Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38952280›Full record

ArticleJournal of personality2025

The core tendencies underlying prosocial behavior: Testing a person-situation framework.

Natalie Popov, Isabel Thielmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Natalie PopovDepartment of Criminology, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0584-3700
Isabel ThielmannDepartment of Criminology, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9071-5709

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft TH 2318/3-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVE AND

backgroundAccording to a recently proposed theoretical framework, different personality traits should explain pro-social behavior in different situations. We empirically tested the key proposition of this framework that each of four "core tendencies" (i.e., the shared variance of related traits) specifically predicts pro-social behavior in the presence of a different situational affordance.

methodsWe used a large-scale dataset (N = 2479) including measures of various personality traits and six incentivized economic games assessing pro-social behavior in different social situations. Using bifactor modeling, we extracted four latent core tendencies and tested their predictive validity for pro-social behavior.

resultsWe found mixed support for the theoretically derived, preregistered hypotheses. The core tendency of beliefs about others' pro-sociality predicted pro-social behavior in both games involving dependence under uncertainty, as expected. Unconditional concern for others' welfare predicted pro-social behavior in only one of two games providing a possibility for exploitation. For conditional concern for others' welfare and self-regulation, in turn, evidence relating them to pro-social behavior in the presence of a possibility for reciprocity and temporal conflict was relatively weak.

conclusionDifferent features of social situations may activate different personality traits to influence pro-social behavior, but more research is needed to fully understand these person-situation interactions.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsPersonalitySocial BehaviorAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adultbifactor modelingeconomic gamespersonalityperson–situation interactionpro‐social behaviorsituational affordances

Identifiers

PMID38952280
PMCPMC12053821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.