Evidence Hub

Machiavellianism and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

White LK, Valos N, de la Piedad Garcia X, Willis ML

Trauma, violence & abuse, 2024

9,464 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the size of the relationship between Machiavellianism and intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration. Further, we explored whether the strength of this relationship varied depending on IPV type (i.e., physical, psychological, sexual, and cyber), and perpetrator gender. Systematic searches of Medline Complete, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were conducted on July 4, 2023. Studies were included if they were a peer-reviewed published paper or unpublished dissertation, in English, included a measure of Machiavellianism and IPV perpetration, and reported the relationship between these variables. Study quality was assessed using the AXIS tool. Nineteen studies (N = 9,464) were included in a random-effects meta-analysis revealing a significant, weak, positive correlation between Machiavellianism and IPV perpetration (r = .16, 95% CI [0.11, 0.21], p r = .25, 95% CI [0.17, 0.32], p r = .20, 95% CI [0.15, 0.24], p r = .10, 95% CI [0.02, 0.19], p = .020). No significant relationship was found for physical IPV. There was no significant difference in the strength of the relationship between women and men. These findings are limited by the measures being self-report, heterogeneity across studies, and the cross-sectional nature of the included studies which limits the understanding of causal pathways. Nonetheless, this meta-analysis shows a link between Machiavellianism and IPV perpetration, and future research should…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 9,464 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free