Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Prosocial behaviours |
- helping others, volunteering - donating to charity - donating blood (not criminality) |
|
|
Prosocial traits: |
1) Big 5 Agreeablenss (A) 2) HEXACO Agreeableness, Honesty-Humility |
|
|
What are the 2 aspects of trait Agreeableness? |
- Compassion - Politeness |
|
|
Compassion |
- Emotional concern for others - Empathy and caring about others - political liberalism - oxytocin |
|
|
Politeness |
- Respect for others needs and rights - Suppression of aggressive, norm-violating behaviours (respect authority) - political conservatism - low testosterone (low dominance) |
|
|
HEXACO Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness |
Honesty-humility = tendency to be sincere, fair & modest (cooperate with others) Agreeableness = tend to be peaceful, gentle, patient (tolerant of others) |
|
|
What's the diff between big 5 A and hexaco A? |
big 5 A is about emotional concern for others, respecting authority, whereas Hexaco is about being tolerant of others transgressions |
|
|
Economic games |
simple tasks that model social interactions - 2 or more people - goals/rewards - rules - limited info * interdependent payoff matrix Benefits: Well-controlled experiments and generalisable results |
|
|
Phenomena studied in economic games: |
Fairness Punishment (when self is victim) Punishment and helping (when other person is victim) Spite (deliberately hurt/annoy others) Trustfulness Generosity Reciprocity (exchanging for mutual benefit) Cooperation Competition |
|
|
Dictator game |
Divide sum of money (zero sum) Measures fairness vs. Self-interest Most people will not give any money to partner, but many are willing to go 50/50 |
|
|
Why do people play fair (50/50 distribution)? |
Hypothesis in terms of big 5 agreeableness... (1) The aspect of compassion leads to altruism - motivational state with the goal of increasing another's welfare (empathic concern) (2) the aspect of politeness leads to social norm adherence (good manners, fairness) |
|
|
Results |
Aspects (of big 5 A) of politeness but not compassion was a significant unique predictor of dictator allocations. Therefore this suggest that the fair distribution is more about obeying rules, following the social norm of being well-mannered rather than altruism. In terms of the HEXACO model, honesty-humility(cooperation) but not agreeableness (tolerance) was a significant predictor of dictator allocations. |
|
|
SUMMARY |
variation in dictator game allocations primarily reflect aspects of politeness and adherence to norms around fairness, rather than direct emotional concern for others. |
|
|
Ultimatum game |
measure of second party punishment - punishing others at cost to themselves (economic deviation theory) e.g Person 1 proposes money allocation. Person 2 either accepts or reject (both lose) |
|
|
Results |
People will reject the amount if it is small, and prefer to get nothing (thus punishing other person) |
|
|
Why reject unfair offers at a cost to yourself? |
1. inequality aversion 2. punishment and negative reciprocity (anger) 3. rejection of inferior status, emotional commitment |
|
|
Ultimatum game - real life example |
UK referendum - voted to leave the EU (large costs involved) - voters said they were sick of being ignored - voting against inequality |
|
|
Explaining the ultimatum game with personality psych |
Hexaco Agreeableness predicted fewer rejections of unfair offers in the ultimatum game |
|
|
Third party games |
- third party punishment and recompensation A-B transfers = unfair (small number of points) C always recompensates B more than they punish A, and tend to punish A more if they transfer less. |
|
|
Explaining punishment/recompensation behaviours of third party |
Compassion (but not politeness) aspect of big 5 (A) was a significant unique predictor of 3rd party punishment and recompensation, but only when transfers were unfair. |
|
|
Social dilemmas |
Measures cooperation in interdependent situation (self-interest vs collective interests) e.g extra points on exam? public goods games *collective interests are maximised through mutual cooperation (choosing only 5 extra points on exam) *not zero-sum cooperating brings greater wealth, but personal wealth is maximised through defection |
|
|
SUMMARY |
1. Social interactions involve processes such as fairness, generosity, cooperation, competition, trust, reciprocity, and punishment, and can be modelled and studied using economic games 2. There is much variation in prosocial behaviours in these games, which can be explained by the prosocial personality traits: - Big 5 A (compassion and politeness aspects) - HEXACO Honesty-Humility (active cooperation) and Agreeableness (reactive cooperation, tolerance) |
