Abstract

Previous research has found that traditional assessments of Machiavellianism have insufficient construct coverage and strongly overlap with psychopathy. Tackling these issues, Collison et al. developed the Five Factor Machiavellianism Inventory (FFMI), comprising antagonism, agency, and planfulness. Research by Kückelhaus et al. strongly supports the FFMI’s construct validity. However, both of these previous studies share the limitation of common source bias. Therefore, in this study, target participants provided the FFMI self-assessments and coworkers assessed targets in terms of social competency, vocational environments, and occupational success. In a sample of 425 target-coworker dyads, we found that the traditional measures of MACH show a high degree of similarity with psychopathy, while the FFMI is discriminant from psychopathy and shows divergence from traditional measures of MACH with reference to coworker ratings of social competencies, vocational environments, and occupational success. Finally, we explored the interactive relations of the FFMI factors as emergent interpersonal syndromes. The number of significant interactions (18%) clearly exceeded a false positive rate of 5%. Implications and limitations are discussed.

摘要

先前的研究发现，对马基雅维利主义的传统评估没有足够的结构覆盖，并且与精神病有强烈的重叠。解决这些问题，科里森等人。开发了五因素马基雅维利主义量表（FFMI），包括对抗性、代理性和计划性。Kückelhaus 等人的研究。强烈支持 FFMI 的结构效度。然而，这两项先前的研究都有共同来源偏差的局限性。因此，在本研究中，目标参与者提供了 FFMI 自我评估，同事根据社会能力、职业环境和职业成功评估了目标。在 425 个目标同事二元组的样本中，我们发现 MACH 的传统测量显示出与精神病的高度相似性，而 FFMI 可区分精神病，并显示出与 MACH 传统测量的差异，参考同事对社会能力、职业环境和职业成功的评级。最后，我们探讨了 FFMI 因素作为紧急人际综合症的交互关系。显着交互的数量 (18%) 明显超过了 5% 的假阳性率。讨论了影响和限制。