Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Manipulation

  • Alita CousinsEmail author
  • Madeleine Fugère
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_147-1

Synonyms

Definition

Some forms of mate retention involve the use of deception, manipulation, and exploitation of a romantic partner.

Introduction

Some mate retention tactics are used to manipulate a partner. For instance, in the Mate Retention Tactics Scale, the subscale intersexual negative inducements consists of items that measure behaviors used by one partner to get what he or she wants from the other partner and to provoke negative emotions from a partner (Shackelford et al. 2005). For instance, an individual may flirt with someone in front of his or her partner to cause sexual jealousy. Provoking jealousy may be used as a tactic to manipulate a partner into paying more attention to the individual or to discourage a partner from paying attention to someone he or she is interested in romantically.

Mate Retention in Marriage

Research on married couples shows that mate value plays a role in manipulation of a partner. Mate value...

Keywords

Intimate Partner Violence Personality Trait Romantic Relationship Physical Violence Romantic Partner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 346–361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cousins, A. J., & Gangestad, S. W. (2007). Perceived threats of female infidelity, male proprietariness, and violence in College dating couples. Violence and Victims, 22, 651–668.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Holden, C. J., Shackelford, T. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Miner, E. J., Kaighobadi, F., Starratt, V. G., Jeffrey, A. J., & Buss, D. M. (2014a). Husband’s esteem predicts his mate retention tactics. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(3), 655–672. doi:10.1177/147470491401200311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Holden, C. J., Zeigler-Hill, V., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2014b). Personality features and mate retention strategies: Honesty-humility and the willingness to manipulate, deceive, and exploit romantic partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Buss, D. M. (2010). The costs and benefits of the Dark Triad: Implications for mate poaching and mate retention tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kaighobadi, F., Starratt, V. G., Shackelford, T. K., & Popp, D. (2008). Male mate retention mediates the relationship between female sexual infidelity and female-directed violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(6), 1422–1431. 10.1016/j.paid.2007.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2009). From mate retention to murder: Evolutionary psychological perspectives on men’s partner-directed violence. Review of General Psychology, 13(4), 327–334. doi:10.1037/a0017254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McCoy, M. G., Welling, L. L. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). Development and initial psychometric assessment of the reasons for orgasm inventory. Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 129–139. doi:10.1177/147470491501300108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. McKibbin, W. F., Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Schipper, L. D., Starratt, V. G., & Stewart-Williams, S. (2007). Why do men insult their intimate partners? Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2), 231–241. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Mate retention in marriage: Further evidence of the reliability of the mate retention inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentEastern Connecticut State UniversityWillimanticUSA
  2. 2.Eastern Connecticut StateWillimanticUSA