Are people with high psychoticism the true homo economicus?

  1. Rafael Manuel Lopez 1
  2. José Luis Calvo 1
  3. Iván Ruíz 1
  4. Sergio Martín 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Revista:
Estudios de economía aplicada

ISSN: 1133-3197,  1697-5731

Año de publicación: 2020

Título del ejemplar: Africa: Economic transformations and development challenges (II)

Volumen: 38

Número: 3

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.25115/EEA.V38I3.3028 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Estudios de economía aplicada

Resumen

Homo Economicus behaves rationally, maximizing his own utility over that of the group. The relationship with non-prosocial behavior seems clear. This behavior, typical of people with high psychoticism, could affect their decision-making. Therefore, not only the situation will be critical when making a decision, but also stable variables related to personality. In the context of the Common Goods Game, a web platform for implementing behavioral games was developed. The system allows users to play collaborative games such as the Common Goods Game. 97 students participated in that game and contributed to a common fund. They had 25 units, corresponding to 25 tenths of one subject final grade score, which can contribute to the common fund to the extent that they wish, knowing that the total amount of the common fund will be doubled and will be distributed equally among all the participants. The results show that the subjects with the lowest levels of consciousness and agreeableness traits adopt the antisocial strategy and are the ones that obtain the most benefits. Although the limitations of the study the results suggest that both types of variables, situational and dispositional, should be taken into account when studying decision-making in behavioral economics.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Nagatsu, M. (2015). Behavioral Economics, History of. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (J. D. Wright, ed) pp 443–9. Elsevier, Oxford.
  • Samuelson, P. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. Rev. Econ. Stat. 36 387–9.
  • Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. J. Polit. Econ. 82 1063–93.
  • Sugden, R. (2006). Reciprocity: The Supply of Public Goods Through Voluntary Contributions. Econ. J. 94 772.
  • Ledyard, J. (1995). Public goods: some experimental results. In Handbook of Experimental Economics (J. Kagel & A. Roth, ed) pp 111–93. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
  • Chaudhuri, A. (2011). Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: A selective survey of the literature. Exp. Econ. 14 47–83.
  • Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E. & Jackson, D. N. (1998). Kin Altruism, Reciprocal Altruism, and the Big Five Personality Factors. Evol. Hum. Behav. 19 243–55.
  • Bekkers, R. (2006). Traditional and Health-Related Philanthropy: The Role of Resources and Personality. Soc. Psychol. Q. 69 349–66.
  • McCrae, R. R. & Costa Jr., P. T. (1999). A Five-Factor Theory of Personality. In Handbook of Personality Psychology (L. A. Pervin & O. P. John, ed) pp 139–53. Guilford, New York.
  • Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E. & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, Empathy, and Helping: A Person × Situation Perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93 583–99.
  • Asendorpf, J. B. & Conner, M. (2012). Conflict Resolution as a Dyadic Mediator: Considering the Partner Pespective on Conflict Resolution. Eur. J. Pers. 119 108–19.
  • Sunstein, C. & Thaler, R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health; Wealth; and Happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven.
  • Müller, J. & Schwieren, C. (2019). Big Five personality factors in the Trust Game. J. Bus. Econ.
  • Fréchette, G. R., Schotter, A. & Trevino, I. (2017). Personality, Information Acquisition, and Choice Under Uncertainty: an Experimental Study. Econ. Inq. 55 1468–88.
  • Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Branscombe, N. R., Mavor, K. I., Bizumic, B. & Subašić, E. (2010). Interactionism in personality and social psychology: An integrated approach to understanding the mind and behaviour. Eur. J. Pers. 25 458–82.
  • Kihlstrom, J. F. (2013). The Person–Situation Interaction. In The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition. (Donald Carlston, ed) pp 1–39. Oxford University Press, New York.
  • Ortet i Fabregat, G., Ibáñez Ribes, M., Ipola, M. & Moreno, S. (2001). Manual del Cuestionario Revisado de Personalidad de Eysenck. TEA Ediciones, Madrid.
  • Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEP five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa; Fla.
  • Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. Hodder & Stoughton, London.
  • Corr, P. J. (2010). The psychoticism-psychopathy continuum: A neuropsychological model of core deficits. Pers. Individ. Dif. 48 695–703.
  • Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J. & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Pers. Individ. Dif. 6 21–9.
  • Hong, R. Y., Paunonen, S. V. & Slade, H. P. (2008). Big Five personality factors and the prediction of behavior: A multitrait-multimethod approach. Pers. Individ. Dif. 45 160–6.
  • Matthews, G., Deary, I. J. & Whiteman, M. C. (2009). Personality traits, Third edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge:
  • Goodwin, R. D. & Friedman, H. S. (2006). Health status and the five-factor personality traits in a nationally representative sample. J. Health Psychol.
  • Sandy, C. J., Gosling, S. D. & Durant, J. (2013). Predicting Consumer Behavior and Media Preferences: The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits and Demographic Variables. Psychol. Mark. 30 937–49.
  • Volk, S., Thöni, C. & Ruigrok, W. (2011). Personality, personal values and cooperation preferences in public goods games: A longitudinal study. Pers. Individ. Dif. 50 810–5.
  • Fleming, P. & Zizzo, D. J. (2011). Social desirability, approval and public good contribution. Pers. Individ. Dif. 51 258–62.
  • Bowles, S. (2016). The Moral Economy: Why Good Incentives are no Substitute for Good Citizens. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
  • Kingsley, D. C. & Liu, B. (2014). Cooperation across payoff equivalent public good and common pool resource experiments. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 51 79–84.
  • Gosling, S. D. & Johnson, J. A. (2010). Advanced Methods for Behavioral Research on the Internet. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
  • Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J. Res. Pers. 37 504–28.
  • Renaua, V., Obersta, U., Goslingb, S. D., Rusiñola, J. & Chamarroc, A. (2013). Translation and validation of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory into Spanish and Catalan. Rev. Psicol. Ciències l’Educació i l’Esport 31 85–97.
  • Tomczak, M. & Tomczak, E. (2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends Sport Sci. 1 19–25.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
  • Thaler, R. H. (2010). From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens. J. Econ. Perspect. 14 133–41.
  • Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary Traits of Eysenck’s P-E-N System: Three- and Five-Factor Solutions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69 308–17.
  • Eysenck, S. B. G. (1997). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. In The scientific study of human nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at eighty (H. Nyborg, ed) pp 109–121. Pergamon, Oxford, England.
  • Manzano-Arrondo, V. (2016). Un psicópata llamado Homo Economicus. Análisis Económico 31 7–26.
  • McFarland, D. (2016). The Biological Bases of Economic Behaviour. Palgrave MacMillan, New York.
  • Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M. & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychol. Assess. 18 192–203.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet