The Machiavellian bully revisited: A closer look at differences and processes of Machiavellian bullying and cyberbullying perpetration.

Numerous studies on personality traits conducive to traditional bullying and cyberbullying mentioned Machiavellianism as an influential predictor of these behaviors. Machiavellianism comprises manipulative, egotistic orientations that help acquire desired outcomes. However, it is questionable whether bullying and cyberbullying reflect unidimensional constructs since they are frequently categorized into verbal, relational, and physical aspects (with the latter being applicable only in traditional bullying). Similarly, evidence suggests that Machiavellianism is not a uniform trait. In this research, using a sample of 634 students (339 girls; 54%) from 40 classes from eighth to tenth grades, a five-dimensional measure of bullying and cyberbullying was devised and suggested that aspects of (cyber)bullying are related but still separable. Subsequently, differential relations between the five forms of (cyber)bullying and two facets of Machiavellianism were modeled. Those facets were Machiavellian approach (i.e., manipulative aspects of Machiavellianism) and Machiavellian avoidance (i.e., distrustful aspects of Machiavellianism). Multilevel models revealed that Machiavellian approach predicted relational bullying (but not relational cyberbullying) and Machiavellian avoidance predicted verbal (cyber)bullying and physical bullying. All links were mediated by overt dehumanization, that is, the tendency to cognitively deprive a person of typically human characteristics.

It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver: Machiavellianism is associated with producing but not necessarily with falling for bullshit.

Machiavellianism is a personality trait emphasizing fraud at others' expense. It is yet unclear whether Machiavellianism is also predictive of less obvious deception, for example inaccurate or meaningless information supposed to gain advantages and to avoid disadvantages (i.e., bullshit). Similarly, it is unclear whether those high in Machiavellianism can recognize bullshit claims and valuable information as such (i.e., bullshit sensitivity). In this study, we investigated whether different facets of Machiavellianism are prone to the production of different sorts of bullshit and how these facets of Machiavellianism relate to bullshit sensitivity. In a sample of 525 participants (72% women), we found that the manipulative side of Machiavellianism (Machiavellian approach) was linked to persuasive bullshitting, that is, the production of bullshit intended to gain desired resources. Likewise, the distrustful side of Machiavellianism (Machiavellian avoidance) went along with higher evasive bullshitting, which means spreading information that ought to prevent individual disadvantages. Next, we found that those high in Machiavellian avoidance, but not Machiavellian approach, were better at differentiating information from bullshit. These links were robust irrespective of different levels of cognitive ability. Ultimately, we discussed future directions for research on bullshitting and disseminating deceptive information in general.

To be fooled or not to be fooled: Approach and avoidance facets of Machiavellianism.

The antagonistic personality trait Machiavellianism (Mach) should be characterized by duplicity, proclivity to manipulation, cynical disregard of others, long-term planning, and low aggression. Opposed to theoretical descriptions, recent studies revealed links between Mach and neuroticism, impulsivity, and aggression. The advantages of a multidimensional assessment of Mach are well known but were seldom implemented. Hence, differential effects within Mach have often been neglected. Based on previous research on basic motivational orientations, we derived two facets-Machiavellian approach and Machiavellian avoidance. These facets account for exploitative, strategic striving for resources and for misanthropic, distrustful loss prevention, respectively. In two studies (total N = 1,000, 21% men), we found support for the two-factor structure, for measurement invariance across sexes, and the nomological network of the eight-item Machiavellian Approach and Avoidance Questionnaire (MaaQ). As expected, Machiavellian approach was primarily associated with hope for power, whereas Machiavellian avoidance was linked to affective criteria and aggression. Both approach and avoidance shared links with disagreeableness, dishonesty, and cynicism. Furthermore, they correlated with other Mach scales. The findings explain counterintuitive links with other constructs found in earlier studies and thereby further the understanding of Mach. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).