When results of studies differ, having a careful description of the experimental conditions may allow systematic exploration of the factors which might contribute to the differences. Reconciliation may result from such responsible effort.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChristieR.GeisF.The ten dollar game. In ChristieR.GeisF. L. (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 161–172.
2.
ChristieR.GeisF. L.Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970.
3.
ChristieR.GergenK. J.MarloweD.The penny-dollar caper. In ChristieR.GeisF. L. (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 173–189.
4.
GeisF.The con game. In ChristieR.GeisF. L. (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 106–129.
5.
GeisF.WeinheimerS.BergerD.Playing legislature: cool hands and hot issues. In ChristieR.GeisF. L. (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 190–209.
6.
JaffeE. D.NebenzahlI. D.GotesdynerH.Machiavellianism, task orientation, and team effectiveness revisited. Psychological Reports, 1989, 64, 819–824.
7.
JaffeE. D.NebenzahlI. D.GotesdynerH.Personality and effective leadership: a reply. Psychological Reports, 1989, 65, 1377–1378.
