Cited by 45Personality Traits and PsychologyEmotions and Moral BehaviorPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Honesty-humility and prosocial behavior: the mediating roles of perspective taking and guilt-proneness

Fang, Yuan, Dong, Yan, Fang, Lanran·2019·Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

Abstract

The prosocial personality trait of honesty-humility has received extensive attention in the last decade. However, research on the mechanism underlying the relationship between honesty-humility and prosocial behavior is rather scarce. This study aims to explore the internal mechanism underlying this relationship to draw a complete picture of the honesty-humility trait. A sample of 458 Chinese young adults was obtained to complete self-report measures of honesty-humility, perspective taking, guilt-proneness, and prosocial behavior. The mediation model revealed that: (1) honesty-humility positively related to prosocial behavior; (2) perspective taking and guilt-proneness mediated the relationship between honesty-humility and prosocial behavior, separately; and (3) the effect of honesty-humility on prosocial behavior was mediated via perspective taking and then guilt-proneness. In conclusion, we provide an initial support for the mediating roles of perspective taking and guilt-proneness in the relationship between honesty-humility and prosocial behavior. Both theoretical and practical implications for understanding the psychological mechanisms of prosocial behavior are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/sjop.12551

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women are more modest than men.

    “One possible explanation is that female is more modest than male (Fang et al., 2019) so they may report a lower level of organizational commitment.”

    From Humble leadership and its outcomes: A meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Fang et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fang, Y., Dong, Y., & Fang, L.
Affiliations
  • Renmin University of China (CN)
  • Nanyang Institute of Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Dong, Yan
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-05-26
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
386-393
ISSN
  • 0036-5564 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9450
OpenAlex
W2947132049
Cited by
45
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
5.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Renmin University of China
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (31500905)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
honesty-humility, prosocial behavior, perspective taking, guilt proneness, mediation, young adults, Chinese adults
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Emotions, Female, Guilt, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Personality, Social Behavior, Young Adult, Self Report

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