{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028426791277258567, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03115264797507788, 'mean_word_length': 4.786036036036036, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Need Achievement and Machiavellianism

In their monograph, Studies in Machiavellianism (1970), Christie and Geis report that in most informal discussions of Machiavellianism somebody asks about its relationship to achievement motivation. They find the question puzzling as they "know of no compelling theoretical reasons why a desire to achieve should be related to Machiavellianism." The fact that it is posed so frequently might suggest that at least intuitively, if not theoretically, many people see a relat~onship between the two traits. Conceptually (Atkinson, 1957), high need achievers possess more motivation to approach success than to avoid failure, while the reverse is true of low need achievers. In other words, high need achievers are relatively more concerned with success than low need achievers. This greater concern for success leads individuals high in achievement motivation to assume responsibility for success, even when that success was just as likely the resulr of chance or the ease of the task (Kukla, 1972). Heightened concern with success may also explain why high need achievers are more likely than low need achievers to overestimate their grade point averages (Johnson. 1975) and why those high in need achievement are more likely to cheat and cheat more than those low in the motive.? The importance of success to high need achievers may also explain why people have continued to inquire into the possibiliry of a relationship between achievement motivation and Machiavellianism. The present work examined this possibiliry with two successive samples by correlating scores on the Modified Achievement Risk Preference Scale (Mehrabian, 1969) and Machinvellianism Scale IV. The first has 32 items to which the individual responds on a 7-point agree-disagree scnle; the second consists of 20 items with a similar 7-poinr agree-disagree scale. On achievement motivation M and SD were 13.10 and 1.37 for Study 1 and 11.63 and 2.24 for Study 2. For Mach score M and SD were 73.18 and 1.74 and 79.62 and 2.56 for Studies 1 and 2. The initial sample of 25 male students (agcd 18 to 35 yr.) yielded an r of .31 (P < .lo, F = 2.44). The second sample of 55 males yielded a nonsignificant r of .17. Taken along with Weinstock's (1964) finding of a significant 7 of .28, utilizing a different index of need achievement, the present findings provide weak support for the predicted convergence between achievement motivation and Machiavellianism. These results indicate the need for further work of a more experimental nature into this relationship.