Effects of social value orientation on expecting and learning others' orientations

Iedema, Jurjen; Poppe, Matthijs

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240504

Cited by 31 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, because of their tendency to feel more responsible for others and to value the opportunity to improve the welfare of others (de Dreu, 2006;Rioux & Penner, 2001), prosocially motivated employees are willing to subordinate their own interests to the interests of others in the workplace (Bolino & Turnley, 2005;Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004). Finally, the prosocially motivated tend to behave cooperatively (Iedema & Poppe, 1994;Van Lange, DeBruin, Otten, & Joireman, 1997). Rather than viewing cooperative behavior as a potential threat to their own personal performance and evaluation (Wood, Chonko, & Hunt, 1986), prosocially motivated employees are more likely to see cooperating with others as a way to help others accomplish their goals (Flynn, 2003;Korsgaard, Meglino, & Lester, 1997).…”

Section: Prosocial and Competitive Motives And Affiliative Citizenshimentioning

confidence: 93%

Better to Give and to Compete? Prosocial and Competitive Motives as Interactive Predictors of Citizenship Behavior

Cardador

Wrzesniewski

2015

The Journal of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has returned mixed results concerning the relationship between prosocial motivation and citizenship behavior. Building from research suggesting that mixed motives might explain these equivocal findings, we conducted two field studies examining the interaction between prosocial and competitive motives and two types of citizenship behavior. Prosocial motivation, but not competitive motivation, was positively related to citizenship behavior directed at others, though this relationship was weakened when prosocial motives were accompanied by competitive motives. Prosocial motives compensated for weak competitive motives to predict citizenship behavior directed toward the organization. Our studies expand research on prosocial and competitive motivation, mixed-motives, and citizenship behavior. Further, they carry personnel implications given that many organizations seek to hire employees high on both competitive and prosocial motivation.

show abstract

Section: Prosocial and Competitive Motives And Affiliative Citizenshimentioning

confidence: 93%

Better to Give and to Compete? Prosocial and Competitive Motives as Interactive Predictors of Citizenship Behavior

Cardador

Wrzesniewski

2015

The Journal of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social value orientations are preferences people have for outcomes for themselves (S) and/or another person (O). Six orientations often distinguished are: individualism (max S; maximizing own outcomes regardless of another's outcomes), altruism (max O; maximizing another's outcomes regardless of one's own outcomes), cooperation (max S þ O; maximizing the sum of outcomes for oneself and another), competition (max S À O; maximizing the difference in outcomes-to own's own advantage-for oneself and another), equality orientation (min |S À O|; minimizing the difference in outcomes for oneself and another) and maximin orientation (max S, O; maximizing the outcomes for the person who gets less) (Grzelak, Poppe, Cwartosz, & Nowak, 1988;Iedema & Poppe, 1994;Kuhlman & Marshello, 1975;McClintock, Messick, Kuhlman, & Campos, 1973;Schulz & May, 1989). In the social value orientations model, some orientations can be inverted.…”

Section: Social Value Orientationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferences for changing power positions and power distances: a social value orientations approach

Poppe

2002

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.Many relationships, groups, and organizations are stratified because people differ in how much power they have. Bosses usually have more power than foremen and foremen usually have more power than workers. Often people want to change the power differences. Understanding power dynamics is an important element of understanding the functioning of relationships, groups, and organizations. In this article we will focus on two theories which explain why and how people want to change power differences. One theory, power distance theory, has been developed especially for understanding people's preferences to change power differences. The other, social comparison theory, is a more general theory that can be applied to preferences for changing power differences. Because some of the hypotheses which can be derived from the two theories are contradictory, an experiment will be described in which some hypotheses were refuted and others supported. In power dynamics, several tendencies-e.g. a tendency to change one's absolute power and a tendency to change one's relative power (compared to that of another person)-are entangled. To disentangle these tendencies methods were borrowed from research on social value orientations. The central aim of this article is to evaluate the two theories with respect to power dynamics. Further, we hope to demonstrate that the social value orientations paradigm is a useful framework to study interpersonal phenomena such as social power.

show abstract

“…Second, the Structural Assumed Similarity Bias (SASB) proposes that individuals with all SVOs project their own dispositions onto others and expect others to be similar to themselves (Kuhlman et al, ; Kuhlman & Wimberley, ; Ross, Greene, & House, ). Finally, the Cone Model only slightly differs from the SASB as it suggests that this false consensus effect is larger for individualists than for prosocials or competitors (Iedema & Poppe, , ), possibly due to the overestimation of self‐interest as a dominant motive underlying social behaviour (Miller & Ratner, ; Vuolevi & Van Lange, , ).…”

Section: Social Value Orientation and Expectations Of Others' Cooperamentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Value Orientation, Expectations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta–Analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interdependent situations are pervasive in human life. In these situations, it is essential to form expectations about the others' behaviour to adapt one's own behaviour to increase mutual outcomes and avoid exploitation. Social value orientation, which describes the dispositional weights individuals attach to their own and to another person's outcome, predicts these expectations of cooperation in social dilemmas—an interdependent situation involving a conflict of interests. Yet, scientific evidence is inconclusive about the exact differences in expectations between prosocials, individualists, and competitors. The present meta‐analytic results show that, relative to proselfs (individualists and competitors), prosocials expect more cooperation from others in social dilemmas, whereas individualists and competitors do not significantly differ in their expectations. The importance of these expectations in the decision process is further highlighted by the finding that they partially mediate the well‐established relation between social value orientation and cooperative behaviour in social dilemmas. In fact, even proselfs are more likely to cooperate when they expect their partner to cooperate. Copyright © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

show abstract

Effects of social value orientation on expecting and learning others' orientations

Abstract: The influence of an individual's own social value orientation on the orientation expected from others and on the learning of others'social orientations was examined.

Cited by 31 publications

References 21 publications

Better to Give and to Compete? Prosocial and Competitive Motives as Interactive Predictors of Citizenship Behavior

Better to Give and to Compete? Prosocial and Competitive Motives as Interactive Predictors of Citizenship Behavior

Preferences for changing power positions and power distances: a social value orientations approach

Social Value Orientation, Expectations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta–Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About