Prosociality can either be costly (e.g., donating to charity) or costless (e.g., posthumous organ donation). Whereas links between personality and costly prosociality have been explored, links with costless prosociality and personality are at present unknown. We address this in two studies: Study 1 (N = 200) confirms the distinction between costless and costly prosociality based on willingness to engage with health and nonhealth prosociality. Study 2, using data from four samples (student and community; N = 733) shows, across incentivized and hypothetical economic games to assess costless (generosity game [GG]) and costly (dictator game [DG]) prosociality, that organ donor behavior was linked to greater allocations in the GG and that charity/volunteering behavior was linked to greater allocations in the DG. Costless and costly prosocialities are associated with different personality traits (e.g., costly with politeness and compassion and costless with intellect). Implications for cooperative phenotypes and recruiting organ donors are discussed.
AndreoniJ.VesterlundL. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 293–312. doi:10.1162/003355301556419
2.
BaumeisterR. (1998). The self. In GilbertD.FiskS. & LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 680–740). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
3.
BekkersR. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: The role of resources and personality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 349–366.
4.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2010). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924–973.
5.
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
6.
BenabouR.TiroleJ. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96, 1652–1678. doi:10.1257/aer.96.5.1652
7.
BöcklerA.TuscheA.SingerT. (2018). The structure of human prosociality revisited: Corrigendum and addendum to Böckler, Tusche and Singer (2016). Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi:10.1177/1948550617722200
8.
BöcklerA.TuscheA.SingerT. (2016). The structure of human prosociality: Differentiating altruistically motivated, norm motivated, strategically motivated and self-reported prosocial behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi:10.1177/1948550616639650
9.
BodeN. W.MillerJ.O’GormanR.CodlingE. A. (2015). Increased costs reduce reciprocal helping behaviour of humans in a virtual evacuation experiment. Scientific Reports, 5, 15896. doi:10.1038/srep15896
10.
BrocklebankS.LewisG. J.BatesT. C. (2011). Personality accounts for stable preferences and expectations across a range of simple games. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 881–886. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.007
DeYoungC. G.QuiltyL. C.PetersonJ. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
13.
DeYoungC. G.WeisbergY. J.QuiltyL. C.PetersonJ. B. (2013). Unifying the aspects of the big five, the interpersonal circumplex, and trait affiliation. Journal of Personality, 81, 465–475. doi:10.1111/jopy.12020
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
15.
FehrE.BernhardH.RockenbachB. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454, 1079–1083. doi:10.1038/nature07155
16.
FehrE.LeibbrandtA. (2011). A field study on cooperativeness and impatience in the tragedy of the commons. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1144–1155. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.013
17.
FehrE.SchmidtK. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868. doi:10.1162/003355399556151
18.
FergusonE. (2004). Conscientiousness, emotional stability, perceived control and the frequency, recency, rate and years of blood donor behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 293–314. doi:10.1348/1359107041557011
19.
FergusonE. (2015) Mechanisms of altruism approach to blood donor recruitment and retention: A review and future directions. Transfusion Medicine, 25, 211–226. doi:10.1111/tme.12233
20.
FergusonE.CoxT. (1993). Exploratory factor analysis: A users guide. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1, 84–94.
21.
FergusonE.HeckmanJ. J.CorrP. (2011). Personality and economics: Overview and proposed framework. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 201–209. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.030
22.
FergusonE.TaylorM.KeatleyD.FlynnN.LawrenceC. (2012). Blood donors’ helping behavior is driven by warm glow more evidence for the blood donor benevolence hypothesis. Transfusion, 52, 2189–2200. doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03557.x
23.
ForsytheR.HorowitzJ. L.SavinN. E.SeftonM. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369. doi:10.1006/game.1994.1021
24.
GüthW. (2010). The generosity game and calibration of inequity aversion. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39, 155–157. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.10.012
25.
GüthW.LevatiM. V.PlonerM. (2012). An experimental study of the generosity game. Theory and Decision, 72, 51–63.
26.
HubardJ.HarbaughW. T.SrivastavaS.DegrasD.MayrU. (2016). A general benevolenve domension tha ytlinks neural, psychological and economic, and life span data on alruitsic tendencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1351–1358. doi:10.1037/xge0000209
27.
KaltwasserL.HilderbrandtA.WhilhelmO.SommerW. (2016). Behavioral and neuronal determinants of negative reciprocity in the ultimatum game. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11, 1608–1617. doi:10.1093/scan/nsw069
28.
LyleIII, H. F.SmithE. A.SullivanR. J. (2009). Blood donations as costly signals of donor quality. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 263–286. doi:10.1556/JEP.7.2009.4.1
29.
MoorlockG.IvesJ.DraperH. (2014). Altruism in organ donation: An unnecessary requirement?Journal of Medical Ethics, 40, 134–138. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100528
30.
O’CarrollR. E.FosterC.McGeechanG.SandfordK.FergusonE. (2011). The ick factor, anticipated regret and willingness to become an organ donor. Health Psychology, 30, 236–245. doi:10.1037/a0022379
31.
OstromE. (2006). The value-added of laboratory experiments for the study of institutions and common-pool resources. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organisation, 61, 149–163. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2005.02.008
32.
PeysakhovichA.NowakM. A.RandD. G. (2014). Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable. Nature Communications, 5, 1–8. doi:10.1038/ncomms5939
33.
RaihaniN. J.MaceR.LambaS. (2013). The effect of $1, $5 and $10 stakes in an online dictator game. PLoS One, 8, e73131. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073131
34.
SaleemT.IshaqueS.HabibN.HussainS. S.JawedA.KhanA. A. … JehanI. (2009). Knowledge, attitudes and practices survey on organ donation among a select adult population of Pakistan. BMC Medical Ethics, 10, 5. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-10-5
35.
ShepherdL.O’CarrollR. E.FergusonE. (2014). An international comparison of deceased and living organ donation/transplant rates in opt-in and opt-out systems: A panel study. BMC Medicine, 12, 131. doi:1186/s12916-014-0131-4
36.
SperlingD.GurmanG. M. (2012). Factors encouraging and inhibiting organ donation in Israel. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 9, 479–497. doi:10.1007/s11673-012-9398-3
37.
Stewart-WilliamsS. (2007). Altruism among kin vs. nonkin: Effects of cost of help and reciprocal exchange. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 193–198. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.01.002
38.
ToninM.VlassopoulosM. (2013). Experimental evidence of self-image concerns as motivation for giving. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 90, 19–27. doi:10.1016/j/jebo.2013.03.011
VoorsM.TurleyT.KontoleonA.BulteE.ListJ. (2012). Exploring whether behaviour in context-free experiments is predictive of behaviour in the field: Evidence from lab and field experiments in rural Sierra Leone. Economics Letters, 114, 308–311. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2011.10.016
41.
WilhelmO.KaltwasserL.HilderbrandtA. (2017early online). Will the real factors for prosociality please stand up? A comment on Böckler, Tusche & Singer. (2016). Social Psychological and Personality Science, doi:10.1177/1948550617707021
42.
YamagishiT.HoritaY.MifuneN.HashimotoH.LieY.ShinadaM.…SimunovicD. (2012). Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity. PNAS, 109, 20364–20368.
43.
YamagishiT.HoritaY.TakagishiH.ShindaM.TanidaS.CookK. S. (2009). The private rejection of unfair offers and emotional commitment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106, 11520–11523. Available fromhttp://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0900636106
44.
YamagishiT.MifuneN.LiY.ShindaM.HashimotoH.HoritaY.…SimunovicD. (2013). In behavioral pro-sociality game specific pro-social preferences and expectations of pro-sociality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 260–271. doi:10.1016, j.obhdp.2012.06.002
45.
ZahaviA.ZahaviA. (1997). The handicap principle. Oxford, England: OUP.
46.
ZhaoKFergusonE.SmillieL. (2017a). Individual differences in good manners rather than compassion predict fair allocations in wealth in the dictator game. Journal of Personality, 85, 244–256. doi:0.1111/jopy.12237
47.
ZhaoK.FergusonE.SmillieL. (2017b). When fair is not equal: Compassion and politeness diverge when predicting allocations of wealth under norms of equity and need. Social Psychological and Personality Sciences, 8, 847–857.
48.
ZhaoK.SmillieL. D. (2015). The role of interpersonal traits in social decision making: Exploring sources of behavioral heterogeneity in economic games. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 277–302. doi:10.1177/1088868314553709
49.
ZhaoKSmillieL.FergusonE. (2016). Prosocial personality traits differentially predict egalitarianism, generosity, and reciprocity in economic games. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1137. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01137
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.
