The core tendencies underlying prosocial behavior: Testing a person-situation framework.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: According to a recently proposed theoretical framework, different personality traits should explain pro-social behavior in different situations. We empirically tested the key proposition of this framework that each of four "core tendencies" (i.e., the shared variance of related traits) specifically predicts pro-social behavior in the presence of a different situational affordance. METHODS: We used a large-scale dataset (N = 2479) including measures of various personality traits and six incentivized economic games assessing pro-social behavior in different social situations. Using bifactor modeling, we extracted four latent core tendencies and tested their predictive validity for pro-social behavior. RESULTS: We found mixed support for the theoretically derived, preregistered hypotheses. The core tendency of beliefs about others' pro-sociality predicted pro-social behavior in both games involving dependence under uncertainty, as expected. Unconditional concern for others' welfare predicted pro-social behavior in only one of two games providing a possibility for exploitation. For conditional concern for others' welfare and self-regulation, in turn, evidence relating them to pro-social behavior in the presence of a possibility for reciprocity and temporal conflict was relatively weak. CONCLUSION: Different features of social situations may activate different personality traits to influence pro-social behavior, but more research is needed to fully understand these person-situation interactions.

Testing the equivalence of the aversive core of personality and a blend of agreeableness(-related) items.

OBJECTIVE: There is an ongoing debate in personality research whether the common core of aversive ("dark") traits can be approximated by or even considered equivalent to one of the constructs that have been labeled "Agreeableness". In particular, it has been suggested that the low pole of (what we term) AG+, a broad blend of Big Five Agreeableness and the HEXACO factors Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Altruism, is essentially equivalent to the Dark Factor of Personality (D). Based on theoretical differences, we herein test empirically whether D and AG+ are isomorphic. METHODS: Self-report data on D, AG+, and eight criterion measures reflecting justifying beliefs, inflicting disutility on others, and affiliative tendencies were collected in a pre-registered study (N = 1156) and analyzed via confirmatory factor modeling. RESULTS: Results speak against unity of D and AG+ (35% shared variance) and support the notion that D subsumes a broader range of aversive content (i.e., justifying beliefs and inflicting disutility on others) than AG+, which, in turn, subsumes a slightly broader range of non-aversive, affiliative tendencies. CONCLUSION: We conclude that AG+ is non-equivalent to the common core of aversive traits, D.

The Dispositional Essence of Proactive Social Preferences: The Dark Core of Personality vis-à-vis 58 Traits.

Individuals differ in how they weigh their own utility versus others'. This tendency codefines the dark factor of personality (D), which is conceptualized as the underlying disposition from which all socially and ethically aversive (dark) traits arise as specific, flavored manifestations. We scrutinize this unique theoretical notion by testing, for a broad set of 58 different traits and related constructs, whether any predict how individuals weigh their own versus others' utility in proactive allocation decisions (i.e., social value orientations) beyond D. These traits and constructs range from broad dimensions (e.g., agreeableness), to aversive traits (e.g., sadism) and beliefs (e.g., normlessness), to prosocial tendencies (e.g., compassion). In a large-scale longitudinal study involving the assessment of consequential choices (median N = 2,270; a heterogeneous adult community sample from Germany), results from several hundred latent model comparisons revealed that no meaningful incremental variance was explained beyond D. Thus, D alone is sufficient to represent the social preferences inherent in socially and ethically aversive personality traits.

Personality, self-knowledge, and meat reduction intentions.

OBJECTIVE: Meat consumption has a host of serious negative consequences for nonhuman animals, underprivileged humans, and the natural environment. Several interventions have been developed to encourage meat reduction but to relatively limited effect. There is also a range of established predictors of meat consumption, but much less is known about the factors that predict intentions to reduce meat consumption. The goal of this study was to determine the roles of personality and self-knowledge in meat reduction intentions. METHOD: In this set of three preregistered studies, we tested brief interventions to encourage meat reduction intentions and examined personality predictors of intentions to reduce meat consumption. RESULTS: We found no evidence that brief interventions with or without a self-knowledge component had a meaningful effect on changing meat reduction intentions. However, we found robust evidence for relatively small associations between intending to eat less meat and high Openness to Experience, high Emotionality, and perceiving meat reduction as moral behaviors. CONCLUSION: Individual differences may be a more influential predictor of meat reduction intentions than brief interventions. Implications for promoting meat reduction are discussed.

Cheating to benefit others? On the relation between Honesty-Humility and prosocial lies.

OBJECTIVE: Among basic personality traits, Honesty-Humility yields the most consistent, negative link with dishonest behavior. The theoretical conceptualization of Honesty-Humility, however, suggests a potential boundary condition of this relation, namely, when lying is prosocial. We therefore tested the hypothesis that the association between Honesty-Humility and dishonesty weakens once lying benefits someone else, particularly so if this other is needy. METHODS: In two online studies (Study 1: N = 775 in Germany; Study 2: N = 737 in the UK, preregistered), we measured self-reported Honesty-Humility and dishonest behavior in incentivized cheating paradigms in which the beneficiary of participants' dishonesty was either the participants themselves, a "non-needy" other (e.g., another participant), or a "needy" other (e.g., a charity). RESULTS: We found support for the robustness of the negative association between Honesty-Humility and dishonesty, even if lying was prosocial. CONCLUSION: Individuals high in Honesty-Humility largely prioritize honesty, even if there is a strong moral imperative to lie; those low in Honesty-Humility, by contrast, tend to lie habitually and thus even if they themselves do not directly profit monetarily. This suggests that (un)truthfulness may be an absolute rather than a relative aspect of Honesty-Humility, although further systematic tests of this proposition are needed.

Are social desirability scales desirable? A meta-analytic test of the validity of social desirability scales in the context of prosocial behavior.

Social desirability (SD) scales have been used for decades in psychology and beyond. These scales are sought to measure individuals' tendencies to present themselves overly positive in self-reports, thus allowing to control for SD biases. However, research increasingly questions the validity of SD scales, proposing that SD scales measure substantive trait characteristics rather than response bias. To provide a large-scale empirical test of the validity of SD scales, we conducted a meta-analysis (k = 41; N = 8980) on the relation between SD scale scores and prosocial behavior in economic games (where acting in a prosocial manner is highly socially desirable). If SD scales measure what they are supposed to (namely, SD bias), they should be negatively linked to prosocial behavior; if SD scales measure socially desirable traits, they should be positively linked to prosocial behavior. Unlike both possibilities, the meta-analytic correlation between SD scores and prosocial behavior was close to zero, suggesting that SD scales neither clearly measure bias nor substantive traits. This conclusion was also supported by moderation analyses considering differences in the implementation of games and the SD scales used. The results further question the validity of SD scales with the implication that scholars and practitioners should refrain from using them.

Beyond (low) Agreeableness: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of antagonistic psychopathology.

In clinical psychopathology research, up to seven traits have been suggested as instances of antagonistic psychopathology. Those antagonistic traits, in turn, are commonly viewed as reflections of low Agreeableness as per the Big Five (BF-AG). However, specific theoretical differences between antagonistic traits suggest that other broad, basic dimensions beyond BF-AG ought to provide further points of correspondence. Specifically, whereas primarily affective antagonistic traits are closely aligned with BF-AG, primarily behavioral antagonistic traits are better aligned with Honesty-Humility (HH) from the HEXACO model and primarily cognitive antagonistic traits are better aligned with the common core of aversive traits (the Dark Factor of Personality, D). Indeed, from a theoretical perspective, D seems to be the only candidate sufficiently covering all aspects of antagonistic traits (affect, behavior, and cognition) to a comparable extent and thus affording a balanced representation of antagonistic psychopathology. We critically test these conjectures in a large and heterogeneous online sample (N = 3,396), investigating the overlap between antagonistic traits and basic personality via structural equation modeling. Results show that BF-AG, HH, and D each yield particularly strong ties to one group of antagonistic traits (affective, behavioral, and cognitive, respectively), while D offers the most balanced representation of all (groups of) antagonistic traits.

The dark core of personality and socially aversive psychopathology.

OBJECTIVE: Although dark traits as studied in mainstream personality research and socially aversive psychopathology as studied in abnormal psychology intend to account for the same classes of behavior, their degree of conceptual and, consequently, empirical correspondence has remained limited at best. We aim to overcome this divide by demonstrating clear convergence between the common core of all dark traits (the Dark Factor of Personality, D) and the four prominent instances of socially aversive psychopathology: narcissistic, antisocial, paranoid, and borderline tendencies. METHOD: In a large-scale, eight-month longitudinal study we assessed D, basic personality (the six HEXACO dimensions), and narcissistic, antisocial, paranoid, and borderline tendencies at time 1 (N = 2,329) and the latter aversive tendencies again at time 2 (N = 668) using different inventories. RESULTS: D predicted all instances of socially aversive psychopathology cross-sectionally and longitudinally, with a large effect size on average, beyond the six HEXACO dimensions and even beyond the very same instances (measured through a different inventory). CONCLUSIONS: Bridging mainstream personality and abnormal psychology, the findings reveal strong, theory-consistent correspondence between dark traits and socially aversive psychopathology once dark traits are viewed through the lens of their common core, D.

The HEXACO-100 Across 16 Languages: A Large-Scale Test of Measurement Invariance.

The HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO-PI-R) has become one of the most heavily applied measurement tools for the assessment of basic personality traits. Correspondingly, the inventory has been translated to many languages for use in cross-cultural research. However, formal tests examining whether the different language versions of the HEXACO-PI-R provide equivalent measures of the 6 personality dimensions are missing. We provide a large-scale test of measurement invariance of the 100-item version of the HEXACO-PI-R across 16 languages spoken in European and Asian countries (N = 30,484). Multigroup exploratory structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analyses revealed consistent support for configural and metric invariance, thus implying that the factor structure of the HEXACO dimensions as well as the meaning of the latent HEXACO factors is comparable across languages. However, analyses did not show overall support for scalar invariance; that is, equivalence of facet intercepts. A complementary alignment analysis supported this pattern, but also revealed substantial heterogeneity in the level of (non)invariance across facets and factors. Overall, results imply that the HEXACO-PI-R provides largely comparable measurement of the HEXACO dimensions, although the lack of scalar invariance highlights the necessity for future research clarifying the interpretation of mean-level trait differences across countries.

Nomological consistency: A comprehensive test of the equivalence of different trait indicators for the same constructs.

OBJECTIVE: Across all subfields of psychology, it is common practice to use different indicators of allegedly the same personality constructs, resting upon the (often implicit) assumption that the indicators measure equivalent constructs. However, there is a lack of approaches allowing for a strict and comprehensive test of the equivalence assumption. We propose investigating nomological consistency to test the equivalence assumption across inventories allegedly measuring the same set of constructs. Nomological consistency refers to the degree to which different indicators of constructs in a theoretical or structural model (such as the Big Five) show similar (non-)associations with a set of external criteria, thus testing the consistency of the nomological net spanned by different indicators. METHOD: In a large-scale study based on a convenience sample (N = 2,846; 64.9% female), we provide an empirical demonstration of nomological consistency across three commonly used Big Five inventories by comparing the pattern of associations of the Big Five constructs across inventories with five external criteria using a multifaceted analytic approach. RESULTS: Although results showed some level of consistency across the Big Five inventories under scrutiny, there was also a relevant extent of nomological inconsistency. CONCLUSIONS: Testing nomological consistency allows for a more conclusive judgment on the equivalence of different indicators across inventories.

The brighter the light, the deeper the shadow: Morality also fuels aggression, conflict, and violence.

We argue that, in addition to the positive effects and functionality of morality for interactions among in-group members as outlined in the target article, morality may also fuel aggression and conflict in interactions between morality-based out-groups. We summarize empirical evidence showing that negative cognitions, emotions, and behaviors are particularly likely to appear between out-groups with opposing moral convictions.

Trait-specificity versus global positivity: A critical test of alternative sources of assumed similarity in personality judgments.

For decades, a recurring question in person perception research has been whether people's perceptions of others' personality traits are related to how they see themselves on these traits. Indeed, evidence for such "assumed similarity" effects has been found repeatedly, at least for certain characteristics. However, recent research suggests that these findings may be an artifact of individual differences in how positively or negatively perceivers see others in general, irrespective of trait-specific content. Overcoming the limitations of prior studies, the present work provides a critical test of trait-specificity versus global positivity as sources of assumed similarity in personality judgments. In two large studies (Ns = 2,287 and 3,563) with preregistered hypotheses and analyses, perceivers rated 10 targets (strangers) each on the honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience; HEXACO (Study 1) and Big Five (Study 2) dimensions to capture their perceptions of the "average other" (i.e., perceiver effects). We then computed "positivity-corrected" assumed similarity effects using trait-based and profile-based approaches. Although controlling for global positivity considerably reduced the strength of assumed similarity, perceiver effects were still positively related to self-reports. As predicted, these assumed similarity effects occurred foremostly for traits strongly linked to values. Specifically, in Study 1, positivity-corrected assumed similarity was observed only for honesty-humility and openness to experience, albeit meaningful effects merely occurred on one of the two self-report measures. In Study 2, traits' value-relatedness remained a unique moderator of assumed similarity after accounting for traits' positivity (i.e., social desirability). These findings demonstrate that assumed similarity is indeed, to some extent, trait-specific. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The dispositional basis of human prosociality.

Individual differences in prosocial behavior have been consistently observed in a variety of contexts. Here, we summarize and critically discuss recent developments in two research agendas on the dispositional basis of human prosociality: a personality approach, proposing a variety of trait concepts and corresponding measures to predict prosocial behavior in different situations; and a behavioral consistency approach, testing for consistency in prosocial behaviors and its underlying latent disposition(s) across situations. Drawing on different properties of situations (so-called situational affordances), we outline a theoretical framework that can help integrate these so far hardly connected research agendas. We also point out limitations of prior research, such as a lack of theory, and provide suggestions on how to overcome them.

Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions.

The field of prosociality is flourishing, yet researchers disagree about how to define prosocial behavior and often neglect defining it altogether. In this review, we provide an overview about the breadth of definitions of prosocial behavior and the related concept of altruism. Common to almost all definitions is an emphasis on the promotion of welfare in agents other than the actor. However, definitions of the two concepts differ in terms of whether they emphasize intentions and motives, costs and benefits, and the societal context. In order to improve on the conceptual ambiguity surrounding the study of prosociality, we urge researchers to provide definitions, to use operationalizations that match their definitions, and to acknowledge the diversity of prosocial behavior.

Making rights from wrongs: The crucial role of beliefs and justifications for the expression of aversive personality.

Whereas research focusing on stable dispositions has long attributed ethically and socially aversive behavior to an array of aversive (or "dark") traits, other approaches from social-cognitive psychology and behavioral economics have emphasized the crucial role of social norms and situational justifications that allow individuals to uphold a positive self-image despite their harmful actions. We bridge these research traditions by focusing on the common core of aversive traits (the dark factor of personality [D]) and its defining aspect of involving diverse beliefs that serve to construct justifications. In particular, we theoretically specify the processes by which D is expressed in aversive behavior-namely, through diverse beliefs and the justifications they serve. In six studies (total N > 25,000) we demonstrate (a) that D involves higher subjective justifiability of those aversive behaviors that individuals high in D are more likely to engage in, (b) that D uniquely relates to diverse descriptive and injunctive beliefs-related to distrust (e.g., cynicism), hierarchy (e.g., authoritarianism), and relativism (e.g., normlessness)-that serve to justify aversive behavior, and (c) a theoretically derived pattern of moderations and mediations supporting the view that D accounts for aversive behavior because it fosters subjective justifiability thereof-at least in part owing to certain beliefs and the justifications they afford. More generally, our findings highlight the role of (social) cognitions within the conceptual definitions of personality traits and processes through which they are expressed in behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Test-retest reliability of the HEXACO-100-And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability.

Despite the widespread use of the HEXACO model as a descriptive taxonomy of personality traits, there remains limited information on the test-retest reliability of its commonly-used inventories. Studies typically report internal consistency estimates, such as alpha or omega, but there are good reasons to believe that these do not accurately assess reliability. We report 13-day test-retest correlations of the 100- and 60-item English HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO-100 and HEXACO-60) domains, facets, and items. In order to test the validity of test-retest reliability, we then compare these estimates to correlations between self- and informant-reports (i.e., cross-rater agreement), a widely-used validity criterion. Median estimates of test-retest reliability were .88, .81, and .65 (N = 416) for domains, facets, and items, respectively. Facets' and items' test-retest reliabilities were highly correlated with their cross-rater agreement estimates, whereas internal consistencies were not. Overall, the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised demonstrates test-retest reliability similar to other contemporary measures. We recommend that short-term retest reliability should be routinely calculated to assess reliability.

A Plea for Studying Qualitative Individual Differences by Default.

I see great potential in the approach proposed by Rouder and Haaf. First, using an example from unethical decision making, I demonstrate that considering quantitative individual differences alone can make us overlook important psychological phenomena that are only visible at the individual level. Thus, the study of quantitative individual differences should, by default, be complemented by investigation of qualitative individual differences. Second, having powerful tools to study qualitative individual differences in cognition has great potential to advance personality science. Recently, personality psychologists are increasingly working towards obtaining a better understanding of the processes that underlie the expression of personality in behavior. The toolbox provided by Rouder and Haaf may add to this research in meaningful ways.

Stockpiling during the COVID-19 pandemic as a real-life social dilemma: A person-situation perspective.

Prior research using economic games has shown that personality drives cooperation in social dilemmas. In this study, we tested the generalizability of these findings in a real-life social dilemma during the COVID-19 pandemic, namely stockpiling in the presence of low versus high resource scarcity. Honesty-Humility was negatively related to stockpiling intentions and justifiability of stockpiling. Moreover, we found a positive albeit weaker effect of Emotionality on stockpiling intentions. Victim Sensitivity was mostly positively associated with stockpiling intentions. None of the personality traits interacted with resource scarcity to predict stockpiling. Our findings replicate established associations between personality and cooperation in a real-life social dilemma, and suggest that the characteristics of interdependent situations during a pandemic additionally afford the expression of Emotionality.

Who wants to change and how? On the trait-specificity of personality change goals.

The study of volitional personality change has received increasing attention in recent years, suggesting that individuals want to change for the better particularly on those socially desirable characteristics that they lack. However, individuals do not want to change for the better on all (even socially desirable) traits alike. In a meta-analytic summary of evidence on the Big Five, we demonstrate that individuals' trait levels are only negatively related to their change goals for Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness, but not for Agreeableness and Openness to Experience. In three studies, two of them preregistered, we replicated these meta-analytic findings using the HEXACO model, showing negative relations between trait levels and change goals for all dimensions, except Honesty-Humility and Openness to Experience. Strikingly, however, these trait-specific differences in correlations of trait levels and change goals disappeared once providing individuals with personality feedback before assessing their change goals, suggesting that individuals may generally want to change for the better once having sufficient self-knowledge. Nonetheless, the mechanisms driving this desire differ between traits: Whereas the perceived social desirability of individuals' trait levels accounted for change goals on most HEXACO dimensions, it did not account for change goals on Honesty-Humility and Openness to Experience. By implication, a desire to have socially desirable characteristics that one lacks can explain change goals for some traits, but not for those traits underlying individual differences in values. As an aside, the studies offer vital information on personality development of the HEXACO dimensions over time, spanning 10 and 3.5 years, respectively. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).