A quasi-experimental test of multicultural personality using behavioral game theory

The current study was a quasi-experimental test of multicultural personality. Specifically, the social justice advocacy aspect of the multicultural personality was examined using a modified dictator game, which is a division of behavioral game theory in economics. I hypothesized that participants who observed a socially unjust situation would give more money to a person perceived as belonging to a disadvantaged social group than to a person perceived as belonging to an advantaged social group. This effect would interact with the social justice advocacy aspect of multicultural personality; as self-reported social justice advocacy increased, participants would give more money to persons from disadvantaged groups. One-hundred and fifty three participants read a vignette which acted as a modified dictator game. It tasked participants with deciding how much money (totaling $10) to divide between themselves and a fictional person who was perceived as treated unfairly. Participants then completed the Multicultural Personality Inventory, Social Issues Advocacy Scale, and Big Five Inventory. To analyze the results, I used an ANCOVA. The results supported the hypothesis. As social justice advocacy increased, participants gave more money to persons from disadvantaged groups than to persons from advantaged groups. In addition, racial and ethnic identity also predicted the amount given to persons from disadvantaged groups. Alternative social justice measures and broad traits (i.e., the Big Five) did not predict differences in giving behavior. Thus, the current study appears to provide further evidence for construct validity of the multicultural personality. In addition, it suggests that more narrow constructs of personality (i.e., characteristic adaptations) are better predictors of behavior than broader constructs of personality (i.e., traits)