HIGH AND LOW M SUBJECTS PARTICIPATED IN AN INDUSTRIAL WORK SIMULATION IN WHICH MONEY COULD EITHER BE EARNED OR STOLEN FROM A MALE CONFEDERATE WHO PLAYED THE ROLE OF SUPERVISOR. THE CONFEDERATE BEHAVED IN A TRUSTFUL OR DISTRUSTFUL WAY DURING THE TEST SITUATION. IT WAS HYPOTHESIZED THAT HIGH M SUBJECTS WOULD STEAL MORE THAN LOW M SUBJECTS AND THAT WHILE SUPERVISION WOULD DETER THEFT DURING THE ACTUAL PERIOD OF SUPERVISION IT WOULD RESULT IN INCREASED LEVELS OF RETALIATORY THEFT DURING PERIODS WHEN THE SUPERVISOR WAS ABSENT. IN THE TRUST CONDITION THE CONFEDERATE STATED THAT THE SUBJECT LOOKED HONEST AND THAT HE FELT NO NEED TO CHECK UP ON HIM, WHILE IN THE DISHONEST CONDITION THE CONFEDERATE STATED THAT THE SUBJECT WOULD ROB HIM OF EVERYTHING IF NOT SUPERVISED. SUPERVISORY INSPECTIONS WERE MADE AT REGULAR INTERVALS DURING THE FIRST 10 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION AND NO INSPECTIONS WERE MADE DURING THE FINAL 10 MINUTES. TO PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE TO STEAL, THE CONFEDERATE'S EARNINGS ACCUMULATED AT A RATE OF ABOUT TWICE THAT OF THE SUBJECT'S. SUBJECTS WERE ALSO ASKED TO RATE THE TRUSTFULNESS/DISTRUSTFULNESS OF THE CONFEDERATE AT THE END OF THE SESSION. ANALYSIS OF DATA INDICATED THAT: (1) TRUSTING CONFEDERATES WERE RATED AS MORE TRUSTING AND FRIENDLY THAN DISTRUSTING CONFEDERATES; (2) HIGH M SUBJECTS SHOWED A SLIGHT TENDENCY TO RATE THE CONFEDERATE SLIGHTLY LESS TRUSTING THAN LOW M SUBJECTS; (3) 91 PERCENT OF THE SUBJECTS IN THE DISTRUSTFUL CONDITION STOLE MONEY AS COMPARED TO 52 PERCENT IN THE TRUSTING CONDITION; (4) THE PERCENTAGE OF THEFT UNDER THE DISTRUSTFUL CONDITION WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ACTUAL SUPERVISION, ALTHOUGH SLIGHTLY LARGER AMOUNTS WERE STOLEN DURING THE LAST 10 MINUTES OF THE SESSION; (5) IN THE DISTRUSTFUL CONDITION, LOW M SUBJECTS TENDED TO STEAL LESS DURING THE UNSUPERVISED STAGE WHILE HIGH M SUBJECTS TENDED TO STEAL MORE WHEN UNSUPERVISED; AND (6) OVERALL, HIGH M SUBJECTS STOLE MORE THAN LOW M SUBJECTS, THIS DIFFERENCE BEING PARTICULARLY MORE SIGNIFICANT FOR THE TRUSTFUL CONDITION THAN FOR THE DISTRUSTFUL CONDITION. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN MACHIAVELLIANISM AND SUPERVISORY STYLE FOUND IN THIS STUDY IS DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF DIFFERENCES IN PERCEIVED REWARDS/SANCTIONS BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW M SUBJECTS. DEBRIEFING INTERVIEWS INDICATED THAT IN EXPLAINING THEIR BEHAVIOR HIGH M SUBJECTS USED EXTERNAL JUSTIFICATIONS, I.E., FAULTY EQUIPMENT AND LACK OF SANCTIONS, WHILE LOW M SUBJECTS SHOWED LESS CONCERN OVER COMPETITION AND FELT STEALING WOULD BE UNFAIR OR DISHONEST. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (JAP)