Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Social Value Orientation (social + value_orientation)
Selected AbstractsSocial value orientation, organizational goal concerns and interdepartmental problem-solving behaviorJOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, Issue 2 2002Aukje Nauta In a study of 11 organizations among 120 manufacturing, planning and sales employees, support was found for the hypothesis that a prosocial value orientation,as a personality trait,increases the likelihood that employees show a high concern for the goals of other departments. This concern, combined with a high concern for own goals, furthermore appeared to increase the likelihood of problem-solving behavior during interdepartmental negotiations. Measures of goal concerns were attained, firstly, by asking employees how important they found six specific organizational goals and, secondly, by assessing which goals were found most important by members of which department. The results of this study suggest that problem solving can be induced by selecting or developing prosocial employees, because a prosocial value orientation increases the likelihood of having broad role orientations, in which employees not only care for goals characteristic of their own department, but also for goals of other departments. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: the roles of social responsibility and reciprocityEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue S1 2001David De Cremer Two studies examined the choice differences between prosocials and proselfs by examining the influence of norms of social responsibility and reciprocity. In line with the integrative model of social value orientation, it was expected that prosocials differ from proselfs in their level of cooperation because they wish to maximize own and other's outcomes (i.e. paralleling the norm of social responsibility) and enhance equality in outcomes (i.e. paralleling the norm of reciprocity). Study 1 revealed that prosocials felt more responsible to further the group's interest than proselfs did and this social responsibility feeling appeared to account for choice differences. Study 2 revealed that prosocials were more likely to reciprocate their partner's actions than were proselfs. Also, feelings of social responsibility did not account for this observation, suggesting that enhancing joint outcomes and equality in outcomes constitute two relatively independent dimensions. The findings are discussed in light of the integrative model of social value orientation. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] When being disadvantaged grows into vengeance: The effects of asymmetry of interest and social rejection in social dilemmasEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 4 2009Jeroen Stouten In public good dilemmas, group members often differ in the extent to which they benefit from provision of the public good (asymmetry of interest). In the current paper, we argue that people may readily accept such financial differences in interest when their social needs are met by being accepted by the others. When people are socially rejected, however, members having a low rather than a high interest in the public good may display negative emotional and retributive reactions. This reasoning was supported by the findings of a first experimental study in which we manipulated people's interest in the public good and social rejection. These effects were replicated in a second experimental study and it was further shown that this two-way interaction between social rejection and interest in the public good was moderated by people's social value orientation. The negative reactions to low interest (vs. high interest) in the public good when being socially rejected were especially prominent among group members with a proself orientation. Taken together, the current studies illustrate the importance of studying how financial and social needs interact to determine emotional and retributive actions in social dilemmas. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Spill-over effects of intermittent costs for defection in social dilemmasEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 6 2002Daniel Eek This research investigates the role of intermittent monetary costs in restraining individuals from defection in social dilemmas. In Experiment 1, 104 car owners made fictitious choices between a slow and a fast travel mode in the context of a continuous social dilemma. There were four different conditions of monetary costs for choosing the fast mode (defection): no cost, low cost, high cost to self, or high cost to others. Participants defected most when there was no cost and least when they themselves were charged a high cost. A spill-over effect was obtained such that when others were charged a high cost to defect, defection rates were lower than under no cost. Experiment 2 used 36 undergraduates as participants in an iterated decision task with real groups. The results replicated the major results of Experiment 1. Furthermore, whereas prosocials were strongly affected by intermittent costs for defection (i.e. showed large spill-over effects), proselfs seemed to be unaffected. Possible explanations of this interaction effect between social value orientation and intermittent punishment for defection are provided. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Structural Solutions to Social Dilemmas: A Field Study on Commuters' Willingness to Fund Improvements in Public Transit,JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 3 2001Jeffrey A. Joireman The present field study examined commuters'(N= 152) willingness to fund improvements in public transit. Consistent with Samuelson's (1993; Samuelson & Messick, 1995) multiattribute evaluation model of structural change in social dilemmas, support for the transit plan was higher when it was perceived to be (a) effective at reducing congestion and pollution, (b) personally beneficial, and (c) fair in terms of taxes and benefits. Also consistent with predictions, these relationships were moderated by individual differences in social value orientation (MClintock, 1968) and the consideration of future consequences (CFC; Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). Prosocials responded more to the perceived fairness of the plan, while proselfs responded more to the plan's effectiveness in reducing congestion. Low CFCs responded more to the plan's personal benefits and effectiveness in reducing congestion, while high CFCs responded more to the plan's effectiveness in reducing pollution. [source] Effects of gain versus loss and certain versus probable outcomes on social value orientationsEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 3 2003Matthijs Poppe In an experiment, the effects of types of outcomes on social value orientations (individualism, competition, pro-social orientation) were investigated. Ninety-nine students made 28 choices which affected outcomes (points to be converted into money) for themselves and another (unknown) person. About half of them started out with nothing but they could allocate positive outcomes (gains) to themselves and/or the other. The other half were told that they themselves and another person would start out with some outcomes but they could lose outcomes depending on the choices. For about half the participants it was certain that their choices would result in outcomes while for the other half outcomes would be likely rather than certain. The expected utility of the outcomes was the same in the four conditions. In accordance with prospect theory, it was expected and found that participants would be more individualistic in the conditions with losses than in the conditions with gains. In accordance with social comparison theory, it was expected and found that participants would be more competitive in the conditions with probable outcomes than in the conditions with certain outcomes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Preferences for changing power positions and power distances: a social value orientations approachEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2003Matthijs Poppe Participants were asked to put themselves in the position of one of three persons who differed in the amount of power they had in a small work unit. Subsequently, they could allocate points on a power scale to themselves and the two others, and thus, change the power positions and the power distances between the positions. The least powerful individuals had the strongest tendency to increase their power. They wanted to reduce the power distance to the person in the higher position more than the power distance to the person in the middle position. The most powerful wanted to increase the power distance to the person in the middle position but not the power distance to the least powerful. Most results were consistent with social comparison theory and contrary to power distance theory. Because the dependent measures were derived from the social value orientations model, the scope of this model has been expanded. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] | ||||||||||