The Relationship Between Machiavellianism, Self-Monitoring,

Emotional Expressivity and Sarcasm Production

Patricia Rockwell

Department of Communication

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Lafayette, LA 70504

par2323@louisiana.edu

Submitted to the Communication and Social Cognition Division of the National

Communication Association for presentation at the annual convention, November, 2006,

in San Antonio, TX
 2

Abstract

A survey of 150 university students, in addition to 68 non-students recruited by the

student respondents, was conducted to determine personality traits that influence sarcasm

production. Regression analysis indicated that two subscales (Negative Tactics and

Positive View of Human Nature) of the Christie-Geis Machiavellianism Scale (Mach V)

and one subscale (Performance) of the Lennox and Wolfe Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS)

significantly predicted sarcasm usage as determined by the Sarcasm Self-Report Scale

(Ivanko, Pexman, & Olineck, 2004)

 3

The Relationship Between Machiavellianism, Self-Monitoring,

Emotional Expressivity and Sarcasm Production

Most research on sarcasm production considers the linguistic and rhetorical

features of sarcastic utterances (Clark & Gerrig, 1984; Jorgensen, Miller, & Sperber,

1984; Kreuz & Glucksberg, 1989; Sperber, 1984). Scant studies have actually

investigated characteristics of communicators who produce sarcasm. Of those studies

that have examined users of sarcasm, most have explored demographic features such as

age, culture, gender, and relationship (Gibbs, 2000; Rockwell, 2001, 2003; Rockwell &

Theriot, 2001). Yet to be determined are individual personality traits that facilitate or

promote the production of sarcasm. This determination is crucial because although

relatively infrequent in conversation, sarcasm is a potent, often destructive behavior that

can have confusing if not devastating effects on communication (Glaser et al., 2000).

Rockwell (2005), for example, found a significant but small positive correlation between

speakers’ cognitive complexity and their expression of sarcasm. The present study hopes

to expand on this approach and determine individual traits that promote sarcasm

production with the ultimate goal of providing a clearer picture of the sarcastic speaker.

An extensive number of instruments have been developed to measure sarcasm

recognition (Clark & Gerrig, 1984; Gerrig & Goldvarg, 2000; Jorgensen, Miller &

Sperber, 1984; Kaufer, 1981; Kreuz & Glucksberg, 1989; Slugoski & Turnbull, 1988;

Sperber, 1984 Williams, 1984), but few to measure sarcasm production. Ivanko,

Pexman, and Olineck’s (2004) Sarcasm Self-Report Scale (SSS) is a recent attempt to

measure individuals’ reports of their own behavior regarding sarcasm use and the types of

situations that prompt these behaviors. The researchers report four subscales for the SSS:
 4

General Sarcasm, Face-Saving, Embarrassment Diffusion, and Frustration Diffusion.

The questions in the scale ask respondents to rate (on a scale from “1” for “not at all” to

“7” for “extremely likely”) the likelihood that they would use sarcasm in various

situations. The four factors reported were determined through principle components

analysis (PCA) in two separate studies conducted by the researchers. “General Sarcasm”

was found to measure overall tendency to use sarcasm. “Face-saving” measures the

likelihood of using sarcasm with “new acquaintances or when complimenting.”

“Embarrassment Diffusion” measures how speakers use sarcasm to downplay their own

accomplishments and “Frustration Diffusion” measures how speakers use sarcasm to

decrease the annoyance of various frustrating situations. The researchers found that

participants’ responses on the SSS predicted their behavior in a sarcasm production task

and also predicted their ability to quickly and correctly recognize sarcastic messages.

Personality has been studied extensively and psychologists have developed

several methods for categorizing major personality differences. Researchers have

postulated that individuals with certain personality types may be more inclined to

produce certain behaviors than those with other personality types. For example, one

early personality categorization system was the Myers-Briggs. Of the four personality

types described by Keirsey (1998) in his adaptation of the Myers-Briggs Personality

Test (artisans, guardians, idealists, and rationals), artisans are seen as most likely to use

sarcasm, and rationals are seen as least likely to use sarcasm. Artisans, according to

Keirsey (1998) are more prone to use sarcasm “because of their tendency to do

whatever is necessary, even if that means being rude” (p. 47). Rationals were argued to

be the least sarcastic personality type in Keirsey’s system because they maintain a
 5

greater distance from people than other types (p. 163). These observations, however,

remain to be tested. Even so, they represent an initial attempt at connecting personality

traits to sarcasm production.

Psychologists have investigated and labeled numerous personality traits that

have proven relevant in the study of individual behavior. Traits such as altruism,

emotional intelligence, creativity, neuroticism, extraversion, optimism, are just a few of

many concepts devised by psychologists to measure individual personality traits.

Some, if not all, of these personality traits may influence individuals’ production of

sarcasm. However, in attempting to focus on those traits with the greatest possible

association to sarcasm production, three well-investigated traits have been selected for

this study: Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, and emotional expressivity. The

rationale for inclusion of each of these three variables will be discussed individually in

the following sections.

Machiavellianism and Sarcasm Production

Machiavellianism is the personality trait of manipulation (Allsopp, Eysenck, &

Eysenck, 1991; Christie & Geis, 1970, McCutcheon, 2002). The High Mach is “a

socially malevolent character with behavioral tendencies toward self-promotion,

emotional coldness, duplicity, and aggressiveness.” (Paulhus & Williams, 2002, p. 557).

High Machs are controlling and use others to their own advantage. They tend to have

“Type A” personalities and are less ethically-oriented than Low Machs (Rayburn &

Rayburn, 1996). Scientists have found that there is no significant correlation between

Machiavellianism and intelligence, and have also found that high levels of

Machiavellianism do not necessarily lead to social success (Wilson & Miller, 1996).
 6

Some researchers have reported a correlation between Machiavellianism and

psychopathy (McHoskey et. al., 2001). In one study, male medical students rated

themselves higher than female medical students on Machiavellianism (Merrill et. al.,

1993).

There has been little research on the language behaviors of high and low Machs.

In one study, High Machs used more first person-singular pronouns than Low Machs

(Ickes et al, 1986). It is intuitively appealing to imagine High Machs as using language

features—including sarcasm--that they believe will aid them in achieving their goals.

The standard test for Machiavellianism is Christie and Geis’ (1970) Mach V

Scale. This 20-item survey has been modified from the former Mach IV test, by

replacing forced-choice items with Likert-type items having responses of “1” to “7.”

Corral and Calvete’s (2000) confirmatory factor analyses of the Mach IV produced four

factors: Positive Interpersonal Tactics, Negative Interpersonal Tactics, Positive View of

Human Nature, and Negative View of Human Nature. The “Positive Interpersonal

Tactics” subscale measures actual behaviors reported by respondents used to achieve

their goals and the “Negative Interpersonal Tactics” subscale measures negative

behaviors reported by respondents used to achieve their goals. The “Positive View of

Human Nature” subscale measures positive attitudes about others that are held by

respondents, and the “Negative View of Human Nature” subscale measures negative

attitudes about others that are held by respondents. The survey includes items such as

“I handle people by telling them what they want to hear,” (Positive Interpersonal

Tactics), “I would be prepared to walk all over people to get what I want” (Negative

Interpersonal Tactics), “I believe there’s a sucker born every minute” (Negative View of
 7

Human Nature), and “Honesty is the best policy in all cases.” (Positive View of Human

Nature) (Christie & Geis, 1970).

Various researchers have used and examined the Mach IV and Mach V, and

some have complained that the test does not produce reliable results (e. g., Ray, 1983).

Even so, the Mach tests remain the gold standard for determining Machiavellianism.

The Machiavellian individual has a cynical view of human behavior and a

willingness to put that cynicism to practice. An individual who uses sarcasm is

expressing cynicism about something, but for some reason is not willing to state this

cynicism directly. Possibly this indirect approach is a strategy of high Machs. Due to

these observations, the following hypothesis is presented:

H1: There will be a positive correlation between Machiavellianism (as

measured by the four subscales of the Mach V) and sarcasm production (as measured

by the four subscales of the SSS).

Self-Monitoring and Sarcasm Production

Self-monitoring is the trait of observing one’s own behavior and adjusting that

behavior when necessary to adapt to other people and surroundings (Day et.al., 2002;

Gudykunst, 1985; Lindsey & Green, 1987). The ability to self-monitor is considered

integral to effective social functioning (Riggio & Friedman, 1982). High self-monitors

tend to adapt to situations, letting the requirements of the situation dictate their

behavior. Low self-monitors behave relatively the same way in all circumstances and

are less aware or less concerned about their own behavior. One theorist (Behncke,

2005) notes that in actuality, Highs monitor the behavior of others rather than their own

behavior in order to determine how their own behavior compares and then typically
 8

adjust their behavior based upon these observations. Lows do not monitor their own or

others’ behaviors because they have little or no interest in adjusting their own behavior.

One study found that students rated high self-monitoring teachers better than low self-

monitoring teachers (Larkin, 1987).

Little research has been conducted regarding the language behaviors of self-

monitors. In one study, high self-monitors used more second and third person pronouns

than did low self-monitors (Ickes et. al., 1986) implying a desire to not take

responsibility for one’s own views. In another study (Galbraith, 1996), high self-

monitors produced more new ideas after writing notes than did low self-monitors.

However, this result was reversed when subjects were asked to write finished texts,

with low self-monitors producing more new ideas than high self-monitors.

The use of sarcasm implies a muting or indirection of one’s true feelings,

something one might expect of high self-monitors. On the other hand, low self-

monitors may use a more negative abusive form of sarcasm when they are angry

because they are not particularly concerned about what others think of them.

Self-monitoring and related concepts have been measured in a variety of

different ways. The Lennox and Wolfe Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS) (Schutte &

Malouff, 1999) is a frequently used instrument to measure self-monitoring and appears

to be comprised of two factors: Sensitivity and Performance. The “Sensitivity”

subscale measures individuals’ ability to sense how others view them, and the

“Performance” subscale measures their ability to put this sensitivity to use. Sample

items include: “I am often able to read people’s true emotions correctly through their
 9

eyes,”(Sensitivity) and “When I feel that the image I am portraying isn’t working I can

readily change it to something that does” (Performance).

The implication with self-monitoring is that people monitor their own behavior

so that they can change those behaviors that are not interpersonally successful. The

question with self-monitoring and sarcasm use is whether a high self-monitor, who is

more sensitive to others and more willing to adapt behaviors, would recognize when

sarcasm might be used successfully and thus, use it more or less frequently. Due to the

fact that it is uncertain how any correlation between self-monitoring and sarcasm

production might evolve, the following research question is posed:

RQ1: What correlation, if any, exists between self-monitoring (measured by the

two subscales of the SMS) and sarcasm production (measured by the four subscales of

the SSS)?

Emotional Expressivity

Some individuals are more emotionally expressive than others (Bippus &

Young, 2005; Friedman & Miller-Herringer, 1991). “An individual is emotionally

expressive to the extent that he or she manifests emotional impulses behaviorally”

(Gross & John, 1997, p. 435). These researchers point out that individuals differ

greatly in their expression of emotion. They differ in the strength or valence of emotion

that is required to activate expression and also they differ in the way they modulate or

filter the emotions that they express. Some individuals allow their emotions expression

readily while others inhibit the expression of the emotions they experience. The

reasons for these differences include cultural “display rules” as well as individual

differences in the intensity of the emotional experience. Gross and John’s study
 10

determined that individuals are capable of recognizing the emotions they experience as

well as how they express these emotions.

In another study (Hess, Senécal, Kirouac, Herrera, Phillippot, & Kleck, 2000),

gender differences were found in stereotypes that people possess regarding the way

men and women experience and express emotions, with men being perceived of as

experiencing and expressing positive emotions more than women, and women being

perceived of as experiencing and expressing negative emotions more than men. In Hess

et. al’s study, men and women also reported similar reactions about their own

experience and expression of emotion.

The Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire (BEQ) (Gross & John, 1995) is a

standard test of emotional expressiveness. It includes 16 items that produce three

subscales (impulse strength, positive expressivity, and negative expressivity). The

“Impulse Strength” subscale concerns how strong individuals perceive their emotions.

The “Positive Expressivity” subscale concerns whether and to what extent individuals

perceive that they express positive emotions, and the “Negative Expressivity” subscale

concerns whether and to what extent individuals perceive that they express negative

emotions. Sample items include: “I have strong emotions” (Impulse Strength), “I

sometimes cry during sad movies,”(Negative Expressivity), and “When I am happy, my

feelings show” (Positive Expressivity).

A key question is whether the use of sarcasm is an indication or higher or lower

emotional expressivity. Possibly, more expressive individuals will present anger more

readily when they feel it by using sarcasm. On the other hand, individuals who are not

emotionally expressive may use sarcasm to attenuate their anger expression. Due to the
 11

dearth of research on relationships between emotional expressivity and sarcasm

production, the following research question is posed:

RQ2: What correlation exists, if any, between emotional expressivity (measured

by the BEQ and its three subscales) and sarcasm production (measured by the four

subscales of the SSS)?

Method

We surveyed students in all sections of communication courses at a large southern

university during the summer of 2005. Student respondents completed the survey during

class. After completion of the student surveys, student participants were asked to

distribute surveys to non-students whom they knew (one male and one female—

maximum of two) so as to acquire a larger, more diverse sample. Students were given

extra credit for returning surveys completed by non-students. No identifying

information was asked on the student surveys; however, on the non-student surveys, we

asked for the respondent’s names and phone numbers so that we could call to verify that

the respondents were who they said they were. Following verification, the respondents’

names were removed from the survey. A removable cover letter was attached to all

surveys which explained the purpose of the survey and which included contact

information if respondents wished to discuss the survey with the investigator. A

removable consent form followed the cover letter and was removed by the research

assistant when the respondent returned the survey. The consent forms were kept only

long enough to ensure that the student respondents received their extra credit.
 12

Instrument

The survey consisted of demographic questions, the Sarcasm Self-Survey (SSS)

(Ivanko, Pexman, & Olineck, 2004), a modified version of the Mach V (Christie & Geis,

1970), the Lennox and Wolfe Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS) (Schutte & Malouff, 1999),

and the Berkeley Expressivity Index (BEQ) (Schutte & Malouff, 1999).

Results

We collected data from 150 students and 68 non-students for a total of 218

respondents (males = 87, females = 131). Summary statistics of the sarcasm questions

revealed interesting results (see Table 1 for sarcasm question means). The question on

the SSS with the highest mean score (greatest likelihood) was “What is the likelihood you

would use sarcasm with your best friend?” (m = 5.66, sd = 1.72). The question with the

lowest mean score (least likelihood) was “What is the likelihood you would use sarcasm

with a new colleague at work?” (m = 2.58, sd = 1.54).

In order to determine the relationship between the independent variables of

Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, and emotional expressivity and the dependent

variable of self-reported sarcasm use, linear regression analyses were conducted. We

intended to determine if we could predict respondents’ self-reports of sarcasm use from

their self-reports of Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, and emotional expressivity.

The overall regression analysis was significant (see Table 2 for regression analysis

results), allowing further investigation of the individual variables. The analysis produced

significant results for components of two of the three scales: two subscales of

Machiavellianism (Negative Interpersonal Tactics and Positive View of Human Nature)

and one subscale of Self-Monitoring (Performance) on the combined four subscales of

 13

sarcasm use. The variation accounted for, as indicated by the R², was 26%. This

suggests that these three subscale factors predict over a quarter of total sarcasm usage.

Emotional expressivity did not predict sarcasm usage, nor did the Positive Interpersonal

Tactics or Negative View of Human Nature subscales of the Mach V, nor the impulse

control subscale of Self-Monitoring Scale.

Discussion

This study attempted to determine which, if any, of the personality traits of

Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, and emotional expressivity, would predict sarcasm

use as determined by self-reports. We found a strong correlation between two

Machiavellian subscales (Negative Interpersonal Tactics and Positive View of Human

Nature) and the self-monitoring subscale of Performance with sarcasm use.

The fact that we found significance between only some subscales of these

commonly measured personality traits cautions researchers to remember that many of the

instruments used in social science research are multifaceted. Indeed, the Mach V’s four

components measure behavior (Positive and Negative Interpersonal Tactics) as well as

attitude (Positive and Negative Views of Human Nature). In our study, one tactics

component and one attitude component were strongly correlated with sarcasm use. This

finding is unusual. One might expect the Negative Interpersonal Tactics subscale to

predict sarcasm use better than Positive Interpersonal Tactics. However, it is strange that

the Positive View of Human Nature subscale was a significant predictor of sarcasm use

and not the Negative View of Human Nature subscale. One possible explanation is that

two of the Positive View of Human Nature subscale’s questions emphasized honesty, and

those who see themselves as honest may be more willing to use sarcasm.
 14

We found also that the Performance subscale of the Self-Monitoring Scale

significantly predicted sarcasm use—but not the Sensitivity subscale. Here, the key

appears to be actual behavior rather than attitude serving as the predictor. Individuals

who reported that they actually act on the information they acquire from the monitoring

that they do were more likely to report sarcasm use. Individuals who are sensitive to how

others view them may not always act on this behavior and thus may be less likely to use

sarcasm.

We were surprised to find that emotional expressivity did not correlate with

reported sarcasm usage. Is the sarcastic individual attempting to control their true

feelings when they use sarcasm? Or do sarcastic remarks represent a genuine revelation

of speakers’ true feelings couched in socially acceptable terms? This study did not

provide an answer to this question.

We did not find that the three subscales of the BEQ were positively correlated

with the SSS as were two subscales of the MACH V and one of the SMS; we believed we

would see similar correlations with the BEQ’s subscales. This did not happen. It appears

then, that the behaviors measured by the BEQ have little connection to sarcasm

production. That is, it appears that heavy sarcasm producers do not necessarily see

themselves as emotionally expressive. However, when one considers emotional

expression, one assumes the speaker is expressing emotion accurately and willingly. This

may not be what actually happens. Indeed, some sarcastic individuals may, for some

reason, retain greater control and be less emotionally expressive. Finally, as some

researchers have noted, “. . . from an evolutionary perspective, language did not emerge
 15

as a vehicle to express emotions” (Pennebaker et al., 2003, p. 27). Indeed, emotion is

typically conveyed through nonverbal rather than verbal means.

Thus, some of the traits of manipulative and monitoring behaviors seem to have a

strong relationship to sarcasm production. These findings help “flesh out” the picture of

the sarcastic speaker. Sarcasm users appear to practice negative manipulation of others

while maintaining a positive view of human nature. They are able and willing to adjust to

the information provided by self-monitoring.

This study considered how psychological traits impact the language behavior

called sarcasm. A future study may reverse this approach and examine how sarcasm

usage influences psychological traits. As noted by other researchers, “The words people

use in their daily lives can reveal important aspects of their social, psychological worlds.”

(Pennebaker et al., 2003, p. 1).

 16

References

Allsopp, J., Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Machiavellianism as a

component in psychoticism and extraversion. Personality and Individual

Differences, 12 (1), 29-41.

Behncke, L. (2005). Self-regulation: A brief review. Athletic Insight, 14 (6), Retrieved

from www.athleticinsight.com on 8-26-05

Bippus, A. M., & Young, S. L. (2005). Owning your emotions: Reactions to expressions

of self- versus other-attributed positive and negative emotions. Journal of

Applied Communication Research, 33 (1), 26-46.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. NY: Academic Press.

Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 113, 121-126.

Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring

personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 87 (2), 390-401.

Friedman, H. S., & Miller-Herringer, T. (1991). Nonverbal display of emotion in

public and in private: Self-monitoring, personality, and expressive cues. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (5), 766-775.

Galbraith, D. (1996). Self-monitoring, discovery through writing and individual

differences in drafting strategy. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, and M.

Couzijn (Eds.). Theories, models, and methodology in writing research (pp. 121-

141). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

 17

Gerrig, R. J., & Goldvarg, Y. (2000). Additive effects in the perception of sarcasm:

Situational disparity and echoic mention. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(4), 197-

208.

Glaser, R., Sheridan, J. F., Malarkey, W., B., McCollum, R. C., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K.

(2000). Chronic stress moderates the immune response to a pneumonoccal

pneumonia vaccine. Psychological Medicine, 62, 804-807

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1997). Revealing feelings: Facets of emotional expressivity

in self-reports, peer ratings, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 72 (2), 435-448.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). The influence of cultural similarity, type of relationship, and

self-monitoring on uncertainty reduction process. Communication Monographs,

52 (3), 203-218.

Hess, U., Senécal, S., Kirouac, G., Herrera, P., Philippot, P., & Kleck, R. E. (2000).

Emotional expressivity in men and women: Stereotypes and self-perception.

Cognition and Emotion, 14 (5), 609-642.

Ickes, W., Reidhead, S, & Patterson, H. (1986). Machiavellianism and self-monitoring:

As different as “me” and “you.” Social Cognition, 4, 58-74.

Ivanko, S. L., Pexman, P.M., & Olineck, K. M. (2004). How sarcastic are you?:

Individual differences and verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology, 23 (3), 244-271.

Jorgensen, J., Miller, G. A., & Sperber, D. (1984). Test of the mention theory of irony.

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 113, 112-120.

 18

Kaufer, D. S. (1981). Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 5,

495-510.

Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II: Temperament character intelligence. Del

Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemeus.

Kreuz , R. J., & Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder

theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 118, 374-386.

Larkin, J. E. (1987). Are good teachers perceived as high self-monitors? Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 64-72.

Lindsey, A. E., & Greene, J. O. (1987). Social tendencies and social knowledge: Self-

monitoring differences in the representation and recall of social knowledge.

Communication Monographs, 54 (4), 381-396.

McCutcheon, L. E. (2002). Machiavellianism belief in a just world and the tendency to

worship celebrities. Current Research in Social Psychology. 8, (9), 1-8.

McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and

psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 192-210.

Merrill, J. M., Lorimor, R. J., Thornby, J. I., & Vallbona, C. (1998). Medical manners:

Medical students’ perceptions of their own. Southern Medical Journal, 91 (3),

256-260.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-

563.
 19

Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of

natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54,

547-577.

Ray, J. J. (1983). Defective validity of the Machiavellianism scale. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 119, 291-292.

Rayburn, J. M., & Rayburn, L. G. (1996). Relationship between Machiavellianism and

Type A personality and ethical-orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 15 (11),

1209-1219.

Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1982). The interrelationships of self-monitoring

factors, personality traits, and nonverbal social skills. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior, 7(1), 33-45.

Rockwell, P. (2001). Facial expression and sarcasm. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93,

47-50.

Rockwell, P. (2003). Empathy and the expression and recognition of sarcasm by close

relations and strangers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, 251-256.

Rockwell, P. (2005). The effects of cognitive complexity and communication

apprehension on the expression and recognition of sarcasm. Paper presented to

the Language and Social Interaction Division of the Southern States

Communication Association’s annual convention. Baton Rouge, LA.

Rockwell, P., & Theriot, E. (2001). Culture, gender, and gender mix in encoders of

sarcasm. Communication Research Reports, 18, 44-52.

Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (1999). Measuring emotional intelligence and related

constructs. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.

 20

Slugoski, B. R., & Turnbull, W. (1988). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm,

banter, and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7(2),

101-121.

Sperber, D. (1984). Verbal irony: Pretense or echoic mention? Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 113, 130-136

Williams, J. P. (1984) Does mention (or pretense) exhaust the concept of irony? Journal

of Experimental Psychology, 113, 127-129.

Wilson, D. S., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the

evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2),

285-299.
 21

Table 1
Sarcasm Self-Report (SSS) Item Means and Standard Deviations
(scale: “1” = “not at all,” “7” = “extremely”)
Mean Standard Deviation

1.Use sarcasm with someone you just met 3.34 1.66

2. How sarcastic are you? 4.56 1.59

3. Use sarcasm to insult someone 5.24 1.80

4. Use sarcasm with best friend 5.66 1.72

5. How sarcastic would friends say you are? 4.60 1.72

6. Use sarcasm with new colleague at work 2.58 1.54

7. Use sarcasm to compliment someone 2.79 1.57

8. How often do you make sarcastic comments? 3.91 1.57

9. When you and roommate are arguing about chores 4.23 1.78

10. When you score winning point for team 3.48 1.97

11. When you made mistake on assignment 3.50 1.89

12. When you are in long line at grocery store 4.68 1.92

13. When you just got engaged and telling friends 2.63 1.68

14. When you are celebrating promotion with family 2.88 1.82

15. When you are late to work and lock keys in car 4.44 2.14

16. Self-report of number of sarcastic comments

made each week 22.22 38.09
(range= 0-300)
 22

Table 2
Regression Analysis for Effects of Machiavellianism, Self-Monitoring, and
Emotional Expressivity on Sarcasm Use

Variable B SEB t

Machiavellianism
Negative Tactics .24 .10 2.31*
Positive Tactics .07 .08 .81
Negative View.11 .08 1.66
Positive View .27 .07 3.54**
Self-Monitoring
Performance .14 .06 2.10*
Sensitivity -.02 .08 -.23
Emotional Expressivity
Positive .12 .10 1.26
Negative .00 .07 .02
Impulse Control -.10 .07 .02

Analysis of Variance

Source SS DF MS F
Regression 59.08 9 6.56 6.73**
Residual 156.07 160 .97
Total 215.16 169 1.27

R² = .26

* p< .05, ** p < .01