Journal ol Personality and Social Psychology 1987. Vol. 52, No. 6.1219-1229 Tactics of Manipulation David M. Buss Mary Gomes University of Michigan Stanford University Dolly S. Higgins and Karen Lauterbach Harvard University Manipulation is one means by which environments are altered to correspond to characteristics of individuals. We conducted two studies to identify the manipulation tactics that people use lo elicit and terminate the actions of others. Factor analyses of four instruments revealed six types of tactics: charm, silent treatment, coercion, reason, regression, and debasement. Tactics of manipulation showed strong individual difference consistency across contexts. The charm tactic, however, was used more frequently for behavioral elicitation, whereas the coercion and silent treatment tactics were used more frequently for behavioral termination. Manipulation tactics covaried significantly across self-based and observer-based data sources with personality scales of Neuroticism, Extraversion. Ambitious-Lazy, Arrogant-Unassuming, Quarrelsome-Agreeable, and Calculating and with char- acteristics of subjects' social environments. We draw implications for an interactionist framework of person-environment correspondence, for an expansion of the taxonomic task thai faces personality psychology, and for identifying links between personality and other scientific disciplines. Natural selection favors people who successfully manipulate has been strong consensus about the importance of both person objects in their environment. Some manipulable objects are in- and environment variables. No compelling conceptual frame- animate, such as the raw materials used to build shelters, tools, work, however, has emerged to incorporate their interaction. clothing, or weapons. Other manipulable objects are alive. The dominant response to calls for interactionism has been the These include predators and prey of different species as well as analysis of variance (ANOVA) framework, in which interaction mates, parents, children, rivals, and allies of the same species. is conceived as nonadditive statistical interaction of person and Manipulation of living objects may be defined as the various situation variables crossed in experimental design. Despite its means by which organisms influence and exploit the sense or- frequent use, enthusiasm for the ANOVA approach has waned gans and behavioral machinery of other organisms (Dawkins & as telling limitations have been noted and documented empiri- Krebs, 1978; Krebs& Dawkins, 1984). cally (e.g., Ekehammar, 1974;Golding, 1975). Among group-living species such as ours, manipulation of One limitation is that studies can be constructed at will to conspeeifics is especially important. People who lack the ability manipulate variance attributable to the person component, the to manipulate others may fail to elicit parental care, acquire situation component, or the interaction component. Selection resources, establish reciprocal alliances, elevate in hierarchies, of a weak situational manipulation, for example, results in less or attract mates. Existing people had ancestors who successfully variance attributable to the situation, whereas selection of an manipulated members of their own species in these ways. Peo- inappropriate, ill-conceived, or poorly measured person vari- ple who lacked such skills are no one's ancestors. able attenuates variance attributable to persons. A second limi- By what tactics do humans manipulate one another? Under tation is that crossing levels of persons with levels of environ- what conditions are different tactics displayed? What are the ments, an essential part of the ANOVA paradigm, does not often relative frequencies of alternative manipulation tactics? And occur in nature. Outside the psychological laboratory, people how do others respond to specific manipulative attempts? These are rarely randomly assigned to conditions. But perhaps the and related questions address a central issue that has galvanized most telling limitation is that interactions in the A\OVA sense the field of personality psychology for the past 2 decades: What do not capture the dynamic interchange and mutual influence is interactionism and how can we best conceptualize and empir- between people and environments that most psychologists view ically examine links between features of people and features of as central features of the concept of interaction. their environments? An alternative approach is to identify the links between fea- tures of people and features of their environments that occur in Person-Environment Correspondence everyday life (Buss. 1984b, 1985a). This person-environment In the decade since Magnusson and Endler (1977) published correspondence framework has Ihree essential components. their volume on interactionism in personality psychology, there The first is descriptive and involves documenting empirically the nature and domains of person-environment correspon- dence that occur in people's lives. The second component is This study was supported in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH41593-02 to David M. Buss. causal and involves identifying the mechanisms and specific ac- We thank Lewis R. Goldberg for exceptionally helpful suggestions. tions that are responsible for producing obtained person-envi- Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David ronment correspondences. The third component entails exami- M. Buss, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 580 Union nation of the consequences that follow from obtained person- Drive. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1346. environment links. 1219 1220 BUSS. GOMES, H1GGINS, AND LAUTERBACH Three Mechanisms of Person-Environment goal. In principle, manipulation tactics should varv with the Correspondence goals toward which they are directed. Tactics used with the boss to obtain a higher salary would be expected to differ from those Three essential mechanisms are posited to causally produce used with the spouse to obtain a backrub or with a friend to person-environment correspondence (Buss, 1985a): selection, obtain the use of a car. For this first empirical probe, we chose evocation, and manipulation. Selection involves nonrandom two broad conditions in which to study tactics of manipulation: choices of interpersonal and physical milieus. Mate selection is (a) behavioral instigation, or tactics used to get another to do a dramatic example of the importance of this mechanism in something, and (b) behavioral termination, or tactics used to producing person-environment correlations (Buss. I984b). get another to stop doing something. Close relationships were Nonrandom selection of a mate results in subsequent exposure selected as the context in which to study tactics of behavioral to a prolonged act environment that shows stability over time instigation and termination. (Buss. 1985b; see also Snyder, 1981; Snyder & Gangestad, The basic purposes of the study were as follows: (a) to provide 1982). a first empirical examination of tactics of manipulation that are The second person-environment mechanism, evocation, may used for behavioral instigation and termination in the context be denned as nonrandom and unintentional elicitation of reac- of close relationships; (b) to identify the relative frequencies tions from the environment. Researchers have conceptualized with which each tactic is performed; (c) to identify performance evocation in the context of behavioral genetics and developmen- frequency differences in manipulation tactics between behav- tal psychology (Plomin, DeFries, & Loehlin, 1977; Scarr & Mc- ioral instigation and termination; (d) to examine the cross-situ- Cartney, 1983) and have studied it empirically in the context of ational consistency of individual differences in the use of ma- parent-child interactions (Buss, 1981). Highly active children, nipulation tactics between the instigation and termination con- for example, appear to evoke "upper limit control" behavior texts; (e) to identify the links between more traditionally from parents that is designed to reduce the noise and intensity assessed personality variables and tactics of manipulation; (f) that such children typically generate. Less active children do to examine person-environment correlations for manipulation not elicit such responses and so inhabit a more quiescent and tactics in the form of couple correspondence; and (g) to identify peaceful interpersonal milieu. the connections between use of specific manipulation tactics Manipulation, the third person-environment mechanism, is and the act environment that people inhabit. denned by the tactics used intentionally to coerce, influence, change, invoke, and exploit the environment. No insidious or Preliminary Study: Nominations of Acts of Influence malevolent intent need be implied by the mechanism of manip- ulation. Conceptually, manipulation is the broadest mechanism Subjects of person-environment correspondence because, in principle, Sixty-seven college undergraduates participated as subjects for the there are counlless actions that a person could use to influence preliminary study of nominating acts of influence in the context of close the nature of the environment subsequently inhabited. Manip- relationships. ulation differs from selection in that selection involves choosing to enter existing habitats, whereas manipulation entails altering those environments already inhabited. Procedure Several areas of personality research appear to deal with the Each subject received one