The major factors from 3 models of personality are compared: Eysenck's Three Factor model, Costa and McCrae's version of the Big Five, and Zuckerman and Kuhlman's Alternative Five. The 1st study describes the development of a questionnaire measure for the Alternative Five and the reliability assessments of the scales. The 2nd study used factor analysis to compare the factors among the scales from the 3 models. Extraversion and Neuroticism were quite similar across all 3 models. Eysenck's Psychoticism scale marked a factor that included Conscientiousness and Impulsive Sensation Seeking factors from the other 2 models. Agreeableness and Aggression-Hostility formed a 4th factor. Openness could be identified as a factor using facet scales, but it showed no convergence with other factors. Four of the 5 factors showed convergence across at least 2 of the models.

The first part of this article describes a study of the relationships between personality and risk-taking in six areas: smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, driving, and gambling. The participants, 260 college students, were given self-report measures of risky behaviors in each of the six areas and the Zuckerman-Kuhlman five-factor personality questionnaire. Generalized risk-taking (across all six areas) was related to scales for impulsive sensation seeking, aggression, and sociability, but not to scales for neuroticism or activity. Gender differences on risk-taking were mediated by differences on impulsive sensation seeking. The second part discusses biological traits associated with both risk-taking and personality, particularly sensation seeking, such as the D4 dopamine receptor gene. the enzyme monoamine oxidase, and augmenting or reducing of the cortical evoked potential. Comparative studies show relationships between biological markers shared with other species and correlated behaviors similar to sensation seeking in humans. A biosocial model of the traits underlying risk-taking is presented.

This research evaluates the might vs. morality effect (Liebrand, Jansen, Rijken, & Suhre, 1986) by examining whether the manipulation of the perception of partner's honesty and intelligence interacts with the observer's own social value orientation to influence the latter's expectations regarding partner cooperation and own cooperation in a social dilemma. Results reveal that greater cooperation was expected from an honest partner than from a dishonest partner and that this effect was stronger for prosocial Ss than for individualists and competitors. Conversely, individualists and competitors expected greater cooperation from an unintelligent partner than from an intelligent partner, whereas prosocial Ss did not expect differences between these partners. Similar findings were obtained for own cooperation, although social value orientations did not interact with partner intelligence.Considerable research has been focused on how individuals form, maintain, and organize personality impressions, revealing that people readily form impressions of others, that such impressions are fairly stable, and that such impressions frequently are organized along dimensions of social meaning, such as honesty and intelligence (e.g., for theoretical analyses, see Reeder & Brewer, 1979;Rosenberg &Sedlak, 1972;Skowronski & Carlston, 1989). However, little prior research has been concerned with the interpersonal consequences of personality impressions, even though in real-life situations, individuals frequently may use global impressions of others (e.g., new colleagues and acquaintances) in forming expectations of other's probable behavior as well as in deciding how to approach such others. Impressions may be particularly valuable in situations in which one's outcomes, at least in part, are affected by the actions of others; such beliefs may help the individual to form expectations regarding the other's probable behavior and to anticipate the ways in which own outcomes will be affected by the other (e.g., will the other come well-prepared for this meeting?). These expectations, in turn, can serve the important function of guiding the person's own behavior (e.g., how much time shall I invest in preparing for this meeting?). Accordingly, we assume that in the context of interdependent situations, individuals will value information regarding another person's personality char-

The impact of three programmed strategies (lif-for-tat, 100% cooperation, and 100% defection) on cooperation level in (he Prisoner's Dilemma game is examined as a function of the subject's motivational orientation (cooperative, competitive, or individualistic:). Motivational orientation was assessed on the basis of each subject's choices across four classes of decomposed games. Following this assessment, subject's played 30 trials of Prisoner's Dilemma in matrix form against one of the above-mentioned strategics. Results were wholly consistent with predictions, showing that (a) cooperatively oriented subjects cooperate with a til-for-lal and a 100% cooperative strategy, bu(defect against a 100% defecting strategy, (b) competitive subjects defect against all three strategies; and (c) individualistic subjects defect against both 100% cooperative; and 100% defective strategies, but they cooperate with a lil-for-tal strategy. It appears reasonable to conclude thai the outcomes of a Prisoner's Dilemma have affectively different meanings (i.e., values) for subjects of differing orientations, and that subjects of all three orientations adopt strategies that effectively maximize their particular type of reward in the game.

No abstract