Relationships of the Managing Emotions in Others Scale (MEOS)


The scales listed below were used in the correlation comparisons. Descriptive statistics for the scale scores and scale internal reliabilities are reported in the previously-published papers using these datasets (Austin and O’Donnell, 2013; Austin et al., 2014; Austin and Vahle, 2016).

Mini-markers (Saucier, 1994)

This set of 40 trait-descriptive adjectives provides scores on the Big Five dimensions of Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C). Responses are on a five-point scale indicating how accurately the adjective describes the respondent, with end points very inaccurately, very accurately.

HEXACO-60 (Ashton and Lee, 2009)

This 60-item scale assesses the personality dimensions of Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness (O). Responses are on a five-point scale with end points strongly disagree, strongly agree.

Mach IV (Christie and Geis, 1970)

This 20-item scale assesses Machiavellianism, with responses on a five-point scale with end points strongly disagree, strongly agree.

NPI-16 (Ames et al., 2006)

This scale has 16 forced-choice items assessing grandiose narcissism.

Hypersensitive narcissism scale (Hendin and Cheek, 1997)

This 10-item scale, assesses vulnerable narcissism, with responses on a five-point scale with end points strongly disagree, strongly agree.

Levenson self-report psychopathy scale (Levenson et al., 1995)

This scale assesses primary (16 items) and secondary (10 items) psychopathy in general population samples, with responses on a five-point scale with end points strongly disagree, strongly agree.

Trait EI

Results are reported for total scores on the 144-item TEIQue (Petrides, 2009) and the 30-item TEIQue-SF (Petrides and Furnham, 2006). These measures have a 7-point response scale with end points completely disagree, completely agree.

Table 5

Items selected for the MEOS-SF and MEOS-VSF.

MEOS itemItem numbers used in Tables ​Tables2,2​,33
43Enhance 1If someone is feeling anxious, I try to calm them down by talking with them.
38Enhance 2When someone is anxious about a problem, I try to help them work out a solution.
28Enhance 3If someone is anxious, I try to reassure them.
35Enhance 4When someone is under stress I try to boost their confidence in their ability to cope.
31Enhance 5When someone is unhappy, I show that I understand how they are feeling.
57Enhance 6If someone has a problem I offer to help if they need it.
46Divert 1If someone is angry, I try to divert their mood by being cheerful.
53Divert 2When someone is in a low mood I behave in a happy and cheerful way to make them feel better.
33Divert 3When someone is in a bad mood I try to divert them by telling jokes or funny stories.
22Divert 4When someone is unhappy I try to cheer them by talking about something positive.
3Divert 5I sometimes use humor to try to lift another person’s mood.
45Divert 6If someone is being awkward, I try to defuse the situation by being cheerful and pleasant.
21Worsen 1I use anger to get others to do things that I want them to do.
19Worsen 2I sometimes put someone down in public to make them feel bad.
32Worsen 3I know how to make someone feel ashamed about something that they have done in order to stop them from doing it again.
47Worsen 4I can make someone feel anxious so that they will act in a particular way.
29Worsen 5I use criticism to make others feel that they should work harder.
20Worsen 6If I don’t like someone’s behavior I make negative comments in order to make them feel bad.
4Inauthentic 1I sometimes sulk to make someone feel guilty.
44Inauthentic 2I sometimes sulk to get someone to change their behavior.
5Inauthentic 3If someone’s behavior has caused me distress, I try to make them feel guilty about it.
37Inauthentic 4I sometimes use flattery to gain or keep someone’s good opinion.
12Inauthentic 5If I want someone to do something for me, I try to elicit sympathy from them.
2Inauthentic 6If I want someone to do something for me, I am especially nice to them before asking.
30Conceal 1I often conceal feelings of anger and distress from others.
36Conceal 2I hide my feelings so others won’t worry about me.
8Conceal 3When someone has made me upset or angry, I often conceal my feelings.
18Conceal 4When someone has made me upset or angry, I tend to downplay my feelings.
23Conceal 5I don’t believe in telling others about my problems – I keep them to myself.
26Conceal 6If someone tries to make me feel better when I am feeling low, I pretend to feel happier to please that person.

All 30 items are used in the MEOS-SF. The 24 items of the MEOS-VSF are shown in italic.

Psychological Characteristics of Alienating Parent

Parent Alienation Syndrome occurs when individuals who have certain psychological characteristics manage internal conflict or pain by transforming psychological pain into interpersonal conflict. Divorcing parents often experience humiliation, loss of self-esteem, guilt, ambivalence, fear, abandonment anxiety, jealousy, or intense anger. These normal but very painful emotions must be managed. Usually people in crisis rely on characteristic relationship styles and pain management techniques. The Team has found alienating parents to have the following characteristics:

1. A narcissistic or paranoid orientation to interactions and relationships with others, usually as the result of a personality disorder.(2) Both narcissistic and paranoid relationships are maintained by identification, rather than mutual appreciation and enjoyment of differences as well as similarities. Perfectionism and intolerance of personal flaws in self or others have deleterious effects on relationships. When others disagree, narcissistic and paranoid people feel abandoned, betrayed, and often rageful.

2. Reliance on defenses against psychological pain that result in externalizing unwanted or unacceptable feelings, ideas, attitudes, and responsibility for misfortunes so that more painful internal conflict is transformed into less painful interpersonal conflict. Examples of such defenses are phobias, projection, “splitting,” or obsessive preoccupation with the shortcomings of others in order to obscure from self and others the individual’s own shortcomings. “Splitting” results when feelings, judgments, or characteristics are polarized into opposite, exhaustive, and mutually exclusive categories (such as all good or all bad, right or wrong, love or hate, victim or perpetrator), then are assigned or directed separately to self and other. (I am good, you are bad.) The need for such defenses arises because alienating parents have little or no tolerance for internal conflict or even normal ambivalence. The interpersonal result of such defenses is intense interpersonal conflict.(3)

3. Evidence of an abnormal grieving process such that there is a preponderance of anger and an absence of sadness in reaction to the loss of the marital partner

4. A family history in which there is an absence of awareness of normal ambivalence and conflict about parents, enmeshment, or failure to differentiate and emancipate from parents; or a family culture in which “splitting” or externalizing is a prominent feature. Some alienating parents were raised in families in which there is unresolved or unacknowledged grief as the result of traumatic losses or of severe but unacknowledged emotional deprivation, usually in the form of absence of empathy. More frequently, alienating parents were favorite children or were overly indulged or idealized as children.

Will you remain the wake of your grown child’s rejection?

Imagine your child is on a boat, and that you are in the water below. See your son or daughter dropping all sorts of poison off the back of the boat. Imagine the angry, stinking words they have flung at you. See those poisonous words hitting the water with a splash. Acrid smoke rises from them. It stings your eyes, fills your lungs so you can barely breathe. You feel as if you’ll choke.

You cough and gag. But your child isn’t done yet. A net rises from the murky depths, stretching across the open water. You can’t swim toward the boat without getting caught, tangled in a hurting web you don’t understand. Your child throws out hooks, spills out chum that attracts vicious sharks.

Dazed and confused, you call out. “Wait. Help. Can’t we talk?”  But your child takes the helm. The boat speeds away.

See the wake of the boat, feel the choppy waves, smell the acrid fumes rising from their spiteful words, and see those sharks. . . . Now, what do you do?

Do you stay in that spot, paralyzed, barely able to hold your head above water as the sharks lunge and bite at the net?

Do you wait there, expending precious energy as you tread water, determined you can fix this no matter what? The horrible toxic clouds fill your lungs. . . .

Do you swim toward the net, determined to cut through, and put yourself in shark-infested waters to follow despite your grown child’s rejection of you?

Or … do you turn, and look for a way to save yourself?

You see a shore in the distance. The beach looks lonely, and uncertain. It’s a brand new world there. Not what you expected to be facing at this point in your life. You don’t know what a future there holds.

Psychological manipulation

Psychological manipulation

Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through indirect, deceptive, or underhanded tactics.[1] By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another’s expense, such methods could be considered exploitative and devious.

Social influence is not necessarily negative. For example, people such as friends, family and doctors, can try to persuade to change clearly unhelpful habits and behaviors. Social influence is generally perceived to be harmless when it respects the right of the influenced to accept or reject it, and is not unduly coercive. Depending on the context and motivations, social influence may constitute underhanded manipulation.


Treatment and therapy for manipulative behavior may depend largely on what underlying issues are causing the behavior. If, for instance, the manipulation is being caused by an underlying mental health issue, individual therapy may help that person understand why their behavior is unhealthy for themselves and those around them. A counselor may also be able to help the manipulative person learn skills for interacting with others while respecting their boundaries and address underlying insecurities that may be contributing to the behavior.

Certain mental health issues such as borderline personality may cause people to feel anxiety in relationships, causing them to act manipulatively in order to feel secure. In these instances, a therapist may help the person address their mental health issue, which in turn can reduce their anxiety and help them feel secure in their relationships.

Psychological Manipulation and Induced Psychological Illness

As indicated on the home page, psychological harassment and psychological manipulation “mind control” can induce psychological and physical disorders.

When an individual is targeted, the level of harassment usually begins slowly and increases with time.

Anytime someone interacts with you they can influence your thoughts and also manipulate your thoughts.

Usually, people “tune out” the conversations around them. If you are in a crowded room and someone calls out your name they will probably attract your attention and the same goes for other specific words or sounds.

Individual’s can recall or form images. The expression “I get the visual”. When someone talks about or describes a scene you may form an image even if you have never seen what the other person is talking about or describing.

An individual can come in close proximity to another individual and ask a question, If the individual hears the question, whether he is the target of the question or not, his mind can respond with an answer. The answer response can be in different forms such as an image or sound. For example, if the question is what does the person look like? The individual may form an image of the person in his mind. If the question is what is the person’s name? The individual’s mind may respond with the sound of the person’s name.

If someone says leave and slams a desk drawer or hits an object. This is a form of indirect intimidation, an indirect threat of violence. If these actions are repeated it can become a form of conditioning. The next time a person slams a desk drawer or hits an object the person may associate this as a threat.

Classical conditioning can be used to associate different threats to different things. (Fear Conditioning) Continue reading “Psychological Manipulation and Induced Psychological Illness”


Taken from:-

Charles PragnelltoPsychopathy


The most notable behaviors and attitudes manifested by vengeful fathers and which indicate Vengeful Father’s Syndrome.

1. CONTROL AND DOMINATION – The outstanding feature of Vengeful Father Syndrome is an obsessive and relentless drive for continuing control and domination over their former spouse and their children, who they view in terms of their personal ownership. In these cases, there is usually a history of spousal assault, rape, and a range of emotional, psychological, and physical maltreatment of their spouse and of their children, either directly or indirectly as a consequence of the spousal abuse. These are usually the factors which have led to the separation and ultimately to the divorce. Many such clinical examples case illustrations can be found in the Case Judgments in Family Law cases in all countries, as such Vengeful Fathers frequently use the law and the legal system as a means of enforcing their rights and demands and for continuing to persecute their victims, both mothers and children. They can also be found abundantly in the cases referred to voluntary organisations involved in Domestic Violence support services and child advocacy work
2. LACK OF EMOTION AND ‘AFFECTIVE’ RESPONSES – Vengeful Fathers are notable for their absence of genuine emotions and feelings although some have developed relatively sophisticated methods of mimicking such attitudes and behaviors in order to appear `normal’;

3. LACK OF EMPATHY, COMPASSION, AND REMORSE – these are very significant features of the Vengeful Father who frequently obtain a schadenfreudic delight in observing the consequences of their behaviors in their victims’ responses and sufferings;

4. OBSESSIVELY DETERMINED TO `WIN’’ IN ANY FORM OF CONTEST, PARTICULARLY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS – THE VENGEFUL FATHER ALWAYS REQUIRES THAT HE IS PROVEN TO BE `RIGHT’ IN HIS VIEW OF THE WORLD, EVENTS, AND HIS PERCEPTIONS OF OTHERS – Vengeful fathers found considerable support in the conjectures and contentions of R.A. Gardner regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome during its period of being favored in some Family Courts. PAS provided an immediate vehicle by which the Vengeful Father could transfer blame onto the mother, when his children rejected and despised him for his cruel and uncaring behaviors towards them in the past and the children resisted any attempts to force them into contact or residency with him. It has become increasingly obvious that in many cases where Vengeful Fathers have alleged PAS, that in fact it was a clear and convincing case of Self-Alienation;

5. DECEIT, CUNNING, AND MANIPULATION – Vengeful Fathers often present and portray themselves to relatives, family friends, and significant others as the `Perfect father’. The purpose of this is to encourage others to believe that their former spouse is the defective partner and parent, or is `to blame’ for the relationship breakdown and to thereby isolate them from their social groups and communities. This again is a part of the Vengeful Father’s `control and dominate’ strategy. With little or no support, it is easier for them to continue to persecute and torment their victims;

6. GROOMING AND MANIPULATION OF AUTHORITY FIGURES AND PROFESSIONALS – Vengeful Fathers quickly recognize that lawyers, Court Reporters/Consultants, and judges have key roles in the Family Law system, They quickly learn the tactics and ploys to defend themselves in Courtrooms or receive advice from the many Father’s Rights groups and websites formed by other Vengeful Fathers. Such tactics and ploys involve : Denial or minimization of any allegations of assault or abuse, despite evidence to the contrary and including criminal convictions; Blaming the victims; Counter allegations to weaken the victim’s position; Provocation by the victims;

7. BLAME THE VICTIM – probably the most highly significant feature of the behavior and actions of the Vengeful Father, is a pathological aversion to accepting any form of responsibility for their actions. They readily blame the police, authority figures, the Courts, lawyers and even mothers, when proceedings do not go in the way they expect and anticipate. When thwarted in such ways and denied a “winning’’ outcome, this is when they become at their most dangerous.

From 1998-January 2014 there were 19 events were separated fathers killed their children. A total of 52 people have died in these events. 38 of the dead were children. All were murdered. Two women were murdered and 2 men were murdered. The remaining 10 men’s deaths were suicides by the perpetrators.

How manipulators control their victims according to Simon

According to Simon

Simon identified the following manipulative techniques:[2]

  • Lying: It is hard to tell if somebody is lying at the time they do it, although often the truth may be apparent later when it is too late. One way to minimize the chances of being lied to is to understand that some personality types (particularly psychopaths) are experts at the art of lying and cheating, doing it frequently, and often in subtle ways.
  • Lying by omission: This is a very subtle form of lying by withholding a significant amount of the truth. This technique is also used in propaganda.
  • Denial: Manipulator refuses to admit that he or she has done something wrong.
  • Rationalization: An excuse made by the manipulator for inappropriate behavior. Rationalization is closely related to spin.
  • Minimization: This is a type of denial coupled with rationalization. The manipulator asserts that his or her behavior is not as harmful or irresponsible as someone else was suggesting, for example, saying that a taunt or insult was only a joke.
  • Selective inattention or selective attention: Manipulator refuses to pay attention to anything that may distract from his or her agenda, saying things like “I don’t want to hear it”.
  • Diversion: Manipulator not giving a straight answer to a straight question and instead being diversionary, steering the conversation onto another topic.
  • Evasion: Similar to diversion but giving irrelevant, rambling, vague responses, weasel words.
  • Covert intimidation: Manipulator throwing the victim onto the defensive by using veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats.
  • Guilt trip: A special kind of intimidation tactic. A manipulator suggests to the conscientious victim that he or she does not care enough, is too selfish or has it easy. This usually results in the victim feeling bad, keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious and submissive position.
  • Shaming: Manipulator uses sarcasm and put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim. Manipulators use this tactic to make others feel unworthy and therefore defer to them. Shaming tactics can be very subtle such as a fierce look or glance, unpleasant tone of voice, rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm. Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them. It is an effective way to foster a sense of inadequacy in the victim.
  • Playing the victim role: Manipulator portrays him- or herself as a victim of circumstance or of someone else’s behavior in order to gain pity, sympathy or evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. Caring and conscientious people cannot stand to see anyone suffering and the manipulator often finds it easy to play on sympathy to get cooperation.
  • Vilifying the victim: More than any other, this tactic is a powerful means of putting the victim on the defensive while simultaneously masking the aggressive intent of the manipulator, while the manipulator falsely accuses the victim as being an abuser in response when the victim stands up for or defends themselves or their position.
  • Playing the servant role: Cloaking a self-serving agenda in guise of a service to a more noble cause, for example saying he is acting in a certain way to be “obedient” to or in “service” to an authority figure or “just doing their job”.
  • Seduction: Manipulator uses charm, praise, flattery or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and give their trust and loyalty to him or her. They will also offer help with the intent to gain trust and access to an unsuspecting victim they have charmed.
  • Projecting the blame (blaming others): Manipulator scapegoats in often subtle, hard-to-detect ways. Often, the manipulator will project his/her own psychotic thinking onto the victim, making the victim look like he/she has done something wrong. Manipulators will also claim that the victim is the one who is at fault for believing lies that they were conned into believing, as if the victim forced the manipulator to be deceitful. All blame, except for the part that is used by the manipulator to accept false guilt, is done in order to make the victim feel guilty about making healthy choices, correct thinking and good behaviors. It is frequently used as a means of psychological and emotional manipulation and control. Manipulators lie about lying, only to re-manipulate the original, less believable story into a “more acceptable” truth that the victim will believe. Projecting lies as being the truth is another common method of control and manipulation. Manipulators love to falsely accuse the victim as “deserving to be treated that way.” They often claim that the victim is crazy and/or abusive, especially when there is evidence against the manipulator. (See Feigning, below.)
  • Feigning innocence: Manipulator tries to suggest that any harm done was unintentional or that they did not do something that they were accused of. Manipulator may put on a look of surprise or indignation. This tactic makes the victim question his or her own judgment and possibly his own sanity.
  • Feigning confusion: Manipulator tries to play dumb by pretending he or she does not know what the victim is talking about or is confused about an important issue brought to his or her attention. The manipulator intentionally confuses the victim in order for the victim to doubt his/her own accuracy of perception, often pointing out key elements that the manipulator intentionally included in case there is room for doubt. Sometimes manipulators will have used cohorts in advance to help back up their story.
  • Brandishing anger: Manipulator uses anger to brandish sufficient emotional intensity and rage to shock the victim into submission. The manipulator is not actually angry, he or she just puts on an act. He just wants what he wants and gets “angry” when denied. Controlled anger is often used as a manipulation tactic to avoid confrontation, avoid telling the truth or to further hide intent. There are often threats used by the manipulator of going to police, or falsely reporting abuses that the manipulator intentionally contrived to scare or intimidate the victim into submission. Blackmail and other threats of exposure are other forms of controlled anger and manipulation, especially when the victim refuses initial requests or suggestions by the manipulator. Anger is also used as a defense so the manipulator can avoid telling truths at inconvenient times or circumstances. Anger is often used as a tool or defense to ward off inquiries or suspicion. The victim becomes more focused on the anger instead of the manipulation tactic.
  • Bandwagon Effect: Manipulator comforts the victim into submission by claiming (whether true or false) that many people already have done something, and the victim should as well. These include phrases such as “Many people like you…” or “Everyone does this anyways.” Such manipulation can be seen in peer pressure situations, often occurring in scenarios where the manipulator attempts to influence the victim into trying drugs or other substances.

How manipulators control their victims

According to Braiker

Braiker identified the following ways that manipulators control their victims:[1]

  • Positive reinforcement: includes praise, superficial charm, superficial sympathy (crocodile tears), excessive apologizing, money, approval, gifts, attention, facial expressions such as a forced laugh or smile, and public recognition.
  • Negative reinforcement: involves removing one from a negative situation as a reward, e.g. “You won’t have to do your homework if you allow me to do this to you.”
  • Intermittent or partial reinforcement: Partial or intermittent negative reinforcement can create an effective climate of fear and doubt. Partial or intermittent positive reinforcement can encourage the victim to persist – for example in most forms of gambling, the gambler is likely to win now and again but still lose money overall.
  • Punishment: includes nagging, yelling, the silent treatment, intimidation, threats, swearing, emotional blackmail, the guilt trip, sulking, crying, and playing the victim.
  • Traumatic one-trial learning: using verbal abuse, explosive anger, or other intimidating behavior to establish dominance or superiority; even one incident of such behavior can condition or train victims to avoid upsetting, confronting or contradicting the manipulator.

According to Braiker

Psychological manipulation

Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through abusive, deceptive, or underhanded tactics.[1] By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another’s expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive. Social influence is not necessarily negative. For example, doctors can try to convince patients to change unhealthy habits. Manipulation involves a clever and ruthless manipulator bringing a simple victim under his or her domination (using deception and cunning) and using the victim to serve their own purposes. Manipulators are cold and ruthless in treating their victims and skilfull enough to know how to dominate and control the victim for a long time.

Psychological manipulation