Human prosociality is a fascinating and complex phenomenon. The present research takes this complexity into account by examining the interplay of three prominent factors that past research has shown to promote prosocial behavior. In two studies (total N = 1,799), we tested the impact of (a) a basic prosocial personality trait (the Honesty-Humility dimension from the HEXACO personality model), (b) intuitive decision making, and (c) the possibility of being rewarded (i.e., a reward system) in the emergence of prosocial behavior (i.e., dictator game giving). Replicating previous research, we found that (1) a reward system increased prosocial behavior and (2) Honesty-Humility was positively related to prosocial behavior. In addition, given that there was no reward system, we show that intuition (vs. a control condition) reduced prosocial behavior in individuals low in Honesty-Humility, whereas no effect was found for individuals high in Honesty-Humility. Implications for the understanding of prosocial behavior are discussed.
AllgaierK.ZettlerI.WagnerW.PüttmannS.TrautweinU. (2015). Honesty-humility in school: Exploring main and interaction effects on secondary school students’ antisocial and prosocial behavior. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.005
2.
Alós-FerrerC.GaragnaniM. (2020). The cognitive foundations of cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 175, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.04.019
3.
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
4.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878
5.
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
6.
BallietD.MulderL. B.Van LangeP. A. M. (2011). Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023489
7.
BouwmeesterS.VerkoeijenP. P. J. L.AczelB.BarbosaF.BègueL.Brañas-GarzaP.ChmuraT. G. H.CornelissenG.DøssingF. S.EspínA. M.EvansA. M.Ferreira-SantosF.FiedlerS.FlegrJ.GhaffariM.GlöcknerA.GoeschlT.GuoL.HauserO. P.…WollbrantC. E. (2017). Registered replication report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693624
8.
BrandtM. J.IJzermanH.DijksterhuisA.FarachF. J.GellerJ.Giner-SorollaR.GrangeJ. A.PeruginiM.SpiesJ. R.van ‘tVeerA. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50(1), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005
9.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-009
10.
CamererC. F.DreberA.ForsellE.HoT.-H.HuberJ.JohannessonM.KirchlerM.AlmenbergJ.AltmejdA.ChanT.HeikenstenE.HolzmeisterF.ImaiT.IsakssonS.NaveG.PfeifferT.RazenM.WuH. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351(6280), 1433–1437.
11.
CamererC. F.DreberA.HolzmeisterF. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
CapraroV.CococcioniG. (2015). Social setting, intuition and experience in laboratory experiments interact to shape cooperative decision-making. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1811). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0237
14.
CapraroV.CococcioniG. (2016). Rethinking spontaneous giving: Extreme time pressure and ego-depletion favor self-regarding reactions. Scientific Reports, 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27219
15.
CapraroV.RandD. G. (2018). Do the right thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2965067
16.
ChirumboloA. (2015). The impact of job insecurity on counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating role of honesty-humility personality trait. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 149(6), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2014.916250
CooperW. H.WitheyM. J. (2009). The strong situation hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308329378
19.
De VriesR. E.Van GelderJ. L. (2015). Explaining workplace delinquency: The role of Honesty–Humility, ethical culture, and employee surveillance. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.008
20.
DickinsonD. L. (2001). The carrot vs. the stick in work team motivation. Experimental Economics, 4(1), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01669275
21.
ErdfelderE.FaulF.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
HilbigB. E.GlöcknerA.ZettlerI. (2014). Personality and prosocial behavior: Linking basic traits and social value orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036074
25.
HilbigB. E.KieslichP. J.HenningerF.ThielmannI.ZettlerI. (2018). Lead us (not) into temptation: Testing the motivational mechanisms linking honesty–humility to cooperation. European Journal of Personality, 32(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/per2149
26.
HilbigB. E.ZettlerI. (2009). Pillars of cooperation: Honesty–Humility, social value orientations, and economic behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 516–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.003
27.
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
28.
HilbigB. E.ZettlerI.LeistF.HeydaschT. (2013). It takes two: Honesty–Humility and Agreeableness differentially predict active versus reactive cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 598–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.008
29.
KieslichP. J.HilbigB. E. (2014). Cognitive conflict in social dilemmas: An analysis of response dynamics. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(6), 510–522.
30.
KleinlogelE. P.DietzJ.AntonakisJ. (2018). Lucky, competent, or just a cheat? Interactive effects of honesty-humility and moral cues on cheating behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(2), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733071
31.
KvarvenA.StrømlandE.WollbrantC.AnderssonD.JohannessonM.TinghögG.VästfjällD.MyrsethK. O. R. (2020). The intuitive cooperation hypothesis revisited: A meta-analytic examination of effect-size and between-study heterogeneity. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-020-00084-3
32.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2013). The H factor of personality: Why some people are manipulative, self-entitled, materialistic, and exploitive—And why it matters for everyone. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
33.
MischelW. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In MagnussonD.EndlerS. (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
MischkowskiD.GlöcknerA. (2016). Spontaneous cooperation for prosocials, but not for proselfs: Social value orientation moderates spontaneous cooperation behavior. Scientific Reports, 6, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21555
35.
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
36.
MurphyR. O.AckermannK. A.HandgraafM. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgement and Decision Making, 6(8), 771–781.
PfattheicherS.BöhmR. (2018). Honesty-humility under threat: Self-uncertainty destroys trust among the nice guys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000144
40.
PfattheicherS.KellerJ.KnezevicG. (2017). Sadism, the intuitive system, and antisocial punishment in the public goods game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216684134
41.
PfattheicherS.SchindlerS.NockurL. (2019). On the impact of Honesty-Humility and a cue of being watched on cheating behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 71, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.06.004
42.
RandD. G. (2016). Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological Science, 27(9), 1192–1206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616654455
43.
RandD. G. (2017). Reflections on the time-pressure cooperation registered replication report. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 543–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693625
44.
RandD. G. (2019). Intuition, deliberation, and cooperation: Further meta-analytic evidence from 91 experiments on pure cooperation. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3390018
45.
RandD. G.BrescollV.EverettJ. A. C.CapraroV.BarceloH. (2016). Social heuristics and social roles: Intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(4), 389–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000154
46.
RandD. G.DreberA.EllingsenT.FudenbergD.NowakM. A. (2009). Positive interactions promote public cooperation. Science, 325(5945), 1272–1275. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177418
47.
RandD. G.EpsteinZ. G. (2014). Risking your life without a second thought: Intuitive decision-making and extreme altruism. PLoS One, 9(10), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109687
48.
RandD. G.GreeneJ. D.NowakM. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489(7416), 427–430. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11467
49.
RandD. G.Kraft-ToddG. T. (2014). Reflection does not undermine self-interested prosociality. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00300
50.
RandD. G.OhtsukiH.NowakM. A. (2009). Direct reciprocity with costly punishment: Generous tit-for-tat prevails. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 256(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.09.015
51.
RandD. G.PeysakhovichA.Kraft-ToddG. T.NewmanG. E.WurzbacherO.NowakM. A.GreeneJ. D. (2014). Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature Communications, 5, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4677
52.
RosenthalJ. A. (1996). Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. Journal of Social Service Research, 21, 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v21n04_02
53.
ŚcigałaK. A.SchildC.HeckD. W.ZettlerI. (2019). Who deals with the devil? Interdependence, personality, and corrupted collaboration. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(8), 1019–1027.
54.
ShroutP. E.RodgersJ. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845
ThielmannI.BöhmR. (2016). Who does (not) participate in intergroup conflict?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(8), 778–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616660160
57.
ThielmannI.BöhmR.HilbigB. E. (2015). Different games for different motives: Comment on Haesevoets, Folmer, and Van Hiel (2015). European Journal of Personality, 29(4), 506–508. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2007
58.
ThielmannI.HilbigB. E. (2014). Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. Journal of Research in Personality, 50(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.006
59.
ThielmannI.HilbigB. E. (2015). The traits one can trust: Dissecting reciprocity and kindness as determinants of trustworthy behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(11), 1523–1536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215600530
60.
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
61.
TinghögG.AnderssonD.BonnC.BöttigerH.JosephsonC.LundgrenG.VästfjällD.KirchlerM.JohannessonM. (2013). Intuition and cooperation reconsidered. Nature, 498(7452), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12194
62.
WiltshireJ.BourdageJ. S.LeeK. (2014). Honesty-humility and perceptions of organizational politics in predicting workplace outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9310-0
63.
ZettlerI.HilbigB. E. (2010). Honesty–humility and a person–situation interaction at work. European Journal of Personality, 24, 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.757
64.
ZettlerI.HilbigB. E. (2015). Honesty and humility. In WrightJ. D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 169–174).
65.
ZettlerI.HilbigB. E.HeydaschT. (2013). Two sides of one coin: Honesty-Humility and situational factors mutually shape social dilemma decision making. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.012
66.
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
67.
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(3), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314553709
