Have you ever heard of the dark triad? Composed of three subclinical traits: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism; this trio of some of the most malevolent attributes are clinically undetectable as they are embedded in the individual’s personality. Where the former two are considered more ‘negative’, underlying maladaptive behaviours, Machiavellians are strategic planners and socially more adept to their environment.
The origin of Machiavellianism can be traced to the writings of 16th-century philosopher Nicollo Machiavelli, titled The Prince, who advised leaders to use tactics of deceit in achieving their goals. On the other hand, its academic root lies with Christie and Geis’ work. Christie and Geis (1970) identified three key characteristics of Machiavellians: (a) they have a cynical world view of others, (b) they use manipulative strategies to influence others, and (c) they often depart from ethical standards to gain an advantage of others.
Being an odd member of the group, or perhaps due to its poor conceptualization, research on the dark triad often yields inconsistent results for Machiavellianism with other variables. One of these variables is well-being. In simple terms, well-being refers to a state of having comfort, happiness, and health. Two general perspectives of well-being are the hedonic approach (the pleasant life) or subjective well-being, which focuses on happiness and defines well-being in terms of pleasure attainment and pain avoidance; and the eudaimonic approach (the meaningful life), which focuses on meaning and self-realization and defines well-being in terms of the degree to which a person is fully functioning.
When we think of a malicious trait such as Machiavellianism, we think of how such a manipulative, deceitful, and power-hungry individual would affect the well-being of those around them, but what about their well-being? Would being an alleged evil person take a toll on one’s mental health, or would it merely be a part of who they are? Are they comfortable enough in their own skin to be able to sustain a healthy and functioning life? With these questions, I began my quest for answers through an intense review of literature.
Unsurprisingly, much of the research in the last few years has linked Machiavellianism to adverse outcomes as to how Machiavellian individuals (Machs) are dangerous to others’ well-being. For example, a study noted that high Machs are more likely to disrupt the well-being of colleagues at the workplace. Scattered research on Machiavellianism, however, indicated positive correlations with depression, paranoia, alexithymia, socially prescribed perfectionism, and low self-esteem. Additionally, it was established that high Machs found it difficult to identify and describe their own feelings or emotions, and were characterized by external thinking. This view is supported by studies such as King and Pennebaker (1998), who found that suppressing or withholding emotions has clear costs for psychological and physical health and DeNeve and Cooper (1998), who reported that people high in repressive tendencies tend to have lower subjective well-being. This is supported by recent studies that found significant negative correlations between Machiavellianism and different aspects of psychological and subjective well-being. Certain studies even argue that not only are Machiavellian people able to detach themselves, some are even unable to recognize these emotions. They remain “cool-blooded” even in emotionally highly charged situations and do not take on the excitement of others involved. Conversely, there seem to be well-being benefits to emotional disclosure. Such findings suggest that Machiavellianism might be associated with low psychological and subjective well-being. Further, studies indicate that the ‘cynical view of the world’ that Machiavellianism entails is negatively related to psychological functioning, implying a low score on the dimension of social well-being as well. Hence, having Machiavellian traits could be detrimental to all forms of well-being.
However, if Machiavellianism were such a dysfunctional trait, all the psychiatric wards would have been overcrowded by cold and detached Machs. As this is not the case, some underlying aspect may allow Machs to function adequately despite their cynical, manipulative, and immoral attitudes. Interestingly, research also shows that Machiavellians are capable of distracting themselves from the emotional effects of situations in a way that being manipulative and exploitive of others may be selfishly optimal for the individual in the context of their life. That is, despite the social or even personal costs to an individual, Machiavellian trait could be maintained in the population if some positive fitness benefit is accrued. According to the desire satisfaction theory, an individual’s well-being is enhanced when their desires are satisfied. Also, research suggests that feeling competent and confident concerning valued goals is associated with enhanced well-being. Moreover, there is growing evidence to support the view that Machiavellians may be flexible in terms of adopting a wide range of social strategies to obtain a reward. As such, their primary motivations are to prioritize situations that maximize higher rewards. Hence, whether these strategies would be detrimental to their well-being depends largely upon what the strategies are and how they are acted upon. As Buss (2009) suggests, what is often disparaged as a maladaptive personality marked by impulsivity and lack of self-control, can instead be re-conceptualized as an evolutionarily stable strategy deployed in response to a realistic appraisal of a shorter time horizon. The above review implies that the relationship between Machiavellianism and well-being is not as direct as it may involve several other variables, such as the use of strategies to obtain the rewards. Hence, research in the future could focus on identifying and studying such mediating relationships.
Anam Khan
