Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 11–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

Give, match, or take: A new personality construct predicts resource andinformation sharing

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.0110191-8869/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Knowledge Media Research Center, Schleichstr.6, 72076 Tübingen, Germany. Tel.: +49 7071 979308; fax: +49 7071 979100.

E-mail address: s.utz@iwm-kmrc.de (S. Utz).

Sonja Utz a,⇑, Nicole Muscanell a, Anja S. Göritz b

a Knowledge Media Research Center, Tübingen, Germanyb University of Freiburg, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 3 March 2014Received in revised form 4 June 2014Accepted 8 June 2014

Keywords:Give & TakeSocial value orientationSocial dilemmaInformation pooling gameInformation sharing

Personality factors have been found to predict a variety of behaviors, including cooperation, sharing, andstrategic behaviors within professional contexts. Specifically, individuals’ preferences for self vs. otheroutcomes (social value orientation) are predictive of strategic sharing behaviors in mixed motivesituations. For instance, self-focused individuals tend to share fewer resources and maximize theirown outcomes. In this study, we examine a newly developed personality measure, Give & Take, whichfocuses on self vs. other outcomes and evaluates individuals’ primary interaction style (i.e., giver,matcher, or taker). We demonstrate that while Give & Take correlates with theoretically relatedconstructs such as social value orientation, narcissism, and reciprocity, it has unique predictive validityfor sharing behavior. Specifically, when examining Give & Take simultaneously with social value orien-tation, we found that Give & Take predicted sharing in both a public goods dilemma task and a strategicinformation-sharing task above and beyond social value orientation. In general, takers contributed fewerresources to a public good and also shared less information, especially important information, withothers. Findings suggest that this new measure may be useful for explaining interpersonal dynamics,particularly within professional contexts.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Psychologists have long been interested in factors that influencehow people cooperate or compete with others as these factors havewidespread implications for a variety of social contexts. In 2013,Adam Grant’s book ‘‘Give and Take’’, which focuses on interper-sonal interaction styles and professional success, became a best-seller; it was one of the most recommended business books.Grant distinguishes between givers, takers, and matchers andclaims that these ways of approaching social interactions affecthow people behave in their professional life. Givers are peoplewho are always ready to support others without expecting any-thing in return. Takers try to get as much out of an interaction asthey can, and matchers act according to a tit-for-tat strategy.

At first glance, this new personality construct has similaritieswith the established construct social value orientation (SVO; VanLange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997). Within the SVO frame-work, individuals are distinguished as prosocials, individualistsand competitors. Although the conceptualizations appear to have

similarities (e.g., givers and prosocials aim to help others obtaingood outcomes), the nature of the measures differs. SVOs are usu-ally measured by decomposed games, that is, abstract and decon-textualized situations in which the respondents decide thedistribution of points between themselves and an unknown other.The Give & Take (G&T) measure, however, is comprised of rich con-textualized scenarios and three contextualized behavioral options.Is the contextualized measure G&T a better predictor of behaviorthan the more decontextualized SVOs? This is the central questionof this paper. Our main focus lies on sharing behavior in mixed-motive situations. We examine the effects of G&T and SVO on shar-ing resources using a traditional public goods dilemma (Dawes,1980) and an information sharing task (Steinel, Utz, & Koning,2010). In contrast to resources, information is not lost when it isshared. Nevertheless, people often keep important private infor-mation for themselves. Both behaviors, sharing resources and shar-ing information, are relevant especially in professional contextsand should thus be predicted by G&T.

2. Give & Take

Grant (2013, p. 5) describes giving, taking, and matching as‘‘three fundamental styles of social interaction’’. Although the

12 S. Utz et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 11–16

styles may vary among different contexts, he argues that most peo-ple develop a primary style in professional contexts. Takers takemore than they give, givers give more than they take, and matchersgive as much as they take. This theoretical framework is based par-tially upon equity sensitivity theory (Miles, Hatfield, & Huseman,1989), which classifies individuals as benevolent, sensitive or enti-tled, depending on whether they prefer smaller, equal or larger out-put/input ratios than others, respectively. These categories aresimilar to givers, matchers, and takers (respectively). The G&Tframework is also based in part on Fiske’s (1992) theory of rela-tional models. This paradigm identifies four types of social rela-tionships; communal sharing (relationships are based onequivalence), equality matching (relationships are based on reci-procity), market pricing (relationships are based on ratios andrates), and authority ranking (relationships are based on hierarchy).The first three relationships types are similar to giving, matching,and taking (respectively). According to Grant, G&T styles arerelated to several work-related outcomes, such as network build-ing, career success, collaboration or motivation. However, muchof the evidence discussed is that of prior work on similar con-structs (i.e., SVO), presented as support for the relation betweenG&T and work related outcomes. It remains less clear how theactual G&T measure relates to these outcomes.

For example, giving often seems to be conceptualized as proso-cial motivation and is measured via scales (Grant & Berry, 2011;Grant & Mayer, 2009), games (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler,1986), or related constructs such as communal orientation(McCall, 1995) and self- and other orientation (De Dreu & Nauta,2009). Sometimes, studies that measured narcissism were citedto characterize takers (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008). Therefore, thegoal of our study is to examine whether G&T is indeed a uniquepersonality construct. We do so by examining correlations withmeasures of SVO, self- and other-orientation, narcissism and reci-procity, and by testing G&T’s predictive validity in mixed-motivesituations. Most importantly, we test whether G&T explains vari-ance above and beyond SVO. Thereby, we add to the current liter-ature on sharing behavior within professional contexts.

3. Social value orientations

SVOs are considered as relatively stable personal dispositionsthat describe the preference for certain outcome distributions. Usu-ally, prosocials, individualists and competitors are distinguished(Van Lange et al., 1997). Prosocials strive to maximize the joint profitand aim for equality in outcomes. Individualists maximize their ownprofit in absolute terms, whereas competitors maximize their ownprofit in relative terms (Van Lange, 1999; Van Lange et al., 1997).Over decades, it has been shown that prosocials behave more coop-eratively than individualists and competitors in a variety of mixed-motive situations such as social dilemmas or information poolinggames (De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001; McClintock & Liebrand,1988; Steinel et al., 2010; Utz, Ouwerkerk, & Van Lange, 2004).

There are various measures that can be utilized to assess SVO(e.g., Liebrand & McClintock, 1988; Murphy, Ackermann, &Handgraaf, 2011; Van Lange et al., 1997), but they all do so in adecontextualized way (for a summary, see Murphy & Ackermann,2014). Respondents choose outcome distributions for themselvesand a stranger who they will never meet. Thus, the potential influ-ence of relationship strength or strategic considerations stemmingfrom anticipated future interaction are ruled out.

4. Comparison of the measures

The G&T measure consists of highly contextualized information(with the exception of a first scenario that requires a choice

between outcome distributions). Most scenarios are situated in aprofessional context, and contain information about the situationas well as the interaction partner (e.g., a colleague, your boss’sboss). The behavioral options are also richer than just the distribu-tion between outcomes, for example, taking responsibility for aboring task or introducing a colleague’s husband to potentialemployers. Decomposed games are always about the distributionsof points or money; many scenarios in the G&T are about sharinginformation or knowledge or involve strategic communicationsuch as deception about one’s true goals.

According to the correspondence principle, attitudes and behav-iors are more closely related when they are measured at similarlevels of specificity (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). It could thereforebe expected that G&T is indeed a better predictor of behavior inprofessional contexts than the more decontextualized SVO, espe-cially when it comes to information sharing. In the current paper,we examine the influence of SVO and G&T on sharing behavior ina public goods dilemma and an information pooling game. In pub-lic goods dilemmas, people interact with strangers and can decidehow much of their endowment they contribute to the public good.Several studies have shown that SVO influence cooperative behav-ior in public goods dilemmas (De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001; VanLange, 1999; Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994).

The information pooling game by Steinel et al. (2010) can beused with more or less decontextualized cover stories. It has beendesigned to assess strategic information sharing, that is, to tacklethe motivational component while excluding cognitive biases.Therefore, people do not receive actual information, but labels,such as ‘‘private, important’’ or ‘‘public, less important’’. Withhold-ing private important information can only be driven by selfishmotivation and not by misjudging the importance of the informa-tion. Steinel et al. (2010) manipulated social motivation and foundthat individuals with a prosocial motivation shared more privateimportant information than individuals with a proself motivation.However, we expect that G&T is a better predictor of strategicinformation sharing because many items tap into the strategicsharing of information.

5. Method

5.1. Participants

Data for this study were collected via a German online panel(Göritz, 2014) across two time points. In the first wave, 1560 peo-ple participated (57.8% women), with a mean age of 47 (SD = 11)years. In the second wave, 1231 participants returned, with a sim-ilar age and gender distribution (79% retention). Only 9.5% had alow education level (9 years of school or less), 52.6% had an O/A-level education and 37.9% had higher education. All participantscompleted the study voluntarily and without monetary compensa-tion. Participants could obtain their personal G&T score and a sum-mary of the study’s findings.

5.2. Procedure

Participants received the invitation to participate and thehyperlink leading to the online study via the online panel. Theywere informed that the goal of the study was to assess the relationbetween different personality types and professional success. Thestudy consisted of two waves. In Wave 1, the participants com-pleted several personality measures (G&T, narcissism, SVO etc.).As a pretest for a study on professional social media use, we alsoassessed social media use, network composition and strategic net-working. Two weeks later in Wave 2, respondents completed theoutcome measures (public goods dilemma, information sharing).

S. Utz et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 11–16 13

5.3. Measures

5.3.1. Give & TakeThe G&T test (Grant, 2013; www.giveandtake.com) consists of

15 scenarios. The first one is an outcome distribution betweenthe participant and a stranger. In eleven scenarios, participantshave to decide how they would act in organizational contexts(e.g., distribute tasks, share information), whereas they have tojudge the behavior of an interaction partner in three scenarios(e.g., genuinely prosocial vs. strategic reputation building). Partici-pants choose one out of three answer options, reflecting the ten-dency to give, match, or take, respectively. The scenarios weretranslated to German and slightly adapted to the German contextwhen necessary (e.g., changing Hurricane Katrina to the flood inGermany). One item deals with recommendations on LinkedIn. InGermany, Xing is the dominant business social network and it justrecently introduced a similar function. Answering this item wastherefore not mandatory; 56% skipped this scenario. Therefore, inthe analyses we included only the 14 scenarios that were answeredby every participant. For some analyses, we created a categoricalvariable. We classified people as a giver, matcher or taker if theirscore on the respective subscale was higher than the score onthe other two scales. Of the 85% of respondents who could be clas-sified, 33% were classified as givers, 55% as matchers and 12% astakers.

5.3.2. Social value orientationsSVO were measured with the 9-item triple dominance measure

(Van Lange et al., 1997). Across nine different situations the partic-ipant chose one out of three distributions of points between him/herself and an unknown other. Respondents were instructed thatevery point has value and the more points they get the better. Typ-ically, respondents are classified if they make six out of ninechoices consistent with one respective SVO. From the 89% of therespondents who could be classified, 66% were prosocials, 26%individualists and 8% competitors.

5.3.3. NarcissismFor reasons of brevity, thirteen items of the Narcissistic Person-

ality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988) were taken. We oversampleditems from the entitlement and superiority dimension, due to crit-icism on the scale (Brown, Budzek, & Tamborski, 2009). Instead offorced-choice items, respondents indicated whether the state-ments described them accurately on a 5-point Likert scale. Anexample item is ‘‘I insist upon getting the respect that is due me’’(a = .82).

5.3.4. Self- and other orientationWe adapted the measure by De Dreu and Nauta (2009) by skip-

ping the more specific intro ‘‘At work. . .’’. An example item for self-orientation is ‘‘I am concerned about my own needs and interests’’.An example item for other-orientation is ‘‘I am concerned aboutthe needs and interests of others’’. Internal consistency of the threeitems for self-orientation was a = .80 and for other-orientationa = .82.

5.3.5. ReciprocityWe included eight items from the reciprocity ideology scale by

Eisenberger, Cotterell, and Marvel (1987). Three items assessedcreditor ideology, that is, the belief that returning greater favorsthan received ones will yield generous repayments. An exampleitem is ‘‘If someone does you a favor, you should do even morein return’’. Five items assessed reciprocation wariness, that is, cau-tion that others return favors out of fear that one is taken advan-tage of (p. 745). An example item is ‘‘It generally pays to let

others do more for you than you do for them’’. Both subscales wereequally reliable at a = .83.

5.3.6. Dependent measures5.3.6.1. Cooperation in a public goods dilemma. For the public goodsdilemma (Dawes, 1980), respondents should imagine that theyform a group with five unknown people. Each member owns 300Euro and can decide how much s/he keeps and how much s/hegives to the common pool. The money in the pool will be doubledand distributed equally across all group members. The money eachmember keeps remains their own. Participants entered an integerbetween 0 and 300 to indicate how much Euros they would share.

5.3.6.2. Strategic information sharing. The information pooling gameby Steinel et al. (2010) was used. Participants were told that theywould work in a team with two colleagues for a client. To fulfilltheir assignment, they need to share information and at least 18pieces of information are needed. Information was labeled as pub-lic (e.g., intranet) or private (e.g., personal networks), and also asimportant or less important. Each participant received 12 piecesof information, 3 of each combination (public – less important,public – important, private – less important, private – important).However, to minimize cognitive biases they did not receive actualinformation but labels (e.g., information #431, private, less impor-tant). Respondents indicated which pieces of information theywere willing to share with their colleagues.

6. Results

6.1. Descriptive statistics

Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, and intercorrela-tions for the independent measures and Table 2 for the dependentmeasures. The three subtypes of G&T all correlated negatively, sug-gesting that as individuals identify with one style (giving, match-ing, or taking), they are less likely to identify with either of theother two styles. G&T scores were correlated with SVO. Specifically,giver scores were positively related to prosocial scores and takerscores were positively related to both individual and competitorscores. However, being a matcher did not relate to any of the threeSVO scores. Both G&T and SVO correlated to some extent with nar-cissism, such that giver and prosocial scores were negativelyrelated to narcissism, while matcher and taker scores as well asindividualistic and competitive choices were positively related tonarcissism.

Giver, matcher, and taker scores were also correlated with self-and other-orientation in the expected direction, such that giverscores were negatively related to self-orientation and positivelyrelated to other-orientation. Likewise, taker scores were positivelyrelated to self-orientation and negatively related to other-orientation. Matcher scores were negatively related to other-orientation as well. A similar pattern emerged between the threeSVO scores and self- and other-orientation. Giver and taker scorescorrelated only with one reciprocity subscale (reciprocation wari-ness). There was a negative relationship between giver scores andbeing wary about being exploited when giving help. There was apositive relationship between taker scores and reciprocation wari-ness. A similar pattern emerged for the correlations between SVOand reciprocity. Finally, we examined correlations between G&Tand SVO and the outcomes measures. Overall, the patterns weresimilar, that is, giver and prosocial scores were positively relatedto sharing and taking; competitor and individual scores were nega-tively related to sharing.

These correlations are in the expected direction and thus evi-dence convergent validity of the new G&T construct. But does

Table 1Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the independent measures.

M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Giver 4.71 (2.09) –2. Matcher 5.81 (1.88) �.60** –3. Taker 3.48 (1.80) �.54** �.35** –4. Prosocial 5.41 (3.71) .25** .01 �.31** –5. Individualist 2.76 (3.32) �.20** �.002 .23** �.80** –6. Competitor .83 (2.23) �.13** �.02 .16** �.47** �.15** –7. Self-orientation 3.76 (.68) �.14** .04 .12** �.12** .10** .04 –8. Other-orientation 3.76 (.66) .10** .07** �.20** .12** �.07** �.09** .22** –9. Narcissism 2.98 (.56) �.19** .07** .15** �.09** .06** .06** .36** .17** –10. Reciprocity (creditor ideology) 3.15 (.81) �.01 .04 �.02 .03 .005 �.05* .03 .21** .18** –11. Reciprocity (reciprocation wariness) 2.16 (.78) �.25** �.02 .31** �.18** .14** .10** .04 �.26** .33** .22**

* p 6 .05.** p 6 .01.

Table 2Means, standard deviations, and correlations of G&T and SVO with the dependent measures.

M (SD) Give Match Take Prosocials Individualist Competitive

1. Euros given game 168.70 (82.62) .13*** �.02 �.13*** .14*** �.13*** .042. Private, Important Info 1.07 (1.27) .13*** �.02 �.13*** .06* �.02 �.07**

3. Private, Less Important Info .99 (1.31) .003 .07** �.08** .02 .01 �.054. Public, Important Info 1.70 (1.40) .08** .06* �.16*** .05* �.02 �.06*

5. Public, Less Important Info 1.21 (1.42) .03 .06* �.10*** .04* �.001 �.07**

* p 6 .05.** p 6 .01.

*** p 6 .001.

14 S. Utz et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 11–16

G&T and SVO’s similarity imply that they are interchangeable? Inother words, is the new G&T construct justified in that it has dis-criminant validity over established constructs such as SVO?Accordingly, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses.1

6.2. Public goods dilemma

In Step 1, the number of prosocial, individualistic and competi-tive choices was entered. Because the three continuous scales addup to 9, the value of the third one is redundant and only two sub-scales remain in the regression analysis. The first step was signifi-cant, F(2,1228) = 12.10, p < .001, R2

adj = .02. The number ofindividualistic (b = �.14, p < .001) and the number of competitivechoices (b = �.06, p < .05) predicted the number of Euros given. Inthe second step, the three continuous G&T scores were entered. Thisincreased the amount of explained variance significantly,F(2,1226) = 8.23, p < .001, to R2

adj = .03. The number of competitivechoices was no longer a significant predictor (b = �.04, p = .21) andthe influence of individualistic choices was weaker (b = �.10,p < .01). Instead, the number of matcher (b = �.07, p < .05) and takerchoices (b = �.13, p < .001) turned out as significant predictors.2

1 An alternative 3 (G&T: giver vs. matcher vs. taker) � 3 (SVO: prosocial vs.individualist vs. competitor) ANOVA with the number of Euros shared as dependentvariable revealed only a main effect of G&T, F(2,913) = 3.26, p = .04, g2 = .007. Giversdonated more Euros (M = 182.56, SD = 83.04) than matchers (M = 168.35, SD = 77.29),p = .04, and in turn takers (M = 145.93, SD = 86.52), p < .001. There was no main effectfor SVO, F(2,913) = 1.99, p = .14, nor an interaction effect, F(4,913) = .24, p = .91.

2 We conducted also a 3 (G&T) � 3 (SVO) � 2 (sharedness) � 2 (importance)MANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors. Givers (M = 1.73,SE = 0.09) and matchers (M = 1.69, SE = 0.06) shared more information than takers(M = 1.17, SE = 0.11), p < .001, Bonferroni, F(2,902) = 9.77, p < .001, g2 = .02. There wasno significant main effect of SVO, F(2,902) = .83, p = .44. Theoretically less interestingmain effects of sharedness, F(1, 902) = 98.85, p < .001, g2 = .10, and importance,F(1,902) = 22.54, p < .001, g2 = .02 that were classified by the two-way interactionbetween these two factors, F(1,902) = 31.33, p < .001, g2 = .03 indicated that moreimportant (M = 2.13, SE = 0.07) than less important public information (M = 1.46,SE = 0.08), p < .001 was shared. There was no difference between important (M = 1.31,SE = 0.07) and less important private information (M = 1.22, SE = 0.08). There were noother interaction effects.

6.3. Information sharing

Separate regressions were conducted for the four types of infor-mation that could be shared in the information pooling game (seeTable 3). The overall model including only SVO was often not sig-nificant, although the number of competitive choices turned outas a predictor. Including G&T in the model, however, alwaysresulted in a significant increase in explained variance. The numberof taker choices was negatively related to information sharing,especially the sharing of important information. The number ofmatching scores was only related to the sharing of private informa-tion; matchers kept the important and shared the less importantprivate information.3

7. Discussion

This study examined the properties of the newly developed G&Tmeasure. We found significant correlations with SVO, self- andother-orientation, reciprocity and narcissism, thereby demonstrat-ing G&T’s convergent validity. However, these correlations weresmall to moderate, indicating that G&T taps into a different compo-nent. This holds especially for the matching scale. G&T was a betterpredictor of behavior than SVO, especially when it came to infor-mation sharing.

The correspondence principle (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977) mayhelp explain why G&T, but not SVO, was predictive of sharingbehaviors. The contextualized G&T measure has many items thataddress strategic aspects of information sharing; consequently,the contextualized nature of G&T (compared to the more generalSVO) may better map onto this particular outcome because thisoutcome is contextualized as well. Future research should testwhether SVO is a better predictor than G&T by directly comparingdecontextualized and contextualized situations. The presentresults indicate that G&T might be more useful in the domain of

3 In an alternative model, give and match positively predict all four forms ofinformation sharing.

Table 3Hierarchical regression analyses on the effects of SVO and G&T on information sharing.

Private, important Private, less important Public, important Public, less important

R2change b R2

change b R2change b R2

change b

Step 1 .007* .000 .003* .005F(2,1212) = 1.15 F(2,1212) = 2.93F(2,1212) = 4.43 F(2,1212) = 3.06

Individualistic choices �.04 .01 �.04 �.01Competitive choices �.08* �.04 �.07* �.07*

Step 2 .027*** .015*** .053*** .018***

F(2,1210) = 34.03 F(2,1210) = 10.84F(2,1210) = 16.85 F(2,1210) = 9.18Individualistic choices .01 .03 .02 .01Competitive choices �.05 �.03 �.02 �.05Matcher choices �.08** .07* .03 .06Taker choices �.19*** �.08* �.23*** �.11**

Final R2adj .031 .014 .058 .019

The third subscale is excluded due to redundancy.* p < .05.

** p < .01.*** p < .001.

S. Utz et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 11–16 15

organizational and group psychology, especially when assessingknowledge sharing.

Notably, the effect sizes were small for both measures. This canbe partly explained by the two-week delay between the assessmentof the personality measures and the dependent measures and thefact that we conducted an online study, where random error tendsto be larger than under controlled circumstances. The results are stilltheoretically valuable because they show that the two measures areconceptually different although the constructs sound quite similar.From a practical perspective, the results show that the practical sig-nificance of the G&T measure may be lower than the hype around itin the popular press suggests, at least with the outcomes we mea-sured. Of course, there may be other dependent variables that wedid not measure that show larger effects, e.g., effort and time putinto team projects or willingness to mentor others.

There are also other limitations of contextualized measures.Because of the detailed contextual information, the measure mayalso be partly affected by situational norms rather than stableinteraction styles. Whereas 89% of the respondents made six ormore consistent choices on the SVO measure, only 12% made 9or more consistent choices across the 14 G&T scenarios. Therefore,we could not use the two third-classification of SVO and insteaddecided to classify people who had a relative preference for onestyle. Another limitation is that some of the context-specific sce-narios might be difficult to translate to other cultures. For example,Scenario 8 - which we excluded for this very reason - asks aboutreactions to a LinkedIn recommendation from a former boss. InGermany, users are not (yet) familiar with the practice of socialnetworking based recommendations. Similar problems might arisefor other cultures.

A strength of our study is that we used a large sample of work-ing people rather than a convenience student sample. Thus, ourresults may generalize to other working individuals. Anotherstrength is that we assessed SVO and G&T two weeks earlier thanthe behavioral measures; this fortifies the claim that G&T indeedpredicts behavior, albeit only to a small degree.

Taken together, our study provides first evidence that the newlydeveloped G&T measure predicts the strategic sharing of informa-tion better than SVO. One implication is that G&T may be especiallyuseful in applied settings such as organizational knowledge sharing.

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysisand review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888.

Brown, R. P., Budzek, K., & Tamborski, M. (2009). On the meaning and measure ofnarcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 951–964. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167209335461.

Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking websites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1303–1314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208320061.

Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 169–193.http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001125.

De Cremer, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greatercooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity.European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.418[Special Issue: Personality and Economic Behavior].

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation inorganizational behavior: Implications for job performance, prosocial behavior,and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 913–926. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014494.

Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 743–750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.743.

Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unifiedtheory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689.

Göritz, A. S. (2014). Determinants of the starting rate and the completion rate inonline panel studies. In M. Callegaro, R. Baker, J. Bethlehem, A. S. Göritz, J. A.Krosnick, & P. J. Lavrakas (Eds.), Online panel research: A data quality perspective(pp. 154–170). Chichester: Wiley.

Grant, A. (2013). Give and Take. New York City, NY: Viking Adult.Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of

invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, andcreativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085.

Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial andimpression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliativecitizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900–912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013770.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profitseeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76(4),728–741. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1806070.

Liebrand, W. B., & McClintock, C. G. (1988). The ring measure of social values: Acomputerized procedure for assessing individual differences in informationprocessing and social value orientation. European Journal of Personality, 2(3),217–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020304.

McCall, M. (1995). Orientation, outcome, and other-serving attributions. Basic andApplied Social Psychology, 17(1–2), 49–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.1995.9646131.

McClintock, C. G., & Liebrand, W. B. (1988). Role of interdependence structure,individual value orientation, and another’s strategy in social decision making: Atransformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3),396–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.396.

Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1989). The equity sensitivity construct:Potential Implications for worker performance. Journal of Management, 15(4),581–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500407.

Murphy, R. O., & Ackermann, K. A. (2014). Social value orientation: Theoretical andmeasurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 18(1), 13–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868313501745.

Murphy, R., Ackermann, K., & Handgraaf, M. (2011). Measuring social valueorientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771–781.

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissisticpersonality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of

16 S. Utz et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 11–16

Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890.

Steinel, W., Utz, S., & Koning, L. (2010). The good, the bad and the ugly thing to dowhen sharing information: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on socialmotivation, distribution and importance of information. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 85–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.07.001.

Utz, S., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2004). What is smart in asocial dilemma? Differential effects of priming competence on cooperation.European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 317–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.200.

Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes:An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 77(2), 337–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337.

Van Lange, P. A. M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1994). Social value orientations andimpressions of partner honesty and intelligence – A test of the might versusmorality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 126–141.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.126.

Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997).Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theoryand preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4),733–746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733.