Identifying the Manipulative Mating Methods Associated With Psychopathic Traits and BPD Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychopathy and borderline personality disorder (BPD) traits are associated with coercion and manipulation within relationships. The authors investigated whether BPD traits were uniquely associated with manipulation for emotional closeness whereas psychopathy was used for the purpose of attaining physical closeness. A community sample (N = 164) reported on mating behaviors, psychopathic traits, and BPD traits. Hierarchical regressions were conducted to predict mating behaviors that would account for the overlap between psychopathy and BPD. Total psychopathic traits were associated with lower levels of relationship exclusivity, greater use of partner poaching, and perpetration of sexual coercion. Specifically, callousness and egocentricity were related to lower relationship exclusivity. BPD traits were associated with the use of mate retention strategies, mate poaching, and victimization in sexual coercion. These findings indicate that manipulative mating behaviors encompass tools to achieve sex and intimacy. Those with BPD traits use these tools for emotional closeness, whereas those with psychopathic traits use them to obtain physical closeness and gratification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".