Psychological Reporrs, 1976, 38, 779-782. @ Psychological Reports 1976
O N DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DOGMATISM A N D MACHIAVELLIANISM AMONG MALE AND FEMALE COLLEGE STUDENTS MARION STEININGER AND ELLEN EISENBERG
Rutgers University Camden College of Arts and Sciences Summasy.-A brief dogmatism scale and the Kiddie Machiavellianism Scale were answered by 112 male and 83 female students. The men's Mach scores were higher than the women's. The correlation between dogmatism and Mach- was not significant in either sex; in contrast, the correlation between dogmatism and Mach+ was significant for both sexes, T being significantly greater for the women than for the men. Agreement response set therefore seemed to be involved in the correlations between these scales for both sexes, though more for the women than the men. Factor by factor correlations indicated that for the men, the main other overlap between these two scales was an unflattering view of peop!e, as hypothesized by Christie and Geis; for the women, however, the overlap berween the scales was more extensive. The interpretation of this sex difference suggested the possibility that women may be more Machiavellian than their scores suggest and may even be more Machiavellian than men. though their scores typically suggest the opposite.
According to Christie and Geis ( 1970), the main overlap between Machiavellianism and authoritarianism is an unflattering view of people; the difference between them is that authoritarian personalities believe that, "People are no damn good, but they ought to be," while high Machiavels believe that "People are no damn good. So what? Take advantage of it." Since Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960) was meant to measure generalized authoritarianism rather than only authoritarianism to the right, and since one factor measured by the Dogmatism Scale is "derogation and aloneness" (Steininger, 1975), it seemed possible to test the thesis presented by Christie and Geis.
METHOD As part of a study on impression formation (Steininger & Eisenberg, 1976), students in three elective courses answered a brief dogmatism scale (Steininger & Lesser, 1974) which correlates .9 with the original Rokeach scale (Rokeach, 1960), and the 20-item Kiddie Mach Scale (Christie & Geis, 1970); the items from these scales were intermingled. The participants included 31 male and 16 female sociology students, 30 male and 49 female English Literature students, and 51 male and 18 female business students. All responses were anonymous and voluntary; no one refused to participate. The response categories for all items were agree or disagree "a lot" or "a little;" these were weighted 1 to 4, and the scales were scored so that higher scores meant higher dogmatism and higher Machiavellianism.
M. STELNINGER
780
&
E EISENBERG
Participants were scored on total dogmatism as well as on 6 consistently found dogmatism factors (Steininger & Lesser, 1974) : belief in one truth, belief in a cause, derogation and aloneness, virtuous self-denial, self-proselytization, and authoritarianism. Participants were also scored on total Machiavellianism as well as on three subscales which correspond approximately to Christie and Geis' (1970) "tactics," "views," and "morality." Six "tactics" items contain advice on how to act (e.g., "Always be honest, no matter what"); eight "views" items contain cognitions about people (e.g., "Most people are good and kind"); and six items contain moral evaluations (e.g., "It is never right to tell a lie") or evaluations about tactics (e.g., ". . . smart to be nice to important people though dislike them . . ."). The latter items were not included among "tactics" because a person could agree that "It is smmt to be nice . . ." yet disagree if this were written as a "tactics" item (Always be nice . . ."). These last 6 items were called "evaluation." The Machiavellianism items were also divided according to whether the Machiavellian response was to agree (Mach+) or to disagree (Mach-). RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Sex by class analyses of variance gave no significant Fs for any dogmatism factor or total dogmatism. In contrast, the 112 males scored significantly higher on Machiavellianism ( M = 2.41, SD = .35) than the 83 females ( M = 2.23, SD = 3 2 ; F = 8.50, df = 1/189, p < .004). Furthermore, the males gave more Machiavellian responses on 17 of the 20 items, including tactics, views, and evaluation. These data replicate those reported by Christie and Geis (1970). The Machiavellianism differences among the three classes were also significant ( F = 3.92, df = 2,489, p < .02), with the 69 Business students ( M = 2.45, SD = .40) scoring higher than the 47 Sociology ( M = 2.29, SD = .27) and 79 English ( M = 2.27, SD = 3 2 ) students. N o significant interactions were found. For each Machiavellianism item, the percent giving the Machiavellian response was determined (whether this involved agreement or disagreement); the items were then ranked from those eliciting the most Machiavellian response to those eliciting the least Machiavellian response for males and females, and Business, Sociology, and English students. Rank-order correlations were then computed for males and females, Business and English students, Business and Sociology students, and Sociology and English students; ~ h o swere 3 3 , 3 6 , 3 6 , and respectively. The dogmatism items showed similar rankings among all groups. It is clear from these correlations that in spite of group differences, some items consistently elicited more Machiavellian responses than others. Among all three classes and for both sexes, the "views" items elicited the most Machiavellian response, while the "evaluation" items elicited the least Machiavellian responses; furthermore, the items for which the Machiavellian response
.*,
RELATION OF DOGMATISM AND MACHIAVELLIANISM
781
was disagreement elicited more Machiavellian responses than the Mach+ items. The relatively low Mach responses to the "evaluation" items suggest the possibility that the respondents (of either sex or in any of the three classes) can more easily agree with derogatory statements about people and manipulatory ways of dealing with them than with statements that these views or tactics are "smart" or "best." Possibly, the students experienced some ambivalence about Machiavellianism; alternately, statements which say that a belief or act is "smart" or "best" may have a double impact, since they may appear to some readers to both ask for a "confession" and a praising of the "sin." Not only did the males and the females differ on mean Machiavellianism, but the correlations between dogmatism and Machiavellianism differed between the sexes (but not among the classes). The Pearson rs between total dogmatism and total Machiavellianism were .ll for the males (df = 110, ns) and .43 for the females ( d f = 81, p < .001); the difference tetween these two rs is significant ( z = 2.37, p < .02). For the men, the correlations between dogmatism and Mach+ and Mach- were .26 ( p < .006) and -.08 (ns), respectively; for the women, these 7s were .58 ( p < .001) and .05 (ns). The difference between the men and the women is significant for Mach+ ( z = 2.70, < .01) but not for Mach- ( z = .88). Since all of the dogmatism scale items are items, these data suggest that agreement response set may be involved For both sexes but more for the women than for the men. In spite of some degree of agreement response set, the students readily disagreed with both Mach+ and Mach- items (see above). Factor by factor correlations were therefore computed to trace other possible sources of the significant rs between Machiavellianism and dogmatism. The data which bear most directly on the Christie and Geis thesis are the correlations between "views" ( o n the Mach scale) and "derogation and aloneness" (on the dogmatism scale), since these are the subscales whose items are most clearly related to a flattering or unflattering view of people. For the men, "derogation and aloneness" was the o d y dogmatism factor which was positively correlated with both Mach+ ( r = 3 8 , p < .001) and Mach- ( r z .22, p < .02), and the Machiavellianism factor which correlated most with this dogmatism factor was "views" (for Views+, r = .48, p < .001; for Views-, s = .38, p .001). For the women, in contrast, both Views+ and Views- were positively correlated with three dogmatism factors: belief in one truth (I.= .39, p < .001, and r = .27, p < .01, respectively); belief in a cause ( r = 3 1 , p < .004, and r = .26, p < .02); and derogation and aloneness ( r = .55, p < .001, and r = 3 5 , p < .001). For the men, two dogmatism factors were not significantly related to any Mach factor, or -, in any class: virtuous self-denial and self-proselytization; for the women, this was true only for virtuous self-denial. The remaining correlations can perhaps be accounted for in terms of agreement response set, although that does not explain why not aU dogmatism factors were involved.
+
O N DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DOGMATISM A N D MACHIAVELLIANISM AMONG MALE AND FEMALE COLLEGE STUDENTS MARION STEININGER AND ELLEN EISENBERG
Rutgers University Camden College of Arts and Sciences Summasy.-A brief dogmatism scale and the Kiddie Machiavellianism Scale were answered by 112 male and 83 female students. The men's Mach scores were higher than the women's. The correlation between dogmatism and Mach- was not significant in either sex; in contrast, the correlation between dogmatism and Mach+ was significant for both sexes, T being significantly greater for the women than for the men. Agreement response set therefore seemed to be involved in the correlations between these scales for both sexes, though more for the women than the men. Factor by factor correlations indicated that for the men, the main other overlap between these two scales was an unflattering view of peop!e, as hypothesized by Christie and Geis; for the women, however, the overlap berween the scales was more extensive. The interpretation of this sex difference suggested the possibility that women may be more Machiavellian than their scores suggest and may even be more Machiavellian than men. though their scores typically suggest the opposite.
According to Christie and Geis ( 1970), the main overlap between Machiavellianism and authoritarianism is an unflattering view of people; the difference between them is that authoritarian personalities believe that, "People are no damn good, but they ought to be," while high Machiavels believe that "People are no damn good. So what? Take advantage of it." Since Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960) was meant to measure generalized authoritarianism rather than only authoritarianism to the right, and since one factor measured by the Dogmatism Scale is "derogation and aloneness" (Steininger, 1975), it seemed possible to test the thesis presented by Christie and Geis.
METHOD As part of a study on impression formation (Steininger & Eisenberg, 1976), students in three elective courses answered a brief dogmatism scale (Steininger & Lesser, 1974) which correlates .9 with the original Rokeach scale (Rokeach, 1960), and the 20-item Kiddie Mach Scale (Christie & Geis, 1970); the items from these scales were intermingled. The participants included 31 male and 16 female sociology students, 30 male and 49 female English Literature students, and 51 male and 18 female business students. All responses were anonymous and voluntary; no one refused to participate. The response categories for all items were agree or disagree "a lot" or "a little;" these were weighted 1 to 4, and the scales were scored so that higher scores meant higher dogmatism and higher Machiavellianism.
M. STELNINGER
780
&
E EISENBERG
Participants were scored on total dogmatism as well as on 6 consistently found dogmatism factors (Steininger & Lesser, 1974) : belief in one truth, belief in a cause, derogation and aloneness, virtuous self-denial, self-proselytization, and authoritarianism. Participants were also scored on total Machiavellianism as well as on three subscales which correspond approximately to Christie and Geis' (1970) "tactics," "views," and "morality." Six "tactics" items contain advice on how to act (e.g., "Always be honest, no matter what"); eight "views" items contain cognitions about people (e.g., "Most people are good and kind"); and six items contain moral evaluations (e.g., "It is never right to tell a lie") or evaluations about tactics (e.g., ". . . smart to be nice to important people though dislike them . . ."). The latter items were not included among "tactics" because a person could agree that "It is smmt to be nice . . ." yet disagree if this were written as a "tactics" item (Always be nice . . ."). These last 6 items were called "evaluation." The Machiavellianism items were also divided according to whether the Machiavellian response was to agree (Mach+) or to disagree (Mach-). RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Sex by class analyses of variance gave no significant Fs for any dogmatism factor or total dogmatism. In contrast, the 112 males scored significantly higher on Machiavellianism ( M = 2.41, SD = .35) than the 83 females ( M = 2.23, SD = 3 2 ; F = 8.50, df = 1/189, p < .004). Furthermore, the males gave more Machiavellian responses on 17 of the 20 items, including tactics, views, and evaluation. These data replicate those reported by Christie and Geis (1970). The Machiavellianism differences among the three classes were also significant ( F = 3.92, df = 2,489, p < .02), with the 69 Business students ( M = 2.45, SD = .40) scoring higher than the 47 Sociology ( M = 2.29, SD = .27) and 79 English ( M = 2.27, SD = 3 2 ) students. N o significant interactions were found. For each Machiavellianism item, the percent giving the Machiavellian response was determined (whether this involved agreement or disagreement); the items were then ranked from those eliciting the most Machiavellian response to those eliciting the least Machiavellian response for males and females, and Business, Sociology, and English students. Rank-order correlations were then computed for males and females, Business and English students, Business and Sociology students, and Sociology and English students; ~ h o swere 3 3 , 3 6 , 3 6 , and respectively. The dogmatism items showed similar rankings among all groups. It is clear from these correlations that in spite of group differences, some items consistently elicited more Machiavellian responses than others. Among all three classes and for both sexes, the "views" items elicited the most Machiavellian response, while the "evaluation" items elicited the least Machiavellian responses; furthermore, the items for which the Machiavellian response
.*,
RELATION OF DOGMATISM AND MACHIAVELLIANISM
781
was disagreement elicited more Machiavellian responses than the Mach+ items. The relatively low Mach responses to the "evaluation" items suggest the possibility that the respondents (of either sex or in any of the three classes) can more easily agree with derogatory statements about people and manipulatory ways of dealing with them than with statements that these views or tactics are "smart" or "best." Possibly, the students experienced some ambivalence about Machiavellianism; alternately, statements which say that a belief or act is "smart" or "best" may have a double impact, since they may appear to some readers to both ask for a "confession" and a praising of the "sin." Not only did the males and the females differ on mean Machiavellianism, but the correlations between dogmatism and Machiavellianism differed between the sexes (but not among the classes). The Pearson rs between total dogmatism and total Machiavellianism were .ll for the males (df = 110, ns) and .43 for the females ( d f = 81, p < .001); the difference tetween these two rs is significant ( z = 2.37, p < .02). For the men, the correlations between dogmatism and Mach+ and Mach- were .26 ( p < .006) and -.08 (ns), respectively; for the women, these 7s were .58 ( p < .001) and .05 (ns). The difference between the men and the women is significant for Mach+ ( z = 2.70, < .01) but not for Mach- ( z = .88). Since all of the dogmatism scale items are items, these data suggest that agreement response set may be involved For both sexes but more for the women than for the men. In spite of some degree of agreement response set, the students readily disagreed with both Mach+ and Mach- items (see above). Factor by factor correlations were therefore computed to trace other possible sources of the significant rs between Machiavellianism and dogmatism. The data which bear most directly on the Christie and Geis thesis are the correlations between "views" ( o n the Mach scale) and "derogation and aloneness" (on the dogmatism scale), since these are the subscales whose items are most clearly related to a flattering or unflattering view of people. For the men, "derogation and aloneness" was the o d y dogmatism factor which was positively correlated with both Mach+ ( r = 3 8 , p < .001) and Mach- ( r z .22, p < .02), and the Machiavellianism factor which correlated most with this dogmatism factor was "views" (for Views+, r = .48, p < .001; for Views-, s = .38, p .001). For the women, in contrast, both Views+ and Views- were positively correlated with three dogmatism factors: belief in one truth (I.= .39, p < .001, and r = .27, p < .01, respectively); belief in a cause ( r = 3 1 , p < .004, and r = .26, p < .02); and derogation and aloneness ( r = .55, p < .001, and r = 3 5 , p < .001). For the men, two dogmatism factors were not significantly related to any Mach factor, or -, in any class: virtuous self-denial and self-proselytization; for the women, this was true only for virtuous self-denial. The remaining correlations can perhaps be accounted for in terms of agreement response set, although that does not explain why not aU dogmatism factors were involved.
+
