that with a significant severity of one of the features of the triad, high values are observed for the other two. However, the structures of their connections differ, which indicates that these constructs do not coincide, but only intersect. At the same time, there is no complete agreement regarding the structures of the connections of the features of the Dark Triad in the results of various studies.
Let's give two examples.
Lee and Ashton (2005) show that Machiavellianism and narcissism are associated with different Big Five scales - Machiavellianism with low agreeableness, and narcissism with extraversion. In another study, all traits of the Dark Triad were associated with low agreeableness, Machiavellianism and psychopathy with conscientiousness, and narcissism with extraversion (Vernon et al., 2007).
Machiavellian intelligence. The study of the level of Machiavellianism depending on the intellectual characteristics is rare and does not allow drawing definite conclusions. With large assumptions, it can be assumed that there is a weak relationship between Machiavellianism and the level of intelligence.
A negative relationship of Machiavellianism with emotional intelligence, as well as with many other characteristics associated with the definition of non-verbal and, especially, emotional components of social interaction, has been obtained.
There are no reliable data on the links between social and practical intelligence and Machiavellianism.
The intelligence of a Machiavellian is rated by various authors either as high, or - implicitly - as being in a wide range from low to high. At the same time, we have not come across any theories in which a person who is constantly trying to manipulate others and having low intelligence would be considered explicitly. But if we recall the thought of F. Iskander that "stupid and at the same time deceitful people often show clever resourcefulness, they are good commanders of their small mental powers", such a combination of stupidity and the desire for manipulation is possible, and in some circumstances even typical (for example, in an environment cunning but stupid bureaucrats communicating with the population).
Machiavellian ideas about other people, their intellect and morality. The Machiavellian's own ideas about the mind of other people are also characterized as different in different theories. According to the researcher of Machiavellianism R. Christie, the Machiavellian considers others to be simpletons. In accordance with other approaches, the Machiavellian is adequate in his assessments: when faced with simpletons, he understands that they are simpletons, when faced with smart people, he accepts this too, changing the strategy and level of interaction.
The same applies to the Machiavellian's assessment of the morality of other people, their relationships with other people. Some authors believe that the Machiavellian sees the surrounding people as subjects who care only about their own benefit, property, etc., others - that the Machiavellian sees both immoral and highly moral attitudes of people and skillfully uses it. This diversity is limited - we have not come across works that would consider a person who has Machiavellian attitudes and at the same time considers other people basically smart and moral. Such romantic idealism in the Machiavellian apparently belongs to the category of the unthinkable.
The mediation of the connections of Machiavellianism. Contradictions in the results of different studies may be due to the fact that the relationship of Machiavellianism with various particular psychological traits varies depending on the severity of other psychological traits. So, with high Machiavellianism, depending on emotional intelligence and anxiety, the success of recognizing emotions upon presentation of ambivalent stimuli can change, i.e. stimuli, the content of which combines signs from two semantic spaces - the sign and the modality of emotion. The connection between job satisfaction and Machiavellianism is mediated by internality-externality, as well as motivational characteristics and positive and negative emotionality. The manifestation of aggression, positively associated with Machiavellianism, varies depending on who it is directed to, to the point that the level of explicated aggression will be lower in individuals with lower Machiavellianism.
Thus, from the presented brief review of studies devoted to the analysis of the structure of connections of Machiavellianism, it follows that Machiavellianism is quite unambiguously associated with some of the most common personality traits (benevolent and conscientiousness), with a locus of control, moral and ethical ideas, and also under certain conditions (on specific samples or with a certain combination of psychological characteristics) with a large number of private personality traits.
It should be noted that some correlates of Machiavellianism seem paradoxical and in fact call into question its constructive validity. For example, how can the desire for power and low achievement motivation be combined? Published studies do not provide answers to such questions.
This list of Machiavellian qualities and ideas is not exhaustive. Social reality is developing, Machiavellianism as a social phenomenon and ideas about it are changing. As this development progresses, new characteristics of analysis and new assessments of the psychological make-up and behavior of the Machiavellians, their motives, goals, strategies, as well as the results they achieve or do not achieve, will appear.
As a result of the theoretical analysis of Machiavellianism, it is concluded that there is a connection between Machiavellianism and social success, namely: the higher the level of Machiavellianism, the lower social success; the lower the level of Machiavellianism, the higher the social success. Evidence of low social success with a high level of Machiavellianism is the above reasons for manipulation (distrust, the eternal conflict of a person with himself, the need to obtain approval from everyone and everyone, etc.). So a person who uses manipulation becomes limited in his behavior, is a hostage of his own techniques for communicating with others, and relies on the predictability of others. At the first time of communication with manipulators, you may feel that they have really achieved success, but this is just an illusion. At the first signs of awareness of manipulation, we begin to doubt their success, and a little later we notice the helplessness of the manipulator, especially without a victim. Thus, we believe that a person who chooses more constructive ways to achieve the goal without resorting to manipulation is socially successful; treats people with respect and tolerance; has knowledge and skills of protection against manipulation; strives for personal development, self-realization and self-actualization.
The course work was completed by: student of the 3rd year of the 31st group Zhemerdeeva Elena.
Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov
psychology faculty
Department of Personality Psychology
Moscow, 2001
Introduction.
In our time, the concept of "Machiavellianism" is often used in various humanities. Machiavellianism as a scientific category is widespread in foreign psychological research, but is practically not used in Russian psychology.
The study of Machiavellianism as a psychological concept is of great interest due to the lack of a sufficient number of works by domestic psychologists on this topic.
This work is a brief coverage of some (mostly foreign) studies in the field of Machiavellian personality.
There was also a small study in which the author tried to correlate high/low levels of Machiavellianism with:
pronounced accentuations (according to the method for determining the accentuations of Leonhard's character);
types of behavior (according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary);
external/internal types of localization of control over events that are significant for oneself (according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter);
with the value orientations of the subject (according to the "Value Orientations" method by Rokeach).
The study was conducted on ten subjects aged 19 to 30 years. All subjects received (or are in the process of obtaining) higher education (humanitarian or technical).
After processing the questionnaires, an attempt was made to compare the results obtained with the results that took place in the course of the studies described in the theoretical part of the work.
Phenomenological description of Machiavellianism.
Machiavellianism is one of the concepts that characterizes the attitude towards another person as a means that can be neglected in the pursuit of personal good.
Historical aspect.
Machiavellianism owes its origin to the teachings of the Italian thinker and statesman Florentine Nicolo di Bernardo Machiavelli (1469-1527), but is far from being identical to his teachings. It is known that the rich, bright, multifaceted, but not properly systematized teachings of Machiavelli contain provisions that received a contradictory interpretation in the next four and a half centuries.
Historically, the term “Machiavellianism” was preceded by the term “Machiavellianist”, which, it is believed, first appeared in print in 1581 in the work of the French political writer N. Frumento “Finances”, and then in 1589 in England in one of the treatises of T. Nash . In the 17th century, the term “Machiavellianism” began to be used, and the Italian utopian socialist T. Campanella wrote an essay called “Anti-Machiavellianism”.
The content of the concept of “Machiavellianism” was formed and modified on the basis of certain provisions from the works of the Florentine writer, their interpretations and subsequent layers of ideas of many thinkers on them. In this context, the most interesting is such a work of his as “The Sovereign”, dedicated to Lorenzo dei Medici. Here, acting as an adviser to a ruler who wants to hold out in his place for a long time and successfully, Machiavelli allows for the sake of great goals the opportunity to neglect the laws of morality and use any means, perhaps cruel and treacherous, in the struggle for power. “All the armed prophets were victorious, all the unarmed perished,” writes Machiavelli.
In the case of the Florentine thinker, the views attributed to him took on an independent life and acquired such legendary offshoots as “Machiavellianism”, “anti-Machiavellianism”.
So, in Machiavellianism as a set of political views, the following ideas can be distinguished as the main ones:
The position on the constancy and imperfection of human nature, which decisively affects the nature and dynamics of the life of society;
The idea that the state with its interests is an end in itself;
A statement about the decisive role of the force factor in politics;
Separation of politics and morality.
Psychological aspect.
Applied to an individual, Machiavellianism is a general strategy of behavior in interpersonal communication, a tendency to manipulate other people for their own benefit.
In the 60s, American scientists conducted a content analysis of N. Machiavelli's treatise "The Sovereign" and, on its basis, two scales of Machiavellianism Mach 4 and Mach 5 were created.
Nowadays, the concept of "Machiavellianism" is often used in various humanities. Machiavellianism as a scientific category is widespread in foreign psychological research, but is practically not used in Russian psychology. A psychological questionnaire called the "Mac Scale" is actively used in Western social psychology and personality psychology.
Western psychologists call Machiavellianism the tendency of a person to manipulate other people in interpersonal relationships. We are talking about such cases when the subject hides his true intentions; at the same time, with the help of false distractions, he achieves that the partner, without realizing it, changes his original goals. “Machiavellianism is usually defined as the tendency of a person in interpersonal situations to manipulate others in subtle, subtle, or non-physically aggressive ways, such as flattery, deceit, bribery, or intimidation.”
The discussed psychological property of the personality is described somewhat differently in another work: it defines Machiavellianism as "a strategy of social behavior, including the manipulation of others for personal purposes, often contrary to their own interests. Machiavellianism should be considered as a quantitative characteristic. Everyone is to varying degrees capable of manipulative behavior, but some people are more inclined and capable of it than others.
Psychological correlates of Machiavellianism.
After the creation of the questionnaires, a whole series of studies began on the content and causes of Machiavellianism, its connection with other social characteristics.
According to R. Christie, one of the creators of the Mac-scale, and his student F. Geis, Machiavellianism is a psychological syndrome based on a combination of interrelated cognitive, motivational, and behavioral characteristics.
The main psychological components of Machiavellianism as a personality trait are:
the belief of the subject that when communicating with other people, they can and even need to be manipulated;
skills, specific skills of manipulation.
The latter include the ability to convince others, to understand their intentions and reasons for their actions.
It is interesting that Machiavellian beliefs and skills may not coincide and be realized in behavior “autonomously”. As shown in studies on the development of Machiavellian personality in ontogeny, some children adopt a system of beliefs from their parents that does not directly but indirectly affect their behavior. Others directly copy successful ways of manipulating people from their parents, but do not adopt Machiavellian beliefs from them.
Machiavellianism as a personal characteristic generally reflects the subject's disbelief that most people can be trusted, that they are altruistic, independent, and have a strong will.
There is some suggestion that the level of Machiavellianism increases towards a person's maturity and then more or less stabilizes. Older people have a low level of Machiavellianism, which is associated with the hypothesis of socially significant values that a person learns throughout life.
Exploring the relationship between age and Machiavellianism, P.E.Mudrack interviewed 115 adults using Mach 4. His conclusion was that age is inversely correlated with the level of Machiavellianism, especially with its highlighted components such as flattery and deceit.
Differences in the existence of manipulation tendencies were seen already in children as young as 10 years of age. So, in a study by Braginsky, they first measured the level of Machiavellianism in ten-year-old children using KiddieMach, and then analyzed their behavior in the game. Children who scored high on the scale showed themselves to be great manipulators in the game.
S. N. Ray and M. D. Gapta (S. N. Rai & M. D. Gapta) found that the highest level of Machiavellianism in children corresponded to a high level of this indicator in both mother and father; and vice versa, the lowest in children is the lowest in each of the parents.
In Christie's studies, among the factors influencing the formation of Machiavellianism in a child, some extra-family factors of socialization were named - peers, the media.
Individual differences in Machiavellianism are determined by a number of complex social processes.
There is a lot of evidence that people with a high level of Machiavellianism have an indifferent opinion of others, a cynical view of people in general and of individuals.
High Machiavellians better notice the weaknesses of other people and successfully use this.
Low Machiavellians to a greater extent build their behavior on an ideal model of interaction with others, where relationships are built on a subject-subject principle as opposed to a subject-object one.
In the Harris study, 76 men were asked to complete the Mach questionnaire and then rate their interaction partners on twenty bipolar scales (eg sincere versus selfish, mild versus rude, etc.). The ratings of both high and low Machiavellians were on the positive segments of the scale, but high Machiavellians on nineteen out of twenty scales described people worse, i.e. as less sincere, less friendly, less interesting, etc. .
R. V. Exline, J. Thibaut, C. B. Hickey and P. Gumpert suggest that people with a high level of Machiavellianism are best described in terms of personality power, initiative, competence in social interaction than in terms of high/low moral character. The authors found no differences in the moral or immoral behavior of high and low Machiavellians. However, it was noted that people with a high level of Machiavellianism are more capable of choosing the necessary course of action for successfully manipulating others, they can skillfully “jiggle” information about themselves, and form a false impression.
At the same time, it should be noted that studies conducted on a Russian sample showed a negative correlation between Machiavellianism and the moral qualities of a person. This can be explained both by the fact that in the system of Machiavellian values, in principle, such concepts as kindness and morality are insignificant, and by the fact that Machiavellianists honestly evaluate themselves and, realizing that they achieve their goals in communication in unapproved ways, they honestly admit that they moral qualities are not up to the mark.
People who demonstrate high scores on the Mac-scale, when coming into contact with others, tend to stay emotionally aloof, apart, focus on the problem, and not on the interlocutor, and distrust others. Such subjects, in contrast to subjects with low scores, have more frequent but less deep contact with their friends and neighbors. For example, one study found an inverse relationship between the level of Machiavellianism and empathy shown by students when giving advice and helping each other. Christie and Geis called a high level of Machiavellianism the "emotional coldness syndrome" because social withdrawal is a major characteristic of such people.
At the same time, the results of the experiments clearly show that, unlike people with low scores on the Machiavellian scale, people with high scores on the Mac scale are more communicative and persuasive, regardless of whether they tell the interlocutor the truth or lie. Compared to subjects who score low on the Machiavellian scale, subjects with high scores are more accurate and honest in their perceptions and understanding of themselves and others. It is also important to note that they usually receive low scores on the social desirability method. In communication, Machiavellians, as a rule, are subject-oriented: in social interactions they are more purposeful, competitive and focused primarily on achieving a goal, and not on interacting with partners.
R. Christie and F. Geis (R. Cristie, F. Geis) created the “General model of behavioral manifestations”, in which they considered the behavior of people with a high / low level of Machiavellianism, depending on the degree of structured situation.
In a more structured situation, high Machiavellians are formal, while low Machiavellians seriously consider their behavior in order to look good in the situation, "go all out". In a less structured situation, high Machiavellians instrumental resource development, intuitive control of the structure, which allows them to produce fewer erroneous samples. Low Machiavellians think out logically, not intuitively, obscure components of the situation, interact with other people to form goals and objectives.
Among the associations of Machiavellianism with other variables is the correlation with external locus of control, which Madrak found in twenty studies. The level of Machiavellianism is negatively affected by the degree of impulsivity. J.Sopp, G.Yu.Eysenck and S.B.Eysenck (J.Soppe, H.J.Eysenck & S.B.Eysenck) compared the results obtained on the Eysenck personality questionnaire and the Machiavellian scale, consisting of 42 items. The study involved 592 men and 562 women. The results obtained showed a positive correlation of the level of Machiavellianism with psychotism and extraversion, and a negative correlation with the Eysenck lie scale. Moreover, for women, the correlation with psychotism is higher than for men; and men have a higher correlation with extraversion than women. No connection was found between Machiavellianism and neuroticism.
When studying the connection between Machiavellianism and helping behavior, N. Barber noted that Machiavellianism is not a constant value. So, in relation to members of their family, the level of Machiavellianism among the subjects was lower than in relation to people in general.
The study of Machiavellianism in terms of organization has become widespread. The first attempt to adapt Machiavellianism to the needs of management was made in the 60s by E. Jay in the book “Management and Machiavellianism”. The author compared modern corporations to individual nations, and their leaders to sovereigns, to which the press responded with the assumption that this book is a comic work.
As an example of the study of Machiavellianism in this aspect, one can cite the results of a study by C.J. Shultz, which showed that in organizations of a free type, high Machiavellians significantly outperformed low ones in success, and vice versa in well-structured organizations. As an explanation, one can refer to the “General Model of Behavioral Manifestations” by Christie and Geis, where it is noted that in highly structured situations, people with a high level of Machiavellianism manifest themselves formally, and people with a low level “give their best” completely, while in poorly structured situations structured situation, a wide field of possibilities opens up for the intuition of a high Machiavellian.
There is a reasonable assumption about the similarity of indicators on the Machiavellian scale in married couples.
Machiavellianism does not correlate with intelligence, rational attitudes, and such personality traits as the need for achievement and the level of anxiety.
Generalized characteristics of Machiavellians.
Western scholars use the following psychological characteristics to describe: a strongly pronounced type of Machiavellian personality:
smart, courageous, ambitious, dominant, persistent, selfish
weakly expressed type: cowardly, indecisive, susceptible to influence, honest, sentimental, reliable.
Any pronounced Machiavellian wants to look in the eyes of others, for example, smart and unselfish. Naturally, in communicative situations, they try to show themselves just like that. People with low scores on the Mac Scale actually have more positive traits, such as honesty and reliability, but pronounced Machiavellian people have greater skill and behavioral skills to hide a lack of such personality traits.
Machiavellianism and manipulation.
Origin of the term "manipulation"
Manipulus - the Latin progenitor of the term "manipulation" - has two meanings:
a) a handful, a handful (manus - hand + p1e - fill),
b) a small group, a bunch, a handful (manus + p1 - a weak form of the root).
In a figurative sense, the Oxford Dictionary defines manipulation as "the act of influencing or controlling people or things with dexterity, especially with disparaging overtones, as covert control or manipulation." It was in this content that the word "manipulation" replaced the previously used term "Machiavellianism" in the political dictionary.
Psychological definition of manipulation.
| № | The authors | Definitions |
| 1. | Bessonov B.N. | A form of spiritual influence of hidden domination, carried out by force |
| 2. | Volkogonov D.A. | Dominance over the spiritual state, control of the change in the inner world |
| 3. | Goodin R. | Covert use of power (force) against the intended will of another |
| 4. | Yokoyama O.T. | Deceptive indirect influence in the interests of the manipulator |
| 5. | Proto L. | Hidden Influence on Choice Making |
| 6. | Reeker W. | Structuring the world in such a way that allows you to win |
| 7. | Rudinov J. | Inducing behavior through deception or playing on the perceived weaknesses of another |
| 8. | Sagatovsky V.N. | Relationship to another as a means, object, tool |
| 9. | Schiller G. | Hidden coercion, programming thoughts, intentions, feelings, attitudes, attitudes, behavior |
| 10. | Shostrom E. | Management and control, exploitation of another, use as objects, things |
| 11. | Robinson P.W. | Mastery management or use |
Five groups of features were obtained, in each of which a generalized criterion was identified that claims to be included in the definition of manipulation:
generic trait - psychological impact,
the attitude of the manipulator to another as a means to achieve their own goals,
the desire to get a one-sided win,
the hidden nature of the impact (both the fact of the impact and its direction),
use of (psychological) strength, playing on weaknesses.
In addition, two more criteria turned out to be somewhat isolated:
motivation, motivation and
skill and skill in the implementation of manipulative actions.
So the following definition is proposed:
Manipulation is a kind of psychological influence, the skillful execution of which leads to a hidden excitation in another person of intentions that do not coincide with his actual desires.
The difference between Machiavellianism and manipulation.
1. Manipulation can be unconscious.
Machiavellianism is the belief that people need to be manipulated: that is the nature of man.
2. Manipulation can be done with the best of intentions. (For example, parents manipulate their own children. But they do it for the good of the children).
Machiavellian always performs actions for his own benefit, has a selfish interest. He does not feel guilty for manipulation, acts confidently, openly towards people, which helps to establish contact with them.
Methodology for determining the character accentuations of K. Leonhard.
Accentuation - these are the same individual traits, but with a tendency to move into a pathological state. Many traits can be inherent to some extent in any person, but their manifestations are so insignificant that they elude observation. With greater severity, they leave an imprint on the personality as such and can acquire a pathological character, destroying the structure of the personality.
Accentuated personalities are not pathological. Accentuated personalities potentially contain both the possibility of socially positive achievements and a socially negative charge. Some accentuated personalities appear before us in a negative light, because life circumstances did not favor them, but it is quite possible that under the influence of other circumstances they would become outstanding people. Thus, the development of the individual is significantly influenced by the environment and the combination of circumstances.
Usually accentuations develop during the formation of character and smooth out with growing up. Character traits with accentuations may not appear constantly, but only in certain situations, in a certain situation, and almost not be detected under normal conditions. Social maladaptation with accentuations is either completely absent or is short-lived.
If we give a strict definition of character accentuations, then it should be noted that character accentuations are extreme variants of the norm, in which certain character traits are excessively strengthened, as a result of which selective vulnerability is found in relation to a certain kind of psychogenic influences with good and even increased resistance to others.
The assessment of the level of accentuated personality expression after filling out the questionnaire for accentuation is carried out according to the key table and the results are reflected in the following graph:
Dm - demonstrative personalities
P - pedantic personalities
Z - stuck personalities
B - excitable personalities
G - hyperthymic personality
Dee - dysthymic personalities
Al - affective-labile temperament
Ae - affective-exalted temperament
T - anxious (fearful) personality
Em - emotive personalities
demonstrative personalities.
The essence of the demonstrative or hysterical type lies in the anomalous capacity for repression.
In fact, each of us has the ability to do this with unpleasant facts. However, this repressed knowledge usually remains at the threshold of consciousness, so it cannot be completely ignored. In hysterics, this ability goes very far: they can completely “forget” about what they do not want to know, they are able to lie without realizing at all that they are lying.
Pedantic personalities.
In persons of the pedantic type, in contrast to the demonstrative type, the mechanisms of repression are extremely poorly represented in mental activity. If the actions of hysterics are characterized by a lack of reasonable weighing, then pedants "drag" with a decision even when the stage of preliminary deliberation is finally completed. Before they take action, they want to make sure once again that a better solution cannot be found, that better options do not exist. The pedant is not able to displace doubts, and this slows down his actions.
Stuck personalities.
The basis of the stuck, paranoid type of personality accentuation is the pathological persistence of affect.
In a stuck personality, the action of affect ceases much more slowly than in other people, and as soon as the thought returns to what happened, the emotions accompanying stress immediately come to life. The affect of such a person lasts for a very long time, although no new experiences activate it.
Excitable personalities.
These are individuals with insufficient controllability of character. This is manifested in the fact that it is not prudence, not the logical weighing of one's actions, but inclinations, instincts, uncontrollable impulses that are often decisive for a person's lifestyle and behavior. What is suggested by the mind is not taken into account.
The reactions of excitable personalities are impulsive. If they do not like something, they do not look for an opportunity to reconcile, tolerance is alien to them.
Hyperthymic personalities.
Hyperthymic natures always look at life optimistically, easily overcome sadness. Hyperthymic accentuation of the personality is not always fraught with negative consequences, it can have a beneficial effect on the whole way of life of a person. Thanks to the increased thirst for activity, hyperthymic individuals achieve industrial and creative success. The thirst for activity stimulates their initiative, constantly pushes them to search for something new. Deviation from the main idea gives rise to many unexpected associations, ideas, which also favors active creative thinking. In society, hyperthymic personalities are brilliant interlocutors, they are constantly in the center of attention, they entertain everyone.
However, if this temperament is expressed too brightly, a positive forecast is removed. Unclouded gaiety, excessive liveliness are fraught with danger, because such people, jokingly, pass by events that should be taken seriously. An excessive thirst for activity turns into fruitless scattering, a person takes on a lot and does not bring anything to the end. Excessive cheerfulness can turn into irritability.
Dysthymic personalities.
The dysthymic temperament is the opposite of the hyperthymic temperament. Personalities of this type are serious by nature and usually focus on the gloomy, sad sides of life to a much greater extent than on the joyful ones. Events that have shaken them deeply can bring this serious pessimistic attitude to a state of reactive depression. In society, dysthymic people almost do not participate in the conversation, only occasionally interjecting remarks after long pauses.
A serious attitude brings to the fore subtle, lofty feelings that are incompatible with human egoism. A serious attitude leads to the formation of a serious ethical position. A negative manifestation is passivity in actions and slow thinking in those cases when they go beyond the norm.
Affectively - labile personality type.
Affectively - labile, or cyclothymic, personalities are people who are characterized by a change in hyperthymic and dysthymic states. Now one or the other of the poles comes to the fore, sometimes without any visible external motives, and sometimes in connection with one or another specific event. It is curious that joyful events evoke not only joyful emotions in such people, but are also accompanied by a general picture of hyperthymia: a thirst for activity, increased pride, a jump in ideas. Sad events cause depression, as well as slowness of reactions and thinking.
The reason for the change of poles is not always external stimuli, sometimes an elusive turn in the general mood is enough. If a cheerful society gathers, then affectively - labile individuals can be in the center of attention, be "ringleaders", amuse all those gathered. In a serious, strict environment, they can be the most withdrawn and silent.
Affectively exalted temperament.
Affectively - exalted people react to life more violently than others, they are equally easily delighted with joyful events and despair of sad ones. Exaltation is motivated by subtle, altruistic urges. Attachment to loved ones, friends, joy for them, for their success can be extremely strong. There are enthusiastic impulses that are not associated with a purely personal relationship.
The other pole of his reactions is his extreme sensitivity to sad facts. Regarding an easily correctable failure, a slight disappointment that others would have forgotten tomorrow, an exalted person may experience sincere and deep grief. Even with a slight fear in an exalted personality, physiological manifestations (trembling, cold sweat) are immediately noticeable.
The fact that exaltation is associated with subtle and very human emotions explains why this temperament is especially often possessed by artistic natures - artists, poets.
Anxious personalities.
Such people are distinguished by timidity, self-doubt, there is a component of humility, humiliation. Overcompensation is possible in the form of self-confident or even impudent behavior, but its unnaturalness immediately catches the eye. At times, fearfulness joins timidity.
Emotive personalities.
Emotivity is characterized by sensitivity and deep reactions in the field of subtle emotions. It is not rude feelings that excite these people, but those that we associate with the soul, with humanity and responsiveness. Usually such people are called soft-hearted. In a conversation with emotive personalities, it is immediately clear how deeply they are affected by the feelings they speak about, since all this is clearly expressed by their facial expressions. The special sensitivity of nature leads to the fact that mental upheavals have a painfully deep effect on such people and cause depression.
Methodology for diagnosing interpersonal relationships T. Leary.
The technique was created by T. Leary, G. Leforge, R. Sazek in 1954 and is intended to study the subject's ideas about himself and the ideal "I", as well as to study relationships in small groups. With the help of this technique, the predominant type of attitude towards people in self-esteem and mutual evaluation is revealed.
In the study of interpersonal relationships, two factors are most often distinguished: dominance-submission and friendliness-aggressiveness. It is these factors that determine the overall impression of a person in the processes of interpersonal perception. They are named by M. Argyle among the main components in the analysis of the style of interpersonal behavior and in content can be correlated with two of the three main axes of the semantic differential of Ch. From there: evaluation and strength.
The questionnaire contains 128 value judgments, of which 16 items are formed in each of the 8 types of relationships, ordered by ascending intensity. The technique is designed in such a way that judgments aimed at identifying any type of relationship are not arranged in a row, but in a special way: they are grouped by 4 and repeated through an equal number of definitions. During processing, the number of relationships of each type is counted.
The maximum score of the type is 16 points, but it is divided into four degrees of severity of the attitude:
0-4 points - low (adaptive behavior)
5-8 points - moderate (adaptive behavior)
9-12 points - high (extreme behavior)
13-16 points - extreme (extreme behavior, before pathology)
Egoistic
Aggressive
Suspicious
subordinate
Dependent
Friendly.
Altruistic.
J. Rotter's method of diagnosing the level of subjective control.
The definition of the USC of a person is based on 2 prerequisites:
1. People differ among themselves in how and where they localize control over significant events for themselves. Two polar types of such localization are possible: external and internal. In the first case, a person believes that the events happening to him are the result of the action of external forces - chance, other people, etc. In the second case, a person interprets significant events as the result of his own activity. Each person has a certain position on a continuum that extends from the external to the internal type.
2. The locus of control characteristic of the individual is universal in relation to any types of events and situations that he has to face. The same type of control characterizes the behavior of a given individual in the event of failures and in the sphere of achievements, and this applies equally to various areas of social life.
The results of the completed questionnaires are identified by scoring on the following 7 scales:
Io - scale of general internality;
Id - scale of internality in the field of achievements;
In - scale of internality in the field of failures;
Is - scale of internality in family relations;
Ip - the scale of internality in industrial relations;
Im - the scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations;
From - the scale of internality in relation to health and disease.
Analysis of USC indicators on 7 scales is carried out by comparing the results with the norm (5.5 sten). Deviation to the right (> 5.5 walls) indicates the internal type of control (ICC) in the relevant situations. Deviation to the left from the norm (< 5,5 стенов) свидетельствует об экстернальном типе УСК.
Methodology "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach.
The system of value orientations determines the content side of the personality’s orientation and forms the basis of its relationship to the surrounding world, to other people, to itself, the basis of the worldview and the core of the motivation for life activity, the basis of the life concept and “philosophy of life”.
The most common at present is the method of changing the value orientations of M. Rokeach, based on the direct ranking of the list of values. M. Rokeach distinguishes two classes of values:
terminal - beliefs that some final goal individual existence is worth striving for:
instrumental - beliefs that some mode of action or personality trait is preferable in any situation.
This division corresponds to the traditional division into values-goals and values-means.
Analyzing the hierarchy of values, one should pay attention to their grouping by the subjects into meaningful blocks for various reasons. So, for example, “concrete” and “abstract” values, values of professional self-realization and personal life, etc. are distinguished. Instrumental values can be grouped into ethical values, communication values, business values, individualistic and conformist values, altruistic values, self-affirmation values and values of accepting others, etc.
Subject #1.
The total response rate of the subject on the Mac-scale is 108, which indicates a high degree of Machiavellian personality in him.
2. Accentuation according to Leonhard:
Hyperthymia
Rigidity
Pedantry
Anxiety
Cyclothymic
demonstrativeness
Excitability
Dystimism.
From this it follows that the subject has an affective-labile type of personality, i.e. for the subject, the change of hyperthymic and dysthymic states is typical.
The combination of demonstrative character traits with hyperthymic liveliness of temperament contributes to the activation of acting data in a person, which is consistent with the data on the high Machiavellian personality of the subject.
With a combination of pedantic and dysthymic features, according to Leonhard, the specificity of both is enhanced, i.e. deviation from the norm is more significant.
Pedantry and anxious temperament belong to different mental planes. However, if both types of accentuation are observed in one person, a summing effect is possible. This is due to the fact that one of the most important signs is fear, especially in childhood.
Among the combinations of stuck character traits with temperament properties, the stuck-hyperthymic combination is especially important. Such people never find peace, they are always in high spirits.
It is necessary to note the combination of stuckness and anxiety. Anxiety is associated with the humiliation of human dignity. Such persons are weak, helpless. Stuck personalities cannot bear it, they try in every possible way to force out, it is very easy to set their pride. This is how overcompensation occurs.
Altruistic = 12 (extreme behavior)
Dominance score = 11 (high score, extreme behavior)
Friendliness score = 6 (moderate score, adaptive behavior)
In general, it can be said that the subject has the following traits: a desire for dominance, energy, some egoism, self-orientation, a tendency to compete, criticism of all social phenomena and people around him, but at the same time, an orientation towards acceptance and social approval. , emotional lability (which corresponds to the results of Leonhard's accentuations), hyper-responsibility, obsession with helping and excessive activity in relation to others, inadequate acceptance of responsibility for others (but, most likely, this is just an external "mask" that hides a person of the opposite type, which is consistent with the results of the studies cited above, suggesting that altruism in subjects with a high level of Machiavellianism is actually quite low).
Scale indicators:
Scale of internality in the field of failures (In) - 2
Scale of internality in family relations (IS) - 1
Scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations (Im) - 7
Thus, in general, the subject is characterized by a low level of subjective control (the subject does not see the connection between his actions and significant events in life for him, does not consider himself able to control this connection, and believes that most events and actions are the result of an accident or the actions of other people ). This is consistent with Madrak's findings from 20 studies that correlated Machiavellianism with external locus of control.
However, it is worth noting a high indicator of Im, which indicates that a person considers himself able to control his formal and informal relationships with other people, to arouse respect and sympathy for himself. This is understandable, since people with a high degree of Machiavellian personality require a high level of subjective control in interpersonal relationships, since they must be clearly aware of their actions in order to achieve the desired result.
freedom
Health
Development
productive life
life wisdom
Active active life
Independence (which correlates with a low score on the Leary dependency factor)
Rationalism (the ability to think sensibly and logically, make deliberate, rational decisions)
self control
Education
Efficiency in business
breadth of views
A responsibility
Intolerance to shortcomings in oneself and others
diligence
Honesty, sensitivity, the happiness of others, are in last place.
Subject #2.
1. The results of the "questionnaire for Machiavellianism" - Mach-IV scale.
The total response rate of the subject on the Mac-scale is 108, which indicates a high degree of Machiavellian personality in her.
2. Accentuation according to Leonhard:
Rigidity
emotivity
Anxiety
Cyclothymic
demonstrativeness
Excitability
Exaltation
The test subject has an affective-labile type of personality, i.e. for the subject, the change of hyperthymic and dysthymic states is typical.
There is a combination of demonstrative and affective-labile traits. Demonstrative character traits stimulate fantasy, affective-labile temperament gives rise to an emotional orientation, has a softening effect on hysterical egoism.
It is necessary to note the combination of stuckness and anxiety (possible overcompensation).
It is also worth noting the maximum indicator of exaltation.
3. Results according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary.
Selfishness = 3 (adaptive behavior)
Suspicion = 10 (extreme behavior)
Friendliness = 4 (adaptive behavior)
Altruistic = 9 (extreme behavior)
Score on the factor "Dominance" = 4.5 (moderate score, adaptive behavior)
In general, we can say that the subject has the following traits: dictatorship, dominance, despotic character, some egoistic traits, stubbornness, perseverance, criticality, difficulties in interpersonal contacts due to suspicion and fear of a bad attitude [this result is consistent with the results of the study cited above , - a subject with a high level of Machiavellianism has a high level of suspicion], isolation, disappointment in people, hyper-responsibility, inadequate acceptance of responsibility for others (but, most likely, this is just an external "mask" that hides the personality of the opposite type, which is consistent with the results of the above above studies suggesting that altruistic subjects with high levels of Machiavellianism are actually quite low).
4. Results according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter.
Scale indicators:
Scale of internality in the field of achievements (Id) - 7
Thus, in general, the subject is characterized by a high level of subjective control over any significant situations. Those. the subject believes that most important events in her life are the result of her own actions, that she can control them and, thus, she feels her own responsibility for these events and for how her life develops in general. The highest score on the scale of internality is in the area of interpersonal relationships. This indicates a high level of control of the subject of their relationships with other people.
5. Results according to the method "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach.
Development
Cognition
Interesting job
life wisdom
freedom
happy family life
Thus, for the subject, the sphere of interpersonal relations, as well as the sphere of knowledge, comes to the fore.
Among the instrumental values:
Honesty
Education
Independence
Courage in defending one's opinion, with a look
breadth of views
Efficiency in business
Cheerfulness
self control
Subject #3.
1. The results of the "questionnaire for Machiavellianism" - Mach-IV scale.
The total response rate of the test subject on the Mac-scale is 63, which indicates a low degree of Machiavellian personality in her.
2. Accentuation according to Leonhard:
Thus, the subject has a strong expression of the following properties:
Rigidity
emotivity
The subject is characterized by sensitivity, deep reactions in the field of subtle emotions. It is also worth noting that it is characterized by a strong persistence of affect.
3. Results according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary.
Selfishness = 2 (adaptive behavior)
Aggressiveness = 4 (adaptive behavior)
Suspicion = 6 (adaptive behavior)
Obedience = 5 (adaptive behavior)
Score on the factor "Friendliness" = 1 (low score, adaptive behavior).
In general, we can say that the subject has the following traits: gentleness, gullibility, a tendency to cooperate, flexibility, compromise, sociability, the desire to show warmth and friendliness in relationships, kindness, care, affection, the ability to cheer up and calm down, disinterestedness and responsiveness.
4. Results according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter.
Scale indicators:
Scale of internality in family relations (IS) - 7
Scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations (Im) - 3
Scale of internality in relation to health and disease (Iz) - 3
Thus, it is impossible to draw an unambiguous conclusion about the level of subjective control of the subject. In general, the indicator on the scale of general internality is very close to the norm. The subject is characterized by the highest level of subjective control in the field of achievements, in family relationships. In the field of failures, in industrial relations, in interpersonal relations and in the field of health, the level of subjective control is reduced.
5. Results according to the method "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach.
Among the terminal values of the subject, the following were identified among the main ones:
happiness of others
Having good and true friends
Self confidence
Development
productive life
happy family life
Life wisdom.
Thus, for the subject, the sphere of interpersonal relations comes to the fore, as well as the sphere of development, work on oneself, and improvement.
Among the instrumental values:
Honesty
Tolerance
High requests
A responsibility
Independence
self control
Strong will
Courage in defending your opinion, views
Subject number 4.
1. The results of the "questionnaire for Machiavellianism" - Mach-IV scale.
The total response rate of the subject on the Mac-scale is 86, which
2. Accentuation according to Leonhard:
Thus, the subject has a strong expression of the following properties:
Rigidity
Cyclothymic
Distimism
The subject is inherent in an affective-labile type of personality, i.e. for the subject, the change of hyperthymic and dysthymic states is typical.
3. Results according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary.
Selfishness = 7 (adaptive behavior)
Aggressiveness = 6 (adaptive behavior)
Obedience = 1 (adaptive behavior)
Dependency = 2 (adaptive behavior)
Friendliness = 6 (adaptive behavior)
Score on the "Dominance" factor = 6.8 (moderate score, adaptive behavior)
In general, we can say that the subject has the following traits: self-confidence, perseverance, perseverance, self-orientation, selfish traits, criticality in relation to all social phenomena and people around him, a tendency to cooperate, following conventions, rules and principles of "good manners". "in relations with people, the desire to be in agreement with the opinions of others, gentleness, delicacy.
4. Results according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter.
Scale indicators:
Scale of internality in family relations (IS) - 4
Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (IP) - 4
Scale of internality in relation to health and disease (Iz) - 7
Thus, in general, the subject is characterized by a low level of subjective control over significant situations. Those. the subject does not see the connection between his actions and significant life events for him. However, it should be noted that in the field of interpersonal relationships and in relation to health, the subject has a high level of subjective control, which indicates a high level of control of the subject of his relationships with other people, as well as that he considers himself responsible for his health.
5. Results according to the method "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach.
Among the terminal values, the subjects identified the following among the main ones:
life wisdom
Cognition
Health
Having good and true friends
financially secure life
Interesting job
The beauty of nature and art
Active active life
Thus, for the subject, the sphere of knowledge and career comes to the fore, he is also concerned about the sphere of interpersonal relations.
Among the instrumental values:
Education
Independence
breadth of views
Efficiency in business
upbringing
diligence
Rationalism
A responsibility
Subject number 5.
1. The results of the "questionnaire for Machiavellianism" - Mach-IV scale.
The total response rate of the subject on the Mac-scale is 46, which
2. Accentuation according to Leonhard:
Thus, the subject has a strong expression of the following properties:
Rigidity
emotivity
Anxiety
Cyclothymic
Distimism
Exaltation
Also worth noting is the combination of stuckness and anxiety, which can lead to overcompensation.
3. Results according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary.
Selfishness = 4 (adaptive behavior)
Aggressiveness = 4 (adaptive behavior)
Suspicion = 5 (adaptive behavior)
Obedience = 3 adaptive behavior)
Dependency = 3 (adaptive behavior)
Score on the "Dominance" factor = 0 (low score, adaptive behavior)
Friendliness score = 1 (low score, adaptive behavior)
In general, we can say that the subject has the following traits: self-orientation, selfish traits, stubbornness, perseverance, criticism of all social phenomena and people around him, emotional restraint, compliance, ability to obey, obedient and honest fulfillment of one’s duties, gentleness, gullibility, politeness, conformity, tendency to cooperate, adherence to conventions, rules and principles of "good manners" in relations with people, the desire to be in agreement with the opinions of others, to help, gentleness, delicacy, the manifestation of an emotional attitude towards people in compassion, sympathy, care , affection, the ability to cheer up and calm down, disinterestedness and responsiveness.
4. Results according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter.
Scale indicators:
Scale of general internality (Io) - 4
Scale of internality in the field of achievements (Id) - 5
Scale of internality in the field of failures (In) - 4
Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (IP) - 6
Scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations (Im) - 6
Scale of internality in relation to health and disease (Iz) - 2
Thus, in general, the subject is characterized by a low level of subjective control over significant situations. Those. the subject does not see the connection between his actions and significant life events for him. However, it should be noted that in the field of family, interpersonal and industrial relations, the subject has a high level of subjective control, which indicates a high level of control of the subject of his relationships with other people, that he considers himself responsible for the events taking place in his family life. and that he considers his actions to be an important factor in the organization of his own production activities.
5. Results according to the method "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach.
Among the terminal values, the subjects identified the following among the main ones:
Active active life
Creation
happy family life
Self confidence
Having good and true friends
Cognition
Development
Thus, for the subject, the sphere of interpersonal and family relations, as well as their own development, comes to the fore.
Among the instrumental values:
Honesty
A responsibility
Tolerance
Independence
Cheerfulness
sensitivity
High requests
breadth of views
Subject number 6.
1. The results of the "questionnaire for Machiavellianism" - Mach-IV scale.
The total response rate of the subject on the Mac-scale is 86, which
testifies to the average severity of his Machiavellian personality.
2. Accentuation according to Leonhard:
Thus, the subject has a strong expression of the following properties:
emotivity
Anxiety
Cyclothymic
Distimism
Exaltation
The subject is inherent in an affective-labile type of personality, i.e. for the subject, the change of hyperthymic and dysthymic states is typical. He is also characterized by anxiety, exaltation.
3. Results according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary.
Selfishness = 1 (adaptive behavior)
Aggressiveness = 3 (adaptive behavior)
Suspicion = 4 (adaptive behavior)
Obedience = 9 (extreme behavior)
Dependency = 7 (adaptive behavior)
Friendliness = 5 (adaptive behavior)
Altruistic = 6 (adaptive behavior)
Score on the "Dominance" factor = 0 (low score, adaptive behavior)
Friendliness score = 7.6 (average score, adaptive behavior)
In general, we can say that the subject has the following traits: stubbornness, perseverance, criticism of all social phenomena and people around him, shyness, meekness, embarrassment, a tendency to submit to a stronger one without regard to the situation, softness, gullibility, politeness, conformity, expectation help and advice, a tendency to admire others, a tendency to cooperate, following the conventions, rules and principles of "good manners" in relations with people, the desire to be in agreement with the opinions of others, to help, gentleness, delicacy, the manifestation of an emotional attitude towards people in compassion, sympathy, care, affection, the ability to cheer up and calm down, disinterestedness and responsiveness.
4. Results according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter.
Scale indicators:
Scale of general internality (Io) - 2
Scale of internality in the field of achievements (Id) - 3
Scale of internality in the field of failures (In) - 6
Scale of internality in family relations (IS) - 5
Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (Ip) - 1
Scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations (Im) - 6
Scale of internality in relation to health and disease (Of) - 5
Thus, in general, the subject is characterized by a low level of subjective control over significant situations. Those. the subject does not see the connection between his actions and significant life events for him. However, it should be noted that in the field of failures and in the field of interpersonal relations, the subject has a fairly high level of subjective control, which indicates a high level of control of the subject of his relationships with other people and a developed sense of subjective control in relation to negative events and situations, which is manifested in the tendency to blame oneself for various troubles.
5. Results according to the method "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach.
Among the terminal values, the subjects identified the following among the main ones:
productive life
Development
Creation
life wisdom
Health
Interesting job
Active active life
Thus, for the subject, a productive life, development, and health come to the fore.
Among the instrumental values:
Independence
Efficiency in business
Rationalism
Courage in defending one's opinion, one's views
Strong will
Cheerfulness
Education
sensitivity
Subject number 7.
1. The results of the "questionnaire for Machiavellianism" - Mach-IV scale.
The total response rate of the subject on the Mac-scale is 74, which
testifies to the average severity of his Machiavellian personality.
2. Accentuation according to Leonhard:
Thus, the subject has a strong expression of the following properties:
Hyperthymia
Cyclothymic
demonstrativeness
Exaltation
The subject is inherent in an affective-labile type of personality, i.e. the subject is characterized by a change of hyperthymic and dysthymic states.
3. Results according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary.
Selfishness = 10 (extreme behavior)
Aggressiveness = 7 (adaptive behavior)
Suspicion = 7 (adaptive behavior)
Obedience = 6 (adaptive behavior)
Dependency = 6 (adaptive behavior)
Friendliness = 15 (extreme behavior - before pathology)
Altruistic = 11 (extreme behavior)
Dominance score = 11.4 (high score, extreme behavior)
Friendliness score = 8 (average score, adaptive behavior)
In general, we can say that the subject has the following traits: dominance, energy, success in business, competence, desire to give advice, selfish traits, self-orientation, a tendency to compete, stubbornness, perseverance, criticality in relation to all social phenomena and people around , gullibility, emotional restraint, friendliness, courtesy with everyone, orientation towards acceptance and social approval, desire to satisfy the requirements of everyone "to be good" for everyone regardless of the situation, striving for the goals of the microgroup, the presence of mechanisms for repression and suppression, emotional lability (hysterical type of character ) [is consistent with the results of the Leonhard questionnaire], gentleness, gullibility, politeness, conformity, hyper-responsibility, the desire to sacrifice one’s interests, help and compassion for everyone, obsession in one’s help and too much activity in relation to others, inadequate taking responsibility for others.
4. Results according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter.
Scale indicators:
Scale of general internality (Io) - 5
Scale of internality in the field of achievements (Id) - 6
Scale of internality in the field of failures (In) - 6
Scale of internality in family relations (IS) - 6
Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (IP) - 4
Scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations (Im) - 9
Scale of internality in relation to health and disease (Iz) - 1
A low level of subjective control is observed in the field of industrial relations and in relation to health.
The highest level of subjective control is observed in the field of interpersonal relations, i.e. there is a very high control of the subjects of their relationships with people.
5. Results according to the method "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach.
Among the terminal values, the subjects identified the following among the main ones:
Active active life
productive life
Development
freedom
Self confidence
Creation
Cognition
Having good and true friends
Thus, for the subject, an active, productive life, development, and creativity come to the fore.
Among the instrumental values:
High requests
Independence
Rationalism
Honesty
Courage in defending one's opinion, views
Strong will
A responsibility
Education
Subject #8.
1. The results of the "questionnaire for Machiavellianism" - Mach-IV scale.
The total response rate of the subject on the Mac-scale is 60, which
testifies to the low severity of her Machiavellian personality.
2. Accentuation according to Leonhard:
Thus, the subject has a strong expression of the following properties:
Hyperthymia
Rigidity
emotivity
Cyclothymic
demonstrativeness
Exaltation
The test subject has an affective-labile type of personality, i.e. the subject is characterized by a change of hyperthymic and dysthymic states.
It is necessary to note the combination of demonstrativeness and hyperthymia. A demonstrative personality prone to pretense will be especially pronounced in combination with hyperthymia in childhood. In adults, hyperthymia often weakens immoral manifestations. Cunning, insincerity, pretense do not fit with their attitude towards life. The combination of demonstrative character traits with hyperthymic liveliness of temperament contributes to the activation of acting data in a person.
Of interest is the combination of demonstrative and affective-labile traits, because both are associated with a penchant for poetic and artistic activity.
It is necessary to note the stuck-hyperthymic combination. Such people never find peace, they are always in high spirits.
3. Results according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary.
Selfishness = 6 (adaptive behavior)
Suspicion = 3 (adaptive behavior)
Obedience = 7 (adaptive behavior)
Dependency = 8 (adaptive behavior)
Friendliness = 10 (extreme behavior)
Altruistic = 8 (adaptive behavior)
Score on the factor "Dominance" = 4.5 (low score, adaptive behavior)
Friendliness score = 9.9 (high score, extreme behavior)
In general, we can say that the subject has the following features: self-confidence, perseverance, perseverance, some self-orientation, energy, some criticality in relation to all social phenomena and people around him, modesty, compliance, emotional restraint, the ability to obey, obedient performance their duties, conformity, gentleness, gullibility, politeness, friendliness, courtesy with everyone, orientation towards acceptance and social approval, the desire to satisfy the requirements of everyone "to be good" for everyone regardless of the situation, striving for the goals of the microgroup, the presence of mechanisms for repression and suppression, emotional lability (hysterical type of character) [consistent with the results of the Leonhard questionnaire], responsibility towards people, delicacy, kindness, manifestation of an emotional attitude towards people in compassion, sympathy, affection, the ability to cheer up and calm down, disinterestedness and responsiveness.
4. Results according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter.
Scale indicators:
Scale of general internality (Io) - 6
Scale of internality in the field of achievements (Id) - 6
Scale of internality in the field of failures (In) - 8
Scale of internality in family relations (IS) - 9
Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (IP) - 5
Scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations (IM) - 8
Thus, in general, the subject is characterized by a high level of subjective control over significant situations.
A low level of subjective control is observed in relation to health.
The highest level of subjective control is observed in family relationships; the subject considers herself responsible for the events taking place in her family life.
5. Results according to the method "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach.
Among the terminal values, the subjects identified the following among the main ones:
Health
Development
Active active life
Self confidence
freedom
productive life
Cognition
Thus, for the test subject, health and an active, productive life and development come to the fore.
Among the instrumental values:
Cheerfulness
Education
Tolerance
sensitivity
Independence
breadth of views
Honesty
Subject #9.
1. The results of the "questionnaire for Machiavellianism" - Mach-IV scale.
The total response rate of the subject on the Mac-scale is 67, which
testifies to the low severity of his Machiavellian personality.
2. Accentuation according to Leonhard:
Thus, the subject has a strong expression of the following properties:
Hyperthymia
emotivity
Anxiety
Cyclothymic
Distimism
Exaltation
The subject is inherent in an affective-labile type of personality, i.e. the subject is characterized by a change of hyperthymic and dysthymic states.
3. Results according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary.
Aggressiveness = 5 (adaptive behavior)
Suspicion = 8 (adaptive behavior)
Obedience = 7 (adaptive behavior)
Dependency = 4 (adaptive behavior)
Friendliness = 9 (extreme behavior)
Altruistic = 5 (adaptive behavior)
Score on the factor "Dominance" = 2.4 (low score, adaptive behavior)
Friendliness score = 1.2 (low score, adaptive behavior)
In general, we can say that the subject has the following traits: self-confidence, perseverance, perseverance, selfish traits, self-orientation, a tendency to compete, perseverance, criticism of all social phenomena and people around him, gullibility, emotional restraint, the ability to obey , modesty, compliance, gentleness, conformity, expectation of help and advice, a tendency to admire others, politeness, friendliness, courtesy with everyone, an orientation towards acceptance and social approval, the desire to satisfy the requirements of everyone "to be good" for everyone, regardless of the situation, the desire to the goals of the microgroup, the presence of mechanisms of repression and suppression, emotional lability (hysterical type of character) [consistent with the results of the Leonhard questionnaire], responsibility towards people, delicacy, kindness, disinterestedness, responsiveness.
4. Results according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter.
Scale indicators:
Scale of general internality (Io) - 5
Scale of internality in the field of achievements (Id) - 4
Scale of internality in the field of failures (In) - 5
Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (Ip) - 7
Scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations (Im) - 5
Scale of internality in relation to health and disease (Iz) - 6
Thus, in general, the subject is characterized by an average level of subjective control over significant situations.
A low level of subjective control is observed in the field of achievements and family relations. The subject attributes his successes and achievements to external circumstances - luck, the help of other people. Also, the subject considers not himself, but his partners to be the cause of significant situations that arise in his family.
The highest level of subjective control is observed in the field of industrial relations, i.e. the subject considers his actions an important factor in the organization of his own production activities.
5. Results according to the method "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach.
Among the terminal values, the subjects identified the following among the main ones:
happy family life
happiness of others
Development
Cognition
productive life
financially secure life
Having good and true friends
Thus, for the subject, the sphere of interpersonal relations with close people, as well as development, comes to the fore.
Among the instrumental values:
Honesty
upbringing
Cheerfulness
diligence
Education
A responsibility
sensitivity
Efficiency in business.
Subject number 10.
1. The results of the "questionnaire for Machiavellianism" - Mach-IV scale.
The total response rate of the subject on the Mac-scale is 62, which
testifies to the low severity of his Machiavellian personality.
2. Accentuation according to Leonhard:
Thus, the subject has a strong expression of the following properties:
Hyperthymia
emotivity
Pedantry
demonstrativeness
There is a combination of hyperthymia and demonstrativeness. Tipertimity often weakens in adults the immoral manifestations of a demonstrative personality prone to pretense. The combination of demonstrative character traits with hyperthymic liveliness of temperament contributes to the activation of acting data in a person.
The pedantic character softens when combined with a hyperthymic temperament, since the latter is somewhat superficial.
3. Results according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary.
Selfishness = 5 (adaptive behavior)
Aggressiveness = 2 (adaptive behavior)
Suspicion = 1 (adaptive behavior)
Obedience = 3 (adaptive behavior)
Dependency = 4 (adaptive behavior)
Friendliness = 7 (adaptive behavior)
Altruistic = 3 (adaptive behavior)
Score on the factor "Dominance" = 4.9 (average score, adaptive behavior)
Friendliness score = 5.7 (average, adaptive behavior)
In general, we can say that the subject has the following traits: self-confidence, perseverance, perseverance, selfish traits, self-orientation, a tendency to compete, perseverance, gullibility, emotional restraint, the ability to obey, modesty, compliance, gentleness, expectation of help and advice. , a tendency to admire others, politeness, a tendency to cooperate, flexibility and compromise, conscious conformity, following the conventions, rules and principles of "good form" in relations with people, the desire to help, sociability, the manifestation of warmth and friendliness in relationships, responsibility in relation to people, delicacy, kindness, disinterestedness, responsiveness.
4. Results according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter.
Scale indicators:
Scale of general internality (Io) - 4
Scale of internality in the field of achievements (Id) - 6
Scale of internality in the field of failures (In) - 3
Scale of internality in family relations (IS) - 3
Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (IP) - 6
Scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations (Im) - 6
Scale of internality in relation to health and disease (Iz) - 4
Thus, in general, the subject is characterized by an average level of subjective control over significant situations.
A low level of subjective control is observed in the field of failure and family relationships, as well as in relation to health. The subject attributes his failures to external circumstances - bad luck, other people. Also, the subject considers not himself, but his partners to be the cause of significant situations that arise in his family. In addition, the subject considers health and illness to be a matter of chance.
A high level of subjective control is observed in the field of production, interpersonal relations and in the field of achievements. Those. the subject believes that he himself has achieved all the good that was and is in his life. In addition, he is able to control his relationships with people. He also considers his actions an important factor in organizing his own production activities.
5. Results according to the method "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach.
Among the terminal values, the subjects identified the following among the main ones:
Health
financially secure life
happy family life
Interesting job
Having good and true friends
Development
productive life
Thus, for the subject, health, the sphere of interpersonal relationships with loved ones, as well as work and development, come to the fore.
Among the instrumental values:
breadth of views
self control
Accuracy
Education
Rationalism
Cheerfulness
Independence
Tolerance
General conclusions based on the results of the conducted methods.
The relationship between the severity of the subjects of Machiavellian personality with pronounced accentuations according to Leonhard.
| subject number | №1 | №2 | №3 | №4 | №5 | №6 | №7 | №8 | №9 | №10 |
| Accentuations | ||||||||||
| Hyperthymia | * | * | * | * | * | |||||
| Rigidity | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||||
| emotivity | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | |||
| Pedantry | * | * | ||||||||
| Anxiety | * | * | * | * | * | |||||
| Cyclothymic | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||
| demonstrativeness | * | * | * | * | * | |||||
| Excitability | * | * | ||||||||
| Distimism | * | * | * | * | ||||||
| Exaltation | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Based on these results, it is quite difficult to draw conclusions about any relationship between the subjects' propensity for Machiavellianism and personality accentuations. It is probably possible to make the assumption that for demonstrative personalities Machiavellianism is more inclined. The following interesting result is also observed: excitability, imbalance is inherent in the results of this study only for subjects with a high level of Machiavellian personality. It is also worth noting that for subjects with a low indicator of Machiavellian personality, pedantry is not typical and they practically do not demonstrate demonstrativeness.
2. Relationship between the severity of personality Machiavellianism in the subjects and the types of behavior identified by the Leary method.
It is necessary to note the connection between the authoritarian type of behavior and the highly pronounced Machiavellian personality of the subjects. Partially confirmed the results of the studies presented in the theoretical part of the work, indicating the relationship of high values on the Machiavellian scale with suspicion. At the same time, it should be noted the high severity of altruism in subjects with high values on the Mac - scale. But most likely this type of altruistic behavior is just an external mask that hides the personality of the opposite type. The results indicating a relationship between high altruism and low values on the Mac scale were not confirmed.
Two out of four subjects with low scores on the Mac scale have a pronounced friendly type of behavior.
3. The relationship between the severity of Machiavellian personality in the subjects with external/internal types of localization of control over significant events for themselves.
| subject number | №1 | №2 | №3 | №4 | №5 | №6 | №7 | №8 | №9 | №10 |
| Estimated Scales | ||||||||||
| And about | uh | i=n | e=n | uh | uh | uh | e=n | i=n | e=n | uh |
| eid | uh | and | i=n | uh | e=n | uh | i=n | i=n | uh | i=n |
| Ying | uh | i=n | uh | uh | uh | i=n | i=n | and | e=n | uh |
| Is | uh | e=n | and | uh | i=n | e=n | i=n | and | uh | uh |
| Yip | uh | i=n | uh | uh | i=n | uh | uh | e=n | and | i=n |
| Them | and | and | uh | i=n | i=n | i=n | and | and | e=n | i=n |
| From | uh | e=n | uh | and | uh | e=n | uh | uh | i=n | uh |
Subjects with a high indicator of Machiavellian personality
Subjects with a low indicator of Machiavellian personality
E - external type of localization of control
I - internal type of localization of control
E=N - a value equal to 5 on a scale, i.e. close to the norm \u003d 5.5, with a bias in the external type
I=N - a value equal to 6 on a scale, i.e. close to the norm = 5.5, with a bias towards the internal type
Obviously, it is impossible to draw unambiguous conclusions about the relationship between externality/internality and indicators on the Mac scale. The results are inconsistent. The results for one of the subjects with a high score on the Mac scale generally confirm the results of Madrak's research on the correlation of Machiavellianism with external locus of control. On the other hand, this subject has a high level of subjective control in the sphere of interpersonal relations. This is probably understandable - in order to successfully manipulate others, you must clearly control your relationship with them. The second subject with high scores on the Mac-scale has an internal type of control localization.
It is curious to note that all subjects with an average range of values on the Mac-scale have a clearly low level of subjective control. A similar situation can be traced in three out of four subjects with low scores on the Mak-scale.
It is also worth mentioning that almost all the subjects, regardless of their tendency to Machiavellianism, showed a high type of control in interpersonal relationships. So, in general, we can say that there is no connection between scores on the Mac scale and a high level of subjective control in interpersonal relationships.
The relationship between the severity of Machiavellian personality in the subjects with the value orientations of the subject, identified using the Rokeach technique.
According to the results of this technique, it is also impossible to speak of an unambiguous relationship between the degree of expression of the Machiavellian personality and the hierarchy of the value of the subject.
One of the subjects with a high score on the Mak-scale in the first place are freedom, independence, rationalism, self-control. This is logical and corresponds to the qualities necessary to be a successful Machiavellian. Honesty, sensitivity, the happiness of others for him are in last place. But at the same time, the subject with a pronounced Machiavellian personality in the first place is love, friends (terminal values) and honesty (instrumental values). This is unlikely to match the descriptions of people with high scores on the Mac Scale.
It is worth noting that the following trend can be traced: the subjects with low scores on the Mac-scale, for the most part, put the sphere of interpersonal relations, love, in the first place among the terminal values, and honesty among the instrumental ones. For subjects with average values on the Mac-scale, the most important is a productive life, development, independence, and efficiency in business.
Conclusion.
So, in this paper, the main aspects of Machiavellianism as a psychological concept, as a personality trait were considered. A brief comparison of the concept of Machiavellianism with the concept of manipulation close to it was carried out.
In a study looking to link high/low levels of Machiavellianism to:
pronounced accentuations
types of behavior;
external/internal types of localization of control over significant events;
with the value orientations of the subject
some suggestions have been made about the possible connection of a number of personality traits with a tendency to Machiavellianism.
It should be noted that some results did not coincide with the results obtained in the course of psychological research by foreign authors described in the theoretical part of the work. Probably, the reason for this is that the sample of subjects is too small, from which no serious conclusions can be drawn.
In addition, it is obvious that some subjects tried to give socially desirable answers, and sometimes, when answering a particular question of the questionnaire, they were guided not so much by personal experience as by those stereotypes of behavior and moral norms that take place in society at a given time.
But in general, according to the results of the work carried out, it can be said that the tendency to
Machiavellianism is more likely to be inherent in people who are dominant, persistent, with
Bibliography.
1. Dotsenko E.L. "Psychology of manipulation", Moscow, 1997
2. Znakov V.V. "Methodology for the study of Machiavellian personality", "Psychological Journal", 2000, No. 5.
3. Lutskina V.V. Diploma work "Socio-psychological aspects of the study of the phenomenon of law-abiding", 1996.
4. Machiavelli N. Sovereign. M., 1990.
5. Psychology. Dictionary / Ed. A.V. Petrovsky, M.G. Yaroshevsky. M., 1990.
6. "Practical psychodiagnostics", compiler - Raigorodsky, Samara, 1998.
7. "Encyclopedia of psychological tests", Moscow, 1999
Machiavellians - who are they? According to Machiavelli, honesty and all other virtues are of no value if deceit, betrayal and force are more beneficial.
People in power should be unprincipled politicians, even if this is not their usual style of leadership.
A wise ruler should never keep his word if it is contrary to his own interests.
The sovereign never looks for a good reason to break his promise.
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) - philosopher and politician
Machiavellianism - who does it belong to?
In psychology, Machiavellianism is attributed to a type of personality that is a master of manipulation.Machiavellians do not need to read Machiavelli's famous The Prince to learn how to be two-faced.
By their temperament, they are prudent, insidious and deceitful. It is not immoral for them to use other people to achieve their own goals.
We can all be two-faced at times depending on necessity and circumstances.
If you have ever reported to your employer that you were absent from work due to illness, or have lied to your spouse about what you do, then you have demonstrated the human ability to deceive others. You probably don't always do this, and you should have felt guilty about it. This behavior is common among Machiavellians.
Study of this phenomenon
In 1970, psychologists Richard Christie and Florence Gies presented the first study of Machiavellianism, called Mach IV. The main Machiavellians are those who get high scores on the Mach IV test (there is an online version on the network and everyone can evaluate themselves).The test contains the following statements:
- The best way to deal with people is to tell them what they want to hear.
- It is advisable to flatter important people.
- The biggest difference between criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
Sincerity is everything.
If you can fake it, then you can achieve everything.
Groucho Marx once joked
Groucho was just joking, but for real Machiavellians, this is actually good advice.
Signs of Machiavellianism
People with Machiavellian traits have several significant traits: - Focused only on their own ambitions and interests
- Prefer money and power over relationships
- Find themselves charming and confident
- Exploit and manipulate others to advance towards their goal
- Lie and deceive interlocutors when they need to
- Often use flattery when communicating
- Lack of principles and values
- May appear aloof or "closed" in communication
- Cynical, immoral
- Capable of harming others in order to achieve their goals
- Low level
- Often avoid commitment and emotional attachments
- Can be very patient and calculating
- Rarely reveal their true intentions
- Can judge social situations and reactions well
- Lack of cordiality in social interactions
- Not always aware of the consequences of their actions
- May try to define their own emotions
Machiavellians - who are they for society
Machiavellians perform best in workplaces and social settings where rules and boundaries are ambiguous.
Emotional detachment and a cynical look allows them to control their impulses and be careful, patient.
Their tactics include charm, friendliness, relaxed communication, guilt and pressure (if necessary).
They prefer to use very subtle tricks whenever possible - charm, friendliness, relaxed communication and guilt to mask their true intentions to provide a basis for denying the plausible if they are declassified. In doing so, they can use pressure and threats when necessary.
In a competitive situation, they prefer to have an advantage over others (for example, during discussions or negotiations), but this does not apply to friends, spouses or colleagues.
Machiavellian negativity
Machiavellianism, psychopathy and make up the triad of negative personality types ("Dark Triad").Psychopaths and narcissists generate a lot of interest and discussion, while Machiavellians receive much less attention. It is worth noting that Machiavellian behavior is also characteristic of psychopaths and narcissists.
The first paragraph "Psychology of the subject" reveals the relevance of the problem. The problem of the subject is one of the key in psychological science, both Russian and Western (L.I. Antsyferova,
A.V. Brushlinsky, V.N. Druzhinin, V.V. Znakov, Z.I. Ryabikina, E.A. Sergienko, A. Maslow, K. Rogers, K. Horney and others). The subjective approach is most consistent with the disclosure of the nature of manipulative behavior. It is from these positions, emphasizing the activity of a person, his value orientations, freedom of choice, that an understanding of manipulation is possible. The main provisions in which the novelty of the psychology of the subject lies are given. The differentiation of the concepts of subjectivity and subjectivity is described (N.A. Bogdanovich). The fundamental question of the psychology of the subject is the question of the criteria of the subject, which is considered in the understanding of B.G. Anan'eva, K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, V.V. Znakova, E.A. Sergienko.
The second paragraph "General scientific context of the study of manipulation" presents the results of a theoretical analysis of manipulative approaches in different cultural and historical periods and different countries (G. Balthazar, F.I. Burlatsky, G.V. Grachev, H. Zenger, N. Machiavelli,
L.S. Mamut, I.K. Melnik, V.S. Myasnikov, M.A. Yusim, W.B. Gudykunst,
E. Chua). The similarities and differences in the content of the psychological phenomena of Machiavellianism and stratagemism (cunning or trick, trick or intrigue in order to achieve an advantage) are analyzed (R. Christie, F.L. Geis,
A. H. James, Murray, F. Terry). It is concluded that Machiavellianism in Western culture largely corresponds to the concept of “stratagemism” in East Asian culture.
The third paragraph of "Studies of Machiavellian Personality and Manipulation in Modern Psychology" deals with sexual (M. Ames, P.W. Blumstein, A.E. Cataldi, J.T. Dietch, D.E. Domelsmith, A.M. Kidd,
R. Reardon, D.S. Wilson, V.V. signs), age (R.E. Kraut, M. Laupa,
J.W. McHoskey, J.D. Price, G.S. Abramova, S.G. Kara-Murza, J. Piaget,
E.A. Sergienko) and professional (G.R. Gemmill, J.H. Graham, W.J. Heisler, J.R. Sparks, E.V. Belyaeva) differences between people with different levels of Machiavellianism.
Empirical data from a number of works are presented: Machiavellianism as one of the leading factors contributing to unethical behavior (L.K. Trevino, S.A Youngblood); the relationship between the severity of Machiavellianism and external attractiveness (P.D. Cherulnik, J.H Way, S. Ames, D.B. Hutto); the relationship between the ability of family members to manipulate (R.E. Kraut); Machiavellianism and the perception of human behavior (A.J. Pinto, S. Kanekar); Machiavellianism and cognitive and communicative flexibility (M.M. Martin, C.M. Anderson,
K.S. Thweatt); connection between motivation and flexibility of the Machiavellians (W.C., Grams,
R.W. Rogers); Machiavellianism and the ability to influence (R. Christie,
F.L. Geis); Machiavellianism and a tendency to lie, deceive and steal
(B.R. Schlenker); types of Machiavellian tactics (D.M. Bass, M. Gomes, D.S. Higgins, K. Lauterbach).
Machiavellianism is one of the psychological foundations of manipulation. The criteria for manipulation are described (E.A. Sidorenko). The model of information-psychological impact transformation is considered.
(G.V. Grachev and I.K. Melnik).
In the third chapter "An empirical study of understanding manipulation" the goal, hypotheses, tasks, methods, object are defined; the obtained results are given, their analysis is given and conclusions are formulated. At the first stage, the subjects were 176 people (86 men and 90 women) aged 16 to 28 (M=18.26; SD=1.33). The second phase of the study involved 288 people (182 women and 106 men) aged 19 to 62 (M=26.43; SD=8.89). 153 people working in the field "man - man", 135 subjects from the professional sphere "man - technology".
The first paragraph "The first stage of the study" describes the methods: 1. Mak-scale; 2. Questionnaire "Rigidity of personality"; 3. Methodology of meaningful life orientations; 4. Questionnaire "Orientation of the individual in communication." 5. Text describing the behavior of a woman with a pronounced Machiavellian personality type, with a standardized set of questions.
To justify the choice of this situation, the content structure of the manipulative situation is considered.
When processing the answers of the subjects to questions to the text situation, the method of content analysis was used in order to identify the types of understanding of the manipulation of understanding-acceptance or understanding-rejection.
The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the results was carried out in several directions: the search for gender and personality differences, as well as the determination of the psychological characteristics of the subjects who answered yes or no to the questions asked, and, accordingly, understood the manipulation of the type of understanding-acceptance or understanding-rejection. To identify statistically significant differences between the average data of these groups of subjects, the nonparametric Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Mann–Whitney tests were used.
Results.
The analysis of answers to questions to the text showed the following. Among the responses of the subjects, the type of understanding-rejection of manipulation predominates - 107 people, and understanding-acceptance of manipulation is observed only in 50 subjects. Binomial criterion and ?? Pearson showed statistically significant differences (p
Let us give an example of the response of subjects with the type of understanding-acceptance of manipulation: “I am also the owner. I hate it when things don't go the way I want them to. I try to impose my point of view, but unlike K., not in a direct way (dialogue), but indirectly (moral pressure) ”(Spanish 156). An example of an answer with the type of understanding-rejection of manipulation: “A ruthless mother who thinks only about her company, business and big money, who is not at all interested in the desires and vocation of her son. She sees before her only her own goals and interests” (Spanish 82).
During the analysis of answers to questions to the text situation, the following specific differences in the understanding of the situation of manipulation in communication by men and women with types of understanding-acceptance and understanding-rejection were revealed. Firstly, women with both types of understanding described the personal characteristics of the heroine of the text more varied than men, also with two types of understanding. Secondly, women more than men pay attention to the mother's lack of understanding of her son and the lack of motherly love. Thirdly, women with the type of understanding-rejection of manipulation blame the heroine for giving herself completely to work more than men with the same type of understanding. Fourthly, the subjects who justify the manipulation do not care much about relations with the environment, attitude towards society, especially for men. Women who deny manipulation pay more attention to these relationships.
Table 1.
.Table 1 shows that people with low Machiavellian scores have higher: scores of social desirability (M=5.13 and M=4.02; p
Non-Machiavellians are more likely than Machiavellians to give socially desirable answers. This fact is consistent with the results of studies by foreign psychologists (Studies in Machiavellianism, 1970) and data obtained by V.V. Significant according to the Marlow-Crown method. Compared with subjects who received low scores on the Machiavellian scale, subjects with high scores are more accurate and honest in their perception and understanding of themselves and others (V.V. Znakov).
Machiavellians have higher rates of manipulative orientation in communication (M=6.25 and M=4.40; p
People with a high level of Machiavellianism tend to always showcase their strengths. They do this regardless of the situations and circumstances in which they are placed. In communication, they focus primarily on themselves, and not on a partner.
Then, a factorial analysis of the results of 54 subjects with high values of indifference was carried out according to the ULO method. Factor 2 (18%) of interest to us - “manipulation and types of understanding” with a positive sign included non-Machiavellian answers (understanding-rejection), and with a negative sign - Machiavellianism, Machiavellian answers (understanding-acceptance) and the difference between Machiavellian and non-Machiavellian answers.
Consequently, subjects with a high level of Machiavellianism tend to justify manipulation, i.e., to understand by the type of understanding-acceptance; and subjects with a low level of Machiavellianism are characterized by understanding-rejection.
Then we found out what personality characteristics are associated with types of understanding and Machiavellian personality. Let us present the results of factor analysis procedures. The calculations were carried out for seventeen variables. These are scales of personality questionnaires, as well as quantitative characteristics of non-Machiavellian answers (understanding-rejection), Machiavellian answers (understanding-acceptance) and the difference between Machiavellian and non-Machiavellian answers. Let us first present a factorial analysis of the results of a group of 48 people with low levels of Machiavellianism. In this case, we are only interested in one factor. The fifth factor (9%) included conformal UFO with a positive sign, and Machiavellianism, rigidity, and manipulative UFO with a negative sign.
Therefore, subjects with high rigidity scores have a high level of Machiavellianism, and vice versa. These results correspond to the data obtained by M.M. Martin. Machiavellian is not a flexible communicator who understands the need to take into account the psychological characteristics of a partner. Subjects with a high level of Machiavellianism are usually ideologically neutral and have little emotional involvement in interpersonal relationships (Martin et al.).
Now let's move on to a factorial analysis of the results of a group of 56 people with high rates of conformity using the ULO method. In accordance with this criterion, the first factor (33%) - "manipulation and meaningful life orientations" - with a negative sign included Machiavellianism, manipulative orientation in communication and the difference between Machiavellian and non-Machiavellian answers. With a positive sign, this factor included - social desirability, six indicators of LSS, an alterocentric orientation in communication and non-Machiavellian responses, i.e. type of understanding-rejection.
Therefore, subjects with a high level of Machiavellianism and low SJO scores have understanding-acceptance, and subjects with a low level of Machiavellianism and high SJO scores have an understanding-rejection of manipulation.
The results obtained correspond to the data previously obtained by V.V. Iconic. Those who have a lower level of Machiavellianism have significantly higher estimates of the overall indicator of meaningful life orientations (V.V. Znakov). In the existential plan, the meaning-of-life orientations of each person have for him not only a specific adaptive meaning, but also a deep existential meaning. They are aimed at finding the meaning of their existence, actions and mentally going beyond the limits of not only a specific communicative situation, but also beyond the limits of their own life, including it in some other coordinate system in which life is endowed with meaning.
The results of the study conducted at the first stage allow us to draw the following conclusions: firstly, subjects with a high level of Machiavellianism are characterized by the type of understanding-acceptance of manipulation, and vice versa. Secondly, subjects with high rates of rigidity, manipulative, indifferent orientation and low scores of meaningful life orientations have a high level of Machiavellianism and understand the situation by the type of understanding-acceptance, and subjects with low rates of rigidity, low scores of alterocentric and conformal orientation, and high scores of meaningful life orientations have a low level of Machiavellianism and understanding-rejection of manipulation.
In the second paragraph "The second stage of the study" the following test methods were used: 1 Mak-scale; 2. Method of self-affirmation of the personality; 3. Methodology for studying the level of subjective control; 4. Methodology for diagnosing self-consciousness; 5. Subjective assessment of interpersonal relationships. 6. Text describing the behavior of a woman with a pronounced Machiavellian personality type, with a standardized set of questions.
Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the results was carried out in several directions: the search for gender, age, professional and personal differences, as well as the determination of the psychological characteristics of the subjects who understand the manipulation of the type of understanding-acceptance or understanding-rejection. To identify statistically significant differences between the average data of these groups of subjects, the nonparametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Mann-Whitney tests were used.
The total responses to the questions were compared to the situation. The responses of the subjects in most cases belong to the type of understanding-rejection of manipulation - 224 people, and understanding-acceptance of manipulation is observed in 41 subjects. And the binomial criterion, and?? Pearson showed statistically significant differences (p
The answers to the questions to the text are analyzed. During the analysis of the answers to the questions, the following specific differences in the understanding of manipulation by men and women with the types of understanding-acceptance and understanding-rejection were revealed. Firstly, women who reject manipulation focus on understanding the personal characteristics of the heroine, while in the protocols of men with this type of understanding, on the contrary, there are few mentions of personal characteristics. Secondly, women, unlike men, focused on the heroine's focus on work, to the detriment of the child, on emotional coldness in relation to her son, on excessive love for herself. Thirdly, for boys and girls, the problem of influence and opposition to it is relevant, and in adulthood, the emphasis is shifted for men to take into account the interests of people, and for women to understand feelings. Fourthly, men with the understanding-acceptance type of manipulation still do not approve of the heroine's attitude towards her son. At the same time, women of the same type of understanding, although they recognize the heroine's behavior towards her son as "tough", nevertheless justify her. Men with understanding-acceptance from the first series of the experiment, in contrast to the men who participated in the second series and have the same type of understanding, justify the heroine's behavior towards her son. Apparently, with age, men become more tolerant, understanding, gentle towards children.
Then, the analysis of differences between the personal characteristics of the two groups of subjects was carried out - the "lower" group - 41 subjects with a predominance of Machiavellian statements, and the "upper" group - 224 subjects with a large number of non-Machiavellian statements.
Table 2.
Significant differences according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test between groups with a predominance of non-Machiavellian (group 1) and Machiavellian (group 2) judgments
From Table 2 it follows that people with the type of understanding-acceptance of manipulation have a high level of Machiavellianism, i.e. Machiavellian attitudes and beliefs (M=72.58 and M=79.66; p
Then the same was done for age differences. From table 3 it can be seen that in adolescence, the constructive scores are higher (M=76.50 and M=68.27; p
Table 3
Older people to some extent lose the ability to assert themselves in constructive ways due to the difficulty of refusing an unreasonable request. However, the relationship between the ability to say “no” and age does not give grounds to draw conclusions about a decrease in the need for self-assertion with age, but raises the question of the stability of the influence of social forms of activity on the formation of behavioral stereotypes. According to N.E. Kharlamenkova, with age, the share of constructive strategies grows only in the group of people striving for self-determination (N.E. Kharlamenkova). In addition, students consider themselves less vulnerable to dangerous diseases than the "average" person (L.V. Trubitsyna).
Table 4
As follows from Table 4, people with a low level of Machiavellianism, in contrast to people with a high level, have higher scores of social anxiety, i.e. feel uncomfortable in the presence of others. The first and second understand manipulation as an understanding-rejection, but people with a low level of Machiavellianism reject it more strongly.
Differences were then analyzed between groups with high (N=77) and low (N=61) self-affirmation scores. People with low self-affirmation scores have a lower level of Machiavellianism than those with high scores (M=72.38 and M=74.68; p
An explanation of the obtained data is possible, given the generalized psychological characteristics that Western scientists use to describe people with a high level of Machiavellianism: smart, courageous, ambitious, dominant, persistent, selfish - and a low level of Machiavellianism: cowardly, indecisive, succumbing to influence, honest, sentimental, reliable, as well as the characteristic features of an insecure, constructive and dominant person. The characteristic features of an insecure person are the inability to refuse an unreasonable request, to demand, to defend one's rights, to express positive and negative emotions and to establish contacts. Features of constructive behavior consist in the ability to give a correct refusal to an unreasonable request, to adequately express negative and positive emotions in a socially acceptable way, to increase the level of self-affirmation in "service" situations, to initiate communication. Dominant behavior is characterized by an unconditional refusal to fulfill an unreasonable request, demonstrativeness, the predominance of negative emotions over positive ones, and a hyperneed to initiate communication.
Then we tried to find out what personality characteristics are associated with types of understanding and Machiavellian personality. Let us present the results of several factor analysis procedures that confirm or refute the provisions put forward by them. Factor analysis was performed on twenty-six variables. These included scales of personality questionnaires, as well as the number of non-Machiavellian answers (understanding-rejection), the number of Machiavellian answers (understanding-acceptance) and the difference between Machiavellian and non-Machiavellian answers.
First, a factor analysis of the results of 112 people from the group with high values of the level of subjective control in the field of health and illness follows.
The first factor (16%) - "self-affirmation and subjective control" - with a negative sign included an integral indicator of self-affirmation, constructive and dominant strategies, and with a positive sign - an uncertain strategy, internality in the field of family relations, in the field of interpersonal relations, as well as the professional sphere "man-man".
From this we can conclude that representatives of the sphere of professional activity "man-man" have an uncertain strategy of self-affirmation, internality in the field of family and interpersonal relations, and representatives of the sphere "man-technology" have a constructive and dominant strategy.
The third factor (16%) - "Machiavellianism and types of understanding" - with a negative sign included Machiavellianism, Machiavellian answers and the difference between Machiavellian and non-Machiavellian answers. With a positive sign, this factor included - non-Machiavellian answers, i.e. type of understanding-rejection and the field of activity "man-technology".
From this we can conclude that representatives of professions such as "man-man" have a more pronounced level of Machiavellianism than representatives of "man-technician", respectively, to a greater extent, tend to justify and accept manipulation - understanding-acceptance.
The result obtained, apparently, is due to the fact that subjects from the “person-to-person” sphere, firstly, interact with people more often. Consequently, they have the opportunity to develop the ability to convince others, to understand their intentions and reasons for actions. Secondly, they are more interested in persuading, influencing other people.
Now let's move on to factorial analysis of the results of a group of 68 people with high values of the level of subjective control in the field of industrial relations. The second factor (13%) - "Machiavellianism and types of understanding" - with a negative sign included social anxiety and non-Machiavellian answers, i.e. the type of understanding-rejection, and with the positive - Machiavellianism, Machiavellian answers - the type of understanding-acceptance and the difference between Machiavellian and non-Machiavellian answers. Consequently, according to the method of self-awareness, subjects with a high level of Machiavellianism, the type of understanding-acceptance of manipulation, are characterized by low scores on the scale of social anxiety.
Then, a factorial analysis of the results of a group of 77 people with high values of personal self-awareness was carried out. The fourth factor (11%) - "Machiavellianism and internality", with a negative sign included four indicators of internality - general internality, internality in the field of family relations, in the field of health and illness, in the field of interpersonal relations, and with a positive sign the level of Machiavellianism. Consequently, the externality of the personality is positively correlated with a high level of Machiavellianism, and the internality with a low level of Machiavellianism.
The results obtained correspond to the data obtained by foreign psychologists. A high level of Machiavellianism is positively correlated with externality (F.L. Geis). The results of the experiments confirm the well-known facts: the lower the internality of the subject and the higher the externality, the more he is prone to deceit in various social situations.
Table 5
From Table 5 it follows that women and men have the type of understanding-rejection of manipulation, however, in women it is more pronounced (M=-2.59 and M=-1.89; p
The results obtained correspond to the data obtained by V.V. Significant (2000-2005), about the absence of differences in the level of Machiavellianism between boys and girls, young men and women (aged 17 to 35). Perhaps the reason lies in the more active involvement of women in market relations, in competition with men, than before. In addition, the allegedly increasing feminization of men and masculinization of women in modern society, which is not scientifically substantiated in any way, but often mentioned in a wide variety of sources, can also play some role. At the same time, it is an indisputable fact that in some Western studies, psychologists also did not find a difference in Mac indicators of male and female subjects (A.J. Pinto,
So, the results of the second stage of the analysis allow us to draw the following conclusions: firstly, subjects with a high level of Machiavellianism are characterized by a constructive and dominant strategy of self-affirmation. Subjects with a low level of Machiavellianism are characterized by a constructive and uncertain strategy. Secondly, according to the method of self-awareness, subjects with a high level of Machiavellianism and the type of understanding-acceptance are characterized by low scores on the scale of social anxiety. Thirdly, externality of a personality positively correlates with a high level of Machiavellianism, and internality with a low level of Machiavellianism. Fourthly, representatives of professions such as "man-man" have a more pronounced level of Machiavellianism than representatives of "man-technician", respectively, they show understanding and acceptance of manipulation. And fifthly, men and women have a lower level of Machiavellianism and are more likely to understand understanding-rejection manipulation than boys and girls.
Now let's move on to a general analysis of the data of the first and second stages of the study.
In the third paragraph, "Gender and age differences in the understanding of manipulation by the subjects of the general sample," the results of the subjects are compared and analyzed, according to the variables that were in the two stages of the study: gender, age, Mac-scale and types of understanding.
At the first stage, the subjects were 176 people (86 men and 90 women) aged 16 to 28 years (M=18.26; SD=1.33). The second phase of the study involved 288 people (182 women and 106 men) aged 19 to 62 (M=26.43; SD=8.89). The total sample was 464 people.
As a result, we got the following results.
Firstly, women and men have the type of understanding-rejection of manipulation, however, in women it is more pronounced (arithmetic mean of the difference between Machiavellian and non-Machiavellian answers: M=-1.95 and M=-1.32; p
So, men and women more often show understanding-rejection of manipulation in communication, have a lower level of Machiavellianism than boys and girls.
It is not difficult to explain the obtained results. Machiavellianism as a property of a person in everyday life is manifested in manipulative tactics aimed at achieving specific career and other similar goals by the subject. Such tactics are most effective in short-term contacts, communication that does not involve the establishment of close human relationships. For example, this is how an applicant for a job communicates with an HR manager. At an older age, people, firstly, reduce the number of such social situations. Secondly, the circle of close acquaintances is narrowing, which, for obvious reasons, cannot be manipulated.
At the end of the dissertation, prospects for further research into the problem of understanding manipulation are considered.
Based on the data obtained in our study, the following conclusions can be drawn.
The course work was completed by: student of the 3rd year of the 31st group Zhemerdeeva Elena.
Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov
psychology faculty
Department of Personality Psychology
Moscow, 2001
Introduction.
In our time, the concept of "Machiavellianism" is often used in various humanities. Machiavellianism as a scientific category is widespread in foreign psychological research, but is practically not used in Russian psychology.
The study of Machiavellianism as a psychological concept is of great interest due to the lack of a sufficient number of works by domestic psychologists on this topic.
This work is a brief coverage of some (mostly foreign) studies in the field of Machiavellian personality.
There was also a small study in which the author tried to correlate high/low levels of Machiavellianism with:
pronounced accentuations (according to the method for determining the accentuations of Leonhard's character);
types of behavior (according to the method of diagnosing interpersonal relations by T. Leary);
external/internal types of localization of control over events that are significant for oneself (according to the method of diagnosing the level of subjective control by J. Rotter);
with the value orientations of the subject (according to the "Value Orientations" method by Rokeach).
The study was conducted on ten subjects aged 19 to 30 years. All subjects received (or are in the process of obtaining) higher education (humanitarian or technical).
After processing the questionnaires, an attempt was made to compare the results obtained with the results that took place in the course of the studies described in the theoretical part of the work.
Phenomenological description of Machiavellianism.
Machiavellianism is one of the concepts that characterizes the attitude towards another person as a means that can be neglected in the pursuit of personal good.
Historical aspect.
Machiavellianism owes its origin to the teachings of the Italian thinker and statesman Florentine Nicolo di Bernardo Machiavelli (1469-1527), but is far from being identical to his teachings. It is known that the rich, bright, multifaceted, but not properly systematized teachings of Machiavelli contain provisions that received a contradictory interpretation in the next four and a half centuries.
Historically, the term “Machiavellianism” was preceded by the term “Machiavellianist”, which, it is believed, first appeared in print in 1581 in the work of the French political writer N. Frumento “Finances”, and then in 1589 in England in one of the treatises of T. Nash . In the 17th century, the term “Machiavellianism” began to be used, and the Italian utopian socialist T. Campanella wrote an essay called “Anti-Machiavellianism”.
The content of the concept of “Machiavellianism” was formed and modified on the basis of certain provisions from the works of the Florentine writer, their interpretations and subsequent layers of ideas of many thinkers on them. In this context, the most interesting is such a work of his as “The Sovereign”, dedicated to Lorenzo dei Medici. Here, acting as an adviser to a ruler who wants to hold out in his place for a long time and successfully, Machiavelli allows for the sake of great goals the opportunity to neglect the laws of morality and use any means, perhaps cruel and treacherous, in the struggle for power. “All the armed prophets were victorious, all the unarmed perished,” writes Machiavelli.
In the case of the Florentine thinker, the views attributed to him took on an independent life and acquired such legendary offshoots as “Machiavellianism”, “anti-Machiavellianism”.
So, in Machiavellianism as a set of political views, the following ideas can be distinguished as the main ones:
The position on the constancy and imperfection of human nature, which decisively affects the nature and dynamics of the life of society;
The idea that the state with its interests is an end in itself;
A statement about the decisive role of the force factor in politics;
Separation of politics and morality.
Psychological aspect.
Applied to an individual, Machiavellianism is a general strategy of behavior in interpersonal communication, a tendency to manipulate other people for their own benefit.
In the 60s, American scientists conducted a content analysis of N. Machiavelli's treatise "The Sovereign" and, on its basis, two scales of Machiavellianism Mach 4 and Mach 5 were created.
Nowadays, the concept of "Machiavellianism" is often used in various humanities. Machiavellianism as a scientific category is widespread in foreign psychological research, but is practically not used in Russian psychology. A psychological questionnaire called the "Mac Scale" is actively used in Western social psychology and personality psychology.
Western psychologists call Machiavellianism the tendency of a person to manipulate other people in interpersonal relationships. We are talking about such cases when the subject hides his true intentions; at the same time, with the help of false distractions, he achieves that the partner, without realizing it, changes his original goals. “Machiavellianism is usually defined as the tendency of a person in interpersonal situations to manipulate others in subtle, subtle, or non-physically aggressive ways, such as flattery, deceit, bribery, or intimidation.”
The discussed psychological property of the personality is described somewhat differently in another work: it defines Machiavellianism as "a strategy of social behavior, including the manipulation of others for personal purposes, often contrary to their own interests. Machiavellianism should be considered as a quantitative characteristic. Everyone is to varying degrees capable of manipulative behavior, but some people are more inclined and capable of it than others.
Psychological correlates of Machiavellianism.
After the creation of the questionnaires, a whole series of studies began on the content and causes of Machiavellianism, its connection with other social characteristics.
According to R. Christie, one of the creators of the Mac-scale, and his student F. Geis, Machiavellianism is a psychological syndrome based on a combination of interrelated cognitive, motivational, and behavioral characteristics.
The main psychological components of Machiavellianism as a personality trait are:
the belief of the subject that when communicating with other people, they can and even need to be manipulated;
skills, specific skills of manipulation.
The latter include the ability to convince others, to understand their intentions and reasons for their actions.
It is interesting that Machiavellian beliefs and skills may not coincide and be realized in behavior “autonomously”. As shown in studies on the development of Machiavellian personality in ontogeny, some children adopt a system of beliefs from their parents that does not directly but indirectly affect their behavior. Others directly copy successful ways of manipulating people from their parents, but do not adopt Machiavellian beliefs from them.
Machiavellianism as a personal characteristic generally reflects the subject's disbelief that most people can be trusted, that they are altruistic, independent, and have a strong will.
There is some suggestion that the level of Machiavellianism increases towards a person's maturity and then more or less stabilizes. Older people have a low level of Machiavellianism, which is associated with the hypothesis of socially significant values that a person learns throughout life.
Exploring the relationship between age and Machiavellianism, P.E.Mudrack interviewed 115 adults using Mach 4. His conclusion was that age is inversely correlated with the level of Machiavellianism, especially with its highlighted components such as flattery and deceit.
Differences in the existence of manipulation tendencies were seen already in children as young as 10 years of age. So, in a study by Braginsky, they first measured the level of Machiavellianism in ten-year-old children using KiddieMach, and then analyzed their behavior in the game. Children who scored high on the scale showed themselves to be great manipulators in the game.
S. N. Ray and M. D. Gapta (S. N. Rai & M. D. Gapta) found that the highest level of Machiavellianism in children corresponded to a high level of this indicator in both mother and father; and vice versa, the lowest in children is the lowest in each of the parents.
In Christie's studies, among the factors influencing the formation of Machiavellianism in a child, some extra-family factors of socialization were named - peers, the media.
Individual differences in Machiavellianism are determined by a number of complex social processes.
There is a lot of evidence that people with a high level of Machiavellianism have an indifferent opinion of others, a cynical view of people in general and of individuals.
High Machiavellians better notice the weaknesses of other people and successfully use this.
Low Machiavellians to a greater extent build their behavior on an ideal model of interaction with others, where relationships are built on a subject-subject principle as opposed to a subject-object one.
In the Harris study, 76 men were asked to complete the Mach questionnaire and then rate their interaction partners on twenty bipolar scales (eg sincere versus selfish, mild versus rude, etc.). The ratings of both high and low Machiavellians were on the positive segments of the scale, but high Machiavellians on nineteen out of twenty scales described people worse, i.e. as less sincere, less friendly, less interesting, etc. .
