Characterological differences of the manipulative sphere among students between groups with high indicators of the manipulative sphere and low indicators of the manipulative sphere

Keywords: manipulation, manipulative behaviour, characteristic differences, students


 The article is devoted to the problem of studying the manipulative sphere in students with different levels of manipulative behaviour. Identifying certain differences in students with different levels of manipulative sphere may indicate different attitude of women and men to certain situations and life events. Students who have some sensuality and sentimentality are more prone to the manipulative behaviour of the manipulator. A real magnet for different toxic personalities can be responsive, conscientious and emotionally responsive people, as manipulators tend to exploit them and there is some interest in them. Manipulators can succeed quite easily by convincing people who are very responsive and conscientious, embodying that they are paranoia or "react acutely" at a time when they begin to manipulate. It is these sensetive people who are often targeted and can be forced to doubt themselves. Manipulative behaviour, it can be passive or active. The article reveals and substsntiates the differencies in the manipulative sphere in students between groups with high manipulative sphere and low manipulative sphere. Some characteristic differences that are inherent in men and women with high levels of manipulative behaviour have been identified: expression, validation, value, consensus, guilt or stretch, macivalism.



Download data is not yet available.


Grebin, NV. (2016). Psychological factors of student youth tendency to manipulation in interpersonal interaction: dis. Lviv. P. 200. [in Ukrainian].

Polishchuk, D., Sakharov, K. (2021). Detection of psychological manipulations in the process of interpersonal interaction: materials 2 of the All-Ukrainian Scientific and Practical Conference: «Actual problems of jurisprudence and psychology». Dnipro. №2 p. P.196-198. [in Ukrainian].

The tendency to manipulative personality behavior: URL: z-yakimi-mi-stikaiemosya-v-povsyakdennomu-zhitti.html. [in Ukrainian].

Dark triad. How to recognize those who should stay away: URL: thrada-narcissism-makiavellizm-88opatiyha-cati-kak-ka-caba-cabatia-catia-8 html. [in Ukrainian].

Ames, M. Kidd, A.H. (2021). Machiavellianism and woman’s grave point averages. P. 179-181. [in English].

Christie, R. (2019). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. P. 234-236. 8. Grams, W. Rogers, R. Power. (2021). Effects of Machiavellianism, need for approval, and motivation on use of influence tactics: The Journal of General Psychology. P. 71–82.

Jonason, P. K., Webster, G. D., Schmitt, D. P. (2019). The Dark Triad: Facilitating a Short-Term Mating Strategy

in n. European Journal of Personality. P. 103-104.

Kline, P. Cooper, C. (2020). Factor-anaclitic study of measures of Machiavellianism. P. 145-160.

Kraut, R., Price, J. D. (2020). Machiavellianism in parents and their children: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. P. 110-113.

Okanes, M.M., Murray, L.W. (1980). Achievement and Machiavellianism among men and women managers:

Psychological Reports. Vol. 46, № 3 (Pt 1). Р. 783–788.

Shostrom, E.L.(2020). Man, the manipulator: The inner journey from manipulation to actualization. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, К: PSYLIB. P. 303-308.

Slaughter, V. (2021). Implications for children’s interpersonal relationships. In: Narcissism and Machiavellianism in Youth: Implications for the Development of Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior. Washington, DC: APA Books. P. 177–192.

Szabo, J., Bereczkei, T. (2018). Dark Triad and theory of mind: Mentalization as a device of manipulation for Machiavellians. P. 34.

Touhey, J. (2017) Child-reading antecedents and the emerdence of Machiavellianism: Sociometry. P. 56-60.

Wastell, C., Booth, A. (2018) Machiavellianism. An alexithymic perspective: Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 22. P.730–744.

Whiten, A., Byrne, R. (2018). Machiavellian Intelligence II. Extensions and Evaluations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 45.

Wilson, D., Near, D., Miller, R. (2018). Individual differences in Machiavellianism as a mix of corporative and exploitative strategies: Evolution and Human Behavior. P.73-77.

How to Cite
Dariia Matiunina. (2023). Characterological differences of the manipulative sphere among students between groups with high indicators of the manipulative sphere and low indicators of the manipulative sphere. Scientific Notes of the Pedagogical Department, (52), 87-95.