Machiavellianism Test (MACH-IV)

Abstract

The Machiavellianism Test (MACH-IV), developed by social psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis in 1970, represents the foundational psychometric self-report instrument engineered to quantify Machiavellianism as a continuous personality trait in non-clinical populations. Rooted conceptually in the political philosophies of Niccolò Machiavelli—specifically expounded in The Prince (1532) and Discourses on Livy (1531)—the construct characterizes an individual’s propensity toward interpersonal manipulation, strategic cynicism, emotional detachment, and utilitarian pragmatism over conventional morality. Composed of 20 declarative statements scored along a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), the instrument is balanced with 10 positively worded items (affirming Machiavellian orientations) and 10 reverse-worded items (denying Machiavellian orientations or affirming moralistic altruism) to control for acquiescence response bias. Psychometrically, the MACH-IV captures three interconnected behavioral and cognitive domains: the endorsement of manipulative interpersonal tactics, a cynical and distrustful view of human nature, and a systemic rejection of conventional morality. While initial validation by Christie and Geis posited a roughly unidimensional global score (often scaled around a theoretical neutral midpoint of 100), decades of subsequent exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have consistently uncovered multidimensional latent architectures, most notably two-factor structures dividing the scale into Machiavellian Tactics and Machiavellian Views. Across hundreds of international investigations, the MACH-IV exhibits acceptable to robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically spanning .70 to .82 across broad normative cohorts) and predictable convergent validity within the framework of the Dark Triad alongside subclinical psychopathy and narcissism. The instrument correlates negatively with the Five-Factor Model domain of Agreeableness and exhibits marked criterion-related validity in predicting exploitative bargaining in experimental game theory, counterproductive workplace behaviors, opportunistic leadership styles, and deceptive communications. Despite ongoing debates concerning item phrasing, factor instability, and modern psychometric alternatives, the MACH-IV remains the paramount historical benchmark and one of the most widely applied psychometric operationalizations of strategic malevolence and social expedience in organizational, social, clinical, and forensic psychology.

Keywords

Machiavellianism, MACH-IV, Richard Christie, Florence Geis, Dark Triad, Interpersonal Manipulation, Cynical Worldview, Moral Pragmatism, Personality Assessment, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis, Counterproductive Work Behavior

Authors

The Machiavellianism Test (MACH-IV) was conceptualized, constructed, and empirically standardized by two pioneering figures in mid-twentieth-century American social psychology:

• Richard Christie, Ph.D. (1918–1992): Formerly Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at Columbia University. Christie was an influential methodologist and social theorist whose work spanned authoritarism, social influence, political psychology, and interpersonal bargaining. His foundational methodological goal was to operationalize manipulative personality styles through rigorous empirical and laboratory paradigms rather than purely psychodynamic conjecture.
• Florence L. Geis, Ph.D. (1934–1993): Formerly Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the University of Delaware. Geis was an internationally recognized authority on nonverbal communication, gender dynamics, social power, and leadership perception. Her methodological ingenuity was instrumental in creating the sophisticated laboratory deceptive paradigms, observational coding matrices, and multi-person bargaining tasks that provided behavioral validation for the MACH scales.

Their collaborative research, conducted throughout the 1960s at Columbia University, culminated in the seminal 1970 monograph Studies in Machiavellianism (Academic Press), which formally placed the MACH-IV in the public domain for academic research and established empirical frameworks that continue to guide contemporary personality science.

Purpose

The overarching purpose of the MACH-IV is to provide an empirically grounded, psychometrically standardized self-report metric designed to assess individual differences in Machiavellian personality traits across general, non-clinical adult populations. Prior to the instrument’s inception, empirical psychology lacked a cohesive framework to operationalize individuals who were not overtly psychotic or sociopathic, yet routinely engaged in cold, calculated, and socially deceptive behaviors without overt affective distress. Christie and Geis observed that political, commercial, and social systems frequently reward individuals who display strategic interpersonal detachment, acute cognitive social awareness, and a dispassionate willingness to bypass deontological ethical constraints to secure practical objectives.

The instrument was engineered to serve multiple theoretical, research, and diagnostic applications:

• Behavioral Prediction in Social Exchange: In social psychology and behavioral economics, the MACH-IV was designed to predict how individuals behave in zero-sum bargaining situations, trust games, and structural negotiations. The scale directly predicts deceptive bargaining tactics, opportunistic defections in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and the strategic allocation of resources in ultimatum and dictator paradigms.
• Organizational and Industrial Psychology: In corporate and organizational contexts, the scale is deployed to investigate the etiology of counterproductive work behaviors (CWB), corporate fraud, strategic whistle-blowing suppression, impression management, exploitative leadership styles, and political maneuvering within hierarchical institutions. Research utilizing the MACH-IV elucidates how high-Mach individuals navigate corporate ladders through strategic flattery, informational gatekeeping, and selective alliance formation.
• Theoretical Mapping of Aversive Personalities: Following the conceptualization of the Dark Triad by Delroy Paulhus and Kevin Williams in 2002, the MACH-IV has served as an essential operational anchor to demarcate Machiavellianism as distinct from both subclinical psychopathy (which is marked by erratic impulsivity and poor self-regulation) and subclinical narcissism (which is marked by grandiose ego-defensiveness and desperate bids for external admiration).
• Clinical and Forensic Exploration: While the MACH-IV is explicitly a trait measure for normative populations rather than a diagnostic tool for psychiatric pathology, it is routinely utilized in forensic assessments and personality disorder clinics to comprehend the cognitive schemas underlying non-violent criminality, white-collar embezzlement, antisocial orientation, and manipulative compliance during psychotherapy.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the MACH-IV—Machiavellianism—is a multi-faceted personality syndrome defined by emotional detachment, cognitive pragmatism, strategic self-interest, and pervasive cynicism regarding the motives and integrity of other human beings. Christie and Geis distilled the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli into measurable behavioral and attitudinal vectors, conceptualizing the “High Mach” as someone governed by a distinct cognitive-affective worldview. The construct comprises three core latent dimensions:

1. Interpersonal Tactics (Manipulative Orientation)

This dimension reflects an explicit endorsement of deceit, flattery, instrumental friendship, and cognitive deception as entirely legitimate, necessary, and natural instruments for navigating interpersonal landscapes. Individuals scoring high in this domain assert that truth-telling should always be subordinated to situational utility. For example, Item 1 (“Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so”) and Item 2 (“The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear”) measure an individual’s explicit reliance on social camouflage. The high Mach views communication not as an authentic medium for reciprocal emotional intimacy, but as a strategic lever to elicit desired behavioral outputs from others. Manipulation is executed calmly, subtly, and with acute attention to social context, avoiding overt aggression that might provoke retribution.

2. Cynical Views of Human Nature

The philosophical bedrock of Machiavellianism is a deeply ingrained, misanthropic perception of humanity. High Machs view human beings not as inherently benevolent, rational, or noble, but as fundamentally weak, gullible, lazy, cowardly, and self-serving. This cognitive schema functions as a powerful psychological justification for exploitative tactics; if other individuals are naturally corrupt, foolish, or vicious, manipulating them is not only permissible but essential for self-defense and survival. For instance, Item 5 (“It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance”) and Item 12 (“Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble”) capture this pervasive generalized paranoia and lack of social trust. Similarly, Item 8 (“Generally speaking, people won’t work hard unless they’re forced to do so”) reflects a worldview parallel to McGregor’s Theory X of human motivation.

3. Rejection of Conventional Morality (Utilitarian Pragmatism)

The third dimension evaluates an individual’s conscious disregard for absolute, deontological ethical standards in favor of a fluid, consequentialist, and utilitarian moral framework. High Machs reject the notion that moral rules should be followed categorically regardless of the outcome. Statements affirming moral absolutism—such as Item 6 (“Honesty is the best policy in all cases”) and Item 3 (“One should take action only when sure it is morally right”)—are systematically rejected by high Machs. Instead, they view ethical codes as arbitrary social constructs designed by the powerful to keep the weak in check, or as convenient public banners to display while privately pursuing utilitarian advantages (captured sharply by Item 18: “It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there”).

Critically, the Machiavellian construct is characterized by what Christie and Geis termed the “Cool Syndrome.” High Machs exhibit emotional coolness and resistance to social influence. While individuals with high empathy or emotional vulnerability become distracted by affective cues, guilt, or interpersonal tension during competitive confrontations, the high Mach remains cognitive, composed, and focused strictly on structural goals, payoffs, and strategic calculations.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework undergirding the MACH-IV synthesizes classical Renaissance political theory with modern cognitive psychology, psychodynamics, and evolutionary behavioral ecology.

The Machiavellian Formulation

Christie and Geis initiated their psychometric project by conducting a thematic content analysis of Niccolò Machiavelli’s primary texts: Il Principe (1532) and Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (1531). Machiavelli posited that rulers must master the arts of both the lion (force) and the fox (fraud), asserting that because humans are fickle, deceptive, and greedy, a leader who attempts to act virtuously in all circumstances will inevitably encounter ruin among those who are not virtuous. Christie and Geis extracted hundreds of direct assertions regarding human behavior and governance from these treatises, transforming Machiavelli’s prescriptive political counsel into modern, psychologically neutral, declarative statements of belief and behavioral preference.

The “Cool Syndrome” Model

In developing their psychological theory, Christie and Geis formulated the “Cool Syndrome” to explain how Machiavellian personality traits manifest in interpersonal functioning. This model outlines four interrelated operational characteristics:

• Resistance to Social Influence: High Machs are remarkably immune to emotional contagion, ideological persuasion, and social expectations. They assess situations based on objective facts and self-interest rather than peer pressure or normative guilt.
• Orientation Toward Cognitive Structure over Affect: In laboratory settings, high Machs attend strictly to the structural and procedural rules of games rather than interpersonal relationships. Low Machs, conversely, become emotionally entangled with their interaction partners, empathizing with their distress and frequently sacrificing competitive advantages to preserve harmony.
• Initiation and Control of Social Structures: In unstructured, face-to-face bargaining groups with latitude for improvisation, high Machs consistently emerge as dominant figures. They rapidly define rules, exploit structural ambiguities, control communication channels, and direct distributions of power to their benefit.
• Affective Detachment from Evaluative Contexts: When caught in deceptive actions or moral transgressions, high Machs display minimal physiological arousal, shame, or cognitive dissonance. In pioneering experiments by Exline and colleagues (1970), high Machs who were induced to cheat in an experiment maintained direct, uninterrupted eye contact with an interrogating experimenter for significantly longer durations than low Machs, demonstrating a profound capacity for nonverbal emotional regulation during high-stakes deception.

Evolutionary and Game-Theoretic Perspectives

In contemporary evolutionary psychology, the Machiavellian construct is understood through the lens of evolutionary game theory and social exchange theory. Machiavellianism embodies an adaptive, frequency-dependent “cheater strategy” or “defector strategy” in social species. According to the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis (Byrne & Whiten, 1988), the evolution of advanced primate brain volume was driven primarily by an intraspecific cognitive arms race requiring individuals to outmaneuver, deceive, and form shifting coalitions with conspecifics without provoking group ostracism. High Machs possess preserved or enhanced cognitive empathy (Theory of Mind—the ability to accurately deduce what others think, feel, and anticipate), coupled with an acute deficit in affective empathy (the capacity to emotionally feel or resonate with another person’s suffering). This selective dissociation empowers the Machiavellian to model other individuals’ minds with clinical precision while executing strategies that impose severe external costs on them.

Validity

Over five decades of empirical research have established comprehensive validity metrics for the MACH-IV, encompassing construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related methodologies.

Construct and Convergent Validity

The construct validity of the MACH-IV is evidenced by its strong, predictable correlations with major personality inventories and allied clinical instruments:

• Five-Factor Model (FFM): Across meta-analytic syntheses (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002; O’Boyle et al., 2012), the MACH-IV demonstrates its strongest and most consistent relationship with the domain of Agreeableness (typically $r = -.45$ to $-.60$). High-Mach individuals consistently present as low in trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness. Associations with Conscientiousness are modestly negative or negligible ($r = -.10$ to $-.20$), indicating that unlike impulsive psychopaths, Machiavellians maintain sufficient impulse control to plan long-term strategic maneuvers. Correlations with Neuroticism and Extraversion are generally weak or non-significant, confirming that Machiavellianism is not a secondary manifestation of internalizing emotional disorders.
• The Dark Triad: The MACH-IV correlates robustly with subclinical psychopathy measures, such as the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III; $r = .40$ to $.55$) and the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP). It shares with psychopathy a core of callousness and exploitation. However, it correlates only moderately with the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; $r = .25$ to $.35$). Unlike narcissists, who require continuous social validation and ego-flattery, high Machs are fundamentally pragmatic and content to remain in the background, willingly feigning humility or subordination if it serves their strategic interests.
• Empathy and Emotional Intelligence: Research consistently demonstrates significant negative correlations between the MACH-IV and affective empathy scales, such as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Empathic Concern subscale $r = -.35$ to $-.45$). Conversely, measures of cognitive empathy often show preserved or elevated scores among high Machs, particularly when tested in competitive context-appraisal paradigms.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the MACH-IV is distinct from general cognitive ability (IQ). Multiple studies evaluating WAIS scores and standardized academic metrics show near-zero correlations with MACH-IV scores ($r = -.05$ to $.08$), proving that Machiavellian manipulation is a personality disposition rather than a function of superior intellectual capacity. Furthermore, the scale demonstrates adequate divergence from generalized anxiety, depression, and social anhedonia, establishing that the cynical detachment of the high Mach is an active strategic worldview rather than a manifestation of clinical dysphoria or social withdrawal.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The MACH-IV exhibits exceptional predictive power across laboratory experiments and real-world behavioral criteria:

• Laboratory Bargaining and Game Theory: In the classic “Ten Dollar Game” designed by Christie and Geis, where triads negotiate the division of a sum of money among any two players, high Machs systematically formed coalitions that maximized their personal payouts while completely freezing low-Mach participants out of the reward. In iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma games, high Machs consistently exploit cooperative partners, defecting at critical payoff thresholds.
• Deception and Nonverbal Control: Experimental paradigms demonstrate that high Machs lie more persuasively, display fewer nonverbal leakage cues, and maintain lower baseline skin conductance responses and heart rate variability when executing deception relative to low Machs.
• Workplace and Organizational Outcomes: In a landmark meta-analysis by DeShong, Douglas, and Sutton (2017) encompassing tens of thousands of corporate employees, MACH-IV scores significantly predicted counterproductive workplace behaviors ($r = .32$), including interpersonal sabotage, unauthorized resource appropriation, intellectual theft, and political backstabbing. Furthermore, it predicted opportunistic leadership styles and unethical organizational decision-making.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the MACH-IV has been scrutinized extensively across five decades of clinical, organizational, and cross-cultural empirical testing.

Internal Consistency

In their initial standardization samples consisting of over 1,500 undergraduate students across multiple American universities, Christie and Geis (1970) reported split-half reliability coefficients ranging from .73 to .79. Contemporary investigations calculating Cronbach’s coefficient alpha have reported overall scale reliability values typically falling between $lpha = .70$ and $lpha = .82$. While acceptable according to standard psychometric conventions for research instruments, the alpha coefficient for the total MACH-IV can occasionally dip into marginal territory ($lpha = .65$ to $.69$) in certain culturally translated or non-student adult cohorts.

This variability in internal consistency is largely attributable to the scale’s deliberate inclusion of reverse-scored items and the presence of historically dated idioms. When researchers decompose the scale into its subcomponents, the Machiavellian Tactics dimension consistently yields higher internal consistency ($lpha = .75$ to $.84$) than the Views or Morality dimensions ($lpha = .62$ to $.72$), reflecting greater cognitive consensus among respondents regarding actionable manipulation compared to abstract philosophical positions.

Test-Retest Reliability

Stability across temporal intervals demonstrates that Machiavellianism operates as an enduring, trait-like personality orientation rather than a transient, state-dependent mood. Test-retest reliability evaluations over intervals ranging from two to twelve weeks consistently produce stability coefficients between $r_{tt} = .75$ and $r_{tt} = .86$. Longitudinal assessments tracking participants over multi-year spans in university-to-workplace transitions demonstrate strong relative rank-order stability ($r_{tt} > .60$), indicating that an individual’s comparative level of Machiavellian orientation remains highly consistent throughout adulthood.

Factor Analysis

The latent structural architecture of the MACH-IV has been a subject of rigorous methodological inquiry and continuous debate since its inception.

Original Conceptual Structure vs. Empirical Unidimensionality

Christie and Geis constructed the 20 items of the MACH-IV based on a three-pronged substantive theoretical model: (1) interpersonal tactics (9 items), (2) views of human nature (9 items), and (3) abstract morality (2 items). However, their early psychometric evaluations did not statistically isolate three independent orthogonal factors. Because the items were chosen specifically because they intercorrelated across domains, Christie and Geis initially recommended summing all items into a single, global composite score reflecting generalized Machiavellianism.

Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA)

Subsequent psychometricians utilizing larger, more diverse cross-cultural samples challenged the unidimensional model. Pioneering factor-analytic investigations by Hunter, Gerbing, and Boster (1982) demonstrated that the MACH-IV does not satisfy criteria for unidimensionality. Their exploratory analyses revealed that items partitioned sharply based on item keying (direction of wording) and substantive content, identifying two primary latent factors:

• Factor 1: Machiavellian Tactics: Defined primarily by items endorsing instrumental deceit, flattery, and behavioral manipulation (e.g., Items 1, 2, 8, 15, and 18).
• Factor 2: Cynical Views of Human Nature: Defined by items affirming that people are inherently vicious, corruptible, cowardly, or untrustworthy (e.g., Items 4, 5, 11, 12, and 13).

A comprehensive psychometric re-evaluation conducted by Susana Corral and Esther Calvete (2000) utilizing a large Spanish sample confirmed this dual architecture, while also isolating secondary residual factors reflecting the rejection of conventional morality and item-wording artifacts.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Modern Structural Models

In a major psychometric revision, John Rauthmann (2013) evaluated the factor structure of the MACH-IV using advanced Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis. Rauthmann observed that a single-factor CFA model exhibits unacceptable fit indices across non-clinical populations (e.g., $\chi^2/df > 4.5$, RMSEA $> .08$, CFI $< .80$, TLI$< .78$). These poor fit indices stem from several items that demonstrate poor psychometric performance in contemporary cohorts, such as Item 19 (euthanasia: “People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death”) and Item 17 (Barnum reference: “P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there’s a sucker born every minute”), which show near-zero factor loadings onto the primary construct.

When these problematic items are modeled or removed, a two-factor correlated model—distinguishing between Tactics (the behavioral enactment of manipulation) and Views (the cognitive appraisal of human deceit)—yields vastly superior fit metrics (RMSEA $\approx .048$ to $.055$, CFI $> .90$, TLI $> .89$). Consequently, contemporary psychometric consensus strongly recommends reporting both the omnibus score and the distinct Tactics and Views subscales when conducting structural equation modeling or high-resolution personality research.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The MACH-IV is a self-administered, paper-and-pencil or computerized psychometric questionnaire designed for adults and adolescents aged 16 and older.

Structural Characteristics

• Test Type: Objective, self-report personality inventory.
• Item Count: Exactly 20 items.
• Item Keying Architecture: Perfectly balanced to minimize acquiescent responding:
  • 10 Machiavellian-Keyed Items (Agreement indicates high Machiavellianism): Items 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 20.
  • 10 Con-Machiavellian-Keyed Items (Agreement indicates low Machiavellianism / morality; reverse-scored): Items 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17.
• Administration Time: Typically completed in 3 to 6 minutes.
• Reading Level: Approximate 7th to 8th-grade reading level.

Response Format

The instrument utilizes an authentic 7-point Likert response scale, graded symmetrically around a neutral midpoint:

• 1 = Strongly disagree
• 2 = Moderately disagree
• 3 = Slightly disagree
• 4 = Neutral
• 5 = Slightly agree
• 6 = Moderately agree
• 7 = Strongly agree

Scoring Guidelines and Computational Algorithm

To compute the psychometric score for the MACH-IV, administrators must follow a strict mathematical procedure to handle reverse-scored items and maintain historical norm compatibility:

1. Reverse-Scoring the 10 Con-Mach Items: For the 10 reverse-keyed items (Items 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17), invert the numerical response using the standard transformation formula:
   $$\text{Item}_{\text{reversed}} = 8 – \text{Raw Response}$$
   Under this transformation: a raw score of 1 becomes 7; 2 becomes 6; 3 becomes 5; 4 remains 4; 5 becomes 3; 6 becomes 2; and 7 becomes 1.
2. Scoring the 10 Mach-Keyed Items: Retain the raw numerical value (1 to 7) for Items 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 20.
3. Calculation of Total Score (Christie & Geis Historical Method): Sum the scores across all 20 items (incorporating the 10 inverted scores). This yields a raw scale score ranging between 20 and 140. In their original 1970 monograph, Christie and Geis recommended adding a constant of 20 to the total score (if transformed from a $-3$ to $+3$ system) or calibrating the scale such that a theoretical score of 100 represents absolute psychological neutrality (the conceptual balance point between complete Machiavellianism and complete moralistic trust). Under standard 1–7 summation, the theoretical midpoint is 80 (20 items $\times$ 4). Researchers can maintain the 20–140 range or normalize to a 100-point scale:$$\text{MACH-IV Total} = \sum_{i in \text{Mach}} \text{Item}_i + \sum_{j in \text{Con-Mach}} (8 – \text{Item}_j)$$
4. Subscale Score Derivations (Two-Factor Model):
   • Machiavellian Tactics Subscale: Sum of Items 1, 2, 8, 15, 18 (and reverse of 3, 6, 7, 9, 10).
   • Machiavellian Views Subscale: Sum of Items 5, 12, 13, 20 (and reverse of 4, 11, 14, 16, 17).

Normative Interpretive Thresholds

• High Machs (Scores above 60th percentile / > 100 on standard scaled metrics): Characterized by high interpersonal detachment, tactical pragmatism, low vulnerability to guilt or anxiety in competitive contexts, skilled impression management, and cynical cognitive appraisals of peers.
• Low Machs (Scores below 40th percentile / < 85 on standard scaled metrics): Characterized by high interpersonal trust, strong deontological ethical commitments, high empathy, vulnerability to social influence, and adherence to honesty regardless of utilitarian cost.
• Intermediate / Moderate Machs (Scores between 85 and 100): Display flexible social approaches, balancing normative moral codes with situational self-defense when circumstances demand pragmatic compromise.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Machiavellianism Test (MACH-IV) was formally standardized and published in 1970 within the academic monograph:

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Licensing and Fair Use: The authors explicitly dedicated the instrument to the international scientific and psychological community. The MACH-IV is in the public domain for academic, scientific, educational, and clinical research purposes. No licensing fees, commercial royalties, or formal administrative permissions from the authors or publisher are required to administer, translate, or score the scale for non-commercial scientific investigations.

Researchers utilizing the scale are ethically and professionally required to cite the original 1970 publication in all ensuing academic monographs, journal articles, and dissertations. For commercial deployment within proprietary human resource assessment batteries, corporate recruiting suites, or commercial leadership consultancy, users must consult standard copyright and fair-use doctrines regarding historical psychometric material published in 1970.

References

• Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-174450-2.50007-8
• Corral, S., & Calvete, E. (2000). Machiavellianism: Dimensionality of the Mach IV and its relation to self-monitoring in a Spanish sample. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600005995
• Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318618
• DeShong, H. L., Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2017). Machiavellianism, unethical behavior, and organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000170
• Exline, R. V., Thibaut, J., Hickey, C. B., & Gumpert, P. (1970). Visual interaction in relation to Machiavellianism and an unethical act. In R. Christie & F. L. Geis (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 53–75). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-174450-2.50008-X
• Hunter, J. E., Gerbing, D. W., & Boster, F. J. (1982). Machiavellian beliefs and personality: The construct invalidity of the Mach IV scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1293–1305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1293
• O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679
• Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
• Rauthmann, J. F. (2013). The Two-Dimensional Machiavellianism (TDM) scale: A revision of the Mach IV scale. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032959

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)