Heroic behavior: A review of the literature on high-stakes altruism in the wild

Decades of research document individual differences in prosocial behavior using controlled experiments that model social interactions in situations of interdependence. However, theoretical and empirical integration of the vast literature on the predictive validity of personality traits to account for these individual differences is missing. Here, we present a theoretical framework that identifies 4 broad situational affordances across interdependent situations (i.e., exploitation, reciprocity, temporal conflict, and dependence under uncertainty) and more specific subaffordances within certain types of interdependent situations (e.g., possibility to increase equality in outcomes) that can determine when, which, and how personality traits should be expressed in prosocial behavior. To test this framework, we meta-analyzed 770 studies reporting on 3,523 effects of 8 broad and 43 narrow personality traits on prosocial behavior in interdependent situations modeled in 6 commonly studied economic games (Dictator Game, Ultimatum Game, Trust Game, Prisoner's Dilemma, Public Goods Game, and Commons Dilemma). Overall, meta-analytic correlations ranged between -.18 ≤ ρ̂ ≤ .26, and most traits yielding a significant relation to prosocial behavior had conceptual links to the affordances provided in interdependent situations, most prominently the possibility for exploitation. Moreover, for several traits, correlations within games followed the predicted pattern derived from a theoretical analysis of affordances. On the level of traits, we found that narrow and broad traits alike can account for prosocial behavior, informing the bandwidth-fidelity problem. In sum, the meta-analysis provides a theoretical foundation that can guide future research on prosocial behavior and advance our understanding of individual differences in human prosociality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Heroes are ubiquitous in literature and popular discourse, yet little is known about cognitive representations of heroes. We examined lay conceptions of heroes using a prototype approach, compared heroes with other persons of influence, and studied how individuals use hero features to identify heroes. In Study 1, participants (N = 189) generated open-ended descriptions of heroes, which were sorted by independent coders into 26 meaningful categories. In Study 2, participants (N = 365) rated the centrality of these features, and subsequently classified each feature as either central (e.g., brave, moral integrity) or peripheral (e.g., humble, proactive). In a reaction time (RT) paradigm, participants in Study 3 (N = 33) identified central features of heroes faster than peripheral features. In Study 4, participants (N = 25) remembered more central hero features than peripheral features in a surprise recall task. In Study 5 (N = 89), participants most strongly identified a hero when the target was described with central features (vs. peripheral or neutral features). In Studies 6 (N = 212) and 7 (N = 307), participants' ratings evidenced that the prototypical features of heroes did not fit conceptually as well for role models and leaders. In all, these studies contribute new ideas to existing knowledge about heroes, and contribute to a shared understanding of what a hero means to people. Our research is thus an important step in refining heroism into a scientific concept. The notion of the prototypical features of heroes provides a basis for future hero research and intervention.

Humans are an intensely social species, frequently performing costly behaviors that benefit others. Efforts to solve the evolutionary puzzle of altruism have a lengthy history, and recent years have seen many important advances across a range of disciplines. Here we bring together this interdisciplinary body of research and review the main theories that have been proposed to explain human prosociality, with an emphasis on kinship, reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, punishment, and morality. We highlight recent methodological advances that are stimulating research and point to some areas that either remain controversial or merit more attention.