Cesare Borgia knew exactly what he wanted and how to get it. At the end of the 15th century, the first-born son of Pope Alexander VI abandoned a career in the Church for one as a secular prince. He rose to power through murder, betrayal, and corruption, luring potential allies with sweet words and drowning political opponents in the Tiber or stabbing them to death himself. A nefarious lord, Borgia eventually subjugated half of Italy to his principality.
The writer Nicolò Machiavelli celebrated his contemporary Borgia for this in his political treatise “The Prince”. In it, he described in detail the tactics a ruler should use to gain and defend power. Leaders who (as Machiavelli demanded) pursue a ruthless policy of power, act in a despotic and authoritarian manner, and throw moral concerns overboard have since been called Machiavellians.
Psychology has coined the term Machiavellianism to describe such tactics and people. We encounter them not only in the form of ruthless despots, but also as the cheaters, liars, and con artists next door. These everyday predators are masters at deceiving others. They live by the motto “the end justifies the means,” and they advance their interests with cunning and calculation.
Psychologist Richard Christie and his colleague Florence Geis first identified Machiavellianism as a personality trait in the 1960s. They developed a questionnaire to measure how Machiavellian someone was. Based on agreement with statements such as “It’s hard to achieve your goals without taking shortcuts,” “It’s best to tell people what they want to hear,” or “The biggest difference between criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught,” they determined the individual expression of the trait. It turned out that a predator slumbers in almost everyone. Only a very small number of people never think and act Machiavellian; most are in the middle of the pack in terms of their tendency to cool calculation. Some people score so high on such tests that they can be called Machiavellians. Current estimates put this at about 10 to 15 percent of the population. Men are more likely to be affected by this trait because they tend to be more competitive. Women, on the other hand, are more rhetorically gifted, which is also an important prerequisite for skilled hypocrisy.
The Machiavellianism personality trait has three main components:
The latter was first demonstrated in an experiment at the University of Alberta in 1976. 84 male sociology students were asked to operate a simple machine. They had two options for receiving a financial reward. They could earn it themselves, or they could take someone else’s money by pressing a button. It was clear that they could control whether they were robbed or not. Half of the subjects were paired with a mistrustful partner who checked in regularly, while the other half were paired with a trusting spouse. The researchers’ idea was that we normally find it difficult to cheat someone who relies on us blindly. But not so for the subjects who proved to be Machiavellian: While the other subjects, as expected, tended to shy away from theft with trustworthy partners, they didn’t care how scatterbrained their counterpart was. They grabbed in both cases.
But how do Machiavellians manage to act so ruthlessly? One important factor is their low emotional intelligence. Studies show that they have poor access to emotions, both their own and those of others. As a result, they are poor at empathizing with others and emotionally resonating when others are anxious, sad, or happy. At first glance, these deficits should be a disadvantage because they prevent them from forming close relationships. However, Machiavellians benefit from these weaknesses in two ways:
People with high Machiavellianism also think more rationally, according to a team led by Florence Geis, who co-developed the first Machiavellianism test in the 1960s. Subjects were asked to imagine that they were newly elected members of the U.S. Congress. In their role, they were then asked to argue for or against a particular point of view. Some of the issues were emotionally charged, such as the expansion of civil rights or the military draft. Others were more dry, such as administrative procedures. Each respondent was given a certain amount of time to argue his or her point of view on one of the issues in front of the others. The participants were then asked to rate on a scale how convincing they were in each case. It turned out that on the less emotionally charged issues, people with high and low levels of machismo scored about the same. The situation was different on the more emotionally charged issues: Machiavellians seemed to make the better arguments here. In the eyes of other subjects, they argued more logically and rigorously, while others sometimes allowed themselves to be distracted by their emotions.
Machiavellians are particularly good at suppressing sentimentality. This also applies to their love life. They have little interest in romance, change partners frequently, prefer short affairs, and are prone to sexual abuse. Machiavellians’ partners often lack commitment, loyalty and emotional depth in the relationship.
There is even evidence of strong emotional control in the brain. With my team, I studied subjects while they played a tactical game in which people allocated amounts of money to each other. When the opponent was generous, the Machiavellian participants benefited. They ended up making more money than less Machiavellian participants. By not reciprocating the generosity of the other person, they violated an important social principle called reciprocity. This requires some cognitive control. While they were running down their teammates, their brains were particularly active. In particular, there was increased activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex – a region that plays an important role in regulating emotions.
Another notable characteristic of Machiavellians is their flexibility. They are able to adapt efficiently to changing circumstances and react appropriately to different situations. While psychopaths, who along with narcissists and Machiavellians are among the dark characters, tend to think in the short term, act impulsively, and risk quite a bit to quickly satisfy their needs, Machiavellians proceed in a prudent and planned manner. They remain flexible and change their strategy when necessary. They will act selfishly while they can get away with it, and switch to a cooperative mode when selfishness is punished. However, not only the threat of punishment or failure, but also the desire to gain prestige and overcome social isolation may be behind such a change in strategy.
Due to their malleability, Machiavellians are usually discovered late in the game. When the going gets tough, they quickly put on another mask. Even acquaintances, friends, colleagues, and even their own family members are slow to recognize the deceitfulness of such manipulators, because they spin their intrigues inconspicuously and effectively. Although people with strong Machiavellian traits do end up in prison from time to time (for fraud, for example), it is likely that many of those who engage in criminal machinations are never caught.
At least some of the Machiavellians seem to do very well in life. Some of them even make it to the top because of their ruthlessness. In some studies, the position a person held in an organization correlated strongly with his or her level of Machiavellianism. People in the top echelons of management scored the highest on the tests, while ordinary employees scored the lowest. People who have a high level of intelligence in addition to a good dose of Machiavellianism have a good chance of obtaining a management position, or at least an above-average salary. Their strong negotiating skills and excellent strategic thinking contribute to the rise of intelligent Machiavellians. But ruthlessness can also be a success factor in some institutions. Machiavellians lie in job interviews without batting an eye, use their charisma to win over superiors, and score points with their assertiveness.
Employees often see a different face. The tone toward subordinates is often extremely brusque and demanding. Just as Machiavellians box out personal adversaries, they do the same with business competitors. Once the company’s interests become the Machiavellians’, they will pursue them just as consistently and nefariously. Therefore, it sometimes pays for companies to hire Machiavellians. This is especially true in less tightly organized companies, where people can improvise because they are not too tightly controlled. This is where Machiavellian people sometimes develop their questionable strengths.
But for the most part, this is only true of particularly shrewd specimens. In contrast to the works just mentioned, which show that Machiavellianism is conducive to advancement, scientific evidence shows the exact opposite. On average, Machiavellians actually earn less than others. Their antisocial behavior often gets in the way. They are often absent from work without permission, and complaints are often filed against them. Finally, Machiavellians will not be able to maintain their facade forever if their secrets, lies, and intrigues create tension within the company.
As unpleasant as ruthless and manipulative people can be in direct contact, and despite the damage they sometimes do to their environment, in evolutionary terms, Machiavellian traits have driven human development. In the 1980s, Scottish primatologists Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten developed the exciting hypothesis of Machiavellian intelligence. According to them, we owe our uniquely powerful brains to social competition, and thus to the first Machiavellians. According to this hypothesis, the ability to skillfully manipulate the brain represents a significant evolutionary leap. Those who could successfully manipulate others had a survival advantage.
The advent of deception and exploitation probably forced our ancestors to develop increasingly complex social skills to keep track of each other, see through clever dodges, and strike subtly when necessary. Early Machiavellians themselves required a high degree of intelligence for their political maneuvering, and so Machiavellian tendencies and the ability to think may have fostered each other.
Whether special spiritual gifts are still to be found among Machiavellians living today, however, is not yet entirely clear. Research over the past decade has yielded mixed results. On average, highly Machiavellian people are neither smarter nor less intelligent than others. As mentioned earlier, they tend to be poor at empathizing with others mentally and emotionally. At first glance, these findings seem to contradict the hypothesis of Machiavellian intelligence. For some researchers who believed in this thesis, this was naturally sobering. But now, thanks to the immense amount of research in this area, we have a good picture of how Machiavellians tick on a social and cognitive level.
Where exploitation is not effective, Machiavellians refrain from it. This is the case, for example, when everyone is fighting for the same amount of money. If, on the other hand, one person gets all the money, the Machiavellian is at it again. Team players are the perfect victims of this dark personality. They carefully analyze their chosen victim and choose tactics that have worked in the past with similar characters. In this way, they take advantage of those who have the good of the community at heart.
By now it should be clear that Machiavellians can be a real fire hazard to others. Their flexible, strategic thinking and talent for changing tactics make them very difficult to expose. Recent developments in the job market, however, ensure that Machiavellians no longer have it easy, at least in the workplace. For example, U.S. and Western European companies now rely heavily on teamwork. Rigid organizational structures with steep power differentials are giving way to flatter hierarchies. Managers often no longer make decisions on their own and thus have less opportunity to control and exploit employees. In addition, intrigue and subterfuge are uncovered more quickly as employees have more direct access to information.
But how do Machiavellians fare in all this? Do they really suffer from their disposition? Are they even overwhelmed by loneliness in quiet moments? Unlike narcissists, whose fluctuating self-esteem can plunge them into deep crisis, Machiavellians tend not to have more psychological problems than others. If anything, they have thicker skins. Still, it makes sense to prevent Machiavellianism; after all, the entire environment suffers.
The best way to keep Machiavellianism at bay in the long run is through successful socialization. The genes we inherit from our parents help determine how Machiavellian or good-natured we will be. But the environment in which we grow up plays a larger role. On the one hand, a social culture in which recklessness and violence are widespread promotes Machiavellian thinking and acting. On the other hand, our own homes shape us: adults with strong Machiavellian traits are more likely than others to report childhoods with few clear rules and few stable attachments. Their families lacked communication and warmth. A sheltered home and good role models, on the other hand, promote righteousness and prudence – and make fewer people grow up to be ruthless bullies.