Personality accounts for stable preferences and expectations across a range of simple games

Abstract

Personality accounts for stable preferences and expectations across a range of simple gamesCitation for published version: Brocklebank, S, Lewis, GJ & Bates, TC 2011, 'Personality accounts for stable preferences and expectations across a range of simple games' Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 51, no. 8, Publisher Rights Statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Personality and Individual Differences Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 881-886, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.007 General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policyThe University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.Download date: 01. Apr. 2019 NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Personality and Individual Differences Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 881-886, doi: 10.1016Differences, 51(8), 881-886, doi: 10. /j.paid.2011 Abstract Behaviour on even simple experimental games shows considerable individual differences, but previous attempts to link these preferences to stable personality traits have had mixed results. Here we address three limitations of earlier studies, namely: 1) uncertainties concerning the reliability of preferences; 2) use of personality instruments with limited cross-study comparability; and 3) confounds where more than one psychological motive can lead to a particular choice. Sixty-seven participants completed 12 distinct real-money games twice over a two-week interval along with 6 measures concerning their expectations about other players' choices. Personality was measured using the full NEO-PI-R. Choices were highly stable across time (r = .84).Moreover, choices on the 12 games and 6 expectations reflected a single underlying dimension of "prosocial orientation", measuring concern for the payoffs received by other player...

From Windfall Sharing to Property Ownership: Prosocial Personality Traits in Giving and Taking Dictator Games

“…Furthermore, all conditions (including the neutrally-framed dictator game) were administered in a similar fashion within the same session, yet the correlation between HEXACO honesty-humility and standard dictator allocations (r = 0.29) was on par with those in previous studies: both where the two had been separated in time (e.g., rs = 0.25, 0.27, 0.29) [5,8,44] and collected together (rs = 0.24, 0.27) [71,72]; for an exception see [73]. These observations are in line with a wider literature showing that prosocial decisions are stable over time and can be consistently predicted by theoretically-relevant measures of personality [74,75].…”

Once a Utilitarian, Consistently a Utilitarian? Examining Principledness in Moral Judgment via the Robustness of Individual Differences

“…The literature offers many “roads” to utilitarian judgment, and it is unclear whether these findings represent truly different roads or are manifestations of an overarching latent factor on which utilitarians and non‐utilitarians differ (cf. Brocklebank, Lewis, & Bates, ). What this dispute clearly highlights, however, is an important aim for future research: to understand the reasons behind people's judgments, as well as the need for moral judgment theorists to account not only for what a person believes, but why he or she believes it.…”

The Role of Interpersonal Traits in Social Decision Making

“…It is characterized by intellectual curiosity, imagination, and preferences for variety, and is linked to greater risk taking (Lauriola & Levin, 2001) and liberal political orientation (Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008;Chirumbolo & Leone, 2010). This could in part explain its positive relationships with decisions to cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma (Lönnqvist et al, 2011), amounts sent and returned in the trust game (Becker et al, 2012; but see Ben-Ner & Halldorsson, 2010), and allocations of wealth in dictator games (Baumert et al, 2013;Becker et al, 2012;Ben-Ner, Putterman, Kong, & Magan, 2004;Hilbig et al, 2013), as well as prosocial choices in two-person exchange tasks (Brocklebank et al, 2011).…”