Situational Affordances for Prosocial Behaviour: On the Interaction between Honesty–Humility and (Perceived) Interdependence

Abstract

Individual differences in prosocial behaviour are well–documented. Increasingly, there has been a focus on the specific situations in which particular personality traits predict prosocial behaviour. HEXACO Honesty–Humility—the basic trait most consistently linked to prosocial behaviour in prior studies—has been found to predict prosociality most strongly in situations that afford the exploitation of others. Importantly, though, it may be the subjectively perceived situation that affords the behavioural expression of a trait. Following this reasoning, we tested the proposition that Honesty–Humility would predict prosocial behaviour more strongly in situations characterised by, and perceived to contain, two dimensions of interdependence that can afford exploitation: high conflict and high power. However, across a series of incentivised economic games and two large experience sampling studies, we only found inconsistent evidence for the association between Honesty–Humility and prosocial behaviour. Furthermore, the link between Honesty–Humility and prosociality was neither conditional on objective interdependence nor on subjective perceptions of interdependence. Nonetheless, perceptions of conflict and power tracked objective properties of economic games and were related to prosocial behaviour in the lab and field. Future research should take individuals’ subjective understanding of situations into account, which may also help understand the (generalisability of the) effect of Honesty–Humility on prosocial behaviour. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Personality published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Personality Psychology

Do Perceiver Effects in Interpersonal Perception Predict Cooperation in Social Dilemmas?

“…This would explain why high PGG contributions were observed even among participants with low PEs. Similarly, another recent study failed to replicate well-established effects of personality on cooperation when group members had previously met (Columbus, Thielmann, & Balliet, 2019). Also related to the high level of cooperation observed here, variability in PGG contributions was likely somewhat restricted, which may have made it difficult to detect associations for purely statistical reasons.…”

Honesty-Humility, beliefs, and prosocial behaviour: A test on stockpiling during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Indeed, Honesty-Humility has been shown to be associated with a wide range of prosocial behaviours including cooperation in economic games (Thielmann et al, 2020) and organisational citizenship behaviours (Pletzer, Bentvelzen, Oostrom, & de Vries, 2019). However, most research so far has studied the relationship between Honesty-Humility and prosocial behaviour in the laboratory, and it is much less clear how strongly Honesty-Humility relates to prosocial behaviour in daily life (Columbus, Thielmann, & Balliet, 2019).…”

Economic Games: An Introduction and Guide for Research

“…That is, outcomes are evaluated based on the perception of emotional, social, instrumental, and opportunity rewards and costs. As a consequence, players might not play the game we think they are playing based on the assumption that outcomes directly relate to preferences, but rather rely on their mental construal of the situation when making a decision and order outcomes in a different way than implied by their material value (e.g., Columbus et al, 2019;Gerpott et al, 2018;Halevy et al, 2012; Another common efficiency criterion is Pareto-efficiency (also called Pareto-optimality). In contrast to social efficiency, Pareto-efficiency does not require that payoffs are comparable across players but uses only within-person payoff comparisons.…”

“…Third, knowing the affordances present in a game may allow drawing conclusions on players' subjective representation of the games. Specifically, if two games produce different behaviors even though providing the exact same (sub-)affordances, this suggests that the situations may be perceived in different ways (Columbus et al, 2019(Columbus et al, , 2020Gerpott et al, 2018;Halevy et al, 2012;Halevy & Chou, 2014), thus triggering different psychological processes to affect behavior. Indeed, behav-iors across different games -even those involving the same (objective) affordances -show far from perfect inter-correlations (Blanco et al, 2011;Galizzi & Navarro-Martinez, 2018;Haesevoets et al, 2015;McAuliffe et al, 2019;Peysakhovich et al, 2014;Yamagishi et al, 2012), suggesting that the subjective representation of a game (and corresponding affordances) may differ from the objective game structure.…”