Desire for Status Scale (DFS-D)

1. Abstract

The Desire for Status Scale (DFS-D) is an empirically validated psychometric subscale developed by Jason J. Dahling, Brian G. Whitaker, and Paul E. Levy (2009) as an integral dimension of the multidimensional Machiavellian Personality Scale (MPS). Designed to measure an individual’s explicit motivational orientation toward acquiring external signifiers of success, social standing, wealth, and institutional influence, the DFS-D isolates the extrinsic aspirational engine that often drives manipulative, self-interested, and opportunistic social behavior. The scale consists of three tightly focused, positively keyed items evaluated on an authentic 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Psychometrically, the DFS-D resolves longstanding structural deficiencies present in classic unidimensional instruments, notably the Mach-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), by demonstrating clean latent dimensionality, robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s $\alpha$ coefficients typically spanning .74 to .83 across diverse university and workplace cohorts), and high factor loadings (.68 to .82) within structural equation modeling frameworks. Confirmatory factor analyses across independent samples establish its statistical uniqueness and convergent validity alongside related constructs such as narcissistic entitlement, social dominance orientation, and extrinsic career aspirations, while retaining critical discriminant validity against core Big Five personality dimensions like conscientiousness and emotional stability. Within clinical, organizational, and behavioral research, the DFS-D provides an essential diagnostic indicator of an individual’s readiness to pursue hierarchical ascent, deploy transactional interpersonal strategies, and engage in impression management or counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) when structural accountability is low.

2. Keywords

Desire for Status Scale, Machiavellian Personality Scale, Machiavellianism, Status Striving, Social Dominance, Extrinsic Motivation, Dark Triad, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis, Organizational Hierarchy, Career Ambition, Counterproductive Work Behavior, Dahling Whitaker Levy, Construct Validity

3. Authors

The Desire for Status Scale was conceptualized, developed, and psychometrically validated by an academic research team specializing in industrial-organizational psychology, workplace personality, and behavioral dynamics:

• Jason J. Dahling, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at The College of New Jersey (TCNJ), Ewing, New Jersey, USA. Dr. Dahling’s scholarship centers on organizational behavior, personality assessment in workplace settings, the Dark Triad, emotional labor, and feedback processes.
• Brian G. Whitaker, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Management and Organization, with extensive research focused on business ethics, high-stakes personality measurement, workplace deviance, and leadership assessment across private and public sectors.
• Paul E. Levy, Ph.D. — Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio, USA. Dr. Levy is an internationally recognized expert in organizational psychology, organizational justice, feedback culture, and the structural validation of psychological testing instruments.

Inquiries regarding the theoretical formulation of the original Machiavellian Personality Scale may be directed to Dr. Jason J. Dahling via the Department of Psychology, The College of New Jersey, 2000 Pennington Road, Ewing, NJ 08628.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Desire for Status Scale (DFS-D) is to provide an objective, reliable, and standardized metric to gauge an individual’s motivational appetite for climbing social hierarchies, accumulating material wealth, and exercising organizational control. For nearly four decades following the seminal work of Christie and Geis (1970), empirical inquiry into Machiavellianism relied almost exclusively on the Mach-IV inventory. However, contemporary psychometric critiques systematically identified critical vulnerabilities within the Mach-IV, including volatile factor solutions, ambiguous scoring dimensions, obsolete linguistic phrasing, and inadequate discrimination between ideological beliefs and underlying behavioral motives.

Recognizing that Machiavellian actors are not solely defined by cynicism or deceitful tactics, Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy (2009) sought to isolate the underlying teleological engine of Machiavellian behavior. The purpose of developing the DFS-D subscale within the larger MPS framework was to separate an individual’s operational strategies (such as distrust or manipulativeness) from their strategic objectives (the acquisition of status, power, and prestige). Without an explicit assessment of status striving, researchers could identify *how* an individual navigates social systems, but could not systematically isolate *why* they deploy those strategies.

From an applied organizational perspective, the DFS-D fulfills several assessment objectives:

• Leadership Emergence vs. Leadership Effectiveness: It enables researchers to analyze why certain individuals vigorously seek leadership roles yet fail to perform effectively once appointed. High status-seekers frequently exhibit intense self-promotion and political maneuvering to secure rank, but their focus on external markers can compromise ethical climate and subordinate welfare.
• Predicting Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWBs): Individuals who experience an acute discrepancy between their desired status and their current organizational position are at elevated risk of deploying unprincipled strategies, including corporate sabotage, intellectual theft, and interpersonal undermining.
• Selection and Placement Diagnostics: In low-structure, high-discretion roles, the DFS-D identifies candidates who view corporate accomplishments purely through an extrinsic, transactional lens, serving as a vital baseline for assessing corporate culture alignment and ethical risk exposure.
• Career Trajectory Research: In longitudinal vocational investigations, the scale serves as a predictive marker of vertical mobility, occupational burnout, and turnover intentions, particularly in cutthroat competitive sectors such as investment banking, high-stakes litigation, and executive leadership pipelines.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the Desire for Status Scale (DFS-D) represents a persistent, trait-like orientation toward the acquisition, maintenance, and elevation of one’s relative standing within formal and informal social hierarchies. Psychologically, status can be conceptualized as the degree of respect, prominence, social esteem, and material distinction an individual commands in the eyes of relevant peer networks and institutional structures.

Within contemporary psychometric taxonomy, status desire occupies a critical nexus between personality traits and motivational systems. The construct consists of three tightly interrelated theoretical facets:

• Evaluation of Success Through Social Standing: The construct posits that high-scoring individuals reject subjective or purely internal criteria of self-worth in favor of publicly verifiable social benchmarks. Success is not evaluated via private mastery, self-actualization, or prosocial contributions; rather, success is validated almost entirely by positional asymmetry—the degree to which an individual stands clearly above others in hierarchical strata.
• Extrinsic Valuation of Material Wealth: Wealth is conceptualized within this construct not merely as an instrument for physiological comfort, financial security, or familial provision, but as a conspicuous, universally understood scorekeeping mechanism. For the individual exhibiting high DFS-D scores, the accumulation of capital functions as an objective proxy for victory within competitive socio-economic frameworks.
• Aspiration Toward Power and Dominance: Power represents the asymmetric capacity to modify others’ states, allocate resources, and dictate group outcomes. The DFS-D assesses an unambiguous, future-oriented longing to attain elite positions characterized by structural influence and the unilateral authority to direct organizational trajectories.

In contrast to communal orientations characterized by empathy, cooperation, and altruism, an elevated desire for status reflects an agentic orientation tilted heavily toward self-aggrandizement. Crucially, Dahling et al. (2009) established that status-seeking is conceptually distinct from intrinsic motivation. While an intrinsically motivated person pursues technical challenges out of genuine task engagement, an individual scoring high on the DFS-D assesses tasks almost exclusively in terms of their yield in status currency: *Will this initiative elevate my visibility, yield immediate promotional leverage, or expand my structural authority?*

Furthermore, the construct exhibits distinct boundary conditions when compared against pathological narcissism. While the grandiose narcissist operates under an innate assumption of existing superiority and demands immediate unearned admiration, the Machiavellian status-seeker characterized by the DFS-D is fundamentally pragmatic. Such individuals recognize that status is an asset that must be strategically engineered, pursued, captured, and defended within social structures, making their behavioral manifestations calculated and long-term in focus.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Desire for Status Scale draws heavily upon evolutionary psychology, structural personality theory, and sociocognitive models of motivation:

Evolutionary Models of Dominance and Prestige

According to evolutionary theorists such as Henrich and Gil-White (2001), human groups naturally organize into dominance- and prestige-based hierarchies. Within ancestral environments, preferential access to scarce resources, mate selection, and territorial security were systematically distributed according to an organism’s hierarchical rank. The DFS-D measures an evolved, contemporary psychological adaptation: the individual drive to ascend social hierarchies to secure control over physical and social capital. Unlike prestige, which is freely granted by peers in recognition of specialized competence or prosocial generosity, the DFS-D taps into a more transactional, dominance-adjacent craving for external signifiers of power.

Social Dominance Theory (SDT)

Formulated by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto, Social Dominance Theory posits that societies minimize group conflict by creating consensus on ideologies that promote the superiority of certain groups and individuals over others. At the individual level, individuals differ in their social dominance orientation (SDO)—the degree to which they prefer hierarchical social arrangements over egalitarian ones. The DFS-D acts as an operational bridge between abstract ideological preferences for hierarchy and an individual’s localized drive to sit at the apex of those hierarchies. Dahling et al. (2009) integrated this framework by illustrating that high-Mach individuals are intensely motivated by the structural privileges that vertical hierarchies confer.

Self-Determination Theory: Extrinsic Aspirations

Within the framework of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, human aspirations are categorized into intrinsic life goals (such as personal growth, deep affiliation, and community contribution) and extrinsic life goals (wealth, fame, and attractive image). SDT robustly demonstrates that when extrinsic aspirations dominate an individual’s value system, psychological well-being declines, while interpersonal exploitation increases. The DFS-D directly operationalizes the core tenets of extrinsic life aspirations, capturing the explicit desire for external social validation through wealth and power, often at the expense of basic psychological needs like genuine relatedness.

Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy’s Four-Factor Machiavellian Architecture

Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy (2009) conceptualized Machiavellianism as a multidimensional construct comprising four distinct, correlated psychological dimensions:

1. Distrust of Others: A cynical outlook assuming that peers are fundamentally self-serving, dishonest, and predatory.
2. Amoral Manipulation: A willingness to disregard conventional ethical codes, deceive others, and exploit loopholes for personal gain.
3. Desire for Control: The urge to exercise immediate oversight over situations, information, and people to minimize vulnerability.
4. Desire for Status: The overarching motivational engine targeting the acquisition of wealth, social esteem, and structural power.

Within this theoretical model, Desire for Status supplies the primary motivational objective. Distrust of others provides the cognitive justification for preemptive self-protection; amoral manipulation represents the behavioral repertoire deployed to secure competitive advantage; and desire for control ensures that competitive victories are defended. Without the Desire for Status dimension, the structural integrity of the Machiavellian syndrome collapses into purposeless cynicism.

7. Validity

The construct validity of the Desire for Status Scale (DFS-D) has been thoroughly established through rigorous empirical testing across independent academic and organizational samples during the comprehensive scale validation program conducted by Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy (2009).

Construct and Factorial Validity

Dahling et al. (2009) established construct validity through a sequential multi-sample methodology. During initial scale construction (Sample 1: $N = 379$ undergraduate participants), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using maximum likelihood extraction and Promax oblique rotation isolated four distinct factors. The items comprising the DFS-D demonstrated high, unambiguous pattern coefficients (.68 to .82) on their primary factor, with negligible cross-loadings onto Distrust of Others, Amoral Manipulation, or Desire for Control (all secondary loadings $< .15$). Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across an independent validation sample (Sample 2:$N = 338$) affirmed that the four-factor model exhibited superior fit compared to rival single-factor or orthogonal alternatives.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by evaluating the DFS-D against conceptually aligned psychological constructs:

• Classic Machiavellianism (Mach-IV): The DFS-D correlated significantly with overall Mach-IV scores ($r = .39, p < .01$), confirming that the new scale captures foundational aspects of Machiavellian philosophy while isolating status motives more cleanly than the older composite instrument.
• Social Dominance Orientation (SDO): The scale exhibits robust positive associations with SDO ($r = .35$ to $.44, p < .001$), confirming its alignment with hierarchical preferences and the competitive drive for structural dominance.
• Extrinsic Work Values: When compared against scales measuring intrinsic versus extrinsic vocational goals, the DFS-D demonstrates strong positive correlations with financial orientation ($r > .50$) and positional advancement motives, while displaying neutral or negative associations with intrinsic goals such as societal service.
• Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI): Subscales evaluating leadership/authority and vanity/superiority correlate moderately to strongly with the DFS-D ($r = .36$ to $.48, p < .01$), validating its capture of ambitious, self-promoting behavioral tendencies.

Discriminant Validity

To demonstrate that the DFS-D is not redundant with existing broad-bandwidth personality measures, Dahling et al. (2009) evaluated its overlap with the Five-Factor Model (Big Five):

• Agreeableness: The DFS-D demonstrated significant negative correlations with agreeableness ($r = -.23, p < .01$), consistent with the self-aggrandizing, non-communal nature of status-striving.
• Neuroticism / Emotional Stability: Correlations with emotional stability were non-significant or trivial ($r = -.06, p > .05$), proving that status desire is a targeted motivational pursuit rather than an artifact of neurotic insecurity, anxiety, or emotional dysregulation.
• Conscientiousness & Openness: Shared variance with conscientiousness ($r = .08, ns$) and openness to experience ($r = .04, ns$) was minimal, indicating that the DFS-D measures a distinctive motivational vector independent of basic cognitive styles or general work ethic.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion validity has been substantiated through observed behavioral and organizational metrics. In occupational samples evaluated by Dahling et al. (2009) and subsequent organizational researchers, high scores on the DFS-D significantly predicted:

• Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB): Positively correlated with organizational deviance ($r = .26, p < .01$) and interpersonal deviance ($r = .21, p < .05$). When individuals strongly crave status but perceive limited legitimate avenues for vertical mobility, they are substantially more prone to taking credit for others' work, engaging in corporate gossip, or intentionally concealing key organizational information.
• Job Performance and Discretionary Effort: The relationship between the DFS-D and supervisor-rated task performance is moderated by organizational politics. In highly political climates, high DFS-D scorers strategically align with powerful sponsors to secure favorable evaluations, whereas in transparent, merit-based environments, their reluctance to perform non-rewarded citizenship behaviors (OCBs) often suppresses overall peer ratings.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the Desire for Status Scale have been empirically substantiated across multiple validation studies, academic student bodies, and working adult cohorts.

Internal Consistency Metrics

Despite consisting of only three items—a brief length that mathematically suppresses standard reliability coefficients due to test length constraints—the DFS-D exhibits consistently robust internal consistency:

• Dahling et al. (2009) Development Sample (Sample 1, $N = 379$): The initial scale validation demonstrated a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of $\alpha = .77$.
• Dahling et al. (2009) Cross-Validation Sample (Sample 2, $N = 338$): Analysis of an independent replication cohort confirmed an internal consistency reliability of $\alpha = .76$.
• Dahling et al. (2009) Working Adult Sample (Sample 3, $N = 126$): Among full-time organizational employees representing diverse industries, the DFS-D demonstrated an elevated internal consistency coefficient of $\alpha = .80$.
• Independent Organizational Studies: Subsequent replications in corporate, clinical, and military contexts have consistently reported Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from $.74$ to $.83$, with composite reliability ($
  ho_c$) values exceeding the standard psychometric cutoff criterion of$.70$.

Inter-Item and Item-Total Correlations

Psychometric evaluation confirms that the scale items correlate strongly with one another while avoiding multicollinear redundancy:

• Corrected item-total correlations across validation studies range between $.56$ and $.71$, well above the accepted threshold of $.30$.
• Average inter-item correlations reside within the optimal psychometric target band of $.45$ to $.60$, demonstrating that each item captures a meaningful, non-redundant facet of the underlying status construct.
• Internal consistency coefficients do not increase upon the deletion of any individual item, confirming that all three statements contribute uniquely to the latent variable’s explanatory power.

Test-Retest Reliability and Measurement Invariance

Temporal stability estimates assessed across multi-week retest intervals indicate high stability ($r_{tt} = .79$ to $.84$ across a four-week span), supporting the theoretical assumption that the Desire for Status operates as a stable personality trait rather than a transient emotional state or temporary motivational phase. Furthermore, multi-group confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate configural, metric, and scalar invariance across both biological sex (male vs. female) and employment status (undergraduate student vs. experienced working adult), establishing that the DFS-D measures the construct equivalently across distinct demographic populations.

9. Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the Desire for Status Scale was established through a series of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses conducted by Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy (2009).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the initial developmental phase, an item pool was generated based on extensive literature reviews regarding Machiavellian philosophy and transactional leadership. An initial exploratory factor analysis was performed on Sample 1 ($N = 379$) using maximum likelihood extraction paired with a Promax (oblique) rotation, recognizing that dimensions of personality are naturally correlated. Both the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy ($> .85$) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity ($p < .001$) confirmed data suitability.

Scree plot examination and parallel analysis consistently pointed toward a clear four-factor latent architecture. Factor 4 represented the Desire for Status dimension. The three final items exhibited exceptionally strong, clean factor loadings:

• Item 1 (“Status is a good sign of success in life”): Standardized factor loading = .71
• Item 2 (“Accumulating wealth is an important goal to me”): Standardized factor loading = .82
• Item 3 (“I want to be rich and powerful someday”): Standardized factor loading = .74

All cross-loadings onto the other three MPS factors (Distrust of Others, Amoral Manipulation, and Desire for Control) were negligible ($lambda < .15$), demonstrating clean simple structure.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To rigorously confirm this structural model, Dahling et al. (2009) tested the proposed four-factor framework in Sample 2 ($N = 338$) using structural equation modeling. The hypothesized four-factor model demonstrated strong fit to the empirical data:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): $1.82$, well below the conservative ceiling threshold of $2.0$.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.95$, exceeding the standard threshold of $.90$ for acceptable fit and aligning with stringent criteria for excellent fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.94$, reflecting minimal residual variance.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.049$ (with a 90% confidence interval of $.038$ to $.060$), satisfying Browne and Cudeck’s criterion for close approximate model fit ($< .05$).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.048$.

To rule out model misspecification, the authors tested alternative nested models. A single-factor Machiavellianism model (in which all 16 MPS items loaded onto a unitary latent factor, mirroring the classical Mach-IV approach) demonstrated unacceptable fit ($\chi^2/df = 4.21$, $\text{CFI} = .72$, $\text{RMSEA} = .112$). Similarly, a two-factor model combining cognitive and behavioral dimensions failed to approach the fit indices of the four-factor multidimensional solution. Within the CFA solution, completely standardized factor loadings for the three Desire for Status indicators ranged from $.68$ to $.81$, with all loadings statistically significant at $p < .001$. The latent construct captured substantial average variance extracted (AVE$> .55$), fulfilling the Fornell-Larcker criterion for discriminant and convergent validity.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration parameters and scoring metrics for the Desire for Status Scale (DFS-D) are summarized below:

• Test Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale; personality and motivational assessment subscale.
• Parent Inventory: Machiavellian Personality Scale (MPS; Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009).
• Target Domain: Motivation, social ambition, organizational psychology, and behavioral personality assessment.
• Item Count: 3 items (positively scored).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, enterprise HR software, or computer-assisted web-based survey (e.g., Qualtrics, REDCap).
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes when administered independently; 5 to 7 minutes when completed as part of the full 16-item MPS.
• Authentic Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Methodology:
  • Reverse-Scored Items: None. All three items are positively worded and directly scored.
  • Subscale Score Calculation: The subscale metric can be derived either by calculating the unweighted arithmetic mean of the three items (yielding a dimensional score between 1.00 and 5.00) or by calculating the sum of the three item responses (yielding a total raw score ranging between 3 and 15).
  • Interpretation Guidelines: Higher mean or composite scores denote an elevated motivation to signal personal success through public, status-conferring outcomes, social influence, and material wealth. Lower scores indicate an indifference to hierarchical signaling, preference for egalitarian structures, or an orientation toward intrinsic, non-monetary career values.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Desire for Status Scale was formally published in 2009 in the Journal of Management (Volume 35, Issue 1, pages 219–257). The copyright for the peer-reviewed article and its psychometric contents is held by the Southern Management Association and SAGE Publications.

Under standard academic Fair Use principles, the scale items may be utilized, reproduced, and analyzed by independent scholars, university researchers, and graduate students for non-commercial educational and scientific research purposes without royalty fees, provided that formal bibliographic citation is given to Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy (2009). For commercial employment testing, proprietary executive coaching programs, pre-employment screening batteries, or monetization within digital assessment applications, formal licensing clearance must be sought directly from SAGE Publications or the corresponding author.

12. References

The theoretical and empirical foundations of the Desire for Status Scale are documented in the following peer-reviewed literature:

• Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-10497-2
• Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35(1), 219–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318618
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4
• Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
• Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043

13. Items of the Scale