Personality and altruism in the dictator game: Relationship to giving to kin, collaborators, competitors, and neutrals

We investigate altruism in the context of the economic dictator game experiment where subjects are presented with different persons who can be classified as kin, collaborator, competitor and neutral based on their similarity/relationship to the subject. The classification is based on the role others play in facilitating or impeding an individual’s access to resources needed for reproductive success. The role of the Big Five personality traits in giving to the different target persons is examined. We find that kin are treated most generously, followed by collaborators, neutrals, and competitors. Personality has no effect on giving to kin, but a significant effect on giving to collaborator, neutral and competitor. We also find non-linear relationships between personality and giving.     

Visualized prosocial behavior and emotion in late life

Correlational research suggests that among older adults prosociality relates to positive emotions; yet causality remains unclear. We conducted an experiment to investigate whether visualizing a prosocial action would experience enhanced positive and lower negative emotion, and whether this would be particularly true for those with certain altruistic personality traits. Participants aged sixty and above were primed with a prosocial (helping a needy stranger), social (going out with friends), or neutral (walking down the street) induction. Results indicated that positive affect was highest among those who visualized a prosocial interaction, and that this effect was strongest among those higher in social responsibility. In contrast, less altruistically oriented participants reported higher negative affect in the prosocial condition. Thus, while prosociality promoted positive affect particularly among the socially responsible, it led to increased negative affect among those lower in altruistic orientation. Results suggest that individual differences influence older adults’ responses to exposure to prosocial involvement.     

Effects of team and organizational commitment – A longitudinal study

Retention management, i.e., keeping qualified employees, is a top priority for contemporary organizations. Commitment, and especially team commitment, can be the key to mastering this challenge. There is a lack of longitudinal research concerning the development and the direction of the effects of team commitment over time. In a longitudinal field-study design with three points of measurement, a total of 360 employees in 52 semi-autonomous industrial teams were surveyed over a period of three years. On the one hand, organizational commitment showed stronger effects on organization-related criteria (job satisfaction and intention to leave). These effects were consistent over the three points of measurement. Team commitment, on the other hand, affected team-related criteria (team performance and altruism). Longitudinal analyses confirmed the effects of organizational commitment on job satisfaction and intention to leave, and of team commitment on team performance and altruism. Moreover, these effects increased over time. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

“Why didn’t you just ask?” Underestimating the discomfort of help-seeking

Across four studies we demonstrate that people in a position to provide help tend to underestimate the role that embarrassment plays in decisions about whether or not to ask for help. As a result, potential helpers may overestimate the likelihood that people will ask for help (Studies 1 and 2). Further, helpers may be less inclined to allocate resources to underutilized support programs than help-seekers because they are less likely to attribute low levels of use to help-seekers’ concerns with embarrassment (Study 3). Finally, helpers may misjudge the most effective means of encouraging help-seeking behavior - emphasizing the practical benefits of asking for help, rather than attempting to assuage help-seekers’ feelings of discomfort (Study 4).     

Selfless giving

In four studies, we show that people who anticipate more personal change over time give more to others. We measure and manipulate participants’ beliefs in the persistence of the defining psychological features of a person (e.g., his or her beliefs, values, and life goals) and measure generosity, finding support for the hypothesis in three studies using incentive-compatible charitable donation decisions and one involving hypothetical choices about sharing with loved ones.     

In conversation with J. Philippe Rushton

The interview covers Rushton’s background in England, South Africa, and Canada, his education at the University of London (B.Sc., 1970; Ph.D., 1973), and his early research (1970–1980) on the social learning of generosity in 7- to 11-year olds. In his first book, Altruism, socialization, and society (1980), Rushton solved two “anomalies” for his social learning perspective—altruism in animals and traits in people—causing a “paradigm shift” for him toward sociobiology. He spent January to June 1981 at the University of California, Berkeley, to study the longitudinal stability of personality traits like altruism. There, he was influenced by Jensen’s work on g and race differences in rate of maturation and two-egg twinning. Subsequently, Rushton found that across 60 variables, Europeans fall between East Asians and Africans, closer to East Asians. He extrapolated Wilson’s (fast–slow) r-K life history theory to explain the pattern. Also covered is Rushton’s research on the heritability of altruism, and Genetic Similarity Theory explaining assortative mating and ethnic nepotism. Spouses and best friends are as similar as half-siblings and people randomly chosen from the same ethnic group are as related as first cousins. Altruism follows lines of similarity to replicate genes effectively. Rushton’s research on creativity is described.     

Tomorrow's consumer — the shifting balance of power

What are the prospects for consumerism? Often despised as self‐indulgent, consumers are frequently motivated by altruism and their needs to express their identity, to build relationships, to obtain fulfilment and even to find a substitute for religion. Mass‐customisation is producing fundamental change, revolutionising attitudes to choice, with a key role for agents (human and online) in helping people choose. Consumer power will grow and brands will be under pressure from rising consumer expectations. While retailers fight back with targeted marketing and special offers, brands will need to serve consumer needs as much as suppliers. Online shopping could transform consumer behaviour, driven by cost saving and convenience and spurred on by competition. Will retailers protect their traditional channels or go online because they are afraid not to? ‘Etailing’ will need to create consumer trust, so regulation will be critical, possibly leading to legal responsibilities for quality on Internet service providers (ISPs) and portals and with systems to help new entrants build a track record of reliability, thereby increasing competition, choice and consumer power. Copyright © 2002 Henry Stewart Publications.     

Prosocial behavior in families: Moderators of resource sharing

Archival studies of within-family prosocial behavior (Judge & Hrdy, 1992; Smith, Kish, & Crawford, 1987) have shown that inheritance patterns support Hamilton’s (1964) theory of inclusive fitness, such that people will more of their estates to relatives of closer genetic relatedness. In a survey-based simulation of these studies, students allocated one of three lotteries to their blood relatives. As expected, participants allocated greater proportions of their lotteries to relatives of greater genetic relatedness. This effect became stronger with decreasing lottery amounts. Relatives of certain relatedness were favored over relatives of uncertain relatedness (via paternal uncertainty), and this effect was stronger among those with less money to allocate. Male participants tended to favor their young female relatives over their young male relatives when given the smallest lottery, but this sex preference reversed when male participants were given the largest lottery. In general, scarcer resources led to more evolutionarily conservative investment strategies.     

The most good you can do: a response to the commentaries

Anthony Skelton, Violetta Igneski and Tracy Isaacs share my view that our obligations to help people in extreme poverty go beyond what is conventionally accepted. Nevertheless, the other contributors argue that my view is too demanding, while noting some tensions between my different writings on this issue. I explain my position, drawing on Sidgwick’s distinction between what someone ought to do, and what we should praise or blame someone for doing or not doing. I also respond to the position that Skelton considers preferable to mine, drawing this time on an argument that Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and I have made in our recent book, The Point of View of the Universe. I also address Igneski’s concerns about gender inequality, and indicate my broad agreement with Isaacs’ suggestion that effective altruism could benefit from a more co-ordinated approach.     

A range of kindness activities boost happiness

This experiment investigates the effects of a seven-day kindness activities intervention on changes in subjective happiness. The study was designed to test whether performing different types of kindness activities had differential effects on happiness. Our recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychological effects of kindness (Curry, et al. 2018) revealed that performing acts of kindness boosts happiness and well-being. However, we noted in that review that rarely had researchers specifically compared the effects of kindness to different recipients, such as to friends or to strangers. Thus in a single factorial design (n=683) we compare acts of kindness to strong social ties, weak social ties, novel acts of self kindness, and observing acts of kindness, against a no acts control group. The results indicate that performing kindness activities for seven days increases happiness. In addition, we report a positive correlation between the number of kind acts and increases in happiness. Neither effect differed across the experimental the groups, suggesting that kindness to strong ties, to weak ties, and to self, as well as observing acts of kindness, have equally positive effects on happiness.