Selection = We choose the environment.
- Cdn be trividl / importdnt.
- Is determined by our persondlity
- Whether we wdnt to interdct is determined by the persondlity of dnother
Selection of partner hypotheses:
- Similarity hypothesis
- People with similar traits are attracted to each other.
- Complementarity hypothesis
- People with complementary traits are attracted to each other.
Conclusion: Across a great majority of studies the similarity hypothesis was right.
Assortative mating phenomenon = People select people to be their partner who are similar to them.
Research by Botwin and colleagues: There is a strong correlation between desired characteristics and those of the actual partner.
Speed ddting resedrch by Asendorpf dnd colledgues:
- Men: physical characteristics
- Women: additional traits
- Little evidence for the similarity hypothesis.
Conclusion:
- Simildrity with pdrtner dnd desired pdrtner
- Not with speed ddting
Relationship satisfaction is not due to similarity but to the personality of the partner.
Traits that play a role in relationship satisfaction
- High Agreeableness
- High Conscientiousness
- High Openness
- Low Neuroticism
Traits that play a role in the prediction of divorce
- High Neuroticism
- Low Conscientiousness
- Low Agreeableness
Higher extraversion more likely to enter a relationship
Higher extraversion more likely to break up
To what extend do personality traits and personality similarity play a role in the selection of friends?
Important, but different contributions from:
- Extraversion (select more people to be friends)
- Agreeable (selected by more people to be friend)
Later research: The role of personality profile similarity and friendship intensity.
Examined effects of:
- Actual similarity (not an important predictor for friendship intensity)
- Perceived similarity
- Peer-rated similarity (= similarity of more people’s ratings)
Evocation
- Personality traits in others evoke responses in us and the other way around
What elicits anger and rage? – High neuroticism
- Low conscientiousness
- Low agreeableness
- Low openness
- High dominance (subfacet of E)
Personality can evoke support
Manipulation
- Personality is linked to ways we try to influence and manipulate others
Manipulation techniques (Buss and colleagues)
- Coercion (forcing and demanding stuff)
- Hardball (lying, physical aggression)
- Silent treatment
- Responsibility invocation (‘your responsibility’)
- Social comparison (everyone else is doing it)
- Self-abasement (being submissive)
- Charm
- Reason (logical argument)
- Pleasure induction (it’s going to be so much fun)
- Monetary rewards
- Regression (acting childlike to get what you want)
How did they come up with this list?
- Act-nomination (Chapter 3)
- S-data
Gender differences in preferred techniques:
- Buss (1992) only for regression
- Butkovich & Bratko (2009) virtually all techniques
Clear link between amount of manipulation, manipulation strategies and the Big Five.
The ‘Dark Triad’ of Personality
- Machiavellianism = Using somebody else for your own personal gain.
- Don’t criticize important people.
- Say what others want to hear.
- Do not trust anyone and never reveal your motives to others. Make up a false but credible motive if someone asks for it.
Success depends on group context and structure. The more loosely a situation is structured, the more successful Machiavellianism is.
Extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.
- Narcissism = Extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.
- Exhibitionism
- Overly positive (but fragile) self-image
- Self-focused
- Uses others to maintain self-image Selection:
- Select specific people dnd situdtions Evocdtion:
- Try to gdin ddmirdtion from others Mdnipuldtion:
- Highly mdnipuldtive
- Ego-centric
- Others hdve to dct dccordingly, becduse otherwise…
- Psychopathy