National gender equality and sex differences in Machiavellianism across countries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21827/ijpp.10.41854Keywords:
gender inequality, Machiavellianism, sex differences, gender norms, gender equality paradoxAbstract
Machiavellianism is characterized by a focus on self-interest and a desire to achieve personal goals at any cost. Research consistently found that, on average, men score higher on Machiavellianism than women. However, the factors contributing to this sex difference remain unclear. The present research examined whether sex differences in Machiavellianism vary across countries and whether national levels of gender inequality are related to these differences. We analyzed Machiavellianism scores of 56,936 adults across 48 countries. We operationalized gender inequality at national level using two indices (the Gender Inequality Index and the Global Gender Gap Index) and assessed Machiavellianism at the individual level using the MACH-IV scale. Multilevel modeling indicated that men scored higher in Machiavellianism than women, with a larger sex difference in countries with higher levels of gender equality, irrespective of the gender inequality index used. This pattern emerged because women’s MACH-IV scores decreased as national gender equality increased, whereas men’s scores remained stable. We discuss the relevance of these findings for the literature on sex differences in personality and gender equality paradox.
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2024 Dan Confino, Paolo Ghisletta, Gijsbert Stoet, Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the IJPP will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication and, if accepted for publication, it will be published online. Copyright remains with the author.
The journal takes the stance that the publication of scholarly research is meant to disseminate knowledge and, in a non-profit regime, benefits neither publisher nor author financially. It sees itself as having an obligation to its authors and to society to make content available online now that the technology allows for such a possibility.