Personality, Punishment and Public Goods: Strategic Shifts towards Cooperation as a Matter of Dispositional Honesty–Humility

Abstract

Contributions in the public goods game-a classical social dilemma situation-have been shown to depend strongly on the presence versus absence of punishment or sanctions for free riders. Also, there appear to be noteworthy individual differences in the degree to which decision makers cooperate. Herein, we aimed to bring these two lines of research together. Firstly, we predicted that both presence of punishment and high dispositional Honesty-Humility (as conceptualized in the Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience model of personality) should yield higher contributions. Secondly, and more importantly, we expected an interaction, such that only those low in Honesty-Humility would condition their behaviour on the presence versus absence of punishment, thus employing cooperation strategically. In line with the hypothesis, the results of two experiments (one of which comprised a longitudinal design) corroborated that the degree to which decision makers shift towards higher contributions when punishment is introduced depends on their dispositional level of Honesty-Humility.

The strategy of psychopathy: primary psychopathic traits predict defection on low-value relationships

“…Such results are complemented by studies of Machiavellianism, which is highly correlated with primary psychopathy [17] and may afford a similar adaptationist explanation [26]. High Machs are (i) less giving in a dictator game, yet more giving in a UG that includes the possibility of punishment [27,28]; (ii) less giving in the first round of a five-round public goods game [29]; (iii) more likely to accept low offers in a one-shot UG [30]; (iv) less likely to reciprocate trust as player 2 in a one-shot trust game [31]; and (v) more responsive to others' decisions in a multi-round public goods game [29]. Of note, both those higher in psychopathy [23] and those higher in Machiavellianism [27] show patterns of brain activation during social dilemma decisions that are consistent with economically strategic behaviour.…”

An Upward Spiral Between Gratitude and Humility

“…These results situate humility within broader theory positing the value of positive states (Fredrickson, 2001); humility may build social resources through externally focused emotions such as gratitude. Although humble individuals may forego entitled resource acquisition (Hilbig et al, 2012), they may benefit in the long term as they develop strong relationships that are built, in part, on mutual gratitude and value.…”

“…It has been described as a character strength (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), as people value it (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005;Exline & Geyer, 2004) and researchers have related it to multiple prosocial outcomes (Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013). Trait humility predicts ethical business practices (Ashton & Lee, 2008), helping (LaBouff, Rowatt, Johnson, Tsang, & Willerton, 2012), generosity (Exline & Hill, 2012), and cooperativeness (Hilbig, Zettler, & Heydasch, 2012). Furthermore, humble employees are less antisocial than arrogant employees (Marcus, Lee, & Ashton, 2007) and humble leaders model positive workplace behaviors (Owens & Hekman, 2012) and empower followers (Ou, 2012).…”

The relationship between physician humility, physician–patient communication, and patient health

“…Humble individuals are more likely to help a peer in need [6], more generous with their time and money [7], and more cooperative and less selfish in economic games [8,9] than less humble individuals.…”