Greed is an important motive: it is seen as both productive (a source of ambition; the motor of the economy) and destructive (undermining social relationships; the cause of the late 2000s financial crisis). However, relatively little is known about what greed is and does. This article reports on 5 studies that develop and test the 7-item Dispositional Greed Scale (DGS). Study 1 (including 4 separate samples from 2 different countries, total N = 6092) provides evidence for the construct and discriminant validity of the DGS in terms of positive correlations with maximization, self-interest, envy, materialism, and impulsiveness, and negative correlations with self-control and life satisfaction. Study 2 (N = 290) presents further evidence for discriminant validity, finding that the DGS predicts greedy behavioral tendencies over and above materialism. Furthermore, the DGS predicts economic behavior: greedy people allocate more money to themselves in dictator games (Study 3, N = 300) and ultimatum games (Study 4, N = 603), and take more in a resource dilemma (Study 5, N = 305). These findings shed light on what greed is and does, how people differ in greed, and how greed can be measured. In addition, they show the importance of greed in economic behavior and provide directions for future studies.
The Raramuri Indians in Mexico use 1 word for guilt and shame. In this article, the authors show that the Raramuri nevertheless differentiate between shame and guilt characteristics, similar to cultural populations that use 2 words for these emotions. Emotion-eliciting situations were collected among the Raramuri and among rural Javanese and were rated on shameand guilt by Dutch and Indonesian students. These ratings were used to select 18 shame-eliciting and guilt-eliciting situations as stimuli. TheRaramuri (N = 229) and the Javanese (N = 213) rated the situations on 29emotion characteristics that previously had been found to differentiateshame from guilt in an international student sample. For most characteristics, a pattern of differentiation similar to that found among the students was found for both the Javanese and the Raramuri. Keywords:emotion, shame, guilt, cross-cultural, culture
Most psychological theories and research on shame focus on the uglyaspects and negative consequences of this emotion. Theories on moral emotions, however, assume that shame acts as a commitment devicemotivating prosocial behavior. To solve this apparent paradox, the authors studied the effects of shame on prosocial behavior. Shame was hypothesized to motivate prosocial behavior when it was relevant for the decision at hand (endogenous). In contrast, shame that was not relevant for the decision at hand (exogenous) was hypothesized to have no such effects. Four experiments with three different shame inductions and two different measures of prosocial behavior confirmed that endogenous shamemotivated prosocial behavior for proselfs but that exogenous shame did not.Shame is shown to have a clear interpersonal function in the sense that itacts as a commitment device.
The cross-cultural universality of behavior's consistency and predictability from personality, assumed in trait models though challenged in cultural psychological models, has usually been operationalized in terms of beliefs and perceptions, and assessed using single-instance self-reports. In a multimethod study of actual behavior across a range of situations, we examined predictability and consistency in participants from the more collectivistic Black ethnic group and the more individualistic White group in South Africa. Participants completed personality questionnaires before the behavior measurements. In Study 1, 107 Black and 241 White students kept diaries for 21 days, recording their behaviors and the situations in which they had occurred. In Study 2, 57 Black and 52 White students were video-recorded in 12 situations in laboratory settings, and external observers scored their behaviors. Across both studies, behavior was predicted by personality on average equally well in the 2 groups, and equally well when using trait-adjective-and behavior-based personality measures. The few cultural differences in situational variability were not in line with individualism-collectivism; however, subjective perceptions of variability, operationalized as dialectical beliefs, were more in line with individualism-collectivism: Blacks viewed their behavior as more variable than Whites. We propose drawing a distinction between subjective beliefs and objective behavior in the study of personality and culture. Larger cultural differences can be expected in beliefs and perceptions than in the links between personality and actual behavior.
We propose a refined theory of basic individual values intended to provide greater heuristic and explanatory power than the original theory of 10 values (Schwartz, 1992). The refined theory more accurately expresses the central assumption of the original theory that research has largely ignored: Values form a circular motivational continuum. The theory defines and orders 19 values on the continuum based on their compatible and conflicting motivations, expression of self-protection vs. growth, and personal vs. social focus. We assess the theory with a new instrument in 15 samples from 10 countries (N=6059). CFA and MDS analyses support discrimination of the 19 values, confirming the refined theory. MDS analyses largely support the predicted motivational order of the values. Analyses of predictive validity demonstrate that the refined values theory provides greater and more precise insight into the value underpinnings of beliefs. Each value correlates uniquely with external variables.
This article is devoted to the moral aspect of guilt