Do All Roads Lead to Rome? The Moderating Role of Culture and Age in Predicting Construal Level on Machiavellianism

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 36, 6328 - 6337, 26.01.2015

Begum Yetıser

https://doi.org/10.19168/jyu.18920

Cited By: 1

Öz

Christie and Geis (1970) define Machiavellianism as a personality trait that results in extensive manipulative behavior, insincerity and callousness. Previous research focused on how culture and several demographic variables relate to Machiavellianism. However, no research has yet to examine how culture and demographics (age) moderate the relation between Machiavellian tendencies and the mind-set of an action. This study examines the moderating effect of culture and age on individuals’ Machiavellian thoughts by the chronic aspect of Construal Level Theory (Liberman and Trope, 1998; Trope and Liberman, 2010) across people from different cultures and from different age groups. In the first part of the study, culture is used as a moderator. The results indicated that American participants showed more (versus less) Machiavellian thoughts then Turkish participants when a concrete construal is adapted (versus an abstract construal). Second part of the study focused on the age as the moderator. The results showed that younger participants (versus older) are more Machiavellian when they have a concrete construal (versus an abstract construal). Consequently; the results indicate a strong distinction when a detailed mindset is adapted where the events are perceived as subcategorized and concrete. On the other hand, when an abstract mind-set is adapted, events are perceived as more vague therefore differences between cultures and age began to diminish. Implications of the findings to the literature are discussed

Anahtar Kelimeler

Construal Level Theory, Psychological Distance, Machiavellianism, Culture, Age

Bütün Yollar Roma’ya Mı Çıkar? Makyavelizmde Yorumlama Seviyesinin Belirlenmesinde Kültür ve Çağın Aracı Rolü

Öz

Christie ve Geis (1970), Makyavelizm’i samimiyetsizlik, vurdumduymazlık ve aşırı manipulatif davranış içeren bir kişilik durumu olarak tanımlamaktadır. Literatürde kültür ve pek çok demografik özelliğin Makyavelizm üzerindeki etkisi vurgulanmıştır. Ancak literatürde, kültür ve demografik özelliklerin (yaş) bireylerin Makyavel eğilimleri ile eylemsel zihniyetleri arasındaki ilişkiyi analiz etmede moderatör olarak etkisini araştırmamıştır. Bu nedenle bu çalışma kültür ve katılımcıların yaşlarının bireylerin Makyavel algıları ile kronik Kurgu Seviyesi Teorisi1 (Liberman ve Trope, 1998; Trope ve Liberman, 2010) arasındaki ilişkiyi yönlendirmesini esas almaktadır. Çalışma, katılımcıların Makyavel algıları ile “kurgu seviyeleri” arasındaki ilişkinin kültür ve katılımcı yaşı yönünden etkisini incelemektedir. Çalışmanın ilk kısmında kültür moderatör olarak kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak Amerikan katılımcıların Türk katılımcılara göre daha çok Makyavel eğilimde oldukları gözlemlenmiştir, ve bu gözlem yalnızca katılımcıların “somut zihniyet”e sahip oldukları zaman anlamlandığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Çalışmanın ikinci kısmında katılımcıların yaşı moderatör olarak kullanılmıştır. Buna göre daha genç olan katılımcıların, yaşları daha geçkin olan katılımcılara kıyasla daha çok Makyavel eğilimde oldukları gözlemlenmiştir, ve bu gözlem çalışmanın ilk kısmında olduğu gibi yine daha “somut zihniyet” sahibi katılımcılarda algılanmıştır. Genel olarak çalışmada “soyut zihniyet”e sahip katılımcıların ne kültür ne de yaş farkı bakımından anlamlı ilişki etkisinin bulunmadığı gözlemlenmiştir. Dolayısıyla detaylı düşünme, genel düşünce yapısına göre katılımcıların kültürel farklılıkları ve yaş farklılıkları bakımından farklı Makyavel eğilimlere sebebiyet vermiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Construal Level Theory, Kültür, Yaş, Makyavelizm, Psychological Distance

Kaynakça

• Agerström, J., Björklund, F. and Carlsson, R.: (2012). Emotions in Time: Moral Emotions Appear More Intense With Temporal Distance, Social Cognition 30(2), 181–198.
• Aiken, L. S. and West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Ali, F., Amorim, I.S. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Empathy deficits and trait emotional intelligence in psychopathy and Machiavellianism, Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 758-762.
• Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K. and De Raad, B. (2004). A SixFactor Structure of Personality Descriptive Adjectives: Solutions from Psycholexical Studies in Seven Languages, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356-366.
• Austin, E.J., Farrelly, D., Black, C. & Moore, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: does EI have a dark side?, Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 179-189.
• Bazerman, M. H., Tenbrunsel, A. E. and Wade-Benzoni, K. (1998). Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Making Decisions with Competing Internal Preferences, Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 225-241.
• Bhawuk DPS, Brislin RW. (2000). Cross-cultural training: a review, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 162–91.
• Cameron, K.S. & Spreitzer, G.M. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cherulnik, P. D., Way, J. H., Ames, S., & Hutto, D. B. (1981). Impressions of high and low Machiavellian men, Journal of Personality, 49, 388–400.
• Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies of Machiavellianism, London: Academic Press.
• Corral, S. & Calvete, E. (2000). Machiavellianism: Dimensionality of the Mach IV and its Relation to Self-Monitoring in a Spanish Sample, The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3(1), 3-13. Daft, R.L. (2008). Management, Eighth Edition. USA: Thomson South-Western.
• Effler, M. (1983). Konservatismus, Machiavellianismus: Validitats- und Reliabilitatsuntersuchungen, Zeitschrift fur Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 4, 79–85.
• Exline, R. V., Thibaut, J., Hickey, C. B., & Gumpert, P. (1970). Visual interaction in relation to Machiavellianism and an unethical act, In R. Christie, & F. Geis (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 53–77). New York: Academic Press.
• Eyal, T., and Liberman, N.: (2012). Morality and psychological distance: A construal level theory perspective’, In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of Morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. Herzliya Series on Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 185–202). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Eyal, T., Liberman, Y., Trope, Y.: (2008). Judging Near and Distant Virtue and Vice, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1204-1209.
• Fehr, B., Samson, D., & Paulhus, D. R. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In C. D. Spielberger, & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 77–116..
• Förster, J., Friedman, R. S. and Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal Construal Effects on Abstract and Concrete Thinking: Consequences for Insight and Creative Cognition, Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 177-189.
• Freitas, A.L., Salovey, P. and Liberman, N. (2001). Abstract and Concrete Self-Evaluative Goals, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 410-424.
• Geis, F. L., & Moon, T. H. (1981). Machiavellianism and deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41,
• 766–775. Gino, F. and Galinsky, A. D.: (2012). Vicarious dishonesty: When psychological closeness creates distance from one’s moral compass, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 15-26.
• Gunnthorsdottir, A., McGabe, K. and Smith, V. (2002). Using the Machiavellianism instrument to predict trustworthiness in a bargaining game, Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 49-66.
• Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, New York: Guilford. Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultural Consequences: Intemational Differences in Work Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
• Hunt, S. D. and Chonko, L. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism, Journal of Marketing, Summer, 30-42.
• Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Doyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93–108), New York: Guilford.
• Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S.-C., Gelfand, M. J.,&Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism– collectivism research, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 925–
• 937. Kivetz, Y. and Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: The effect of time perspective on the activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 193-211.
• Kolb, R.W. (2008). Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, 3. Sage Publications. Leary, M.R. and Hoyle, R.H. (2009). Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, The Guilford Press.
• Lee, K. and Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure, Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571-1582.
• Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18.
• Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 523–534.
• McGuire, D. & Hutchings, K. (2006). A Machiavellian analysis of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change, 19(2), 192-209.
• Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T. and Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Harnessing Our Inner Angels and Demons: What We Have Learned About Want/Should Conflicts and How That Knowledge Can Help Us Reduce Short-Sighted Decision Making, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4), 324-338.
• Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson, & S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactive psychology (pp. 333–352), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Mudrack, P. E. and Mason, E. S. (1995). Extending the Machiavellianism Construct: A Brief Measure and Some Unexplored relationships, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 187-200.
• Muncy, J. A. and S. J. Vitell: 1992, ‘Consumer Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of the Final Consumer’, Journal of Business Research, 24(June), 297–311.
• Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner M.H.: (1985). Applied linear statistical models: regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.
• Oyserman, D., and Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism, Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311–342.
• Paulhus, D. L. and Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563.
• Petrides, K. V., Vernon, P. A., Aitken, J., Vaselka, S. and Veselka, L. (2011). Trait Emotional Intelligence and the Dark Triad Traits of Personality, Twin Research and Human Genetics, 14(1), 35-41.
• Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902.
• Robbins, S.P. & Coulter, M. (2012). Management. Eleventh Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Rogers, T. and Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection of ‘should’ choices, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 1-20.
• Rosch, E.: (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192-233.
• Sinha, J.B.P. (2008). Culture and Organizational Behaviour, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes, American Psychologist, 51(4), 407-415.
• Trope, Y. and Liberman, N (2010). Construal Level Theory of Psychological Distance, Psychological Review, 117(2)440-463.
• Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal Construal and Time-Dependent Changes in Preference, Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876-889.
• Vallacher, R. R. and Wegner, D. M.: 1989, ‘Levels of Personal Agency: Individual Variation in Action Identification’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660-671.
• Vecchio, R. P., & Sussmann, M. (1991). Choice of influence tactics: Individual and Organizational Determinants, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 73–80.
• Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., and Vertnon, P. A. (2012). The Dark Triad and an Expanded Framework of Personality, Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 417–425.
• Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Drory, A. (2006) Handbook of Organizational Politics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Vitell, S. J. and J. Muncy: (1992), Consumer Ethics: An Empirical Investigation of Factors Influencing Ethical Judgments of the Final Consumer, Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 585-597.
• Walter, H.L, Anderson, C.M. and Martin, M.M.: (2005). How Subordinates’ Machiavellianism and Motives Relate to Satisfaction with Superiors, Communication Quarterly, 53(1), 57-70.
• Wilson, D. S., Near, D. C., and Miller, R. R.: (1998). Individual differences in Machiavellianism as a mix of cooperative and exploitative strategies, Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 203–212.
• Wilson, D.S., Near, D. and Miller, R. R.: (1996). Machiavellianism: A Synthesis of the Evolutionary and Psychological Literatures, Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 285-299.