Personality and Social Interaction PDF

CHAPTER 15 Personality and Social Interaction Selection Personality Characteristics Desired in a Partner Assortative Mating for Personality: The Search for the Similar Do People Get th...

CHAPTER 15 Personality and Social Interaction Selection Personality Characteristics Desired in a Partner Assortative Mating for Personality: The Search for the Similar Do People Get the Partners They Want? And Are They Happy? Personality and the Selective Breakup of Couples Shyness and the Selection of Risky Situations Other Personality Traits and the Selection of Situations Evocation Aggression and the Evocation of Hostility Evocation of Anger and Upset in Couples Evocation of Likability, Pleasure, and Pain Evocation Through Expectancy Confirmation Manipulation: Social Influence Tactics A Taxonomy of Eleven Tactics of Manipulation Personality Predictors of Tactics of Manipulation Panning Back: An Overview of Personality and Social Interaction Summary and Evaluation Key Terms The Social and Cultural Domain K ate and Genevieve sipped coffee while discussing their dates from the previous evening. “Andrew seemed like a nice guy, at least at first,” Kate noted. “He was really polite, asked me what kind of food I liked, and he seemed genuinely interested in getting to know me. But I was a little turned off by the way he talked to our server. He was pretty rude and demanding. He also insisted on ordering my dinner for me, and he ordered something I didn’t like very much. Then over dinner he talked about himself the whole time. At the end of the night, he tried to invite himself back to my place, but I told him that I was tired and had to work early the next day.” “Did he try to kiss you or anything?” asked Genevieve. “Yeah, he started to give me a good-night kiss, but 470 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 470 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction then he started getting a little aggressive, and I had to push him away. So he walked off all angry. He re- ally wasn’t that nice of a guy after all. Anyway, how did your date with Jen go?” In the course of this conversation, Kate revealed a wealth of information about her date, Andrew— information that figures prominently in the social decisions we make. Andrew displayed aggressive- ness, both toward the server and toward Kate during the good-night kiss. He displayed self-centredness, focusing on himself during the course of the dinner. He showed a lack of empathy, as illustrated by his Profiles at online dating Web sites often mention uncaring attitude toward the feelings of the server personality characteristics that the person is seeking in and his abrupt sexual aggressiveness. The thin ve- a partner (e.g., caring, sense of humour, affectionate). neer of politeness quickly gave way over the evening, Personality plays an important role in social interaction. ©David J. Green/Alamy Stock Photo revealing an abrasive interpersonal disposition. This episode illustrates several key ways in which personality influences social interaction. Personality inter- acts with situations in three ways: through selection, evocation, and manipulation of the situation. These three mechanisms can be applied to an understanding of how personality affects interpersonal situations. First, the personality characteristics of others influence whether we select them as our dates, friends, and even marriage partners. In this episode, Kate was turned off by Andrew’s aggressive and self-centred personality characteristics. People’s personality characteristics also play a role in the kinds of interpersonal situations they select to enter and stay in. For example, someone with a personality different from Kate’s might actually be attracted to a guy like Andrew and could put up with his self-centredness. Second, the personality qualities of others evoke certain responses in us. Andrew’s aggressive displays upset Kate, evoking an emotional response that would not have been evoked if he had been kinder and more caring. Behaviours related to personality can evoke many responses in others, ranging from aggression to social sup- port, and from relationship satisfaction to infidelity. Third, personality is linked to the ways in which we try to influence or manipulate others. Andrew first tried the charm tactic. Then he pulled out the boasting tactic. Finally, he used coercion, trying to force himself on Kate. Someone with a different personality might use different tactics such as reason or reward. These three processes—selection, evocation, and manipulation—are key ways in which personality interacts with the social environment. Individuals in everyday life are not exposed to all possible social situations; indi- viduals with certain personality dispositions seek out and avoid social situations selectively. Personality also influences how we evoke different reactions from other people and how others in turn evoke different re- sponses from us, sometimes quite unintentionally. And personality affects how we purposely influence, change, exploit, and manipulate the others with whom we have chosen to be associated. 471 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 471 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Selection In everyday life, people choose to enter some situations and to avoid others. These forms of situation selection can hinge on personality dispositions and how we view ourselves. Such choices range in importance from the seemingly trivial (“Should I attend this party tonight?”) to the profound (“Should I take this job offer and move across the country?”). Social selections permeate daily life; they are decision points that direct us to choose one path and avoid another. These decisions, which determine the nature of our social environments and social worlds, are often based on the personality characteristics of the selector. Mate selection provides a dramatic example of this mechanism. When you select a long-term partner, you place yourself into close and prolonged contact with one particular other. This alters the social environment to which you are exposed and in which you will reside. By selecting a partner, you are selecting the social acts you will experience and a network of friends and family. In terms of personality characteristics, who do people seek as potential partners? Are there common personal- ity characteristics that are highly desired by everyone? Do we look for potential partners who have personali- ties similar to our own or different from our own? And how is the choice of a partner linked to the likelihood that a couple will stay together over time? Personality Characteristics Desired in a Partner What do people want in a long-term partner? This was the focus of an international investigation of 10,047 individuals located on six continents and five islands from around the world (Buss et al., 1990). A total of 37 samples were chosen from 33 countries, representing every major racial group, religious group, and politi- cal system. Samples ranged from the coastal-dwelling Australians to the South African Zulu people. The eco- nomic status of the samples varied from middle- and upper-middle-class college/university students to lower socioeconomic groups, such as the Gujarati Indians and Estonians. Fifty researchers were involved in the data collection. Standard questionnaires were translated into the native language of each culture and then were administered to the samples by native residents of each culture. This study, the largest conducted on what people want in a long-term partner, revealed that personality characteristics play a central role in selection. In the Exercise that follows, you can complete this questionnaire yourself and see how your selection preferences compare with those of the worldwide sample. Exercise INSTRUCTIONS: Evaluate the following factors in choosing a mate or partner. If you consider the factor to be indispensable, give it 3 points important, but not indispensable, give it 2 points desirable, but not very important, give it 1 point irrelevant or unimportant, give it 0 points 1. Good cook and housekeeper 2. Pleasing disposition 3. Sociability 472 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 472 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction 4. Similar educational background 5. Refinement, neatness 6. Good financial prospect 7. Chastity (no prior intercourse) 8. Dependable character 9. Emotional stability 10. Desire for home and children 11. Favourable social status 12. Good looks 13. Similar religious background 14. Ambition and industriousness 15. Similar political background 16. Mutual attraction or love 17. Good health 18. Education and intelligence Now compare your ratings with the ratings given by the international sample of 10,047 men and women shown in Table 15.1. As you can see in Table 15.1, mutual attraction or love was the most favoured characteristic, viewed as indis- pensable by almost everyone in the world. After mutual attraction or love, personality characteristics loom large in people’s mate selection preferences—dependable character, emotional stability, and pleasing disposi- tion. You may recall that these are quite close to the labels given to three of the factors in the five-factor model of personality (see Chapter 3). Dependability is close to conscientiousness. Emotional stability is identical to the fourth factor on the five-factor model. And pleasing disposition is quite close to agreeableness. Other per- sonality factors rated highly include sociability, refinement and neatness, and ambition and industriousness. Note that the respondents’ top choices, except for love, were personality characteristics. Thus, personality fac- tors play a central role in what people worldwide are looking for in a long-term partner—findings that have now been documented over many decades of research (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2004; Kamble et al., 2014; Lei et al., 2011; Souza et al., 2016). Moreover, the priority placed on personality traits such as Agreeableness, Conscien- tiousness, and Emotional Stability occur regardless of sexual orientation; they are as strong among non-het- erosexual men and women as they are among heterosexual men and women (Valentova et al., 2016). Low scores on these personality traits tend to be relationship “dealbreakers” (Jonason et al., 2015). Assortative Mating for Personality: The Search for the Similar Over the past century, two fundamentally competing scientific theories have been advanced for who is attracted to whom. Complementary needs theory postulates that people are attracted to those who have different personality dispositions than they have (Murstein, 1976; Winch, 1954). People who are dominant, for example, might have a need for someone whom they can control and dominate. People who are submissive, according to complementary needs theory, choose a mate who can dominate and control them. One easy way to think about complementary needs theory is with the phrase “opposites attract.” In contrast, attraction similarity theory postulates that people are attracted to those who have similar personality characteristics. People who are dominant might be attracted to those who are also dominant 473 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 473 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Table 15.1 Summary of Ratings by Sex Using Entire International Sample RATINGS BY MALES RATINGS BY FEMALES Ranked Std. Std. Value Variable Name Mean Dev. Variable Name Mean Dev. 1. Mutual attraction or love 2.81 0.16 Mutual attraction or love 2.87 0.12 2. Dependable character 2.50 0.46 Dependable character 2.69 0.31 3. Emotional stability and 2.47 0.20 Emotional stability and 2.68 0.20 maturity maturity 4. Pleasing disposition 2.44 0.29 Pleasing disposition 2.52 0.30 5. Good health 2.31 0.33 Education and intelligence 2.45 0.25 6. Education and 2.27 0.19 Sociability 2.30 0.28 intelligence 7. Sociability 2.15 0.28 Good health 2.28 0.30 8. Desire for home and 2.09 0.50 Desire for home and 2.21 0.44 children children 9. Refinement, neatness 2.03 0.48 Ambition and 2.15 0.35 industriousness 10. Good looks 1.91 0.26 Refinement, neatness 1.98 0.49 11. Ambition and 1.85 0.35 Similar education 1.84 0.47 industriousness 12. Good cook and 1.80 0.48 Good financial prospect 1.76 0.38 housekeeper 13. Good financial prospect 1.51 0.42 Good looks 1.46 0.28 14. Similar education 1.50 0.37 Favourable social status or 1.46 0.39 rating 15. Favourable social status 1.16 0.28 Good cook and 1.28 0.27 or rating housekeeper 16. Chastity (no previous 1.06 0.69 Similar religious 1.21 0.56 experience in sexual background intercourse) 17. Similar religious 0.98 0.48 Similar political background 1.03 0.35 background 18. Similar political 0.92 0.36 Chastity (no previous 0.75 0.66 background experience in sexual intercourse) 474 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 474 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction because they like someone who “pushes back.” People who are extraverted might like partners who are also extraverted so that they can party together. One easy way to remember this theory is with the phrase “birds of a feather flock together.” Although there have been many proponents of both theories over the past century, the results are now in. They provide overwhelming support for the attraction similarity the- ory and no support for the complementary needs theory (Buss, 2016). Although some individual differ- ences exist, the research shows that people are generally drawn to those who share their traits and characteristics. One of the most common findings in the mate selection literature—that people are partnered with people who are similar to themselves—is a phenomenon known as assortative mating. For nearly every variable that has been examined—from single actions to ethnic status—people seem to select mates or partners who are similar to themselves. Even for physical characteristics such as height, weight, and, astonishingly, nose breadth and earlobe length, couples show positive correlations. Even the perceived personality of individuals based on faces—that is, personality trait assessment based solely on judgments of photographs—shows evidence of as- sortative mating (Little, Burt, & Perrett, 2006). Couples who have been together the longest appear most simi- lar in personality, a finding that results from the initial selection process and from dissimilar couples breaking up more frequently (e.g., Humbad et al., 2010). Although research on assortative mating in gay and lesbian couples is lacking, a few studies have suggested a slightly smaller degree of simi- larity in basic characteristics compared to straight couples (e.g., Verba- kel & Kalmijn, 2014). According to recent analyses of large population data from the Netherlands, gay male couples are less homogenous in terms of age and education than different-sex couples, while lesbian couples are less homogenous in age only (Verbakel & Kalmijn, 2014); yet there remains evidence for some degree of assortative mating even People often are attracted to others in same-sex partnerships. In terms of personality traits specifically, a who are similar to themselves. This study of gay and straight couples in Brazil and the Czech Republic refers to the concept of assortative found that men in both types of relationships preferred similar traits mating. to roughly the same degree (Štěrbová et al., 2017). However, when the ©Rido/Shutterstock researchers examined the actual traits of both populations (rather than preferences), they found that straight partners resembled each other on Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness, while gay partners resembled each other only on Extraversion. It seems that in gay coupling, preferences translate into actual mate choice less often. One important factor in such differences may be the size of the mating pool, with gay and lesbian individuals having fewer potential partners to choose from. Are the positive correlations observed between partners caused by the active selection of significant others who are similar? Or are the positive correlations merely byproducts of other causal processes? Sheer proxim- ity, for example, could, in principle, account for some of the positive correlations. It is known that people tend to marry those who are close by. Notions of romantic love aside, the “one and only” typically lives within driv- ing distance. And because people in close proximity may have certain common characteristics, the positive correlations found between partners may be merely a side effect of mating with those who are close by rather than the active selection of partners who are similar. Cultural institutions, such as colleges and universities, may promote assortative mating by preferentially admitting those who are similar with respect to certain vari- ables, such as intelligence, motivation, and social skills. 475 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 475 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain To test these competing predictions, Botwin and colleagues (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997) studied two samples of subjects: straight dating couples and straight newlywed couples. The participants were asked to express their preferences for the personality characteristics in a potential mate on 40 rating scales, which were scored on five dimensions of personality: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stabil- ity, and Intellect–Openness. The next step was to assess personality dispositions on these dimensions, using the same 40 rating scales. Three data sources were used for this second stage: self-reports; reports by their partners; and independent reports by interviewers. Correlations with mate preferences were computed be- tween two sets of personality ratings: the ones made by the subject (self) and the average of the peer and inter- viewer ratings of the subject (aggregate). As shown in Table 15.2, these correlations were consistently positive. Those who scored high on Extraversion wanted to select an extraverted person as a partner. Those who scored high on Conscientiousness desired a con- scientious partner. The conclusions from this study, of course, must be qualified by one important consideration— perhaps the preferences people express for the personalities of their ideal partners might be influenced by the partners they already have. If an emotionally stable person is already partnered to an emotionally stable person, perhaps the choice is justified by claiming that they are truly attracted to the person chosen. This could result in positive correlations between one’s own personality and the personality people express for a desired partner. Nonetheless, studies of individuals who are not partnered already find the same pattern of results—people prefer those who are similar to themselves (e.g., Buss, 2012), supporting the attraction similarity theory. Table 15.2 Personality Correlated with Partner Preferences among Straight Couples DATING COUPLES MARRIED COUPLES MEN WOMEN MEN WOMEN Trait Self Aggregate Self Aggregate Self Aggregate Self Aggregate Extraversion.33*.42**.59***.35**.20*.15.30**.25** Agreeableness.37*.17.44***.46***.30**.12.44***.31** Conscientiousness.34**.45***.59***.53***.53***.49***.61***.53*** Emotional Stability.29*.36**.52***.30*.27**.21*.32***.27** Intellect–Openness.56***.54***.63***.50***.24*.31**.48***.52**** *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001 Note: Each correlation in the table refers to the relationship between the personality trait of the individual and the corresponding personality trait desired in a partner. Thus, under Men, Self-Report column, the.33* indicates that men who are highly extraverted tend to prefer partners who are also extraverted. The fact that all the correlations in the table are positive, many significantly so, indicates that people generally want mates who are similar to themselves in personality. These data provide evidence that positive correlations on personality variables between partners in committed rela- tionships are due, at least in part, to direct social preferences based on the personality characteristics of those doing the selecting. Subsequent studies have confirmed that people actively prefer romantic partners who are similar to themselves on Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Intellect–Openness. How- ever, most people consider the “ideal” romantic partner personality to be someone who is higher on Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability than they are (Figueredo, Sefcek, & Jones, 2006). In sum, personality characteristics appear to play a pivotal role in the social mechanism of selection. 476 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 476 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction Do People Get the Partners They Want? And Are They Happy? A fact of human life is that we do not always get what we want, and this is true of partner selection. You may want a partner who is kind, understanding, dependable, emotionally stable, and intelligent, but such desirable partners are always in short supply compared with the numbers of people who seek them. Therefore, many people end up partnered with individuals who fall short of their ideals. It is reasonable to predict, therefore, that individuals whose partners deviate from their ideals will be less satisfied than those whose partners embody their desires. Table 15.3 shows the correlations between the preferences that individuals express for the ideal personality characteristics of their partners and the partners’ actual personality characteristics (Botwin et al., 1997, p. 127). Across three of the four subsamples—women who are dating, women who are married, and men who are married—there are modest but consistently positive correlations between the personality desired in a partner and the actual personality characteristics displayed by the partner. The correspondence between what one wants and what one gets is especially strong for Extraversion and Intellect–Openness. In short, as a general rule, people seem to find the partners they want in terms of personality. Table 15.3 Personality Partner Preferences and Personality of Partner Obtained among Straight Couples DATING COUPLES MARRIED COUPLES WOMEN’S MEN’S MEN’S WOMEN’S PREFERENCES PREFERENCES PREFERENCES PREFERENCES Partner’s Personality Self Aggregate Self Aggregate Self Aggregate Self Aggregate Extraversion.25.39**.28*.24.39***.49***.31***.32** Agreeableness.28*.32.24.02.20*.40***.03.25 Conscientiousness.28*.29*.24.26.36***.46***.13.24 Emotional Stability.36**.12.40**.10.27**.37**.07.12 Intellect–Openness.33**.41**.40**.11.24**.39***.14.39**** *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001 Are people who get what they want happier with their relationships than people who do not? To examine this issue, Botwin and colleagues (1997) created difference scores between the preferences each individual ex- pressed for the ideal personality of a partner and assessments of the partner’s actual personality. These differ- ence scores were then used to predict satisfaction with the relationship, after first controlling for the main effects of the spouse’s personality. The results were consistent—one’s partner’s personality had a substantial effect on relationship satisfaction. Specifically, people were especially happy with their relationships if they were partnered with people who were high on the personality characteristics of Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Intellect–Openness. But the difference in scores between the partner’s personality and one’s ideal for that personality did not predict relationship satisfaction. In other words, the key to happiness is having a partner who is agreeable, emotionally stable, and open, regardless of whether the partner departs in specific ways from what one wants (Luo et al., 2008). The correlations between the participants’ relationship satisfaction scores and the partners’ personality scores, ob- tained through the partners’ self-reports, are shown in Table 15.4. Having a partner who is agreeable is an especially 477 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 477 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Table 15.4 Facet of Relationship Satisfaction and Partner’s Self-Reported Trait Ratings among Straight Couples PARTNER’S SELF-REPORTED TRAIT RATINGS Relationship Satisfaction E A C ES I–O Men’s relationship satisfaction General.12.32***.06.27**.29** Partner as someone to confide in –.05.27**.07.11.05 Sexual –.08.31**.32***.25**.04 Partner as source of encouragement and support.03.29**.11.26**.18 Love and affection expressed.07.31**.14.21*.26** Enjoyment of time spent with spouse.11.30**.13.28**.08 Frequency of laughing with spouse.19*.23*.19.11.24** Partner as source of stimulating conversation.06.12 –.04.21*.17 Women's relationship satisfaction General.07.37***.20*.23*.31*** Partner as someone to confide in.06.25**.15.24**.27** Sexual.08.19*.14.09.13 Partner as source of encouragement and support.04.47***.06.20*.31*** Love and affection expressed –.04.29**.14.28**.33*** Enjoyment of time spent with spouse.06.27**.06.33***.18 Frequency of laughing with spouse –.02.27** –.02.10.08 Partner as source of stimulating conversation.23*.24**.25**.18.45*** *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001 Note: E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness: C = Conscientiousness: ES = Emotional Stability; I–O = Intellect–Openness. strong predictor of being happy with one’s relationship for both men and women. People partnered with agreeable individuals are more satisfied with their sex lives and view their partners as more loving and affectionate, a source of shared laughter, and a source of stimulating conversation. People partnered with disagreeable individuals are the most unhappy with the relationship and perhaps are most at risk of separation or divorce. The other personality factors that are consistently associated with relationship satisfaction are conscientious- ness, emotional stability, and intellect–openness. Straight men whose wives score high on conscientiousness are significantly more sexually satisfied with their marriage. Straight women whose husbands score high on conscientiousness are generally more satisfied as well as happier with their partners as sources of stimulating conversation—a finding replicated in a study of 125 long-wed couples (Claxton et al., 2012). Both men and women whose partners score high on emotional stability are generally more satisfied, view their partners as sources of encouragement and support, and enjoy spending time with their partners. Low emotional stability 478 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 478 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction scores are linked with relationship dissatisfaction among dating university students and among older adults in committed relationships (Slatcher & Vazire, 2009). Indeed, a meta-analysis of 19 samples found that emo- tional stability and agreeableness were the strongest predictors of satisfaction in intimate romantic relation- ships (Malouff et al., 2010). High neuroticism in one or both members of the couple leads to relationship dissatisfaction (Schaffhuser et al., 2014). On a positive note for those partnered with individuals low on emo- tional stability, one study found that having frequent sexual intercourse seems to protect couples from the negative marital consequences of neuroticism (Russell & McNulty, 2011). Another link between personality and relationship satisfaction emerges over the years following the first year of marriage. As a general rule, in the newlywed year, people rate their partners high on agreeableness, consci- entiousness, extraversion, and intellect–openness (Watson & Humrichouse, 2006). Over the ensuing two years, however, ratings of partners’ personalities become increasingly negative on these dimensions, illustrat- ing a “honeymoon effect.” And those who show the most marked negative ratings of their partner’s personal- ity over time show the largest decreases in marital happiness. One speculation is that couples in progressively unhappy marriages actually display progressively more unpleasant personalities, such as lower levels of agree- ableness, but only within the marital context itself. Those who maintain positive illusions about their partner’s personality, in contrast, maintain high levels of satisfaction (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2011). Another key predictor of marital satisfaction is mate value—whether one succeeds in selecting a mate whose personality embodies qualities most people want. Those partnered with high mate-value individuals tend to be happier in their rela- tionship than those partnered with lower mate value individuals (Conroy-Beam et al., 2016). In summary, the personality of one’s partner plays an important role in marital satisfaction. Those who select partners high on agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and intellect–openness show the great- est happiness with their relationships. Those who select partners low on these personality factors are the most unhappy with their relationships. Differences from each person’s individual ideal, however, do not appear to contribute to relationship or marital satisfaction. An important caveat in the research findings to date is that they are primarily based on straight couples. More research is needed on assortative mating and personality in gay and lesbian partnerships. Personality and the Selective Breakup of Couples We have examined two ways in which personality plays a role in the partner selection process. First, there ap- pear to be universal selection preferences—personality characteristics that everyone desires in a potential partner, such as dependability and emotional stability. Second, beyond the desires shared by everyone, people prefer partners who are similar to themselves in personality—dominant people prefer other dominant people, conscientious people prefer other conscientious people, and so on. But there is a third role that personality plays in the process of selection—its role in the selective breakup of relationships. According to one theory of conflict between the sexes, breakups should occur more when one’s desires are vio- lated than when they are fulfilled (Buss, 2016). Following the violation of desire theory, we would predict that people partnered with others who lack desired characteristics, such as dependability and emotional sta- bility, will more frequently end the relationship. We would also predict, based on people’s preferences for those who share their personality attributes, that the couples who are dissimilar on personality will break up more often than those who fulfill desires for similarity. Are these predictions borne out in the research findings? Across a wide variety of studies, emotional instability has been the most consistent personality predictor of rela- tionship instability and dissolution, emerging as a significant predictor in nearly every study that has included a 479 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 479 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain measure of it (Karney & Bradbury, 1997; Kelly & Conley, 1987). One reason is that emotionally unstable indi- viduals display high levels of jealousy—they worry more about a partner’s infidelity, try to prevent social contact between their partner and others, and react more explosively when their partner does in fact engage in sex with others (Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008). Low impulse control, or low conscientiousness (i.e., being impulsive and unre- liable), particularly as exhibited by men, also emerges as a good predictor of relationship dissolution and dissat- isfaction in straight relationships (Claxton et al., 2012; Kelly & Conley, 1987). A study of 52 nations found that the personality traits of low agreeableness and low conscientiousness (high impulsivity) were linked with higher rates of sexual infidelity in romantic relationships (Schmitt, 2004). Interestingly, extraversion and dominance are linked with higher levels of sexual promiscuity (Markey & Markey, 2007; Schmitt, 2004), although these person- ality traits are not related to relationship satisfaction or breakups. Being partnered with someone who lacks the personality characteristics that most people desire—dependability, emotional stability, and pleasing disposition—puts one most at risk for breakup. People actively seek partners who are dependable and emotionally stable, and those who fail to choose such partners are at greater risk of breaking up. Other studies also point to two other influences of personality on relationship satisfaction or dis- satisfaction. One is similarity in overall personality profile, rather than similarity in individual personality traits (Luo & Klohnen, 2005). The second is closeness of match between an individual’s conception of an ideal mate and their partner’s actual personality (Zentner, 2005). Both personality profile similarity and congruence between ideal and actual partner are linked with positive relationship outcomes, such as marital quality. In summary, personality plays two key roles in mate selection. First, as part of the initial selection process, it determines the partners to whom we are attracted and the partners whom we desire. Second, personality affects satisfaction with one’s partner and therefore determines the selective breakup of couples. Those who fail to select partners who are similar, agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable tend to break up more often than those who succeed in selecting such partners. Shyness and the Selection of Risky Situations Several other domains of selection have also been explored by personality researchers. One important domain per- tains to the effects of the personality disposition of shyness. Shyness is defined as a tendency to feel tense, worried, or anxious during social interactions or even when anticipating a social interaction (Addison & Schmidt, 1999). Shyness is a common phenomenon, and more than 90 percent of the population experience shyness at some point during their lives (Zimbardo, 1977). Some people, however, seem to be dispositionally shy—they tend to feel awk- ward in many social situations and so tend to avoid situations in which they will be forced to interact with people. The effects of shyness on the selection of situations have been well documented. During high school and early adulthood, shy individuals tend to avoid social situations, resulting in a form of isolation (Schmidt & Fox, 1995). Shy women are also more likely to avoid going to the doctor for gynecological exams, and hence they put themselves at greater health risk (Kowalski & Brown, 1994). They are less likely to bring up the awkward issue of contraception with their partners before sexual intercourse, and so put themselves in potentially dan- gerous sexual situations (Bruch & Hynes, 1987). Shyness also affects whether a person is willing to select risky situations in the form of gambles (Addison & Schmidt, 1999). In an experiment led by Louis Schmidt of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, shy people were identified through the Cheek (1983) shyness scale. This scale contains items such as “I find it hard to talk to strangers” and “I feel inhibited in social situations.” On entry into the laboratory, each participant received the 480 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 480 1/17/20 8:31 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction following instructions: “During this part of the experiment, you have a chance to win some money by picking a poker chip out of this container. There are 100 poker chips in this box that are numbered from 1 to 100....” The participants were given a choice to pick a gamble that they would most likely win (95 percent odds of winning) but from which they would receive only a small amount of money (e.g., 25¢), or to pick a riskier gamble, perhaps with only a 5 percent chance of winning but from which, if they won, they would receive $4.75. The experiment- ers also recorded the heart rate of the participants during their choice of gambles. Researchers found that shy women differed substantially from their non-shy counter- parts in choosing the smaller bets that were linked with a higher likelihood of winning. The non-shy women, in contrast, chose the riskier bets with a lower likelihood of win- ning but with a larger payoff if they did win. During the task, the shy participants showed a larger increase in heart rate, suggesting that fearfulness might have led them to avoid the risky gambles (Addison & Schmidt, 1999). These studies illustrate the importance of the personality disposition of shyness in the Shy individuals often feel tense or anxious in social situations selection of, or avoidance of, certain situa- and avoid entering situations in which they would be forced to tions. Shy women tend to avoid others, cre- interact with others. ating social isolation, and to avoid choosing ©BananaStock/Getty Images risky gambles. Perhaps paradoxically, they also avoid going to the doctor for gynecological exams and avoid obtaining condoms, thus putting themselves at greater health risk than less shy women. Shyness, in short, appears to have a substantial impact on the se- lective entry into, or avoidance of, situations. Other Personality Traits and the Selection of Situations Other personality traits have been shown to affect selective entry into, or avoidance of, certain situations (Ickes et al., 1997). Those who are more empathic, for example, are more likely to enter situations such as volunteer- ing for community activities (Davis et al., 1999). Those high on psychoticism seem to choose volatile and spon- taneous situations more than formal or stable ones (Furnham, 1982). Those high on Machiavellianism prefer face-to-face situations, perhaps because these offer a better chance to ply their social manipulative skills to ex- ploit others (Geis & Moon, 1981). People high on extraversion tend to select more friends; however, people high on agreeableness tend to be selected more often by others as friends (Selfhout et al., 2010). High sensation seek- ers have been found to more frequently choose to enter risky situations (McCoul & Haslam, 2001). In a study of 112 straight men, those who scored high on sensation seeking were more likely than their low-scoring peers to have unprotected sex more frequently (r =.21, p <.05). Even more striking, high sensation seekers had sexual intercourse with many more different partners than low sensation seekers (r =.45, p <.001). Personality researchers are also interested in how people choose to use online social environments like Face- book and Twitter as a function of their personality traits. A large international study of over 20,000 adults from around the world found that high extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were all 481 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 481 1/17/20 8:32 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain associated with more frequent social media use, including for the purposes of social interaction and reading news (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2017). Perhaps not surprisingly, extraversion has been the trait most consistently associated with higher social media use for social and relational purposes, while openness to experience has been inconsistent across studies (Correa et al., 2010; Gil de Zuniga et al., 2017). In sum, personality affects the situations to which people are exposed through their selective entry into, or avoidance of, certain kinds of activities, even those which unfold on our electronic devices. Concept Check Describe three specific ways in which personality traits influence selection processes in relationships, from partner selection to relationship satisfaction and dissolution. How is shyness associated with the selection of risky situations? Evocation Once we select others to occupy our social environment, a second class of processes is set into motion—the evocation of reactions from others. Evocation may be defined as the ways in which features of personality elicit reactions from others. Recall from Chapter 3 the study of highly active children. Compared with their less active peers, highly active children tend to elicit hostility and competitiveness from others. Both parents and teachers tend to get into power struggles with these active children. The social interactions of less active children are more peaceful and harmonious. This is a perfect example of the process of evocation at work—a personality characteristic (in this case, activity level) evokes a predictable set of social responses from others (hostility and power struggles). Another example comes from the evocation of trust and cooperativeness by those high on honesty–humility (Thielmann & Hilbig, 2014). Perhaps because high scorers tend to trust other people, they evoke trustworthy expectations in those with whom they interact. Aggression and the Evocation of Hostility It is well known that aggressive people evoke hostility from others (Dodge & Coie, 1987). People who are ag- gressive expect that others will be hostile toward them. One study has shown that aggressive people chroni- cally interpret ambiguous behaviour from others, such as being bumped into, as intentionally hostile (Dill et al., 1999). This is called a hostile attributional bias, the tendency to infer hostile intent on the part of others in the face of ambiguous behaviour from them. Because they expect others to be hostile, aggressive people tend to treat others in an aggressive manner. People who are treated in an aggressive manner often aggress back. In this case, the aggressive reactions of others confirm what the aggressive person suspected all along—that others have hostility toward them. But what the aggressive person fails to realize is that the hostility from others is a product of their own making— the aggressor evokes it from others by treating them aggressively. A recent review of the research on children and adolescents found that reactive aggression (the kind that involves reacting in anger and frustration) is more closely associated with the hostile attribution bias than proactive or premeditated aggression (Martinelli et al., 2018). 482 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 482 1/17/20 8:32 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction Evocation of Anger and Upset in Couples Personality can play a role in evoking conflict in close relationships in at least two ways. First, a person can perform actions that cause an emotional response in a partner. A dominant person, for example, might act in a condescending manner, habitually evoking upset in the partner. Or a person low in conscientiousness might neglect household chores and responsibilities, which might upset their partner. In short, personality charac- teristics can evoke emotions in others through the actions performed. A second form of evocation occurs when a person elicits actions from another that in turn upset the original elicitor. An aggressive man, for example, might elicit the silent treatment from his partner, which in turn up- sets him because his partner won’t speak to him. A condescending wife might undermine the self-esteem of her husband and then become angry because he lacks self-confidence. People’s personality traits can upset others either directly by influencing how they act toward others or indirectly by eliciting actions from others that are upsetting. To examine these forms of evocation, it is necessary to design a study that assesses the personality character- istics of both persons involved. In one study, the personality characteristics of husbands and wives were as- sessed through three data sources: self-report, spouse-report, and independent reports by two interviewers (Buss, 1991a). An instrument assessed multiple sources of anger and upset in close relationships (Buss, 1989). A short version of this instrument is shown in the Exercise in this section. Exercise INSTRUCTIONS: We all do things that upset or anger other people from time to time. Think of a close romantic partner or close friend with whom you have been involved. Following is a list of things this person might have done that evoked anger or upset in you. Read the list, and place a check by the things your partner or close friend has done in the past year that have irritated, an- gered, annoyed, or upset you. 1. They treated me as if I were stupid or inferior. 2. They demanded too much of my time. 3. They ignored my feelings. 4. They slapped me. 5. They saw someone else intimately. 6. They did not help clean up. 7. They fussed too much with his/her appearance. 8. They acted too moody. 9. They refused to have sex with me. 10. They talked about members of the opposite sex as if they were sex objects. 11. They got drunk. 12. They did not dress well or appropriately for a social gathering. 13. They told me that I was ugly. 14. They tried to use me for sexual purposes. 15. They acted selfishly. These acts represent items from the larger instrument of 147 acts that one can do to upset or anger a member of the opposite sex. The acts correspond to the following factors: (1) condescending, 483 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 483 1/17/20 8:32 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain (2) possessive/jealous, (3) neglecting/rejecting, (4) abusive, (5) unfaithful, (6) inconsiderate, (7) physically self-absorbed, (8) moody, (9) sexually withholding, (10) sexualizing of others, (11) abusive of alcohol, (12) dishevelled, (13) insulting of partner’s appearance, (14) sexually aggressive, and (15) self-centred. It turns out that the personality of the person we are close to is a reasonably good predictor of whether that person will perform these upsetting acts. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine which personality traits predicted that the partner would become upset. The results were similar for men and women. The husbands high on dominance tended to upset their partners by being condescending— treating their wives’ opinions as unintelligent or inferior and placing more value on their own opinions. The husbands who scored low on con- scientiousness, in contrast, tended to upset their wives by having extramarital affairs. By far the strongest predictors of evoked anger and upset, however, were the personality characteristics of disagreeableness and emotional instability. Disagreeable husbands evoked anger and upset in their wives in the following ways: being con- descending, such as treating them as if they were The strongest predictors of a wife’s anger and relationship inferior; neglecting and rejecting them, such as dissatisfaction in heterosexual marriages are the failing to spend enough time with them and ig- personality traits of disagreeableness and emotional noring their feelings; abusing them, such as slap- instability on the part of the husband. ping, hitting, or spitting; committing infidelity; ©SrdjanVrebac/Shutterstock abusing alcohol; insulting their appearance, such as calling them ugly; and exhibiting self-centredness. Indeed, low agreeableness of the husband was a better predictor of evoking upset in the wife than any other personality variable in the study. The more emotionally unstable husbands also evoked anger and upset in their wives. In addition to being condescending, abusive, unfaithful, inconsiderate, and abusive of alcohol, these husbands also upset their wives by being moody (acting irritable) as well as jealous and possessive. For example, the emotionally un- stable men tended to upset their wives by demanding too much attention, monopolizing the wife’s time, being too dependent, and flying into jealous rages. Several other studies have confirmed the important role of agreeableness and emotional stability in evoking or diminishing conflict in interpersonal relationships. In one study that used both hypothetical and daily diary as- sessments of conflict, those high in agreeableness tended to evoke less interpersonal conflict (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). One reason might be that highly agreeable individuals tend to use “compromise” in dealing with conflict when it arises, whereas those low in agreeableness are less willing to compromise and are more likely to use verbal insults and physical force to deal with conflict. The importance of low agreeableness in evoking conflict extends to a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, including those in the workplace (Bono et al., 2002). These links between personality and conflict show up at least as soon as early adolescence—young teenagers low in agreeableness not only evoke more conflict, but are also more likely to become victimized by their peers 484 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 484 1/17/20 8:32 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction in high school (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002). More agreeable individuals tend to use more effective conflict resolution tactics, a path leading to harmonious social interactions (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2003). They also tend to evoke trust and cooperation in laboratory-based economic games (Zhao & Smillie, 2015). Those high in neuroticism also appear more likely to experience greater conflict in their relationships, whereas those high in positive emotionality (a close cousin of agreeableness) experience less conflict in all of their relationships (Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002). Indeed, studies from the United States, Australia, the Netherlands, and Germany reveal that agreeableness and emotional stability are the traits most consistently conducive to evoking satisfaction in relationships (Barelds, 2005; Donnellan, Larsen-Rife, & Conger, 2005; Heaven et al., 2003; Neyer & Voigt, 2004; White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004). The Application box provides principles to make a successful marriage. Application Psychologist John Gottman has been conducting research on marriage and relationship dynamics for three decades. His main question has been “What distinguishes the happily married couple from the dissatisfied, unhappy couple?” After studying thousands of marital pairs, some of whom have been happily married for years and others of whom were applying for divorce, he has found many ways that the happy and unhappy couples differ. He distilled his research findings in an ap- plied book on how to make marriage work (Gottman & Silver, 1999). His seven principles of posi- tive relationships are summarized below. Several of these principles concern behaviours related to evoking responses in the partner. 1. Develop an empathic understanding of your partner (see Chapter 11 for a discussion of empa- thy). Get to know their “world,” their preferences, and the important events in their life. As an example, once a day try to find out one important or significant event for your partner: what they are looking forward to or what important event happened to them. Trivial as it sounds, try asking, “How was your day?” each day. 2. Remain fond of each other and try to nurture your affection for your partner. Remember why you like this person, and tell them about it. As an example, keep a photo album together and go over it once in a while, reminding yourself of the fun times you had together and how much you enjoy being with this special person. 3. In times of stress, turn toward, rather than away from, each other. Also during the good times, do things together. In other words, don’t take your partner for granted, and never ignore him, even in day-to-day life. Pay attention, stay connected, touch each other, and talk frequently. 4. Share power, even if you think you are the expert. Let your partner influence you. Ask them for help once in a while. Ask for their opinion. Let them know that their views matter to you. 5. You will undoubtedly have arguments. However, try to argue only about the solvable problems. When arguing: Start gently Proceed with respect If feelings get hurt, stop and try to repair those hurt feelings Be willing to compromise 6. Realize that some problems may never be solved. For example, perhaps one of you is religious and the other is not, and both intend to stay this way. Avoid gridlock on such unsolvable problems and don’t let them become permanent topics of argument. Agree to disagree on certain issues. 7. Become a “we” instead of “I” and “I.” Make the relationship important and consider it as well as your own wants and desires. Think about what is best for “us” rather than only what is best for “me.” Source: Adapted from Gottman & Silver, 1999. 485 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 485 1/17/20 8:32 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Personality can also evoke responses from others in a wide variety of social contexts outside of romantic rela- tionships. Extraverted people tend to crack more jokes, evoking greater laughter from others than do introverts (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Agreeable people tend to evoke more social support from their parents (Gallo & Smith, 1999). And narcissistic people report receiving more likes and comments on their Facebook posts, likely the result of their tendency to evoke a positive response from others (Marshall et al., 2015). One’s personality, in short, can create the social environment to which one is exposed through the process of evocation. Evocation of Likability, Pleasure, and Pain One of the most important effects a person can have on the social world is the evocation of likability. Being liked by others is linked with higher levels of adjustment, mental health, and even academic performance (Wortman & Wood, 2011). Some personality traits consistently evoke likability in others—those linked with agreeableness, the sociable component of extraversion, and the honesty–humility factor (Wortman & Wood, 2011). People with these qualities evoke pleasure in others, leading to their liking (Saucier, 2010). Being extra- verted increases likability even on online social networks (Stopfer et al., 2013). In contrast, people low on agreeableness and honesty–humility evoke pain in others. They cause others to be offended, annoyed, irri- tated, and even frightened and intimidated. Personality, in short, creates a footprint on one’s social world by evoking liking, pleasure, or pain in other people. Evocation Through Expectancy Confirmation Expectancy confirmation is a phenomenon whereby people’s beliefs about the personality characteristics of others cause them to evoke in others actions that are consistent with the initial beliefs. The phenomenon of expectancy confirmation has also been called self-fulfilling prophecy. Can mere beliefs have such a powerful role in evoking behaviour from others? In a study of expectancy confirmation, Snyder and Swann (1978) led individuals to believe that they would be dealing with a hostile and aggressive individual and then introduced the two individuals. They found that people’s beliefs led them to act in an aggressive manner toward the unsuspecting target. Then the behaviour of the unsuspecting target was examined. The intriguing finding was that the unsuspecting target actually acted in a more hostile manner, behaviour that was evoked by the person who was led to expect hostility. In this example, beliefs about the personality of the other actually created the behaviour that confirmed those initial beliefs (Snyder & Cantor, 1998). Expectancies about personality may have widespread evocation effects in everyday life. After all, we often hear information about a person’s reputation prior to, or following, actual encounters with the person. We hear that a person is smart, socially skilled, egocentric, or manipulative. These beliefs about the personality characteris- tics of others may have far-reaching effects on evoking behaviour that confirm our initial beliefs. It is some- times said that, in order to change your personality, you must move to a place where people don’t already know you. Through the process of expectancy confirmation, people who already know you may unwittingly evoke in you behaviour that confirms their beliefs, thereby constraining your ability to change. Expectancy confirmation has also been noted as one mechanism through which stigmas can have a negative impact on individuals who are stigmatized. People’s negative stereotypes about certain groups of people can lead them to interact with members of those groups in ways that elicit behaviours in line with the original stereotypes (Major & O’Brien, 2005). Of course for members of any minority group, moving to a new place may not be enough to escape the effects of this phenomenon. 486 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 486 1/17/20 8:32 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction Concept Check Define the hostile attributional bias and compare it to the concept of expectancy confirmation. Are they the same or similar? How so? Describe one specific example of evocation within the context of relationships. Manipulation: Social Influence Tactics Manipulation, or social influence, includes all the ways in which people intentionally try to change the behav- iour of others. No malicious intent need be implied by the term manipulation, although such intent is not ex- cluded either. A parent might influence a child not to cross the street from between parked cars, but we would not call this behaviour malicious. Indeed, part of social living is that we influence others all the time. Thus, the term manipulation is used here descriptively, with no negative connotation. From an evolutionary perspective (see Chapter 8), natural selection favours people who successfully manipulate objects in their environment. Some manipulable objects are inanimate, such as the raw materials used to build shelters, tools, clothing, and weapons. Other manipulable objects are alive, including predators and prey of differ- ent species and mates, parents, children, rivals, and allies of the same species. The manipulation of other people can be summarized as the various means by which we influence the psychology and behaviour of other people. The process of manipulation can be examined from two perspectives within personality psychology. First, we can ask, “Are some individuals consistently more manipulative than others?” Second, we can ask, “Given that all people attempt to influence others, do stable personality characteristics predict the sorts of tactics that are used?” Do extraverted people, for example, more often use the charm tactic, whereas introverts use the silent treatment tactic? A Taxonomy of Eleven Tactics of Manipulation A taxonomy is simply a classification scheme—the identification and naming of groups within a particular subject field. Taxonomies of plants and animals, for example, have been developed to identify and name all the major plant and animal groups. The periodic table is a taxonomy of elements in the known universe. The Big Five personality traits that we examined in Chapter 3 is a taxonomy of major dimensions of personality. In this section, we look at the development of a taxonomy of tactics of manipulation—an attempt to identify and name the major ways in which people try to influence others in their social world. A taxonomy of tactics of manipulation was developed through a two-step procedure: (1) nominations of acts of influence and (2) factor analysis of self-reports and observer-reports of the previously nominated acts (Buss, 1992; Buss et al., 1987). The act nomination procedure (see Chapter 2) was as follows: “We are interested in the things that people do to influence others in order to get what they want. Please think of your [romantic partner, close friend, mother, father, etc.]. How do you get this person to do something? What do you do? Please write down specific behaviours or acts that you perform in order to get this person to do things. List as many different sorts of acts as you can.” 487 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 487 1/17/20 8:32 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain After this list was generated, the researchers converted it into a questionnaire that could be administered via self-report or observer report. You can see for yourself how this was done by taking the test in the Exercise in this section to find out what tactics of social influence you use. (Note that you may consider a friend or family member instead of a romantic partner.) Exercise INSTRUCTIONS: When you want your [romantic partner, close friend, sibling, or parent] to do something for you, what are you likely to do? Look at each of the following items and rate how likely you are to do each when you are trying to get this person to do something. None of them will apply to all situations in which you want your [romantic partner, close friend, sibling, or parent] to do something, so rate how likely you are, in general, to do what is described. If you are ex- tremely likely to do it, write a “7” in the blank next to the item. If you are not at all likely to do it, write a “1” in the blank next to the item. If you are somewhat likely to do it, write a “4” in the blank. Give intermediate ratings for intermediate likelihood of performing the behaviours. 1. I compliment them so that they will do it. 2. I act charming so they will do it. 3. I try to be loving and affectionate when I ask them. 4. I give them a small gift or card before I ask. 5. I don’t respond to them until they do it. 6. I ignore them until they do it. 7. I am silent until they do it. 8. I refuse to do something they like until they do it. 9. I demand that they do it. 10. I yell at them until they do it. 11. I criticize them for not doing it. 12. I threaten them with something if they do not do it. 13. I give them reasons they should do it. 14. I point out all the good things that will come from doing it. 15. I explain why I want them to do it. 16. I show them that I would be willing to do it for them. 17. I pout until they do it. 18. I sulk until they do it. 19. I whine until they do it. 20. I cry until they do it. 21. I allow myself to be debased so that they will do it. 22. I lower myself so that they will do it. 23. I act humble so that they will do it. 24. I act submissive so that they will do it. You can find out your scores by simply adding up your scores in clusters of four: items 1–4 = charm tactic; items 5–8 = silent treatment tactic; items 9–12 = coercion tactic; items 13–16 = reason tactic; items 17–20 = regression tactic; items 21–24 = self-abasement tactic. The tactics you tend to use the most are those with the highest sums. The tactics you use the least are those with the lowest sums. This is an abbreviated version of the instrument used in the studies by Buss (1992). A large number of participants completed versions of an expanded instrument, consisting of 83 acts of influ- ence or tactics. Factor analysis was then used to identify clusters of acts of influence, or tactics. In all, 11 tac- tics were discovered through this procedure, as shown in Table 15.5. 488 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 488 1/17/20 8:32 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction Table 15.5 Taxonomy of Eleven Tactics of Manipulation Tactic Sample Act Charm I try to be loving when I ask them to do it. Coercion I yell at them until they do it. Silent treatment I don’t respond to them until they do it. Reason I explain why I want them to do it. Regression I whine until they do it. Self-abasement I act submissive so that they will do it. Responsibility invocation I get them to make a commitment to doing it. Hardball I hit them so that they will do it. Pleasure induction I show them how much fun it will be to do it. Social comparison I tell them that everyone else is doing it. Monetary reward I offer them money so that they will do it. Note: These tactics then formed the basis for subsequent analyses, such as whether there are sex differences in the tactics of manipulation and whether personality traits are associated with the tactics of manipulation that people use. Source: Buss (1992). Personality Predictors of Tactics of Manipulation The next interesting question is whether people with certain personality traits are more likely to use certain tac- tics of manipulation, or whether manipulation is part of one’s personality. One personality trait that describes people who are more manipulative in general is Machiavellianism, which we examine more closely in A Closer Look: The Machiavellian Personality. But many other traits have been associated with the tendency to be ma- nipulative. In one study, a sample of more than 200 participants (Buss, 1992) rated each act of influence on the degree to which they used it in each of four relationships: spouse, friend, mother, and father. Then, correlations were computed between the personality traits of the participants and their use of each tactic of manipulation. A Closer Look The Machiavellian Personality The term Machiavellian originates from an Italian diplomat, Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote a classic treatise, The Prince, in 1513 (Machiavelli, 1513/1966). Machiavelli observed, in his diplomatic role, that leaders come and go, rising and falling as they gain and lose power. The Prince is a book of advice on acquiring and maintaining power, which Machiavelli wrote to ingratiate himself with a new ruler after the one he had served had been overthrown. The advice is based on tactics for manipulating others and is entirely lacking in traditional values, such as trust, honour, and decency. One passage in the book, for example, notes that “men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack for victims for his deceptions” (p. 63). Machiavellianism, a trait first introduced in Chapter 3, eventually came to be associated with a manipulative strategy of social interaction and with a per- sonality style that uses other people as tools for personal gain. 489 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 489 1/17/20 8:32 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Two psychologists—Richard Christie and Florence Geis— developed a self-report scale to measure individual differ- ences in Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970). The following are some sample items from the test, with the Ma- chiavellian direction noted in parentheses: The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear (true). Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble (true). Honesty is the best policy in all cases (false). Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so (true). Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives (false). The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught (true). It is wise to flatter important people (true). Niccolò Machiavelli, after whom the trait As you can see from these items, the high scorer on the of Machiavellianism was named, wrote a Machiavellianism scale (called a “high Mach”) is manipula- tive, has a cynical world-view, treats other people as tools book on strategies for manipulating others. to be used for personal ends, does not trust other people, ©BeBa/Iberfoto/The Image Works and lacks empathy. The low scorer on the Machiavellianism scale (called a “low Mach”) is trusting, em- pathic, believes that things are clearly either right or wrong, and views human nature as basically good. High and low scorers represent two alternative strategies of social conduct (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). The high Mach represents an exploitative social strategy—one that betrays friendship and uses other people opportunistically. Theoretically, this strategy works best in social situations when there is room for innovation, rather than those that are highly constrained by rules. Political consulting or the world of an independent entrepreneur might be relatively unconstrained, allowing much latitude for the high Mach to operate. The more structured world of universities, on the other hand, might allow fewer opportunities for the high Machs to ply their skills. The low Mach, in contrast, represents a strategy of cooperation sometimes called tit-for-tat. This strat- egy is based on reciprocity—you help me, and I’ll help you in return, and we will both be better off as a result. This is a long-term social strategy, in contrast to the short-term strategy of the high Mach. The success of the high Mach should depend greatly on the context. As demonstrated by Shultz (1993) in a study of stockbrokers, Machiavellianism is not a social strategy that works well all the time or in all settings. Social situations with many rules do not allow high Machs to con others, tell lies, and betray those who trust them with impunity. In these situations, the high Machs get caught, sustain damage to their reputations, and often are fired. In more fluid occupational contexts, high Machs succeed because they can wheel and deal, move quickly from one situation to another, and exploit the opportunities available in these less rule-bound settings. Machiavellianism is a social strategy in which practitioners are quick to betray others (Wilson et al., 1996). In one laboratory study, participants were given an opportunity to steal money in a worker- supervisor situation (Harrell & Hartnagel, 1976). The participants played the role of workers. They were supervised by a person who acted trustingly and who stated that they did not need to monitor the 490 lar65774_ch15_468-499.indd 490 1/17/20 8:32 PM  Chapter 15 Personality and Social Interaction workers closely. A full 81 percent of the high Machs stole money, as contrasted with only 24 percent of the low Machs. Furthermore, the high Machs who did steal took a larger amount of money than those few low Machs who stole, they tended to conceal their theft, and they lied more often to the supervisor when questioned about the theft. Not only do high Machs lie and betray others’ trust more than low Machs, but there is also evidence that they make more believable liars (Exline et al., 1970; Geis & Moon, 1981). In one study, high and low Machs were instructed to cheat on a task and then to lie to the experimenter about having cheated (Exline et al., 1970). The experimenter then became increasingly suspicious and questioned the partici- pants about whether they had cheated. The high Machs were able to maintain greater eye contact than the low Machs. Fewer of the high Machs than the low Machs confessed. Finally, the high Machs were judged to be better liars than the low Machs. The manipulative tactics used by the high Machs extend to the romantic and sexual domains. High Machs, compared to their low Mach peers, are more likely to feign love in order to get sex (e.g., “I some- times say ‘I love you’ when I don’t really mean it to get someone to have sex with me”), get a partner drunk in order to induce the partner to have sex, and express a willingness to use force to achieve sex with an unwilling partner (McHoskey, 2001). High Machs are more likely to cheat on their romantic part- ners and to be sexually unfaithful with other people. Interestingly, these links between Machiavellianism and specific tactics of manipulation are stronger for male than for female samples. The Machiavellian strategy has many advantages, but it also has costs. By betraying, cheating, and ly- ing, the high Mach runs the risk of retaliation and revenge by those who were exploited. Furthermore, the high Mach is more likely than the low Mach to incur damage to their reputation. Once people ac- quire reputations as exploitative, other people are more likely to avoid them and refuse to interact with them. In his work on the “dark triad” of personality (previously discussed in Chapter 3), Canadian re- searcher Del Paulhus has confirmed that although Machiavellianism overlaps with both narcissism and subclinical psychopathy, it remains a distinct construct with its own unique behavioural characteristics (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Recent research has suggested that high Machs are higher in fluid intelli- gence, which involves the ability to solve new problems (Kowalski et al., 2018). This may explain why high Machs are able to successfully manipulate many situations. This discussion of the Machiavellian strategy also illustrates the three key processes by which person-