Advertisement

Psychological Studies

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 42–51 | Cite as

Machiavellianism, Influential Tactics and Well-being Among Indian College Students

  • Usama Rehman
  • Asma Nabi
  • M. G. Shahnawaz
Research in Progress
  • 110 Downloads

Abstract

The present paper aimed to explore Machiavellianism, soft and hard influential tactics and subjective as well as psychological well-being (PWB) among final-year students of professional courses from New Delhi, India. The relationship between Machs and well-being was explored directly as well as indirectly through soft and hard influential tactics. Mach IV was used to assess Machiavellianism. Influential tactics were assessed with the use of a scale, developed for the current research, which is based on Dubrin conceptualization. Life satisfaction was assessed with the help of Students Life Satisfaction Scale by Huebner, whereas the positive and negative affect were measured by PANAS. PWB was assessed by Ryff’s 18-item scale. All the tools had satisfactory reliability values. The average score of Mach showed average level of Machiavellianism among the participants who used both soft and hard tactics. There was positive correlation between Machiavellianism and positive affect, whereas negative correlations were reported with negative affect, life satisfaction and PWB. Both soft and hard tactics mediated the relationship between Machiavellianism and well-being. The study has contributed in the existing body of knowledge by highlighting the importance of hard influential tactics, the relationship with PWB and the indirect paths through which Machiavellianism influences well-being.

Keywords

Machiavellianism Influence tactics Well-being Indirect effect Hard tactics Soft tactics 

References

  1. Aghababaei, N., & Błachnio, A. (2015). Well-being and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 365–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akhtar, S., & Mahmood, Z. (2009). A Tri-prong variable analysis of influence strategies. Journal of World Applied Sciences, 7, 1080–1089.Google Scholar
  3. Ali, F., Amorim, I. S., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Empathy deficits and trait emotional intelligence in psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 758–762.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrew, J., Cooke, M., & Muncer, S. J. (2008). The relationship between empathy and Machiavellianism: An alternative to empathizing-systemizing theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1203–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakir, B., Yilmaz, R., & Yavas, S. (1996). Relating depressive symptoms to Machiavellianism in a Turkish sample. Psychological Reports, 78, 1011–1014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbuto, J. E., Scholl, R. W., Hickox, C. F., & Boulmetis, J. (2001). A field study of the relation between leaders’ anticipation of targets’ resistance and targets’ report of influence tactics used by leaders in dyadic relations. Psychological Reports, 88, 835–944.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bar-On, R. (2005). The impact of emotional intelligence on subjective well-being. Perspectives in Education, 23, 41–61.Google Scholar
  8. Barry, B., & Shapiro, D. L. (1992). Influence tactics in combination: The interactive effects of soft versus hard tactics and rational exchange. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1429–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumgardner, S., & Crothers, M. (2009). Positive psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  10. Bharti, A. (1985). The self in Hindu thought and action. In A. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self (pp. 185–230). New York: Tavistock Publication.Google Scholar
  11. Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1663–1676.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Castro, S. L., Douglas, C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Frink, D. D. (2003). The effects-of positive affect and gender on the influence tactics—Job performance relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190301000101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, S. (2010). Relations of Machiavellianism with emotional blackmail orientation of salespeople. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 294–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, F. F., Jing, Y., Hayes, A., & Lee, J. M. (2012). Two concepts or two approaches? A bifactor analysis of psychological and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1033–1068.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9367-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheung, C. K., & Scherling, S. A. (1997). Ethical reasoning and Machiavellianism among business students in Hong Kong. Teaching Business Ethics, 1, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970a). Studies in Machiavellianism. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970b). How devious are you? Take the Machiavelli test to find out. Journal of Management in Engineering, 15, 17.Google Scholar
  18. Christoffersen, D., & Stamp, C. (1995). Examining the relationship between Machiavellianism and paranoia. Psychological Reports, 76, 67–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Commonwealth Games Scam. (2010). Retrieved 25 August 2015, from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/major-scam-hits-commonwealth-games/article542593.ece.
  20. Corts, I. M., Jaca, L. M., & Díaz, F. J. M. (2009). Effectiveness of influence patterns. Psychology in Spain, 13, 33–39.Google Scholar
  21. Dahling, J. J., Kuyumcu, D., & Librizzi, E. H. (2014). Machiavellianism, unethical behavior, and well-being in organizational life. In R. A. Giacalone & M. D. Promislo (Eds.), Handbook of unethical work behavior: implications for individual well-being: Implications for individual well-being. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Deluga, R. J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Drake, D. S. (1995). Assessing Machiavellianism and morality-conscience guilt. Psychological Reports, 77, 1355–1359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. DuBruin, A. J. (1991). Sex and gender differences in tactics of influence. Psychological Reports, 68, 635–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Egan, V., Chan, S., & Shorter, G. W. (2014). The Dark Triad, happiness and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 17–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for Managers of using single influence tactics and combination of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–652.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Falbo, T. (1977). Multidimensional scaling of power strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 537–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fehr, B., Samsom, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  31. Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Gable, M., & Topol, M. (1988). Machiavellianism and the department store executive. Journal of Retailing, 64, 68–84.Google Scholar
  33. Grams, L. C., & Rogers, R. W. (1990). Power and personality: Effects of Machiavellianism, need for approval, and motivation on use of influence tactics. Journal of General Psychology, 117, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hawley, P. H. (2006). Evolution and personality: A new look at Machiavellianism. In D. Mroczek & T. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 147–161). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
  36. Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. School Psychology International, 12, 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hyla, M. (2012). Machiavellianism, relationship satisfaction, and the use of influence tactics in a close relationship. 1st ed. [ebook] International Masaryk Conference, pp. 2764–2773. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Magdalena_Hyla/publication/275968630_Machiavellianism_relationship_satisfaction_and_the_use_of_influence_tactics_in_a_close_relationship/links/554cae160cf29752ee7f3540/Machiavellianism-relationship-satisfaction-and-the-use-of-influence-tactics-in-a-close-relationship.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2017.
  38. Iverson, R. D., & Maguire, C. (2000). The relationship between job and life satisfaction: Evidence from a remote mining community. Human Relations, 53, 807–839.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jonason, P. K., Baughman, H. M., Carter, G. L., & Parker, P. (2015). Dorian Gray without his portrait: Psychological, social, and physical health costs associated with the DarkTriad. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 5–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Teicher, E. A. (2010). Who is James Bond?: The dark triad as an agentic social style. Individual Differences Research, 8, 111–120.Google Scholar
  41. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The dark triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2012). A protean approach to social influence: Dark Triad personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 521–526.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  45. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Differentiating the Dark Triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 249–267). Wiley-Blackwell. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118001868.ch15.
  46. Keyes, C. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.73.3.539.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Keyes, C. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62, 95–108.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.62.2.95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Keyes, C., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.1007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Khajeh, A., Baharloo, G., & Soliemani, F. (2014). The relationship between psychological well-being and empathy quotient. Management Science Letters, 4, 1211–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.65.4.440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  52. Klocke, U. (2009). ‘I am the best’: Effects of influence tactics and power bases on powerholders’ self-evaluation and target evaluation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 619–637.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209340414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee, D., & Sirgy, M. J. (1999). The effects of cultural distance and ethnocentrism on international marketers’ quality-of-life orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lenzner, R. (2008). Bernie Madoff’s $50 Billion Ponzi Scheme. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/12/madoff-ponzi-hedge-pf-ii-in_rl_1212croesus_inl.html.
  56. Liew, L. L. (2003). Downward influence tactics: The impact of positive/negative affect, leader-member exchange, and gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Penang: University Science Malaysia.Google Scholar
  57. Mandal, E. (2008). Miłość, władza i manipulacja w bliskich związkach. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
  58. McHoskey, J. W., Hicks, B., Betris, T., Szyarto, C., Worzel, W., Kelly, K., et al. (1999). Machiavellianism, adjustment, and ethics. Psychological Reports, 85, 138–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 192–210.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.1.192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. McHoskey, J. W. (2001). Machiavellianism and personality dysfunction. Personality and Individual Differences , 31, 791–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Omar, F. (2001). Downward influence tactics, leader-member exchange, and job attitudes. Unpublished MBA thesis. Penang: University Science Malaysia.Google Scholar
  63. Pandey, J., & Rastogi, R. (1979). Machiavellianism and ingratiation. Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pandey, J., & Singh, P. (1986). Effects of Machiavellianism, other-enhancement, and power-position on affect, power feeling, and evaluation of the ingratiator. The Journal of Psychology, 121, 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pilch, I., & Turska, E. (2014). Relationships between Machiavellianism, organizational culture, and workplace bullying: Emotional abuse from the target’s and the perpetrator’s perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rehman, U., Shahnawaz, M., & Imran, M. (2017). Machiavellianism and task oriented leadership: Testing job autonomy as a trait activator. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 32, 24–30. Retrieved from http://www.turkpsikolojidergisi.org/ojs-2.4.6/index.php/tpd/article/view/177.
  68. Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an integrated model. Human Relations, 57, 1205–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704047143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological wellbeing revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Satyam Scam Case. (2009). Retrieved 25 August 2015, from http://cbi.nic.in/fromarchives/satyam/satyam.php.
  71. Sinha, J. B. P., & Kanungo, R. N. (1997). Context sensitivity and balancing in Indian organizational behaviour. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying, Machiavellianism and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 443–456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Sinha, J. B. P., Singh, S., Gupta, P., Srivastava, K. B. L., Sinha, R. B. N., Srivastava, S., et al. (2010). An exploration of the Indian mindset. Psychological Studies, 55, 3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-010-0001-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vangelisti, A. L., Daly, J. A., & Rudnick, J. R. (1991). Making people feel guilty in conversations. Human Communication Research, 18, 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vecchio, R. P., & Sussmann, M. (1991). Choice of influence tactics: Individual and organizational determinants. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 73–80.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030120107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Verma, P. K. (2004). Being Indian: The truth about why the twenty-first century will be India’s. New Delhi: Penguin Books India.Google Scholar
  77. Wastell, C., & Booth, A. (2003). Machiavellianism: An alexithymic perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 730–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Wertag, A., & Hanzec, I. (2013). Life satisfaction and gender differences in Dark Triad personality traits. Poster presentation at the NAUČNO-STRUČNI SKUP SAVREMENI TRENDOVI U PSIHOLOGIJI FILOZOFSKI FAKULTET, NOVI SAD.Google Scholar
  81. Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 285–299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Winefield, H. R., Gill, T. K., Taylor, A. W., & Pilkington, R. M. (2012). Psychological well-being and psychological distress: Is it necessary to measure both? Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 3.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2211-1522-2-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wong, S. S. (2009). States-of-mind in psychopathology and psychological well-being. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 178–184.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-009-9148-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Interpersonal trust and attitudes towards human· nature. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 373–412). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132–140.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.75.2.132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zajenkowski, M., & Czarna, A. Z. (2015). What makes narcissists unhappy? Subjectively assessed intelligence moderates the relationship between narcissism and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 50–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyJamia Millia IslamiaNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations