Personality and Individual Differences 138 (2019) 157–162

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Masculinity might be more toxic than we think: The influence of gender T

roles on trait emotional manipulation
⁎
Rachel Grievea, , Evita Marchb, George Van Doornb
a
University of Tasmania, Australia
b
Federation University, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Previous research has established sex differences in emotional manipulation; specifically, men are more likely
Dark side of emotion than women to engage in emotional manipulation. This study aimed to explicate these sex differences by in-
Emotional intelligence vestigating, for the first time, the influence of gender roles in the prediction of trait emotional manipulation.
Emotional manipulation Participants were 435 females and 139 males (N = 574) who reported their levels of masculine and feminine
Femininity
gender roles, as well as primary and secondary psychopathy, trait emotional intelligence, and trait emotional
Gender roles
Masculinity
manipulation. Separate regressions were conducted for each sex. As predicted, for both males and females,
Trait emotional manipulation masculine gender roles positively predicted emotional manipulation. For males, no other predictors were sig-
nificant, however there was evidence of statistical suppression for feminine gender roles. For females, low female
gender roles, high primary and secondary psychopathy, and high emotional intelligence all significantly pre-
dicted emotional manipulation; the effect of emotional intelligence was via statistical suppression. This study
represents an important first step in understanding the interplay between socialisation and emotional manip-
ulation. Future research would benefit from using a longitudinal approach to determine whether emotional
manipulation can be reduced through shifting gender roles.

1. Introduction 1.1. What predicts emotional manipulation? The story so far

The original conceptualisation of emotional intelligence (EI) re-
cognised the potential for emotional skills to be used for both positive
and nefarious purposes (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Despite this original
conceptualisation, Austin, Farrelly, Black, and Moore (2007) argued
that existing measures of EI were largely prosocial in nature and a
paucity existed in the measurement of manipulating others' emotions
for antisocial ends. Thus, the construct of emotional manipulation
emerged in the literature as the ‘dark side’ of EI (Austin et al., 2007).
Subsequent measurement of emotional manipulation for antisocial
purposes has shown that, compared to females, males are more likely to
engage in this negative form of emotional intelligence (Bacon & Regan,
2016; Hyde & Grieve, 2018). The aim of the current study was to fur-
ther understanding of the nomological network of emotional manip-
ulation by examining the influence of masculine and feminine genders
roles1 in (self-reported) emotional manipulation ability.
There are various (generally antisocial) predictors of emotional
manipulation, including trait narcissism (Austin & O'Donnell, 2013;
Austin, Saklofske, Smith, & Tohver, 2014; Hyde & Grieve, 2014; Nagler,
Reiter, Furtner, & Rauthmann, 2014), Machiavellianism (Abell, Brewer,
Qualter, & Austin, 2016; Austin et al., 2007; Austin & O'Donnell, 2013),
aggression (Grieve & Panebianco, 2013), controlling tendencies
(Berkovich & Eyal, 2017), and insincerity (Austin & Vahle, 2016;
Grieve, 2011). Trait psychopathy is a particularly reliable predictor of
emotional manipulation (see Austin et al., 2014; Austin & O'Donnell,
2013; Burns, Roberts, Egan, & Kane, 2015; Grieve & Mahar, 2010;
Grieve & Panebianco, 2013; Grieve, Witteveen, & Tolan, 2014; Hyde &
Grieve, 2014; Nagler et al., 2014). The relationship between psycho-
pathy and the use of emotional manipulation for nefarious purposes is
foreseeable, given than primary psychopathy is characterised by mal-
evolence, callousness, and deception, and that secondary psychopathy
relates conceptually to disagreeable and troublemaking behaviours (see
Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995).

⁎
Corresponding author at: Division of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 30, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia.
E-mail address: rachel.grieve@utas.edu.au (R. Grieve).
1
Per Wood and Eagly (2002), we use the term ‘sex’ to denote the grouping of people into biological categories; ‘gender’ refers to the meanings society ascribes to
these categories.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.042
Received 19 July 2018; Received in revised form 21 September 2018; Accepted 24 September 2018
0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Grieve et al.
Other individual differences are also apparent, with males con-
sistently reporting engaging in more emotional manipulation than fe-
males (Bacon & Regan, 2016; Grieve & Mahar, 2010; Grieve &
Panebianco, 2013; Hyde & Grieve, 2018). Given that emotional ma-
nipulation is a feature of EI, and research has shown women have
greater emotional (particularly interpersonal EI) skills compared to
men (e.g., Cabello, Sorrel, Fernández-Pinto, Extremera, & Fernández-
Berrocal, 2016; O'Connor & Brown, 2016), it is curious that males re-
port more perpetration of emotional manipulation than women. As
emotional manipulation is, by definition, an interpersonal emotional
construct (Austin et al., 2007), further investigation of this sex differ-
ence is warranted.
Predictors of emotional manipulation also vary between males and
females. For example, in studies using a multivariate approach, EI
emerges as a suppressor variable for females only; that is, contributing
significantly to the multivariate model while having a low bivariate
correlation with emotional manipulation (see Grieve & Mahar, 2010;
Grieve & Panebianco, 2013). EI acting as a suppressor variable only for
females suggests potential for a systematic difference in the prediction
of emotional manipulation as a function of sex.
1.2. Potential explanations for sex differences in emotional manipulation
There are a number of theoretical explanations for sex differences in
psychological constructs (Hyde, 2014) that may provide a useful fra-
mework when considering emotional manipulation's nomological net-
work. Evolutionary explanations, such as sexual selection, can delineate
why males and females may engage in different behaviours. For ex-
ample, sex differences in aggression might be a result of sexual selection
(e.g., Archer, 2009). Still, it is difficult to explain why one sex would be
more likely to engage in emotional manipulation (i.e., a form of covert
aggression). It is possible that in efforts to enhance reproductive suc-
cess, males will emotionally manipulate potential partners and rivals.
However, females would also gain reproductive benefits from emo-
tionally manipulating potential partners and rivals. In fact, the evolu-
tionary view holds that females may be likely to engage in more in-
direct aggression than males, as indirect aggression allows females to
enter a dominance hierarchy without potentially damaging their re-
productive health through physical contests (Ingram, 2014). Further-
more, perceived mate value predicts competitor derogation for both
males and females (Chaudhary, Al-Shawaf, & Buss, 2018). As such,
sexual selection does not appear to adequately explain observed sex
differences in emotional manipulation.
Cognitive social learning theories propose that reinforcement and
punishment shape behaviour (Hyde, 2014). These processes should not
vary as a function of sex per sé; however, what is considered appro-
priate behaviour—and thus whether a particular behaviour is punished
or rewarded—can differ depending on whether the individual is male or
female. Therefore, learned behaviours such as emotional expression
will reflect societal expectations (Guastello & Guastello, 2003). This
interpretation also aligns with sociocultural approaches that posit male
and female roles have differentiated over time stemming from biolo-
gically-grounded division of labour (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Based on
this division of labour, male roles are considered agentic and reflect
power, dominance, and action, whereas female roles are considered
communing, nurturing, affiliative, and passive (Eagly & Steffen, 1984).
Based on these societal expectations, emotional manipulation would
play out differently for males and females. Current operationalisations
of emotional manipulation (e.g., Austin et al., 2007; Hyde & Grieve,
2014) reflect a more active and dominating interpersonal style, po-
tentially explaining the noted sex differences in emotional manipula-
tion (e.g., Bacon & Regan, 2016; Grieve & Mahar, 2010; Grieve &
Panebianco, 2013; Hyde & Grieve, 2018). This explanation would also
align with bullying research indicating that gender differences might be
explained through socialised norms (e.g., Smith et al., in press). As
such, a gender role socialisation perspective holds promise in
158
Personality and Individual Differences 138 (2019) 157–162
explaining sex differences in emotional manipulation.
1.3. The current study
In summary, sex differences in emotional manipulation are not fully
understood. This study took a novel approach to unpacking these sex
differences by investigating whether gender roles influence emotional
manipulation. Previous predictors of emotional manipulation such as
primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy, and trait EI (e.g., Austin
et al., 2014; Burns et al., 2015; Grieve & Mahar, 2010; Grieve &
Panebianco, 2013; Hyde & Grieve, 2014; Nagler et al., 2014) were also
included, to examine whether gender roles had explanatory power over
and above those other characteristics.
Previously, males have scored higher than females on emotional
manipulation (Bacon & Regan, 2016; Grieve & Mahar, 2010; Grieve &
Panebianco, 2013). Given the agentic nature of emotional manipulation
items (see Austin et al., 2007), it was hypothesised that masculine
gender roles would positively predict self-reported emotional manip-
ulation ability, and that feminine gender roles would negatively predict
self-reported emotional manipulation ability. To allow any effects of sex
to be clearly examined, data were analysed separately for males and
females.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
Participants were 435 females and 139 males (N = 574) invited to
take part in an anonymous online personality study. The average age
was 31.45 years (SD = 13.11). The university's ethics committee ap-
proved the study. Prospective participants were invited via social media
posts (e.g., Facebook). An a priori power analysis (Green, 1991) in-
dicated that a sample size of 109 (i.e., N ≥ 104 + m, where m is the
number of predictors) was required to detect medium size effects for
individual predictors within the multiple regression model: this was
comfortably met for both the male and female samples.
2.2. Measures
Emotional manipulation was assessed following Grieve and Mahar's
(2010) and Nagler et al.'s (2014) methods, whereby the 10 strongest
loading items from Austin et al.'s (2007) emotional manipulation sub-
scale were used. Participants indicate their agreement to statements
(e.g., I know how to play two people off against each other) on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). In the current
study, Cronbach's alpha was 0.91, indicating excellent internal relia-
bility.
The Bem Sex Role Inventory short-form (BSRI short-form; Bem,
1974) was used to measure self-reported gender roles, comprising 20
items: 10 items measuring each of masculine and feminine gender roles.
Participants indicate on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = always or almost
always untrue; 7 = always or almost always true) how well each mas-
culine (e.g., assertive, independent; Cronbach's alpha = 0.93) and femi-
nine (e.g., gentle, compassionate; Cronbach's alpha = 0.85) adjective
describes themselves. Total scores for masculinity and femininity are
then calculated. These alphas were similar to those seen previously
(e.g., March, Grieve, Marx, & Witteveen, 2013).
Primary and secondary psychopathy was measured using the
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale (Levenson et al., 1995). Pri-
mary psychopathy is measured with 16 items (e.g., Success is based on
survival of the fittest; I am not concerned about the losers) and secondary
psychopathy with 10 items (e.g., I don't plan anything very far in ad-
vance), where 1 = disagree strongly, and 4 = agree strongly. In the
current study, reliability was good for primary psychopathy (α = 0.84)
and acceptable for secondary psychopathy (α = 0.67), consistent with
previous research (e.g., Grieve & Panebianco, 2013).
R. Grieve et al. Personality and Individual Differences 138 (2019) 157–162

Table 1
Descriptive statistics as a function of sex, and t-tests of sex differences.
Male Female

Mean SD Mean SD t p Cohen's d

Emotional manipulation 30.39 7.99 27.19 8.72 3.84 < .001 0.38
Masculine gender rolesa 50.87 8.64 49.31 9.61 1.71 .09 0.17
Feminine gender rolesa 53.74 9.04 56.64 10.33 −2.96 .003 0.30
Primary psychopathy 34.21 8.12 30.92 8.38 4.05 < .001 0.40
Secondary psychopathy 22.71 4.67 22.45 4.35 0.63 .53 0.06
Emotional intelligence 123.83 14.99 124.34 14.02 −0.37 .72 0.04

Note. aboth males and females scored significantly higher on femininity than masculinity, t(139) = −3.09, p = .002; t(445) = −14.45, p < .001, respectively.

Trait emotional intelligence was assessed using Schutte et al.'s Table 3

(1998) 33-item self-report measure. Participants indicate their agree- Multiple regression for males.
ment with statements such as I easily recognise my emotions as I experi- B SE β t p
ence them on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly
agree). Internal reliability was excellent in the current study Model 1
(α = 0.91). Constant 2.17 8.30 0.26 .79
Primary psychopathy 0.19 0.10 0.19 1.91 .06
Secondary psychopathy 0.28 0.16 0.17 1.74 .08
3. Results Emotional intelligence 0.13 0.05 0.24 2.59 .01

Model 2
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are presented in Constant −0.81 8.01 −0.10 .92
Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Independent-samples t-tests (with Bonfer- Primary psychopathy 0.14 0.09 0.15 1.51 .13
roni corrections for multiple comparisons) revealed significant sex Secondary psychopathy 0.29 0.16 0.17 1.84 .07
Emotional intelligence 0.08 0.05 0.15 1.51 .13
differences in emotional manipulation, primary psychopathy, and
Masculine gender roles 0.34 0.08 0.37 4.41 < .001
feminine gender roles (see Table 1); specifically, males reported sig- Feminine gender roles −0.15 0.08 −0.16 −1.74 .09
nificantly higher levels of self-reported emotional manipulation ability
and primary psychopathy than females. Females reported significantly
stronger feminine gender roles than did males. These effects were small Table 4
to medium (Cohen, 1992). Multiple regression for females.
Preliminary analyses revealed a significant interaction between
B SE β t p
masculine gender roles and sex on emotional manipulation, p = .02,
confirming that it was appropriate to conduct multiple regressions se- Model 1
parately for males and females. Given previous work has shown that Constant −8.58 4.67 −1.84 .07
Primary psychopathy 0.41 0.05 0.39 7.86 < .001
primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy, and emotional in-
Secondary psychopathy 0.31 0.10 0.15 3.07 .002
telligence strongly predict emotional manipulation, the first step in- Emotional intelligence 0.13 0.03 0.21 4.66 < .001
cluded these three factors. Masculine and feminine gender roles were
Model 2
entered in the second step, to determine their explanatory power over Constant −5.03 4.76 −1.06 .29
and above the previously established predictors. Results of the multiple Primary psychopathy 0.35 0.05 0.34 6.67 < .001
regressions for males and females are presented in Tables 3 and 4, re- Secondary psychopathy 0.28 0.10 0.14 2.82 .005
spectively. Emotional intelligence 0.13 0.03 0.21 4.10 < .001
Masculine gender roles 0.15 0.04 0.17 3.45 .001
Feminine gender roles −0.15 0.04 −0.18 −3.40 .001
3.1. Regression model for males

For males, in the first step, primary psychopathy, secondary psy-
chopathy, and emotional intelligence predicted a significant 8.9% of
variance in emotional manipulation, R = 0.30, F(3,135) = 4.38,
p = .001, representing a small-medium effect, ƒ2 = 0.10 (Cohen, 1992).
As shown in Table 3, emotional intelligence was the only significant
predictor of emotional manipulation in this step; however, the rela-
tively small bivariate correlation between those two variables (see
Table 2) suggests that emotional intelligence was contributing in the
multivariate model via statistical suppression.
Adding masculine and feminine gender roles significantly improved
the model Fchange (2,133) = 11.24, p < .001, and this final model was
also significant, with 22% of variance explained, R = 0.47, F
(5,133) = 7.52, p < .001. This was a medium-large effect, ƒ2 = 0.28.
Masculine gender roles were the only significant individual predictor of
emotional manipulation in the final model. While feminine gender roles
did not significantly predict emotional manipulation in the final model,
their beta weight and bivariate correlation suggest a suppression effect.

Table 2
Bivariate correlations. Data for females (n = 435) are presented above the diagonal, data for males (n = 139) are presented below the diagonal.
Emotional manipulation Masculine gender roles Feminine gender roles Primary psychopathy Secondary psychopathy Emotional intelligence

Emotional manipulation 0.15a −0.17⁎⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.06

Masculine gender roles 0.37⁎⁎⁎ 0.43⁎⁎⁎ −0.07 0.01 0.39⁎⁎⁎
⁎⁎
Feminine gender roles −0.07 0.22 −0.39⁎⁎⁎ −0.19⁎⁎⁎ 0.44⁎⁎⁎
Primary psychopathy 0.17⁎ −0.14⁎ −0.38⁎⁎⁎ 0.48⁎⁎⁎ −0.29⁎⁎⁎
Secondary psychopathy 0.19⁎ −0.04 −0.06 0.48⁎⁎⁎ −0.29⁎⁎⁎
Emotional intelligence 0.11 0.40⁎⁎⁎ 0.52⁎⁎⁎ −0.41⁎⁎⁎ −0.30⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
Note. adenotes p = .001, p < .001, p < .01, ⁎p < .05.

159
R. Grieve et al.
3.2. Regression model for females
For females, in Step 1 of the regression model primary psychopathy,
secondary psychopathy, and emotional intelligence significantly pre-
dicted 21% of variance in emotional manipulation, R = 0.46, F
(3,431) = 38.25, p < .001: a medium-large effect ƒ2 = 0.28. Within
Step 1, all predictors made a significant, positive contribution to the
model. Similar to the male model, based on the bivariate correlation
(Table 2), emotional intelligence had an effect due to statistical sup-
pression. Adding gender roles in the next step significantly improved
the prediction of emotional manipulation, Fchange(2,429) = 8.83,
p < .001. The overall model explained 24.1% of variance in emotional
manipulation, and was significant, R = 0.49, F(5,429) = 27.32,
p < .001, with f2 = 0.32 indicating a large effect. All individual pre-
dictors contributed significantly to the final model, with greater emo-
tional manipulation significantly predicted by higher levels of mascu-
line gender roles, primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy, and
emotional intelligence, and lower levels of feminine gender roles (see
Table 4). Emotional intelligence contributed significantly via suppres-
sion, as evident from its low bivariate correlation with emotional ma-
nipulation.
4. Discussion
For both sexes, gender roles explained additional significant var-
iance in self-reported emotional manipulation ability, over and above
that explained by previously established predictors (primary psycho-
pathy, secondary psychopathy, and emotional intelligence). As hy-
pothesised, masculine gender roles were a significant, positive predictor
of self-reported emotional manipulation ability for both men and
women. However, the hypothesis relating to feminine gender roles re-
ceived only partial support; feminine gender roles were only a sig-
nificant (negative) predictor of emotional manipulation for females.
Although feminine gender roles did not significantly predict emotional
manipulation for males, there was an effect of feminine gender roles on
emotional manipulation via statistical suppression, suggesting that they
do play a part within a multivariate context for men.
Interestingly, in the final male model only masculine gender roles
were a significant (positive) predictor of emotional manipulation. In
contrast, every predictor was significant in the final model for females,
with higher levels of primary and secondary psychopathy and emo-
tional intelligence all significantly predicting emotional manipulation.
Notably, the influence of emotional intelligence in the model was a
suppression effect, similar to that seen in previous research (Grieve &
Mahar, 2010; Grieve & Panebianco, 2013). Finally, the model suggests
that women high in self-reported emotional manipulation ability are
low in self-reported femininity.
The consistent effect of masculine gender roles in the prediction of
emotional manipulation for both sexes reveals that perceptions of
agency and dominance are key to emotional manipulation, particularly
for males (as no other variables contributed significantly to the final
model). This provides some insight into how both males and females
might go about eliciting emotions in others for nefarious purposes, with
direct, controlling, and assertive approaches most likely to be used. This
finding also helps to unpack the nomological nature of emotional ma-
nipulation, revealing that although males report higher levels of emo-
tional manipulation, masculine gender roles might underpin this effect.
However, it is important to note that masculine gender roles were not
significantly different as a function of gender in the current study, and
that both sexes scored higher on femininity than masculinity (see
Table 1). Thus, to say that the sex differences in emotional manipula-
tion might be merely an artefact of masculine gender roles would be
incorrect. Rather, as masculine gender roles predicted emotional ma-
nipulation in both males and females, but with stronger prediction (per
the beta weights) in the male sample, our findings highlight that sex
differences in emotional manipulation exist, and that socialisation
160
Personality and Individual Differences 138 (2019) 157–162
seems to play a role. That said, these differences cannot be explained by
social norms alone. This is particularly the case given that all other
predictors contributed significantly to the model for females, and that
the additional variance explained by gender roles over and above the
other variables was smaller in the female than the male sample.
As anticipated, lower levels of feminine gender roles – reflecting less
nurturance, sensitivity, and compassion – were associated with greater
emotional manipulation, but only for females. Emotional manipulation
is an antisocial construct, and thus the relationship seen here is un-
surprising. Grieve and Panebianco (2013) suggested that for females,
poor social skills might be reflected in elevated emotional manipula-
tion, such that females with limited social understanding may resort to
negative means to achieve emotional change in others. Similarly,
Bacon, Lenton-Maughan, and May (2018) argue that poor social re-
lationships may contribute to antisocial interpersonal behaviour in fe-
males. The strong effect of feminine gender roles in the current data
would support this account.
An outcome of our study that warrants further discussion is that the
effect of feminine gender roles was significant for females, but only
showed evidence of statistical suppression in males. Thus, for males,
feminine gender roles contribute to the prediction of emotional ma-
nipulation via the suppression of extraneous variance in other pre-
dictors in the multivariate model. Why should female gender roles be
acting as a suppressor for only one gender? According to the bivariate
correlations, feminine gender roles in men are likely to be suppressing
the extraneous variance associated with primary psychopathy and
emotional intelligence. This is a feasible interpretation given that so-
cietal norms can influence expression of psychopathic traits; for ex-
ample, indicators of psychopathy can vary as a function of gender in
terms of psychological meaning (Forouzan & Cooke, 2005). Further,
feminine gender roles are strongly and positively associated with per-
ceptions of empathic ability, emotional expression, and relationship
self-efficacy (O'Connor & Brown, 2016). For women, no suppression
effect was evident, and thus the prediction of emotional manipulation
by feminine gender roles was direct. Taken together, our data indicate
that for males reporting stronger feminine gender roles, there is a
complexity in the way feminine gender roles emerge, particularly given
that males scored higher on feminine than masculine gender roles.
As gender roles are dynamic and can change in response to societal
changes (López-Zafra & Garcia-Retamero, 2012), the contemporary
applicability of early conceptualisations of gender labels is uncertain
(March, van Dick, & Hernandez-Bark, 2015). For example, ‘masculine’
items on the BSRI-short form (such as forceful and aggressive) may not
represent present-day masculinity. It may be time to re-evaluate the
labelling ascribed to the BSRI-short form. In the meantime, we suggest
that it is both the antisocial and prosocial traits associated with mas-
culinity and femininity that are implicated in emotional manipulation.
4.1. Limitations and future directions
A potential limitation of this study is that only self-reported emo-
tional manipulation ability was assessed, which has previously been
considered to be trait-like (Grieve & Panebianco, 2013). While the
current study provides valuable insight into emotional manipulation,
conclusions cannot be made in regards to success in emotional manip-
ulation behaviours. Individuals may claim to use emotional manipula-
tion, but self-report does not reveal whether attempts to manipulate are
effective. A behavioural paradigm would help to overcome this lim-
itation. Nonetheless, given that confidence in an ability can predict use
of that ability (e.g., Bandura, 1997), the current data most likely do
provide knowledge of the correlates of emotionally manipulative be-
haviours.
Another limitation is the binary treatment of gender roles in the
current study. It would be valuable to extend a similar methodology to
individuals with non-binary gender identities, and this would help to
elucidate competing theoretical explanations for differences in
R. Grieve et al.
emotional manipulation. Further research exploring emotional manip-
ulation and gender roles could also explore non-binary gender roles,
such as androgynous and undifferentiated roles (see Bem, 1974).
4.2. Implications and concluding comments
Our results show that, particularly for men, masculine gender roles
powerfully predict emotional manipulation. The intersect between the
male sex and the masculine gender role in predicting emotional ma-
nipulation is even more pronounced when considering no sex difference
was found between males' and females' self-reported masculine gender
roles. Of further interest is that low feminine gender roles were sig-
nificantly associated with emotional manipulation in females only.
Future research could further explore how masculinity interacts with
the male sex to produce higher emotional manipulation, and how
femininity interacts with the female sex to produce lower emotional
manipulation. Consistent with other recent research (e.g., Stratmoen,
Greer, Martens, & Saucier, 2018), our data reveal the potentially ‘toxic’
nature of masculinity, and provide possible groundwork for future
prevention and intervention of emotional manipulation. Emotional
manipulation is a negative and anti-social construct. It may be feasible
to encourage individuals to engage in less emotional manipulation
through consideration of the predictors seen here. Gender roles can
shift over time (e.g., Jewkes, Flood, & Lang, 2015). It would be good to
consider how reducing the strength of male gender roles (in both men
and women), as well as increasing female gender roles (in women)
might influence emotional manipulation. This could be appropriately
achieved through the use of a prospective design in future research.
This study takes the next step towards greater understanding of the
nomological nature of emotional manipulation, and confirms the re-
commendations of extant research advocating investigation of gender
differences in the use of the dark side of EI (e.g., Bacon & Regan, 2016;
Hyde & Grieve, 2018; Megías, Gómez-Leal, Gutiérrez-Cobo, Cabello, &
Fernández-Berrocal, 2018). Our results also help to provide further
insight into why prediction of antisocial characteristics might be more
complex in females than in males (Dinić & Wertag, 2018; Kapoor, in
press), given that all predictors in the female model had significant
individual effects. Further, our results highlight the importance of the
masculine gender role in predicting emotional manipulation for men.
Hyde's (2014) review shows that sex differences in personality,
emotionality, and relational constructs are generally small in effect size,
with the caveat that context can amplify differences. Our findings
corroborate this, showing the value of going further than mean differ-
ences when attempting to determine explanatory mechanisms, and in-
dicate mixed effects of socialisation in emotional manipulation.
References
Abell, L., Brewer, G., Qualter, P., & Austin, E. J. (2016). Machiavellianism, emotional
manipulation, and friendship functions in women's friendships. Personality and
Individual Differences, 88, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.001.
Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0140525X09990951.
Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C., & Moore, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence, ma-
chiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and
Individual Differences, 43, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.019.
Austin, E. J., & O'Donnell, M. (2013). Development and preliminary validation of a scale
to assess managing the emotions of others. Personality and Individual Differences, 55,
834–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.005.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Smith, M., & Tohver, G. (2014). Associations of the
managing emotions of others (MEOS) scale with personality, the Dark Triad, and trait
EI. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2014.01.060.
Austin, E. J., & Vahle, N. (2016). Associations of the Managing the Emotions of Others
Scale (MEOS) with HEXACO personality and with trait emotional intelligence at the
factor and facet level. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 348–353. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.047.
Bacon, A. M., Lenton-Maughan, L., & May, J. (2018). Trait emotional intelligence and
social deviance in males and females. Personality and Individual Differences, 122,
79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.015.
161
Personality and Individual Differences 138 (2019) 157–162
Bacon, A. M., & Regan, L. (2016). Manipulative relational behaviour and delinquency: Sex
differences and links with emotional intelligence. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry
and Psychology, 27, 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1134625.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215.
Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2017). Good cop bad cop: Exploring school principals' emo-
tionally manipulative behaviours. Educational Management Administration &amp;
Leadership, 45, 944–958. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659293.
Burns, S., Roberts, L. D., Egan, S., & Kane, R. (2015). Evaluating emotion processing and
trait anxiety as predictors of non-criminal psychopathy. Personality and Individual
Differences, 81, 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.044.
Cabello, R., Sorrel, M. A., Fernández-Pinto, I., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P.
(2016). Age and gender differences in ability emotional intelligence in adults: A
cross-sectional study. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1486–1492. https://doi.org/10.
1037/dev0000191.
Chaudhary, N., Al-Shawaf, L., & Buss, D. M. (2018). Mate competition in Pakistan: Mate
value, mate retention, and competitor derogation. Personality and Individual
Differences, 130, 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.007.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
Dinić, B. M., & Wertag, A. (2018). Effects of Dark Triad and HEXACO traits on reactive/
proactive aggression: Exploring the gender differences. Personality and Individual
Differences, 123, 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.003.
Eagly, A., & Steffen, V. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women
and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735.
Eagly, A., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behaviour: Evolved
dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408.
Forouzan, E., & Cooke, D. J. (2005). Figuring out la femme fatale: Conceptual and as-
sessment issues concerning psychopathy in females. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23,
765–778. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.669.
Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327906mbr2603_7.
Grieve, R. (2011). Mirror mirror: The role of self-monitoring and sincerity in emotional
manipulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 981–985. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2011.08.004.
Grieve, R., & Mahar, D. (2010). The emotional manipulation-psychopathy nexus:
Relationships with emotional intelligence, alexithymia and ethical position.
Personality and Individual Differences, 48(1), 945–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2010.02.028.
Grieve, R., & Panebianco, L. (2013). Assessing the role of aggression, empathy, and self-
serving cognitive distortions in trait emotional manipulation. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 65, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9536.2012.00059.x.
Grieve, R., Witteveen, K., & Tolan, G. A. (2014). Social media as a tool for data collection:
Examining equivalence of socially value-laden constructs. Current Psychology, 33,
532–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9227-4.
Guastello, D. D., & Guastello, S. J. (2003). Androgyny, gender role behaviour, and
emotional intelligence among college students and their parents. Sex Roles, 49,
663–673.
Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 64,
373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057.
Hyde, J., & Grieve, R. (2014). Able and willing: Refining the measurement of emotional
manipulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 131–134. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2014.02.036.
Hyde, J., & Grieve, R. (2018). The dark side of emotion at work: Emotional manipulation
in everyday and work place contexts. Personality and Individual Differences, 129,
108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.025.
Ingram, G. P. D. (2014). From hitting to tattling to gossip: An evolutionary rationale for
the development of indirect aggression. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 343–363.
https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200205.
Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. L. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes of
social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in
prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580–1589.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61683-4.
Kapoor, H. (2018). Sex differences and similarities in creativity. Personality and Individual
Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.043 (in press).
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attri-
butes in a noninstitutionalised population. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 151–158.
López-Zafra, E., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Do gender stereotypes change? The dy-
namic of gender stereotypes in Spain. Journal of Gender Studies, 21(2), 169–183.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.661580.
March, E., Grieve, R., Marx, E., & Witteveen, K. (2013). More of a (wo)man offline?
Gender roles measured in online and offline environments. Personality and Individual
Differences, 55, 887–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.018.
March, E., van Dick, R., & Hernandez-Bark, A. (2015). Current prescriptions of men and
women in differing occupational gender roles. Journal of Gender Studies, 25, 681–692.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2015.1090303.
Megías, A., Gómez-Leal, R., Gutiérrez-Cobo, M. J., Cabello, R., & Fernández-Berrocal, P.
(2018). The relationship between trait psychopathy and emotional intelligence: A
meta-analytic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 84, 198–203. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.12.003.
Nagler, U. K. J., Reiter, K. J., Furtner, M. R., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2014). Is there a “dark
intelligence”? Emotional intelligence is used by dark personalities to emotionally
R. Grieve et al.
manipulate others. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 47–52. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.025.
O'Connor, P. J., & Brown, C. M. (2016). Sex-linked personality traits and stress: Emotional
skills protect feminine women from stress but not feminine men. Personality and
Individual Differences, 99, 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.075.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185–211.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., et al.
(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0191-8869(98)00001-4.
162
Personality and Individual Differences 138 (2019) 157–162
Smith, P. K., López-Castro, L., Robinson, S., & Görzig, A. (2018). Consistency of gender
differences in bullying in cross-cultural surveys. Aggression and Violent Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.04.006 (in press).
Stratmoen, E., Greer, M. M., Martens, A. L., & Saucier, D. A. (2018). What, I'm not good
enough for you? Individual differences in masculine honor beliefs and the endorse-
ment of aggressive responses to romantic rejection. Personality and Individual
Differences, 123, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.018.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and
men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128,
699–727. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.5.699.