Tactics of manipulation.

Abstract

Manipulation is one means by which environments are altered to correspond to characteristics of individuals. We conducted two studies to identify the manipulation tactics that people use to elicit and terminate the actions of others. Factor analyses of four instruments revealed six types of tactics: charm, silent treatment, coercion, reason, regression, and debasement. Tactics of manipulation showed strong individual difference consistency across contexts. The charm tactic, however, was used more frequently for behavioral elicitation, whereas the coercion and silent treatment tactics were used more frequently for behavioral termination. Manipulation tactics covaried significantly across self-based and observer-based data sources with personality scales of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Ambitious-Lazy, Arrogant-Unassuming, Quarrelsome-Agreeable, and Calculating and with characteristics of subjects' social environments. We draw implications for an interactionist framework of person-environment correspondence, for an expansion of the taxonomic task that faces personality psychology, and for identifying links between personality and other scientific disciplines.

Interpersonal Personality Measures Show Circumplex Structure Based on New Psychometric Criteria

“…The scales of the IAS have been shown to be related to a number of broader personality taxonomies, including the Five-factor model of personality (FFM;McCrae & Costa, 1989) and the Psychoticism-Extraversion-Neuroticism model (Wiggins & Broughton, 1985). The IAS has also been shown to be related to a number of more specific personality constructs, including narcissism (Buss & Chiodo, 1991), interpersonal manipulation (Buss, Gomes, Higgins, & Lauterbach, 1987), mate preferences (Buss & Barnes, 1986), and nonverbal behavior (Gifford & O'Connor, 1987). Indeed, Wiggins and Broughton (1991) determined the angular location of 172 personality scales with reference to the coordinates of the IAS.…”

How functionalist and process approaches to behavior can explain trait covariation.

“…For Study 1, we adapted a qualitative-to-quantitative approach frequently utilized by Buss and colleagues (e.g., Buss, Gomes, Higgins, & Lauterbach, 1987;Kyl-Heku & Buss, 1996;Meston & Buss, 2007; see also Yang et al, 2014) where many reasons for performing trait-related behaviors are first generated through a qualitative method, and then transformed into questionnaire items and empirically evaluated as correlates of these behavioral traits in a new sample. This method was adopted in large part because, as noted by Johnson (1999), people spontaneously explain actions by "suggesting that the actor (a) desired a certain goal, (b) believed that the action would help him/her reach the goal, and (c) had the ability to perform the act" (p. 449; Malle, 1999).…”

Social Support, Impression Management and Well-Being Following a Disaster: A Literature Review and Some Conceptual Considerations

“…Most impression management research has been conducted at the dyadic level and has focused on the types of strategies employed [23], motivations behind the use of each strategy [24], individual characteristics of agents and targets related to the use of impression management [25] and reactions of targets to impression management behaviors [26].…”