The Psychology of Niceness
Clear benefits, and a few disadvantages.
Posted April 1, 2022 | Reviewed by Tyler Woods
Personality psychology is enjoying somewhat of a renaissance these days. In large part this is due to the emergence of the Big Five , an elegant model that has grounded personality theory in sound empirical findings, thus renewing the field's vigor and relevance.
The Big Five model has proven potent not only for spurring research but also in its applicability to people's actual lives. Big Five traits are well-defined, easily measurable, and have been linked empirically to various meaningful life outcomes. Thus, they may be used to guide people’s self-understanding, decision-making , and future plans.
The Big Five organizes personality along five lines: extraversion , openness to experience , neuroticism , conscientiousness , and agreeableness . High and low scores on each domain correspond to various personal tendencies, individual characteristics, and typical ways of navigating the world across multiple life domains. For example, as I have written here before, conscientiousness is a strong predictor of longevity. Being high in neuroticism foreshadows difficulties in maintaining relationships and regulating mood. Extraverts are energetic and tend to be happier; those who score high on openness tend to be bright and creative, etc.
One Big Five trait that has received much interest in the literature is agreeableness—the tendency to get along with others and be trusting, polite, empathetic , and friendly.
Agreeableness appears unique to humans. Our primate relatives, though social, are much less invested in the well-being of others, even within their own kin groups. Our own capacity for benevolence and empathy, on the other hand, is so high that we identify not only with our own kind but also with other species. A zebra cares not about an injured giraffe, but we care about an injured dog.
We even identify with fictional characters. We feel bad for ET—a fictional alien—when he misses home. Notes the psychologist Daniel Nettle: “We give blood, we donate to charity, we return lost wallets, we give directions to strangers in the street.” Our capacity for niceness is impressive.
Psychologically, our ability to consider the needs and desires of others hinges on our unique gift for developing what psychologists call “ theory of mind ”— defined as “children’s understanding of people as mental beings, who have beliefs, desires, emotions, and intentions, and whose actions and interactions can be interpreted and explained by taking account of these mental states.”
Agreeable people are particularly good at reading others’ mental states and using that information to shape their own behaviors. The agreeable person will notice you’re in need and move to meet it. It is no surprise that agreeableness is a strong predictor of performance in the helping professions, such as customer service, and health care.
The neurochemistry of agreeableness has been shown to involve the neurotransmitters testosterone —high levels of which predispose us away from politeness and toward antagonism (agreeableness is on average higher in females, who are on average lower on testosterone)—and oxytocin , which facilitates compassion and in-group bonds.
People who are low in agreeableness tend to be more antagonistic, self-centered, and confrontational. At work, they respond better than agreeable people to a manager’s angry speech, whereas highly agreeable people respond better to positivity and praise. The trait factors into our politics as well, as antagonistic politicians “get more media attention and are more often elected than more agreeable politicians.”
Each adaptation comes at a cost. Thus, each personality trait confers both benefits and liabilities. Agreeableness, for example, may help those who possess it to create and maintain good relationships and partnerships, yet may make them more vulnerable to exploitation.
The literature on agreeableness is vast and diverse. Recently (2022) the researchers Michael Wilmot and Deniz Ones have taken on the challenge of summarizing this literature and trying to ascertain whether and how agreeableness relates to a host of meaningful life outcomes. The main questions they set out to answer were “To what extent is agreeableness helpful across the lifespan? Where does it display its strongest effects?”
The researchers quantitatively reviewed meta-analyses reporting the links between agreeableness and consequential life outcome variables. In total, they’ve identified “142 distinct meta-analyses that report independent effects for 275 unique variables, representing over 1.9 million participants across 3,900 studies.” The authors note that their work constitutes, “the largest and most comprehensive quantitative review of the consequential effects of agreeableness available in the literature.”
To simplify the task of organizing these vast data, the researchers grouped the outcome variables under investigation into sixteen conceptually coherent categories, including Psychological Health (life satisfaction, happiness , etc.); Physical Health ( smoking , obesity, etc.); Medical Conditions (diabetes, cancer); Interpersonal Attitudes (social support); and Collaboration (communication, networking, etc.), among others.
The results of this study were quite conclusive in pointing out the overall effect of high agreeableness. They showed that agreeableness, “has relations in a desirable direction for 93 percent of variables…which reflects its general helpfulness to variables over the lifespan.”
Looking across their 16 conceptual categories, the researchers found the strongest effects for personal values, psychological health, interpersonal attitudes (all of which correlate positively with agreeableness) as well as dark traits and antisocial attitudes (which correlate negatively with agreeableness).
Summarizing their findings, the authors concluded that agreeableness translates into positive functioning through eight mechanisms, or “themes”:
High agreeableness, as expected, is not without its drawbacks. The authors note that the effect sizes in the negative direction tend to be smaller and fewer than positive ones, yet they highlight three such effects. The first is unassertiveness , which “concerns a tendency to avoid interpersonal conflict, fail to stand up for oneself… and be taken advantage of.” The second is lower extrinsic success (fewer promotions, lower salary), which is probably due to agreeable people’s tendency to have a lower emphasis on results. The third is a link to elevated excessive dependency on others (including dependent personality disorder ).
Overall, however, as the researchers note, the conclusion from this project is that agreeableness may be best viewed as a capacity for love. While it may make us vulnerable in certain ways, its impact on both individuals and society is profoundly positive. Nice people may not win the game, but they enjoy playing it more, and they make the game more fun for others.
Facebook image: G-Stock Studio/Shutterstock
LinkedIn image: fizkes/Shutterstock
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Noam Shpancer, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Otterbein University and a practicing clinical psychologist in Columbus, Ohio.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.