~HESE ~ ETE "

,No ;nCE

I

< LA

~HESE ~ ^{ETE "}

:,'MICROFIL MEE TELLEQUE

,,~"iND US L'AVQNSREQUE

B!bllottMIquenstiP,na te.duCanads_

O/r.~tiondu catlllogagl."

,

C!ivlslonde~th!lses ca,nldl~~nes

' ,'

NL-339( 3I77)

-.

THISDISSERTATION , HAS BEENMICROFILMED' EXACTLY AS RECEIVED

I

Previously

'COPyrlg~ted

^malerials

(journ~"I, ~rticle~,

publis hedtests,atc,)arenot.f,i,l med.

1+I

^National

~Ibrary ^of C~"ada:.­

g:~~fa~'Tgh:;~~VIslO';

Ottawa,Canad~• K1AON4

'b

AeproductionInlullori'n p~rt^01thistil";",Is gOVe'rned by the Canadian CopyrightAct,A.S.C.,1970,c.C-30.

.Please read the authorizationforms whiChaccompany thlst hesil ,

}(/-

:,1~

"c"

. --.. ,.., OJ.:

'.c

i

· , 1

~'l:'

, A

M~e tr'S. ~e~iS. ,B~t.~ed ~~ ,,,

t:'!emoria.1Un~ver8ity.of.Ne":'fQund l a nd

· · ••• _'." . ·.·nr _{. : .< ,~:} ·~Hr:::I~~:ON~J;I:: _{: ...,: ':' ..: ' ,. . < . " ..: , -.: . "} =:;:~Lt~Is~' _{.... :./ ': .:< .. .'}

;;.:.::'f- • ...1 (£:

· ··• · . . , , 2 ::/

. .»>,

','

r: ..,; -.-.,

, €~

end-deceft;;

~iii~";i~

'·,::Chris t~e.aJld.'GeisJl9.70}ha'X!:'~ev,';!lo~d:a_set,.

,

O~ 'SC~le~

^(Mach'IV

and~ :~EfII~c~ .~)

^that

~i8tin~8h betw~n

^..

, " iii, · ,

)those who endorse_MaCh ave:ilianide~18:.("lighMachal and, " ~ thoseWhoagree morewit~ventionai,...lrirality (low Macha).

I"

I ' " " -

, The present study date !ned hi.gha~d.J,ow Machiavellil\ns1

"';" ·:';"4: " -,' .:. '-'.".'. ..>...··.,·>1'-.-' ," ..':".'""'.'... ,, ",';.,'. . - ", '. ,:.. ":",'

.,: ,.

: ~~nki:ng

^,Of.

·,th~ , .~a~~~ :~nes? ,.{~8.t9.:~k_eaCh. S

^{.,y a,l u4},s u r.'e}',',.;',:' : :"."

~E,~:::~'~::±:~s:tr _{o. thi.·} .~e"nd. qUe.tion· ce.t"r;" · tthe . di..;nal!'d..cheat";g ,"' "

. ^{c.~~e; ,} . . ^{n~ q th}

^Ie

di~;;;n.~c;· ,ub~ok;~nt1y 'ff';~t~the

high

a~~ lO~ Ma~hi~veiiiari~;· r~in_g~_"~~. ~h·e_:-valu~. ~~.~~ty~

. --

~~~a'c~, ,(19.~~ )'. s·~~,~~~.

^:

0a ;: ~~lu.e~: .~~~ ;t;,.,d~ >ith·

^-.

^{,j '}

.•. r:::.::" :~:d:~:'~: ::.dt~t:::\::t::·:7:~':u:::~t~'~ . "

. :~::::a;.·.:::~~:~t ::;:i:;c:~;e:::,:::7.::~~,t

tive.'llIOde~ ^ofc~:mdu~t·or-,en~_state~^{'o f}exlsten~en. . -

~~:~~.~~:" :;~968;'. '~~.}60-}

^..·:

·!I~~.~~:6h · ~,~~~.b~i~~~~:·.-H:~,~~.;t_~,<·: ::~" : >

types,

?

^:-va~ue~h_:ins~nmen~d_.~~lu.ell a~ -~~,rini~lv.~rtie~~, .'

. : ttnti:tZ:::~~::~::;:~'i:r::O::ed:~~i: : ." , . .• ..

.

, .- "

, "

·, i

.v.

"~7 ~~";";, b~,*f~;~~~2'1 ~{:~:i,:,,j!, ··· ^.

..

^'

... .

' -'" .'"

-3-·

.':/ . : ,j' ..

.

~'.:.

^"':,'',

,~i.~.c,e. ,~r.:.~~~

^d6,

~n~o,~~,'. ~:~f.t~~~~ : ~~a~',;~.~~~~~!.:~. ^{'.:; .}

aq~.iN!.~ ',C~~'":~,~tional lIIOrdity,,~,hiqh:,~ChS':~,"7d~',.,expe~~~d

.'e-

'~' :-: '~ci ~a~~.~~, V.~,~~~"Hdn,~~.t<~~~f~~e~ti~:." ~r;:~o·~.~C~~~~ , . ,: .;.

. ' <.~::? ,~.~.~~ , ; ~?~. t~7~",p?8,~.~~.li;t~, .~ :~~~'~::~~in~~~.w~ :·, :,,\, : '.".

',Ro~~~cb' Y~lUei.~Ure,:r':. '1~' , f~u~ .q~uP~O~:'~~~,e /Sra~li ~:~!~~~~t~ ..

.';,,'

"Th~,', fOU~'~ q~OUPS,",~e,~e' .~pen·:giv~,:~:,: ~'e~n~ 'teB~~ ",~e '!o(, the:

,! ~t~15f~jl~

^Howe)lef'i the~results,:were intbe'direction onemi gh'k expe,c t.

i

· ~~~1~1r~~~ ^{) n · · ,the} t~ grO~p~" :~,a1m '~~~:'1l9t ' ~~di~'~ie':'~~ ,~~~·:~Cl1· ·9~~~~." " ·

.

?~ :"t~e,~~s,r~eli,,··S~pJ.e ~:~e''c~~rabl~, to.. th~s,~ -"o f:

a,

:~or~." :

Am~r~ca~; , ~~e. " _'s~nce ,~~~~i;a~io~; :~~d·indust~ial·~z:ti~n· .

~te ~~:.m '"to~ff~ct"~Ch ;~~ot~s '(C~;~s~ie':'~'ri~-::~~i~'~';" i97~)\

~i; is.::~~~l~le ,~~~'7':' ~:~,~";~'a~fn#,:~~;",:~;.~6~~'~~,~c~':· ^'. ·:.~:

-,sampl emigh~"~,~iffe~,en,t t~lim':t he',Isra~,;lisampleof ,Rfm~'

, ~~::Li:~:t::':::i~.:o:"!~::~::~~·.·r ~a~ta:;::~:,

'.- '.' ~~~~~, ..<'m~an, '~~-i~~ 'f~~, ,itJra~~L"~~,:~'.'-.':'~5'. i")~·"

. .,': f '

, ..,' , . .'

.~>~

', ; ": '

H~ ,V:~t);[:i~X:~ ~$c~f~Ji)~;~'

' ? I F' "

1....:..

~

^.•.':'::

/ J

"' , . ^{~. ' ~('.~} "~f;~;;;;;~r;'~'~j~:~;r::~~~;:i?;'i, . • ^;i ":":~::~:;~S':~;ft"{;1iCC;"'G?

{,,~~': "\. ".

-. . .:..

' >. . ; :.i: :'...' ,. ·:n+h_~~:'~~'~~~+_~.~ ·:~.ho~.~· ber:·~~~~~. :.i~":.~~~.~ :jf~

·.bcCaU.~e'the,18values are'rank,order~~nto:18.slots';.~.

" ~

^..

:'~~~~~~_, ~t_ ~l!sume

^.•

_~.n

^..

e.qu~.~s.~~T':~,,~~:~a~~e

^<

~~~n~.~e. ·

^'..

.._~,~~lue8. :.The~e_f~~e,:i f',t~B~jecEB:nked~th~.,valu~ ~ne8ty..

· tht~d;:

^it

'~~id no~:~e~rr't~t , k~~ vaiue ~lds -·~~e'.~ ~ ::

^.

· ··~~t:~:~:~:~~:~2:~:::::~~~ :::::t:::t::::~::~jt.

" :::f::::::.i:: ·:j:,~:::::l:r:f~:::~:;t::61::ia','ii~.;

." ,_; .." ,': " . _~e" s~~ond.,~~:~~,~onin: 1:hi'~ , s~~dY ?~nc~~s·~~·sa.~~~~~~ ....'.

'. t. : :::k~::· :t:':a:::~::n::t::" :1::1::r'~9:;h~:::~::,:~: ' . .

· .":::::::::: "a~~;::~i~:::~o::t:n~t:ci:~~~::{::::t:hi~' .:"

;: _:i~ .-:~~,CO~~d:.~.:~~· ~:s~~_"t~',.:,a:~_~;~~;~,-.:·th~

^..

,~r~~::.~.f ",o.n~ -,~~l~~t~:~ :

"wou~d.fol l o w frgm-the other"·l re s ti nge r .1957,'p;13).:" ~.

~~'~ing~i ' -~'~~~~~:- ~h~t ^{: _ _} :~h~~,~ 91 V~l'~i~'e_:, to .~';.'pr~~'~~r~ :~~

redu,~~ :dis':l~nance: "

^.see

e iample:: '

a

pe'~~~'~y: :ha v e a ', ;COg~ .. ;.

" . ··.:'::rj:d:~~:~::::'::~~~:~:~~·~.;:~::~i::~:i:i::~?s?n.'" .

..c~eaHn~i_s..~~cn9:and"the,h,~t,t:~a~",th~~raon:h~a"Clleated._:";

, :=~~~e.~~,,~~~·a.?naI~~~,-;:., }1~.~8 ,·~~~~~f~.c~.-r~~;·.:~ :~~-~~~'.~':~~e "' ^{. .}

":.

at:i~~~6; Ch~qe

^•__

~ ~~pport :.t~:.' be.h.a~7~!:". :

^•.

,f~~: .th~ pr7:~~?~ " , '.. ~:'~..: .".~.

•..situati(:m~;

the:

^person-mfqh t:::a lter iIls~f:l.ef··~'hat·oheat~g' -,

.

^~.~~.',';\:'

.

.-5-

Concerning'Milichiavellianism and dissonance,christie andG~~Sci1;e a study :by Bogart, Geis, Levy and 21mbardo (1.9~)t~at ~sconcernedIWi th the dissonanceeffec~s .'<;:~eating~l-d^{have on}poeb-sexperdrnenee.L_mee.su~es^{of Mach.}

scores. ~artet'd. (1970)hYPOthesized that ftSince

hig~

^{Mach. are}

le~. di~tra"ted

by·emet'anal invalveaent.!

th~yshould'beabie to avoid .dlsBoriarice better thanlow

~" , " , . ',

Machs~.since they arezeeepersonallyInvo l ve d with'their.

. .'

~:~itit?riS '; ,~ey,:·~~OUld 'sh~ ~~BB., ~:e~

^to." "

f;~~e ^{DY .}

changing cognitions when',they do,viol:atethem""4?hri s ti e

an~

^G'eis,

/~7~~

^{p, 236)• .,Boga r t}

' empJ.~ye"d

^t\oO

~rve~s

^{of .}

di.ssonancEt., 'a.high6u s t i fic a.t i o n (lowdisB'6nancel condition i

.. . . (

.

^-',

o~

a:d a10W',j~~tification.(high dissonance)conditio~. In

·th e high·j u stifi c a tiol).CF-dii:.iOl}, .t h e subjectwa~paired. '....l·tha coneedereee~escdbE:daiko,a highly adm:rab1e law

student. 'Inthe,'lowj,:,-stiflcatio; condition, the.s~ ject wee paired';itha negatively e"':aluated confederate, The

.

.

^"

"s ub j e c t..end tl\e

PO~federate

ware'give n a Bet

O~

problems

.

~i~

became increasinglymo:te'd i f f i c ul t

a~d

's oo n impossible

. .

.-

to,~olve.. At this -point, the experimenterwas called from ,t h ero~to;al!swe~a:telephone'C~l. Theconf~deratethe9

.~ at~emPted

to

'~r~uad~

the,subjecttocheat; The

c6nf~d9ra~e

r~ved.tbe^{answere'from the}·exper~nter · sdesk and began'

. ~. ~PY}'thenl:

^down.

'l'heconfejerat~ offere~rthe

^{answers to}

,the =!,ubject,thre~times. Tho'se'whoaccepted the answers

. '. I

(re',c~a·sSi.fied·as.cheaters. Bogart et,al.report that:

v , ·

-6 -

Lowsw~cheated in the high disso na nce condition wi t h the unattractive partnerspre- vi~lng^iowext4ttsic justification lowered, their en~orl!le;me~t^'of'conventional morality:th08ewho cOJllpliedinthe'lo w' dissonanceco ndi ti on with '+:o,v

~

^the'attractivepartnJr

pJovidi~g mor~

,ju s tif i c a -

.tion'i ncreasedtheirendor'semE!nt(Chr ls t ie and .Get.!!.1970,'p•.216). .

Bogart'et'a'i~.( 1970.) found°no s1gnifi'tant'attitu~^{',c h ange} fo;rthehigh

Mac~s

^{• .}

H~ver; .~he

high'Ma"Chs'd;! d s1:towa te ndenc y to ' lower their Mach sc o r e s aft.er chea ti ng inthe

o .

,lOW" justificationcondition.

Overa~l ~

^{high Machs}

~id

^{no t cheatnore}

ofte~'

^{than low}

Christieand Geis(1970)interpret these'r e s ul tsas indi~tingthathi g h'Machi'avelliansdonotexperiencethe typical dissonance eeeceacee, '!'hese fi n ding s have received some supportfrom more recent research. Burgoon .Miller and Tubbs (1971)pla ced.hIghandl?w Machs in a counter aecteu- dina l advocacy.situ a tio n and foundthet.ypi ca l dis sopi\f1Ce reactionsfor19'"but not forhi g h Machs.

chd.st;ie andGeiss~ate^{that since}"h i ghMacha.are'no t emot iona l l yinvolve d in theircognitions,no d,tssonance'is

-:-7-

.produc edwhen two confl,1..cting or dissonant coqni ti o n a are

-

pre se n t. Howev er ,i tis pos s ible that no dissona ntor con- flicting,c ogn i t i o ns were present,for_t h ehi g h Machs who chea tedin.theBogart. eteL, (197 0) stU d y. Sinc~^'ahig~

. .

Machdoesnothav et.he

.

eeeeattitudes toward

.

con vention al ,morality t.hat·t.he lowMach haa,,hi ghMachs'wh~cheat. do not

necessa~ily, ha~

^two

confl+c-:~~g.·:-C~,~tions ,agai~st

chea.t.ing.,

·1.f,>,this is'theca~~ ,^a,dis~o'~nce;';produc'1ng^{situat'ipn'f or}''a

. ~i~~

^Mach

'~~~d

^be

one'j~

^{wh i ch-'}

the'r~ is a ~i~h' ~ustifi~a':'

ti~nfo.~ c~e'ating;'~,bi:i,t' ~~e ; hi~~' ~'~~9~'S

^{"no t}

-Ch~at., ' I~.

wouldseem

the~-,

-'tha t low

~achB

;'WhQ',Ch ea t tn-

~,lOW

jus u n :- cationcon d ition (high dissonance) w6ul~loWer'..their,r anking

for hone S1:Y, whi lehighMachswh odO~'no1:'-cheilt^inahigh justification~( ~^highdis~ona:nce>-condition wou l drais,e the i r rankinq'61'Hone sty .·

There,a r e ,'howe v er , two'basic ques t ions tha t these, as s ump t i ons raise . The~irstfs whether or not disso nance' can~.redUCed th,oug ha change.i n-a va,11 rankon'th e Va.l.u G Su rvey.-Past res e arch with~eati!'J.gand the ranking'of the

~ . , !I .

v~lueHonesty(HomantandRo~eae'h ,,1970 )woul dseemto indi c ate t~atchan g i n g thera~ing^{for'Ron-est y}~ dissona~ce^.

i~ pos~ible. Homant andRoke ach (19 70 ) employed,twolevels of moti vationfo:r chea t.ingandtwo lev els of \he"salienceof the value'honesty . Mo t ivation-was _va r ied,bydecreasing't he.

.

^{. "}

number of problems · neceaeex yto receivea ce_rtain~onetary reward. Salien c e ~orhonee cywa svaried by,the' stres s placed

high s'aHence:high mo'tivation,low.sdien~e :lo w -~-

on the value when i t was read aloud,with the other veauee • In~thehigh salience condition.' hone:ty was directl~

defined as no tcheatin~inc1~ss. A~roupof 193sixth graders wepe divided into'f our groups: high motivation,!

r

~otivation. low.s~lience,;.'l ow,llI~tivation•.hi9hi·sa1ien~e.

Thechildren were then,given,a;'~et~~f^probi8IM'to.ec,. on

W~;eh"

^theywere

~ive~ am~~- oppor~~ity: to" che~t

^-a"s

the

e~rime~t ,er ~~r~d hi~

^..back'as":

~e~tE:.~ha-~ '~he

^.

Childr~n thOU9~t_were thecorre~t~~~rs_01.~he)lOard.

A few day!! later, a post·measure of thech~ldren'evalues was taken t.c eeei fthe cheaters,t~ewho had copied and tU~edin the~onganswer, shOwed the dissonance reaction of devaluating honesty.

~ . ,

J Homanda~Rokeach found tha:,i~.t h e higheali~nc'e,;:

lOw motivationcond~tion,the cheating subjects~l!I ignificahtly

!.

lowered theirve.Lue fo.r

~n:esty. :sev~r~l eXPlan~t!ions

^for

the negative rel'lulte'~n^{the other.1;h r eegroupsare}pos~i1~~e^•

. /. . .' . ..

.

First'o f all, thehig'h~sa~~ence.lowmotiv~tioncondition' wouldbe'expected to produce more'dissonanCe from cheating than

the 'ot~r

.c ond i t i o n's,.;

~econdl~,

^{i t is}

poshb~~hat

dissonance-was eliminated.in rnothermanner (i.e ., devaluatio? of the exPeriment!erl. 'nally,.-the,c he a ting manipUlation may not have been dissonanc,?-producing. for many' of the children• .SOIRant

a~d

Rokeach informed the children

. '

.~ -',

' .

~

that the answers written on the board were incorrect and

..

-9-.

.

",- . , . ' ,

acc01pP;Lished in

the

pr e s e nt study by Using a .prccedurethat

" I

!Q> " " , , ' , ,. •

, .

Ma chs cheated diffe rentia lly'wit.h·manymor e high MacllS • cheati n g inthe'hi gh just1;f ica,tionconditionthanin the lo w

justif1c~ti~

^condition.

'~!selt:-s~leCtion

^o{

a~~ects

prevent.e d

r~~OO\ al'l~iqmt~~

of high

M~~hia;V~l1~ru,.,

into che a t 'i n g and non-cheatingcond.i~ion.a•.As-th e~antand Rokeach.ieaults

wo~ld

ⁱnd i c a t e .,

I t

^{Lameceeaaryto have}

S'ID.j ~C~B

^_i?a

~~9~

^dissonance

si~uation t_o

^{get .a}

,v~lue ch~ngef

The~~Q~!

^.a

p~~r.ure i~

^{necessary.that}

W~ll e.~~e al~'

^.

;hi9~,MaChia~e:l,lia'n~ tothecheatingornon..:c~~tin~condition thathad beenrand~Yassigned to them. This-was that no individualreward could00'qiven and in s t e a d.

the

promisedreward moneymust!go't o'theer.eee

tre~8Ury.

^since

the

auth~rs .

^{do not,}

~eport :dir~Ctiy. ~hat

^,the

lOr~' ~f ~ward

was causedby

ch~atiJ.lg.

JI.lany of the children

m~y

^{not have,}

~ena"waie thatcheati~g^had_c:anc elled',the,r~ward. ^,

;

Anot~er ~PoSSibility,- "n~_

^{th ad}

~h~ pre~~n~,- st"d~:,i~~s~i~at~s.

i~''t~at';' t~e ,t~~~~ 'grq~pS,\~onta7ned~~·d~_~~;~Po·rt

^..

i~~~l"

number of.highMacha.

,';-Desp it~'

^all

'of th~s~ ~s's~:ble' con-'., f;~d1~~ .v~~la~~~~;·:'_~he·.:',~oU;~~~,gr·~~_~'i.~:·,\~.h~

^.

~

^..

~,,~~+~.~,~a~t· ^",

change"'!n~he' -va-lueHonesty"---..~i ve nthe'proper_~ntrol!! , '

<:h ang e

i~

^thera;'kingof

Hciriesty

's eems:'a'viablemethod

~or

showing'dissonancereduction Inthe presentstudy.

~e .seCO~d

^jaetcqueaudcn concernsJ.the!pro bl en; of

raridorniy

det~rminrng

cheaters

and non-ch.~a~ers ·

inan expeii-

men~al par~~igm.

^Bogart

et '~l. (l9~O ): f~~

^thathigh'

-1 0-

dir~tlycontrols or ~nlpulates thos e subjects .tha't.are eobeclassified' as ':cbea t e rs ".,

A

st Ud;by.rebee and; 5i ga l l (1971)'

Buggee~ed th~ ·1)a~.i·s fO~ 'sueh.._ a p~edure....,

~nes a~~'

^{SigaUrevleo:,}

a','~eries

^of

~r~.:i.cieB

^{in which.}

'.. '

. : . . ;

^.,"". .... - .,.'

.subjectsare CQnviriced.t h a t a,:phy s.:!.ol o g i c al:me a s ur e.,of th e

··rt:;!~E2~~:::~:st::r:t;EF:~~::;::!th .

l

-,:." .~; '_J

• •..

.,.11-

)

, . I , , ' .' ., " , ' ,. ' .'

.mell.5ure;'pO.sit;-iveoJ:' ne,qat~,,:.e_a,f.f~;:',~. ~l!! ' lIubjectl!lwe~t:

th,e~ as~ed .:t~ consid~~~ ,~.',~~~ ~el:t o~ t~~C~.~d, .to, ,~.,"s~~- ' ~

"" ;bei,~g"re ad

by

th e expe r imen ter.,'~,stat~,~ts.had

~f~~lf~~~tr

li~S%~~i~t~~~

^•aft~r,,8....few~adj~lItm~ntB I: had".been,,ma(1.~,,,a~,d,,a.,,.~,e~Ond

·~;··

':~~.at;erilen,t,

·'a&;i~is~e~ed. J~nes ' a'n~ :sig~il :~'ta~e th~t: " :

^{, :: '. , '}

'. ~ ,

^"

, . I tsh ouldbenot e dthatlthi s

procf!du~e

^{us e d '}

.-~a~~'.~Ubject ' B acquie8e~~t':,r;es~~~e

as

e,,:,i~e~,ee;,

:···~:e:·~:~:: :::~:::ce:e::f::tt:t~::~~:2:r;:~i:;·

an~',_tbe:,s~j~eFt:s:,~r~" "c~raC;te:'r~~ ~i,~~~1~ "qu~.t~

^..

1 ';';, ":;

:u~r.i~~d' ~o,:,l~l!'7:n' af~~t,~e:, e,xPer'irne~~:::t~at',

^::'•.

. . . . ~;~:{~ht:~t:/::~;:_~e fiCti"CU~' (J~n.: .?~ . - . ' . . . . .

',,~l~~,;,S~j~ts,:~r~,/e.ad.ilY,:~,n~~.ce~,:~f,:;;~he::~~~t'i~e"ls^",:

~~~~-ili~~:~~~!1 .

^,

\~ ^-.

:..'

."Pre-raeaSUres .

.

..

.'.~'."

.

., '

,

, ..

".~ .'

I

-1'3-

M y

attitUde·t'"owa.rd

l~galiz~t:i.ori ~"_ma.rijuaha·'i8' Favorabl~/'-~ . ~ /

^{••• •;.",}

./~~-, ./~

^••

.):~: . '1..; ' :i~ .~ .. /Unfa~~rable

? vi ews,

~re- c~~~e~ .'f~r ~~" -~~;l.i~~io~ ~roc~ure·. · The' po~it:ion '

o~favorabUlty

on the scar es

wasrand6mly' .chOsen t~~·avoid

.pas i ti ona l.-,res poil d.!ng·, ...

. . I I '"

~~iqri. ,. . _

. AS. in, th e

Bog,art

'liJ~ af~".

^Q9'70)

~tu'dY ~ , t~~' ;rubjec,~' ~',

~~h

^{IV and}

,Ma~h,

V slIrveYIiI,

~re,

's c C! ted·

a.~d: t~e·

^{two sc ore a}

were.

av~r.1'~ed t~' gi~ .~- ~asur~ .cr

the_.

8ubject~'

^Machi.a-!

.vel1~a~, orlEmt~tion~~ ,. The Subj~~ts

^__

.W~8e S.CO~E!!S ~re

ⁱⁿ

th~

^uwer'.

t~i~d o~'t~ '.-~amPle ~r~ ,cla~si~i~. ~s

^{,-h igh..}

~c~:ia~e~Ha~~,~ :~~_~ Bcor.i~g , ~. 't~e' ~;;r·.~hird·' we1:~ .

.cl"assified

'as lowMa·chiavellians . ~rty-high ~chsand

,r

-.' The,subje cts~r~alsoadminlB1:er~a modified·fQrnJ.of the_.

~alue

^survey.

~like .th~·'~~l Rokea~~ ~~~re .

^.'

I

" , ': - ', ',

- ,

:

howe~r.,stilijects were,as ked to-al!ll!l_~gn~...poBitiori orr~nk .-t o,\.he

_ l e

values

on

'-6,'-100

-~iri~. sc~ie

^"allOwing'·

afin~r'

,

~i.sc,riJn~na~i~·

^..

~Of: ~~·_-~_~~:~~~n~hiP_--~t~en .:~a{ueB_. , ~i~'

, . W'; d:I :~j~:: tt:~:n:~::d~i·;~~~~;,:::.~o~_

.~,air~-:l~bel1e~:-,"Ge,D:er~l,,~in.io,?,'~~stidnna~re;:~_ '(~~.e:.

.- ~,~n1i:x'::A.),~: ,,' _{~l~',i:~:' ~} __ "~.~~~:.f~~:',:~~ :_~~~:'~i:-~'~~i~?~~,~t~ .

and-theecare:u sed toexpres-s_thesl,lbject'.s op i nion .",',Th ree

o~' th~ ',1t~~ ,O~ \>IhiCh 't~~'· ~~j'~t' ~eld fh~' mos~':.~~tj-~~··

;,-.:,'

-14-

Maahswereran~lychosenanddi videdinto eightg~oupsee:10!~j~ts. T1mstudy emp !Weda?x2x2

~aC~?rial

^{desig:iwi thtwo..}

l~vel~

^:0£,Mclchi a vellianbm. tWQ

.1e~lS

^{of,j ustifica tion,.}

an i

cheaterS •..non-cheate'rs.

dr~~J .... ~. ^{' < _ - ' • . '. '- " ,}

^_._1

j

'

. . ••. _ lThe':"Ic ",p~r~,us u'~

^-in thestudy t Q

~a~<;>ubte

^'.-

2

re·l~y~·.~..lig~t'S !

fE2{3]:~~¥!ifffg>

wiresan~sWi t.c h e s,'."':!;'he pane.1'containeQ..a '(i'

lar?~ I}'~bel .iden.tifYin9

^{i t.as} th e

"Dec~e~~!;

A

Illlfge

Cable_/"

co'n~Q<;t ^to.the'dec~e:r;^{led:'ou t} of._the,r~suppo-"ed.1y ' ../

.. .

. .

.' , ' " ' ,

o,t he compUter,r oan. ,Anot;h er,cable"8uppo6edJ.~.tun?i~g_~-:

from

~the '~omPUter

^came

iJI~ ~h~

^roCll1'(

a~d'

^...as

c6nnect~d' t,b

·alarg~c,aHbrated'''m.eter'·thatwaspOs i tioned~nthe table

· d~~ect:iy' ~ri' ,i~nt .:Pf W:e_ ~~u.bjecti Th~,m,eterwa~ ':r.ake~

·positive onone'Side.aridn~gativ.e,on·'

the

other'~ ~t~a.l ''c;6 ntr o l S' ':for.

t~'e 'met~r

^Were

~~.itioned ~~i~' the 'Sub~ect

,B,O

~h~~' ~~ mete"~,:~U~'be.conuoli~d OU(~f ~~,

^sightof'

- t

^{subject,?y,the}·e~r;tmen.~er. - Procedure

,

.

.

'..

..

.

Forty:high,Machi,ave 1.l i,ans,a~d.forty'lo...,M8chiavellians were

assi~,ed ~and~Y'

^to,thefour'

h~g-h

^{MacJandfourlow}

Mach

conditionSrespectively ~ Subj'~c~s";~~e tes~d

^.

... ..,

and read thef~lloWin9 ~ns'tructions:

'~,

t

~' ,' /

.

of

'exPer~n,ts '~,t are~~inq ,~6ndtic~e~, :~J1.~Ough­

out

_{cai:tack'to~~'~tabiish}

n ,O;uis ',:for',a :';:e,latively f '

so-call~'" ,~d~:-e~tor,"-;te,st:" ~e:I:l',,th e',' " "

G,':S..R•.is oneof'-t h emea.surestaken'by,,t hiS_~st.

"various emoti9nal'st a t e s , are

known'

toaffect

the':r~ac~~

^of

'the':'swe~~ ' ~i~nds ~~fc;h~ " iri : tJrn.

,', ', I," , " , " ,,: ,,"" ":':"",, ' -.

affe'~,t~~,~e ,~l.e?~r~~~l'~eSi,8,t~~~e,:~c;~OS~,':~~Y':" ~ skin.

JTwo

ele,ct,t:od~So IP~ac~d.,a t'va~i~,~,'~8 i~ions ."6 n'the--'J~in^{,ca n'then}~~~Ureihi,B,'9han~^in,

,r esb ta:nce., ' .; ..."',

'~ ',J"' " ,"

,

"n:e " iit~~hine :~~qr:-, You:.~~~~Be~,te. tn<e~c,iH~' .,~

::: b:::k::~~:hf:'~~:~;:;::~ T~:~:;:n. ~ ·

device;t~at'you,Beenext,to,th~G.S.R.';',according indiVidUa lly.1 Each.

~ubject

,wa p s'eated

;OOf~re

^{th e}

aWar~tus ,'

; ..

.example.i fI Were'to

wire'

youee"

th e

machine.and

.:.. ';:~~:.:... ^~ . ?~.t~2iL. ^. ;j~~ ^{. - -} ~ ^{' ,-} -. ... ^: ' ^: -1--····;·:· : i.)[~ \ '

:.th;e

~~.r

^•.

-intO._th~_ l?~te:~. ·~~ ,.~c~

^..

out.~~- . :

^-·...•:..

~' .~

^{..;.:.•';••...•·.'..}

~.t.';: ^{- :.: , • . ... : ..•.... ,.}

. : . . _~_:.:~.~~>:~:;~~:~~~~,k':~~~~~~ ·:b.~';· ... ·~i;.~~~,i~ ,i~)~~-~~:

^{c __ .-}

':8~~ecti''Come~c~~u·..~e-hal1'~~~'ll'showyou<"'- ' y ' .: .• , . ".,:.

e . tJi~·,~~u;~~~t~18_:·ih~~~ ,:~~~~d'}~:~? ~"~ ) .:.. ' , . .. >;,'~ , .: ·'<··~\·~·,F<::

. J ' .

.t th~~.;&in: ;h~. ;",!j~?~;'a~;~ki~ 'f; ^{• .} ~ ~'h~ "e~l ~q . 'C ; :.. ~:

8h~~·1r'.'the,~epar~nt.aX coroput!"r.;'Af7~!=':, re~um~~?:.to ~e.room.,\ ""', ~

( 'he

::I:::~:~~::~~i;Si:~~~3J~;~;t

-.', '. .r..:

^ie:veg

accurate,~n .~as~ing

^{positi veQ:P;,nega.,;.}

I

.-19-

'wou ldhavech eatedin that~ituat ion." Fo r thegrou ps.th at

were cl a ss i fi ed as non-cheaters . anegativerea d i ngshowe d

• thesubje c t'sapparent rejectio n of t.heopportunityto

, '

cheat,and theexperirnen t e r commented accordingly . PostMe a s u r e :.Aft e r the pr esentation ofth efou r t h

·situatio~.

^theexperillien ter .termin ate dthe expe r iment.

.

Bef?r~ l.~v:~n~

^the

e~rim~tlta'l. 'r~.

^thesu bject was

".as ked to fil]...out thetltokeachVa1.ue survey

und~r

^the

fOl~i~9" -~ise

^to

di~Bociate

^{i tfr om}tle:presentstudy.

.

~A

^{friend who}

is d~,in~e~earch

aske d

if

my.'~ubjects"",?u1d £.iiIouta brie fques tion- naire'forhim ."

I fsubjectreportedthat they~d previou~lyti l led in the questionnaire •.the experime n t erstatedtha t several peo ple _wereuBin~_th~squesti~nnaireandi t~dbehelpfulif

'" .., j'th e y'comple tedit,a g ain.

Aftercompletingthe questionnaire ,thesubj e ctswere toldthat theycou l d ~eivean explanatio n

oi-

theexperi-

.mentalresultsbymail, af tercooip~etton

?£

thest udy.

I.

t~jects^:erethengi'f~n^paymen'tfO: thf\'-~~riJnent^and

t~ese ssionwastenni nated.

~esults

'I'o-de t erminetheeff~ctivenQss

of

theabO ve appclra t us , -eigh t-s ub j e c t s, one ine~ch'C!Ondition, ~repre-tes':ed.u sin

g

the proceduredescribedabove.-The subjects were then

-: I •

ques t.ionedaoout theprocedureandth eir reacti onecthe . /

' . r -

"

. !

I

'I ^" ,'.-',

.,.

t ':: '

~20- <

"

believed in

apparatua. Inallcases, the ~ubjectB that . fact.tha machirie hadeeee uredtheirreect ioo ll according ly.

It.Bincaial teat (Runyonand Baber . ~967) ind i c a t ed the probabllity bychancealone ofalleightbelieving the manipulationto',be .0 0 4.

The' modifi ed Rokea chValu eSurveys(prerneaeure)for hi gh and low M.Ilc hia ve·l llanswere sc ored and thesub ject 'l!

" • 1

.,.

^{ra nk ing (ona,10 0poi nt}scal e ) ofthe value Hon e s tyw~

I

^{reco rded. ,:Means.of.thes eranking's_racalcula tedfor tho}

. '

^{low Macliia}velll an .ndthe"hi ghMachla Vlilll ~ ngroup eand

axe•h~inTab1eL• "

. TABLE 1

HighMachiavellb.neandLowMachb vell ian eMean Ranki ng:!!of th e Val u e-Honest y·

urveyPOintSoared-ScaleUsLng' 100 surv~re~:r::~~ing

x:

HighMach!

13f

LoooiMacha XHighMaahs XLowMa'chB

20~66 7.13

. ..

^3.8

"

m'

• •

^m

. 5.

m· 68 m=

5.

t'"2.43*.df • 122 t. 3.54. · df ..122

*p<.01 .uP<.001

Note--ltigher _anscores~indica tea 10'00l'er rankingp!Honesty ;

• 1

( ^.

.- i ....

:;~.;~ ~;;:~::~\L·~~:~~;-·~k~~J~~l~t·i7"~!'~f"·

-21-

"''".'.',.' ^{.:,., :...}

~"'.'

Table 1alBosh owsIIthere s u l t s of a testcomparing these~womeans.

The .

highMachi~velliansshow a signifi- ca n tlyl~r^{me,n ra nk ing (20.66)of th evalu eHon}

7

^{s ty,as}

ocepared to7.1 3 for lOWMa ch i a v e lli a n . The.1 valueof 2.43,wa srel ia bl e at the .01le v e l of probab i l i t y.

To'makecomparisons'wi t h earlierstudies ,the,va;Lue Surveys f0l''h i 9h and

tOW: MaCh~avell.ianl wer~

then recorded according'~'o^{t'h etypi c:al},Rok e a c 9 ScoringMet hod(Bimple

rank

orderi:~g·.Of18 values). The"Bubj~cit'sranking

of

t~~

vaT~~Hones tywas then recordedan~mean'ra nk i n g,_calcula~rd.

,The s e meansand , r.esults of a test'canparingthesemeanscan

~a ls obeseen in.Ta b le1. Aswi thth e prev iousscolfing method,highMachiavellianshada significantly lo we r

. .

ranking'of the valueHonesty,with a mean of 6.9compa red to 3.8forthe low Mdchiaveilians. Once again.the:-value for thiscompari son(3 •.54) was st ;;,t i s tical lydepend.ab~eat the•001l~yelof probabili~Y'

A three factor,2x2x2,ANOVA was also used to canpareth e premeaeure rankingBofthe

vai~e,

^{HO:nestv,(on'the·lOd-}

~int

.scale),fo r all80.s tlbjectsinth e eightconditlonB. ra b l e 2 summari;zes theresult~of rhisana lys is. ASexpec ted', only

the!-va f uefo r the rnain effect ofMa c b i a vellip i srn was.

reliable~S.08;df.::l, 72;p<. 0 5).

Thepost-measure ra nki n g~fHonesty on theR~each

.

.

Value Survey,,:,a s-th en:c a l cul ate dus i ng the.lo bpOint .resporise Bcale,f or alL80~ubj ects inth e eight cond~tions.:

-22-

Pre-measure of Ranking ofHo ne s t y ANOVA

df

Machiave llianism(A) 95l~·1l ^5.08*

Ju8ti~icaticin(B)

"

^{324.01 1.71}

Cheat,-Nonlre~t(e)

./ 1

^.49.61 _-~

AB ' 165.3'2

xc

r -

74.12

~~.

^{1· 214.5066:62 1.13}

S(ABC 12 188.69

"'p<.05

These post- rankingswerethe nsubtract~frcmthe initial pre-measure ranking to yield a'

diffe~ence "~~ore

^{forle a c h}

subject. A"'andifference'score",was"'then

ca1c~ate~

^for

each condftion. positive differenceacoresin d i c a te"an increasein the importance or ranking

.

ofHonestywhile:

^.

negative difference scores~"~dicatea'decr~ase in" "

I

~rtanceor rankingof Honesty, A three factol:-2xZx2 AN.(NAwa s used ~oc~re t~e.se'diff~renc:e:scores in the eight cond it ions. Taib l e 3sum.a r l z e s t1}el:e s u l t a of'~hla 'analyBis. The Machiavel lianism xju stification"x ch~ating_

..

, " -.

noncheatingi~teraction'!'""assta t1sti c allyreliable (~~.9l:

df'",1,721p"C:::.05). Figure 1 illustrates_this-i n t e r a c ti on ,

'1 . I ', '

::,.~,

'\

,"

-23-

'J

^T1\B~3

.MeanDifference SCOre ANOVA

.

^{. '}

,

~i9U~e

²

8h~

mean dille'rence

~cores l~'

^low

;

~chiavelliana with _{the~,high '0rl~} jU3tlfi~~Jon

^cOndiUon.s

:cmpa~ to

t:hecheating

"a.~ non~heating ~~ltio~,.

^':',Low

Ma'chs in theno~~heati~qrouPl!l..show a,tendenCyto rabe t~e.ranklng'~f,th~value"ho nest y"moreth an do cheat in9 c1roups. 'AIs ,?,'loWMa~hl.a~llian~^in"thehighjuStifica tion

,COndi,ti~ns

(cheate rs,":and

n~~~.heatera)

^{rhawa'l a rger}

c~~nge

^•

than~o'loWMacha~nre spectivelaw,j\1st.ifica ~ion.condit:io~ .

. I .

Machiavelliani~(A)., Jus tific ation(8) ,. 1

' :~a,~ - ,NO~~,~t, (c:~ >~ .,::

2:91'"

'1'~7 5,",

" 1 :V,

~

.

1BO ~00 ,.'57.80 .80' ,,39 6 . 0 5:

",218.05' 4. 0 5, ,.6 6 7.9 0. 136 . 0 2 df

:1

Source

*p

^.10

Be

"'ftp .05 AC

S/ABC

'.1 ,

"r

"' , ': . ', , '

." -;:

.•...1/...

-24-

- - - Low

MachChea t.ing

--- -- Low

Mach Non-Chellting

I '

_._ _._ High MIlchChea-tinq ____" ~_HighMachNon-CheaUng

'.~'/ '

r , " _{. .}

"{

..

,' .;

. .

~.

. i :;F"

.Fi gUre1. HighMachiav~ilia~s

a nd

I.ow"Machi"ave~'l1l1ns,~an

DifferenceScores alla-Funct.i o n of'Ju s tif i c a t.i on.

~~~t;~t~~;n~~o~~:~et~~n:c:~~t;;~~~~ ct~~~n.

^,

indicate an increaseinthliJimpoHanceo,fth"e

'"~.value Ho~e8-ty. ", . ',

:J

'.(

...

^~'..."".

I

-26-

Figure 3 shows mean~fferencescores,.for high Machiave lliangroups.wit~the high and.l~justificat'ton

~onditionscompared to thecn e a ti ng andnon-chell,t.inggroups.

~heat_ingCondition'

...;.;.--:--:----Non-eheat~ng.Con dit i on

-27-

_High Ma c h i avel lia n cheate rsin the highjustific ation condi t ionsshow amea ndiff ere n c e score l~rthan ',.th a t Of th e non-cheate r s with the samejustif i c a tion .

High Mach'cheat ersin thelowjust i fi cati oncon d ition , Js now

a M~her ~a.~_~.iffer~~~e, sco~e :

^than,

~o

^{hi gh Mach:}

·non;-c1?-e at er s._~~thesame' ·cond i tion.

'; 'Furth or compa ri so ns

of.-the

,tr e a tmerit mean s relati l'l.g"

to' trh~ hWo~n~~i~ '~r~ ·~ade" 'us"i~q .:,'t~te:sts

^-;

:~ -ootte~ioi~

ci:npa:~is~~::~s d~e:~~~bed .'bi ';~'~~~n . . Ji'~71 ;' p~ 26~)\ .~e · '"

'treatrnE!ntmeans'

ot ,

5'~l.'arid':7 ,~'(ij'igh"M<lchia~ell.iar;

Noh- C~~t~~~"," H,i9~ ~nd: ~ . ;~~t;f~~ati6n'j

^eUid'

~h~ '

tx-ea'cinent.

.

.,

" , .

.

.means of-2.1 andl~5'(LowMachi aVe llianCheaters,Hi gh .and

u;.w

Justifi~atiori)werec~pared^withn~'B.ignificant

-

diffe~en?es

^{being fJ,md. . . .}

.TheMachiavelli~nBby justif ication~nt~:z:aC~bQwa~

marginallyreliab le(,E=2.9l:df =.1',-72; ,"p' .10 ). Figure

~

^shows

Ul{~ inter~'Ct~ori:gr~Phic.allY':

_{, , - " "} ,

High·Macha in'the low'justific ation condi tionsh ow

a t~~~e~~

^{"tor.ais e}

~e ri~~I6~ o~ ··~~nes~Y.

. . .-; :

. The.hypo t hesisthat.hi gh~chiavel-lianswouldra nk the value:Honest:v

si~'ican,!=-l; iow~r than .lOW Ma~ia~lii~ns rec~'ilved ,st~Ong -

^{suppor t}

iri' t:he p~~s~t

^study.

A~" '~

pred~6~~:<tbe' ~~a~ v~i'~el!

^{'o f}

^Honesty 'a~e

^qiJite,di fferent

~.

i

I

_I--

I - i

I

I - I

,- - - H ighMach -- - :-- ----Low M4ch '

I~

Low'" • High

JuBt;itica_t~on^forcheating

,FigU r e 4. High

~<;:hia~e.l1iane

^and'LoWMachiavellians

Mean/Diff erenceaccr ee.as a Functionof .'

Just.ificat.ion.' Me a ndiffere nce'e c oreern. .' the poBitiv~,.direction indicateil.n increase intheimportance of thev~~ueHonesty."

t for -H~~esty

^than.,

for low-~ach~·:(i~1.3) : ,

^{. ,. , .,}

one:''1o':lld·expect;

~f th~ : hig h MaChia~elii~ gi~n

^{.'th ei;-}

or1.;;m~tion

^-

to~a'rd;

^9w.le"

ni~niPU1~~ion

^and

d~ceit:

^.

-',

-29-

When theValueSurveyswere,r escor edin the,·~ua.l manner , resultsare in the samedire6t~on..16 .9 fo r highs 'Ie3.8fo r lows)withthe meanrankingbeingreliably different at

th~ _.

^.001

leV~l. ....

^{'It'a pPeals'" thit.' increasing}

^-

~therOd eto..~OO;_POSsibl~positions;as n~,tnec essaryto

sJ:10W,;t~: di~f~rence between,;h~gh

^ana

l~·.MaC~iaV;,lli,an~:

.~1ngo,f,.tbeva l ue- Honesty ., ',. " . ,

~e' pres~~t'.'~~Jultl/ ~,~nf~i"ni"\he hYPothe'Si~ OriginallY

~etout'~':.Rirrl:·(19'7()')"~:Hcr.oI~ver .'iRim ia'i~~'to f1~d"8upPort 'forbis

b~tli~s~s;.'.' .~e:'~e~n'~r~~ing~:~~; ,

^4.d."for'

'~igh Ma~h~'

vs3~6forlOW,Mach a werenot'found-to,:be statiBtica~iy

diff~rEmt·. '~, : '

^".

, .~

:" :, :'::'

' Rim ~s

1(19 10 }lJIs t ud Y

ueed ', ~ d1ffe~ent

'me t h od s o!

.

dete~i~ing h~qh

^andlow

MaCbia,~l~~'an~ ,

^{thll't I}

coU1.~

^{ac co un t}

forthe stronger difference in the-present study.

Rim

used

'OnlY

th e

^{Mach IV}

sC~le

^-ec

:.id~nti~Y hia Ma:chiavelli~ns,.

^:The"

pres en t studyusedacoinbinationoftheMachIVin'a.the..'

Ma.~h V

'Bc aleto determine

'MaChiav~;ii~hism.r .Sin~e

^the

::, " , ' .; , ,' . " , '

.

~cl1.

3Y

has~E;nsh~tobeBusceptib~eto.Bo<:: ia ~desira,:,,:

bility-.(Chris tieandGels ,1970 ).one~~ght,expecta mor e

:s·t ab l e

~Btima~e ~f Machiave1iiani~m

^by'

UB~q

a combi"nation

-. . I.· · ··

Of' :th~

^Mach-.

~. and ~.ch :V .Bca~,es:;; , The.,~ch,l~ ~.ca~e,',emplo?,s

a forced:cho i ce scoring.meth~'thatmake~it dif~U1t'f o r .

~~ec ts ~~ pi~k-,a' ,st~tement ~cau~ '

^itis

BO~i~iiy'

^{mor'e· .}

accep t a b l e than

anoth~r~ '~eca~~ '~f' tMS:;' ~h~" '~a~li

^V

tends to'yield

e~~~es s1.i.~ht1j -"~ig~r' t~an ' ~~:!;e of t~e Ma~.~"

^.:

IV••

-3 0-

In

^{addition,RiInusedadiffe rentcriterionfor}

_different~atirig

^1010'

~Ch~ f~om ng.h .MaC;~ . Rim

divided Mach score sat themedianla~liinq~those above a'shi gh

' . ,- ' ",,",". :''' ' , .. -

.... .

Macha,tho s e below aslow Machs.. The presentexperiment

\

~l~ed'~

^{on fy.}

~h~~,~: -B_~~~ln~' .~~ tli~·, u~r, ~~ .A,w~~;

^{':thi rdS}

. , :~::-l~~~;t:J::n{:d~:h:?:i~e~ pe~h~p~i p,r~r ." .

'"", for , tM~C~:~;:;::.:~;;'~;:~:~:::\:tt:~ ::~:,;:::l~f

~hepre~a~ure.:~,~i~~:Of~one-~tY;~BO B\i~,z:~s.;.t~~

.di f f e r enc e-inranking"of

Honesty

'o fhigh·~~·l.a..: Ma~hia~

V~1l~an5;_1

^The:

-fail?X"~

^'of

,t~e ~~.~~hing

^F

_~4i~e; t~o,· reaC:h :

asignif.ikan~levelistobeexpected as:t hesub jectswen.:.:

randanly'

as sigri~d

^to,

th~ " fo w: _hig~ ,-,i~achiavel~ia:ri: ~;'d f~ : Idw zJCh~avelli~n cotiditionB~

^{' . •}

~,:

The 'hypOth~'~ill th,J:high ~~~iia ~~~'ia'~

^dn

th~

^high

j~stificllti~. nOll-~h.:~ti~~· ~ond~tio~' Wo~.".s~~~¥~cantiy .

r~i~e:thej.r.·r~rlk":i.ng.^{of;the,_value}H(;ne~ty.·~~d^the:'h ypot hetSi s that'

low ~~hia~lli~n~' 'i~ ,'~e l~~' 'j~~~i~ib~tion'" ~~~~,ting.·

::::t:::e::~da::r~::;:::~;~:J';; :U;:.:::: t) ,

Table-1,S1l0WII no ~iqnific_a.n.tma!.n'.effects'for,Machi.~velli.ani8m,··

'~u,s'tifica~i.O~. '~~d" che~·~e~.~ ,,~:,::no~~~a~r~

^'.::..

~.ve~

".::the·.

tliree-w;sy-inter ac tion of,'the~ef~ctors·is,reliable.at,the-.

, ' . :::e::;t'pr:::~'~"a:v:h:::::::,:th~t ~r~ 'i~ ~ pe

I

',:

·Hi9~ KaChia~.11~ in

^the

hi~

^jUBtJ.tica tion.

cheat ing

grou~ .

^1._'

Fi~e

^{2) do'}

IIJw

a

tend~ t~rda

ra.nkin9 HOnestya.:

~ iKlr~· ~rtant vai.ue':·~~ iridicat~

^{.' ,'}

by--th e':meln

diff~r~nce ac~:r;e

^of'5.1:'

^{m9 b-} ~hiivelU.~'ns<1 . . . , ':' ,.. :: .'" r :'. ' . '. , :. .. .' ,'. " ,

~.'

.-'. :.: .

."inth e'a aIDe non-clleatlng.coridltionwlth)ow juatif i.cati on', '

" ',' ..

'Sh~ ~.·~'~~,an .~i.~fflre.rice\/ ~ci~~ o~ '

^{-0/ ::'.,:;....}

~~~'i~ .~~:·:<t:;·:~:: :

" ",':.:

diff~~enc~'.i~~i~~~e;'.::a?:::,~r:'~.r~~~~ ,'i~:th~:. ~r:,~~~ji('O~f.

^the

~^", v~lue,~ioil~.~ty~·

.

'S~~die,~".~:i..t~~.'

by;.

c~r.iBt~e:~nd'G~J.~:.~B~~"~:

I '.''.'-'~::.~ditio~'ai'''roethodll'';lpr9p~?i?q' d.i~;'on~nce.wi,t~,~'n';~:<

',:

_~':

-;; ,;,

8ignifi~;'~t^{re s ults'}

'wlth:. high'

MaChia'v~li~~so",'!he-.pre8en~,

" ' :::it:t::~~:;::::EE::~ ::::t:j~:::·~n '

,

~;,

^":

.~.~.g~ .~,~~ave~ii~~o ' ~;: ~~o~~ ^by '~e fa~€

^-,

,tha~ _~' ~d

. '.~\:no t.~eated~n~~.i:~a:~ionw~th:.~i~;~uafifi'?lti~·fO~:. ^{. ,} che ilo ting•. . .' . .-,~.' .,' , ;- . . " ':"

'.. ,.. .concern i.,;q'lOw

MacM.avenlaJUl·and,

the:'hypo~sb'^that

, , , .:'~~~~' ~~ , ~~. T ~2:i':' ' I~~~~ ~i.s"'i~·d~.~~~~8 :,_ .~h.~~ i@~t t~.i,'~ow"'Ma~'iav~~.ii'an8. ~ .

"

.. ..

'~~"

',~...

'" .' .

.::v.

,0 '

.'-32'": ..

;'1.' "

^I

Chri at1 e'a~Geb·(1970 1Wouldpredict.~a.t~cal

diS:'sonaneer;'-ct.ion:f~tli1!"low,Machlaveili~n.

.;" ,

".:~:^. ,":'.;

.

.:. .

-~~~(~~~

^,.in.

the_ ~~~~n.t·,~.~~~y.'~, ~~h. ~Chia~ ~.,:

^.

^<',:

cheatingJ.naaituat..ionwhe rethere

~ ~O" "jhst!fication

^{. ' , ' .}

f~~ .~~~~~:. :.~l~·~'·~;~ ~ , ~~~/: ~a~:·~~~~~b~::./ · .. :~'~> '< ,."

reducti on.)St.udies·ci tedbYOhJ"ist.ie'a nd Geis (l97 0)IIIhoW' - ~i<

.',:..' a

:.·~~~;;~~··:·;;~~11~~~ ~t.o~ \~·is. ~ite.+,~i.~·\~.~·a~~~~.ii':.h.:,~"

^{:;\ \ :}

~'.;.;:

^...

: ! ',:;~~~,

,.~) (:.~~~'J~~~,.~,o. '~ :~7' d7::,f~C~~'.t~~,·,F~~~~~~f~oi:~~~,~~~·:~,:~( . . )· >~.::.::;~ ':';~ ^'.

..' ..~:.'.htgh Ma~.h.i.aV8U~anBtoch~at:.In,,il.,.sitUation't.h~.~''ha~,,:,l~~:'-:,:,.:' " . ,"','

~~8tiffc~

^t,ipn-,

'~or,che~:~~~ .

^:.

,,"I~~~n"~ O.f.:"t.h,~~e: '9tudi.e~ : C,it~ ,

^'

" .:::::: ';·:~1:ti::~ ."~~~:':.':!:~~:;:of fi~t~"

"c~dition in~ichth~~e was.}.it~e_justifica~on f~~.. • ..

.:~omplillnc~' '(~hria~ie'_{. • . .}

';' .d :'

_.'.~i~_"<:.^'197_.' ⁰_.~.^,p;"_.^24SI:.._{' .'}

~.th",pre~en~:atudY. ~e.~~?,tt?:e~~·p~pe~~'.

<::J:~:::::::t:~;::::~I~~~~':::: '~~;'~.;.

, !cZ:::>;:;'~o~~?L::i:'~:;~c:~b:t~~~:i~ ' " ~: ~ .,

:llacl'afII!lani

~tfere~ seore .~t' .l~-'O. ,.~i~ ia ~:~he. largellt : ' ~:" ,,':-:

... . ~ :;;,l:~~::i::~t::':;Z~l;~~~:::\::~t~:i ~i·: ;' · .

&chs:'Che~~~~

;'.

it.'.·~:~ern09 .Pos~,ibi.e.

th'a ;t

~h~!5'cheat~q~n

....

• J'

-33-

-.',

with the

p~esent.

^{situation. But, it.}

sh~la,be

^{npted that}

the mean difference score is in the posit.ive direction, This indicates~atl1igh Machs who are facedw!th'cheating ina lowjustificat>ion si bia tion raise their'rankingof t?evalue Honesty. There appearsno reaeonto assumethat

"t h e high Machiavell,ianhascognition~·a~inetho ne s t y in any aitha'tion: 'I'h.es~~les.(Mac h IV and Mach v) arenot .orient.ed towardsexc~~ivedi~honesty. but moretow:" rdaa

r,elati.ve.or'c~pa-r",~i.ve~shonesty. Theh:\.gh Machiavellian

•"d o e snot"~nd?~se^a~tat~nts~Yi~ghonesty is not my

'1

~ricy,

^but.'a

st~tement

^that

S~yS

^{hOnes'tyisnot,alwaysthe}

'be:;t.po l ic y.. I t'is quite ,lik.~,lyth~t^highMachi'avell iilns

l·view.themae1v~s.a s just,.as-bo n.es t or'di s h on e st eecch e rest.

of.the Jorich

I~. fac:~. Chd,s~ie a~ Gei~

^{citeseve ra l}

.studies't hit

sh~w

hi g h MachHlVe'tlians do notch e a t more

of~e~ th~Jl

^{lo w}

M~chiave~li:~na:

^{Overall,hi gh Machsand 'low}

Machs'~wer~found-i n past'studiest.o cheatat aboutthe aame

.. "

, ', ^"

. . - .

.

rate.-Bog a rt et a1. (19(0).found that high and 10 ....Mac hs

~~ea:ed.ldi~.~e~en~~ial.1Y " ...;dt~_hig~ M~C~~

cheating moreof t e n fnt~1Qw dis,soIlilnce \h~g~jus t ific a;-i o n-l condi.tiontha n in'the high dissonance(lowjus ti:li i c a t i o n l condition: I f :

th~

^high

~ach

^sees

h~eh· ~S "being ~o

more dishonestthan

\' . ,-' . , " -

' ..

^{' "}

there s t.·of tqeworl~.it may beyerythreatening fo r the high Mach to

~ucidenl~ $ee,;h~s?1f

cheat 'dhEln there is:ve ry

l~ttl~:',to

^{.g a in·}

f~.~

^that

~9t.~on.

^{"In'o rde rto},"s a v e face- or ensureJ1~8e'lf ~hat~eis nota'dishc;me s t.,per s on', the

-34-

highMaC? co u l d raise hi ; value',for honesty,as ';leen inth~

present st ud y. Res-ults from fhe B,ogartstudy tendt~",

, ' :

support theabove. Bogart foundt~a~high Machs "who ch~atedin the~gl1dissonancecono;l:itionwitho.!lte,.e::terna l justif .i c a tioncl a im eqtobemorerathe r than lessmoral afterwards.

(~lth~ugh

^not

si~ifii:antly ~ore rno~al):"

(Christie'andGeis ,p,24 6 ) :

,; I .',' ,

Before accepting Christie.e nd ueae' sug~stlonB'of,no '(

diBson~nce

^for

ht9~, ~~chiavel~,fa':lB i , ~J.~~la

^S'e(ml

~r,th­

.wh d.Le to'PUrsue',theresults presented,above. Quite

poeeibly,"wi th a

,few .c~gee

in .the pr esent

'~rocedure,

.hi gh¥achs Would show.~,stronger dissonance~educti9n ; ::

Inthe pr esen t stud yi t is.di f f icui t todet erminewh at

. , " .

impa ct ,the justificationlevelshad onth e subjects -. This isvery~rtant^as.i t appea'rs"Obviou~t~at~ustification

I

iscr i tlcal in,

t~e hi~h

^Mach's'd e c i sion to

che~t~, Th~

.Mac h ia vellia n i s m xju s tific a t ion int e rac t:i o nsh oWn in

; : . ·1

Figure4'i s :r;ei~~l,e^atthe .10l~<'el.^:It~ppefJ.rs^that fu'rth e r inve~ti,gationofth~re latio n s h i p between Machiavellianismand,justificationj,.gnee e e e e rv. It is

'obv i o uSthat the present'lowjustificatio n condition

proVi~ed lee~

_,

" jUBtfficati~~· .

\

,,'

for cJ!.eat',ing

. ' . tha~ '

^did

~he

. high jus t ific a tio n.condit,ion. H~ever^I it would

1?e

',1 possi ble!tode sign a'l ow justificationconditionthat woJ.ll'dcdntai n

~re

lleg",:tive'

~plic~tions ,

fo r'ch e at i ng

..thllO

~he'

^present

ma~i~iation. ~~SSib1y . ·what co~ld

^be

''';':.

'. \

:':

.. . ...,.'

^...

-35-

usedis a condition in which there isno jus t i f i c atio n for cheating. plac,ingf1gh Machsin such"accondition and havingthemch e a t u~ingthe bogus pipelin emethod could produce more·d i a.sona n c e reduction.

In summary, two points seemapparen~fr~the present studyconce~ingthe Machiavellianand hisvalue for honeaty. (1)In.in i t ialra nk i ngof the value'Honesty.hi gh Machiavel,lians.ap pe ar to place<!:lea s e't',importance

on

^thE7

vaIu e of honestyas cOmparE!id toth~^low Machiavellian.sI

ranki ng·o f that value. Althoughthis'is what one'might predict ,g~venth eth e o r e tical orientation of'thehi gh Mach. i t is·i nte r e s tingthat severalstudies mentioned previously'indicate that the high Mach iioesno t'ch e a t more of t e n than thelow MaclJ, in aneXperilne fltal setting. (2) Justificat i onandch~atingbehdv iorinteractwith Machiavellianism'ecaffe~tthe subjectIBra nk i n gof the va l u e Honesty., Al thougha significantMachiavellianismx

.

^.

justificationx cheater-non-cheaterinteract i o n'wa s found,i t wasdiffic ul ttode~inetheee pecee of th is inte rao t ion . Some tre~dsin the datawere discussed:

II

.(l)";W Machs.apPear tc rsact as

expect.~.

sh?Wing a ten~e ncytowar:d 'atyP iqa l dissonancereacti9n:

c

(2) HighMachs showa tendencr.to shift :the i r ranking of Honestyin a positive directionafter.creating....ith lew jus t i f i cat i o n for cheat'n g :

I /

-36-

(3) Hig hMac hashow a tende ncy toshift the.irrankingof Honestyin apositive direction-a f t e r non-chea.Ungwith high juat ifica.tion for cheating . M

~rJI08.t

^of

th~:'l'IIt~ea

^cited

ea~l~er·.

^{itappe a rs}

that thehi g h Mach provides the uncertainty'in theare aof Machiavel li an-st ud ies..

.

Unfortuna~ly" "af ter reading . Christieand

,

Getsonetenda1:0se e the"l ow Mach,

.

dee-pH.e his eeauncu'mor als.as sor:ewhat

o f

amundaneexpe.rimen:ta1

Ilu?j .e'ct.,

.'Inconclusion,thereare afewcriti~al'commentsthat should~conSidered•.The prob lemof proper poat; measures SeeI!IS.espeCiallyrelev~ntin dillaona n cestu d iell. I tis .untortWla t ebutquitepos~ible

that

s.ubjec t s involv ed. in

dbao n ance re s ea rch wil l reduce dissonance through anumber

·o fmeanS otherthanthat intended U. e••IIIdeaiqnated p::ls t measure). Inretrolllpect,itmi c;htha vebeen more adv i sable toin c ludetheMach

s~ale8 "al~9

with Rokeach

. .

Value Surveysaspoet eeaeuree0 Asdiscussed ea r l i e r.when

'de alin g·wi th

l\i~. Ma.Chi4ve~li~

^{oneneedsto'consider more}

than jus't the issue·o f"hOne s t y."Boga rtet d.'(1970J have_ shown"theMach aca l e s can be used as poetmeasure,,: of attituq echangs"o

~8 Machiav~l1ianism

^WitS"4

~~~

^factoriA

~

, the st ud y.i t

~ld

^{ha ve}

~en he~pful

^{tq see}

~

^the

J~ri~8

" I . ' _,

conditio~s affe~,t~the subject'sposttest i ng~Ch".~coree;o Alaoaa Bogartandother8have usedth e Mach score s asa

. '

.

"

.-37-

post measure of.attitu"dechange,direct comparison Would have been more applicable.

Another possible avenue,of dissonancere duc : i on in

th~·

present study shdUldbe df.acueeed , I twa,s vi tal'in the

"

,

present study that,the s\¢lject~convinced.that't~e apparatu~could:me'as~re'hisiriru:~rfeelings~ce e c e f c o e ,

~pre-t.est~n?indicated t:J;at'the eic;Jh:tsubjects'tested.~ere ^/' thorough lyconvinced· the.t·the J:;lIachinecouldanddid

".,

, ~rform

^as,

Cl~~d~

^:'

~in~

^the

' e~rimerital ·~ha~e

^of

~he ·

/liiudy,.ali 80 eUbjec.tsaccepted.t he.finaldeCision of tne

. ', ' - .' ". . ' . , ". . ' ,

machine without'question or denyingi twas.e true're~c.t:i.o~.

Given the aesi90 of the~.tudy,it was lmpoJ"sible.'to administer a·pos t measure queecdcnneLre Cloncerninq the.

Subjeo~'s reacti~n

^{to the}

app~ratus

^'.

If l BUC~

^a,que s.t i on .:o..,__

naire were administeredbeforethe value survey (post

f'f meas~re

^{l i t}

~~~ht

serve as an: avenue for

dissona~ce

" I " " "

reduction. Administ ratl.on.ofsuch a questionnaire after

" "

theval'U~surveywa sal;so~"impoBsibr.eas i t was necessary"

to announce termination oftheexPer~ntbef~readminis- tering the value survey. :..The valuesurvey was,adm,inlf1tered under the•~l!Ieof belongingto~aneresei'!:rch, a fried of the experimenterwas conducti ng. Als o , extensive queation1.ng about'th~.appar~tul!l m~yhave ar?used the subjectsIsus~icions') about:.theprocedure. Asmost ofthe subjectswerefrOOltbe

•same'

c·l~15aes, ~il!l

^could

~~e

^bad

dis·~stiouB

·r e s u i t a.on·t h e.: ,experb.entISl;r e dib ility~ ^It seem~·^{safe to'assume}f~~^the

-38-

pre';'te8t~q

^and'thesubjects':

re~ction8

^'duri ng testing

tfuat

the manipulation was successful : However.-fu~. re s e a rch"shouldbede8iqnedtoprovide.mOr einfonnatio n

.

^.

on thereaetio~^{ofth e}Macbii!:vellia~during testing• . Given.the~lipperynat ure".of the.hi ghMac:h. mor e information~d^be:helpfui·~nⁱnt e rpre t ingthe data.

It appear~^that;"I n"d; sign i n9 II:etudy tQteat.

MaChi:velliana~'

^{on e:}

mus~:

^not

~ inexJ:d~nc.ed .1n . th~

^:

"';'ays

o~ gU~l~;;

^{deceit and}

man·~~ati~nl. .

/

-39-

Bogart, K.:Geia,F. :Levy,M.and zimbardo , p.. "No Dis sonance forMachiavellians." In R. Christie

. .

. . ',

,Fe~ tinger~~L..A.. Tlie;'ry~of cognitiveDissonance. stanford:

. .

Homan~ ,R.and Rokeac::p,M. "Valuefor-Hon~styand Cheating Behavior'." ~e~sonaHty,.1970~:! ,-153- 16 2."<3 JOnrS,,E.E'.and5iga11,H;' "The.so_gua'Pi pe l ine : A,New

p~radigm

'f o r

Meas~~i'ng Af~eC;tand '·At'titude ."

PsychologicalBulle t in ,1971;'1§~"349''';36,4.

I I

~ , Y.

"vaiu:esand.

Att~tU~.~B.' "

.Pe r s oIiaii ty,1970,'1, 24 3-250.

Rokeach,M.IBeli~fa^!•Atti tudes and'Values• .s~n Franci:B~O:

andF.L.cere (Eds.)Studiesin Machiavellianism •. New

~o~k.: Ac~~~ic :-p:ress , 197~. ,

Burgoon ,

M.:.:Mille~, ;. G . _{~~,-; anq. ~bs,}

.J

s.. i..- ','Mac~ia-

. ,_~i~~a~i~T ' ~B;~~~catl~~:~.~d ~~;~~U~~,:~ha.~ge, :-> ,

^__:.';

"" Followi~g-Go.~erA~t_~t~,d.inal·~.dY~~.~Y~:; _:JO~~_a1.··

. of'

p~rsonai.it;

^'and'

;~iai' 'PSY~hO,l~ ; .:,~9~2 ;'_

^22:

· ~ti.sHe , ^{R : 'and}

^sefe,

F~ ~ .~: ; studi~/in ·Ma·c~~ave~la~ism .

New

~ork: AC~dkmic"~r~Be , ~970. '

Ferqu~on

^..G.A:

Sta:tisttc~'1' ~a.l~Si~

ⁱⁿ

p~Y~hi~:v

^and.

Education. New.y l k: McGraw -Hili,

1971~ .

^.

.Jossay'B,ass.19 68.

ltunyoniR. s , and Haber, A.

.

..

^'~

.;.

.

j".i

..

.... . ' ^..

rr::. .

^{ApPendixA ,.}

. u . §b~RAL

^OPINION

9UBSTI~~IRE

'1. My.attitude. -towardcigarette.amoking

.

, i.6 . •.

~

. . My

at ti tude·towardlegaiizing'm~ri juana^{is .'.} 3.

': '~he ~.~w: ^{..:.. ,.:, ,:'.. ;'/ . " '. ".' ': ". ..'} fl

o S; -.Rel i gion'is.a.~ece8B a.rir' ·part'o f.my everY<!ay·.l;l.fe•

.6.""

:My att;'i~UCl~:-t~a%-d p'~~i!l~itai 8e~ J' .'. ; .,., ,

M.U.N ~

9 .1

G:oVenlment..apon s ored

unemplo~nt

^{benefi t s are}

~

.'10. ,Myreac~lon~to:.t~er~8ultBof~hela st provlnd.al ele c t.i on

-t- .

~