1971
DOI: 10.1177/002200277101500310
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The 16PF as an indicator of performance in the Prisoner's Dilemma game

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1975
1975
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In one of the first studies applying a comprehensive personality model to economic games, Gillis and Woods (1971) used the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16 PF; R. Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1964) to examine prisoner's dilemma behavior. Although the maximum variance explained by the 16PF was low, decisions to defect were negatively related to the primary factors of dominance on selected trials and rule-consciousness across all trials.…”
Section: The Roles Of B5 Agreeableness and Extraversionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In one of the first studies applying a comprehensive personality model to economic games, Gillis and Woods (1971) used the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16 PF; R. Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1964) to examine prisoner's dilemma behavior. Although the maximum variance explained by the 16PF was low, decisions to defect were negatively related to the primary factors of dominance on selected trials and rule-consciousness across all trials.…”
Section: The Roles Of B5 Agreeableness and Extraversionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consistent with this, several studies show that B5 agreeableness is correlated with cooperative behavior in social dilemmas. In one of the first studies applying a comprehensive personality model to economic games, Gillis and Woods (1971) used the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16 PF; R. Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1964) to examine prisoner’s dilemma behavior.…”
Section: Personality Processes In Social Dilemmasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are even some studies showing significant correlations between PD play and paper-and-pencil measures of specific cognitive abilities (Pincus & Bixenstine, 1979) and/or measures of specific traits, including locus of control, self-monitoring, Type-A behavior, and sensation-seeking (Boone, De Brabander, & van Witteloostuijn, 1999); adherence to Protestant Ethic values (Furnham & Quilley, 1989); both Factor G (which involves moral values and concerns) and Factor E (which deals with dominance-submissiveness) on the 16 PF inventory (Gillis & Woods, 1971); as well as various measures of cooperative, accommodative, or prosocial (vs. competitive, egoistic, or exploitative) personal motivations and orientations (e.g., Houston, Kinnie, Lupo, Terry, & Ho, 2000;Parks & Rumble, 2001;Vinacke, 1974). However, it is worth noting that to produce such statistical significance, some aggregation of the relevant choice measures typically has been required (whereas in both of the present experiments the name-of-the-game manipulation proved powerful enough to produce significant between-condition differences in response on a single occasion, that is, the first round of the game).…”
Section: Person Versus Situation and The Didactic Strategy Of The Demonstration Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%