The purpose of the present study was to demonstrate behavioral differences between high Machiavellians (MACHS) as described by Christie (1970a) and those exhibiting the aberrant self-promotion pattern proposed by Gustafson and Ritzer (1995). The aberrant self-promoter (ASP) was defined as having a high degree of narcissism, combined with a low need to appear conventionally "nice" along with pronounced antisocial behavior. The Machiavellian was described as one who is capable of manipulating others to obtain some advantage. The situation that was proposed differentiate the two groups is a legislature game which involves bargaining and forming alliances. ASPs and Machiavellians were identified by the same procedures used by Gustafson and Ritzer (1995). In Condition 1, the issues being voted upon were value laden in the sense that they were designed to elicit an affective response. In Condition 2, the issues were value and affect neutral. The experimental subjects were undergraduates enrolled in psychology courses. It was predicted that because Machiavellians are better at separating affect from rational thought than are either ASPs or non-Mach non-ASPs, Machiavellians would perform better than either of the other groups in the value laden issues condition. It was also predicted that participants would rate aberrant self-promoters less favorably than other players on trust, respect, and likability due to the ASPs ineffectiveness in bargaining and forming alliances. Two repeated measures ANOVAs were performed to test the hypotheses. Results supported only the last prediction regarding likability. Reasons for these findings and implications were discussed / Master of Science