Welcome! Follow the steps below to verify and access your download. Click the button below to start verification.
Machiavellianism (psychology)
Adapting Machiavelli for psychometric use In 1955, psychologist Richard Christie set out to study the thought processes and actions of those who manipulated others, such as political ideologues and religious extremists.[14] He found that there was much literature on those who followed organizations and movements, but very little on those who led them. He began by conceptualizing what qualities a potential manipulator would have, such as a lack of empathy and affect, and being unconcerned with moral standards. Then as Christie was developing a psychometric for interpersonal manipulation, he was reminded of his encounter with Machiavelli's writings as an undergraduate, and wanted to adapt them to suit his research.[15] In the 1960s, Christie and his colleagues would then develop a test using a selection of statements, including truncated and edited sentences that they viewed were similar to the general writing style found in Machiavelli's works such as The Prince and The Discourses on Livy as test items, naming the construct "Machiavellianism" after him.[16][17][2] They wanted to assess whether or not those who were in agreement with the statements would behave differently than others who disagreed, specifically in regards to manipulative actions. Christie and his research partner Florence L. Geis published their results in their book, titled "Studies in Machiavellianism", in 1970.[18] Christie made light of the difficulty in adapting Machiavelli's writings into a non-political test, joking that his advice was "better suited for Renaissance princes" than for college undergraduates.[19] Christie used more colloquial, everyday wording when creating the scale items.[20] Thus the test items used were "theoretically congruent with" or very loosely similar to Machiavelli's style, instead of literal, direct statements from his works.[21][22] On the name of the scale[edit] While the construct is named "Machiavellianism", it does not refer to the political theory espoused in Machiavelli's books (also called Machiavellianism).[23][24][25][26][27] Because the two concepts share the same name, they can be confused for and conflated with one another, even though his political ideas are not relevant to psychology.[27][28][26][29] Scholars have asserted that the variable has no relation to Machiavelli outside of bearing his name, and that it has nothing to do with Machiavelli's politics.[28] Christie himself makes clear that he used sentences inspired by Machiavelli's works only as a sort of litmus test to study deceptive and manipulative behavior, and that his concern was not with Machiavelli's historical or political influence, stating specifically that:[30] Historians disagree as to whether Machiavelli was a cynic who wrote political satire, a patriot, or the first modern political scientist. The present concern is not with Machiavelli as an historic figure, but as the source of ideas about those who manipulate others. Christie stated that he chose the name "Machiavellianism" out of convenience seeing as other names such as "M scale" (M for manipulation) and "Ma scale" (which was used by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for hypomania) were taken. Names also considered were the "manipulator" or "operator" scale, but these terms had issues regarding behavioral validity. He also admits that by using the name "Machiavellianism", the scale would "create problems of public misunderstanding" due to the pre-existing political meaning of the term.[31] In a later essay, Christie even states that some have viewed the name problematic and that "the use of the word Machiavellianism to describe the content of the scales has been questioned".[32]
Thankyou For Visting