This article was downloaded by: [University of Dayton] On: 06 January 2015, At: 02:27 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Machiavellianism and Locus of Control a
Terry J. Prociuk & Lawrence J. Breen
a
a
University of Manitoba Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Terry J. Prociuk & Lawrence J. Breen (1976) Machiavellianism and Locus of Control, The Journal of Social Psychology, 98:1, 141-142, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1976.9923379 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1976.9923379
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 02:27 06 January 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal o f Social Psychology, 1976, 08, 141-142.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND LOCUS OF CONTROL" University of Manitoba
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 02:27 06 January 2015
TERRY J. PROCIUK AND LAWRENCE J. BREEN Although external locus of control has been shown positively related to Machiavellianism,l Minton2 has stated that there may be some externals who tend to be Machiavellian, and some whose attitudes are passive regarding any desire to manipulate others. Tnternals, who feel that they can gain control of their environment at will, would be neither Machiavellian nor passive. Minton's analysis thus suggests that Machiavellianism is related to a specific external control expectancy. Therefore, the present study reexamined the relationship between locus of control and Machiavellianism employing Levenson's3 internal, powerful others, and chance locus of control dimensions. Levenson distinguished between powerful others and chance external control expectancies, reasoning that individuals who believe the world is unordered (chance) think and behave differently from individuals who believe the world is ordered but controlled by powerful others. In the second case, a potential for personal control exists. Therefore, externals who believe that powerful others control reinforcements should endorse Machiavellian strategies (e.g., manipulation, deception, flattery) to a greater extent than externals who believe that reinforcements are due to chance, luck, or fate. I t was thus predicted that powerful others control would show a stronger positive relationship with Machiavellianism than would chance control. Since internals perceive reinforcements as contingent upon their own ability and effort, and subscribe to honesty and diligence, internal control and Machiavellianism were predicted to be mutually exclusive; i.e., no relationship. 5's were 32 male and 65 female psychology students a t the University of Manitoba, who participated voluntarily in this study. They were admin-
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on October 18, 1974. Copyright, 1976, by The Journal Press. 1 Solar, D., & Bruehl, D. Machiavellianism and locus of control: Two conceptions of interpersonal power. Psychol. Rep., 1971, 29, 1079-1082. 2 Minton, H. L. Power as a personality construct. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research. New York: Academic Press, 1967. 3 Levenson, H. Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. J . Personal. Assess., 1974, 38, 377-383. 141
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 02:27 06 January 2015
142
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
istered the Internal-External (I-E) scale;' Levenson's Internal (I), Powerful Others (P), and Chance (C) scales; and the Mach V scale! For males, the correlation between I-E and Mach V scores ( Y = .37, p < .OS) was similar to that previously reported. However, the correlation between P and Mach V scores ( Y = .41, p < .01) differed significantly ( t = 1.93, df = 29, p < .05, one-tailed test) from the correlation between C and Mach V scores ( I = .09). Therefore, the relationship between external control and Machiavellianism appears to have been due primarily to belief in powerful others control, supporting the view that Machiavellianism is related to a specific external control expectancy. Also, the correlation between I and Mach V scores ( r = -.01) supported the prediction that internal control and Machiavellianism are mutually exclusive interpersonal orientations. For females, I-E, I, P, and C scores correlated .05, -.03, .08, and .08, respectively, with Mach V scores. Therefore, it is clear that sex differences qualified the relationship between locus of control and Machiavellianism. Previous research suggests that belief in powerful others control is related to dependency and conformity; attitudes which are more congruent with the traditional feminine versus masculine character.6 Therefore, females who reported belief in powerful others control may have been less Machiavellian than corresponding males.
Department of Psychology University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 4 Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monog., 1966, 80(1), Whole No. 609. 5 Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press,
1970. 6 Prociuk, T. J., & Breen, L. J. Defensive externality and its relation to academic performance. J . Personal. 6. SOL. Psychol., 1975, 31, 549-556.
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Machiavellianism and Locus of Control a
Terry J. Prociuk & Lawrence J. Breen
a
a
University of Manitoba Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Terry J. Prociuk & Lawrence J. Breen (1976) Machiavellianism and Locus of Control, The Journal of Social Psychology, 98:1, 141-142, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1976.9923379 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1976.9923379
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 02:27 06 January 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal o f Social Psychology, 1976, 08, 141-142.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND LOCUS OF CONTROL" University of Manitoba
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 02:27 06 January 2015
TERRY J. PROCIUK AND LAWRENCE J. BREEN Although external locus of control has been shown positively related to Machiavellianism,l Minton2 has stated that there may be some externals who tend to be Machiavellian, and some whose attitudes are passive regarding any desire to manipulate others. Tnternals, who feel that they can gain control of their environment at will, would be neither Machiavellian nor passive. Minton's analysis thus suggests that Machiavellianism is related to a specific external control expectancy. Therefore, the present study reexamined the relationship between locus of control and Machiavellianism employing Levenson's3 internal, powerful others, and chance locus of control dimensions. Levenson distinguished between powerful others and chance external control expectancies, reasoning that individuals who believe the world is unordered (chance) think and behave differently from individuals who believe the world is ordered but controlled by powerful others. In the second case, a potential for personal control exists. Therefore, externals who believe that powerful others control reinforcements should endorse Machiavellian strategies (e.g., manipulation, deception, flattery) to a greater extent than externals who believe that reinforcements are due to chance, luck, or fate. I t was thus predicted that powerful others control would show a stronger positive relationship with Machiavellianism than would chance control. Since internals perceive reinforcements as contingent upon their own ability and effort, and subscribe to honesty and diligence, internal control and Machiavellianism were predicted to be mutually exclusive; i.e., no relationship. 5's were 32 male and 65 female psychology students a t the University of Manitoba, who participated voluntarily in this study. They were admin-
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on October 18, 1974. Copyright, 1976, by The Journal Press. 1 Solar, D., & Bruehl, D. Machiavellianism and locus of control: Two conceptions of interpersonal power. Psychol. Rep., 1971, 29, 1079-1082. 2 Minton, H. L. Power as a personality construct. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research. New York: Academic Press, 1967. 3 Levenson, H. Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. J . Personal. Assess., 1974, 38, 377-383. 141
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 02:27 06 January 2015
142
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
istered the Internal-External (I-E) scale;' Levenson's Internal (I), Powerful Others (P), and Chance (C) scales; and the Mach V scale! For males, the correlation between I-E and Mach V scores ( Y = .37, p < .OS) was similar to that previously reported. However, the correlation between P and Mach V scores ( Y = .41, p < .01) differed significantly ( t = 1.93, df = 29, p < .05, one-tailed test) from the correlation between C and Mach V scores ( I = .09). Therefore, the relationship between external control and Machiavellianism appears to have been due primarily to belief in powerful others control, supporting the view that Machiavellianism is related to a specific external control expectancy. Also, the correlation between I and Mach V scores ( r = -.01) supported the prediction that internal control and Machiavellianism are mutually exclusive interpersonal orientations. For females, I-E, I, P, and C scores correlated .05, -.03, .08, and .08, respectively, with Mach V scores. Therefore, it is clear that sex differences qualified the relationship between locus of control and Machiavellianism. Previous research suggests that belief in powerful others control is related to dependency and conformity; attitudes which are more congruent with the traditional feminine versus masculine character.6 Therefore, females who reported belief in powerful others control may have been less Machiavellian than corresponding males.
Department of Psychology University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 4 Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monog., 1966, 80(1), Whole No. 609. 5 Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press,
1970. 6 Prociuk, T. J., & Breen, L. J. Defensive externality and its relation to academic performance. J . Personal. 6. SOL. Psychol., 1975, 31, 549-556.
