do altruistic values of an individual reflect personality...

International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)

An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197) 2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1

858 www.globalbizresearch.org

Do Altruistic Values of An Individual Reflect Personality Traits?

Mehpare Tokay Argan,

School of Applied Sciences,

Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, Turkey.

E-mail: [email protected]

Metin Argan,

Faculty of Sport Sciences,

Anadolu University, Turkey.

E-mail: [email protected]

___________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

The present study examined the role of the big five personality dimensions in altruism. The

study intended to investigate relationships between five-factor personality traits and create

profiles according to altruistic behavior. Participants completed questionnaires including the

big five personality dimensions and altruism. At the end of the study, statements related with

five-factor personality traits were analyzed with exploratory factor analysis (EFA), sub-

dimensions of five-factor personality traits were analyzed with cluster analysis, and altruistic

statements were analyzed with both factor and cluster analyses. The study revealed that

altruistic values were high for each trait in individuals with five-factor personality traits. The

assessment in terms of sub-dimensions indicated that altruistic helping behavior was high in

association with positive traits. Furthermore, the hierarchical regression model applied in

order to show the impact of personality traits on altruistic behavior was found significant.

The effect of openness to experience traits in Block 1 on altruism was found as 37.5%. In the

final model, demographic characteristics were included in the regression model, and the

effect of openness to experience on altruism raised to 43%.

___________________________________________________________________________ Key Words: Altruistic values, personality, personality traits, social marketing, Turkey

JEL Classification: M 30, M 31, M 39




1. Introduction

Personality is a consistent and structured mode of association an individual build with his

or her internal and external environment, which distinguishes him or her from other

individuals, and personality traits vary from individual to individual. Since personality has an

effect on the individual’s perception of the world and decision making, the dimensions

employed in classifying personality traits were specified as learning, emotions, thinking, life-

style, attitudes, acts and reactions. On the other hand, personality trait is a system that help us

understand individuals and reasons of their behavior, their limitations, what they can and

cannot do, and their natural dispositions while making their choices in the course of

information processing. In this respect, living in peace and harmony, helping others without

looking after one’s own interests in the solution of problems affects both individuals and the

society as a whole, which is key to building and maintaining peace.

One of the main reasons behind the behavior of helping others is personality traits. In most

instances, the differences in personality traits are important determinants of behaviors that

emerge in social events. Altruistic emotion and behavior is defined as the act of helping

others without looking after one’s own interest. Such behavior reveals that the individual is

not selfish or egoistic, but is rather individually and socially responsible. An important factor

underlying altruistic behavior is personality traits. Personality is the idiosyncratic image of an

individual’s emotions, opinions and behavioral patterns, and is suggested to have an effect on

altruistic behavior. According to Bierhoff and Rohmann (2004), when an individual witness

that another individual is in dire straits, this observation motivates altruistic behavior, which

in turn leads the individual to attempt to ease the other’s suffering.

Five-factor personality traits approach is based on the reflection of perceived personality

traits on behaviors in daily life. It is possible to predict the attitude and behavior of an

individual under certain circumstances by looking at his or her personality traits. In this

context, a model that is frequently addressed in the literature is the big five personality traits.

The big five model consists of five dimensions including openness to experience,

conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness. Even though there are

differences of opinion on the denomination of this structure, various studies indicate that this

construct gains recognition in revealing the differences between persons (Basım, Çetin and

Tabak, 2009). The present study intends to examine whether different personality traits can be

distinguished in terms of altruistic behavior, and whether personality traits affect altruistic

behavior.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Altruism




Altruism can be defined as doing an act for the benefit of others without taking the

rewards due to external sources into account. Altruism refers to behavior by an individual that

is favor of another individual (Oda et al., 2014) such as material and spiritual benefits.

Altruistic beliefs are gracious attitudes formed by an individual towards others. In other

words, it is a situation where the individual considers helping others rather than him or herself

while acting (Tokay Argan, 2007). Having reviewed the literature comprehensively, Mateer

and Willover (1994) defined altruism as an act that one gracefully performs for the others,

provides benefit to others, and is carried out without by the individual without expecting a

reward from an external source. Various theories and theorists tried to explain the concept of

altruism, which suggested that altruism is mostly related with moral values. Several

researchers approached altruism as a sacrifice of the individual for the sake of others.

In most general terms, altruism implies the lack of selfishness. Expanding on this, making

a sacrifice, an effort for the sake of others may also be included in the definition. Altruistic

behavior, in turn, is defined as the act of a living being for the sake of another living being

even though they do not have a close relationship (Emek, 2014). The gracious party may even

act in this manner despite the possibility of suffering damages.

From this point of view, it is known that certain only fulfil their obligations in their mutual

relationships with others, while others make certain sacrifices besides fulfilling their

obligations. Being designated as altruistic, these individuals do not avoid making sacrifices

for the sake of other individuals (Fehr & Schmidt, 2006, p. 620). The preference of altruist

individuals who are engaged in acts that require sacrifices in their mutual relationships is

shaped according to their actions considering the improvement of others’ utility while paying

its price themselves (Cox, 2007, p.5). Altruistic values are acts that are carried out in line with

the individual’s mood and are an extension of personality. In this sense, it is suggested that an

individual’s personality traits affect his or her altruistic behavior.

2.2 Big Five Factor

Five-factor model is a widely accepted model of personality traits. The general dimensions

of five-factor model are defined as follows (Somer, Korkmaz and Tatar, 2002):

2.2.1 Extraversion

Extraversion basically includes traits such as vivaciousness, cheerful, talkative, outgoing

and sociable. Extraversion is mostly related with the amount of social stimuli in interpersonal

relations. Introverts, on the other hand, have an energy that is the exact opposite of extraverts.

2.2.2 Agreeableness

Trustworthy, amenable, straightforward, self-sacrificing and modest individuals are

defined as agreeable. On the contrary, persons who have a low level of adaptability are

associated with hostile, competitive, unreliable, stubborn, rude and skeptical personality traits.

2.2.3 Conscientiousness




Conscientiousness is a tendency to aim for achievement, act dutifully, to be systematic,

self-disciplined and precautious. This trait is also characterized as being responsible. People

who lack conscientiousness, in turn, are irresponsible individuals who cannot organize

themselves, and having difficulties in setting their own standards due to lack of self-discipline

and energy.

2.2.4 Neuroticism

Neurotic personality, which reflects anxious, engrossed, nervous, insecure and

preoccupied traits is defined as an emotional instability. Negative emotions such as anxiety,

depression, anger and distress underlie this emotional instability. Stable personality trait lies

on the other end of the scale for this dimension.

2.2.5 Openness to Experience

Individuals who have imaginative, adventurous, original, creative, curious, and attentive to

his or her own thoughts and emotions are defined as unconventional individuals open to

experience. Individuals who are on the diametrical opposite of openness to experience are

superficial, ordinary and simple, and have rather traditional attitudes in their interactions with

others.

2.3 Relationship between Personality and Altruism

Several studies in the literature (e.g. Ashton et al., 1998; Hilbig et al., 2015) indicate that

there is a relationship between altruism and personality. Oda et al. (2014) states that the

individual difference in altruism is based on personality. In line with the current study, several

studies have investigated the association between the Big-Five personality traits and altruism

(Oda et al., 2014). Each of the big five factors can differ according to different research

domains. For example, Bekkers (2006) indicated that blood and organ donation were

positively correlated with agreeableness whereas charity was positively associated openness

and extraversion. Similarly, Oda et al. (2014) concluded that personality contributes altruism

in daily life. Likewise, other recent research (e.g., Boone et al. 1999; Koole et al. 2001; Visser

and Roelofs, 2011) has also pointed to the link between altruistic behavior and personality.

More specifically, Ashton et al. (1998) stated that the traits described for kin altruism and for

reciprocal altruism should be related strongly and positively to the agreeableness factor.

3. Methodology

3.1 Measurement Instrument

3.1.1 Personality

In order to detect Big Five Inventory (BFI) traits, the scale that contains 42 statements

developed by Goldberg (1992), John, Donahue & Kentle (1991) was employed. Respondents

were asked to indicate their opinions on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “1=strongly

agree” to “5=strongly disagree”. Five-factor personality traits are extraversion,

agreeableness, emotional instability, conscientiousness, and openness. Mean scores for each




of the personality dimensions are computed in calculating the scores. Moreover, the sum of

all personality trait scores was calculated, and cluster analysis was applied on sub-dimensions

associated with each trait.

3.1.2 Altruism

The self-report altruism (SRA) scale (Rushton, Chrisjohn & Fekken, 1981) was used to

collect information on trait altruism in the present study. The SRA scale includes 14 items

describing hypothetical altruistic situations. Participants are instructed to indicate how often

they would exhibit the behaviors included on the questionnaire using a Likert scale ranging

from 1=strongly agree” to “5=strongly disagree”. To calculate an overall altruism score, item

scores are summed with a higher score indicating higher levels of altruism. Rushton,

Chrisjohn, and Fekken (1981) reported adequate reliability and validity of the scale. In the

present study, the scale had excellent internal consistency (α = .81).

3.1.3 Demographics

In completing the questionnaire, participants indicated their date of birth, marital status,

gender, education, and income.

3.2 Data Collection and Sample

Convenience sampling method was employed in city of Eskisehir in Turkey between April

and May, 2015. The convenience sampling method was used to choose the appropriate

participants from population. The choice of the persons is related to their ability and

possibility to make charity. Similarly, the other reason for getting a population over 18 years

old is about personality. Based on these criteria, respondents who were willing to participate

in the study were interviewed, informed about the objective of the research, and included

within the scope of the study upon their consent. It was lasted about 15 minutes to complete

the survey with a brief description. Within this period, 175 persons were interviewed, but 144

questionnaires were included in the analysis, yielding a final usable response rate of 82.2%.

4. Results

4.1 Demographic Characteristics

In terms of socio-demographic characteristics, 40.3% of the participants were women,

59.7% were men; 32.5% were single; 59% were secondary school graduates; 66.7% were at

the age of 30 or below; 25.7% had an income between 1001 and 2000 TL (See Table 1).




Table 1: Participants Demographics

F % F %

Gender Age

Male 86 59.7 30 or below 96 66.7

Female 58 40.3 31-40 31 21.5

Marital Status 41 or above 17 11.8

Married 54 37.5 Income

Single 90 62.5 1000 TL or below 52 36.2

Education 1001-2000 37 25.7

Secondary School 85 59.0 2001-3000 31 21.5

Undergraduate 59 41.0 3001 or above 16 11.1

None 8 5.6

4.2 The Big Five Personality Characteristics

In order to check whether the forty-two statements related with big five personality traits

fit to normal distribution, kurtosis and skewness values were examined. According to these

criteria, variables should have a skewness less than 2, and kurtosis less than 7 (West et al.,

1995; Curran et al., 1996). Skewness and kurtosis of variables derived from the research data

were found to be in this range. Therefore, it was assumed that the data from which variables

were derived showed normal distribution. In order to conduct factor analysis on participants’

responses to the given statements, sampling adequacy was checked with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO) test. KMO measures between 0.5 and 1 were accepted. KMO test outcome in this

study was 0.68, and in order to assess the uni-dimensionality of variables, exploratory factor

analysis (EFA) was employed. Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency estimates of reliability

were also calculated for the scales and their sub-dimensions used in the research, and the

Cronbach’s Alpha Value of all statements was found as 0.89. Reliability coefficients of 0.70

or higher are considered adequate (Nunnally, 1978).

The mean, standard deviation and alpha value of factors obtained as a result of factor

analysis are presented in Table 2. The openness trait was the statement with the highest level

of approval, and it was also the personality factor with the highest alpha value. Secondly, the

factor of extraversion had a high level of approval with a mean equal to 2.60, whereas the

lowest level of approval was found in neurotic personality trait.

Having specified personality traits, cluster analysis was applied to each of the five factors

so as to detect the positive and negative aspects of each trait. In order to reveal the number of

definite subsets of big five personality traits shown in table 2, a non-hierarchical clustering

method, K-means cluster analysis was used. As seen in the table, the participants were

clustered as 50 extraverts and 40 introverts; 41 agreeable participants and 103 non-agreeable

participants in terms of agreeableness trait; 37 stable and 107 unstable participants in terms of

neuroticism trait; 41 conscientious and 103 non-conscientious participants in terms of




conscientiousness trait; and 99 progressive and 45 conservative participants in terms of

openness to experience trait.

Table 2: Big Five Personality Traits and Sub-Dimensions

F % Mean SD Alpha

Extraversion 144 100 2.60 .81 .72

Extravert 50 34.7 2.42 .97

Introvert 94 65.3 2.82 1.08

Agreeableness 144 100 2.69 .63 .60

Agreeable 41 28.5 2.48 .81

Non-agreeable 103 71.5 2.93 .87

Neuroticism 144 100 2.76 .72 .57

Stable 37 28.5 2.69 .1.07

Unstable 107 74.3 2.76 .89

Conscientiousness 144 100 2.69 .65 .65

Conscientious 41 28.5 2.37 .88

Non-conscientious 103 71.5 3.07 .94

Openness to Experience 144 100 2.55 .91 88

Progressive 99 68.8 2.63 1.00

Conservative 45 31.3 3.07 1.28

1=strongly agree” to “5=strongly disagree

4.3 Altruistic Values

In order to check whether ten statements given to participants to identify their altruistic

values fit to normal distribution, skweness and kurtosis values were examined. Skewness and

kurtosis of data associated with altruistic values were within acceptable limits. Therefore, it

was assumed that the data related with variables showed normal distribution.

KMO value was checked to implement factor analysis on ten statements indicating

altruistic values of participants, and the value was estimated as 0.75. Bartlett’s sphericity test

and Chi-square test values were significant (p




acceptance level. Mean and standard deviation of each factor statement are shown in the

Table 3.

Table 3: Factor Analysis of Altruistic Value Statements

Factor

Loads

Mean

SD

Alpha

Moral value 0.76

I would give directions to a stranger 0.76 2.35 1.30

I would help a senior citizen cross the street 0.68 2.25 1.28

I would help a handicapped person 0.72 2.01 1.13

Material value 0.78

I would donate money to charities 0.68 2.58 1.38

I would give money to a person in need 0.82 2.20 1.07

I would do charity work 0.86 2.48 1.21

I would donate goods, clothes etc. to charities 0.68 2.51 1.27

Grace 0.57

I would hold the elevator for anyone who is

trying to catch it

0.63 2.35 1.31

I would help a stranger carrying a heavy load 0.80 2.63 1.43

I would warn the clerk in case he calculates the

bill incorrectly lower

0.57 2.31 1.19

Reliability of the total scales: 0.81

Eigenvalues (respectively): 2.40; 2.38; 1.63

% of the variances (respectively): 24.08;23.83;

16.35

1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree

4.4 Clustering According to Altruistic Values

Cluster analysis was employed in order to group types of behavior based on altruistic

value. In this analysis, one cluster corresponding to each factor dimension, i.e. three clusters

in total, was determined to reveal the distinctive characteristics better after the factor analysis.

Since the number of clusters was determined in advance, a non-hierarchical clustering

method, K-means cluster analysis, was used.

Table 4: Participants’ Altruistic Values

Sum n %

Altruistic values

Low

Medium

High

37.22

25.85

15.67

18

75

51

12.5

52.1

35.4




Table 4 indicates results of cluster analysis regarding altruistic values. According to K-

means cluster analysis results, in terms of the statements given in relation to altruistic values,

it was determined that 18 participants had low, 75 participants had medium and 51

participants had high level of altruistic values within the first cluster.

4.5 Differentiation of Altruistic Value Levels According to Personality Traits

In this section, whether individual’s altruistic values and level of making donations vary

with his or her personality traits was examined. While identifying the differences, tables were

created primarily with respect to five dimensions of big five personality traits and two sub-

dimensions that define the main dimension of each dimension. ANOVA analysis was

employed to reveal the differences, and post-hoc tests were applied to identify the groups that

display discrepancy.

Table 5: Differentiation of Altruistic Value Levels According to Personality Traits

Altruism Levels

Low

(n=18)

Medium

(n=75)

High

(n=51)

F

p

Extraversion 3.09 2.75 2.19 12.521 .000**

Extravert 3.02 2.62 1.92 13.790 .000**

Introvert 3.18 2.92 2.56 2.855 .061

Agreeableness 3.17 2.79 2.31 15.226 .000**

Agreeable 3.03 2.61 2.09 12.598 .000**

Non-agreeable 3.25 3.01 2.70 3.443 .035*

Neuroticism 3.13 2.83 2.50 6.233 .003*

Stable 3.30 2.86 2.22 9.996 .000**

Unstable 3.11 2.76 2.60 1.765 .107

Conscientiousness 3.12 2.71 2.51 6.535 .002**

Conscientious 2.71 2.45 2.13 3.637 .029*

Non-conscientious 3.63 3.02 2.96 3.794 .025*

Openness to Experience 3.43 2.60 2.14 16.606 .000**

Progressive 2.60 3.33 2.12 16.036 000**

Conservative 3.75 2.85 2.49 13.529 000**

**p




However, when extraversion personality trait was grouped as extravert and introvert, no

significant difference between introvert individuals’ altruistic values was observed. Among

extravert individuals, on the contrary, it was seen that those with higher altruistic values were

more extravert.

Participants’ altruistic value levels, determined with respect to their altruistic values,

significantly differed according to agreeableness personality trait (F=15.226; p




correlations between personality traits and altruistic values were again positive and higher

than average.

Table 6: Bivariate Correlations among Continuous Variables

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6

Extraversion 1

Agreeableness .500** 1

Neuroticism .431** .436** 1

Conscientiousness .539** .591** .365** 1

Openness .568** .534** .370** .467** 1

Altruism .417** .417** .312** .378** .538** 1

**p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Table 7 presents the results of the regression of personality on altruism. Block one of the

model, including the covariates and big five personality traits, was significant, F (5) = 17.19,

p = .000, Adj. R2 = .375. In the model, openness to experience (β = .374, p = .000) was a

significant predictor. In block two, when demographic characteristics were introduced into the

model, the final model was significant, F (10) = 11.19, p< .001, Adj. R2 = .430. The change

in significance of the model was also significant. In the final model, age (β = .-184, p = .034),

marital status (β =- .166, p= .05), conscientiousness (β =- .182, p< .05), and openness to

experience (β =- .166, p= .005), were significant predictors. Other variables did not have a

significant effect on altruistic behavior.

Table 7: Results of the Regression of Personality on Altruism

Predictor variable β p R R2 Adj. R2 F df p

Block 1 .631 .398 .375 17.19 5 .000

Extraversion .020 .820

Agreeableness .166 .127

Neuroticism -.036 .651

Conscientiousness .146 .095

Openness to

Experience

.374 .000

Final Model .687 .472 .430 11.19 10 .000

Gender .029 .684

Marital status .166 .050

Age -.180 .034

Education .054 .445

Income .038 .643

Extraversion -.068 .474

Agreeableness .147 .108

Neuroticism .038 .629

Conscientiousness .182 .044

Openness to

Experience

.436 .000




5. Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to understand altruism from the perspective of the big five

personality theory. In the present study, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to big five

personality traits, followed by a cluster analysis implemented to group the participants

according to the two sub-dimensions of each trait. The study revealed that, except openness to

experience, negative personality traits were higher in the sub-dimensions of personality traits

among the sample group (introvert: 94 participants, non-agreeable: 103 participants, unstable:

107 participants, and non-conscientious: 103 participants).

Exploratory factor analysis was applied on ten statements associated with altruistic

behavior, and three factors were explored. These factors were labeled as moral support,

material support and grace. These three factors explained a considerable proportion of the

variance.

In the next step, taking the sum of altruistic values, a cluster analysis was carried out to

group the participants according to their helping behaviors, and three clusters were formed

accordingly. These clusters were distinguished as having low, medium or high level of

altruistic value.

In the final step, the differences between participants’ personality traits were analyzed

according to their levels of altruistic value. This analysis revealed that highly altruistic

individuals had a stronger extraversion trait. However, when participants were separated as

extravert and introvert with respect to this trait, no difference among the altruistic value levels

of introvert participants could be detected. Similarly, we can say that highly altruistic

individuals had a higher trait of agreeableness in general, while there was no difference

among the levels of altruistic values of non-agreeable participants. The same was true for

neuroticism as well. Conscientiousness and openness traits of highly altruistic participants

were also higher. The conscientiousness traits of highly altruistic participants were higher

than those with medium or low level of altruistic values. Yet, no significant difference was

observed in terms of altruistic values between conscientious and non-conscientious sub-

categories of the same trait. With respect to openness, in turn, individuals with progressive or

conservative personality traits were also those who possess higher altruistic values.

It was suggested that mood has an effect on altruistic behavior. Individuals who have a

positive mood are more likely to be aware of the events going on around themselves and offer

help to those in need (Tekeş and Hasta, 2015). In short, for an individual to help another,

having a positive psychology is a significant factor. The findings of this study also showed

parallels with this assertion, indicating that individuals with positive personality traits

possessed higher altruistic values (Feldman, 1996, pp. 435-436).




Moreover, another result of the study was to specify the correlation between personality

traits and altruistic values. There was a positive and above average correlation between

personality traits and altruistic values. Finally, the hierarchical regression analysis made in

order to signify the effects of personality traits and demographic characteristics on altruistic

behavior was found to be significant. Personality traits affected 37.5% of altruistic behaviors

according the first model. This ratio was increased to 43% with the introduction of

demographic characteristics into the final model. It was found that openness to experience

had a significant effect on altruistic behavior. When demographic characteristics were

included in the model, it was found that marital status, age, conscientiousness and openness to

experience had an impact.

6. Limitation and Future Research

Like many of social sciences studies, this study have some limitations. First, the

relationships in this study was based on responses obtained from people in only one country.

The results on altruistic values and personality might be country-specific and cannot be

generalized beyond the Turkey. Thus, future research studies examining association between

personality and altruistic value in different countries, cultures and religions may provide

generalizability of the results. Second, it is suggested that the personality traits may have

effected by factors of environmental, emotional, and socio-cultural. In subsequent studies,

researchers should empirically examine relationship among these factors. Additionally, the

main limitations of this study were small sample size and convenience sampling method.

Thus, further research may examine on big sample size and different geographies and

cultures.

References

Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Jackson, D. N. (1998). Kin altruism, reciprocal

altruism, and the Big Five personality factors. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(4), 243-255.

Basım, H.N., Çetin, F., and Tabak, A. (2009). Beş Faktör Kişilik Özelliklerinin Kişilerarası Çatışma

Çözme Yaklaşımlarıyla İlişkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 24 (63), 20-34.

Bekkers, R. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: The role of resources and personality.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 349–366.

Bierhoff, H. W., & Rohmann, E. (2004). Altruistic Personality in the Context of the Empaty- Altruism

Hypothesis. European Journal of Personality, 18, 351-365.

Boone, C., De Brabander, B., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999). The impact of personality on behavior

in five Prisoner’s Dilemma games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(3), 343–377.

Cox, J. and Trust, C. (2007). Fear, Reciprocity, and Altruism: Theory and Experiment,

Developments on Experimental Economics, 590, 75-90.

Curran, P.J., West, S.G., Finch, J.F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and

specification error in confirmatory factor analysis, Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29.

Emek. M. L. (2014). 239 Mütekabiliyet İlkesinin Sosyal Sermayenin Verimliliğine Etkisi Üzerine Bir

Tartışma. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken. Journal of World of Turks. 6 (3). 239-249.

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-68660-6




Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K.M. (2006). Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity,

Chapter 8 The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental Evidence and New

Theories, 1; 615 691.

Feldman, R.S., (1996). Understanding Psychology, Mc Graw- Hill, Inc Printed United States of

America, Fourt Edition.

Goldberg L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychol Assess,

4, 26-42.

Hilbig, B. E., Thielmann, I., Hepp, J., Klein, S. A., & Zettler, I. (2015). From personality to altruistic

behavior (and back): Evidence from a double-blind dictator game. Journal of Research in Personality,

55, 46-50.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M. and Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory: Versions 4a and 54.

Technical report, Institute of personality and social research, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Koole, S. L., Jager,W., van den Berg, A. E., Vlek, C. A. J., & Hofstee,W. K. B. (2001). On the social

nature of personality: effects of extraversion, agreeableness, and feedback about collective resource use

on cooperation in a resource dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(3), 289–301.

Mateer, N. H. & Willover, D. J. (1994). “Teacher Altruism: Implications for Administrators”,

Pennsylvania Educational Leadership, 13 (2), 29-31.

Nunnally JC. (1978). Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hall.

Oda, R., Machii, W., Takagi, S., Kato, Y., Takeda, M., Kiyonari, T., & Hiraishi, K. (2014). Personality

and altruism in daily life. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 206-209.

Rushton. JP.. Chrisjohn. RD and Fekken. GC (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report

altruism scale. Personality and individual. 2(4), 293-302.

Somer, O., Korkmaz, M. and Tatar, A. (2002). Beş Faktör Kişilik Envanteri’nin Geliştirilmesi-I: Ölçek

ve Alt Ölçeklerin Oluflturulması, Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 17 (49), 21–33.

Tekeş, B. and Hasta, D. (2015). Özgecilik Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalişmasi, Nesne Psikoloji

Dergisi (NPD), 3 (6), 55-75.

Tokay Argan, M. (2007). Organ Bağışının Artırılmasında Sosyal Pazarlama, Anadolu Üniversitesi,

Sos. Bil. Enst, Yayımlanmamış Doktara Tezi, Eskişehir.

Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K. and Van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and

prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15(1), 71-74.

Visser, M. S., & Roelofs, M. R. (2011). Heterogeneous preferences for altruism: gender and

personality, social status, giving and taking. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 490-506.

West, S.G., Finch, J.E. and Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables:

problems and remedies. In Hoyle, R. H. (ed.) Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and

applications. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage, (56-75).

do altruistic values of an individual reflect personality...

Documents