This post is in response to an exchange found here. A couple RPiller's seemed incredulous that anyone could believe that women were not Machiavellian in nature. I didn't have a strong opinion on this either way, but I've heard the common stereotype of women being manipulative. I wanted to fact check this stereotype and the claims made in that thread by looking at gender differences in this behavior.

source

Most studies of Machiavellianism that include male and female participants find gender differences. Generally, the distributions of Mach scores for male and female participants are broadly overlapping with the mean slightly lower for female participants (exceptions are cited below in Multiple strategies within the genders). More important, the correlations between Mach score and behavior in subsequent tests are usually stronger or different in male than in female participants (Allsopp et al., 1991; Brown & Guy, 1983; Dingler-Duhon & Brown, 1987; Domelsmith & Dietch, 1978; O'Conner & Simms, 1990; Rosenthal, 1978; Van Strien, Duikjers, & Van der Kamp, 1982). According to Christie and Geis (1968), "With but one .or two exceptions, no studies have found predicted relationships between agreement with Machiavellianism] and predicted or other behavior among female subjects, but these are almost invariably found among male subjects" (p. 963). Although the literature since 1968 does not warrant such a strong statement, several authors still conclude that the entire construct of Machiavellianism is more appropriate for men than for women (e.g., Brown & Guy, 1983; Rosenthal, 1978).

There was not a significant difference in machiavellian traits in men and women, but men pulled slightly ahead. Although this does not support TRP in the belief that women are more machiavellian in nature, it does support a different RP belief. Dark Triad was an evolutionary advantageous sexual strategy for men more so than women. Although the gender differences in Machiavellian traits are very small, it would make sense that machiavellianism would appear more often in men since it would be advantageous for them. However, there is also some evidence that machiavellian traits are due to environmental circumstances. For instance, when women take on male roles, their machiavellian traits match or even exceed that of men.

The same reasoning that allows us to predict differences between men and women also can be used to predict strategic differences within a gender. For example, women might adopt an overtly Machiavellian strategy in situations that require male like interactions. Indeed, studies of business executives show either no gender difference (Okanes & Murray, 1980) or a reverse difference in average Mach score (i.e., women score higher than men; Burnett, Hunt, &Chonko, 1986;Chonko, 1982; Gable &Topol, 1987; Hunt & Chonko, 1984). Women apparently behave like men in a man's world, either by a process of selection or individual change.

Since we are mostly concerned with romantic relationships, let's look at how men and women treat each other. Could women be more machiavellian when it comes to opposite sex interactions?

Barber and Raffield (1994) recently predicted that individuals should be more manipulative toward members of the opposite gender than toward members of their own gender. Accordingly, they modified the Mach test to refer to conduct toward men and women. As predicted, men were highly manipulative toward other men but even more manipulative toward women. Women were even more manipulative toward men than men were to each other but were relatively non manipulative toward women. This study, plus the previous study by Barber (1994) on relatedness, illustrates the importance of studying Machiavellianism as a context-sensitive trait.

This gives us some insight as to why those RPillers felt so strongly that women were Machiavellian in nature. Compared to how men interact with each other, women are more machiavellian towards men. However, surprisingly, men are even more machiavellian towards women. I also found it strange that women were relatively non manipulative towards other women.

Another idea that comes up on PPD is that since women are thought to have higher emotional intelligence, that this makes them master manipulators. We could then see if higher emotional intelligence was correlated with a higher tendency toward machiavellianism. From this source it appears this isn't the case.

Mach was found to be negatively correlated with self-report and performance EI, and also with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Emotional manipulation was positively correlated with Mach but unrelated to EI. Thus high Machs endorse emotionally-manipulative behaviour, although the extent to which they are successful in this behaviour, given the negative Mach/EI association, remains to be established.

Unexpectedly, having higher emotional intelligence is actually associated with lower levels of machiavellianism. Thus it cannot be assumed that higher EI automatically makes someone more likely to use manipulation.

I thought however, that women must be more manipulative in some cases. Men having greater physical power leaves women the incentive to develop more covert forms of control. We could also look at the relationship between power in a romantic relationship and the tendency to use manipulative tactics.

Experts differentiate between two types of tactics used to influence the other person. Note that some of these tactics would not usually be considered manipulative. (e.g. talking to your partner) Bilateral strategies are ones that require cooperation from the other person. For an example, bargaining or reasoning would be considered bilateral strategies. These are generally considered to be "good" strategies, i.e. non-manipulative. Conversely, unilateral strategies are used independently of the cooperation of the other person. Examples could be withdrawing or threatening punishment. These are generally considered more manipulative.

According to this source people with more power in the relationship are more likely to use bilateral strategies because they can expect cooperation from the other person. People with less power in the relationship are more likely to use unilateral strategies, since they cannot depend on the cooperation from their partner. So women are more likely to use unilateral strategies to the extent that they believe themselves to have less power than the man. (Also, surprisingly people who believed themselves to have equal power, i.e. egalitarian relationships, were more likely to use unilateral strategies. See page 625)

It is argued here that because men expect compliance to their influence attempts, they use bilateral and direct strategies. Conversely, because women anticipate noncompliance, they are more likely than men to report in their essays the use of unilateral strategies. Unilateral strategies do not require the partner's cooperation. Support for this interpretation comes from the fact that men in this sample were more likely than women to perceive themselves as having greater power than their intimate partner. Thus men perceived themselves to be influencing their partner from a position of relative strength, whereas women perceived themselves to be influencing their partner from a weaker or subordinate position. Note that bilateral and direct strategies are used not only by men but also by people who prefer and perceive themselves as having greater power than their partner.

(Note that this conflicted with previous studies, which found no gender difference in unilateral strategies, because the sample of women in this study believed themselves to have less power than the men.)

As a side point, I believe that many of TRP men believe themselves to have less power in their relationships with women. This is perhaps why we see manipulative tactics promoted on TRP. This is probably a unique feature of men that seek TRP, and not true for men in general. Thus I would caution women from generalizing TRP behavior to all men.

TLDR: Both men and women display Machiavellian traits roughly equally, but with men coming out slightly ahead of women. Therefore, we cannot say that Machiavellianism is a part of female nature, at least any more than it is a part of male nature. However, women are more machiavellian towards men than they are towards other women or men are towards other men, so that may be where this belief originated. Also, it is not true that higher emotional intelligence is correlated with a greater propensity towards manipulation. However, having less power in a relationship is correlated with with using unilateral, manipulative tactics. When women feel like they have less power (can expect less cooperation from their partner), they are more likely to use manipulative tactics.