Sharing Money With Humans Versus Computers: On the Role of Honesty-Humility and (Non-)Social Preferences

Abstract

Does giving behavior in economic games reflect true prosocial preferences or is it due to confusion? Research showing that trait Honesty-Humility accounts for giving behavior suggests the former, whereas research showing that participants give money to a computer might suggest the latter. In three preregistered, well-powered studies, we examined the relation of Honesty-Humility with behavior in the Dictator Game (Study 1, N = 468) and Public Goods Game (Studies 2 and 3, each N = 313), while participants interacted either with humans (“social game”) or with a computer (“non-social game”). We found that (a) decisions in the non-social game predicted decisions in the social game, supporting the confusion hypothesis; (b) the effect of Honesty-Humility differed within and between games; and (b) participants who gave money to the computer reported acting as if they were playing with humans. Overall, the studies suggest that both prosocial preferences and confusion underlie giving behavior.

Keywords

confusion economic games HEXACO Honesty-Humility social preferences virtual player method

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andreoni

(1995). Cooperation in public-goods experiments: Kindness or confusion? The American Economic Review, 85(4), 891–904.

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(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

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(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

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(2020). Objections to the HEXACO model of personality structure—And why those objections fail. European Journal of Personality, 34, 492–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2242

Balliet

Mulder

L. B.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

(2011). Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023489

Balliet

Parks

C. D.

Joireman

J. A.

(2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105040

Bayer

R. C.

Renner

Sausgruber

(2013). Confusion and learning in the voluntary contributions game. Experimental Economic, 16, 478–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-012-9348-2

Bouwmeester

Verkoeijen

Aczel

Barbosa

Bègue

Brañas-Garza

Chmura

Cornelissen

Døssing

F. S.

Espín

A. M.

Evans

A. M.

Ferreira-Santos

Fiedler

Flegr

Ghaffari

Glöckner

Goeschl

Guo

Hauser

O. P.

. . . Wollbrant

C. E.

(2017). Registered replication report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693624

Brandt

M. J.

IJzerman

Dijksterhuis

Farach

F. J.

Geller

Giner-Sorolla

Grange

J. A.

Perugini

Spies

J. R.

van’t Veer

(2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005

10.

Burton-Chellew

M. N.

El Mouden

West

S. A.

(2016). Conditional cooperation and confusion in public-goods experiments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(5), 1291–1296. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509740113

11.

Burton-Chellew

M. N.

Nax

H. H.

West

S. A.

(2015). Payoff-based learning explains the decline in cooperation in public goods games. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282, Article 20142678. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2678

12.

Burton-Chellew

M. N.

West

S. A.

(2013). Prosocial preferences do not explain human cooperation in public-goods games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(1), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210960110

13.

Burton-Chellew

M. N.

West

S. A.

(2021). Payoff-based learning best explains the rate of decline in cooperation across 237 public-goods games. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1330–1338. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01107-7

14.

Camerer

C. F.

(2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Russell Sage Foundation.

15.

Carpenter

(2010). Social preferences. In Durlauf

S. N.

Blume

L. E.

(Eds.), Behavioural and experimental economics (pp. 247–252). Palgrave Macmillan.

16.

Engel

(2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 583–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7

17.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

18.

Fehr

Fischbacher

(2002). Why social preferences matter—The impact of non-selfish motives on competition, Cooperation and Incentives. The Economic Journal, 112(478), C1–C33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00027

19.

Ferraro

P. J.

Rondeau

Poe

G. L.

(2003). Detecting other-regarding behavior with virtual players. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organiszation, 51, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00137-3

20.

Ferraro

P. J.

Vossler

(2010). The source and significance of confusion in public goods experiments. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 10(1), 1–42.

21.

Forsythe

Horowitz

J. L.

Savin

N. E.

Sefton

(1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/game.1994.1021

22.

Hilbig

B. E.

Glöckner

Zettler

(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

23.

Hilbig

B. E.

Zettler

(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

24.

Houser

Kurzban

(2002). Revisiting kindness and confusion in Public Goods experiments. The American Economic Review, 92(4), 1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260344605

25.

Johnson

E. J.

Camerer

Sen

Rymon

(2002). Detecting failures of backward induction: Monitoring information search in sequential bargaining. Journal of Economic Theory, 104(1), 16–47. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.2001.2850

26.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology: Theory and research (pp. 159–181). The Guilford Press.

27.

Mischkowski

Thielmann

Glöckner

(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

28.

Murphy

R. O.

Ackermann

K. A.

(2014). Social value orientation: Theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 13–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313501745

29.

Nass

Moon

(2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153

30.

Nielsen

Y. A.

Keijsers

Pfattheicher

(2022). Prosocial behavior towards machines. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.004

31.

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

32.

Rand

Greene

Nowak

(2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489, 427–430. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11467

33.

Samuelson

P. A.

(1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36, 387–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1925895

34.

Thielmann

Böhm

Ott

Hilbig

B. E.

(2021). Economic games: An introduction and guide for research. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), Article 19004. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.19004

35.

Thielmann

Hilbig

B. E.

(2018). Is it all about the money? A re-analysis of the link between Honesty-Humility and Dictator Game giving. Journal of Research in Personality, 76, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.07.002

36.

Thielmann

Moshagen

Hilbig

B. E.

Zettler

(2021). On the comparability of basic personality models: Meta-analytic correspondence, scope, and orthogonality of the Big Five and HEXACO dimensions. European Journal of Personality. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211026793

37.

Thielmann

Spadaro

Balliet

(2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217

38.

van Dijk

De Dreu

C. K. W.

(2021). Experimental games and social decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-081420-110718

39.

Zaki

Mitchell

J. P.

(2013). Intuitive prosociality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 466–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413492764

40.

Zettler

Hilbig

B. E.

Heydasch

(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

41.

Zettler

Thielmann

Hilbig

B. E.

Moshagen

(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

42.

Zhao

Ferguson

Smillie

L. D.

(2016). Prosocial personality traits differentially predict egalitarianism, generosity, and reciprocity in economic games. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01137