The ring measure of social values: A computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation

Personality can be defined from a social standpoint as a more or less consistent system of orientations that influences an individual's decisions and behaviors regarding the allocation of resources to self and others. One of the more robust models for the measurement of an individual's interpersonal utilities is McClintock's social value approach (McClintock, 1972). In the present study, we evaluate the construct of social value by testing the hypothesis that the cognitive processing time of subjects should vary systematically as a function of the type of social value being expressed. Towards this end, the Ring Measure of Social Values (Liebrand, 1984) was administered to 61 male and 124 female subjects. As predicted, cooperators and competitors were observed to have longer response latencies than altruists and individualists. In addition, a Social Value by Outcome Structure interaction was observed, and explained by assuming that cooperators are more hesitant in making decisions involving negative outcomes for others, whereas competitors are more reluctant to assign positive outcomes to others. These research findings add further evidence regarding the validity to the construct of social value.

[1]  Scott T. Allison,et al.  Social Value Orientation and Helping Behavior1 , 1989 .

[2]  Wim B. G. Liebrand,et al.  Role of interdependence structure, individual value orientation, and another's strategy in social decision making: a transformational analysis , 1988 .

[3]  David M. Messick,et al.  Social values and cooperative response to a simulated resource conservation crisis , 1986 .

[4]  G. Knight,et al.  Information Processing and Age Differences in Social Decision-Making. , 1986 .

[5]  David M. Messick,et al.  Estimating social and nonsocial utility functions from ordinal data , 1985 .

[6]  Wim B. G. Liebrand,et al.  The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an N-person multi-stage mixed-motive game , 1984 .

[7]  P. Harris,et al.  Processing information within implicit personality theory , 1980 .

[8]  Daryl J. Bem,et al.  Template matching: A proposal for probing the ecological validity of experimental settings in social psychology. , 1979 .

[9]  R. Allen,et al.  Cognitive processes in implicit personality trait inferences. , 1979 .

[10]  David M. Messick,et al.  A framework for social motives. , 1976 .

[11]  D. M. Kuhlman,et al.  Individual differences in game motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategy effects in prisoner's dilemma. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  Charles G. McClintock,et al.  Social motivation: A set of propositions. , 1972 .

[13]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey , 1959 .

[14]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. , 1958 .

[15]  D. Messick,et al.  Might over Morality : Social Values and the Perception of Other Players in Experimental Games , 1986 .

[16]  Wim B. G. Liebrand,et al.  The effects of social motives on behavior in social dilemmas in two cultures. , 1985 .

[17]  George P. Knight,et al.  Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic social values: An individualized regression and clustering approach. , 1984 .

[18]  H. Markus,et al.  Self-schemas and gender. , 1982 .

[19]  A. Colman.  Game theory and experimental games , 1982 .

[20]  S. Bem.  Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. , 1981 .

[21]  Charles G. McClintock,et al.  Social values: Their definition, measurement and development. , 1978 .

[22]  J. G. Wallace,et al.  Cognitive development: An information-processing view , 1976 .

[23]  D. Messick,et al.  Motivational bases of choice in experimental games , 1968 .