Survey participants perceive society as a space in which people are willing to take illegal steps for money, yet for the most part keep their distance from openly justifying manipulation and winning at any cost—alongside a marked split over the “pragmatic” ethics of hiding one’s intentions and abandoning modesty.
The online survey “Survey on Machiavellianism” (a convenience sample of 147 respondents), conducted on the tvojstav.com platform, shows a strong sense that society in Serbia is ready to “cross the line” when money is at stake, while at the same time maintaining a relatively firm moral boundary against openly justifying manipulation, breaking promises, and the idea that “only winning matters.”
Nearly 83% see people as willing to break the law for money
The most pronounced finding concerns perceptions of social reality: as many as 82.99% of respondents fully or mostly agree with the statement that “nowadays people are willing to do things punishable by law in order to obtain the money they need.” Only 5.44% disagree, while the rest take a neutral position or are undecided.
This points to a high level of social cynicism and distrust—i.e., the belief that rules are flexible and often broken when the benefit is judged to outweigh the risk.
Resistance to manipulation: a majority rejects “telling people what they want to hear”
Although the picture of society is pessimistic, respondents are considerably more restrictive when it comes to personal behavioural strategies. Regarding the claim that “in dealing with people, it is best to say what they want to hear,” 53.74% mostly or fully disagree, while 25.17% agree (the remainder are neutral or have no opinion). A similar pattern appears for an instrumental view of relationships: as many as 63.26% reject the view that “you should always choose acquaintances so that you can use them later.”
“The end justifies the means” has no majority support
One of the key markers of Machiavellianism—justifying the means if the goal is good—also meets resistance. With the statement “If the idea is good, it does not matter what means are used to implement it,” 62.59% mostly or fully disagree, while 22.44% agree.
Likewise, most reject the logic of winning at any cost: 59.86% disagree with the statement “It is not always important how you win, but whether you win,” while 19.04% agree.
A split over “pragmatic ethics”: hiding intentions and giving up modesty
However, the survey also registers a notable “pocket” of pragmatic attitudes. 44.90% agree that “you should not show your sincere intentions if it is useful,” while 31.97% disagree. The result is even sharper on modesty: 60.54% believe that “modesty is useless nowadays and brings harm,” compared with 29.94% who reject that view.
These findings suggest that part of the respondent group—without explicitly embracing “the end justifies the means”—relies on strategies of concealment, caution, and social instrumentality as ways of coping in an environment perceived as unfair.
Corruption: 16% were tempted, 10% say they were forced
In the section on experiences with corruption, 16.33% of respondents say that in the past year they were tempted to offer someone a bribe, while 10.20% report having been forced to give a bribe or participate in corruption. Most deny such experiences (82.31% and 89.12%, respectively), with a small share unwilling to answer.
Who responded: more women, median age 35, half up to €300
The sample includes 56.46% women and 43.54% men; the median age is 35 (mean 37.23). In terms of income, 49.66% report monthly earnings of up to €300, while 25.17% do not wish to answer. One third say they are members of a political party (33.33%), and 27.21% report having been engaged in pointing out injustice and lawlessness.
Methodological note
This survey was conducted on a convenience sample, so the findings primarily reflect the profile of those who responded, rather than a representative sample of the general population.