Content uploaded by David M Buss
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David M Buss on Dec 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Manipulation in Close Relationships:
Five Personality Factors in
Interactional Context
David M. Buss
University of Michigan
ABSTRACT This research had three basic goals: (a) to identify manipula-
tion tactics used in close relationships; (b) to document empirically the degree
of generality and specificity of tactical deployment across relationship types
(mates, friends, parents); and (c) to identify links between five major person-
ality dimensions and the usage of manipulation tactics. Twelve manipulation
tactics were identified through separate factor analyses of two instruments
based on different data sources: Charm, Reason, Coercion, Silent Treatment,
Debasement, and Regression (replicating Buss et al., 1987), and Responsi-
bility Invocation, Reciprocity, Monetary Reward, Pleasure Induction, Social
Comparison, and Hardball (an amalgam of threats, lies, and violence). The
Big Five personality factors were assessed through three separate data sources:
self-report, spouse report, and two independent interviewers. Personality fac-
tors showed coherent links with tactics, including Surgency (Coercion, Re-
sponsibility, Invocation), Desurgency (Debasement), Agreeableness (Pleasure
Induction), Disagreeableness (Coercion), Conscientiousness (Reason), Emo-
tional Instability (Regression), and Intellect-Openness (Reason). Discussion
focuses on the consequences of
the
five
personality factors for social interaction
in close relationships.
In the past two decades, much work in personality psychology has
focused on defense of the basic personality research paradigm. From
This report was completed while the author was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced
Study in the Behavioral Sciences. I am grateful for financial support provided by
National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH-44206-01, National Science Founda-
tion Grant BNS87-00864, and the Gordon P. Getty Trust. Correspondence should be
addressed to David M. Buss, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 580
Union Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1346.
Journal of
Personality
60:2, June 1992. Copyright © 1992 by Duke University Press.
CCC 0022-3506/92/S 1.50
478 Buss
this protracted period of self-scrutiny, three major conclusions have
emerged. First, there is considerable evidence that personality traits
show moderate to strong stability over time (e.g.. Buss, 1985; Conley,
1984;
Costa & McCrae, 1980). Second, behavior does show a great deal
of context-specificity and discriminativeness (Cantor & Zirkel, 1990;
Wright & Mischel, 1987). Third, at least five major dimensions appear
to be necessary to describe the major ways in which individuals differ
within the personahty sphere (e.g., Digman & Inouye, 1986; Goldberg,
1981;
Hogan, 1983; John, Goldberg, & Angleitner, 1984; McCrae &
Costa, 1985; Norman, 1963; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, & Camac, 1988).
The five-factor model of personality (Surgency, Agreeableness, Con-
scientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Intellect-Openness) has gained
support from diverse investigators using different instruments, different
data sources, and different populations (Digman & Inouye, 1986; Dig-
man & Takemoto-Chock,
1981;
Goldberg,
1981;
Hogan,
1983;
McCrae
& Costa, 1985, 1987; Norman, 1963). One need not accept the view
that this model is either comprehensive or adequate to recognize that
these five dimensions have accrued enough independent replications to
qualify as major dimensions of personality.
The basic findings of temporal stability and the existence of at least
five major personality factors suggest two important research agendas
for the field of personality psychology. The first involves identifying
the causal origins of these individual differences. This task lies within
the province of developmental personality psychologists (e.g., Daniels,
1986),
behavioral geneticists who study genetic and environmental
sources of individual differences (e.g., Plomin, DeFries, & McClearn,
1980),
psychologists focusing on the psychophysiology of personality
(e.g., Eysenck,
1981;
Humphreys &Revelle, 1984; Zuckerman, 1990),
and evolutionary psychologists who focus on the adaptive origins of
individual differences (e.g.. Buss, 1991a). A second important task is
to identify the
consequences
of major personality factors: What are the
implications of personality for the ways in which individuals interact
with their worlds? The present study represents a contribution to this
second goal and deals with the consequences of five major dimensions
of personality for the ways in which individuals manipulate or infiuence
persons inhabiting their social environment.
Manipulation represents one of three major components of a pro-
posed interactional framework of personality (Buss, 1984,1985,1987).
This framework has as its focus the interactional processes by which
individuals are nonrandomly exposed to different environments. Selec-
Tactics of Manipulation 479
tion, the first mechanism, deals with nonrandom entry into, or avoid-
ance of, certain environments. Evocation, the second mechanism, is
defined by the actions, strategies, upsets, confiicts, coercions, and repu-
tations that are unintentionally elicited by individuals displaying certain
characteristics. Manipulation, the third proposed class of mechanisms,
is defined as the means by which individuals intentionally (although
not necessarily consciously) infiuence, alter, or shape those selected
environments (Buss, 1987).
A first step in understanding manipulation is the taxonomic
task—
identifying, naming, and ordering the diverse tactics by which individu-
als infiuence and exploit the psychological mechanisms and behavioral
machinery of others. A step toward this goal has been made by Buss,
Gomes, Higgins, and Lauterbach (1987). They identified six tactics of
manipulation in the context of dating relationships: Charm, Silent Treat-
ment, Coercion, Reason, Regression, and Debasement, These tactics
showed individual difference consistency across the contexts of behav-
ioral instigation (getting another to do something) and behavioral ter-
mination (getting another to stop doing something). 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.
A major limitation of that study is apparent for achieving the taxo-
nomic goal. Only a single relationship was used to identify and assess
tactics of manipulation—that of intimate dating partners. The diversity
of tactics used with others may be much greater than the six identified.
Given the multiplicity of goals toward which tactics of manipulation are
directed, as well as the diverse relationships within which they occur,
six tactics may drastically underrepresent the major manifestations of
manipulation.
A second step toward understanding manipulation, therefore, is to
identify the generality or
specificity
of tactical deployment across con-
texts.
Although consistency of manipulation tactics was demonstrated
across the contexts of instigation and termination, another major con-
textual variable would be type of relationship. Are tactics of manipula-
tion displayed consistently across relationships with spouses, mothers,
fathers, and close friends? Or are different tactics targeted for these
different relationships? Thus, one goal in this research program is to
contribute to identifying systematic sources of context specificity of
tactical deployment.
A third step in this research program is to identify the tactics of
480 Buss
manipulation used by individuals who differ on each of five major di-
mensions of personality. The demonstration of coherent links between
personality variables, traditionally assessed, and specific manipulation
tactics would place personality in functional context. It would demon-
strate that personality characteristics do not reside as static attributes
of persons, but instead carry consequences for the ways in which indi-
viduals interact with their social worlds.
Several diverse strands of research suggest promise for this direc-
tion. Thorne (1987), for example, found that extraverts adopt different
strategies than introverts when interacting with others. Extraverts strive
to establish common ground, while introverts adopt an interviewer's
stance, presumably to avoid too much talking or self-disclosure. Buss
etal. (1987) found that those high on EPQ Neuroticism (Eysenck, 1981)
tended to use Coercion and Silent Treatment tactics to infiuence their
intimate dating partners. Persons scoring high on the IAS Ambitious
scale (Wiggins, 1979) tended to use the Reason tactic. Those scoring
relatively high on IAS Lazy tended to use Debasement. Those high on
IAS Calculating tended to deploy a wide variety of
tactics,
most notably
Charm, Silent Treatment, Reason, and Debasement,
In sum, this research had three major goals: (a) to develop a more
comprehensive taxonomy of manipulation tactics by uncovering tactics
used within several close social relationships; (b) to document empiri-
cally the generality or specificity of tactical deployment across these
different relationships; and (c) to place the five-factor model of per-
sonality in functional context by identifying links between each of the
major dimensions and usage of manipulation tactics within and across
relationships.
Preliminary Study:
Nominations of Acts of Influence
Subjects
One-hundred and thirty-two undergraduates participated in this phase
of the study. Subjects received experimental credit for a psychology
class in return for their participation.
Procedure
Subjects were requested to nominate acts of infiuence within different
types of close relationships: acts directed at close friends, mothers.
Tactics of Manipulation 481
and fathers, as well as acts performed by close friends, mothers, and
fathers. The basic instructional set was as follows:
We are interested in the things that people do to influence others in
order to get others to do what they want. Please think of your MOTHER
[closest friend, father,
etc.].
How do you get this person to do some-
thing? What do you do? Please write down specific behaviors or acts
that you perform in order to get your mother [closest friend, etc.] to
do things. List as many different sorts of acts as you can.
Each nomination was examined for its redundancy with the origi-
nal set of 35 acts of infiuence (Buss et al., 1987) that were nominated
within the context of close intimate relationships. Redundant acts were
eliminated. All distinct acts were retained for the subsequent studies.
These procedures resulted in the addition of 47 new and distinct acts
of infiuence. These were added to the original set of 35 to generate an
82-act instrument.
Main Study
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects for the main study were 214 individuals composing 107 rnarried
couples. Couples were used in order to obtain two separate data sources for
assessing each act of influence. Names of couples were obtained through the
public court records of marriage licenses issued within a 6-month period.
Couples were first contacted by letter. The ages of the husbands ranged from
17 to
41,
with a mean of 26.68 (SD = 3.71). The wives ranged in age from 18
to 36, with a mean of 25.54 {SD = 4.05). Further details of the sample may
be obtained from Buss (1989).
Materials
Among a larger battery of assessment instruments, the following measures
were used for this study.
Self-reported tactics of
manipulation.
Four different instruments were admin-
istered in self-report form to assess manipulation tactics in four separate rela-
tionships—with the spouse, close friend, mother, and father. The general
instructional set for each instrument was as follows:
When you want to get your wife [husband, close friend, mother, father] to
do something for you, what do you do? Look at each of the items listed
Buss
below and rate how likely you are to do each when you are trying to get
your wife [husband, etc.[ to do something. None of them will apply to all
situations in which you want your wife [husband, etc.] to do something;
simply rate how likely you are in general to do what is described. If you
are extremely likely to do it, then circle a "7." If you are not at all likely
to do it, then circle a
"1."
If you are somewhat likely to do it, then circle
a "4." Give intermediate ratings for intermediate likelihoods of performing
the behaviors.
Observer-reported tactics of
manipulation.
In a separate testing session, three
different instruments were administered (influence tactics used by one's spouse,
one's mother, and one's father). The instructional set paralleled that of the
self-reported tactics, with appropriate alterations with respect to nature of rela-
tionship and observer-based format. In this article,
1
am concerned with the
observer-reported tactics of the spouse, which can be used as an alternative to
self-reports. Thus, for each subject, we know not only how he or she claims
to manipulate the other, but also how the other perceives she or he is being
manipulated.
Self-reported personality
characteristics.
A 40-item personality instrument was
administered along with the other self-report instruments. This consisted of
bipolar adjective scales, eight each for Surgency (e.g., bold-timid), Agreeable-
ness (selfless-selfish). Conscientiousness (reliable-undependable). Emotional
Stability (secure-insecure), and Intellectance-Openness (intelligent-stupid).
The instrument is based on factor analyses reported by Goldberg (1983).
Spouse-observer
reporting
of personality
characteristics.
A parallel version of
the Goldberg (1983) instrument described above was administered in a separate
testing session to the spouses of each subject.
Interviewer-based observer reporting of personality characteristics. Each
couple was interviewed by a pair of trained interviewers drawn from a 10-
member team. Each interview lasted approximately 40 minutes. A set of stan-
dard questions were posed to each couple, including: How did you meet? What
are the similarities and differences between you? What are the sources of con-
flict in your marriage? Were your parents for or against the marriage? How do
you make joint decisions? In addition to these standard questions, interview-
ers were trained to probe further into issues raised during the course of the
interview.
Directly following each interview, the two interviewers independently rated
each subject on a parallel version of the Goldberg (1983) 40-item instru-
ment. Subsequently, the interviewer ratings were standardized and composited
with unit weighting to form five scores for each subject for Surgency, Agree-
Tactics of Manipulation 483
ableness. Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Intellectance-Openness.
Thus,
personality characteristics were assessed through three separate data
sources—self-report, spouse report, and interviewer report.
Procedure
Subjects participated in three separate episodes of assessment. First, they re-
ceived through the mail a battery of instruments to be completed in their home
during their spare time. This battery contained most of the self-report instru-
ments. Second, subjects came to a laboratory testing session to complete a bat-
tery of
procedures,
most of which pertained to reports about their spouse (e.g.,
spouse's tactics of manipulation). Spouses were separated for the duration of
the testing session to preserve independence of
responses.
Third, couples were
interviewed as
a
couple to provide information about the relationship and expo-
sure to the interviewers, who in turn provided personality descriptions. Total
confidentiality of
all
responses was assured for subjects. Not even the subject's
spouse could see the responses without written permission.
RESULTS
Factor Analyses of Manipulation Tactics
Because previous studies have revealed a "general" factor in act report
data that may be partially due to a response set (Botwin & Buss, 1989),
the data were ipsatized prior
to
factor
analyses.
Two sets of factor analy-
ses were conducted on the ipsatized scores, using varimax rotation, to
identify the major dimensions along which tactics of manipulation vary.
One set was conducted on the self-reported tactics used to infiuence
one's spouse, and a second set on spouse-observer-reported tactics.
These two data sources were used as primary because they contain the
best ratios of subjects to reported acts (approximately 3 to 1), whereas
data on the other instruments had ratios of only half that size.
Twelve clear factors emerged across these two data sources. These
are shown in Table 1, along with the factor loadings of those items that
consistently loaded on the same factor across the two data sources. Six
factors replicate those found by Buss et al. (1987): Coercion, Regres-
sion, Debasement, Charm, Reason, and Silent Treatment.
Six new factors emerged across data sources that were not discovered
by the earlier study. Responsibility Invocation contains acts that involve
invoking commitment, responsibility, and disappointment upon failure
to perform the act. The Reciprocity-Reward tactic contains acts that
484 Buss
Table 1
Factor Loadings for Manipulation Tactics
Self-
Observer-
Factors/ reported reported
acts data data
Coercion
Demand that she do it
Criticize her for not doing it
Yell at her so she'll do it
Responsibility
Invocation
Get her to make a commitment to doing it
Give her a deadline to do it
Regression
Pout until she does it
Sulk until she does it
Whine until she does it
Reciprocity-Reward
Tell her I'll do her a favor if she'll do it
Do something in exchange so that she will do it
Promise her that next time I will do what she wants
Give up something so she'll do it
Debasement
Lower myself so she'll do it
Allow myself to be debased so she'll do it
Look sickly so she'll do it
Hardball
Hit her so she will do it
Tell her you'll leave her if she doesn't do it
Imply the possibility of physical harm
if she doesn't do it
Lie so that she will do it
Degrade her into doing it
Use deception to get her to do it
Do something violent so she will do it
Ask her to do it
Withhold money until she does it
Threaten to cut off her money if she
doesn't do it
.58
.75
.43
.76
.70
.77
.79
.55
.77
.77
.43
.33
.74
.80
.38
.72
.80
.73
.59
.64
.54
.79
.74
.68
.65
.75
.58
.74
.77
.64
.68
.50
.76
.78
.78
.35
.38
.71
.68
.31
.80
.57
.79
.87
.70
.51
.87
.65
.84
.81
Tactics of Manipulation 485
Table 1
Continued
Self-
Observer-
Factors/ reported reported
acts data data
Charm
Compliment
her so
she'll
do it
Act charming
so
she'll
do it
Reason
Explain
why you
want
her to do it
Give
her
reasons
for
doing
it
Point
out all the
good things that will
come from doing
it
Silent Treatment
Ignore
her
until
she
agrees
to do it
Be silent until
she
agrees
to do it
Don't respond
to her
until
she
does
it
Pleasure Induction
Tell
her
that
she
will enjoy
it
Show
her
how much
fun it is
Social Comparison
Compare
her to
someone who would
do it
Tell
her
that other partners would
do it
Tell
her
that everyone
is
doing
it
Tell
her
that she will look stupid
if
she doesn't
do it
Monetary Reward
Promise
to
buy
her
something
if
she does
it
Give
her a
small gift
or
card before asking
her
to do it
Offer
her
money
so she
will
do it .67 .28
involve exchange, favors, and promises of future return. The Hardball
tactic contains threats of withholding money, physical violence, and
deception.
Pleasure Induction involves convincing the other that the act will be
fun or enjoyable, as well as in their best interest to perform. Social
Comparison contains acts that involve comparing the spouse to others
.65
.76
.70
.39
.56
.66
.76
.76
.83
.87
.37
.76
.79
.29
.69
.22
.73
.66
.71
,73
.33
.70
.74
.76
.82
.82
.36
.49
.76
.70
.72
.77
486 Buss
who would perform the act, mentioning that everyone else is doing it,
and appealing to social opprobrium that would ensue if the act is not
performed. Monetary Reward involves payment of money or gifts con-
tingent on the act being performed. These 12 factors represent a major
expansion of the taxonomic work started by Buss et al. (1987) that un-
covered six tactics of manipulation. These factors were carried forward
in subsequent analyses.
Reliabilities of Tactic Composites
Alpha reliability coefficients were computed for each of the composites
for each of the seven conditions and data sources. These ranged from
.49 to .85, with a mean of .66 for the self-report data on infiuence tac-
tics;
and from .60 to .86, with a mean of .68 for the spouse-reported
influence tactics. The reliabilities for the other contexts were generally
slightly lower, with means of .57 for friends, .62 for mothers, and .63
for fathers.
Sex Differences in Deployment of
Manipulation Tactics
Buss et al. (1987) reported few sex differences in tactics of manipu-
lation, and no sex differences appeared to exist across data sources
and conditions of instigation and termination. To examine sex differ-
ences in this study, t tests were conducted for each tactic for each of
the seven conditions and data sources. Within marital relationships,
only two tactics showed significant sex differences across data sources.
Females showed higher frequencies of the Regression tactic for both
self-reported and spouse-reported data sources, replicating the sex dif-
ferences found in dating couples (Buss et al., 1987). In contrast, there
were no tactics that showed significantly greater male performance
across data sources.
Females reported using more Regression with both spouses and with
fathers. No other sex differences showed any degree of generality across
relationships or data sources. In sum, the greater use of Regression by
females is the only sex difference that shows generality across relation-
ships as well as data sources.
Tactics of Manipulation 487
Cross-Relationship Consistency of
Manipulation Tactics
Table 2 shows the cross-relationship correlations for manipulation tac-
tics for each data source that is available, as well as the cross-data
source correlations for spousal manipulation tactics. Manipulation tac-
tics represent one domain where it would be surprising if there existed
uniformly high agreement between self-reports and reports by the target
of the tactics. Indeed, some might argue that the most effective tactics
are those about which the target is unaware.
The left column of Table 2 shows these correlations for spousal ma-
nipulation. Agreement is significant for all but the Charm tactic, most
strongly so for Coercion, Reason, and Responsibility Invocation. These
results partially replicate those of Buss et al,, 1987, who also found
Coercion to show the highest cross-data source agreement.
The next six columns of Table 2 show the correlations between tactics
used with the spouse, as reported by the self and spouse-observer, with
those used with friends, mothers, and fathers, as reported by the
self.
It
is apparent that the correlations using the same data source are generally
higher than those across data sources. The self-reported tactics used on
spouses and friends may be infiated due to shared method variance.
On the other hand, cross-data source correlations between observer-
reported tactics used on the spouse and self-reported tactics used on the
friend may be attenuated due to limitations on the spouses' knowledge
of
the
tactics used by their marital partner. Thus, the within-data source
correlations may be regarded as upper-bound estimates of true cross-
relationship consistency, while the cross-data source correlations may
be regarded as lower-bound estimates. Correlations significant across
both data sources may be interpreted substantively with confidence.
Only three tactics show significant spome-friend consistency across
data sources—Coercion, Responsibility Invocation, and Hardball, Four
tactics show significant spouse-mother consistency across data sources
—Regression, Pleasure Induction, Reason, and Hardball. Five tactics
show significant spouse-father consistency across data sources—Hard-
ball, Responsibihty Invocation, Social Comparison, Pleasure Induc-
tion, and Reason,
In sum, these data suggest that some modest degree of cross-relation-
ship consistency exists in the use of some manipulation tactics. In most
cases,
however, the magnitude of
the
correlations is not high, especially
|
C/5
X €
ix|
^ p-
X
in
(NOOtlOO
O — r4 — —-
* * * *
* * * *
o
*
*
* * * * *
******
*******
O O "^ •—^ in O r^
* * *
— — (NOr^ —
CNfN—'
* * * * * *
**********
0^^^/10^t—
O^'—^ON-—^in
incN^MNON^
* * *
in "^ ON ^ r^ CN <N O^ ^
O(N — OO — — OO— — O
*
*
*
*
*
*
in
*
*
*
fN
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
* *
* *
\O ON
•* fN
*
*
*
*
*
ON
*
*
CN
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ON
*
I
1
*
*
*
*
*
fN
2
cd
T3
0
rep
u
>
u
So
X>
II
0
o
^i
a .9- i g a
T3
-o
u
I
fi,
I -I
>'l*^
. a, iP *
Tactics of Manipulation 489
when cross-data source correlations are examined. Thus, there appears
to be considerable room for tactical specificity depending on the nature
of the relationship.
Differences in Tactic Use across Relationships
To examine differences between relationships in the nature of tactics
that are deployed, t tests were conducted on each of the tactics prior
to ipsatization. The results indicated that across all tactics, greater fre-
quencies were reported within the spousal relationship than in any other
relationship.
To correct for this difference in overall elevation, t tests were per-
formed on corrected ipsatized scores, as shown in Table 3. The first
entry in this table shows that individuals report that they use more
Coercion in dealing with spouses than with friends; this finding is rep-
licated when spouse-observer ratings of Coercion use on spouses is
compared with self-reported use of Coercion on friends. Several major
results may be noted about the relative use of different tactics in differ-
ent relationships. First, Coercion, Responsibility Invocation, Charm,
and Regression are used relatively more frequently within spouse rela-
tionships than with friends, mothers, or fathers. In contrast. Hardball,
Reciprocity, Debasement, Social Comparison, and Monetary Reward
are used relatively more frequently with friends. Hardball, Debase-
ment, and Reason are used relatively more often with the father than
with the spouse. And Hardball, Monetary Reward, Debasement, and
Reason are used relatively more often with the mother than with the
spouse.
When contrasting the tactics used with friends with those used with
parents. Reciprocity was found to be used more often with friends,
whereas Regression was used more often with parents. In sum, although
an overall elevation on tactic usage exists within spouse relationships
compared with other relationships, tactics do show considerable rela-
tionship specificity when this overall elevation is controlled for in the
individual tactic scores.
Links between the Big Five Personality Factors
and Tactics Used
To preserve the independence of the self-report and the non-self-report
data sources, two sets of personality scores were computed, one using
•d
I
I
o
u
II
0)
I
£1
Q
2 u-
73 U
P- 2
T3
C
c
<L)
£
3
O
a,
C/5
I
3
* * *
* * *
3 3 -S
O O o
a, o. '^
C/5 CO 2
3 3 -C
a
a|
00 c/D 2
o o ,c
CO,—
00 OO [2
* * >
* * *
* * *
3 3^3
o o -S o
o. o. a a.
*
73
C
o .a
* *
* *
* * *
U U 73
u
u c
•S
•£ u
a. u.. uu
a
3
o
a.
o
I•o
c
*
a|
oo
2
*
use
o
D.
00
O
*
*
•X-
•X-
w
the
,0
*
*
x:
o
*
ther
o
*o
,c
o
•X-
1
o
c
c
o
>>
o
a.
—
o
>
1
;/5
C
* ^
I- U
U £
n *^
ffl [I,
P- ^
* * * *
* * * * * * *
********
d^
fl^ 4t ^ Q^ ^ ^ ^
aa.p
a a all
' ' 00 wo 00 r^ r,"
W5
C^
* *
* *
* * IT
J*I
O
O JJ O ?
a.
't^
o.
"§
_ _ „ _ o. a. 'C
GO
C/5 P- C/2 C/3 1/5 P^
73
C
c
D.
IS
c
o
c c
0
<u
1 "§
p O
I- U
S
S i:
00 C
(Li
v^
I!
o
o ^
Z .22
1
V
Tactics of Manipulation 491
the self-report and one using composites, with unit weighting, of the
spouse and interviewer reports. These personality variables were then
correlated with each of the ipsatized manipulation tactic scores sepa-
rately for each relationship and data source. For reportorial efficiency
and generalizability, only those tactic-personality links that were sig-
nificant across at least three conditions are reported (see Table 4), These
links are shown for each personality variable, ordered by the degree to
which it shows generality across sexes, data sources, and relationships.
The first row in Table 4 shows that men who report that they are high
in Surgency say they use Coercion in dealing with friends. The second
row shows that men who are rated by others as being surgent say they
use Coercion in deahng with their wives.
Surgency shows links with Responsibility Invocation in friend and
father relationships, but not in the spousal relationship. Men high on
Surgency also tend to be high on Coercion with their friends. Men and
women who score low on Surgency tend to use Debasement tactics,
especially with mothers and spouses, suggesting submissiveness and
self-abnegation often associated with low scores on this factor (Buss,
1991b; Wiggins, 1979). Those low on Surgency also tend to use the
Hardball tactic (threats, lies, violence), but only with their mothers and
fathers.
Those scoring high on Agreeableness tend to use Pleasure Induc-
tion as a tactic of infiuence across all four types of close relationships,
Agreeableness is also linked with the use of Reason, but only in the con-
text of spouse relationships. Those scoring low on Agreeableness tend
to use Coercion and the Silent Treatment to infiuence their spouses.
Conscientiousness shows only one link with manipulative tactics of
any degree of generality; high scorers tend to use Reason with spouses
and friends more than low scorers.
The most powerful tactical links with Emotional Stability are with
Regression, Low scorers on this factor tend to use Regression to influ-
ence their spouses. Low scorers also tend to use Coercion and Mone-
tary Reward. In contrast, those high on Emotional Stability tend to use
Hardball tactics and Reason, although these links are few and small in
magnitude.
Intellect-Openness shows the most pervasive links with the use of
Reason—hardly surprising given the meaning of this construct. High
scorers also tend to use Pleasure Induction. A less obvious linkage is
between low scores on Intellect-Openness and the use of Social Com-
parison.
492
Buss
Table
4
Personality Correlates
of
Manipulation Tactics
Tactic
Surgency
Coercion
Responsibility
Invocation
Debasement
Hardball
Monetary
Reward
Agreeableness
Pleasure
Induction
Reason
Coercion
r
.22*
.23*
.30**
34**
.23*
.27*
-.21*
_
45***
-.23*
-.30*
-.34*
-.39**
-.30*
-.33*
-.33*
-.32*
-.31*
_
45***
-.22*
-.24*
22*
23*
.32*
39***
.23*
.35*
.30**
33***
.23*
25**
_
27**
_
32***
_ 5Q***
Sex
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Relationship
Friend
Spouse
Friend
Father
Friend
Friend
Spouse
Mother
Spouse
Spouse
Mother
Father
Mother
Father
Mother
Father
Mother
Father
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Father
Spouse
Friend
Mother
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Data source
Personality
Self
Other
Other
Self
Other
Other
Self
Self
Other
Other
Other
Self
Self
Self
Self
Other
Other
Self
Self
Other
Self
Self
Self
Other
Other
Other
Self
Other
Other
Other
Self
Other
Other
Tactic
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Spouse
Tactics
of
Manipulation
493
Tactic
Silent
Treatment
Conscientiousness
Reason
Emotional Stability
Hardball
Reason
Regression
Coercion
Monetary
Reward
r
-.38***
-.45***
-.21*
-.31*
-.22*
-.26**
-.23*
.29**
22*
31**
,26**
.20*
.23*
.29**
.26**
.23*
,24*
.25*
.24*
-.20*
_
29**
-.22*
-.29*
-.24*
-.19*
-.24*
-.24*
-.31***
_
26**
-.21*
-.21*
-.34*
Table
4
Continued
Sex
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Relationship
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Mother
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Friend
Spouse
Spouse
Friend
Spouse
Spouse
Friend
Spouse
Spouse
Friend
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Mother
Spouse
Spouse
Friend
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Friend
Friend
Mother
Data source
Personality
Other
Other
Self
Self
Other
Other
Other
Self
Self
Other
Other
Other
Other
Self
Self
Other
Other
Other
Other
Self
Self
Self
Self
Other
Other
Self
Self
Other
Other
Self
Other
Other
Tactic
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Self
Self
Spouse
Spouse
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Spouse
Spouse
Self
Self
Self
494
Buss
Table 4
Continued
Tactic
Intellect-Openness
Reason
Pleasure
Induction
Responsibility
Invocation
Social
Comparison
r
.20*
.25*
.22*
.30**
29**
.23*
.26**
.21*
.32*
.24*
.25**
32***
.25**
.20*
33***
-.22*
-.30**
-.20*
_
27**
_
22*
Sex
Male
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Relationship
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Mother
Spouse
Friend
Spouse
Friend
Spouse
Friend
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Spouse
Friend
Datasource
Personality Tactic
Self
Self
Other
Other
Other
Other
Self
Other
Other
Other
Other
Self
Self
Other
Other
Self
Self
Other
Other
Other
Self
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Other
Self
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Spouse
Self
Self
*p
< .05
**p
< .01
***/)
<
.001.
In summary, each of the five personality dimensions shows coher-
ent links of some generality across relationships and data sources with
the tactics of manipulation used in close personal relationships.' These
1.
Correlations hetween the personality characteristics
of
one spouse
and the
manipu-
lation tactics
of the
other showed fewer significant associations, suggesting that
an
actor's personality
is a
more powerful predictor
of
the tactics used than
the
personality
of the recipient
of
the influence tactic. However, some links were seen.
For
example,
low Agreeableness
of
one spouse
is
significantly correlated with
the
use
of
Regression,
Coercion,
and
Silent Treatment
by
the other spouse. Low Agreeable spouses appear
to
elicit
a lot of
yelling, pouting,
and
whining,
as
well
as
stony silence.
Tactics of Manipulation495
Table 5
Couple Correlations on Manipulation Tactics Used on Each Other
Tactic
Coercion
Responsibility
Hardball
Charm
Silent Treatment
Regression
Reciprocity
Pleasure Induction
Debasement
Reason
Social Comparison
Monetary Reward
Self-reported data
.28**
.21*
.34***
.07
.02
.01
.04
.13
.13
.23*
.06
.18
Observer-reported data
33***
.15**
.23*
.21*
.08
.16
.19
.24*
.11
4Q***
.18
.30**
*p < .05
**p < .01
***p
< .001.
links help to illuminate the important social consequences of the major
dimensions of personality, a topic I will take up in the Discussion sec-
tion.
Couple Correlations on Manipulation Tactics
Table 5 shows the correlations between husbands and wives in their
use of manipulation tactics toward each other. Four show significant
positive couple correlations across data sources—Coercion, Respon-
sibility Invocation, Hardball, and Reason, No tactics show negative
correlations between husbands and wives, adding one more piece to
the growing body of literature that documents ubiquitous similarity
between mates in the interpersonal realm (Buss, 1984),
DISCUSSION
This research makes three basic empirical contributions: (a) a taxo-
nomic contribution to the discovery, naming, and ordering of the major
ways in which persons influence significant others inhabiting their social
environment; (b) documentation of the degree of generality and nature
of specificity of manipulation tactics across relationship contexts; and
49*
Buss
(c) placement of the five factors of personality in interactional context
by identifying the manipulation tactics deployed by persons differing
on each. These issues will be discussed in turn.
Previous research has identified six major tactics of manipulation—
Charm, Reason, Coercion, Silent Treatment, Debasement, and Regres-
sion (Buss et al., 1987). The current research replicated those factors,
and discovered six additional tactics through factor analyses of two par-
allel instruments differing in data source—Responsibility Invocation,
Reciprocity, Monetary Reward, Pleasure Induction, Social Compari-
son, and Hardball,
This taxonomic advance was achieved by examining different sorts
of close relationships (friend, mother, father), and obtaining act nomi-
nations for each of them. The current taxonomy of tactics provides a
much richer depiction of the ways in which individuals infiuence each
other, although it cannot be considered comprehensive. Other relation-
ships (e.g., siblings, work colleagues) and different age groups such as
older persons (e.g., "I threatened to cut her out of my will") represent
important domains for further advances toward this taxonomic goal.
The second contribution of this research is the documentation of the
degree of generality and nature of specificity of manipulation tactics
across different types of close relationships. The use of two separate data
sources permits a reasonable assessment of generality. A few tactics
showed individual difference consistency across relationships. The use
of Responsibility Invocation, Hardball, Pleasure Induction, and Rea-
son, for example, showed moderate generafity across spouses, friends,
mothers, and fathers. Coercion showed consistency across spouses and
friends. For the other six tactics, however, the degree of consistency
across relationships ranged from quite modest to essentially zero.
Are tactics deployed differentially depending on relationship? Over-
all,
the data showed elevation in the use of all manipulation tactics
toward the spouse when contrasted with other relationships. This result
may not be surprising in that spouses generally spend more time with
each other than with friends or parents. Correcting for overall differ-
ences in elevation, however, yielded a coherent portrait of the relative
relationship specificity of tactical usage. This sample used Coercion,
Responsibility Invocation, and Regression differentially more toward
their spouses than toward their friends, mothers, or fathers. They used
Hardball, Reciprocity, Debasement, Social Comparison, and Monetary
Reward relatively more often with friends than with spouses. These
findings contribute to knowledge about systematic sources of behav-
Tactics of Manipulation 497
ioral specificity: Relationship type moderates which tactics of infiuence
will be deployed.
Implications of Five Factors of Personality for
Social Relationships
The third set of findings represents a step toward placing personality in
interactional context by identifying the manipulation tactics deployed
by persons differing on the
five
major dimensions of personality. Among
the major findings were that persons high on Surgency tended to use
Responsibility Invocation and Coercion; persons low on Surgency used
Debasement; Disagreeable persons tended to use Coercion and Silent
Treatment; Conscientious persons tended to use Reason; Emotionally
Unstable persons tended to use Regression; persons high on Intellect-
Openness tended to use Reason; and those low on Intellect-Openness
tended to use Social Comparison, These links all showed some degree
of generality across sexes, relationships, and data sources, and provide
evidence of the interactive implications of the five basic dimensions of
personality.
The results linking personality characteristics with manipulation tac-
tics used contribute to the development of an interactional framework for
linking personality and social psychology (Buss, 1987). Although calls
for interactionism have been sounded frequently in the past decade, no
compelling framework has emerged within which person-environment
links,
their causal origins, and their consequences can be studied.
The present results contribute to the selection-evocation-manipulation
framework of person-environment interactionism (Buss, 1987). While
previous results have documented the importance of selection as a
mechanism that creates person-environment links (Buss, 1984), these
results document the importance of manipulation in creating person-
environment links.
Documenting these links illuminates the importance and implicative-
ness of the five major personality dimensions for social relationships.
The finding that those low on Surgency tend to use Debasement (e.g.,
lowering self to get others to do something), for example, supports
Wiggins's conceptual proposition that submissiveness involves denying
status to the
self.
Combined with the
finding
that those high on Surgency
tend to be somewhat condescending (e.g., treating self as superior and
others as inferior) (Buss, 1991b), these results yield compelling support
for the notion that status
allocation
is a central psychological ingredient
in this major personality factor.
498 Buss
Another implication involves the consequences of personality for
interactions between husbands and wives. Although it would be pre-
mature to draw conclusions about whom one should or should not
marry, it does seem clear that those married to spouses low on Agree-
ableness are more likely to be subjected to yelling, demanding, and
criticizing (i.e.. Coercion) from their spouses; and those married to
spouses low on Emotional Stability are more likely to be subjected
to pouting, sulking, and whining (Regression) as well as demands,
criticizing, and yelling (Coercion) from their spouses. Those seeking
spouses who use Reason might do well to select mates who are high on
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Intellect-Openness. These re-
sults point to the centrality of five personality factors in understanding
how individuals interact in close social relationships.
REFERENCES
Buss,
D. M. (1984). Towardapsychology of person-environment correspondence; The
role of spouse selection.
Journal
of
Personality and Social
Psychology.
47, 361-377.
Buss,
D. M. (1985). The temporal stability of acts, trends, and patterns. In C. Spiel-
berger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 5. pp.
165-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buss,
D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of
Personality
and Social Psychology. 53, 1214-1221.
Buss,
D. M. (1989). Conflict between the sexes; Strategic interference and the evoca-
tion of anger and upset. Journal of
Personality
and Social
Psychology.
56, 735-747.
Buss,
D. M. (1991a). Evolutionary personality psychology. In M. Rosensweig &
L. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 459-491). Palo Alto, CA; An-
nual Reviews.
Buss,
D. M. (1991b). Conflict in married couples; Personality predictors of anger and
upset. Journal of Personality. 59, 663-688.
Buss,
D. M., Gomes, M., Higgins, D. S., & Lauterbach, K. (1987). Tactics of
manipulation. Journal of
Personality
and Social
Psychology.
52, 1219-1229.
Cantor, N., & Zirkel, S. (1990). Personality, cognition, and purposive behavior. In
L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and
research
(pp. 135-164). New
York; Guilford.
Conley, J. (1984). The hierarchy of consistency; A review and model of longitudinal
findings on adult individual differences in intelligence, personality and self-opinion.
Journal of
Personality
and
Individual
Differences,
5, 11-25.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years; Person-
ality as the key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. Baltes & O. G.
Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life span development and behavior (Vol. 3. pp. 65-102). New
York; Academic Press.
Daniels, D. (1986). Sibling personality differences and differential experience of sib-
lings in the same family.
Journal
of
Personality and Social
Psychology,
51, 339-346.
Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of
Tactics of Manipulation 499
personality. Journal of
Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 116-123.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language
of personality; Reanalysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies.
Multivariate Behavioral
Research,
16, 149-170.
Eysenck, H. J. (1981). A model for
personality.
New York; Springer-Verlag.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences; The search for univer-
sals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review qf personality and social
psychology (pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills; Sage.
Goldberg, L. R.
(1983,
June). The magical number five, plus or minus two: Some
conjectures on the
dimensionality
of personality
de.scriptions.
Paper presented at the
Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore.
Hogan, R. (1983). Socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation:
Personality—current
theory and
research
(pp.
55-89).
Lincoln; University of Nebraska Press.
Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance;
A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information pro-
cessing. Psychological Review. 91, 153-185.
John, O. P., Goldberg, L. R., & Angleitner, A. (1984). Better than the alphabet;
Taxonomies of personality-descriptive terms in English, Dutch, and German. In
H. J. C. Bonarius, G. L. M. van Heck, & N. E. Smid (Eds.),
Personality psychology
in
Europe:
Theoretical
and
empirical developments
(pp. 83-100). Lisse, Switzerland;
Swets & Zeitlinger.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating Norman's "adequate taxonomy"
of intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires.
Journal of
Personality
and Social
Psychology.
49,
710-721.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of
personality across instruments and observers. Journal of
Personality
and Social
Psychology. 52, 81-90.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes; Rep-
licated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J.C. & McClearn, G. E.
(19H0).
Behavioral
genetics:
A primer.
San Francisco; Freeman.
Thorne, A. (1987). The press of personality; A study of conversations between intro-
verts and extraverts. Journal of
Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 718-726.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of interpersonal behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 37, 395-412.
Wright, J.C, & Mischel, W. (1987). A conditional approach to dispositional con-
structs; The local predictability of social behavior. Journal of
Personality
and Social
Psychology, 53, 1159-1177.
Zuckerman, M. (1990). The psychophysiology of sensation seeking. Journal of
Per-
sonality,5^. 313-345.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and
N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic dimensions of personality.
Journal of
Personality
and Social
Psychology.
54, 96-107.
Manuscript
received December
21, 1989: revised
March
14, 1991.
