What is Machiavellianism?
PhD, English Literature (Lancaster University)
Date Published: 22.07.2024,
Last Updated: 29.07.2024
Share this article
Definition and origins
History is littered with accounts of unscrupulous rulers who have used deceptive and underhanded tactics to secure power. Such individuals often exhibit a psychological profile that aligns with the psychological concept of Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism is the name given to a personality trait characterized by manipulation, deceit, amorality, ruthless pragmatism, and a drive to use whatever means necessary to achieve their aims.
The term “Machiavellianism” is derived from the writings of Italian political philosopher and statesman, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469—1527), specifically his work The Prince (1532): a political treatise instructing new leaders on how to obtain and hold onto power. Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis studied the writing of Machiavelli to develop this psychological concept, published in their seminal work Studies in Machievellianism (1970). As Tamás Bereczkei summarizes,
[Christie and Geis] recognised that Machiavellianism, first, is not characteristic only of leaders; second, it is not equal to an authoritarian personality; third, it is not to be regarded as a mere psychopathological phenomenon. On the contrary, all ordinary people may exhibit a certain degree of Machiavellian thinking. Every individual, irrespective of their social environment and occupation, is more or less willing to dissemble and deceive others under certain circumstances. (Machiavellianism, 2017)
Tamás Bereczkei
[Christie and Geis] recognised that Machiavellianism, first, is not characteristic only of leaders; second, it is not equal to an authoritarian personality; third, it is not to be regarded as a mere psychopathological phenomenon. On the contrary, all ordinary people may exhibit a certain degree of Machiavellian thinking. Every individual, irrespective of their social environment and occupation, is more or less willing to dissemble and deceive others under certain circumstances. (Machiavellianism, 2017)
Delroy Paulhus and Kevin Williams would go on to include Machiavellianism as one of the three parts of the “dark triad of personality” along with narcissism (self-centeredness) and psychopathy (‘The Dark Triad of Personality,” 2002). Though the concept of Machiavellianism has been the subject of numerous studies, it has never been considered a disorder or been referenced in any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
In this guide, we will explore the key ideas of Machiavelli that influenced Christie and Geis’ psychological research, the key traits of Machiavellianism, how Machiavellianism is measured, as well as drawing on examples of Machiavellian behaviour in leadership and as shown in the literature and popular culture.
The Prince (1532)
Far from focusing on an ideal form of government, Machiavelli’s The Prince examined the mechanisms of power. After discussing the ways an individual may come to power (via heritage, fortune, force, the support of others etc), Machiavelli goes on to explain the most successful methods of ruling. As J. Bower Bell and Barton Whaley summarize,
It fell to Machiavelli to point out most explicitly the very intimate interactions of war, politics, and economics, and to apply to military theory the then common practice of political deception. He urged that any and all means were justified to defend the state or ensure its victory: efficacy was the only sensible criterion. Recognizing that an army was an economically precious commodity, he urged that the wise commander “never attempt to win by force” what he “was able to win by fraud.” (Cheating and Deception, 2017)
J. Bower Bell and Barton Whaley
It fell to Machiavelli to point out most explicitly the very intimate interactions of war, politics, and economics, and to apply to military theory the then common practice of political deception. He urged that any and all means were justified to defend the state or ensure its victory: efficacy was the only sensible criterion. Recognizing that an army was an economically precious commodity, he urged that the wise commander “never attempt to win by force” what he “was able to win by fraud.” (Cheating and Deception, 2017)
Machiavelli’s ethos on rulership is a cynical one in which he argues a leader should trust no one; this is epitomized in his well-known statement “It is much safer to be feared than loved” (The Prince, 1532, [2010]).
In order to protect themselves from being manipulated or ousted by opponents, Machiavelli argues, a leader should have both strength and cunning. He writes that,
A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves. (Machiavelli, 1532, [2010])
Niccolo Machiavelli
A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves. (Machiavelli, 1532, [2010])
Machiavelli saw deception as a crucial component of securing power and something which, due to the trusting nature of most, is an easy feat:
It is necessary [...] to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived. (1532, [2010])
Machiavelli argued that deceit was a necessary evil and found that ultimately, the ends justify the means. As Dean A. Haycock puts it,
People who tend to agree with the insights and advice offered in The Prince don’t make great long-term friends or roommates. They are much more likely to act coldly, trick you, and manipulate you for their advantage. Up-and-coming tyrants have routinely used Machiavellian tactics to outmaneuver real and potential rivals for power. Stalin and Mao provide textbook examples of this aspect of tyrant personality. (Tyrannical Minds, 2019)
Dean A. Haycock
People who tend to agree with the insights and advice offered in The Prince don’t make great long-term friends or roommates. They are much more likely to act coldly, trick you, and manipulate you for their advantage. Up-and-coming tyrants have routinely used Machiavellian tactics to outmaneuver real and potential rivals for power. Stalin and Mao provide textbook examples of this aspect of tyrant personality. (Tyrannical Minds, 2019)
While Machiavelli’s political writings are more nuanced than promoting deception and fraud, Machiavellianism in wider discourse refers primarily to these characteristics. To learn more about the specificities of Machiavelli’s teachings, in addition to The Prince, you can read his works Discourses on Livy (1531) and Art of War (1521), as well as secondary sources such as Robert Black’s Machiavelli (2022). For the purposes of this guide, we will be referring to Machiavellianism as it is discussed in psychology and popular vernacular.
Traits of Machiavellianism
As previously mentioned, the first work to analyze the personality trait “Machiavellianism” is Studies in Machievellianism (1970) by Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis.
Here, Christie and Geis outline four key traits of Machiavellianism:
- A relative lack of affect in interpersonal relationships
- A lack of concern with conventional morality
- A lack of gross psychopathy
- Low ideological commitment
(1970, [2013])
Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis
- A relative lack of affect in interpersonal relationships
- A lack of concern with conventional morality
- A lack of gross psychopathy
- Low ideological commitment
(1970, [2013])
This section will explore each of these in turn.
A relative lack of affect in interpersonal relationships
As Christie and Geis write,
In general, it seemed that success in getting others to do what one wishes them to do would be enhanced by viewing them as objects to be manipulated rather than as individuals with whom one has empathy. (1970, [2013])
The reasoning for this, they go on to explain, is that emotional involvement with others is more likely to result in empathy. Empathy, according to the Machiavellian individual, makes it “more difficult to use psychological leverage to influence others to do things they may not want to do” (Christie, “Why Machiavelli?” Studies in Machiavellianism, 1970, [2013]). As Bekir Emre Kurtulmuş elaborates,
Machiavellians can use other people if they need to. One of their main aims is to achieve their objectives, and in order for this to occur they employ any means. In this context, one should recognize the total disregard and lack of empathy that the dark tetrad of personality traits shows on other individuals. Therefore, it is normal for highly Machiavellian people not to consider others if they do not have to. This is supported by Machiavellians’ belief that external forces control peoples’ behavior and outcomes. They see other people as incapable and incompetent individuals, and therefore they believe others do not have any control of situations: it is the Machiavellian’s right to control the situation and his/her followers. (The Dark Side of Leadership, 2018)
Bekir Emre Kurtulmuş
Machiavellians can use other people if they need to. One of their main aims is to achieve their objectives, and in order for this to occur they employ any means. In this context, one should recognize the total disregard and lack of empathy that the dark tetrad of personality traits shows on other individuals. Therefore, it is normal for highly Machiavellian people not to consider others if they do not have to. This is supported by Machiavellians’ belief that external forces control peoples’ behavior and outcomes. They see other people as incapable and incompetent individuals, and therefore they believe others do not have any control of situations: it is the Machiavellian’s right to control the situation and his/her followers. (The Dark Side of Leadership, 2018)
A lack of concern with conventional morality
The second trait of Machiavellianism is a lack of concern with conventional morality. While morality can differ depending on the individual or the philosophical school of thought (see Perlego’s “Ethics and Moral Philosophy Articles”), Christie and Geis suggest that it is generally accepted that lying, cheating, and deceit are seen as immoral. They go on to state that,
Whether manipulators are amoral or immoral is a moot problem, and one which probably concerns them less than those who are manipulated. The premise here is that those who manipulate have an utilitarian rather than a moral view of their interactions with others. (Christie and Geis, 1970, [2013])
In other words, Machiavellian manipulators are not concerned with morality and are only interested in succeeding in their goals. Machiavellians do not lie simply because they are immoral; they deceive as a means to an end.
A lack of gross psychopathology
Machiavellianism is also characterized by a lack of gross psychopathology. In other words, those with this trait are rational as
such a person [with psychopathology] would make errors in evaluating other individuals and the situation if his emotional needs seriously distorted his perceptions. (Christie, 1970, [2013])
In other words, in order to be a shrewd manipulator, a Machiavellian would need to be in control of their mental faculties.
In “Measures of Dark Personalities,” Paulhus and Daniel N. Jones state that, unlike psychopaths who do not consider the impact of their behavior,
Machiavellians plan ahead, build alliances, and try to maintain a positive reputation. [...] the elements best defining Machiavellianism are (a) strategic manipulation; (b) callous affect; and (c) alliance building. Ignoring this last element has led some writers to confuse Machiavellianism with psychopathy. (Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs, 2014)
Edited by Gregory J. Boyle, Donald H. Saklofske, and Gerald Matthews
Machiavellians plan ahead, build alliances, and try to maintain a positive reputation. [...] the elements best defining Machiavellianism are (a) strategic manipulation; (b) callous affect; and (c) alliance building. Ignoring this last element has led some writers to confuse Machiavellianism with psychopathy. (Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs, 2014)
Christie and Geis, however, clarify:
Note that we were not suggesting that manipulators are the epitome of mental health; we were proposing that their contact with at least the more objective aspects of reality would have to be, almost by definition, within the normal range. (1970, [2013])
This point has been contested, however, with some scholars arguing that Machiavellianism is in fact “part of the psychopathy continuum” (Minna Lyons, The Dark Triad of Personality, 2019). As John W. McHoskey identified in “Machiavellianism and personality dysfunction” (2001), those who scored highly for Machiavellian traits, also scored highly on other scales designed to measure personality dysfunction.
Low ideological commitment
The focus of Machiavellian manipulators is “getting things done” rather than “long-range ideological goals”:
Although manipulators might be found in organizations of diverse ideologies, they should be more involved in tactics for achieving possible ends than in an inflexible striving for an ultimate idealistic goal. (Christie, 1970, [2013])
The low ideological commitment of Machiavellis is indicative of their pragmatism over principles. Moreover, not being motivated by a fixed set of principles provides Machiavellis with flexibility, allowing them to strategically adapt to new situations or information to achieve their goals.
Measuring Machievellianism
In order to measure Machiavellian traits in individuals, Christie and Geis collected statements from Machiavelli’s The Prince and Discourses on Livy and asked participants to rate statements on a Likert scale of 1 to 7 with how much they agreed. This is known as the Mach-IV Test. The statements are as follows (Reverse scored items: 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17):
1. Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so
2. The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.
3. One should take action only when sure it is morally right.
4. Most people are basically good and kind.
5. It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak, and it will come out when they are given a chance.
6. Honesty is the best policy in all cases.
7. There is no excuse for lying to someone else.
8. Generally speaking, men don’t work hard unless they’re forced to do so.
9. All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.
10. When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it done rather than giving reasons which carry more weight.
11. Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives.
12. Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble.
13. The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
14. Most men are brave.
15. It is wise to flatter important people.
16. It is possible to be good in all respects.
17. Barnum was wrong when he said that there’s a sucker born every minute.
18. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
19. People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.
20. Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property.
(Bereczkei, 2017)
The scores from the test would help determine whether the individual is defined as a “high Mach” or “low Mach.”
High Machs are characterized as being highly manipulative and strategic in their interactions with others. High Machs have a “tendency to act by what they know makes them effective in exploiting whatever resources the situation provides,” and while they are “not hostile, vicious, or vindictive compared to lows,” they “manipulate more, win more, are persuaded less” and “persuade others more” (Christie and Geis, 1970, [2013]). Low Machs, however, tend to be more cooperative in their personal and professional relationships and are more likely to value honesty and integrity. Low Machs also tend to be less successful in experiments with face-to-face contact whereby they can get “caught up in the interaction process” (Christie and Geis, 1970, [2013]).
Christie and Geis further write,
The advantage the high Machs have in manipulating others is that they seem more accurate in their views of others' weakness in general, and that the low Machs permit themselves to be run over and out maneuvered by the intransigent highs while clinging to their idealistic interpretation of how people should behave. (1970, [2013])
Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis
The advantage the high Machs have in manipulating others is that they seem more accurate in their views of others' weakness in general, and that the low Machs permit themselves to be run over and out maneuvered by the intransigent highs while clinging to their idealistic interpretation of how people should behave. (1970, [2013])
An additional study by Dorothea D. Braginsky examined the behaviors of high-Mach and low-Mach children (“Machiavellianism and manipulative interpersonal behavior in children,” 1970). As Betty Repacholi et al summarize,
Children were told that they would receive money for every cracker that the other child ate. The pairs were matched for age, IQ, and parental socioeconomic states (SES). The high-Mach children used manipulative strategies more frequently and were more successful at manipulating than the low Machs. Neutral adult observers also judged the high-Mach children to be more skillful and effective than low Machs. Interestingly, high-Mach boys and girls displayed quite different manipulative styles. The girls used more subtle, evasive strategies (e.g., withholding of information, attributing responsibility to the experimenter), whereas the boys were more direct in their approach (e.g., using more commissive lies). (“Theory of Mind, Machiavellianism, and Social Functioning in Childhood,” Individual Differences in Theory of Mind, 2004)
Edited by Betty Repacholi and Virginia Slaughter
Children were told that they would receive money for every cracker that the other child ate. The pairs were matched for age, IQ, and parental socioeconomic states (SES). The high-Mach children used manipulative strategies more frequently and were more successful at manipulating than the low Machs. Neutral adult observers also judged the high-Mach children to be more skillful and effective than low Machs. Interestingly, high-Mach boys and girls displayed quite different manipulative styles. The girls used more subtle, evasive strategies (e.g., withholding of information, attributing responsibility to the experimenter), whereas the boys were more direct in their approach (e.g., using more commissive lies). (“Theory of Mind, Machiavellianism, and Social Functioning in Childhood,” Individual Differences in Theory of Mind, 2004)
There are several issues, however, with the Mach-IV test. For example, the psychological construct of Social Desirability whereby participants modify their responses in studies in order to make themselves appear a certain way (such as more moral) can present issues in obtaining truly accurate results in the Mach-IV test. As Dita Šamánková, Marek Preiss, and Tereza Příhodová explain,
Even people without measurable dark traits are frequently inclined to ‘fake good’ during any kind of assessments of their personal assets. More or less conscious efforts to portray one’s self favourably in self-report psychological inventories, as well as questionnaires required from applicants to various positions at work, universities, or other institutions, can be revealed within a psychological construct called Social Desirability (Fisher 1993). (The Contextual Character of Moral Integrity, 2018)
Dita Šamánková, Marek Preiss, and Tereza Příhodová
Even people without measurable dark traits are frequently inclined to ‘fake good’ during any kind of assessments of their personal assets. More or less conscious efforts to portray one’s self favourably in self-report psychological inventories, as well as questionnaires required from applicants to various positions at work, universities, or other institutions, can be revealed within a psychological construct called Social Desirability (Fisher 1993). (The Contextual Character of Moral Integrity, 2018)
Moreover, even if participants are not intentionally being deceptive, they may lack the self-awareness and insight required to accurately complete such questionnaires. While the challenges presented by self-report measures could be somewhat addressed through longer field studies, the majority of research done into Machiavellianism, as Repacholi et al. write, “involves short-term, laboratory-based social interactions” (2004).
Machiavellianism and leadership
The strategic manipulation and lack of affect characteristic of high Machs may make them a good fit for certain leadership roles. In their 2001 study “American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance,” Ronald J. Deluga had participants rate the profiles of 39 unnamed US presidents and found a positive correlation between Machiavellian traits, charisma, and rated performance.
However, the extent to which high Machs make successful managers is debatable. Kurtulmuş states,
Highly Machiavellian people are more successful in unstructured organizations and less so in better structured organizations. This is because they tend to bend rules; they do not respect established regulations and they are flexible. If their flexibility is limited by an established bureaucracy and a structured organization, then high Machiavellianism can cause problems. (2018)
There has, however, been “no consensus” as to whether Machiavellianism provides advantages in obtaining leadership roles (Kurtulmuş, 2018).
There are, of course, anecdotal accounts of Machiavellian tactics being used successfully in the workplace. Brian Stone and Jayne Pashley write that,
A graduate acquaintance of the authors has found it expedient to manipulate power bases to maintain her performance and that of her section despite a poor immediate superior: she weaves a convoluted path in order to bypass her immediate manager to have her schemes agreed by her director, whilst managing to balance the retention of reasonable day-to-day relations with the immediate boss—who, by the way, derives benefit from the efficient working of his section. Only after a period of hitting brick walls was she driven to such measures and found the tactic worked. (“From the dark to the light Ranges of the real skills of management,” Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, 2000)
Edited by Phil Harris,Andrew Lock, and Patricia Rees
A graduate acquaintance of the authors has found it expedient to manipulate power bases to maintain her performance and that of her section despite a poor immediate superior: she weaves a convoluted path in order to bypass her immediate manager to have her schemes agreed by her director, whilst managing to balance the retention of reasonable day-to-day relations with the immediate boss—who, by the way, derives benefit from the efficient working of his section. Only after a period of hitting brick walls was she driven to such measures and found the tactic worked. (“From the dark to the light Ranges of the real skills of management,” Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, 2000)
As Maureen Ramsay points out, however, such discussions of underhandedness in the corporate world does not reflect Machiavelli’s ethos:
Machiavelli is misappropriated when applied to managing institutions which are profit driven by private business and consumer individualism. Machiavelli denounced the pursuit of power by individuals or groups for private ends. He was a radical critic of the narrow self-interest, the commercialism, the idealization of prosperity and economic enterprise, and of the exploitation and corruption that he saw within his own city state, precisely because they undermined civic responsibility and co-operation for the public good. (“Are Machiavellian tactics still appropriate or defensible in politics?” Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, 2000)
On the other hand, we can see Machiavelli’s concern for the greater good as still relevant when used to discuss corporations. As Anthony Jay writes,
The principle at the root of this is […]: the self interest of individuals must be harnessed to the good of the state, or the corporation. It is easy enough at the lower levels, when you can simply say that the more productive a worker is, the better the corporation is served. In the same way, salesmen’s bonuses and commissions are constructed with painstaking and elaborate ingenuity to encourage them to sell hardest the goods which the company is most anxious to get rid of. But at the higher managerial levels it can be very difficult, as it becomes progressively easier for people to invert the process, to pursue their own interests while deftly harnessing the good of the corporation to them by subtle sophistries. (“Management and Machiavelli,” excerpted in Organizational Collaboration, 2020)
MariaLaura Di Domenico et al.
The principle at the root of this is […]: the self interest of individuals must be harnessed to the good of the state, or the corporation. It is easy enough at the lower levels, when you can simply say that the more productive a worker is, the better the corporation is served. In the same way, salesmen’s bonuses and commissions are constructed with painstaking and elaborate ingenuity to encourage them to sell hardest the goods which the company is most anxious to get rid of. But at the higher managerial levels it can be very difficult, as it becomes progressively easier for people to invert the process, to pursue their own interests while deftly harnessing the good of the corporation to them by subtle sophistries. (“Management and Machiavelli,” excerpted in Organizational Collaboration, 2020)
In addition, as Kurtulmuş notes, unsurprisingly, Machiavellian bosses
[...] have the capability to manipulate others for their personal benefit, and if it is necessary they can forcefully convince others. In order to achieve this, Machiavellian leaders can abuse the leadership power that stems from formal organizational authority without further thought. Such leaders lose their moral and ethical integrity and pursue only their own personal agenda; thus the individual benefits. (2018)
Machiavellianism in literature and popular culture
One of the most infamous Machiavellian characters in literature can be found in William Shakespeare’s Othello (c. 1604). The antagonist of this play, Iago, is known for his ability to deceive and manipulate others, and is often referred to as “honest” by the other characters who are oblivious to his true nature ([2016]).
Machiavelli was well-known to Shakespeare and is referenced in King Henry VI: Part 3 by the scheming Richard of Gloucester (later Richard III):
I'll play the orator as well as Nestor,
Deceive more slyly than Ulysses could,
And, like a Sinon, take another Troy.
I can add colours to the chameleon,
Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
And set the murderous Machiavel to school.
Can I do this, and cannot get a crown? (1591, [2014])
William Shakespeare
I'll play the orator as well as Nestor,
Deceive more slyly than Ulysses could,
And, like a Sinon, take another Troy.
I can add colours to the chameleon,
Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
And set the murderous Machiavel to school.
Can I do this, and cannot get a crown? (1591, [2014])
As John O. Whitney and Tina Packer explain,
The “Machiavel” became a stock stage character in the morality plays that preceded Shakespeare, a purely evil character with no saving traits. [...] Machiavelli might have proved to us that self-interest makes the world go round, but it was Shakespeare who advanced our understanding of evil by showing that villainy is more psychologically complex than previous writers knew. This insight into the motivation of powerful kings and others who wanted to be powerful kings better helps us understand how the quest for power and the use of deceit can lead us astray. (Power Plays, 2002)
John O. Whitney and Tina Packer
The “Machiavel” became a stock stage character in the morality plays that preceded Shakespeare, a purely evil character with no saving traits. [...] Machiavelli might have proved to us that self-interest makes the world go round, but it was Shakespeare who advanced our understanding of evil by showing that villainy is more psychologically complex than previous writers knew. This insight into the motivation of powerful kings and others who wanted to be powerful kings better helps us understand how the quest for power and the use of deceit can lead us astray. (Power Plays, 2002)
Such characters have continued to fascinate audiences and readers, with Machiavellian anti-heroes being idealized in contemporary culture:
Popular culture provides countless examples of audiences cheering on lawbreakers, criminals, and unsavory characters who compete for power. In the iconic Godfather films, audiences are fascinated with how the Corleone family goes about its businesses, using Machiavellian strategies. Murder, blackmail, and intimidation seem to be accepted. (Thomas E. Cronin, “Machiavelli’s Prince,” Machiavelli’s Legacy, 2015)
Edited by Timothy Fuller
Popular culture provides countless examples of audiences cheering on lawbreakers, criminals, and unsavory characters who compete for power. In the iconic Godfather films, audiences are fascinated with how the Corleone family goes about its businesses, using Machiavellian strategies. Murder, blackmail, and intimidation seem to be accepted. (Thomas E. Cronin, “Machiavelli’s Prince,” Machiavelli’s Legacy, 2015)
Scheming characters can be found in abundance in George R. R. Martin’s book series A Song of Ice and Fire (and the subsequent HBO adaptation Game of Thrones [2011-2019]). As Elizabeth Beaton explains,
The brutal political world of George R. R. Martin’s Westeros, full of assassins, warring families, and shadowy, manipulative advisors, does not seem so far removed from the intrigue-riddled realm of Renaissance Italy. (“Female Machiavellians in Game of Thrones,” Women of Ice and Fire, 2016)
Edited by Anne Gjelsvik and Rikke Schubart
The brutal political world of George R. R. Martin’s Westeros, full of assassins, warring families, and shadowy, manipulative advisors, does not seem so far removed from the intrigue-riddled realm of Renaissance Italy. (“Female Machiavellians in Game of Thrones,” Women of Ice and Fire, 2016)
Beaton goes on to identify different types of female Machiavellians in the series, including military Machiavallians in the character Asha Greyjoy, court Machiavellians such as Cersei Lannister, and “Machiavellian princes” such as Daenerys Targaryan.
Concluding thoughts
Machiavellianism continues to interest psychologists and sociologists, as well as writers who have used these traits as blueprints for creating enduring and complex characters that audiences and readers love to hate. We can see this, for example, in the character Tom Ripley from Patricia Highsmith’s The Talented Mr. Ripley (1955) which has since been adapted into a film in 1999 and more recently, resurrected by Netflix in the series Ripley (2024). While such characters offer cautionary tales about the perils of overambition and lack of empathy, they pique the interest of audiences and readers who can live vicariously through these domineering, self-interested, and successful figures. We can see this in the trailer for Ripley shown below:
Another reason this fascination has endured is partly due to the continued relevance of the Machiavellian in modern-day life, particularly under cut-throat corporate capitalism and in the world of politics. The study and portrayal of Machiavellianism remain significant as it offers insight into individual differences in personality and broader social dynamics.
Further reading on Perlego
The Prince 2.0: Applying Machiavellian Strategy to Contemporary Political Life (2019) by Jean-François Caron
The Modern Prince: What Machiavelli Can Teach Us in the Age of Trump (2018) by Carnes Lord
Amoral Politics: The Persistent Truth of Machiavellism (2016) by Ben-Ami Scharfstein
What is Machiavellianism in simple terms?
Who was Machiavelli?
What are the main traits of Machiavellianism?
Bibliography
Beaton, E. (2016) “Female Machiavellians in Game of Thrones,” in Gjelsvik, A. and Schubart, R. (eds.) Women of Ice and Fire: Gender, Game of Thrones and Multiple Media Engagements. Bloomsbury Academic. Available at:
Bereczkei, T. (2017) Machiavellianism: The Psychology of Manipulation. Routledge. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1578926/machiavellianism-the-psychology-of-manipulation
Black, R. (2022) Machiavelli: From Radical to Reactionary. Reaktion Books. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3562075/machiavelli-from-radical-to-reactionary
Bower Bell, J. and Whaley, B. (2017) Cheating and Deception. Routledge. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1576817/cheating-and-deception
Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H., and Matthews, G. (eds.) (2014) Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs. Academic Press. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1835031/measures-of-personality-and-social-psychological-constructs
Braginsky, D. D. (1970) “Machiavellianism and manipulative interpersonal behavior in children.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6 (1).
Christie, R. and Geis, F. L. (2013) Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1898291/studies-in-machiavellianism
Cronin, T. E. (2015) “Machiavelli’s Prince,” in Fuller, T. (ed) Machiavelli’s Legacy: "The Prince" After Five Hundred Years. University of Pennsylvania Press. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/731920/machiavellis-legacy-the-prince-after-five-hundred-years
Deluga, R. J. (2001) “American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance,”The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3)
Haycock, D. A. (2019) Tyrannical Minds: Psychological Profiling, Narcissism, and Dictatorship. Pegasus Books. Available at:
Highsmith, P. (2024) The Talented Mr. Ripley. Penguin.
Jay, A. (2020) “Management and Machiavelli,” in Di Domenico, M. et al (eds.) Organizational Collaboration: Themes and Issues. Routledge. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1554987/organizational-collaboration-themes-and-issues
Kurtulmuş, B. E. (2018) The Dark Side of Leadership: An Institutional Perspective. Palgrave Pivot. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/3493730/the-dark-side-of-leadership-an-institutional-perspective
Lyons, M. (2019) The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy in Everyday Life. Academic Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1828573/the-dark-triad-of-personality-narcissism-machiavellianism-and-psychopathy-in-everyday-life
Machiavelli, N. (2010) The Prince. 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1851108/the-prince-second-edition
Machiavelli, N. (2009) Art of War. University of Chicago Press. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1851980/art-of-war
Machiavelli, N. (2009) Discourses on Livy. University of Chicago Press. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1851771/discourses-on-livy
McHoskey, J. W. (2001) “Machiavellianism and personality dysfunction.” Personality and Individual Differences, 31 (5).
Paulhus, D. and Williams, K. (2002) “The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy.” Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6)
Paulhus, D. and Jones, D. N. (2014) “Measures of Dark Personalities,” in Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H., and Matthews, G. (eds.) Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs. Academic Press. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1835031/measures-of-personality-and-social-psychological-constructs
Ramsay, M. (2000) “Are Machiavellian tactics still appropriate or defensible in politics?” in Harris, P., Lock, A., and Rees, P. (eds.) Machiavelli, Marketing and Management. Routledge. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1601286/machiavelli-marketing-and-management
Repacholi, B., Slaughter, V., Pritchard, M. and Gibbs, V. (2004) “Theory of Mind, Machiavellianism, and Social Functioning in Childhood,” in Repacholi, B. and Slaughter, V. (eds.) Individual Differences in Theory of Mind: Implications for Typical and Atypical Development. Psychology Press. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1697614/individual-differences-in-theory-of-mind-implications-for-typical-and-atypical-development
Šamánková, D., Preiss, M. and Příhodová, T. (2018) The Contextual Character of Moral Integrity: Transcultural Psychological Applications. Palgrave Macmillan. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/3493078/the-contextual-character-of-moral-integrity-transcultural-psychological-applications
Shakespeare, W. (2014) King Henry VI: Part III. The Arden Shakespeare. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/3289585/king-henry-vi-part-3-third-series
Shakespeare, W. (2016) Othello. The Arden Shakespeare. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/395434/othello-revised-edition
Stone, B. and Pashley, J. (2000) “From the dark to the light Ranges of the real skills of management,” in Harris, P., Lock, A., and Rees, P. (eds.) Machiavelli, Marketing and Management. Routledge. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1601286/machiavelli-marketing-and-management
Whitney, J. O. and Packer, T. (2002) Power Plays: Shakespeare's Lessons in Leadership and Management. Simon & Schuster. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/780796/power-plays-shakespeares-lessons-in-leadership-and-management
Filmography
Ripley (2024) Directed by Steven Zaillian. Netflix.
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) Directed by Anthony Minghella. Paramount.
Game of Thrones (2011-2019) Created by David Benioff and D. B. Weiss. HBO.
PhD, English Literature (Lancaster University)
Sophie Raine has a PhD from Lancaster University. Her work focuses on penny dreadfuls and urban spaces. Her previous publications have been featured in VPFA (2019; 2022) and the Palgrave Handbook for Steam Age Gothic (2021) and her co-edited collection Penny Dreadfuls and the Gothic was released in 2023 with University of Wales Press.