↓ Skip to main content

Prosocial Personality Traits Differentially Predict Egalitarianism, Generosity, and Reciprocity in Economic Games

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prosocial Personality Traits Differentially Predict Egalitarianism, Generosity, and Reciprocity in Economic Games
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01137
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kun Zhao, Eamonn Ferguson, Luke D. Smillie

Abstract

Recent research has highlighted the role of prosocial personality traits-agreeableness and honesty-humility-in egalitarian distributions of wealth in the dictator game. Expanding on these findings, we ran two studies to examine individual differences in two other forms of prosociality-generosity and reciprocity-with respect to two major models of personality, the Big Five and the HEXACO. Participants (combined N = 560) completed a series of economic games in which allocations in the dictator game were compared with those in the generosity game, a non-constant-sum wealth distribution task where proposers with fixed payoffs selected the size of their partner's payoff ("generosity"). We further examined positive and negative reciprocity by manipulating a partner's previous move ("reciprocity"). Results showed clear evidence of both generosity and positive reciprocity in social preferences, with allocations to a partner greater in the generosity game than in the dictator game, and greater still when a player had been previously assisted by their partner. There was also a consistent interaction with gender, whereby men were more generous when this was costless and women were more egalitarian overall. Furthermore, these distinct forms of prosociality were differentially predicted by personality traits, in line with the core features of these traits and the theoretical distinctions between them. HEXACO honesty-humility predicted dictator, but not generosity allocations, while traits capturing tendencies toward irritability and anger predicted lower generosity, but not dictator allocations. In contrast, the politeness-but not compassion-aspect of Big Five agreeableness was uniquely and broadly associated with prosociality across all games. These findings support the discriminant validity between related prosocial constructs, and have important implications for understanding the motives and mechanisms taking place within economic games.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Student > Bachelor 26 18%
Student > Master 18 12%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 28 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 61 41%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 41 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,164,880
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,051
of 34,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,581
of 372,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#107
of 386 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 386 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.