Measuring Social Value Orientation

Narrow self-interest is often used as a simplifying assumption when studying people making decisions in social contexts. Nonetheless, people exhibit a wide range of different motivations when choosing unilaterally among interdependent outcomes. Measuring the magnitude of the concern people have for others, sometimes called Social Value Orientation (SVO), has been an interest of many social scientists for decades and several different measurement methods have been developed so far. Here we introduce a new measure of SVO that has several advantages over existent methods. A detailed description of the new measurement method is presented, along with norming data that provide evidence of its solid psychometric properties. We conclude with a brief discussion of the research streams that would benefit from a more sensitive and higher resolution measure of SVO, and extend an invitation to others to use this new measure which is freely available.

[1]  C. Parks,et al.  Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[2]  C. Rusbult,et al.  Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Charles D. Samuelson.  A multiattribute evaluation approach to structural change in resource dilemmas , 1993 .

[4]  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 .

[5]  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.

[6]  Charles G. McClintock,et al.  Chapter 3 – Social Values and Rules of Fairness: A Theoretical Perspective , 1982 .

[7]  Y. Ganzach,et al.  On the perception and operationalization of risk perception , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[8]  D. M. Kuhlman,et al.  Individual differences in the game motives of Own, Relative, and Joint gain , 1975 .

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

[10]  M. K. Stevenson.  The impact of temporal context and risk on the judged value of future outcomes , 1992 .

[11]  Y. Ganzach,et al.  Judging Risk and Return of Financial Assets. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[12]  Dent,et al.  Cognitive Load and the Equality Heuristic: A Two-Stage Model of Resource Overconsumption in Small Groups. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[13]  Jessica Y.Y. Kwong,et al.  Measurements and Effects of Social-Value Orientation in Social Dilemmas: A Review. , 2004 .

[14]  Jacob Cohen.  The Cost of Dichotomization , 1983 .

[15]  Colin Camerer,et al.  “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  Wyer,et al.  Prediction of behavior in two-person games , 1969 .

[17]  Sylvia G. Roch,et al.  Effects of environmental uncertainty and Social value orientation in resource dilemmas , 1997 .

[18]  Judith M Burkart,et al.  Other-regarding preferences in a non-human primate: Common marmosets provision food altruistically , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  W. Cleveland,et al.  Locally Weighted Regression: An Approach to Regression Analysis by Local Fitting , 1988 .

[20]  Marcel Zeelenberg,et al.  On emotion specificity in decision making: Why feeling is for doing , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[21]  P. V. Lange,et al.  Locomotion in social dilemmas: How we adapt to cooperative, Tit-For-Tat, and noncooperative partners. , 1999 .

[22]  Terry L. Boles,et al.  Share and Share Alike or Winner Take All?: The Influence of Social Value Orientation upon Choice and Recall of Negotiation Heuristics. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.