The Traits One Can Trust: Dissecting Reciprocity and Kindness as Determinants of Trustworthy Behavior

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Volumn 41, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1523-1536

  Thielmann, Isabel ^a,b   Hilbig, Benjamin E ^a  

^a University of Koblenz   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

basic personality traits; reciprocity; trust game; trustworthiness; unconditional kindness

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; GAME; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERSONALITY; PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; TRUST; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; GAMES, EXPERIMENTAL; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERSONALITY; PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; TRUST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84944329203     PISSN: 01461672     EISSN: 15527433     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146167215600530     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. K.A.AckermannJ.FleißR.O.Murphy (in press). Reciprocity as an individual difference. Journal of Conflict Resolution. doi: 10.1177/0022002714541854
2. N.AshrafI.BohnetN.Piankov (2006). Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Experimental Economics, 9, 193-208. doi: 10.1007/s10683-006-9122-4
3. M.C.AshtonK.Lee (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150-166. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294907
4. M.C.AshtonK.Lee (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340-345. doi: 10.1080/00223890902935878
5. M.C.AshtonK.LeeR.E.De Vries (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 139-152. doi: 10.1177/1088868314523838
6. D.BatesM.MaechlerB.BolkerS.Walker (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package (Version 1.1-7). Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html
7. S.BauernschusterO.FalckN.Große (2013). When trustors compete for the favour of a trustee—A laboratory experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 34, 133-147. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2012.09.004
8. A.BaumertT.M.SchlösserM.Schmitt (2013). Economic games: A performance-based assessment of fairness and altruism. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000183
9. A.BeckerT.DeckersT.DohmenA.FalkF.Kosse (2012). The relationship between economic preferences and psychological personality measures. Annual Review of Economics, 4, 453-478. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-110922
10. A.Ben-NerF.Halldorsson (2010). Trusting and trustworthiness: What are they, how to measure them, and what affects them. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 64-79. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2009.10.001
11. J.BergJ.DickhautK.A.McCabe (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122-142. doi: 10.1006/game.1995.1027
12. C.BicchieriE.XiaoR.Muldoon (2011). Trustworthiness is a social norm, but trusting is not. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 10, 170-187. http://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X10387260
13. P.BorkenauF.Ostendorf (2008). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar nach Costa und McCrae (NEO-FFI). Manual (2., neu normierte und vollständig überarbeitete Auflage)[NEO Five-Factor Inventory by Costa and McCrae (NEO-FFI). Manual (2nd ed.)]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
14. J.BrandtsG.Charness (2011). The strategy versus the direct-response method: A first survey of experimental comparisons. Experimental Economics, 14, 375-398. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9272-x
15. A.ChaudhuriL.Gangadharan (2007). An experimental analysis of trust and trustworthiness. Southern Economic Journal, 73, 959-985.
16. J.Cohen (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. P.T.CostaR.R.McCrae (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI–R) and NEO Five–Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
18. P.T.CostaR.R.McCraeD.A.Dye (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D
19. J.C.Cox (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46, 260-281. doi: 10.1016/S0899-8256(03)00119-2
20. J.J.A.DenissenL.Penke (2008). Motivational individual reaction norms underlying the Five-Factor Model of personality: First steps towards a theory-based conceptual framework. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1285-1302. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.002
21. D.A.DunningJ.E.AndersonT.M.SchlösserD.EhlebrachtD.Fetchenhauer (2014). Trust at zero acquaintance: More a matter of respect than expectation of reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 122-141. doi: 10.1037/a0036673
22. A.M.EvansJ.I.Krueger (2009). The psychology (and economics) of trust. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 1003-1017. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00232.x
23. A.M.EvansW.Revelle (2008). Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1585-1593. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.011
24. F.FaulE.ErdfelderA.BuchnerA.-G.Lang (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
25. S.FehrlerW.Przepiorka (2013). Charitable giving as a signal of trustworthiness: Disentangling the signaling benefits of altruistic acts. Evolution & Human Behavior, 34, 139-145. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.11.005
26. A.P.Field (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161-180.
27. R.ForsytheJ.L.HorowitzN.E.SavinM.Sefton (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347-369.
28. M.GallucciM.Perugini (2000). An experimental test of a game-theoretical model of reciprocity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 367-389.
29. D.GambettaW.Przepiorka (2014). Natural and strategic generosity as signals of trustworthiness. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e97533.
30. B.E.HilbigA.GlöcknerI.Zettler (2014). Personality and pro-social behavior: Linking basic traits and social value orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 529-539. doi: 10.1037/a0036074
31. B.E.HilbigI.ThielmannJ.HeppS.KleinI.Zettler (2015). From personality to altruistic behavior (and back): Evidence from a double-blind dictator game. Journal of Research in Personality. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.12.004
32. B.E.HilbigI.ZettlerT.Heydasch (2012). Personality, punishment and public goods: Strategic shifts towards cooperation as a matter of dispositional Honesty-Humility. European Journal of Personality, 26, 245-254. doi: 10.1002/per.830
33. B.E.HilbigI.ZettlerF.LeistT.Heydasch (2013). It takes two: Honesty–Humility and Agreeableness differentially predict active versus reactive cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 598-603. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.008
34. H.J.HolmP.Nystedt (2008). Trust in surveys and games—A methodological contribution on the influence of money and location. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 522-542. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2007.07.010
35. N.D.JohnsonA.A.Mislin (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 865-889. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.05.007
36. K.LeeM.C.Ashton (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329-358. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
37. J.-E.LönnqvistM.VerkasaloP.C.WichardtG.Walkowitz (2012). Personality disorder categories as combinations of dimensions: Translating cooperative behavior in borderline personality disorder into the five-factor framework. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 298-304. doi:10.1521/pedi.2012.26.2.298
38. D.Malhotra (2004). Trust and reciprocity decisions: The differing perspectives of trustors and trusted parties. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 61-73. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.03.001
39. K.A.McCabeM.L.RigdonV.L.Smith (2003). Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52, 267-275. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00003-9
40. R.R.McCraeP.T.Costa (1985). Updating Norman’s “adequacy taxonomy”: Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.710
41. X.MengR.RosenthalD.B.Rubin (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172-175. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172
42. M.MoshagenB.E.HilbigI.Zettler (2014). Faktorstruktur, psychometrische Eigenschaften und Messinvarianz der deutschen Version des 60-Item HEXACO Persönlichkeitsinventars [Factor structure, psychometric properties, and measurement invariance of the German-language version of the 60-item HEXACO personality inventory]. Diagnostica, 60(2), 86-97.
43. J.MüllerC.Schwieren (2012). What can the Big Five personality factors contribute to explain small-scale economic behavior? (Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No. 12-028.1). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Tinbergen Institute.
44. L.K.MuthénB.O.Muthén (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
45. M.PeruginiM.Gallucci (2001). Individual differences and social norms: The distinction between reciprocators and prosocials. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1), S19-S35. doi: 10.1002/per.419
46. M.PeruginiM.GallucciF.PresaghiA.P.Ercolani (2003). The personal norm of reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 17, 251-283.doi: 10.1002/per.474
47. K.J.PreacherK.Kelley (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93-115. doi: 10.1037/a0022658
48. A.E.Raftery (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163. doi: 10.2307/271063
49. U.-D.Reips (2002). Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49, 243-256. doi: 10.1026//1618-3169.49.4.243
50. R.Selten (1967). Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperimentes [The strategy method as a tool to analyze bounded rationality in oligopoly experiments]. In H.Sauermann (Ed.), Beiträge zur Experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung [Contributions in experimental economics] (pp. 136–168). Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr.
51. I.ThielmannB.E.Hilbig (2014). Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. Journal of Research in Personality, 50(3), 61-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.006
52. I.ThielmannB.E.Hilbig (in press). Trust: An integrative review from a person-situation perspective. Review of General Psychology. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000046
53. I.ThielmannB.E.HilbigI.Niedtfeld (2014). Willing to give but not to forgive: Borderline personality features and cooperative behavior. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 778-795. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2014_28_135
54. E.-J.Wagenmakers (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779-804. doi: 10.3758/BF03194105
55. T.Yamagishi (2011). Trust: The evolutionary game of mind and society. Tokyo, Japan: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-53936-0
56. T.YamagishiY.HoritaN.MifuneH.HashimotoY.LiM.ShinadaD.. Simunovic (2012). Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 20364-20368. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212126109
57. I.ZettlerB.E.HilbigT.Heydasch (2013). Two sides of one coin: Honesty-Humility and situational factors mutually shape social dilemma decision making. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 286-295. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.012
58. K.ZhaoL.D.Smillie (2015). The role of interpersonal traits in social decision making: Exploring sources of behavioral heterogeneity in economic games. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 277-302. doi: 10.1177/1088868314553709