Machiavellianism and sexual behavior: Motivations, deception and infidelity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.028Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Machiavellianism predicts greater sexual motivation.

  • Physical reasons, goal attainment and insecurity are important motivations.

  • Machiavellian men and women engage in greater sexual deception.

  • Machiavellianism predicts greater intention to engage in infidelity.

  • Sex does not moderate relationships between Machiavellianism and sexual behavior.

Abstract

The current study investigated the influence of Machiavellianism, a personality trait characterized by a manipulative interpersonal style and willingness to exploit others (Christie & Geis, 1970), on three areas of sexual behavior. Men (N = 90) and women (N = 192) aged 18–81 years (M = 25.82, SD = 9.85) completed the Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), YSEX Questionnaire (Meston & Buss, 2007), Sexual Deception Scale (Marelich, Lundquist, Painter, & Mechanic, 2008) and Intentions Towards Infidelity Scale (Jones, Olderbak, & Figueredo, 2011). Those with high levels of Machiavellianism were more likely to engage in sexual behavior for physical reasons, goal attainment and insecurity. In particular, Machiavellian men and women endorsed stress reduction, experience seeking, resources, social status, revenge, utilitarian reasons, boosting self-esteem, duty/pressure, and mate guarding as motivations for sexual behavior. Machiavellianism was also a significant predictor of each form of sexual deception investigated (blatant lying, self-serving and avoiding confrontation) and intentions to engage in infidelity. Sex did not moderate the influence of Machiavellianism on sexual behavior.

Introduction

Machiavellianism is a personality trait associated with cynicism, distrust and a willingness to exploit others (Christie and Geis, 1970, Vecchio and Sussman, 1991). Previous research demonstrates that Machiavellianism is associated with a greater number of sexual partners (McHoskey, 2001) and the use of strategies intended to avoid or reduce relationship commitment (Jonason & Buss, 2012). Thus, it is often argued that the Machiavellian interpersonal style facilitates a short-term mating strategy and thus confers an evolutionary advantage (Buss, 2009, Jonason et al., 2012). However, Machiavellianism influences a range of relationship types, suggesting that Machiavellian men and women are flexible and opportunistic (Fehr et al., 1992, Furnham et al., 2013), and decisions to engage in short or long-term relationships are dependent on the specific rewards available. The current study extends our understanding of Machiavellianism in the context of sexual behavior, and investigates the relationships between Machiavellianism, motivations for sexual activity, sexual deception and infidelity.

Personality influences many aspects of sexual activity (e.g., Fink, Brewer, & Neave, 2007), including motivation to engage in sexual behavior. Whilst previous research has established a relationship between Machiavellianism and sexual activity (e.g., Baughman et al., 2014, Goncalves and Campbell, 2014, Veselka et al., 2014), specific motivations for sexual behavior have not been considered. According to Meston and Buss (2007), there are a range of reasons (categorized as physical reasons, goal attainment, emotional reasons and insecurity) for engaging in sexual behavior. Physical reasons include stress reduction, pleasure, physical desirability, and experience seeking. Goal attainment includes resources, social status, revenge and utilitarian reasons. Emotional motivations include love and commitment and expression and insecurity includes boosting self-esteem, duty/pressure and mate guarding. The exploitative, opportunistic nature of Machiavellianism (Christie and Geis, 1970, Jones and Paulhus, 2009) in which other people are viewed as a ‘means to an end’, suggests that men and women with high levels of Machiavellianism may be most motivated by individual reward. Specifically, we predict that Machiavellianism will be positively related to engaging in sexual behavior in order to achieve a particular goal such as the acquisition of social status or to guard a mate, but not related to those motivations (e.g., love and commitment) reflecting emotional closeness and intimacy.

Sexual deception is widespread and a substantial number of men and women routinely withhold or amend information relating to their sexual history. For example, Lucchetti (1999) demonstrates that over 25% of individuals lower their actual number of previous sexual partners before disclosing to a current mate. Individuals are also often dishonest in relation to the identity of previous sexual partners and previous incidence of infidelity (Williams, 2001). Previous research documents the manner in which personality influences the use (Riggio et al., 1988, Seto et al., 1997) and detection of deception (Lyons, Healy, & Bruno, 2013). Furthermore, the ability to deceive is an important aspect of the Machiavellian interpersonal style (Christie & Geis, 1970). In particular, individuals with high levels of Machiavellianism create more plausible lies and demonstrate confidence in their ability to deceive (Giammarco, Atkinson, Baughman, Veselka, & Vernon, 2013) which maintains the appearance of truthfulness (Exline, Thibaut, Hickey, & Gumpert, 1970). Machiavellian men and women also control the type and depth of personal information they reveal to others (within platonic relationships) (Abell and Brewer, 2014, Brewer et al., 2014) which facilitates manipulation and may hinder the detection of blatant lies by deceived relationship partners. Those with high levels of Machiavellianism also appear willing to deceive romantic/sexual partners. For example, men and women with high levels of Machiavellianism are more likely to employ deceptive mating strategies, though for women this relationship is moderated by previous sexual history (Dussault, Hojjat, & Boone, 2013). Therefore, the present study investigates the influence of Machiavellianism on sexual deception. We predict the greater use of each sexual deception type by those with higher levels of Machiavellianism.

Though infidelity (Saxe, 1991) threatens the stability of a romantic relationship (Betzig, 1989), approximately 20% of men and women report that they have engaged in a sexual affair during their current relationship (Mark, Janssen, & Milhausen, 2011). Furthermore, those that are unfaithful to a current partner are also likely to have been unfaithful in prior relationships (Adamopoulou, 2013). A range of personality traits including psychoticism (Buss & Shackleford, 1997) and sensation seeking (Lalasz & Weigel, 2011) are associated with extra-dyadic behaviors. In particular, those with high levels of Machiavellianism are more likely to ‘poach’ another person’s partner or themselves be poached from a current relationship (Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010). It is unclear however whether the relationship between Machiavellianism and infidelity reflects a lower commitment to the primary partner (i.e., willingness to remain faithful) or other factors such as increased attractiveness and subsequent greater opportunities for infidelity. Hence, the present study considers intended infidelity. We predict that Machiavellian men and women will be more willing to engage in infidelity than those with low levels of the trait.

In the present study, men and women were invited to complete a series of online questionnaires measuring Machiavellianism, motivations to engage in sexual behavior, sexual deception and willingness to engage in infidelity. We predict that Machiavellian men and women will report a greater motivation to engage in sexual behavior in order to achieve a particular goal such as the acquisition of resources or social status. Men and women with higher levels of Machiavellianism are also predicted to use greater sexual deception and report a higher intention to engage in infidelity. Based on previous research reporting sex differences in Machiavellianism (McHoskey, 2001), sexual motivation (e.g., Meston & Buss, 2007), deception (Keenan et al., 1997, Rowatt et al., 1998), infidelity (e.g., Wiederman, 1997), and the extent to which Machiavellianism influences behavior (Brewer et al., 2014), the moderating role of gender is also considered.

Section snippets

Participants

Men (N = 90) and women (N = 192) aged 18–81 years (M = 25.82, SD = 9.85) were recruited through research websites (e.g., onlinepsychresearch.co.uk) and social networking sites. The majority of participants were in a serious relationship (52.50%) at the time of the study, followed by those who were single (35.80%) and in a casual relationship (11.70%). For those in a relationship, length of relationship ranged from 1 month to 40 years (M = 4.12 months, SD = 5.77 months).

Materials and procedure

Participants completed a series of online

Results

Participants completed standardized measures assessing motivations for engaging in sexual behavior, sexual deception and intention to engage in infidelity. Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables are presented in Table 1. A series of multiple regressions were conducted to investigate the extent to which Machiavellianism predicted sexual behavior. The influence of sex was also investigated, both as an individual predictor of sexual behavior and as a moderator of the

Discussion

The current study demonstrates that men and women with high levels of Machiavellianism were more likely to engage in sexual behavior for physical reasons, goal attainment and insecurity. In particular, Machiavellian men and women endorsed stress reduction, experience seeking, resources, social status, revenge, utilitarian reasons, boosting self-esteem, duty/pressure, and mate guarding as motivations for sexual behavior. Together, these findings suggest that Machiavellianism influences

References (56)

  • L. Grovle et al.

    Poor agreement found between self-report and a public registry on duration of sickness absence

    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

    (2012)
  • R.R. Holden et al.

    When does random responding distort self-report personality assessment? An example with the NEO PI-R

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2012)
  • P.K. Jonason et al.

    Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2012)
  • P.K. Jonason et al.

    The costs and benefits of the Dark Triad: Implications for mate poaching and mate retention tactics

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2010)
  • C.B. Lalasz et al.

    Understanding the relationship between gender and extradyadic relations: The mediating role of sensation seeking on intentions to engage in sexual infidelity

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2011)
  • M. Lyons et al.

    It takes one to know one: Relationship between lie detection and psychopathy

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2013)
  • J. McHoskey

    Machiavellianism and sexuality: On the moderating role of biological sex

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2001)
  • B.A. Mcleod et al.

    Predicting the acceptability and likelihood of lying: The Interaction of personality with type of lie

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2008)
  • D.L. Paulhus et al.

    The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (2002)
  • H. Riemer et al.

    Impression management in survey responding: Easier for collectivists or individualists?

    Journal of Consumer Psychology

    (2011)
  • R.E. Riggio et al.

    Personality and deception ability

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (1988)
  • G. Rodriguez-Arauz et al.

    Sexual behavior in Costa Rica and the United States

    International Journal of Intercultural Relations

    (2013)
  • M.C. Seto et al.

    Deception and sexual strategy in psychopathy

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (1997)
  • T.K. Shackelford et al.

    Universal dimensions of human mate preferences

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2005)
  • L. Veselka et al.

    The Dark Triad and the seven deadly sins

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2014)
  • L.S. Aiken et al.

    Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions

    (1991)
  • L. Betzig

    Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study

    Current Anthropology

    (1989)
  • G. Brewer et al.

    Machiavellianism, competition and self-disclosure in friendship

    Individual Differences Research

    (2014)
  • Cited by (50)

    • Catching the catfish: Exploring gender and the Dark Tetrad of personality as predictors of catfishing perpetration

      2023, Computers in Human Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      These individuals have been shown to use deception in both personal and professional relationships (Durand, 2016; Dussault et al., 2013; Forsyth et al., 2021). They engage in sexual deception and blatant lying for their own exploitative self-serving purposes or to avoid confrontation (Brewer & Abell, 2015), and are likely to lie about personal attributes and accomplishments to attract a romantic interest (Dussault et al., 2013). Those with high Machiavellianism engage in covert forms of deception, such as spreading rumours, with the goal of improving their own social status or harming the status of others (Azizli et al., 2016).

    • Dominance or deceit: The role of the Dark Triad and hegemonic masculinity in emotional manipulation

      2020, Personality and Individual Differences
      Citation Excerpt :

      Trait Machiavellianism is associated with increased amorality (Sheikhi, Issazadegan, Norozy, & Saboory, 2017). Machiavellianism is also related to manipulative relationship behaviours, such as sexual deception and infidelity (Brewer & Abell, 2015). Abell, Brewer, Qualter, and Austin (2016) explored Machiavellianism as a predictor of emotional manipulation within women's same-sex friendships and found that the trait was a significant, positive predictor of the implementation of emotional manipulation strategies.

    • Dark Triad traits and perceived quality of alternative partners

      2020, Personality and Individual Differences
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text