THE STUDENTS PREDISPOSITION FOR MANIPULATIVE BEHAVIOR: GENDER ASPECT
Abstract
The results of empirical investigation of gender
differences in predisposition for students manipulative
behavior are presented in the article. The results show
that predisposition for manipulative behavior is negatively
connected with the index of «femininity-masculinity». The
students with predisposition for manipulative behavior
have higher indices of masculinity and androgyny. Girls
and young men use different strategies of influence. Girls
are inclined to active and passive ways of action. They are
more open than young men. Young men are more closed.
They demonstrate their self-confidence and power. Besides,
girls and young men use different means of influence.
Young men prefer to conceal information and use
self-presentation. Girls show their helplessness, use false
compliments and secret aggression.
differences in predisposition for students manipulative
behavior are presented in the article. The results show
that predisposition for manipulative behavior is negatively
connected with the index of «femininity-masculinity». The
students with predisposition for manipulative behavior
have higher indices of masculinity and androgyny. Girls
and young men use different strategies of influence. Girls
are inclined to active and passive ways of action. They are
more open than young men. Young men are more closed.
They demonstrate their self-confidence and power. Besides,
girls and young men use different means of influence.
Young men prefer to conceal information and use
self-presentation. Girls show their helplessness, use false
compliments and secret aggression.
About the Author
Л. Орлова
Челябинский государственный педагогический университет
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Бендас Т.В. Гендерная психология. - СПб., 2005. - 431 с.
2. Бодалев А.А. Личность и общение. - М., 1983. - 272 с.
3. Знаков В.В. Макиавеллизм, манипулятивное поведение и взаимопонимание в межличностном общении // Вопросы психологии. - № 6. - 2002. - С. 45-54.
4. Знаков В.В. Половые различия в понимании неправды, лжи и обмана // Психологический журнал. - 1997. - № 1. - Т. 18. - С. 38-60.
5. Знаков В.В. Субъект-объектный и субъект-субъектный типы понимания высказываний в межличностном общении // Психология индивидуального и группового субъекта / Под ред. А.В. Бушлинского, М.И. Воловиковой. - М., 2002. - С. 144-160.
6. Капрара Дж., Сервон Д. Психология личности. - СПб., 2003. - 640 с.
7. Руслина А.О. Возрастные, половые и профессиональные различия в понимании манипуляции: автореф. дис. канд. психол. наук. - М., 2008. - 24 с.
8. Чалдини Р. Психология влияния. - СПб., 2006. - 288 с.
9. Шостром Э. Анти-Карнеги, или Человек-манипулятор. - Мн., 1992. - 128 с.
10. Ames M., Kidd A.H. Machiavellianism and womes grede point averges // Psychological reports. - 1979. - V. 44. - № 1. - Р. 223-228.
11. Bem S. Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration // In T.B. Sonderegger, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. - Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. - 1985. - V. 2. - P. 177-226.
12. Braginsky D.D. Machiavellianism and manipulative interpersonal behavior in children // J. of Experimental Social Psychology. - 1970. - V. 6. - № 1. - P. 77-99.
13. Buss Д.М., Gomes M., Higgins D.S., Lauterbach K. Tactics of manipulation // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. - 1987. - V. 52(6). - P. 1219- 1229.
14. Geis F.L. Machiavellianism // Dimesions of personality. - N.Y.: A Wiley-Interscions Publication. - 1978. - P. 305-364.
15. Horai J., Wasserman L. Machiavellianism and Attitude Similarity-Dissimilarity as Antecedents of Interpersonal Attraction // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. - 1974. - V. 1. - P. 81-82.
16. Merrill J.M., Camacho Z., Laux L.F., Thorby J.I., Vallbona C. Machiavellianism in Medical Students // The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. - 1993. - V. 6. - P. 33-41.
17. Moore S., Katz B., Holder J. Machiavellianism and medical career choices // Psychological Repotes. - 1995. - Jun; 76 (3 Pt 1). - Р. 803.
18. Novgorodoff B.D. Boy meets girl: Machiavellianism and romantic attraction // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. - 1974. - V. 1. - P. 307-309.
19. Rayburn J.M., Overby J. , Hammond K. Differences in charisma, ethics, personality, and Machiavellian characteristics of male and female marketing students // Academy of Marketing Studies Journal. - 2003. - V. 7. - № 2. - l. - P. 107-125.
20. Rayburn J.M., Rayburn L.Gayle. Relationship between Machiavellianism and type personality and ethical-orentation // Journal of Business. - 1996. - V.15. - P. 1209-1219.
21. Repocholi B., Slaughter V., Pritchard M., Gibbs V. Theory of Mind, Machiavellianism, and social functioning in childhood // Individual differences in theory of mind: Implications for typical and atypical development. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2003. - P. 67-98.
22. Ricks J., Sterret J. An empirical examination of machiavellianism on adaptive sales // Academy of Marketing studies Journal. - 2002. - V. 6. - P. 15- 22.
23. Spence J.T. Gender identity and its implications for the concepts of masculinity and femininity // In T.B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. - Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. - V. 32. - 1985. - P. 59-96.
Review
Views:
156
Email this article 