Post on 16-Jan-2023
Grand Valley State University Grand Valley State University
ScholarWorks@GVSU ScholarWorks@GVSU
Student Summer Scholars Manuscripts Student Summer Scholars
2021
Two-Dimensional Machiavellianism and the Use of Coping Two-Dimensional Machiavellianism and the Use of Coping
Strategies Strategies
Lily Kedzuch Grand Valley State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/sss
Part of the Psychology Commons
ScholarWorks Citation ScholarWorks Citation Kedzuch, Lily, "Two-Dimensional Machiavellianism and the Use of Coping Strategies" (2021). Student Summer Scholars Manuscripts. 225. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/sss/225
This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Summer Scholars at ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Summer Scholars Manuscripts by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gvsu.edu.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 1
Two-Dimensional Machiavellianism and the Use of Coping Strategies
Lily Kedzuch (S3 Scholar)
Todd Williams (Mentor)
Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University
Author Note
This project was made possible thanks to the funding of the Students Summers Scholars Program
at Grand Valley State University. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 2
Abstract
Once thought to be a unidimensional personality trait, recent research has advanced a two-
dimensional model of Machiavellianism (Monaghan et al., 2020). The views dimension is
associated with a cynical worldview whereas the tactics dimension relates to a willingness to
engage in interpersonal exploitation for personal gain. The purpose of this study was to explore
how these two dimensions are associated with coping strategies (Carver, 1997) in response to
interpersonal stress as well as differences in life satisfaction (Kobau et al., 2010) and happiness
(Lyubormirsky & Lepper, 1999). The sample (N = 253) was collected through Prolific, an online
paid research panel, and also included measures of self-consciousness (Scheier & Carver, 2013)
and locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Results indicated that Machiavellianism was associated with
more destructive coping strategies like behavioral disengagement, denial and substance use. Both
views and tactics were positively correlated with destructive strategies. Interestingly,
Machiavellian views, but not tactics, was negatively correlated with constructive strategies like
planning, emotional support and active coping. GLM mediational analyses indicated that self-
blame explained lower levels of life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985) among individuals high in
either tactics or views. Emotional support accounted for differences in satisfaction with life
among individuals with Machiavellian views, but not tactics.
Keywords: Machiavellianism, locus of control, self-consciousness, coping strategies,
satisfaction with life, emotional support, self-blame
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 3
Two-Dimensional Machiavellianism and the Use of Coping Strategies
Niccolo Machiavelli is often considered the most influential political writer in the
Renaissance period. Machiavelli, an advisor to the Medici family, believed that immoral
behavior was an acceptable strategy to achieve one’s goals, as long as the ‘ends justified the
means’ (Monaghan et al., 2016). This consequentialist thought process, highlighted in
Machiavelli’s original books, inspired psychologists to examine the personality trait
Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970). Once thought to be a unidimensional trait, recent
research has identified two related dimensions: views and tactics (Monaghan et al., 2020). The
views dimension reflects Machiavellians’ cynical and pessimistic worldview. Individuals high in
views are more likely to be emotionally detached because they believe others can’t be trusted.
The tactics dimension captures the belief that it is acceptable to use immoral behavior for
personal gain. These individuals are goal oriented, not impulsive, using strategic behaviors like
interpersonal exploitation to reach their goal. Machiavellian views often motivate tactics, so the
two dimensions are generally correlated (Monaghan et al., 2020).
Trauma, abuse, and other environmental factors contribute to the development of
Machiavellianism as it is theorized to be induced by adverse experiences (Monaghan et al.,
2020). It is believed that these occurrences lead to the development of misanthropic attitudes and
cynical worldviews which in turn negatively affect the learning process of empathy and moral
reasoning. As a result, this distrusting mindset justifies the manipulation of others. Thus, it is
likely that Machiavellian views promotes the development of the dishonest and manipulative
behaviors associated with Machiavellian tactics (Rauthmann, 2013). Additionally, the
antagonistic mindset of the views dimension is often used to lessen the resulting feelings of
shame and guilt from the exploitative behaviors of the tactics dimension emphasizing that the
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 4
two dimensions serve to reinforce each other (Monaghan et al., 2020). Further, Machiavellian
views are considered a socio-cognitive domain that holds a critical view of humanity as gullible,
untrustworthy and selfish (Monaghan et al., 2020). This unflattering worldview works as a
catalyst for Machiavellians to justify the deception and manipulation of others. If an individual
assumes that others will take advantage of them, they may preemptively manipulate the situation
to ensure favor for their own (Rauthmann, 2013). Thus, Machiavellian tactics can be perceived
as a socio-behavioral domain.
Machiavellianism and The Dark Triad
Machiavellianism, along with narcissism and psychopathy, is considered a socially
aversive personality trait (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The aforementioned traits have together
been coined the ‘Dark Triad’, encouraging researchers to study them in combination (Jones &
Paulhus, 2017). The traits consistently correlate positively, regardless of the specific
measurement used (Furnham et al., 2013). This triad shares similar behaviors of deceitfulness,
self-promotion and apathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). While all three score high in ruthless
self-advancement, they tend to differ in interpersonal styles. Machiavellians and psychopaths are
the most morally dishonest and, generally, have the ‘darkest’ personalities, while narcissists are
viewed by peers as socially apathetic (Furnham et al., 2013).
All three traits proclaim a social dominance orientation, which encourages intergroup
rankings and inequalities that derive from competitive worldviews and an authoritarian
personality. Additionally, the triad differs in antisocial behaviors (Hodson et al., 2009).
Psychopaths tend to respond to physical threats using aggression, but narcissists require an ego-
threat to respond. Although Machiavellians can often be as malignant as psychopaths, they are
more intentional with their behavior and do not fulfill their temptations like psychopaths do
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 5
(Williams et al., 2010). Thus, the primary feature which differentiates Machiavellians from
psychopaths and narcissists is that Machiavellians lack the impulsivity of the other two because
they are calculated and opportunistic.
Machiavellianism and Coping Strategies
Overall, Machiavellians are moderately unpleasant people as evidenced by their tendency
to successfully manipulate others, even in the long-term, and change their behavior depending on
the social situation (Bereczkei & Birkas, 2014). It is reasonable to assume that these negative
behaviors might bring them a measure of happiness. For example, some destructive coping
strategies like retaliation can foster a greater sense of control which can lower their risk of
depression and anxiety (Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004). Despite this, most research indicates this is
not likely to be the case, as Machiavellianism is associated with lower levels of well-being
(Monaghan et al., 2020). To further understand this trait, we examined how the two dimensions
of Machiavellianism relate to the use of coping strategies. Coping strategies can generally be
described as the ways in which an individual responds to stressful events. These strategies tend
to remain stable across a variety of stressors (Carver & Weintraub, 1989). Responses of the brief
cope scale can be generally grouped into constructive or destructive coping strategies.
Constructive strategies include acceptance, positive reframing, planning, active coping,
instrumental and emotional support, and religion. These strategies tend to foster a low level of
distress and high level of well-being. Conversely, destructive strategies include self-blame,
venting, behavioral disengagement, substance use and denial which promote a high level of
distress and low level of well-being (Carver, 1997). Following peer conflicts, maladaptive
coping strategies can lead to psychological and social maladjustment. Maladjustment is
commonly characterized as loneliness, anxiety and depressive tendencies. Maladaptive coping
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 6
responses increase the risk of maladjustment, while adaptive coping responses correlate with
reduced risk of maladjustment (Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004).
Machiavellianism and Satisfaction with Life
Following our prediction that higher levels of Machiavellianism would be associated with
less effective coping in response to interpersonal conflict, we also anticipated these individuals to
have lower levels of life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985). If a significant correlation between
Machiavellianism and satisfaction with life is found then meditational analyses will be used to
determine if these differences are due to the use of specific coping strategies among those who
are high in views and tactics, respectively.
The Current Study
To investigate our predictions, we conducted an online survey which included measures
of Machiavellianism (Monaghan et al., 2020), coping strategies (Carver, 1997), satisfaction with
life (Diener et al., 1985), and several other measures designed to assess the intrapersonal
experiences of individuals who are high in tactics and views. While locus of control (Rotter,
1966) and public and private self-consciousness (Scheier & Carver, 1985) were included as
measures in this study, neither was associated with our measure of Machiavellianism (Monaghan
et al., 2020) and are therefore not discussed further. While past research has examined the
relationship between dark triad or short measures of Machiavellianism (e.g. Jonason et al., 2019)
these measures have been criticized for their inadequate psychometric properties (e.g. for a
review see: Monaghan et al., 2020). Moreover, in order to differentiate between the socio-
cognitive and behavioral aspects of Machiavellianism, a two-dimensional measure of the trait
was necessary. Jonason et al., (2019) generally found that the dark triad traits were associated
with coping strategies which informed our predictions. We tentatively predicted that individuals
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 7
high in Machiavellianism would engage in more destructive coping strategies and fewer
constructive coping strategies than their low Machiavellian counterparts.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 8
Methods Subjects
Our initial sample included 278 participants. Gender and age were not collected as part of
our online sample, however for both, scores are normally distributed, and age and gender were
not central to our hypothesis. We examined the duration to complete the survey as well as the
conscious responder questionnaire and applied filters. All responses that were more than one
standard deviation below average were trimmed due to the assumption that participants were not
spending adequate time with the items (< 7.5 minutes; N=19). The average time to complete the
survey was 16.5 minutes. We also excluded responses that were two standard deviations above
average (> 34.5 minutes; N=14) because we considered them atypical and assumed they may
have had technology problems, language difficulties or were distracted. The data was further
inspected for evidence of random responding, but no additional cases were excluded which left
the final sample (N=220). Participants completed the survey online through Prolific and were
paid $9.50 per hour to participate in our study.
Procedure
The survey consisted of 120 total questions; response types varied for each scale.
The Two-Dimensional Machiavellianism Scale (TDMS) is a 12-item measure designed
for use with nonclinical populations and is the only scale to measure both the views and tactics
dimension of Machiavellianism (Monaghan et al., 2020). Responses to the TDMS were recorded
on a seven-point Likert scale with one being “strongly disagree” and seven being “strongly
agree”.
Rotter’s locus of control scale measures whether or not an individual believes they have
control over their life. The measure consists of 29 questions and is broken into two subscales. A
low score indicates an internal locus of control whereas a high score indicates an external locus
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 9
of control. Individuals with an internal locus of control believe they have full control over their
lives, and they are commonly people who are consistently rewarded. Individuals with an external
locus of control believe their lives are controlled by external factors like a higher power or luck,
and they seem to rarely succeed despite their efforts (Rotter, 1966). The response type was a
two-item multiple choice format where respondents chose the statement they most agreed with.
Scheier and Carver’s self-consciousness scale measures an individual’s tendency to focus
their attention either inward or outward. The 22 questions are also broken into two subscales. An
individual with a more prominent private self-consciousness focuses more on self-reflection and
tends to be more receptive of their internal emotional states. An individual with more of a public
self-consciousness has a greater awareness of how others view them, and they tend to be more
sensitive to the opinions of others (Scheier & Carver, 1985). The response format was a four
item Likert scale with zero being “not like me at all” and three being “a lot like me”.
Carver’s brief cope scale measures the most common ways individuals cope with general
stressful events. It was created with the viewpoint that coping strategies remain stable across a
variety of stressors. With 28 questions, responses can be generally grouped into constructive or
destructive coping strategies. Constructive strategies include acceptance, positive reframing, and
emotional support and tend to foster a low level of distress and high level of well-being. On the
other hand, destructive strategies include self-blame, substance use and denial which promote a
high level of distress and low level of well-being (Carver, 1997). The response type was a four-
item Likert scale with one being “I haven’t been doing this at all” and four being “I’ve been
doing this a lot”.
The satisfaction with life scale consists of five items designed to measure the overall
satisfaction of an individual’s life (Diener et al., 1985). It is recommended that this scale be used
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 10
as a complement to other scales that focus on psychopathology as it examines one’s cognitive
judgement of their life by using personal criteria (Pavot & Diener, 1993). The response format
was a seven-item Likert scale with one being “strongly disagree” and seven being “strongly
agree”. The subjective happiness scale includes four items that measure whether an individual is
happy or unhappy overall and reflects a broad category of wellbeing (Lyubomirsky & Lepper,
1999). The response format was a seven-item Likert scale with one being “less happy” and seven
being “more happy”.
Conscientious responder questions required participants to respond to five questions that
were interspersed among the other scales to determine if the participants were accurately reading
and responding to the questions. For example, participants might be asked to “Please select
option C to answer this question correctly”. To conclude the survey, participants completed an
additional three questions to assess the quality of their responses. These questions asked
participants to indicate how thoughtfully, honestly, and carefully they read each question.
Participants were thanked, compensated for their time and fully debriefed.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 11
Results
Our final sample included 220 participants. The range of duration to complete the survey
included in the analyses was 7.5 minutes to 33 minutes with the mean duration of about 16
minutes.
According to our predictions we tabulated the reliability of TDMS (𝛼 = .81), coping
strategies (𝛼 = .85), locus of control (𝛼 = .72), self-consciousness (private 𝛼 = .69; public 𝛼 =
.83), and satisfaction with life (𝛼 = .92). Additionally, we examined the reliability of each
subscale: Machiavellian views (𝛼 = .74) and Machiavellian tactics (𝛼 = .83), constructive coping
(𝛼 = .81) and destructive coping (𝛼 = .68), private self-consciousness (𝛼 = .60) and public self-
consciousness (𝛼 = .83). Reliability was not reported for two item measures. Descriptive
statistics are provided in Table 1.
We conducted correlational analyses to examine the relationship between the two
dimensions of Machiavellianism, coping strategies and satisfaction with life. Results showed that
both Machiavellian views (r(218) = -.21, p = .002) and tactics (r(218) = -.16, p = .015) were
negatively correlated with satisfaction of life. Tactics was associated with destructive coping
strategies including self-blame (r(218) = .22, p < .001), behavioral disengagement(r(218) = .35,
p < .001), substance use (r(218) = .19, p = .005) and denial (r(218) = .22, p < .001). Views was
also related to self-blame (r(218) = .24, p < .001), behavioral disengagement (r(df) = .30, p <
.001) and denial (r(df) = .14, p = .035). Interestingly views was also correlated with the
constructive strategies planning (r(df) = -.18, p = .008), emotional support (r(df) = -.15, p = .027)
and active coping (r(df) = -.21, p = .002). See Table 2 for a correlation matrix.
GLM mediational analyses were conducted to determine which coping strategies mediate
the relationship between Machiavellianism and satisfaction with life. The relationship between
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 12
satisfaction with life and Machiavellian views (ß = -.21, p < .01) was mediated by self-blame (ß
= -.10, p < .01) and emotional support (ß = -.04, p < .05). The relationship between
Machiavellian tactics and satisfaction with life (ß = -.16, p < .05) was also mediated by self-
blame (ß = -.10, p < .01). See Figures 1 and 2.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 13
Discussion
The results from this study show that Machiavellians generally tend to engage in
destructive coping strategies when faced with stressors rather than constructive strategies.
Destructive coping strategies are associated with more mental health issues like depression
whereas constructive strategies are associated with higher levels of wellbeing (Meyer, 2001).
Further, constructive strategies are associated with a desired outcome whereas destructive
strategies are associated with an undesirable outcome (Meyer, 2001). Specifically, individuals
high in Machiavellian tactics correlated positively with only destructive strategies and were
uncorrelated with constructive strategies. Individuals high in Machiavellian views correlated
positively with destructive strategies but negatively with constructive strategies. Further, both
views and tactics were negatively correlated with satisfaction with life. This suggests that the
more Machiavellian an individual is, the less likely they will be to use constructive strategies and
the less satisfactory they report their life being. A past study found that Machiavellianism was
negatively correlated with constructive coping strategies and positively correlated with
destructive strategies but did not assess specific strategies per se (Jonason et al., 2019). The
current study further clarifies the relationship between Machiavellianism and coping strategies
by highlighting how traits and views are associated with specific coping strategies.
Both Machiavellian views and traits were positively correlated with self-blame,
behavioral disengagement, and denial. Self-blame pertains to a feeling of personal responsibility
for a stressful event (García et al., 2018) and is an indicator of an adverse adaptation to stress
(Carver, 1997). It can be used to cope because it provides a sense of control and safety, even
when the individual is not in control or safe (Shaver & Drown, 1986). Behavioral disengagement
is a decreased tendency to overcome the stressor which might also include giving up on goals
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 14
that may have been impacted by the stressor. Individuals most likely engage in this strategy
when expecting an undesirable outcome (Carver et al., 1989). Finally, denial, the opposite of
acceptance, often leads to more problems unless it is profitable to ignore the stressor. This can be
argued because denying the reality of the stressor makes it seem more serious, thus complicating
the coping that must inevitably occur (Carver et al., 1989).
Machiavellian tactics was also positively correlated with substance use while views
remained uncorrelated. Self-blame, behavioral disengagement, and substance use were
negatively correlated with wellbeing, and positively correlated with stress (García et al., 2018).
This suggests that when individuals high in tactics use any of these destructive strategies, it
negatively influences their wellbeing and stress levels. Substance use as a coping strategy
indicates that an individual uses drugs or alcohol to feel better or get through a situation (Carver,
1997). This strategy is often viewed as a form of self-medication and can lead to further
destructive behaviors like problem drinking and drug use (Ullman et al., 2013).
Interestingly, views was negatively correlated with constructive strategies like planning,
emotional support and active coping. Planning involves thinking about how to cope with a
stressful situation: the action steps to take and how to handle the stressor (Carver et al., 1989).
Emotional support is seeking moral support, sympathy or understanding from others. While this
strategy can be constructive and provide reassurance, it is not as adaptive to seek sympathy as an
outlet to vent one’s feelings and emotions (Carver et al., 1989). Active coping is executing
necessary steps to prevent the stressor or alleviate its effects in a stepwise manner (Carver et al.,
1989).
Machiavellian tactics was only associated with destructive coping strategies, whereas
Machiavellian views was associated with both destructive coping strategies and a decreased use
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 15
of constructive coping strategies. This difference between the tactics and views dimensions
serves to differentiate how these two aspects of Machiavellianism play an important role in
determining the strategies individuals use in dealing with interpersonal stressors. It is possible
that the cynicism and negativity directed toward others, which characterizes Machiavellian
views, reduces individuals’ willingness to engage with others and consequently fewer
constructive coping strategies. Further research is needed to examine this possibility.
Our mediational analyses show that while tactics and views differentially influence the
types of coping strategies that individuals engage in, self-blame accounted for the lower levels of
life satisfaction among individuals higher in either dimension. Among individuals who were high
in Machiavellian views, a decreased reliance on emotional support also accounted for differences
in satisfaction with life.
These results show that the two dimensions of Machiavellianism have a specific and
different influence on an individual’s coping strategies. This work extends the findings on how
Machiavellianism influences coping strategies and also serves to differentiate between the two
dimensions of the trait. Since self-blame was a distinguishing feature of both Machiavellian
tactics and satisfaction with life, further studies might investigate therapeutic approaches that
might target self-blame. Moreover, attempting to facilitate and improve emotional support
seeking among individuals who are particularly high in Machiavellian views may be useful in a
therapeutic context.
Limitations
There were a few limitations with this study. The relatively small online sample may
limit the generalizability of these findings. Follow up studies might seek to replicate and extend
these findings with a large and culturally diverse sample. Obviously, the correlational design of
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 16
this study does not allow causal inferences regarding the directionality of the relationship
between the use of coping strategies and Machiavellian views and tactics.
Scholarly Dissemination plan
Lily Kedzuch (S3 Scholar) intends on presenting this work as lead author with Todd
Williams (mentor) as co-author. We intend to present this work at Student Scholarship Day 2022
as well as Midwestern Psychological Association 2022. After further revision we intend to
submit this manuscript to the scholarly journal of Self and Identity.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 17
References
Bereczkei, T., & Birkas, B. (2014). The insightful manipulator: Machiavellians' interpersonal
tactics may be linked to their superior information processing skills. International
Journal of Psychological Studies, 6(4), 65.
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol is too long: Consider the
brief cope. International journal of behavioral medicine, 4(1), 92-100.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a
theoretically based approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(2), 267.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (2013). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year
review. Social and personality psychology compass, 7(3), 199-216.
García, F. E., Barraza-Peña, C. G., Wlodarczyk, A., Alvear-Carrasco, M., & Reyes-Reyes, A.
(2018). Psychometric properties of the Brief-COPE for the evaluation of coping strategies
in the Chilean population. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 31.
Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of ‘‘dark personalities’’
(narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology
in explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 686
Jonason, P. K., Talbot, D., Cunningham, M. L. & Chonody, J. (2019). Higher-order coping
strategies: Who uses them and what outcomes are linked to them. Personality and
Individual Difference, 155, 109755.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 18
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2017). Duplicity among the dark triad: Three faces of deceit.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 329.
Kochenderfer‐Ladd, B. (2004). Peer victimization: The role of emotions in adaptive and
maladaptive coping. Social Development, 13(3), 329-349.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary
reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137-155.
Martin, R. A., Lastuk, J. M., Jeffrey, J., Vernon, P. A., & Veselka, L. (2012). Relationships
between the Dark Triad and humor styles: A replication and extension. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 178–182.
Merton, R. K., & Kendall, P. L. (1946). The focused interview. American journal of
Sociology, 51(6), 541-557.
Meyer, B. (2001). Coping with severe mental illness: Relations of the Brief COPE with
symptoms, functioning, and well-being. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 23(4), 265-277.
Monaghan, C., Bizumic, B., & Sellbom, M. (2016). The role of Machiavellian views and tactics
in psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 72-81.
Monaghan, C., Bizumic, B., & Sellbom, M. (2018). Nomological network of two-dimensional
Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 161-173.
Monaghan, C., Bizumic, B., Williams T. J. & Selbom, M. (2020). Two-dimensional measure of
machiavellianism: conceptualization and measurement of the views and tactics
dimensions. Psychological Assessment. DOI: 10.1037/pas0000784
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality, 36(6), 556-563.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 19
Pavot, W. G., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Psychological
Assessment, 5, 164-172.
Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and interpersonal perception: Similarities and
differences in the social consequences of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 487-496.
Rauthmann, J. F. (2013). Investigating the MACH–IV with item response theory and proposing
the trimmed MACH. Journal of personality assessment, 95(4), 388-397.
Riesman, D. (1954). Individualism reconsidered.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied. 80, 1–28. doi:
10.1037/h0092976
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2013). Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS-R). Measurement
Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved from www.midss.ie
Shaver, K. G., & Drown, D. (1986). On causality, responsibility, and self-blame: A theoretical
note. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(4), 697.
Ullman, S. E., Relyea, M., Peter-Hagene, L., & Vasquez, A. L. (2013). Trauma histories,
substance use coping, PTSD, and problem substance use among sexual assault
victims. Addictive behaviors, 38(6), 2219-2223.
Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Identifying and profiling scholastic
cheaters: Their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 16, 293–307.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 21
Table 2
Correlations between Machiavellianism, Satisfaction with Life and Coping Strategies
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND COPING STRATEGIES 22
Figure 1
Self-Blame Mediates the Relationship between Machiavellian Tactics and Satisfaction with Life