01.05.2014 Views

MOM 2006 journal for pdf.pmd - University of Michigan-Flint

MOM 2006 journal for pdf.pmd - University of Michigan-Flint

MOM 2006 journal for pdf.pmd - University of Michigan-Flint

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

INFLUENCES OF MACHIAVELLIANISM AND SOCIOPATHY<br />

ON MORAL JUDGMENTS<br />

Troy Brown<br />

Faculty Sponsor: Christine Hansen<br />

Department <strong>of</strong> Psychology, Oakland <strong>University</strong><br />

Abstract<br />

The present study explored Kohlberg’s prediction that an individual’s moral reasoning will be<br />

consistent when presented with moral dilemmas. Two personality characteristics,<br />

Machiavellianism and sociopathy, were expected to influence judgments in hypothetical<br />

situations in Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview and an individual’s propensity to cheat while<br />

playing the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game. Evidence <strong>for</strong> personality effects supported some but not<br />

all predictions.<br />

Machiavellianism<br />

Jaffe, Nebenzahl, and Gotesdyner (1989) succinctly define a Machiavellian personality as “one<br />

who manipulates more, persuades others more, and is persuaded less” (p. 819). Those scoring<br />

high in Machiavellianism (Mach) have been identified as being more likely to cheat on their own<br />

initiative (Cooper & Peterson, 1980), treat others as objects <strong>for</strong> their control (Bochner, Di Salvo,<br />

& Jonas, 1975), and withhold help (Lamden & Lorr).<br />

Wardle and Gloss (1982) reported that Machiavellianism is not a static attitude but changes<br />

with the participants. This finding suggests that testing high Machs in a variety <strong>of</strong> moral<br />

situations will be beneficial to tease out the true Machiavellian as they have been shown to mask<br />

their motives in certain situations. There<strong>for</strong>e, the present study used two types <strong>of</strong> moral situations<br />

to investigate differences between high and low Machs: the first was a modified version <strong>of</strong><br />

Kohlberg’s moral dilemmas; the second was an iterated prisoner’s dilemma game. Hypothesis 1<br />

predicted that as an individual’s Mach score increased, they would decrease the amount <strong>of</strong> blame<br />

ascribed to the person per<strong>for</strong>ming the “immoral” behavior in Kohlberg’s Moral Dilemmas or<br />

increase the level <strong>of</strong> punishment given to the character who caused the “immoral” behavior to<br />

occur. Also, it was predicted (H 2<br />

) that individuals with higher Mach scores would be more likely<br />

to cheat while playing an iterated prisoner’s dilemma game when given the opportunity.<br />

Socialization<br />

A sociopath (<strong>for</strong>merly labeled psychopath) has been defined as one who has low empathy<br />

along with behavioral tendencies toward self-promotion, emotional coldness, duplicity, and<br />

aggressiveness (Paulhus and Williams, 2002, p. 557). Originally, the Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Personality<br />

Inventory scale was used to assess social maturity and the ability to judge one’s own behavior<br />

from other people’s point <strong>of</strong> view (Gough, 1957). When it was incorporated as the socialization<br />

scale (So), the items on the test were scored so that high values represent greater empathy <strong>for</strong><br />

others and stronger adherence to social norms and low values represent antisocial tendencies<br />

Meeting <strong>of</strong> Minds <strong>2006</strong> 42

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!