Machiavellian males with high emotional intelligence exhibit fewer depressive symptoms

Personality and Individual Differences 158 (2020) 109867

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Machiavellian males with high emotional intelligence exhibit fewer depressive symptoms

T

⁎

Renzo Bianchia, , Nathan Pattheya, Danijela Mirkovica, Bruno Lemaitreb, Katja Schlegelc a

Institute of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Neuchâtel, Émile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchâtel, NE, Switzerland Global Health Institute, School of Life Sciences, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, VD, Switzerland c Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, BE, Switzerland b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Confirmatory factor analysis Depression Dirty Dozen Emotional intelligence Health Machiavellianism Moderation analysis Personality

Research on the link between Machiavellianism and depression has yielded equivocal results. In this study, we examined the possible moderating role of ability emotional intelligence (a-EI) on the Machiavellianism-depression relationship. a-EI was approached as a factor influencing the effectiveness of Machiavellians' manipulative strategies. A total of 469 participants were recruited (34% male; mean age: 42.37). Machiavellian dispositions were assessed with the Machiavellianism subscale of the Dirty Dozen. a-EI was measured with the 10scenario version of the Geneva EMOtion Knowledge-Blends—a performance-based test. Depressive symptoms were evaluated with the PHQ-9, a scale covering both cognitive-affective and somatic aspects of depression. Correlational analyses revealed no raw association between Machiavellianism, a-EI, and depression. In men, a-EI was found to moderate the effect of Machiavellianism on depression in such a way that Machiavellianism was protective against depressive symptoms when coupled with high a-EI. Component-level analyses indicated that the observed interaction was essentially underpinned by somatic depression. Machiavellianism predicted somatic depression negatively in males with high a-EI and positively in males with low a-EI. No association was identified in females. This study suggests that Machiavellianism is not depressogenic in itself. Remarkably, Machiavellianism might have antidepressant virtues in men exhibiting high a-EI.

1. Introduction “For nothing can seem foul to those that win.” – William Shakespeare Developed in reference to Niccolò Machiavelli's 1513 political philosophy book, The Prince, the construct of Machiavellianism was introduced in personality psychology 50 years ago (Christie & Geis, 1970; Jones & Paulhus, 2009). Machiavellianism manifests itself in deliberate manipulation and calculated exploitation of others in the pursuit of one's goals (Dahling, Kuyumcu, & Librizzi, 2012; Jones & Paulhus, 2009). Machiavellian behaviors are thought to be underpinned by misanthropy, cynicism, and exacerbated pragmatism—the view that the end justifies the means (Bianchi & Mirkovic, 2020; Dahling et al., 2012; Jones & Paulhus, 2009). There is evidence that Machiavellianism can threaten others’ well-being to a considerable extent (Dahling et al., 2012). Males tend to exhibit higher levels of Machiavellianism than females (Jones & Paulhus, 2009). In addition, between-sex differences

have been documented in Machiavellianism's nomological network (e.g., with respect to emotion regulation; Czibor et al., 2017; Szabó & Jones, 2019). The sex-related differences reported in Machiavellianism research are consistent with the observation that, compared to females, males show a greater inclination toward socioeconomic dominance and status-striving (Browne, 2006). On these bases, examining men and women separately is warranted in Machiavellianism research (Mirkovic & Bianchi, 2019). Since the introduction of the Machiavellianism construct, gray areas have surrounded the relationship of Machiavellian dispositions with psychopathology in general and depression in particular (Christie & Geis, 1970; Jones & Paulhus, 2009; Thomaes, Brummelman, Miller, & Lilienfeld, 2017). Depression is primarily characterized by dysphoria and anhedonia, with somatic symptoms such as sleep disturbance and exhaustion constituting common presenting complaints in patients (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). From an etiological standpoint, depression has been related to a discrepancy between positive, rewarding experiences and negative, punitive experiences

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Bianchi), [email protected] (N. Patthey), [email protected] (D. Mirkovic), bruno.lemaitre@epfl.ch (B. Lemaitre), [email protected] (K. Schlegel). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109867 Received 18 November 2019; Received in revised form 23 January 2020; Accepted 25 January 2020 0191-8869/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Personality and Individual Differences 158 (2020) 109867

R. Bianchi, et al.

individuals exhibiting high a-EI. As recommended in past research, we analyzed male and female participants separately. The study was conducted online. There is evidence that Internet studies are as valid and reliable as “traditional” studies (Gosling & Mason, 2015).

(Bianchi, Schonfeld, & Verkuilen, 2020). Unresolvable stress (i.e., stress that cannot be successfully dealt with), which plays a key role in generating such an imbalance, is considered a basic depressogenic factor (Willner, Scheel-Krüger, & Belzung, 2013). Though nosologically characterized and diagnosable, depression is best viewed as a dimensional variable (Bianchi et al., 2020). To date, the issue of the Machiavellianism-depression link has been addressed in a largely atheoretical manner and remains empirically unresolved, with negative, positive, and null associations detectable in the research literature (see the review by Bianchi & Mirkovic, 2020, and the meta-analysis by Muris, Merckelbach, Otgaar, & Meijer, 2017). The methodological heterogeneity of past studies (e.g., in how Machiavellianism was approached) arguably played a role in the emergence of these conflicting findings. However, the reason for the inconclusiveness of the state of the art might be more profound. Based on Dahling et al. (2012)) view that Machiavellianism involves a motivation to manipulate, but not necessarily an ability to manipulate effectively, it has been suggested that factors conditioning manipulative skills may moderate the Machiavellianism-depression relationship (Bianchi & Mirkovic, 2020). More specifically, it has been envisaged that Machiavellianism may be: (a) pathogenic when coupled with low manipulative skills, because such a combination may impede goal achievement and result in punitive experiences and personal failure; (b) healthprotective when combined with high manipulative skills, because such a combination may promote goal achievement and result in rewarding experiences and personal success. Factors conditioning manipulative skills have received little attention in research on Machiavellianism and depression thus far. Among the characteristics fostering effective manipulation, ability emotional intelligence (EI) likely occupies an important place (Côté, DeCelles, McCarthy, Van Kleef, & Hideg, 2011; Kilduff, Chiaburu, & Menges, 2010; Schlegel, 2020).1 Broadly speaking, ability EI (a-EI) refers to a set of skills related to the processing of emotions in oneself and others (see Salovey & Mayer, 1990; see also Scherer, 2007). In a-EI research, such skills are assessed with (emotion-related) problem-solving tasks involving responses deemed to be correct or incorrect. A key aspect of a-EI is the ability to accurately identify and understand others’ emotions (Schlegel & Scherer, 2018). High skills in emotion-reading can be pivotal to effective manipulation by enabling manipulators to detect the needs and interests of their targets in daily life (e.g., Konrath, Corneille, Bushman, & Luminet, 2014). By implication, a-EI may promote manipulation effectiveness by increasing manipulators’ ability to find out what their targets value and dread most, ascertain targets’ strengths and weaknesses, or induce, for instance, feelings of guilt and indebtment—feelings rendering individuals more submissive (e.g., Jones & Paulhus, 2009). All in all, a-EI may thus help distinguish between effective and ineffective Machiavellians (Bianchi & Mirkovic, 2020; Schlegel, 2020). The present study expands on past investigations of the Machiavellianism-depression relationship by examining whether that relationship is moderated by a-EI. Based on the abovementioned reflections, we formulated two hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that Machiavellianism would be positively associated with depression in individuals exhibiting low a-EI. Second, we hypothesized that Machiavellianism would be negatively associated with depression in

2. Methods 2.1. Study sample and recruitment procedure Participant recruitment took place in Switzerland and France in 2019. To enroll our participants, we sent a cover e-mail containing a brief description of, and a weblink to, our online study to various organizations and professional associations of both the private and public sectors. The only eligibility criterion for taking part in the study was to be a native French speaker. A total of 480 participants initially responded (46% in Switzerland). Eleven Swiss respondents were excluded because they indicated not to be native French speakers, leading to a final sample of 469 participants (34% male; Mage = 42.37; SDage = 11.91; age range: 19–81). A variety of occupational groups were represented in the study sample. Nearly four-fifths of the female participants were employed as K-12 educational staff members, against approximately one-fifth of the male participants. Most men were employed in the financial-commercial (e.g., investment/asset managers, insurance brokers, accountants, real estate agents, sales representatives) and legal (e.g., notaries, lawyers) domains. Fourteen participants did not provide information about their profession, and 20 reported to be currently unemployed. Participation in the study was voluntary, anonymous, and without compensation. Individual consent to participate was required. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board of the University of Neuchâtel. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Machiavellianism Machiavellian dispositions were assessed with the Machiavellianism subscale of the Dirty Dozen (DD-M; composite reliability [ρc] = 0.81), a questionnaire designed to measure the Dark Triad of personality (Jonason & Webster, 2010). The DD-M consists of four items focusing on Machiavellianism's core, namely, manipulative behaviors (e.g., “I have used deceit or lied to get my way,” “I tend to exploit others towards my own end”). Participants responded using a 5-point rating scale, from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree. We reexamined the factorial structure of the DD-M using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). We treated the items as ordinal and relied on the weighted least squares—mean and variance adjusted—(WLSMV) estimator. A one-factor model in which the four items of the DD-M were allowed to load on a Machiavellianism factor showed an excellent fit: RMSEA = 0.034; CFI = 0.998; TLI = 0.995; SRMR = 0.018 (Supplementary Material 1). 2.2.2. Depression Depressive symptoms were evaluated with the PHQ-9 (Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001; ρc = 0.89). The PHQ-9 is made up of nine items referencing the diagnostic criteria for major depression of the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Importantly, the PHQ-9 allows the investigator not only to compute a global depression score but also to distinguish between cognitive-affective (anhedonia, depressed mood, guilt/worthlessness, thoughts of self-harm) and somatic (sleep disturbance, fatigue/loss of energy, appetite alteration, concentration impairment, psychomotor malfunction) manifestations of depression. Symptoms were assessed within a two-week time window, based on a 4point rating scale—from 0 for never or almost never to 3 for nearly every day.

1

Ability EI is to be distinguished from trait EI. As noted by Petrides, Pita, and Kokkinaki (2007), “[t]rait EI … concerns emotion-related dispositions and selfperceptions measured via self-report, whereas ability EI (or cognitive-emotional ability) concerns emotion-related cognitive abilities measured via performancebased tests. The conceptual differences between the two constructs are directly reflected in empirical findings, which reveal very low correlations between measures of trait and ability EI…” (p. 273). On a related note, recent metaanalytic results indicate that self-report cognitive empathy scores account for only approximately 1% of the variance in behavioral cognitive empathy assessments (Murphy & Lilienfeld, 2019). 2

Personality and Individual Differences 158 (2020) 109867

R. Bianchi, et al.

Table 1 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and zero-order correlations among the main study variables in the male (n = 161) and female (n = 308) samples.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Depression (0–3) Cognitive-affective depression (0–3) Somatic depression (0–3) Machiavellianism (1–5) Ability emotional intelligence (0–1) Job satisfaction (1–5) Life satisfaction (1–5) General health status (1–5) Age (in years)

M

SD

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

M

SD

0.57 0.47 0.65 2.11 0.71 3.95 4.02 4.25 43.60

0.47 0.53 0.51 0.83 0.19 1.07 1.03 0.74 12.69

― .89 .92 −0.02 −0.01 −0.41 −0.44 −0.50 −0.31

.88 ― .64 −0.08 .03 −0.46 −0.43 −0.39 −0.24

.93 .65 ― .04 −0.05 −0.29 −0.37 −0.51 −0.32

−0.01 −0.00 −0.01 ― −0.03 .04 .13 .10 −0.26

−0.01 .02 −0.03 −0.02 ― −0.01 .02 −0.09 −0.12

−0.40 −0.45 −0.29 .05 .01 ― .46 .22 .16

−0.44 −0.48 −0.35 .04 −0.02 .46 ― .45 .09

−0.39 −0.31 −0.40 .01 −0.01 .27 .39 ― .06

−0.16 −0.18 −0.12 −0.19 −0.09 .03 .01 −0.13 ―

0.71 0.56 0.84 1.87 0.76 3.60 3.79 3.94 41.73

0.50 0.54 0.56 0.73 0.14 1.06 0.91 0.77 11.45

Notes. Entries above the diagonal concern female participants; entries below the diagonal concern male participants. The analyses pertaining to job satisfaction involved only 150 of the 161 male participants and 299 of the 308 female participants because 11 men and 9 women reported to be unemployed. Nonsignificant correlations (p > .05) are italicized.

(“Overall, how satisfied are you with your life?”; from 1 for very dissatisfied to 5 for very satisfied), and general health status (“How would you rate your overall health?”; from 1 for very poor to 5 for very good). Single-item measures can perform well when the constructs of interest are unidimensional or global (Bianchi & Mirkovic, 2020), as is the case here.

The factorial structure of the PHQ-9 was reexamined using Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). One- and two-factor CFAs were conducted (Supplementary Material 2). In the one-factor CFA, we allowed all PHQ-9 items to load on a Depression factor. In the two-factor CFA, we allowed the four cognitive-affective items of the PHQ-9 to load on a Cognitive-Affective Depression factor and the five somatic items of the PHQ-9 to load on a Somatic Depression factor. As was the case with the DD-M, we treated the items as ordinal and employed the WLSMV method. The one-factor model fit the data satisfactorily: RMSEA = 0.067; CFI = 0.973; TLI = 0.964; SRMR = 0.051. The twofactor model fit the data even better: RMSEA = 0.047; CFI = 0.987; TLI = 0.982; SRMR = 0.043. The two factors correlated 0.86.

2.3. Data analyses We analyzed our dataset through correlational analysis, Welch's analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multiple regression analysis. These analyses were conducted with IBM SPSS Statistics v20 and PROCESS v3.4 (Hayes, 2018). We scrutinized the interaction of Machiavellianism with a-EI in predicting global depression, cognitive-affective depression, and somatic depression. The variables involved in our moderation analyses were standardized beforehand. We relied on the JohnsonNeyman technique for probing interactions (Hayes, 2018). The Johnson-Neyman technique allows the investigator to identify the region(s), in the moderator's score range, where the focal predictor has a significant effect on the outcome variable. Importantly, the JohnsonNeyman technique enables the investigator to avoid picking arbitrary values in the moderator when probing interactions (Hayes, 2018, pp. 253–254). We note that, when referring to “low,” “medium,” and “high” values/levels of the moderator in the next sections, we do so in reference to the Johnson-Neyman outputs.

2.2.3. a-EI a-EI was measured with the short version of the Geneva EMOtion Knowledge (GEMOK)-Blends (ρc = 0.66), a performance-based test designed to assess the ability to understand and label emotional experiences (Schlegel & Scherer, 2018). The short GEMOK-Blends consists of 10 scenarios describing emotional experiences of fictional individuals in given contexts. These emotional experiences are characterized in terms of cognitive appraisals, physiological responses, action tendencies, non-verbal expressions, and subjective feelings, in reference to the Component Process Model (CPM) of emotion (Fontaine, Scherer, & Soriano, 2013; Scherer, 2007). For each scenario, the respondent is presented with five pairs of emotions and asked to select the pair of emotions that best describes the emotional experiences of the target individual (for a sample scenario, see Supplementary Material 3). A correct response is coded 1 and any incorrect response is coded 0. Response correctness was established a priori by the test developers, based on the CPM as well as on extensive empirical research across multiple cultures (Fontaine et al., 2013; Scherer, 2007; Schlegel & Scherer, 2018). Because there are many cases of mixed emotions in real life, the use of scenarios involving emotion blends likely promotes the ecological validity of the measure employed (Schlegel & Scherer, 2018). Exploratory investigations of the latent structure of the test led us to conduct a second-order CFA with four first-order factors denoting variations in item valence and item difficulty and one overarching factor—a-EI. We treated the items as ordinal and relied on the WLSMV estimator (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). The model fit the data in an acceptable manner (RMSEA = 0.022; CFI = 0.948; TLI = 0.925; SRMR = 0.074), with all first-order factors loading substantially on the higher-order factor (from 0.45 to 0.86; M = 0.65). Detailed descriptive statistics are available in Supplementary Material 4.

3. Results Sex-specific zero-order correlations among the main study variables are displayed in Table 1. Machiavellianism did not correlate with either depressive symptoms or a-EI. The correlations of Machiavellianism with job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and general health status were low and nonsignificant as well. No correlation was observed between a-EI and depressive symptoms. Similar results were obtained in men and women. Zero-order correlations among the main study variables in the entire sample are available in Supplementary Material 5. Welch's ANOVA revealed that, compared to men, women exhibited higher a-EI scores (p = .001, d = 0.30), lower Machiavellianism scores (p = .002, d = 0.31), and higher depressive symptom scores (p = .003, d = 0.29). The interactions of Machiavellianism with a-EI in predicting depressive symptoms were examined within a multiple regression analytic framework. Job satisfaction and age were controlled for in view of their significant correlations with depressive symptoms in the study.2 Results of the moderation analyses conducted in men and women are presented

2.2.4. Additional measures Our participants completed a few sociodemographic items (e.g., sex, age, occupation, mother tongue) as well as three single-item measures pertaining to job satisfaction (“Overall, how satisfied are you with your job?”; from 1 for very dissatisfied to 5 for very satisfied), life satisfaction

2 Life satisfaction and general health status were not given an independent variable status in our moderation model due to nesting relationships with depression—general health status includes depression and low life satisfaction is a basic aspect of depression.

3

Personality and Individual Differences 158 (2020) 109867

R. Bianchi, et al.

Table 2 Moderation analysis―interaction between Machiavellianism and ability emotional intelligence in the prediction of depressive symptoms among men and women. Depression β t Men (n = 150) Step 1 Job satisfaction Age Step 2 Job satisfaction Age MACH a-EI Step 3 Job satisfaction Age MACH a-EI MACH*a-EI Adjusted R² Women (n = 299) Step 1 Job satisfaction Age Step 2 Job satisfaction Age MACH a-EI Step 3 Job satisfaction Age MACH a-EI MACH*a-EI Adjusted R²

p

−0.37 −0.26

−5.00 −3.47

.000 .001

−0.36 −0.28 −0.08 −0.05

−4.89 −3.65 −0.99 −0.68

.000 .000 .322 .500

−0.37 −0.29 −0.10 −0.04 −0.16 .24

−5.01 −3.82 −1.34 −0.54 −2.24

.000 .000 .181 .588 .026

−0.39 −0.13

−7.44 −2.39

.000 .017

−0.39 −0.13 −0.01 −0.01

−7.40 −2.37 −0.13 −0.17

.000 .018 .896 .862

−0.39 −0.13 −0.00 −0.01 −0.05 .16

−7.42 −2.41 −0.03 −0.16 −0.99

.000 .017 .974 .875 .322

R² (c)

F (c)

.23***

21.86

.01ns

.03*

.17***

.00ns

.00ns

Cognitive-affective depression β t p R² (c) .24*** −0.43 −0.17

−5.95 −2.28

.000 .024

−0.42 −0.20 −0.14 0.02

−5.81 −2.68 −1.88 0.20

.000 .008 .063 .840

−0.43 −0.21 −0.16 0.02 −0.11 .24

−5.87 −2.78 −2.09 0.30 −1.48

.000 .006 .038 .768 .141

−0.44 −0.14

−8.65 −2.82

.000 .005

−0.44 −0.14 −0.01 0.02

−8.61 −2.73 −0.09 0.42

.000 .007 .930 .677

−0.45 −0.15 0.00 0.02 −0.05 .21

−8.64 −2.77 0.01 0.43 −1.00

.000 .006 .991 .665 .317

0.71

.02ns

5.03

.01ns

31.10

.22***

0.02

.00ns

0.98

.00ns

F (c)

Somatic depression β t p

23.09 −0.25 −0.29

−3.25 −3.74

.001 .000

−0.25 −0.30 −0.01 −0.09

−3.22 −3.72 −0.10 −1.25

.002 .000 .919 .214

−0.25 −0.31 −0.04 −0.08 −0.18 .18

−3.33 −3.92 −0.48 −1.11 −2.42

.001 .000 .632 .268 .017

−0.29 −0.09

−5.20 −1.65

.000 .101

−0.29 −0.10 −0.01 −0.03

−5.16 −1.68 −0.14 −0.58

.000 .094 .890 .566

−0.29 −0.10 −0.00 −0.03 −0.05 .08

−5.18 −1.71 −0.06 −0.56 −0.81

.000 .088 .953 .575 .421

1.79

R² (c)

F (c)

.17***

14.61 1.03 1.03

.01ns

2.19

15.15 1.00 1.00

.00ns

1.00

5.84 1.03 1.12 1.11 1.01 1.03

.09***

0.09

0.78 1.03 1.12 1.08 1.01

.03*

42.17

VIF

0.17 1.00 1.05 1.04 1.01

.00ns

0.65 1.01 1.05 1.05 1.01 1.01

Notes. All scores were z-transformed. The analysis involved only 150 of the 161 male participants and 299 of the 308 female participants because 11 men and 9 women reported to be unemployed and, therefore, had no job satisfaction score. MACH: Machiavellianism; a-EI: ability emotional intelligence; R² (c): change in R²; F (c): change in F; VIF: variance inflation factor. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001. ns : nonsignificant.

4. Discussion

in Table 2—for the hierarchical regression analyses—and Supplementary Material 6—for the Johnson-Neyman outputs. In men, a-EI moderated the relationship between Machiavellianism and global depression, p = .026, with Machiavellianism having a negative effect on global depression at “high” values of the moderator (cut-point: 0.78). The interaction explained 3% of the variance in global depression. Regarding the cognitive-affective aspects of depression, a significant main effect of Machiavellianism was detected, p = .038, with Machiavellianism predicting cognitive-affective depression negatively. This effect, however, did not enhance the predictive value of the model—the change in R² was nonsignificant. Regarding the somatic aspects of depression, a significant interaction between Machiavellianism and a-EI was found, p = .017, in the absence of a main effect of either Machiavellianism or a-EI. Machiavellianism showed a significant negative effect on somatic depression at “high” values of the moderator (cut-point: 0.92), no effect on somatic depression at “medium” values of the moderator, and a significant positive effect on somatic depression at “low” values of the moderator (cutpoint: 0.38; Fig. 1). The interaction explained 3% of the variance in the outcome variable. Male-related moderation analyses are further illustrated in Fig. 2. In women, no main or interaction effect involving Machiavellianism and a-EI was observed (Table 2). While the patterns of results linked to men and women clearly differed, Machiavellianism*a-EI*sex interactions were nonsignificant. Results of the moderation analyses conducted in the entire sample are available in Supplementary Material 7.

We examined whether a-EI moderates the relationship between Machiavellianism and depression. We hypothesized that Machiavellianism would be: (a) positively associated with depressive symptoms in individuals with low manipulative skills; and (b) negatively associated with depressive symptoms in individuals with high manipulative skills. Manipulative skills were indexed by a-EI because the ability to accurately identify and understand others’ emotions—a key aspect of a-EI—is likely to help manipulate people effectively. In men, our hypotheses were partly supported regarding global depression—Machiavellianism turned out to be health-protective when combined with “high” a-EI—and fully supported as far as the somatic component of depression was concerned: We found that Machiavellianism predicted somatic depression negatively in individuals with “high” a-EI, had no effect on somatic depression in individuals with “medium” a-EI, and predicted somatic depression positively in individuals with “low” a-EI. The interaction terms showed a clear incremental value. The link established between Machiavellianism, a-EI, and somatic depression is of particular interest because depressed men more readily express somatic complaints (e.g., sleep disturbance and exhaustion) than affective complaints (e.g., sadness, guilt) when consulting with clinicians (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Rochlen, Whilde, & Hoyer, 2005). Our findings are consistent with the view that the link between Machiavellianism and depression is contingent upon Machiavellians’ manipulative skills (Bianchi & Mirkovic, 2020). 4

Personality and Individual Differences 158 (2020) 109867

R. Bianchi, et al.

Fig. 1. Significance of the effect of Machiavellianism on somatic depression conditioned by ability emotional intelligence―male sample (n = 150). Job satisfaction and age were controlled for.

professional outcomes and, ultimately, on (ill-)health. Studies of women employed in occupations involving high competition and substantial risk-taking are needed to clarify this point. Interestingly, we found no raw association between Machiavellianism, a-EI, and depression, neither in men nor in women. Our finding that Machiavellianism did not correlate with depression dovetails with only some past findings (see Bianchi & Mirkovic, 2020, and Muris et al., 2017), which is unsurprising in light of past findings’ heterogeneity. The null correlation observed between Machiavellianism and a-EI is consistent with the view that a-EI is not in itself at the service of “good” rather than “evil” (or vice versa) and can be used for attaining prosocial as well as antisocial goals (Côté et al., 2011; Kilduff et al., 2010; Schlegel, 2020). Finally, our finding that a-EI did not correlate with depression is in line with results from studies of nonclinical samples having employed performance-based measures of EI. For instance, in the study by Goldenberg, Matheson, and Mantler (2006), the associations between depression and the perception and understanding of emotions were small and nonsignificant. This being underscored, EI—especially trait EI—has generally been associated positively with health indicators (Martins, Ramalho, & Morin, 2010). Our study has at least four limitations. First, we used only one measure of Machiavellianism, the DD-M. While the DD-M advantageously focuses on manipulative behaviors—Machiavellianism's

While the association of Machiavellianism with depression was largely “masked” by a-EI in men, no association whatsoever was identified in women. This marked asymmetry is intriguing. All other things held constant, it is unclear why one should expect effective Machiavellianism to be less beneficial to women than to men, or ineffective Machiavellianism to be less harmful to women than to men. The asymmetry might then be related to the fact that our male and female subsamples differed from one another in many respects—not just in terms of sex. For instance, women exhibited: (a) lower and more homogeneous Machiavellianism scores than men; and (b) higher and more homogenous a-EI scores than men. In light of the overall score distributions, floor and ceiling effects at the level of women's Machiavellianism and a-EI cannot be excluded. Complementarily, the null associations observed among women might be linked to occupational specificities. In our sample, indeed, most men were employed in the financial-commercial and legal domains whereas most women were employed as K-12 educational staff members. Because K-12 education tends to involve waymarked career paths, relatively high job security, little room for strategic risk-taking, and relatively low within- and between-organizational competition, there might not be so much to gain in being an effective Machiavellian or so much to lose in being an ineffective Machiavellian in this occupational area. Machiavellianism might not bear so much on 5

Personality and Individual Differences 158 (2020) 109867

R. Bianchi, et al.

core, other measures of Machiavellian dispositions are available and may be worth examining. Second, we inferred manipulative skills on the sole basis of our participants’ ability to identify and understand others’ emotional experiences. Although such an ability can be viewed as an important requirement for potent manipulation, other factors undoubtedly contribute to distinguishing between effective and ineffective Machiavellians. Intelligence quotient or other facets of aEI—such as those reflected in so-called charisma—may, for instance, be worthy of examination. Third, we relied on convenience sampling. Fourth, the role of sex was difficult to disentangle from that of occupational status in our study. This issue should be clarified in order to better identify the boundaries within which our results can be generalized. The present study provides no evidence that Machiavellianism is in itself depressogenic. Remarkably, when combined with high a-EI, Machiavellianism might have antidepressant virtues in men. Our work invites investigators to further examine the role of manipulative skills in research on Machiavellianism and depression. Supplementary materials Supplementary materials associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109867. References Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.5. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. Bianchi, R., & Mirkovic, D. (2020). Is Machiavellianism associated with depression? A cluster-analytic study. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 109594. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109594. Bianchi, R., Schonfeld, I. S., & Verkuilen, J. (2020). A five-sample confirmatory factor analytic study of burnout-depression overlap. Journal of Clinical Psychology. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22927 Advance online publication. Browne, K. R. (2006). Evolved sex differences and occupational segregation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.349. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press. Côté, S., DeCelles, K. A., McCarthy, J. M., Van Kleef, G. A., & Hideg, I. (2011). The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: Emotion-regulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior. Psychological Science, 22(8), 1073–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611416251. Czibor, A., Szabo, Z. P., Jones, D. N., Zsido, A. N., Paal, T., Szijjarto, L., et al. (2017). Male and female face of Machiavellianism: Opportunism or anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.002. Dahling, J. J., Kuyumcu, D., & Librizzi, E. H. (2012). Machiavellianism, unethical behavior, and well-being in organizational life. In R. A. Giacalone, & M. D. Promislo (Eds.). Handbook of unethical work behavior: Implications for individual well-being (pp. 183–194). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Fontaine, J. J. R., Scherer, K. R., & Soriano, C. (2013). Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook.New. York, NY: Oxford University Press. Goldenberg, I., Matheson, K., & Mantler, J. (2006). The assessment of emotional intelligence: A comparison of performance-based and self-report methodologies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327752jpa8601_05. Gosling, S. D., & Mason, W. (2015). Internet research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 877–902. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814015321. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kilduff, M., Chiaburu, D. S., & Menges, J. I. (2010). Strategic use of emotional intelligence in organizational settings: Exploring the dark side. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.10.002. Konrath, S., Corneille, O., Bushman, B. J., & Luminet, O. (2014). The relationship between narcissistic exploitativeness, dispositional empathy, and emotion recognition abilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(1), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919-013-0164-y. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x. Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual

Fig. 2. Two-way interactions between Machiavellianism (MACH) and ability emotional intelligence (a-EI) in the prediction of depressive symptoms―male sample (n = 150). Job satisfaction and age were controlled for. All scores were z-transformed.

6

Personality and Individual Differences 158 (2020) 109867

R. Bianchi, et al.

Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/dugg-p24e-52wk-6cdg. Scherer, K. R. (2007). Component models of emotion can inform the quest for emotional competence. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.). The science of emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (pp. 101–126). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Schlegel, K. (2020). Inter- and intrapersonal downsides of accurately perceiving others’ emotions. In R. J. Sternberg, & A. Kostić (Eds.). Social intelligence: The adaptive advantages of nonverbal communication (pp. 359–395). Basingstoke, UK: PalgraveMacmillan. Schlegel, K., & Scherer, K. R. (2018). The nomological network of emotion knowledge and emotion understanding in adults: Evidence from two new performance-based tests. Cognition and Emotion, 32(8), 1514–1530. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017. 1414687. Szabó, E., & Jones, D. N. (2019). Gender differences moderate Machiavellianism and impulsivity: Implications for Dark Triad research. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.008. Thomaes, S., Brummelman, E., Miller, J. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). The dark personality and psychopathology: Toward a brighter future. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(7), 835–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000305. Willner, P., Scheel-Krüger, J., & Belzung, C. (2013). The neurobiology of depression and antidepressant action. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(10), 2331–2371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.007.

Differences, 49(6), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029. Mirkovic, D., & Bianchi, R. (2019). An exploratory study of the link between Machiavellianism and burnout. Personality and Individual Differences, 148, 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.024. Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070. Murphy, B. A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2019). Are self-report cognitive empathy ratings valid proxies for cognitive empathy ability? Negligible meta-analytic relations with behavioral task performance. Psychological Assessment, 31(8), 1062–1072. https://doi. org/10.1037/pas0000732. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X120618. Rochlen, A. B., Whilde, M. R., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). The real men. Real depression campaign: Overview, theoretical implications, and research considerations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(3), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220. 6.3.186. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and

7