Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-11
Prosociality Beyond Big Five Agreeableness and HEXACO Honesty-Humility: Is Openness/Intellect Associated With Cooperativeness in the Public Goods Game?
Who is cooperative? Although Big Five (B5) Agreeableness and HEXACO Honesty-Humility are correlates of charitable prosociality, distinctions between “charity” and “cooperation” suggest that additional traits could be associated with cooperative prosociality. Echoing prior theoretical and empirical indications that B5 Openness/Intellect may play a role in cooperation, Study 1 (N = 119; exploratory) revealed a significant correlation between Openness/Intellect and cooperativeness in the one-shot Public Goods Game that did not generalize to charitableness in the Dictator Game. We therefore conducted three preregistered replications to discern the robustness of this Openness/Intellect–cooperativeness link. As expected, Openness/Intellect showed no consistent correlation with charitable behavior. Surprisingly, the predicted correlation between Openness/Intellect and cooperative behavior was also inconsistent, partially replicating in Study 3 (N = 304) but not Studies 2 or 4 (Ns = 131; 552). Across our replications, cooperative behavior was most strongly correlated with Honesty-Humility (internal meta-analytic = .15, p = .005). The correlation between Openness/Intellect and cooperative behavior across our replications was significant and identical in magnitude to that between Agreeableness and cooperative behavior, though this effect-size was weak (internal meta-analytic = .08, p < .001). We therefore conclude that Openness/Intellect is a nonnull but very modest correlate of cooperativeness.
AbeleS.StasserG.ChartierC. (2010). Conflict and coordination in the provision of public goods: A conceptual analysis of continuous and step-level games. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310368535
2.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907
3.
AshtonM. C.LeeK.de VriesR. E. (2014). The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838
4.
BardsleyN. (2000). Control without deception: Individual behaviour in free-riding experiments revisited. Experimental Economics, 3, 215–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01669773
5.
BatsonC. D.PowellA. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In I. B. Weiner, T. Millon, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 463–484). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
6.
BrickC.LewisG. J. (2016). Unearthing the ‘green’ personality: Core traits predict environmentally friendly behavior. Environment and Behavior, 48(5), 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514554695
Burton-ChellewM. N.El MoudenC.WestS. A. (2016). Conditional cooperation and confusion in public-goods experiments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(5), 1291–1296. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509740113
9.
CamererC. F.FehrE. (2004). Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. F. Camerer, E. Fehr, & H. Gintis (Eds.), Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies (pp. 55–95). Oxford University Press.
ChristensenA. P.CotterK. N.SilviaP. J. (2019). Reopening openness to experience: A network analysis of four openness to experience inventories. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(6), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1467428
12.
CochardF.Le GalloJ.GeorgantzisN.TisserandJ.-C. (in press). Social preferences across different populations: Meta-analyses on the ultimatum game and dictator game. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 90(101613). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101613
13.
CondonD. M.RevelleW. (2014). The international cognitive ability resource: Development and initial validation of a public-domain measure. Intelligence, 43, 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.01.004
14.
ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 104(2), 216–235.
15.
CrawfordJ. T.BrandtM. J. (2019). Who is prejudiced, and toward whom? The big five traits and generalized prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(10), 1455–1467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219832335
16.
DarlingtonR. B.HayesA. F. (2017). Regression analysis and linear models: Concepts, applications, and implementation. Guilford Publications.
17.
de VriesR. E.TyburJ. M.PolletT. V.van VugtM. (2016). Evolution, situational affordances, and the HEXACO model of personality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(5), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.001
18.
DeYoung, C. G. (2011). Intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 711--737). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeYoungC. G. (2015b). Openness/intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 369–399). American Psychological Association.
21.
DeYoungC. G.QuiltyL. C.PetersonJ. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
22.
DeYoungC. G.QuiltyL. C.PetersonJ. B.GrayJ. R. (2014). Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.806327
23.
DiedenhofenB.MuschJ. (2015). cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS One, 10(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121945
24.
DovidioJ. F.PiliavinJ. A.SchroederD. A.PennerL. A. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum.
DunfieldK. A. (2014). A construct divided: Prosocial behavior as helping, sharing, and comforting subtypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(958), 1--13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00958
27.
FergusonC. J.HeeneM. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059
28.
FergusonE.ZhaoK.O'CarrollR. E.SmillieL. D. (2019). Costless and costly prosociality: Correspondence among personality traits, economic preferences, and real-world prosociality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618765071
29.
FiedlerK.HarrisC.SchottM. (2018). Unwarranted inferences from statistical mediation tests: An analysis of articles published in 2015. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.008
30.
FleischhauerM.EngeS.BrockeB.UllrichJ.StrobelA.StrobelA. (2010). Same or different? Clarifying the relationship of need for cognition to personality and intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351886
31.
ForsytheR.HorowitzJ. L.SavinN. E.SeftonM. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347–369.
32.
FraleyR. C.MarksM. J. (2007). The null hypothesis significance-testing debate and its implications for personality research. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 149–169). Guilford Press.
33.
GignacG. E.SzodoraiE. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
34.
GrazianoW. G.TobinR. M. (2009). Agreeableness. In M. R. Leary, & Hoyle, R. H. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 46–61). Guilford Publications.
35.
HabashiM. M.GrazianoW. G.HooverA. E. (2016). Searching for the prosocial personality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1177–1192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216652859
36.
HardinG. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.
37.
HilbigB. E.ZettlerI.HeydaschT. (2012). Personality, punishment and public goods: Strategic shifts towards cooperation as a matter of dispositional honesty-humility. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.830
38.
HirshJ. B.DoldermanD. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1583–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.015
39.
JachH. K.SmillieL. D. (2019). To fear or fly to the unknown: Tolerance for ambiguity and Big Five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.003
40.
JachH. K.SmillieL. D. (2020). Testing the information-seeking theory of openness/intellect. European Journal of Personality, 35, 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2271
41.
JohnO. P.HampsonS. E.GoldbergL. R. (1991). The basic level in personality-trait hierarchies: Studies of trait use and accessibility in different contexts. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60(3), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.3.348
42.
KajoniusP.Mac GiollaE. (2017). Personality traits across countries: Support for similarities rather than differences. PLoS One, 12, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179646
43.
KlineR.BankertA.LevitanL.KraftP. (2019). Personality and prosocial behavior: A multilevel meta-analysis. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.14
LeeK.AshtonM. C.ChoiJ.ZachariassenK. (2015). Connectedness to nature and to humanity: Their association and personality correlates. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1003), 1--11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01003
46.
LönnqvistJ. E.VerkasaloM.WalkowitzG. (2011). It pays to pay: Big five personality influences on co-operative behaviour in an incentivized and hypothetical prisoner’s dilemma game. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.009
47.
LudekeS. G.BainbridgeT.LiuJ.ZhaoK.SmillieL. D.ZettlerI. (2019). Using the big five aspect scales to translate between the HEXACO and big five personality models. Journal of Personality, 87, 1025–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12453
48.
McCraeR. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323–337.
49.
McCraeR. R.SutinA. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257–273). The Guilford Press.
50.
McLainD. L. (2009). Evidence of the properties of an ambiguity tolerance measure: The Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale–II (MSTAT–II). Psychological Reports, 105(3), 975–988. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.105.3.975-988
51.
MischkowskiD.GlöcknerA. (2016). Spontaneous cooperation for prosocials, but not for proselfs: Social value orientation moderates spontaneous cooperation behavior. Scientific Reports, 6(21555), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21555
52.
MischkowskiD.ThielmannI.GlöcknerA. (2019). Minimizing inequality versus maximizing joint gains: On the relation between personality traits and different prosocial motivations. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.06.001
53.
MurphyR. O.AckermannK. A.HandgraafM. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771–781.
54.
MusselP. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 506–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014
55.
MusselP. (2013). Intellect: A theoretical framework for personality traits related to intellectual achievements. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 104(5), 885–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031918
56.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.
57.
PeysakhovichA.NowakM. A.RandD. G. (2014). Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable. Nature Communications, 5(4939), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5939
58.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version R-4.0.0.). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
59.
SchoemannA. M.BoultonA. J.ShortS. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068
60.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabiliz?Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
61.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226
62.
SilviaP. J.ChristensenA. P. (2020). Looking up at the curious personality: Individual differences in curiosity and openness to experience.Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.05.013
63.
SmillieL. D.KaticM.LahamS. M. (in press). Personality and moral judgment: Curious consequentialists and polite deontologists. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12598
64.
SmillieL. D.VarsavskyV.AveryR. E.PerryR. M. (2016). Trait intellect predicts cognitive engagement: Evidence from a resource allocation perspective. European Journal of Personality, 30(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2059
65.
SotoC. J. (2019). How replicable are links between personality traits and consequential life outcomes? The life outcomes of personality replication project. Psychological Science, 30(5), 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619831612
66.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
67.
SoutterA. R. B.BatesT. C.MõttusR. (2020). Big five and HEXACO personality traits, proenvironmental attitudes, and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 913–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620903019
68.
ThielmannI.SpadaroG.BallietD. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217
69.
ThielmannI.ZimmermannJ.LeisingD.HilbigB. E. (2017). Seeing is knowing: On the predictive accuracy of self- and informant reports for prosocial and moral behaviours. European Journal of Personality, 31(4), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2112
70.
TuomelaR. (2000). Cooperation: A philosophical study. Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
71.
UnderwoodB. (1975). Individual differences as a crucible in theory construction. American Psychologist, 30(2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076759
72.
UrbigD.TerjesenS.ProcherV.MuehlfeldK.Van WitteloostuijnA. (2016). Come on and take a free ride: Contributing to public goods in native and foreign language settings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(2), 268–286. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0338
73.
Van VugtM.BielA.SnyderM.TylerT. R. (2000). Perspectives on cooperation in modern society: Helping the self, the community, and society. In M. Van Vugt, M. Snyder, T. R. Tyler, & A. Biel (Eds.), Cooperation in modern society: Promoting the welfare of communities, states and organizations (pp. 3–24). Routledge.
74.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
WooS. E.HarmsP. D.KuncelN. R. (2007). Integrating personality and intelligence: Typical intellectual engagement and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1635–1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.022
78.
WoodD.HarmsP. D.LowmanG. H.DeSimoneJ. A. (2017). Response speed and response consistency as mutually validating indicators of data quality in online samples. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617703168
79.
ZettlerI.ThielmannI.HilbigB. E.MoshagenM. (2020). The nomological net of the HEXACO model of personality: A large-scale meta-analytic investigation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 723–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895036
80.
ZhaoK.FergusonE.SmillieL. D. (2016). Prosocial personality traits differentially predict egalitarianism, generosity, and reciprocity in economic games. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01137
81.
ZhaoK.FergusonE.SmillieL. D. (2017). Politeness and compassion differentially predict adherence to fairness norms and interventions to norm violations in economic games. Scientific Reports, 7(3415), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02952-1
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
