SEX AND GENDER PEOPLE’S PECULIARITIES WITH A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF INCLINATION FOR MANIPULATION

Abstract

The article focuses on inclination to manipulation as a personal characteristic that lies in a subject’s willingness to manipulate other people to achieve his/her own aims. Empirical results of the research of males and females who are inclined to manipulate with different gender composition of a personality are presented. Among the participants of the study with expressed manipulation propensity the majority are males, while among those who are not inclined to manipulate prevail females. The research revealed that indicators of the Machiavellianism level of males and females do not differ in terms of statistics. Males tend to show increase in manipulation propensity. It was established that there is direct dependence between the level of manipulation propensity and masculine composition of a personality but this dependence is characteristic only of females. The stronger is females’ manipulation propensity, the higher is the masculinity level. Consequently, the weaker is females’ manipulation propensity, the higher is the femininity level. This interdependence is not typical of males. There were differences between women and men who are inclined to manipulate: females are «manipulators», they are characteroized by lower intellectual intensity, lower level of organization, they tend to use their time less effectively as compared to male «manipulators». For women who are inclined to manipulation of high importance is the field of their own interests and hobby, values of self-development and self-perfection. On balance, the higher is manipulation propensity in women, the more they are disorganized, anxious, ready to question authorities and social norms. Men with increased personal manipulation propensity have lower control of affective sphere and greater need for controlling others. We did not manage to consider differences in psychological characteristics of masculine men as well as of feminine women with different level of manipulation propensity since there were too few persons in each group. For the same reasons we did not manage to compare people with different type of gender self-identification within the group of research participants with expressed manipulation propensity. Thus, finding the afore-mentioned statistically credible differences shows prospects of further research.