European Journal of Personality, Eur. J. Pers.

(2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.859

Machiavellianism and Spontaneous Mentalization: One Step Ahead of Others

ZSOFIA ESPERGER and TAMAS BERECZKEI*

Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary

Abstract: In spite of the Machiavellians’ successful strategies in exploitation of others, they show cognitive deficien-
cies, especially reduced mind-reading skill. Theory of mind is usually regarded as an ability to make inferences about
the mental states of others and thus to predict their behaviour. In our study, we have instead emphasized a motivation-
based approach, using the concept of spontaneous mentalization. This concept is construed solely in a motivational
context and not in relation to the automaticity of mind-reading ability. It entails that people in their social relations
make efforts to explore the thoughts and intentions of others and are motivated to make hypotheses about the mental
state of the other person. We assumed that what is peculiar to Machiavellianism is spontaneous mentalization as a
kind of motivation rather than mind-reading as an ability. To measure spontaneous mentalization, we created a set
of image stimuli and asked our participants to describe their impressions of the pictures. The results show that
individual differences in spontaneous mentalization correlate positively with the scores of Machiavellianism. These
results suggest that those who have a stronger motivation for putting themselves into the mind of others can be more
successful in misleading and exploiting them. Further research should be carried out to clarify how spontaneous
mentalization and mind-reading ability relate to each other. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: manipulation; theory of mind; social cognition

INTRODUCTION et al., 2003; Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). First, it is inter-
preted as an expressly manipulative behaviour whereby
Machiavellianism people give nearly absolute priority to their own interests,
and the damage or benefit to others hardly matters. Second,
Davies and Stone (2003) argue that the advanced capacity of
it comprises a world view governed by the principle of ‘the
mind-reading as a ‘neutral cognitive device’ brings advan-
end justifies the means’. Third, it involves a cynical and
tages in two important areas of interpersonal relations. First,
suspicious attitude toward others with the conviction that if
it makes it easier to develop the exchange of perspective
you do not exploit others, they will abuse you. All these fea-
between two individuals that is necessary for successful
tures are strongly related to the ability of Machiavellians to
cooperation. Second, a well-developed ability to attribute
stay away from the emotional influences of situations and
mental states to others enhances competitive skills because it
events (a type of cold-bloodedness), and as a result, it is more
enables individuals to gain advantageous positions or, in
difficult to influence them emotionally (Paal & Bereczkei,
certain cases, to manipulate others.
2007).
Machiavellianism, which involves manipulation and deceit,
is regarded as a behavioural strategy that people employ to use
others as a tool for achieving their own goals (Wilson, Near, & Machiavellianism and theory of mind
Miller, 1996). Psychological research has revealed that
Machiavellian thinking and behaviour play important roles Several authors assumed that the manipulative behaviour
in our social relations (Bereczkei, Birkas, & Kerekes, 2010, characteristic of Machiavellianism cannot work efficiently
McIllwain, 2003; Repacholi et al., 2003), and various without the refined use of the theory of mind (McIllwain,
experimental tools — called Mach tests — were designed 2003; Paal & Bereczkei, 2007). Good mind-readers — that
to measure this type of behaviour (Christie & Geis, 1970). is, people who can easily project themselves into the
Current psychological research clearly shows that Machi- thoughts of others and understand their intentions, beliefs
avellianism is a complex pattern of behaviour that can be and knowledge — can use this ability more efficiently for
characterized by several essential personality, cognitive and achieving their goals than people with weaker mind-reading
social features. The Machiavellian personality can be ana- capacity. Hence, humans with outstanding mentalizing skills
lyzed essentially in three different aspects (Gunnthorsdottir, are always one step ahead of others and can mislead them
McCabe, & Smith, 2002; McIllwain, 2003; Repacholi more easily than those with poor mind-reading ability.
Therefore, the authors predicted that people who can be char-
acterized as Machiavellian — those with high scores on the
*Correspondence to: Tamas Bereczkei, Institute of Psychology, University
of Pécs, Ifjúság u. 6, Pécs H-7624, Hungary. Mach IV test — make fewer mistakes in theory of mind tests
E-mail: bereczkei.tamas@pte.hu than those who are characterized as less Machiavellian.

Received 21 September 2011

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 9 November 2011, Accepted 9 November 2011
Z. Esperger and T. Bereczkei

However, surprisingly, this prediction has not been con- of mind-reading ability on success in cooperation and
firmed. The first study did not find a significant relationship personality traits linked to prosocial behaviour (Ali &
between Machiavellianism (measured on the Mach IV scale) Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010; Nettle & Liddle, 2008; Stiller &
and adult mind-reading ability in social relations (measured Dunbar, 2007).
by a comprehension task consisting of 14 stories and 53
questions; Paal & Bereczkei, 2007). Further studies found that
Theory of mind as a motivation
Machiavellianism was negatively correlated with mind-reading
test scores based on the ‘Imposing Memory Task’ (IMT) and The aforementioned studies tend to regard theory of mind as
the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test (Ali & Chamorro- a cognitive ability that is used to predict others’ mental con-
Premuzic, 2010; Lyons, Caldwell, & Shultz, 2010). The tents and to measure how precisely one can infer the internal
authors concluded that high Machs are performing poorly states of other persons. In many cases, mind-reading can
on both cognitive and affective tasks of mind-reading. indeed assist adaptation to the social environment so we
Several studies on clinical samples also confirm the can make better predictions about the internal world of others
Machiavellians’ deficits in social cognition. Some of these as precisely as possible. Our mind-reading ability provides
studies have revealed that scores on Mach IV correlated invaluable help for performing social interactions in a
strongly with both primary and secondary psychopaths (Ali smooth and effective way (Paal & Bereczkei, 2007).
et al., 2009; Jacobwitz & Egan, 2006). Psychopathic patients, However, the question arises of whether the only thing that
especially secondary psychopaths, have been shown to really matters in our everyday life is how precisely we can
exhibit a mentalization deficit in connection with recognizing predict the thoughts, desires and knowledge of other people.
emotions and handling intentional problems (Dolan & Several authors suggest that the ability to attribute mental
Fullam, 2004; Hare, 1993). states and its precision is not the only criterion that
In spite of these cognitive failures, Machiavellian people should be taken into account for understanding mind-reading.
appear to be successful in the exploitation of others. Indivi- Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, and Moll (2005) worked
duals high on Mach scale (‘high Machs’) were found to gain out the notion of ‘collective intentionality’ that includes, in
higher profit in experimental games, take advantage of addition to ability, a special kind of motivation that urges us
misleading cooperation and efficiently deceive others to be to share our subjective experience with others. Children reach
able to acquire money, recognition and status (Bereczkei, the level of collective intentionality at an average age of
Birkas, & Kerekes, 2010; Gunnthorsdottir, McCabe & 14 months, which enables them to participate in social
Smith, 2002; Sakalaki, Richardson, & Thepaut, 2007; relations and collective thinking (Tomasello et al., 2005).
Spitzer et al., 2006; Williams, Nathanson, & Paulhus, 2010). The motivation inherent in collective intentionality can be
bidirectional: first of all, it urges us to share our psychological
states with others. At the same time, it encourages us to focus
Theory of mind as an ability
on the psychological states of others. In the present study, we
The controversy between the Machiavellians’ successful put the emphasis on the latter.
manipulation and their deficit in mind-reading may lie in In the present study, we use the notion of spontaneous
our limited comprehension of theory of mind. Theory of mentalization for the willingness to explore the mental states
mind is regarded as an ability that determines how precisely of others. The ability-level aspects of the theory of mind will
we can see the mental states of others. This ability might be differentiated from the motivational aspect that works by
have provided our ancestors with an obvious advantage in urging us to make hypotheses in our everyday lives about
interpersonal relations when they had to understand and others’ minds. We hypothesize that there are differences
predict the expected behaviour of others and enabled them among individuals not only at the level of abilities but also
to adjust to the constantly changing challenges posed by in terms of spontaneous mentalization focus: some people
the groups in which they lived (Brüne & Brüne-Cohrs, are more, others are less motivated to assess the thoughts
2006; Mithen, 1996). and intentions of others in a spontaneous way. It is important
There is plenty of research on pathological manifestations to note that we use ‘spontaneity’ to refer to the hypothesized
that are related to the dysfunctions of the theory of mind intrinsically motivated nature of mind-reading attempts, not
(Baron-Cohen, 1995; Corcoran, Mercer, & Frith, 1995; Hare, to predict a certain degree of automaticity of mind-reading
1993; Rajendran & Mitchell, 2007). Studies on healthy indi- ability. We approach mind-reading from a motivational point
viduals have also focused on mind-reading as an ability. In of view, and not in the sense of an automatic or unconscious
one study, in which participants read short stories that cognitive ability.
involved problems about intentionality, large individual
differences were found in adult theory of mind (Kinderman,
Hypotheses
Dunbar, & Bentall, 1998). Paal and Bereczkei (2007) who
used a similar experimental paradigm came to the conclusion We assume that there may be different strategies at work in
that mind-reading ability is strongly correlated with the will- mentalization depending on how strongly individuals focus
ingness to cooperate and with empathy and consciousness as on the mental states of others and how much they are moti-
personality factors (which were measured by one subscale of vated spontaneously to use their own mind-reading ability
Cloninger’s Temperament and Character Inventory). Studies — irrespective of how refined their skills are in this respect.
of experimental games provide some support for the impact We define spontaneous mentalization as a drive to try to

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Machiavellianism and spontaneous mentalization

attain the fastest and most elaborate internal representation of Then, we asked them to complete the Mach IV questionnaire.
the mental states of others in various social situations. We All participants were subsequently informed about the
assume that the successful use of the manipulative behaviour purpose of the research.
strategy definitely requires that the information inferred on
the basis of psychological states should be available as soon
as possible. Therefore, it is hypothesized that it is the Materials
Machiavellians who need to take the first step: they have to
For the study of spontaneous mentalization, a set of visual
make efforts to recognize the thoughts of others if they wish
stimuli consisting of 12 pictures was compiled (Figure 1).
to manipulate them successfully. This concept would give an
Some of the pictures were made by the authors, and the
explanation why Machiavellians are so successful in the
others were non-copyrighted images downloaded from the
competition for material and social resources in spite of their
Internet. These pictures depicted everyday situations (e.g. a
reduced ability of mind-reading. In the light of this theoreti-
wedding procession, children playing). We assumed that
cal framework, we wish to test two predictions:We assume
focus set on the picture may influence the participants’ men-
that there are significant individual differences in spontane-
talization to a certain degree; therefore, we did not use close-
ous mentalization, that is, in how strongly individuals are
ups that could intensify the focus on the emotional states of
motivated to read the mind of others.We assume that people
the people in the pictures. As a first step of the experiments,
characterized as Machiavellian — those who receive high
the pictures were projected on a 170  127-cm screen for the
scores on the Mach IV test — focus more strongly on the
participants. The distance between the participants and the
mental states of others and take steps to explore the internal
widescreen was approximately 3 m. Short, handwritten
world of others earlier than less Machiavellian persons.
descriptions were requested for each picture. Every picture
was displayed for 100 seconds on the screen (this duration
was optimal for participants to write their responses based
METHODS
on our pilot investigations). We used time pressure to stan-
dardize investment in the task and to rule out the possibility
Participants
that individual differences in responses would be a function
Our research is based on the data of 112 participants, full-time of time. The written and verbal instructions were as follows:
students at various faculties of the University of Pécs. Fifty of ‘In the first part of the experiment you will see pictures pro-
them were men and 62 were women, with an age range of 18– jected onto the screen. Please write 2 to 3 sentences about
25 years (M = 20.6 years; SD = 1.8). They participated in the each picture. The only expectation is that you should write
study voluntarily without any compensation. Participants were legibly. We do not wish to draw a conclusion about any
tested in small groups consisting 10 to 20 persons. personality traits from what you write.’
To measure Machiavellianism, we used the Mach IV
scale developed by Christie and Geis in 1970. It consists of
Procedure
20 items that contain short statements related to the rules
The participants first saw a set of stimuli consisting of 12 and principles that may cover relationships with others (e.g.
pictures projected onto the screen. They had 20 minutes to ‘The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want
react to the pictures in writing (100 seconds for each picture). to hear’; ‘Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is

Figure 1. The four elements of the 12 picture stimuli. The pictures are either our own or have been downloaded from free Internet sites. They do not contain
extreme situations; all of them represent situations that people can encounter in their everyday life. We also avoided using close-up shots because they do not
reflect real-life situations.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per
Z. Esperger and T. Bereczkei

asking for trouble’). The participants used a 7-point Likert For this purpose, we divided the spontaneous mentalization
scale to indicate the degree of agreement with each item. results of the participants in four equal groups in accordance
As was mentioned previously, several studies confirm that with the frequencies received. The lowest and highest results
high-Mach persons are very successful in competition with — falling into the first and fourth quarters — were put into two
rivals; those participants who obtained high scores on the groups for further analysis (first quarter: N = 34, 19 women, 15
Mach IV scale proved to be more effective in the manipula- men; fourth quarter: N = 42, 19 women, 23 men). After
tion of others (Christie & Geis, 1970; Gunnthorsdottir, establishing the group variable, the independent sample T test
McCabe, & Smith, 2002) and gained a larger sum of money revealed a significant difference between the values of the
in experimental games (Czibor & Bereczkei, 2010; Spitzer two groups (t = 20.91, p < 0.01, d = 0.89): the results of the
et al., 2006) than did others. first quarter proved to be significantly lower than those in the
Although the use of the Mach IV scale is an accepted fourth quarter. Another analysis revealed that the number of
method in the literature, we decided to verify the reliability mental state attributions used by the participants showed
of the questionnaire in our study as well, and the result normal distribution in the samples (Shapiro–Wilk Z = 0.939,
proved to be acceptable (Cronbach alpha = 0.72). p > 0.05; Figure 2). So, we can claim that our introductory
hypothesis, which assumes that significant individual differ-
ences can be demonstrated for spontaneous mentalization, is
Coding spontaneous mentalization confirmed. Figure 3 gives an insight into the qualitative data.
The texts written by the participants were entered into a com-
puter and then we conducted psychological content analysis
on them (Holsti, 1968) using the ATLAS/ti software. The Spontaneous mentalization and Machiavellianism
analysis was inductive, using the Code-by-List functionality We found a positive correlation between spontaneous menta-
of ATLAS/ti. This function allowed independent coders to lization and Machiavellianism (Figure 4). More specifically,
identify those words and sentences that represented the there was a moderate correlation between the number of
participants’ mentalization, rather than selecting certain mental state attributions and the scores achieved in the Mach
phrases from a pre-written list. The basic units of the coding IV questionnaire (Pearson r = 0.40, p < 0.01). In addition to
procedure were either single words or phrases and whole the correlation method, we used the previously established
sentences. The single words or phrases always referred to group variable in a T test to examine the difference between
mental states, whereas the whole sentences, when partici- the two groups from the point of view of Machiavellianism.
pants wrote them in quotation marks, were taken as basic The results of the mental state attributions falling into the
units as if they were thought bubbles belonging to the fourth quarter have significantly higher Machiavellianism
persons on the pictures. values than those of the first quarter (72.41  12.14 vs
The frequency of passages that showed that the partici- 85.33  13.7, t = 3.98, p < 0.01, d = 0.35). Nevertheless, a
pant was concerned with the internal states of the person(s) median split comparison on the basis of spontaneous
in the picture was coded. Thus, every such passage was inter- mentalization scores was not significant from the point of
preted as an element of spontaneous mentalization, and every view of Machiavellianism (75.49  11.51 vs 79.26  11.63,
participant received as many points as such elements were t = 1.16, p > 0.05).
found in the text they had written. The coding of the whole Next, we analyzed the possible moderation effects on the
corpus was carried out by the first author. Then, the texts relationship between Machiavellianism and spontaneous
were divided between two independent coders. All responses
of a single participant were assigned randomly to one of the
coders. Responses from the same participant were not split.
The independent coders were blind to the hypotheses of the re-
search. After discussing the concepts, the coding principles and
the techniques, they worked with the text on their own. There
was high correlation between our coding and the results of the
independent coders (Pearson r = 0.90, p < 0.01). When analyz-
ing the texts containing a total of 11 514 words, we recorded
517 elements in our coding, whereas the independent coders
recorded 488 elements. The results of independent coders were
used only for ensuring the reliability of the first author’s coding,
and these results were not used for further statistics.

RESULTS

Individual differences in spontaneous mentalization Figure 2. The quantitative distribution of mental state attributions in spon-
taneous mentalization with a normal distribution curve placed over it. The
On the basis of the coding process, we calculated how many minimum spontaneous mentalization score was 0; the maximum score was
mentalization elements appeared in the participants’ texts. 19. The mean score was 8.5.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Machiavellianism and spontaneous mentalization

“There is a girl standing on a train in the picture. She leans out of the window. It is a
black and white picture.
“Travelling is important for everybody. The quality of trains in our country is not very
good for that. Still, many use this means of transportation.”
“It is a mindless moment before departure. The girl is travelling to a remote but not
unknown place. She knows that whatever awaits her at the end of her journey; it will
be new and interesting. A last, stray thought about what she is leaving behind.
“A lady is travelling to a remote place leaving her loved ones behind. She is staring
with glazed eyes in front of her. She is sad because she is leaving.

Figure 3. Answers given by four different participants to the same item. The first two cases exemplify the lack, and the other two, the presence of mentalization focus.

mentalization, using the available data. First, we took a respectively), and these correlations did not show a signifi-
closer look at gender differences. In line with the results of cant difference (z* = 1.02 < 1.96). Additionally, when we
previous research (Andrew, Cooke, & Muncer, 2008), the ruled out the possible effect of sex by using partial correla-
Machiavellianism value was higher for male than for female tion, we found that the values for the relationship between
participants (t = 3.07, p < 0.05, d = 0.28). At the same time, Machiavellianism and spontaneous mentalization (Pearson
there was no difference between the sexes for the spontane- r = 0.46, p < 0.01) were not significantly different from the
ous mentalization that we measured (9.77  4.73 vs original correlation values.
8.66  3.95, t = 0.89, p > 0.05). Then, we also looked at the possibility of whether the
Positive correlations have been found between spontane- participants who wrote more about the pictures attributed
ous mentalization and Machiavellianism for both male and more mental states in their texts. This possible correlation
female subjects (r = 0.51, p < 0.001; r = 0.35, p < 0.01, should be addressed because it if turns out that the number
of mentalizations depends on the length of the texts, the
result on the relationship between spontaneous mentalization
and Machiavellianism should qualify as a mere artefact.
However, we managed to provide evidence against the arte-
fact hypothesis. Using partial correlation, we ruled out the
effect of the number of words, and the original correlation
value (Pearson r = 0.41, p < 0.01) did not change as a result.
This result shows that the spontaneous mentalization strategy
proves to be efficient irrespective of the length of the texts
written by each participant — that is, of the possible differ-
ences in verbal abilities.

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that spontaneous mentalization, a more

motivation-based aspect of mind-reading, (i) shows large
Figure 4. Graphic representation of the positive correlation between Ma- individual differences and (ii) plays an important role in the
chiavellianism and spontaneous mentalization. The horizontal axis repre- manipulation of others. Individuals high on Mach scale were
sents the scores achieved in the Mach IV test, and the vertical axis shows
the number of mental states attributed to the people in the pictures by the par- found to focus more strongly on the mental states of others
ticipants as the variable of spontaneous mentalization. than those low on Mach scale. The individual differences

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per
Z. Esperger and T. Bereczkei

measured in spontaneous mentalization lead us to conclude Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010; Lyons, Caldwell, & Shultz,
that in the case of everyday, real-life situations, people may 2010; Paal & Bereczkei, 2007).
have initial strategies that help them focus on the mental In spite of their reduced mind-reading capacity, high-
states of others. All this may be related to Machiavellianism; Mach persons — as mentioned previously — may be
using spontaneous mentalization, people with an inclination successful in a competition with others for gaining resources
to manipulate others may always try to be one step ahead (Jones & Paulhus, 2009; Spitzer et al., 2006). Perhaps the
of the other and gain important knowledge that can later be mind-reading disposition — the ambition to gain access to
profitable in deceit and fraud. In line with this interpretation, the internal states of others — can be seen as a kind of train-
several authors doing research on the topic stress the belief of ing that helps us arrive at more precise judgments about the
Machiavellian people that if they do not exploit the other, the interpretation of different mental contents. It is possible that
other will abuse them instead (Jones & Paulhus, 2009; the development of the disposition for spontaneous mentali-
McIllwain, 2003; Paal & Bereczkei, 2007; Wilson et al., zation also has an influence on the ability itself, although this
1998). hypothesis requires further research.
Our results suggest that it is not only mind-reading as an However, the question remains: How can successful
ability that can characterize the adult theory of mind, as has manipulation be achieved when one does not have an outstand-
been suggested by previous research, but a sort of motivation ing ability to understand what others believe, feel and think?
to make hypotheses regarding the other’s mind. In the history One possible hypothesis is that a malfunctioning theory of
of the empirical research of mind-reading, this is by no mind enables high Machs to manipulate others for their own
means the first time when experimental conditions have been benefit. Several studies have revealed that Machiavellian
set up to measure the spontaneous manifestations of mind- individuals have deficits in understanding emotions (Ali &
reading ability. Heider and Simmel (1944), in their pioneer Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010; Austin et al., 2007). Because pro-
study, showed that adult participants are inclined to employ social emotions, such as empathy, guilt and shame, may be
mental terms to describe the relative movements of geomet- tools that prevent people, in general, from overt manipulation
ric shapes. Springer, Meier, and Berry (1996) found that of others, the lack of understanding these emotions might even
5-year-old children, similarly to adults, use mentalizing terms enable Machiavellians successfully to exploit others. Another
to describe stimuli employed in the Heider and Simmel’s possibility for explaining Machiavellian people’s efficient
study. The conjunction of stimuli based on the self-propelled manipulative behaviour is that they are highly sensitive to re-
objects and functional brain imaging later provided a more ward and punishment. Spitzer, Fischbacher, Herrnberger,
detailed study of ‘online’ mind-reading ability (Castelli, Frith, Gron, and Fher (2006) found that participants’ Machiavellian
Happé, Frith, 2002; Castelli, Happé, Frith, Frith, 2000). It scores were strongly correlated with an increase in non-
turned out that the participants tended to describe the animated compliance in the social punishment condition and with activa-
objects in terms of mental states, and their brain activity tions in brain regions associated with evaluation of punishing
showed increased activation in regions that former studies stimuli. High-Mach people may experience stronger negative
had linked to mentalizing functions. In these studies, the incli- affect in response to punishment, which might explain why
nation towards mentalization was handled as a so-called these participants earned more money in their experiment than
‘online’ performance, which was characteristic of mind-reading did low-Mach persons. These possibilities should be tested in
ability and intentional stance, and not of motivation. future research.
It was an important prerequisite for the present study that It is possible that the cynicism and ‘cold’ mentality that is
the subjects had not been encouraged at all to use their mind- specific to high-Mach persons derives from the fact that their
reading ability. Yet, some of them showed a strong willing- highly developed spontaneous mentalization ability is not
ness to use their mind-reading ability, whereas others had coupled with other mentalization elements. More specifi-
much less willingness to do so. Obviously, we cannot infer cally, it may be that they do not have the ability to focus
from this that those who focused less on the mental states on their own psychological states. For most people, there is
of others have a weaker ability in this respect. What we sug- another tendency at work in addition to the spontaneous
gest is that spontaneous mentalization might exhibit some in- mentalization directed at others that involves their own intui-
dependence from the mind-reading ability. It is quite possible tions and impressions, which enables them to experience
that somebody is a good mind-reader but is not too motivated emotional effects. Perhaps individuals with high Machiavel-
to view the world from the perspective and on the basis of the lianism lack this kind of self-reflection, so their own emo-
thoughts of others. tions remain concealed from them, and it is also possible
A contrary cognitive disposition may also be quite fre- that it prevents them from recognizing emotions in others
quent: some people may feel constantly inclined to think too (Davies & Stone, 2003, Lyons et al., 2010). Our own
the thoughts of others, but his or her abilities do not enable results cannot help in solving this problem, because what
him or her to understand these thoughts. Machiavellian peo- we did was that we separated the focus on the psychological
ple — or some of them — may sometimes belong to this states of others from the description of the subjects’ own psy-
type. They make efforts to figure out the intentions and chological states, but we did not take a thorough look at the
knowledge of another person to use her/him as an instrument latter in the analysis of the texts. However, future research
for achieving their goals. This hypothesis could explain why may be organized in a way that can address this issue as well.
previous studies were unable to show a positive correlation An obvious limitation of our study is that we related
between mind-reading ability and Machiavellianism (Ali & spontaneous mentalization only to Machiavellianism. Three

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Machiavellianism and spontaneous mentalization

overlapping personality variables — Machiavellianism, Czibor, A., & Bereczkei, T. (2010). Decisions in social dilem-
narcissism and subclinical psychopathy — have come to be mas: The role of personality and situational variables. Paper
presented on the 9th Alps-Adria Psychological Conference,
known as the ‘Dark Triad’ of personality. Individuals with Klagenfurt.
these traits share a tendency to be callous, selfish and malev- Davies, M., & Stone, T. (2003). Synthesis: Psychological under-
olent in their interpersonal dealings (Paulhus & Williams, standing and social skills. In B. Repacholi, & V. Slaughter
2002). Several studies have found significant negative corre- (Eds.), Individual differences in theory of mind: Implications
lations between Machiavellianism and primary psychopathy, for typical and atypical development. New York: Psychology
Press (305–352).
secondary psychopathy, and narcissism (Ali et al., 2009; Dolan, M., & Fullam, R. (2004). Theory of mind and mentalizing
Jacobwitz & Egan, 2006). At the moment, we do not know ability in antisociality personality disorders with and without
if spontaneous mentalization is unique to Machiavellianism, psychopathy. Psychological Medicine, 34, 1093–1102.
or whether the other variables of the Dark Triad are also Gunnthorsdottir, A., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (2002). Using the
Machiavellianism instrument to predict trustworthiness in a
involved in this motivational superiority. Future studies
bargaining game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23,
could clarify these relationships and the possible mediating 49–66.
processes among them. Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the
Another limitation to the current study was the lack psychopaths among us. New York: Guilford.
of measuring mind-reading ability in association with Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of appar-
ent behavior. American Journal Psychology, 57, 243–259.
Machiavellianism. Administering a Theory of Mind (ToM) Holsti, O. R. (1968). Content analysis. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson
measure on the visual stimuli we used in the present exper- (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Austin: Addison-Wesley
iment would answer the question on what relationship (596–692).
exists between mind-reading as a motivation and mind- Jacobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal
reading as an ability in high-Mach people. Similarly, future personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40,
331–339.
studies could measure the reaction time to social versus Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In: M. R.
non-social stimuli, with a predicted result that individuals Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Individual differences in social
scoring higher on the Mach IV scale are reacting faster to behavior. New York: Guilford, (93–108).
figuration requiring mentalization. Kinderman, P., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Bentall, R. P. (1998).
Theory-of-mind deficits and causal attributions. British Jour-
nal of Psychology, 89, 191–204.
Lyons, M., Caldwell, T., & Shultz, S. (2010). Mind-reading and
REFERENCES manipulation — Is Machiavellianism related to theory of mind?
Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 261–274.
Ali, F., Sousa Amorim, I., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Empa- McIllwain, D. (2003). Bypassing empathy: A Machiavellian theory
thy deficits and trait emotional intelligence in psychopathy and of mind and sneaky power. In B. Repacholi, & V. Slaughter
Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, (Eds.), Individual differences in theory of mind. Macquarie
758–762. Monographs in Cognitive Science. Hove, E. Sussex: Psychology
Ali, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). Investigating theory of Press (39–46).
mind deficits in nonclinical psychopathy. Personality and Indi- Mithen, S. (1996). The prehistory of the mind. London: Phoenix.
vidual Differences, 49, 169–174. Nettle, D., & Liddle, B. (2008). Agreeableness is related to social-
Andrew, J., Cooke, M., & Muncer, S. J. (2008). The relationship cognitive, but not social-perceptual, theory of mind. European
between empathy and Machiavellianism: An alternative to empa- Journal of Personality, 22, 323–335.
thizing–systemizing theory. Personality and Individual Differ- Paal, T., & Bereczkei, T. (2007). Adult theory of mind, cooperation,
ences, 44, 1203–1211. Machiavellianism: The effect of mindreading on social relations.
Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C., & Moore, H. (2007). Emo- Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 541–551.
tional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipula- Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of per-
tion: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and Individual sonality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Jour-
Differences, 43, 179–189. nal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: an essay on autism and Rajendran, G., & Mitchell, P. (2007). Cognitive theories of autism.
theory of mind. Boston: MIT Press/Bradford Books. Developmental Review, 27, 224–260.
Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Zs. (2010). The presence of Repacholi, B., Slaughter, V. Pritchard, M., & Gibbs, V. (2003).
others, prosocial traits: Machiavellism. A personality  situation Theory of mind, Machiavellism, and social functioning in
approach. Social Psychology, 41, 238–245. childhood. In B. Repacholi, & V. Slaughter (Eds.), Individ-
Brüne, M., & Brüne-Cohrs, U. (2006). Theory of mind — Evolu- ual differences in theory of mind. Macquarie Monographs
tion, ontogeny, brain mechanisms and psychopathology. Neuro- in Cognitive Science. Hove, E. Sussex: Psychology Press
science and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 437–455. (99–120).
Castelli, F., Frith, C., Happé, F., & Firth, U. (2002). Autism, Asper- Sakalaki, M., Richardson, C., & Thepaut, Y. (2007). Machiavellian-
ger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental ism and economic opportunism. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
states to animated shapes. Brain, 125, 1839–1849. ogy, 37, 1181–1190.
Castelli, F., Happé, F., Frith, U., & Frith, C. (2000). Movement and Spitzer, M., Fischbacher, U., Herrnberger, B., Gron, G., & Fher, E.
Mind: A Functional Imaging Study of Perception and Interpreta- (2006). The neural signature of social norm compliance. Neuron,
tion of Complex Intentional Movement Patterns. NeuroImage, 56, 185–196.
12, 314–325. Springer, K., Meier, J. A., & Berry, D. (1996). Nonverbal bases of
Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New social perception: developmental change in sensitivity to patterns
York: Academic Press. of motion that reveal interpersonal events. Journal Nonverbal
Corcoran, R., Mercer, G., & Frith, C. D. (1995). Schizophrenia, Behaviour, 20, 199–211.
symptomatology and social, inference: Investigating “theory of Stiller, J., & Dunbar, R. (2007). Perspective-taking and memory
mind” in people with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, capacity predict social network size. Social Networks, 29,
17, 5–13. 93–104.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per
Z. Esperger and T. Bereczkei

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. Wilson, D. S., Near, D. C., & Miller, R. R. (1998). Individual
(2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cul- differences in Machiavellianism as a mix of cooperative and
tural cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–691. exploitative strategies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19,
Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Iden- 203–212.
tifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: Their personality, Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism:
cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures.
Psychology, 16, 293–307. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 285–299.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per