HEXACO Personality Dimensions Do Not Predict Individual Differences in Adolescent Trust Behavior
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Brief HEXACO Inventory
2.2.2. Trust Game
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Initial Trust Behavior
3.2. The Adaptation of Trust Behavior
3.3. Exploratory Analyses
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lefebvre, V.M.; Sorenson, D.; Henchion, M.; Gellynck, X. Social capital and knowledge sharing performance of learning networks. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 570–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, P.C.; Freitag, M. Measuring trust. In The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust; Uslaner, E.M., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 15–36. [Google Scholar]
- Müller, J.; Schwieren, C. Big five personality factors in the trust game. J. Bus. Econ. 2020, 90, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thielmann, I.; Spadaro, G.; Balliet, D. Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 146, 30–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thielmann, I.; Hilbig, B.E. Trust: An integrative review from a person–situation perspective. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2015, 19, 249–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spear, H.J.; Kulbok, P. Autonomy and adolescence: A concept analysis. Public Health Nurs. 2004, 21, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Noom, M.J.; Deković, M.; Meeus, W. Conceptual analysis and measurement of adolescent autonomy. J. Youth Adolesc. 2001, 30, 577–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slobodskaya, H.R. Personality development from early childhood through adolescence. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 172, 110596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilford, E.J.; Garrett, E.; Blakemore, S.-J. The development of social cognition in adolescence: An integrated perspective. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2016, 70, 106–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, N.C.; Jolles, J.; Krabbendam, L. Social information influences trust behaviour in adolescents. J. Adolesc. 2016, 46, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soto, C.J.; Tackett, J.L. Personality traits in childhood and adolescence: Structure, development, and outcomes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 24, 358–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutter, M.; Kocher, M.G. Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games Econ. Behav. 2007, 59, 364–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van den Bos, W.; Van Dijk, E.; Crone, E.A. Learning whom to trust in repeated social interactions: A developmental perspective. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2012, 15, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdley, C.A.; Day, H.J. Friendship in childhood and adolescence. In The Psychology of Friendship; Hojjat, M., Moyer, A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar]
- Berg, J.; Dickhaut, J.; McCabe, K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 1995, 10, 122–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Banerjee, S.; Galizzi, M.M.; Hortala-Vallve, R. Trusting the trust game: An external validity analysis with a UK representative sample. Games 2021, 12, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Groep, S.; Meuwese, R.; Zanolie, K.; Güroğlu, B.; Crone, E.A. Developmental changes and individual differences in trust and reciprocity in adolescence. J. Res. Adolesc. 2018, 30, 192–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, K.; Ashton, M.C. Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2004, 39, 329–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 11, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bleidorn, W.; Hopwood, C.J.; Back, M.D.; Denissen, J.J.A.; Hennecke, M.; Hill, P.L.; Jokela, M.; Kandler, C.; Lucas, R.E.; Luhmann, M.; et al. Personality trait stability and change. Personal. Sci. 2021, 2, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borghuis, J.; Denissen, J.J.A.; Oberski, D.; Sijtsma, K.; Meeus, W.H.J.; Branje, S.; Koot, H.M.; Bleidorn, W. Big Five personality stability, change, and co-development across adolescence and early adulthood. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 113, 641–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Denissen, J.J.A.; Van Aken, M.A.G.; Penke, L.; Wood, D. Self-regulation underlies temperament and personality: An integrative developmental framework. Child Dev. Perspect. 2013, 7, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. Age trends in HEXACO-PI-R self-reports. J. Res. Personal. 2016, 64, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soto, C.J.; John, O.P.; Gosling, S.D.; Potter, J. Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 100, 330–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Volk, S.; Thöni, C.; Ruigrok, W. Personality, personal values and cooperation preferences in public goods games: A longitudinal study. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2011, 50, 810–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zettler, I.; Hilbig, B.E.; Heydasch, T. Two sides of one coin: Honesty–Humility and situational factors mutually shape social dilemma decision making. J. Res. Personal. 2013, 47, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilbig, B.E.; Zettler, I.; Heydasch, T. Personality, punishment and public goods: Strategic shifts towards cooperation as a matter of dispositional honesty–humility. Eur. J. Personal. 2012, 26, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tappin, B.M.; Capraro, V. Doing good vs. avoiding bad in prosocial choice: A refined test and extension of the morality preference hypothesis. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 79, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Capraro, V.; Jagfeld, G.; Klein, R.; Mul, M.; Van de Pol, I. Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 11880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Capraro, V.; Perc, M. Mathematical foundations of moral preferences. J. R. Soc. Interface 2021, 18, 20200880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burks, S.V.; Carpenter, J.P.; Verhoogen, E. Playing both roles in the trust game. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2003, 51, 195–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Witteman, C.; Van Den Bercken, J.; Claes, L.; Godoy, A. Assessing rational and intuitive thinking styles. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2009, 25, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Akker, O.R.; Van Assen, M.A.; Van Vugt, M.; Wicherts, J.M. Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game. J. Econ. Psychol. 2020, 81, 102329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagenmakers, E.-J.; Marsman, M.; Jamil, T.; Ly, A.; Verhagen, J.; Love, J.; Selker, R.; Gronau, Q.F.; Šmíra, M.; Epskamp, S.; et al. Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2018, 25, 35–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Vries, R.E. The 24-item brief HEXACO inventory (BHI). J. Res. Personal. 2013, 47, 871–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 9 January 2023).
- Bates, D.; Maechler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects model using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuznetsova, A.; Brockhoff, P.B.; Christensen, R.H.B. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 2017, 82, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dienes, Z. Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jeffreys, H. The Theory of Probability, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Morey, R.D.; Rouder, J.N.; Jamil, T.; Urbanek, S.; Forner, K.; Ly, A. BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for Common Designs. 2022. Available online: https://richarddmorey.github.io/BayesFactor/ (accessed on 9 January 2023).
- Dunning, D.; Fetchenhauer, D.; Schlösser, T.M. Trust as a social and emotional act: Noneconomic considerations in trust behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 2012, 33, 686–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crone, E.A.; Dahl, R.E. Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012, 13, 636–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvers, J.A.; McRae, K.; Gabrieli, J.D.; Gross, J.J.; Remy, K.A.; Ochsner, K.N. Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence. Emotion 2012, 12, 1235–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blakemore, S.-J.; Mills, K.L. Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014, 65, 187–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Brien, L.; Albert, D.; Chein, J.; Steinberg, L. Adolescents prefer more immediate rewards when in the presence of their peers. J. Res. Adolesc. 2011, 21, 747–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weigard, A.; Chein, J.; Albert, D.; Smith, A.; Steinberg, L. Effects of anonymous peer observation on adolescents’ preference for immediate rewards. Dev. Sci. 2014, 17, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Güroğlu, B.; van den Bos, W.; Crone, E.A. Sharing and giving across adolescence: An experimental study examining the development of prosocial behavior. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Derks, J.; Lee, N.C.; Krabbendam, L. Adolescent trust and trustworthiness: Role of gender and social value orientation. J. Adolesc. 2014, 37, 1379–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lauharatanahirun, N.; Aimone, J.A. Trust and risk: Neuroeconomic foundations of trust based on social risk. In The Neurobiology of Trust; Krueger, F., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021; pp. 101–123. [Google Scholar]
- Eagly, A.H.; Wood, W. Social role theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology; Van Lange, P.A.M., Kruglanski, A.W., Higgens, E.T., Eds.; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 458–476. [Google Scholar]
- Buchan, N.R.; Croson, R.T.A.; Solnick, S. Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the investment game. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2008, 68, 466–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorrough, A.R.; Glöckner, A. A cross-national analysis of sex differences in prisoner’s dilemma games. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 58, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elkins, R.K.; Kassenboehmer, S.C.; Schurer, S. The stability of personality traits in adolescence and young adulthood. J. Econ. Psychol. 2017, 60, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ream, G.L.; Elliott, L.C.; Dunlap, E. Trends in video game play through childhood, adolescence, and emerging adulthood. Psychiatry J. 2013, 2013, 301460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van ’t Wout, M.; Kahn, R.S.; Sanfey, A.G.; Aleman, A. Affective state and decision-making in the ultimatum game. Exp. Brain Res. 2006, 169, 564–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rilling, J.K.; Sanfey, A.G.; Aronson, J.A.; Nystrom, L.E.; Cohen, J.D. The neural correlates of theory of mind within interpersonal interactions. Neuroimage 2004, 22, 1694–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kircher, T.; Blümel, I.; Marjoram, D.; Lataster, T.; Krabbendam, L.; Weber, J.; Van Os, J.; Krach, S. Online mentalising investigated with functional MRI. Neurosci. Lett. 2009, 454, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Type of Trust Behavior | Mean (SD) |
---|---|
Initial trust behavior | |
Boys | 4.17 (2.49) |
Girls | 3.08 (1.68) |
Total | 3.60 (2.17) |
Mean trust behavior (Trustworthy condition) | |
Boys | 6.63 (2.16) |
Girls | 5.74 (2.12) |
Total | 6.17 (2.18) |
Mean trust behavior (Untrustworthy condition) | |
Boys | 4.61 (1.77) |
Girls | 3.88 (1.32) |
Total | 4.23 (1.60) |
Step | Predictor | B [95% CI] | Standard Error | t-Value (p-Value) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | Gender | –1.09 [–1.46, –0.71] | 0.19 | –5.66 (<0.001) |
Step 2 | Gender | –1.07 [–1.47, –0.67] | 0.20 | –5.26 (<0.001) |
Emotionality | –0.02 [–0.09, 0.06] | 0.04 | –0.45 (0.65) | |
Extraversion | 0.03 [–0.07, 0.12] | 0.05 | 0.58 (0.56) | |
Openness to experience | 0.02 [–0.05, 0.09] | 0.04 | 0.65 (0.52) | |
Step 3 | Gender Emotionality Extraversion Openness to experience Honesty–humility Agreeableness Conscientiousness | –1.04 [–1.45, –0.64] –0.02 [–0.09, 0.06] 0.03 [–0.06, 0.13] 0.02 [–0.05, 0.10] –0.03 [–0.11, 0.05] –0.01 [–0.1, 0.08] –0.003 [–0.08, 0.07] | 0.21 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 | –5.07 (<0.001) –0.45 (0.65) 0.67 (0.51) 0.64 (0.52) –0.81 (0.42) –0.30 (0.76) –0.09 (0.93) |
Step | Predictor | B [95% CI] | Standard Error | t-Value (p-Value) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | Gender | 0.01 [–0.02, 0.04] | 0.02 | 0.43 (0.67) |
Step 2 | Gender | 0.01 [–0.02, 0.05] | 0.02 | 0.87 (0.39) |
Emotionality | –0.006 [–0.01, 0.0003] | 0.003 | –1.85 (0.06) | |
Extraversion | 0.004 [–0.004, 0.01] | 0.004 | 0.92 (0.36) | |
Openness to experience | 0.005 [–0.0009, 0.01] | 0.003 | 1.65 (0.1) | |
Step 3 | Gender Emotionality Extraversion Openness to experience Honesty-humility Agreeableness Conscientiousness | 0.01 [–0.02, 0.04] –0.006 [–0.01, 6.59 × 10−6] 0.003 [–0.004, 0.01] 0.005 [–0.0005, 0.01] 0.005 [–0.002, 0.01] –0.001 [–0.009, 0.006] –0.002 [–0.008, 0.004] | 0.02 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 | 0.70 (0.49) –1.97 (0.05) 0.89 (0.37) 1.80 (0.07) 1.43 (0.15) –0.34 (0.73) –0.71 (0.48) |
Step | Predictor | B [95% CI] | Standard Error | t-Value (p-Value) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | Gender | 0.02 [–0.01, 0.04] | 0.01 | 1.16 (0.25) |
Step 2 | Gender | 0.02 [–0.01, 0.05] | 0.01 | 1.22 (0.22) |
Emotionality | –0.0004 [–0.006, 0.005] | 0.003 | –0.14 (0.89) | |
Extraversion | 0.007 [0.0007, 0.01] | 0.003 | 2.20 (0.03) | |
Openness to experience | –0.006 [–0.01, –0.0007] | 0.003 | –2.24 (0.03) | |
Step 3 | Gender Emotionality Extraversion Openness to experience Honesty–humility Agreeableness Conscientiousness | 0.02 [–0.009, 0.05] –7.6 × 10−6 [–0.005, 0.005] 0.007 [0.0007, 0.01] –0.006 [–0.01, –0.001] –0.004 [–0.01, 0.002] 0.002 [–0.005, 0.008] 0.002 [–0.003, 0.007] | 0.01 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 | 1.37 (0.17) –0.003 (0.99) 2.19 (0.03) –2.40 (0.02) –1.42 (0.16) 0.53 (0.6) 0.65 (0.52) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sijtsma, H.; Lee, N.C.; Buczny, J.; Hollarek, M.; Walsh, R.J.; Van Buuren, M.; Krabbendam, L. HEXACO Personality Dimensions Do Not Predict Individual Differences in Adolescent Trust Behavior. Games 2023, 14, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/g14010010
Sijtsma H, Lee NC, Buczny J, Hollarek M, Walsh RJ, Van Buuren M, Krabbendam L. HEXACO Personality Dimensions Do Not Predict Individual Differences in Adolescent Trust Behavior. Games. 2023; 14(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/g14010010
Chicago/Turabian StyleSijtsma, Hester, Nikki C. Lee, Jacek Buczny, Miriam Hollarek, Reubs J. Walsh, Mariët Van Buuren, and Lydia Krabbendam. 2023. "HEXACO Personality Dimensions Do Not Predict Individual Differences in Adolescent Trust Behavior" Games 14, no. 1: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/g14010010