The DOI matches its Crossref record; 599 of the 599 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis.
Open accessAbstract
Decades of research document individual differences in prosocial behavior using controlled experiments that model social interactions in situations of interdependence. However, theoretical and empirical integration of the vast literature on the predictive validity of personality traits to account for these individual differences is missing. Here, we present a theoretical framework that identifies 4 broad situational affordances across interdependent situations (i.e., exploitation, reciprocity, temporal conflict, and dependence under uncertainty) and more specific subaffordances within certain types of interdependent situations (e.g., possibility to increase equality in outcomes) that can determine when, which, and how personality traits should be expressed in prosocial behavior. To test this framework, we meta-analyzed 770 studies reporting on 3,523 effects of 8 broad and 43 narrow personality traits on prosocial behavior in interdependent situations modeled in 6 commonly studied economic games (Dictator Game, Ultimatum Game, Trust Game, Prisoner's Dilemma, Public Goods Game, and Commons Dilemma). Overall, meta-analytic correlations ranged between -.18 ≤ ρ̂ ≤ .26, and most traits yielding a significant relation to prosocial behavior had conceptual links to the affordances provided in interdependent situations, most prominently the possibility for exploitation. Moreover, for several traits, correlations within games followed the predicted pattern derived from a theoretical analysis of affordances. On the level of traits, we found that narrow and broad traits alike can account for prosocial behavior, informing the bandwidth-fidelity problem. In sum, the meta-analysis provides a theoretical foundation that can guide future research on prosocial behavior and advance our understanding of individual differences in human prosociality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Hardin, G. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 · Cited by 25,167
Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Cohen, P., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410606266 · Cited by 20,737
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic
McHugh, M. L. (2012) · Biochemia Medica · doi:10.11613/bm.2012.031 · Cited by 19,877
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Cited by
Agreeableness and Its Consequences: A Quantitative Review of Meta-Analytic Findings
Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2022) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/10888683211073007 · Cited by 130
Gilbert, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582090 · Cited by 77
COVID-19 protective behaviors are forms of prosocial and unselfish behaviors
Dinić, B. M., & Bodroža, B. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647710 · Cited by 61
Parochial altruism: What it is and why it varies
Pisor, A. C., & Ross, C. T. (2024) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.06.005 · Cited by 38
von Schenk, A., Klockmann, V., & Köbis, N. (2025) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231194949 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2020-01
- Volume
- 146
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 30-90
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2996127966
- Cited by
- 689
- References
- 599
- FWCI
- 114.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/bul0000217
- The paper
- Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.