Measuring Social Value Orientation - Judgment and Decision Making

Measuring Social Value Orientation 

Ryan O. Murphy 1 

Kurt A. Ackermann 1 

Michel J. J. Handgraaf 2 

Tuesday 21 st September, 2010 

1 ETH Zürich 

Chair of Decision Theory and Behavioral Game Theory 

Clausiusstrasse 50, 8092 Zürich 

Switzerland 

2 University of Amsterdam 

Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences 

Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam 

The Netherlands 

rmurphy@ethz.ch 

kurt.ackermann@gess.ethz.ch 

handgraaf@uva.nl 

This is version 1.00. This draft is currently under review. 

Please do not quote or cite this draft without an author’s permission. 

This research has been supported by United States 

National Science Foundation grant SES-0637151. 

Additional thanks to Mike Kuhlman, Jeff Joireman, Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck, and Miguel Fonseca for 

their constructive feedback on early versions of this paper.

Contents 

1 Introduction 1 

2 Social Value Orientation Framework 3 

3 Existing Measurements of SVO 6 

3.1 The Altruism Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

3.1.1 The Altruism Scale described . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

3.1.2 Discussion of the Altruism Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

3.2 The 9-item Triple-Dominance Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

3.2.1 The 9-item Triple-Dominance Scale described . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

3.2.2 Discussion of the 9-item Triple-Dominance Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

3.2.3 Rank correlation technique: Another application of decomposed games . . . . . 14 

3.3 Utility measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

3.3.1 Utility measurement described . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

3.3.2 Discussion of utility measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

3.3.3 Indifference curves: A graphical approach to measuring SVO . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

3.4 The Social Behavior Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

3.4.1 The Social Behavior Scale described . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

3.4.2 Discussion of the Social Behavior Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

3.5 The Ring Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

3.5.1 The Ring Measure described . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

3.5.2 Discussion of the Ring Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

3.5.3 Circle-test: A one-item version of the Ring Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

3.6 Regression and clustering approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

3.6.1 Regression and clustering approach described . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

3.6.2 Discussion of regression and clustering approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

3.7 Schulz and May’s Sphere Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

3.7.1 The Sphere Measure described . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

3.7.2 Discussion of the Sphere Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

4 The SVO Slider Measure 28 

4.1 Primary SVO Slider items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

4.2 Secondary SVO Slider items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

4.3 Web-based SVO Slider Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

5 Psychometric properties of SVO measures 33 

5.1 Slider Measure validation procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

5.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

5.3 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

5.3.1 Triple-Dominance Measure test-retest reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

5.3.2 Ring Measure test-retest reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

5.3.3 Slider Measure test-retest reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

5.4 Convergent validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

5.4.1 Categorical agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

5.4.2 Correlational agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

5.5 Additional results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.6 Separating joint maximization and inequality aversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

6 Discussion 40 

3

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Murphy, Ackermann & Handgraaf (2010) DRAFT v0.6 Measuring SVO 

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the 

main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory 

were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. 

1 Introduction 

–John Donne 

Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII 

The assumption of narrow self-interest is fundamental to rational choice theory. The assump- 

tion postulates that decision makers (DMs) are concerned about maximizing their own material gain, 

indifferent to the payoffs of other DMs around them. This is a simplifying assumption that yields a 

powerful apparatus to predict and explain human behavior across a wide variety of domains. How- 

ever there are reliable counterexamples demonstrating that DMs’ elicited preferences and choices are 

influenced in part by the payoffs of other DMs thus challenging what some have termed the selfish- 

ness axiom (Henrich et al. 2005). Furthermore, evidence for prosociality, helping behavior, and results 

from the endeavor of uncovering its underlying motivational bases is well documented (e.g. Batson 

1995, Sell et al. 2009). In addition to behavioral evidence, specific neurological correlates related to 

concern for other’s outcomes have been identified (e.g. Haruno & Frith 2009, van den Bos, van Dijk, 

Westenberg, Rombouts, & Crone 2009, Tricomi, Rangel, Camerer, & O’Doherty 2010). Other regard- 

ing preferences have even been demonstrated in non-human primates (e.g. de Waal, Leimgruber, & 

Greenberg 2008). 

To illustrate the notion of interdependent interests, consider the following choice between two 

options. In each case the DM is choosing between certain distributions of money, one portion to 

herself, and some portion to be given to another person, who is unknown to her. The DM and the 

other person will remain mutually anonymous while and after the decision is made. Hence this is 

not a strategic decision (i.e., not within the purview of Game Theory as only one DM influences the 

payoffs of both people, hence there are not strategic concerns) but rather is a one-shot individual 

decision. Anonymity removes the potential influence of fear of reprisal, reciprocity, reputation, etc. 

so that the utility of outcomes defined by the DM (see Kelley & Thibaut 1978) solely reflects the DM’s 

social value (Dehue, McClintock, & Liebrand 1993, p.274) 

1

5 

10 

15 

20 


Table 1: A simple binary choice 

Option 1 Option 2 

$85 to the DM $100 to the DM 

$85 to another person $50 to another person 

The “rational” solution to this choice is trivial; a rational DM (Homo Economicus) would select 

option 2 as it results in a larger individual payoff. That, by choosing option 2 over option 1, an extra 

$15 is gained at a “cost” of $35 from another person is immaterial from the normative vantage point: 

the only pertinent consideration is the DM’s individual payoff, irrespective of the payoffs to others. In 

this instance, the normative account diverges from actual behavior. We find that incentivized DMs, 

in an anonymous one-shot decision context, choose option 1 about 40% of the time, a finding that 

is consistent with other research results (Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman 1997, Au & Kwong 

2004, Bogaert, Boone, & Declerck 2008, Balliet, Parks, & Joireman 2009). 1 

Studies on the motivations that underlie interdependent decision behavior have a long history and 

these motivations have been referred to by a variety of names, including: social preferences, social 

motives, other regarding preferences, welfare tradeoff ratios, and social value orientation (SVO). For 

consistency, we refer to this construct as SVO for the remainder of this paper. It is worth noting that 

the assumption of narrow self interest is a special case of SVO, and that SVO is not a challenge to 

rational choice theory per se, but rather the extension of a postulate in an effort to increase the theory’s 

psychological realism and descriptive accuracy. 

In the present paper, we provide an overview of existing methods that measure variations in SVOs 

across individuals and highlight some limitations with these existent measures. We then introduce a 

new measure of SVO that has several advantages over other methods. The new measure is referred 

to as the SVO Slider measure and can be administered online or as a one-page paper based choice 

task (see the Appendix, Section §6). A detailed discussion of the new measure is provided, along with 

norming data and evidence of the new measure’s convergent validity with existing methods. We con- 

clude with a discussion of the research streams that would benefit from a more sensitive and higher 

1 Au & Kwong (2004, p.74) report 49.7% cooperators over several studies and Van Lange et al. (1997) report about 60% 

cooperators across different western countries. Van Lange et al. (2007) summarized the latter results by stating that the 

ratio between cooperators, individualists and competitors in Western countries is roughly 4:2:1. 

2

5 

10 


resolution measure of SVO and extend an invitation to others to use this new measure. 

2 Social Value Orientation Framework 

SVO provides a framework for characterizing how decision makers (DMs) value joint outcomes 

(Messick & McClintock 1968, Griesinger & Livingston 1973, Liebrand 1984). A graphical representation 

of the full framework, highly similar to the one provided by (Liebrand 1984, p. 246) is provided in 

Figure 1 and shows different motivations associated with different joint outcomes. 

Payoff to other 

Figure 1: A graphical representation of the SVO framework 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

50 

Martyr 

15 

85 

Masochistic 

15 

15 

Sadomasochistic 

Sadistic 

Altruistic 

50 

100 

50 

0 

Payoff to self 

Prosocial 

85 

85 

Individualistic 

Competitive 

0 25 

50 75 100 

A point in the Cartesian plane corresponds to a specific joint outcome. The x-axis corresponds 

to the value of the DM’s individual payoff. The y-axis corresponds to the other person’s payoff. Al- 

though there are an infinite number of possible joint outcomes, those along the ring, intersecting one 

of the eight cardinal directions, provide clear exemplars of different joint outcomes that correspond 

to particular preferences. For example, the point on the ring that maximizes individual earnings is at 

3 

85 

15 

100 

50

5 

10 

15 


x = 100 and y = 50 (i.e. Individualistic); the point on the ring that maximizes joint earnings is at x = 85 

and y = 85 (i.e. Prosocial). These points and their respective archetypical motivations are listed in 

Table 2, along with other respective motivations. The values presented in Table 2 are consistent with 

Figure 1 and correspond to different motivations. 2 

Table 2: Archetypal SVO outcomes 

Self Other Orientation Inferred Motivation 

85 85 Prosocial Maximize joint payoff or minimize difference between payoffs 

100 50 Individualistic Maximize payoff to self 

85 15 Competitive Maximize positive difference between self and other’s payoff 

50 0 Sadistic Minimize other’s payoff 

15 15 Sadomasochistic Minimize joint payoff or minimize difference between payoffs 

0 50 Masochistic Minimize payoff to self 

15 85 Martyr Maximize negative difference between other’s and self payoff 

50 100 Altruistic Maximize other’s payoff 

One way to determine an individual’s preferences across different joint distributions is to present a 

DM with a series of allocation decisions and ask her to select her most preferred apportionments (e.g. 

the choice presented in Table 1). These resource allocation decisions are sometimes referred to as 

decomposed games (Pruitt 1967, Messick & McClintock 1968). The term decomposed games emerged 

from seminal work that used simple two-player binary option games (e.g. the Prisoner’s Dilemma) to 

study choice behavior. One problem with using a game to study intrinsic preferences is that a game 

is by definition a strategic interaction. Games require DMs to choose not only according to their pref- 

erences, but with those preferences conditioned on their beliefs of what they think other players will 

choose, knowing that the other players are likely thinking the same thing, and so on. These decisions 

are complex in that they draw upon both preferences and beliefs about others’ preferences, and beliefs 

about others’ beliefs, etc. As a method to measure preferences alone, it is muddled and confounded 

by the strategic nature of the interaction. A solution to this measurement problem is to decouple 

preference considerations from strategic considerations. This simplified choice task is called a de- 

composed game. Although it is technically not a game, it does give an unconfounded measure of an 

2 One thing that is worth noting is that in the economics literature, the term altruistic encompasses any positive other 

regarding preference, whereas in the psychology literature there is a distinction made between prosocial and altruistic 

orientations. For this paper we too will maintain the distinction between these two motivations, using altruistic to refer to 

the particular motivation of maximizing another’s payoff, indifferent to one’s own. 

4

5 

10 

15 

20 


individual’s preferences for joint outcomes. For example, if a DM chooses Option 2 from the alloca- 

tion choice presented in Table 1, we would infer that her motivation to maximize her own earnings is 

stronger than her motivation to maximize joint earnings; we would say she has a revealed preference 

consistent with an individualistic social value orientation. 

Any individual choice task where a DM makes a selection from among different allocations of 

resources to himself and others is a decomposed game. Decomposed games have been used exten- 

sively to study SVO (e.g. Messick & McClintock 1968, McClintock, Messick, Kuhlman, & Campos 1973, 

Kuhlman & Marshello 1975a,b, Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman 1997). The dictator game 3 

happens to be a decomposed game too. For clarity, we refer to non-game contexts as allocation deci- 

sions in order to emphasize the non-strategic nature of the relevant choice tasks. 

The framework presented in Figure 1 and Table 2 provides a taxonomy (Liebrand 1984) of revealed 

social preferences but has several unusual categories that are rarely consistent with real DMs’ choices. 

Thus researchers have focused their attention on a subset of items in a particular region of the ring. 

According to McClintock & Messick (1965), a person can fulfill one of three different orientations. A 

person may be motivated to secure maximal resources for himself, indifferent to how much the other 

receives (i.e. maximizing own gain). Or a person may prefer to maximize the sum of the outcomes for 

both self and other (i.e. maximizing joint gain). Or a person may prefer to maximize the difference be- 

tween his own outcome and the other’s outcome (maximizing relative gain). These three motivational 

orientations have longstanding labels in the psychology literature as individualistic, cooperative (i.e. 

prosocial), and competitive, respectively Deutsch (1960). The most common current measure of SVO, 

a 9-item triple dominance scale (see Van Lange et al. 1997), uses the same three categories. There 

are a variety of other approaches to the measure of SVO which range from distinguishing simply be- 

tween two categories (individualistic and prosocial) to differentiating among up to ten categories as 

proposed by MacCrimmon & Messick (1976). 

3 This is an unfortunate name as it is technically not a game either, as only one DM can influence the joint payoffs. 

5

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


3 Existing Measurements of SVO 

In this section, existing approaches to the measurement of SVO are described and discussed in ap- 

proximate chronological order of publication. This provides a general overview of the history of SVO 

measurements and offers insight into how methods have changed and developed over time. Figure 

14 shows a diagram of the measurement techniques over time. In discussing different approaches to 

SVO measurement, the current paper focuses on methods that assess people’s preferences for certain 

allocations of resources. These preferences are revealed by eliciting people’s judgments or choice be- 

havior when they are presented with options containing different distributions of outcomes for the 

self and for some other person. Questionnaire methods regarding altruistic or prosocial attitudes (e.g. 

Rushton et al. 1981, Crandall 1975) are excluded from the present paper. 

3.1 The Altruism Scale 

Sawyer (1966) devised a method for assessing the degree of concern a DM has for the outcomes 

for himself and others. He called this method the Altruism Scale. However it should be noted that 

Sawyer’s method can assess a range of different orientations including prosocial, individualistic, and 

competitive motivations, and it would be more accurate to call it the Social Preference Scale. Within 

Sawyer’s theoretical framework, the subjective attractiveness of a joint outcome was conceptualized 

as the linear combination P + (w · O) where P is the payoff for the self and O is the payoff for another 

person. The coefficient w represents how much weight a DM gives to the outcome for another, relative 

to his own outcome. If a person is individualistic and therefore only interested in only his own welfare, 

the coefficient w would be zero. If a person is cooperative and cares about both his own, and the 

other person’s welfare, w would be greater than zero. Conversely, if a person is competitive and tries 

to maximize the difference between the own and the other’s payoff, w will be less than zero. 

3.1.1 The Altruism Scale described 

Sawyer’s method uses a conjoint measurement technique to estimate an individual’s weighting 

of outcomes for others (w). An index of altruism is computed based on the desirability rankings of 

own/other outcome combinations. Specifically, subjects (college students in this case) were asked to 

6

5 

10 

15 

20 


imagine that they would take a seminar with only one other fellow student and that each would re- 

ceive a grade of A, B or C at the end of the seminar. Subjects were then asked to rank their preferences 

for the allocations of these grade combinations. After all 9 of the rankings are made by a DM, the 

altruism index a can be calculated as follows: 

a = 

(sum of ranks in row C) − (sum of ranks in row A) 

(sum of ranks in column C) − (sum of ranks in column A) 

The index a is a manifest variable and serves as a proxy for the latent variable w. The numerator in 

computing a corresponds to how much a person cares about the outcome for the other person. If, for 

example, a person cares about the other’s welfare, the DM will assign high ranks to the options where 

the other person receives A grades and low ranks to the outcomes where the other person receives 

C grades. In this case, the numerator is positive, indicating positive altruism. Conversely, a negative 

result indicates negative altruism (i.e. competitiveness). If the result is zero, it implies that the person 

is indifferent to the other student’s grade. 4 

According to Sawyer, w ranges continuously from −1 to +1, i.e. from perfectly competitive (w = 

−1) to perfectly cooperative (w = +1), with narrow self interest (w = 0) at the midpoint. It is worth 

noting that a can take on values outside of this range given atypical motivations (e.g. masochistic). It 

is also worth noting that for Sawyer’s Altruism scale, a is undefined if a DM provides purely altruistic 

ranking (ranks that are consistent with maximizing the grade of the other student and indifferent to 

the DM’s own grade). 

3.1.2 Discussion of the Altruism Scale 

The Altruism scale was an early innovation but as a means to measure social preferences it has 

limitations. First, the metric space of academic grades is not straightforward and is obviously not 

amendable to incentive compatible research. This particular choice context may force DMs to take 

4 Sawyer used a second method to directly assess a by asking the DM to choose 1 out of 21 scale values, which corresponded 

to values of a ranging from −1 to +1 in increments of 0.1. The scale is anchored by statements at the values −1, 

−0.5, 0, +0.5 and +1. For example, the statement reflecting an a value of +1 indicates agreement with the following statement: 

“I am equally interested in how good his grade is and in how good my grade is,” whereas the statement reflecting an 

a value of 0 indicates agreement with: “I am only interested in how good my grade is; how good or poor his grade is makes 

no difference to me.” 

7 

(1)

5 


Sawyer’s altruism index (a ) 

Other 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

-0.2 

-0.4 

-0.6 

-0.8 

-1 

Competitive 

A 5 4 3 

B 4 3 2 

C 3 2 1 

C B 

Self 

A 

Figure 2: Sawyer’s Altruism Scale - Preference rankings and the a index 

Other 

A 9 7 4 

B 8 5 2 

C 6 3 1 

C B 

Self 

A 

Other 

A 7 5 3 

B 6 4 2 

C 5 3 1 

C B 

Self 

A 

Other 

A 9 6 3 

B 8 5 2 

C 7 4 1 

C B 

Self 

A 

Other 

Individualistic 

A 3 2 1 

B 3 2 1 

C 3 2 1 

C B 

Self 

A 

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 

Coeficient (w): The weight for another’s outcome 

Other 

A 7 4 1 

B 8 5 2 

C 9 6 3 

C B 

Self 

A 

Other 

A 5 3 1 

B 6 4 2 

C 7 5 3 

C B 

Self 

A 

A 6 3 1 

B 8 5 2 

C 9 7 4 

C B 

Self 

A 

Other 

Prosocial 

A 3 2 1 

B 4 3 2 

C 5 4 3 

C B 

Self 

A 

Figure 3: Examples of different preference rankings (the 3 × 3 matrixes at the top of the figure) are 

displayed here. Further, the relationship of these rankings to the underlying utility weight (w, shown 

on the x-axis) for another’s outcome, and Sawyer’s altruism index a are shown. The ranking of 1 

indicates that this allocation of grades is the DMs most preferred joint outcome. As can be seen, ties 

in ranking outcomes are allowed. Particular rankings are consistent with underlying utility weights, 

and further each ranking matrix corresponds to an a index. Although w is continuous, the resulting 

altruism index a is a step function that can take on only one of nine values given w between -1 and 

1 inclusive. Some rankings correspond to a single point of w, whereas other rankings are consistent 

with a range of w values. 

a zero-sum mentality if they are accustomed to curved grading systems or are concerned with their 

overall class ranking. 

Second, a procedure for rank ordering preferences that presents subjects with all stimuli at the 

same time runs the risk of yielding unreliable data because people usually are not very skilled at re- 

liably ranking multiple items simultaneously (Saaty 1980). Hence, as proposed by Sawyer himself, it 

would probably be beneficial to let subjects make sequential pairwise comparisons in order to reduce 

complexity of the judgment task and therefore yield more accurate rank orders. How one would elicit 

global rankings based on sequential pairwise rankings is not an issue Sawyer addresses nor does it 

8 

Other 

1.000 

0.625 

0.500 

0.333 

0.000 

-0.333 

-0.500 

-0.625 

-1.000

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


have an obvious solution. 

Third, the altruism scale cannot differentiate between prosocial motivations and inequality aver- 

sion. It also yields an undefined a index for a DM with an altruistic motivational orientation. 

Fourth, the process of reducing a set of rank orderings into a single index may be problematic. 

Each a value at one of the three anchors (-1, 0, +1) has a clear interpretation, whereas values in be- 

tween are not readily interpretable. Further, the index a is an ordinal variable at best (Stevens 1946, 

1950) and is limited to 9 particular values. Moreover, the mapping from underling utility w to the 

index a has a “many-to-one” structure which necessarily results in the loss of information. 

With respect to psychometric properties of his measure, Sawyer reported only moderate validity 

and reliability. For example, the correlation between values obtained by the direct scale estimation 

measure and the values obtained by the ranking method was only r = 0.32, hence challenging the 

measure’s convergent validity. Sawyer reasoned that the discrepancy between the two measures was 

probably due to differences in task complexity and to multidimensionality in the rankings (i.e., the di- 

rect estimation measure promotes unidimensional judgments whereas the conjoint method allowes 

for more complex preferences to manifest themselves). 

3.2 The 9-item Triple-Dominance Scale 

Decomposed games have their roots in two-option two-player games (e.g. the Prisoner’s dilemma) 

that have been the “fruit flies” of social decision research. Messick & McClintock (1968) and Pruitt 

(1967) independently devised what have been termed decomposed games by deconstructing binary 

social dilemmas into individual decision problems. The reason for this simplification is to disentangle 

intrinsic motivations from strategic concerns. Allocation choices can be constructed that differenti- 

ate between archetypal motivations; Messick & McClintock (1968) concerned themselves with three 

common SVOs, namely prosocial, individualistic, and competitive, ignoring other less common mo- 

tivations. 

For example, the allocation decision presented in Table 1 is designed to differentiate between 

prosocial and individualistic motivations. A prosocial person would choose Option A and an indi- 

vidualist would choose Option B. This type of item is referred to as a double-dominance item as it can 

9

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


discriminate between two of the three most common SVOs. However, a competitive type would also 

select option B, as it has a greater relative difference between the payoffs. So with this particular allo- 

cation decision it is not possible to differentiate between individualists and competitors as both types 

would make the same choice. 

There are two methods which solve this problem and distinguish between the three most common 

SVOs. First, a researcher can examine the complete set of choices made in a series of two-option, 

double dominance allocation decisions. The set of choices that pits each of the common SVOs against 

each of the other common SVO types is necessarily exhaustive and can isolate a DM’s primary social 

motivation. This method would also identify an individual’s least preferred social outcome. A second 

method to differentiate between the three most common SVOs uses a single allocation decision that 

has three options (as proposed by McClintock, Messick, Kuhlman, & Campos 1973) such that each 

option dominates both the other two options with respect to a particular motivational orientation. 

These types of items have the property of triple dominance, as they can differentiate between three 

social orientations. These types of items were adopted by Kuhlman & Marshello (1975a) who also 

used other decomposed game classes (double-dominance and single-dominance) for assessing SVO. 

Building on this work, the 9-item triple-dominance measure of SVO (see Van Lange et al. 1997) has 

evolved and has become a widely-used measurement method (e.g. applied by Joireman, Van Lange, & 

Van Vugt 2004, Utz 2004, Utz, Ouwerkerk, & Van Lange 2004, van Dijk, De Cremer, & Handgraaf 2004, 

Stouten, De Cremer, & Van Dijk 2005, de Kwaadsteniet, van Dijk, Wit, & de Cremer 2006, Van Lange, 

Bekkers, Schuyt, & Van Vugt 2007, Declerck & Bogaert 2008, van Prooijen, De Cremer, van Beest, Ståhl, 

van Dijke, & Van Lange 2008, van den Bos, van Dijk, Westenberg, Rombouts, & Crone 2009, Haruno & 

Frith 2009), in part due to its straight forward structure and ease of use (Van Lange, De Cremer, van 

Dijk, & Van Vugt 2007). 

3.2.1 The 9-item Triple-Dominance Scale described 

The triple dominance SVO items can be seen in Table 3. For each item there is one allocation 

option that is prosocial, individualistic, and competitive. The scoring rule for this scale is to count 

the number of selfish, prosocial, and competitive options a DM selects. If a DM chooses six or more 

10

5 

10 

15 


Prosocial Individualistic Competitive 

Item Self Other Self Other Self Other 

1 80 80 92 40 80 0 

2 84 84 96 44 84 4 

3 88 88 100 48 88 4 

4 82 82 96 44 84 4 

5 84 84 96 44 82 2 

6 84 84 98 44 84 4 

7 86 86 96 44 86 6 

8 84 84 94 44 84 4 

9 82 82 92 44 80 4 

Table 3: Simple trichotomous choices of distributions. Note: These values have been standardized 

to range between 0 and 100 in order to facilitate comparison with the other measures presented in 

this paper. The original items ranged between 80 and 580 and were presented in the units of points 

(examples of the original form are shown in Van Lange et al. 1997, 2007). 

options from a particular category, then the DM is categorized as being that type. If a DM does not 

choose at least six options from one category, then she is not categorized (e.g. McClintock & Allison 

1989, Platow, McClintock, & Liebrand 1990, Van Lange & Kuhlman 1994). In other variants of the 

Triple-Dominance scale, only six items are used and subjects are classified when at least five of the six 

choices are consistent with one of the three social value orientations (e.g. Van Lange 1999). However, 

the method of counting choices made in several decomposed games and classifying subjects into 

respective SVO categories according to their choice pattern with respect to a particular consistency 

criterion is exemplary for the general evaluation procedure used in decomposed game measures. This 

holds for the 9-item Triple-Dominance SVO scale as well as for other variants using mixed dominance 

classes (e.g. Kuhlman & Marshello 1975a,b). 

3.2.2 Discussion of the 9-item Triple-Dominance Scale 

Although the 9-item Triple-Dominance SVO scale is the most commonly used measure of SVO 

to date, it has some shortcomings. First, it can classify individuals to only one of three categories: 

prosocial, individualistic, or competitive, and provides no information beyond this categorization. 

This result is only at the nominal level (Stevens 1946, 1950), the lowest level of measurement. However 

social motivations are a continuous construct and one practical result of forced categorization is low 

11

5 

10 

15 


Figure 4: The 9-item Triple-Dominance scale. Each item is represented in the self/other allocation 

plane as three points connected by two lines. Notice the high degree of similarity among the items. It 

may be more accurate to say this is a scale with one item repeated nine times. 

statistical power. 


100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Payoff to self 

Second, it cannot discriminate between joint payoff maximization and inequality aversion. Al- 

though these preferences may be related, they are not the same. For example, there is evidence that 

persons classified as prosocial are concerned with both the maximization of joint gain and equality in 

outcomes (Van Lange 1999). Further there are choice contexts where these motivations would lead to 

substantially different behavior. 

Third, the 9-item Triple-Dominance measure can only establish a DM’s first preference, not her 

lesser preferences. Take for example an individual who has a rank order of preferences as individ- 

ualistic, prosocial, and competitive. Contrast this individual to someone who ranked preferences 

of individualistic, competitive, and then prosocial. These individuals may approach the world very 

differently than each other. Furthermore, knowing what an individual’s least preferred allocation is 

would be informative, as an avoidant personality or prevention focus (Higgins 1997) can serve as a 

motivational foundation. People who are strongly motivated to avoid their least preferred option, 

rather than focusing on their most favored option, would make different choices depending on the 

full ranking of their preferences. It is thus important to know not just a DM’s most preferred outcome, 

but also the entire rank ordering of her social preferences. 

12

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


Fourth, three-option choice sets are more complicated than binary choices. The simplest choice 

is between two options and only requires the DM to make one comparison in the process of making 

a decision. Increasing to three options requires the DM to make three comparisons. The inclusion 

of one particularly unattractive option has been shown to have an effect on revealed preferences (Si- 

monson 1989) in unanticipated ways. 

Fifth, it seems to have become quite common practice that the two categories of individualistic 

and competitive orientations are being merged to form one group which is then compared to indi- 

viduals in the prosocial category (see for example Joireman et al. 2004, Utz 2004, Stouten et al. 2005, 

de Kwaadsteniet et al. 2006, Cornelissen et al. 2007, van Prooijen et al. 2008, van den Bos et al. 2009). 

Obviously such procrusteanism sacrifices information. This collapsing across categories is not an 

intrinsic limitation of the Triple-Dominance SVO measure, but rather a regrettable convention that 

has evolved with it when the number of subjects per category is considered to be too low (see e.g. 

Van Lange & Liebrand 1991). 

Sixth, offering the nearly identical choice nine times may induce subjects to vary their responses 

in unexpected ways. In some cases, this variation may be reflective of their honest preferences. For 

example we had one subject in pretesting explain that he answered about half of the items selfishly 

and the other half cooperatively. His goal he explained was to be nice, but not too nice. This subject 

treated the scale holistically and made a set of answers that, when considered in total were sensible, 

but would have resulted in an uncategorizable result using the standard scoring rule. In other cases, 

subjects may become bored or suspicious of answering the same item repeatedly and thus vary their 

answers. Ironically, this high degree of redundancy in triple dominance scales may undermine its 

ability to classify subjects. For example, in the study conducted by Kuhlman & Marshello (1975a), the 

percentage of unclassifiable subjects was 25% (42 out of 167), Kuhlman et al. (1992) report 29.3% (41 

out of 140) unclassifiable subjects, and Sheldon (1999), who made use of the Kuhlman and Teta mea- 

sure, even applied an alternative scoring method after having lost 27% (25 out of 90) of the subjects 

for analysis because they were not classifiable. 

13

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


3.2.3 Rank correlation technique: Another application of decomposed games 

Another measurement technique that makes use of decomposed games for assessing SVO was 

introduced by Iedema & Poppe (1994a,b, 1995). Iedema & Poppe presented subjects with pairwise 

comparisons of eight different own/other payoff allocations, resulting in a total of 28 allocation de- 

cisions. Then, ranks were assigned to the eight payoff allocations for each subject according to how 

often each of these eight alternatives had been selected. Prior to this assessment, Iedema & Poppe 

had compiled ideal rank orders of the eight alternatives with respect to six different social orienta- 

tions (individualism, altruism, equality, cooperation, competition and maximin). The assessed rank 

orders were then correlated (Spearman’s rank order correlation) with each of the six ideal rank orders 

for each subject, yielding six correlation coefficients per subject, each of which was indicative of the 

relation between the subject’s rank order and the corresponding ideal rank orders of the six social ori- 

entations. These coefficients were then transformed into Fisher Z -scores ranging from −3 to +3 and 

subjects were classified to a particular SVO category matching their highest Z -score, provided that 

this score was greater than a predetermined threshold. In one instance a threshold of .55 (which cor- 

responds to a correlation coefficient of .5) (Iedema & Poppe 1994a,b) was used. In another instance, 

a threshold of .881 (corresponding to a correlation of .707, reflecting the threshold of 50% explained 

variance) (Iedema & Poppe 1995) was required. 

3.3 Utility measurement 

Utility measurement in general refers to the systematic estimation and mapping of how subjec- 

tively valuable goods or outcomes are to a DM. Utility is an abstract construct that is inferred from 

the revealed preferences of DMs as they make choices among available alternatives. These alterna- 

tives can include “bundled outcomes,” sets of discrete goods that are considered and evaluated as a 

whole set. Obviously, the utility of these bundled outcomes results from the constituent parts therein. 

However, the way a DM integrates information about the items and makes tradeoffs between them 

may not be so obvious. Early studies of these kinds of choices by Thurstone (1931) involved subjects 

making paired comparisons between sets of goods (2 hats, 4 pairs of shoes) vs. (4 hats, X pairs of 

shoes) where X was varied systematically by the experimenter. This approach yielded an estimated 

14

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


value of X where a DM was indifferent between the sets. Given this indifference point, the relative 

contribution of the discrete items to the bundle’s overall utility could be inferred. 

With respect to SVO, joint allocations are viewed as “bundled outcomes” that have at least two dis- 

tinct potential sources of utility for a DM– the payoff for the self and the payoff for another. Individual 

differences emerge because different people place different subjective values upon these sources of 

utility and make different subjective tradeoffs when evaluating the bundle as a whole. Although the 

notion of utility is most closely associated with economics, this framework is consistent with func- 

tional measurement (Anderson 1970), specifically in the context of information integration theory 

(Anderson 1968). 

3.3.1 Utility measurement described 

The approach of using utility measurement in the context of own-other-outcome is not a new 

idea. Edgeworth (1881) assumed that between pure selfishness and pure prosociality (or in h is words 

- Pure Universalistic) there are a wide range of middle orientations. He wrote: 

For between the two extremes Pure Egoistic and Pure Universalistic there may be an indefinite 

number of impure methods; wherein the happiness of others as compared by the 

agent (in a calm moment) with his own, neither counts for nothing, nor yet “counts for 

one,” but counts for a fraction. (Edgeworth 1881, p.16) 

From this, one can readily see that the idea of utility in social contexts as being affected not only by 

one’s own welfare, but also by the welfare of others, is not new. Edgeworth assumed that the welfare 

of others does not have the same impact on one’s happiness as one’s own welfare, but instead has 

a fraction of that impact. Hence the magnitude of such a fraction can be considered an index of 

prosociality. The coefficients or weights attached to the outcomes of others as specified in utility 

functions is what Edgeworth meant when using the term fraction in this context. 

The framework of using joint utility evaluations was chosen by Wyer (1969) who used it to suc- 

cessfully predict choice behavior in particular classes of strategic games. His approach transformed 

preferences for outcome allocations into utilities. Wyer, as well as Griesinger & Livingston (1973), 

modeled the utility of joint allocations as a linear combination of the weighted outcomes for the self 

15

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


and for another. Wyer used a utility function with the form 

U = (w1RS) + ((1 − ) w2RS) + (w3RO) (2) 

where RS represents the outcome for self, RO represents the outcome for other, w1,2,3 represent weights 

reflecting the values attached to the respective outcomes and is an indicator function which yields 

the value of 1 if RS > 0 and 0 if RS ≤ 0. In his experiment, Wyer used a 21-point rating scale to assess 

the desirability of allocation outcomes. Subjects were asked how much they would like, for example, a 

distribution of 2 points for themselves and −3 points for another. The scale ranged from between −10 

and +10 in interval steps. These desirability ratings were then inserted into the above formula as an 

estimated utility value, conditional on that particular allocation (in this example RS = 2 and RO = −3). 

After a series of ratings were obtained from a research subject, the weights w1,2,3 were estimated by 

ordinary least-squares fitting. 

Different sets of weights indicate different social orientations. Considering instances of positive 

outcomes, a person with an individualistic orientation would have a high positive w1 weighting and 

a w3 weighting close to zero. Prosocial individuals would have positive values for both w1 and w3 

that are similar in magnitude. Wyer showed that the competitive orientation would be reflected by a 

positive w1 and a negative w3. 

More complex utility models have been posited. For example, second order polynomials have 

been used to account for joint utilities. Radzicki (1976), used a conjoint measurement technique to 

identify a best fitting utility function. Subjects were asked to make rankings of 25 outcome alloca- 

tions from the most preferred to the least preferred distributions. These rankings were then analyzed 

and linear programming methods were used to determine the form of the utility function that fit the 

particular rankings best. This method yielded a particular utility function, along with weighting co- 

efficients, for each of the subjects. Radzicki found that linear functions fit 41% of the participants’ 

rankings best, whereas for 8% of the participants’ rankings, none of the considered functions fit the 

data sufficiently. In many cases though, non-linear functions exhibited a significantly better fit to 

the data than simple linear models. For example, for people who were concerned with equality in 

16

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


outcomes, the function which best fit the particular rankings was of the form 

u(x, y) = ax + by + cx 2 + d y 2 + e(| x − y | q ) (3) 

where q < 1. Although the simplicity of linear models is convenient and in many cases sufficient to 

describe choice behavior with respect to joint allocations, non-linear models allow for more sophis- 

ticated descriptions of choice behavior and are able to account for more complex patterns in data. 

Non-linear approaches are suggested by MacCrimmon & Messick (1976) and, Wyer (1969) himself 

noted that non-linear relations between given outcomes and their utilities could well be possible, if 

not probable, when payoff amounts exceed a certain range of values under consideration. For exam- 

ple, the increase of a payoff amount from one dollar to two dollars is probably not equally valued as 

an increase from 500 dollars to 501 dollars with respect to utility. From this point of view, non-linear 

models are justifiable when the values of outcomes presented to decision makers vary widely in the 

amounts under consideration. 

3.3.2 Discussion of utility measurements 

As McClintock & Van Avermaet (1982) noted, the approach of using utility functions for the evalu- 

ation of social value orientations as performed by Wyer (1969, 1971) or Radzicki (1976) is focused on 

revealing a mode of measurement that adequately describes the combinatory rules underlying prefer- 

ence choices within the framework of own-other-outcome allocations and theoretically allows for an 

infinite number of possible social value orientation. Therefore, these models do not state particular 

SVOs a priori, but rather let SVOs be inferred from or interpreted by specific combinatory rules and 

weight values provided by the respective utility functions. By contrast, methods following the line of 

Messick & McClintock (1968) –such as the trichotomous measure or decomposed games in general as 

well as the ring measure– are more concerned with the “substantive nature” (McClintock & Van Aver- 

maet 1982, p.59) of SVO. That is, the existence of a number of predefined SVOs is assumed a priori and 

the emphasis is placed upon measuring them directly by letting people decide between two or more 

outcome allocations that are indicative of particular archetypical social orientations. 

Nevertheless, there are certain problems with the use of utility measurement for assessing SVO. 

17

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


First, when SVOs for different persons are expressed using different functional forms, each represen- 

tation potentially containing a different number of parameters, it is difficult to compare or aggregate 

results. For example Radzicki’s method is likely too flexible to be useful and certainly over-fits ratings 

data that are at least in some part measurement error. 

Second, DMs are not making choices in these utility estimation methods, but rather judging the at- 

tractiveness of different hypothetical allocations. This rating procedure makes strong linear assump- 

tions of the response scale which are likely not met, especially given the scale’s structure (a 21-point 

rating scale!). Eliciting judgments rather than choices introduces a level of abstraction that does not 

offer clear benefits. Moreover, inducing participants to honestly report their preferences by incentive 

compatible methods is not easily accommodated with judgment tasks like the ones suggested above. 

3.3.3 Indifference curves: A graphical approach to measuring SVO 

In addition to utility functions as representations of different SVOs, indifference curves too can be 

used as a representation of preferences for different joint outcomes. Consider a set of curves plotted 

on a two-dimensional plane defined by the payoff to self on the x-axis and payoff to another on the 

y-axis. Radzicki (1976) depicted indifference curves resulting from a utility function corresponding to 

the best fit of subjects’ rating data. 

Another approach along these lines was developed by Harrison (1998) who conducted what he 

termed an “indifference curve experiment” based on a procedure described by MacCrimmon & Toda 

(1969) and similar to the approach by Thurstone (1931). Harrison requested subjects make several 

pairwise choices between various joint allocations of money. For example, subjects chose between 

an allocation of $10 to themselves and $8 to another, or say $17 for themselves and $15 to another. 

The first optional distribution was referred to as the “reference allocation” and for a set of choices 

was always the same. After multiple choices are made, one can infer an indifference curve running 

through the reference point and the boundary between those allocations that were preferred over the 

reference allocation and those allocations which were not preferred over the reference allocation (see 

Figure 5). 

By repeating this procedure and using a different reference allocation point, an arbitrary number 

18

5 

10 

15 


Figure 5: An example of the indifference curve method. The left panel shows 18 pairs of potential allocation 

choices that a subject would consider. Each of them has in common the Reference Allocation. 

Each of the Optional Allocations is either chosen over the Reference Allocation or not. The resulting 

pattern of preferred options can be used to identify an indifference curve which necessarily intersects 

the Reference Allocation point. 

payoff to 

other 

30 

20 

10 

10, 8 

Reference allocation 

Optional allocation 

17, 15 

10 20 30 

payoff to 

self 

payoff to 

other 

30 

20 

10 

10 20 30 

Reference allocation 

Selected allocation 

Non-selected allocation 

of indifference curves can be discerned, resulting in a contour map consistent with a DM’s SVO. This 

measurement procedure can be done to an arbitrary level of precision depending on the number of 

choice sets presented to a DM. The example shown in Figure 5 shows how one indifference curve can 

be inferred from 18 distinct pairwise choices; these are actual stimuli from Harrison (1998). 

It is worth noting that such a procedure has some advantages. First, subjects are presented with 

pairwise comparisons rather than multiple comparisons or abstract rating scales. Furthermore, no a 

priori assumption about the existence of a number of predefined social value orientations is needed, 

while the indifference curve patterns resulting from the procedure allow for interpretations regarding 

the extent to which they are consistent of respective SVOs. This method can also quickly identify 

intransitive choice sets or random responding from particular subjects, as no indifference curve can 

be inferred from their allocation decisions. It can also readily accommodate incentive compatible 

choices. 

This approach however has some limitations. First the resulting indifference curves are identified 

heuristically and not analytically. This means that a curve is “eye-balled” into place in order to di- 

vide the chosen points from the non-chosen points. An infinite number of bivariate functions could 

yield a curve that separates the chosen options from the non-chosen options while intersecting the 

reference allocation. Identifying the “best” fitting curve is impossible given the low resolution of the 

19 

payoff to 

self

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


choice data and the heuristic method of curve fitting does not lend itself to parameterization. In order 

to address this issue, a researcher could specify a number of forms for the joint utility function (similar 

to Radzicki (1976)), and then roughly estimate an underlying utility function with general parameters 

that are consistent with the choices. Although this would quantify the heuristic indifference curve to 

some degree, the resulting joint utility function and parameters are not easily comparable between 

subjects given the variety of functional forms that may emerge as being consistent with the under- 

lying set of binary choices. Another shortcoming with this approach, is the relatively large number 

of choices a DM is required to make in order to infer one indifference curve. In the example shown, 

which is based on stimuli from Harrison (1998), 18 binary choices were used to approximate just one 

indifference curve. 

3.4 The Social Behavior Scale 

The Social Behavior Scale was devised as a measure that controls for individualism by keeping 

the outcome distributable to self constant and letting only the outcome distributable to the other 

vary over the choice alternatives. Consequently, decision makers are not given the opportunity to 

maximize their own gain by choosing a particular alternative, but only have control over the outcome 

for another. 

3.4.1 The Social Behavior Scale described 

The social behavior scale is a choice task with four alternatives as shown in Figure 6. The alterna- 

tives are: Rivalry & superiority; superiority; equality; and altruism & group enhancement. Outcomes 

for self and other are depicted as small squares and labeled as “chips.” This measure was devised by 

Knight & Kagan (1977) in effort to study the social behavior of young children from different ethnic 

groups. In their experimental study, children were told that the more chips they acquired, the more 

toys they would receive. This “currency” is easily comprehensible and can be presented without nu- 

merical abstraction, ideal for use with children, especially when there may be differences with respect 

to their formal educational experience. Subjects were asked to choose one out of the four alternatives 

according to their preferences. 

20

5 

10 

15 

20 


Other 

outcome 

Self 

outcome 

Figure 6: Social behavior scale 

Rivalry Altruism 

Rivalry & 

superiority 

3.4.2 Discussion of the Social Behavior Scale 

Superiority Equality 

Altruism & group 

enhancement 

As a result of its properties, especially with regard to assessing individualistic orientations, the 

social behavior scale is too restricted to be an appropriate measure for SVO in general. Of course, one 

can readily imagine an alternative form of the Social Behavior Scale, where individualism is not strictly 

controlled. Such an alternative form would present allocation decisions across a range of different 

outcomes with simplified stimuli. Such a method could be advantageous when conducting studies 

with children or populations not accustomed to quantified information. 

3.5 The Ring Measure 

The ring measure is a method for assessing SVO that uses a series of dichotomous allocation de- 

cisions and derives an SVO score from the combined results of the choices made by a subject. The 

method is based on the notion that joint payoffs can be represented on a Cartesian coordinate system 

where payoffs to the DM are represented on the x-axis and payoffs to another person are represented 

on the y-axis (see Figure 1). This idea is consistent with the geometrical model which was devised 

by Griesinger & Livingston (1973) and Wyer (1969, 1971). Griesinger & Livingston stated that a per- 

son’s SVO can be conceptualized as a vector with a certain direction and magnitude in the joint payoff 

plane. The utility of a particular payoff allocation can then be expressed as the scalar product of 

the motivational vector with the vector of the given choice, or in other words, the projection of the 

given choice vector on the motivational vector. Consequently, a person will always choose the pay- 

off allocation with the greatest projection on his or her motivational vector. Further, the angle of the 

motivational vector is indicative of a respective SVO. For example, a motivational vector at the angle 

21

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


of θM = 45 ◦ represents a prosocial orentation, whereas an individualistic motivation is represented by 

a vector at θM = 0 ◦ (see Figure 1). Following this conceptualization, Liebrand (1984) developed and 

established the Ring Measure as a novel method for assessing SVO. 

3.5.1 The Ring Measure described 

The ring measure presents subjects with a set of N dichotomous allocation decisions that are de- 

fined by N points on a circle centered at the Cartesian origin (x = 0, y = 0). Each pair of adjacent points 

(defining a chord on the circle) serve as the two distribution options, and the subject makes a series 

of choices over these different allocations. Researchers have set the value of N at both 24 (Liebrand & 

McClintock 1988) and 16 (Liebrand 1984). 5 

After a research participant has made her N allocation choices, a vector is computed by adding 

her chosen options together, thus yielding two numbers (the sum of money the subject allocated to 

herself, and the sum of money the subject allocated to the other person). The resulting point can be 

interpreted as a vector (using the center point of the ring as its origin). The angle of this vector cor- 

responds to a person’s SVO and can be computed by θ = arctan( y 

x ), where y is the sum of allocations 

to the other and x is the sum of allocations to the self. The length of the vector indicates the internal 

consistency of the subject’s allocation decisions. If a person makes inconsistent choices, the result is 

necessarly a shorter vector. Perfectly consistent choice sets have the property of having one option 

being chosen twice (the most preferred distribution in the whole set), one option never being chosen 

(the least preferred allocation), and the remaining allocations being chosen exactly once. The vector 

resulting from a perfectly consistent set of choices will have a length equal to twice the radius of the 

circle used to generate the items, given that the center of the circle is fixed at the Cartesian origin. Be- 

cause of the structure of items in a Ring Measure, the more rigorous property of preference transitivity 

cannot be evaluated for a subject’s set of choices, only the weaker condition of consistency with an 

underlying vector. 

To date, the ring measure has been implemented with a defining center point at (0,0), yielding 

both positive and negative allocation values. However, to facilitate comparison with other measure- 

5 Liebrand (1984) employed 16 equally spaced pairs of outcomes on each of two circles (A and B) with radii of $7.00 

(circle A) and $8.50 (circle B), resulting in a total of 32 outcome pairs as choice allocations. 

22

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


ment methods presented in this paper, the values in Table 10 have been standardized to range be- 

tween 0 and 100. This is equivalent to defining a ring with a center at (50,50) and a radius of 50 units. 

In order to prevent invalid classifications, DMs were typically only classified if the consistency of 

their choices was at least 60%. However, there is some variety regarding the standards for establish- 

ing a classification. For example, some classifications are made with a 50% consistency level (e.g. 

Van Lange 1999) or, in other cases, only if a vector is not shorter than a quarter (e.g. McClintock & 

Liebrand 1988) or even a fifth (e.g. Dehue et al. 1993) of the maximum possible vector length. 

3.5.2 Discussion of the Ring Measure 

At first blush the Ring Measure’s agnostic method of defining items evenly over the complete circle 

may appear to be a sensible approach. However there is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that 

SVOs are not uniformly distributed among people and that the vast majority of DMs have motivations 

consistent with one of three categories. Therefore using items from the whole space of possible SVOs 

is necessarily inefficient. The structure of the Ring Measure assigns equal value to the following two 

items: (1) Is a person more prosocial or more individualistic? (2) Is a person more a martyr or more 

masochistic? Clearly the first question is more useful in trying to understand the motivations of typ- 

ical DMs. But, because of its blanket approach, the majority of items contained in the Ring Measure 

provide no useful information about the motivations of the person answering them. The only items 

that offer any useful diagnostic information are those with slopes that are nearly perpendicular to 

the underlying motivational vector of the decision maker. This agnostic approach results in a highly 

inefficient research tool. 

Second, the ring measure fails to classify a significant number of subjects due to inconsistent 

choice behavior. In their analysis of several studies that applied the Ring Measure, Au & Kwong 

(2004) reported percentages of up to 20% unclassifiable subjects and in two experiments performed 

by Liebrand (1984) himself, the percentage of unclassifiable subjects across the two experiments was 

15%. In analyzing these percentages, one has to take into consideration, that Liebrand (1984) used 

a 60% consistency criterion, whereas in at least some studies analyzed by Au & Kwong, a 50% con- 

sistency criterion was chosen (e.g. Van Lange 1999). Part of this inconsistency could be the result of 

23

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


asking for people’s preferences across such a wide range of distributions, some of which they may have 

only weak preferences about. Moreover, inequality aversion would manifest itself as inconsistency in 

the Ring Measure. There are two different distribution options that minimize the difference between 

joint payoffs and if a subject were to choose both of these distributions when given the chance, the 

result would be an inconsistent choice set, as well as a shorter vector. And a further complication is 

that the Ring Measure has both positive and negative options. Given the evidence of how losses loom 

larger than gains (Kahneman & Tversky 1979), it is possible that DMs make different tradeoffs when 

considering positive outcomes versus negative (or mixed) outcomes. Lastly, the presence of losses 

makes it a challenge to implement the Ring Measure in an incentive compatible way as taking money 

from research subjects is generally verboten. 

Third, the Ring Measure would diagnose inequality aversion as inconsistency. The 45 ◦ diagonal 

line from the origin intersects the ring in two places; the point in quadrant 1 corresponds to both 

minimizing inequality as well as maximizing joint gain, whereas the point in quadrant 3 corresponds 

to minimizing inequality but minimizing joint gain. If a DM were sufficiently motivated by inequality 

aversion, he would produce an inconsistent set of allocations by selecting allocations on the diagonal 

whenever possiable. The Ring Measure does not address this limitation. 

3.5.3 Circle-test: A one-item version of the Ring Measure 

Sonnemans, van Dijk, & Winden (2006) conducted a study which required that subjects complete 

an SVO measure four times within the context of an ongoing public goods game. To these ends, the 

researchers modified the Ring Measure so that subjects had to make only one allocation decision to 

yield an SVO score. They termed this modified Ring Measure the “Circle Test.” In the Circle Test, sub- 

jects were provided with a graphical representation of the SVO Ring on a computer screen (similar to 

Figure 1). Subjects were then requested to make their joint allocation decision by clicking on a posi- 

tion somewhere on the arc of the circle. Once a position was tentatively chosen, the corresponding 

vector appeared on the screen as an arrow. Subjects then could, if they wanted to, change the angle 

of the vector while seeing how these changes affected the payoff allocations for themselves and the 

other person. Once a subject found her most preferred joint allocation, she confirmed her decision 

24

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


and this completed the measurement session. 

The Circle Measure is a highly efficient measure of SVO, requiring only one allocation choice be 

made in order to yield a continuos score for a person. But one disadvantage of this brevity is that no 

information about measurement reliability can be gained. As the circle measure has only one item, 

it is not possible to check whether the choice is transitive or consistent with respect to other choices. 

The the measure does not provide any possibility to assess the magnitude of measurement error, and 

at the extremes cannot asses if a participant responded veridically or randomly. Another limitation 

is that the changes in payoffs that correspond to movements on the arc are non-linear. The visual 

representation is straight forward but the underlying tradeoffs that occur as a DM moves between 

different points on the arc are non-intuitive. The arc defining the joint payoffs is necessarily curved 

(its second derivative is non-zero), thus not only are the joint payoffs changing as a DM adjusts the 

allocation vector, but the rate of change for each of the payoffs is also changing. DMs may mitigate this 

complexity by selecting cardinal points on the circle rather than points consistent with their actual 

preferences. Lastly, secondary preferences about different allocation options remain unknown when 

using the circle measure. 

3.6 Regression and clustering approach 

Consistent with judgment (e.g. Wyer 1969, 1971) and conjoint measurement (e.g. Luce & Tukey 

1964, Sawyer 1966, Radzicki 1976), Knight & Dubro (1984) developed another method for assessing 

SVO that applies regression and cluster analysis to well structured preference judgments. 

3.6.1 Regression and clustering approach described 

To obtaining preference data, Knight & Dubro had subjects rate the desirability of joint alloca- 

tions on a 7-point scale, where the possible allocations were composed of all combinations of payoffs 

ranging from 0¢ to 6¢ in increments of 1¢, resulting in a total of 49 possible allocations and the same 

number of ratings. Then, for each person’s ratings, a multiple regression equation was used to model 

the desirability ratings, while three predictors were used in the analyses: own gain (number of cents 

25

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


for self), other’s gain (number of cents for the other) and equal gains (difference between the own gain 

and the other’s gain). The resulting regression coefficients were then used in a cluster analysis which 

yielded six general clusters. These clusters were interpreted as different categories of SVO: equality; 

group enhancement; superiority; individualism; equality & individualism; and individualism & supe- 

riority. 

3.6.2 Discussion of regression and clustering approaches 

The similarities between the utility measurement approach, as proposed by Wyer (1969) (see sec- 

tion 3.3), and this regression analysis method are clear. In both methods, preference data are elicited 

and used to compute parameter values by a least squares estimation technique. The weights attached 

to outcome values in the utility functions are conceptually equivalent to the regression coefficients. 

The novelty of Knight & Dubro’s approach is the use of regression coefficients in a cluster analysis in 

order to classify people into SVO categories. Given the relatively high median squared multiple cor- 

relation coefficients for each of the six clusters, ranging from 0.609 to 0.858, it is clear that subjects 

exhibited substantial consistency in their judgments of the attractiveness of joint distributions. 

One minor drawback with respect to the feasibility of the measure is that Knight & Dubro’s proce- 

dure, like the utility measure approaches, makes use of more sophisticated statistical tools that may 

be a barrier to adoption for some researchers. Additionally, the amounts of money used as payoffs in 

their study were exceptionally small. 

3.7 Schulz and May’s Sphere Measure 

3.7.1 The Sphere Measure described 

On the basis of previous work on techniques of assessing SVO such as utility measurement (e.g. 

Wyer 1969, 1971, Griesinger & Livingston 1973, Radzicki 1976), the Ring Measure procedure (Liebrand 

1984), and the regression and clustering approach (Knight & Dubro 1984), an additional way of de- 

termining people’s social motivations was devised by Schulz & May (1989). They differentiate be- 

tween simple linear SVOs (individualism, sacrifice, altruism, aggression, cooperation, competition), 

nonsimple linear SVOs (all possible mixtures of simple linear SVOs), simple conditional linear SVOs 

26

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


(maximin and egalitarianism) as proposed by MacCrimmon & Messick (1976), and nonsimple nonlin- 

ear SVOs (all possible mixtures of simple conditional and nonconditional linear SVOs). For assessing 

these different SVO types, Schulz & May applied two measurement methods with the goal of compar- 

ing results from each of them. First they used a ranking procedure and second they used a pairwise 

comparison procedure. Concretely, subjects first made pair-wise comparisons between all possible 

combinations of 15 own-other-payoff distributions, resulting in a total of 105 comparisons per sub- 

ject. After completing the pair-wise comparison task, subjects were asked to rank order the same 15 

payoff allocations without ties using a graphic presentation of the allocation options. The data from 

both methods were then analyzed by using a utility model with the general form 

u x, y = ax + by + c x − y (4) 

which is flexible enough to contain all of the archetypical SVO types as special cases. Roughly speak- 

ing, while the Ring Measure uses the parameters a and b for calculating the SVO angle on a two- 

dimensional plane, Schulz & May extend the model with parameter c, thus yielding a three-dimensional 

model. The third dimension is useful in accounting for conditional SVOs (e.g. egalitarian or maximin). 

In order to restrict the model, the authors set the condition such that a 2 +b 2 +c 2 = 1, giving the model 

a spherical representation. Similar to the Ring Measure procedure, subjects are then categorized ac- 

cording to their vector direction. In contrast to the Ring Measure, the Sphere Measure vector extends 

into space and results as a point on the unit sphere rather than a point on a two dimensional circle. 

3.7.2 Discussion of the Sphere Measure 

Although Schulz & May make use of sophisticated mathematical tools, and uses a more complex 

geometric representation than previous methods, the measure still yields results at the nominal level. 

Richer results could be extracted from the data of Schulz & May (e.g. transitivity of individual’s choice 

sets; the angle of the projection of the inferred motivational vector on the self/other plane) but are 

unfortunately not. Further, this measurement method places substantial demands upon subjects, 

requiring them to make 105 pair-wise decisions about joint payoff allocations, as well as rank order 

15 different self/other allocations. Considering the resolution of the results, these demands are hard 

27

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


to justify. 

4 The SVO Slider Measure 

We introduce here a new measure of SVO that has several advantages over existing measurement 

methods. The new method is referred to as the SVO Slider Measure and it can be administered as a 

paper based survey or as an online measure. The measure has six primary items with nine optional 

follow-up items. All of the items have the same general form. Each item is an allocation choice over a 

well defined continuum of joint payoffs. For example, consider a DM choosing a value x between 50 

and 100 inclusive. Her payoff would be x, whereas the other’s payoff would be 100− x. The DM would 

indicate her allocation choice by marking a line at the point that defines her most preferred joint 

distribution (see Item 1 in Figure 7, see also Table 11). After the DM has marked her most preferred 

allocation point, she would write the corresponding payoffs resulting from her choice to the right 

of the item. Although this step of writing the values is redundant, it serves to verify that the DM 

understands the choice task and the resulting allocations. 

4.1 Primary SVO Slider items 

There are six primary slider items. They are defined to cover the four most common social orien- 

tations, namely altruistic, prosocial, individualistic, and competitive. The items are shown in Figure 

7. 

These six items were derived from the six lines that fully interconnect the four points correspond- 

ing to the most common social orientations reported in the literature (altruistic, prosocial, individ- 

ualistic, and competitive; see Figure 8). A DM evaluates each of the items sequentially and for each 

one indicates her most preferred joint distribution. The set of responses can then be scored to yield 

an SVO single score for the DM, as well as the rank order of her social preferences, and a check for her 

preference transitivity. 

There are several advantages with the SVO Slider Measure. First, the responses can be evaluated 

for comprehension (e.g. checking the correspondence between the mark on the distribution line and 

28

5 

10 


Figure 7: Primary SVO Slider items. The first item is completed, indicating a DM chose to allocate 

herslf 81 and the other person 69. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

You receive 

Other receives 

You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


100 

85 

50 

100 

50 

100 

100 

94 

87 

54 59 63 68 72 76 81 85 

98 

96 94 93 91 89 87 85 

54 59 63 68 72 76 81 85 

89 

98 

88 

89 

79 68 58 47 36 26 15 

96 

81 

50 56 63 69 75 81 88 94 

91 

15 19 24 28 33 37 41 46 

85 

85 

x 

94 

50 54 59 63 68 72 76 81 

75 

93 

85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 

76 

93 

69 

94 

91 

63 

96 

89 

56 

98 

87 

50 

100 

100 

68 59 50 41 33 24 15 

the written distribution values). Second, the responses can be evaluated for transitivity. Although SVO 

is a matter of subjective preferences, these preferences should conform to the elemental requirement 

of transitivity. Random responding on behalf of a subject would likely result in an intransitive set of 

responses. Third, the responses yield a full ranking of preferences over motivations. Fourth, the scale 

can be scored in a straight-forward manor as follows. The mean allocation for self is computed as is 

the mean allocation for the other. Then 50 is subtracted from each of these means (to account for the 

midpoint of the ring being at 50, 50). Then the inverse tangent of the ratio between these means is 

computed. The reason for the subtraction of 50 from each of the means is to “shift” the base of the 

resulting angle to the center of the circle rather than having its base start at the Cartesian origin. The 

resulting angle is interpretable just as the resulting angle vector that comes from the Ring Measure. 

SVO ◦ 

(Āo) − 50) 

= arctan 

(Ās) − 50) 

This response format is highly sensitive to individual differences and yields an index at the ratio level 

of measurement. Assessing SVO in this way also facilitates parameterization and model assessment 

(see section 5.6) that is not possible with other existent measures. Nonetheless, reducing the high res- 

29 

50 

85 

85 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

81 

69 

(5)

5 

10 

15 


olution score to a nominal category may be desirable in some cases, and Slider angles can be trans- 

formed into corresponding categories with ease. 

It can be shown that the resulting angle for a perfect altruist would be 61.39 ◦ . A prosocial DM 

with inequality aversion would yield an angle of 37.48 ◦ . A prosocial DM who endeavored to maximize 

joint gain (and is inequality tolerant) would yield an angle between 37.09 ◦ and 52.91 ◦ . The reason 

for this range is that this DM would be wholly indifferent across the entire SVO Slider item that has 

a slope of -1 (e.g. the item with endpoints 100,50 and 50,100) as it has a constant sum. A perfectly 

consistent individualist yields an angle between -7.82 ◦ and 7.82 ◦ . The reason for this range is that this 

particular DM would be wholly indifferent across the entire SVO Slider item that has an undefined 

slope (endpoints 85, 85 and 85, 15). A perfectly consistent competitor yields an angle of -16.26 ◦ . Given 

Figure 8: This figure shows where in the self/other allocation plane the six primary items are from the 

Slider Measure. 


100 

75 

50 

25 

50 

100 

0 25 

50 75 100 

Payoff to Self 

the angles that result from idealized SVO types, proper boundaries between categories can be derived. 

Altruists would have an angle greater than 57.15 ◦ ; prosocials would have scores between 22.45 ◦ and 

57.15 ◦ ; individualists would have scores between -12.04 ◦ and 22.45 ◦ ; and competitive types would 

have an angle less than -12.04 ◦ . As it can be seen, these boundaries are not at intuitive locations. The 

reason for this is that the Slider Measure only uses a subset of possible items from the allocation plane 

and these items are not symmetrically distributed around the whole of the ring. Because only an 

30 

85 

85 

85 

15 

100 

50

5 

10 

15 

20 


asymmetric set of items is used here, the resulting convex hull of possible scores is “squished” to the 

upper-right, relative to the midpoint of the ring. This feature does not adversely affect the validity 

of the measure. 6 We recognize that computing results from the SVO slider (checking for transitivity, 

establishing the ranking of preferences, finding a subject’s SVO angle) may be arduous and thus we 

have developed several analysis scripts that automate and simplify the process. These scripts are 

available on our SVO website at http://vlab.ethz.ch/svo/SVO_Slider/. 

4.2 Secondary SVO Slider items 

There are nine secondary Slider Measure items. This set of items is designed to disentangle the 

motivation of joint maximization from the motivation of inequality aversion. The items are defined 

in the prosocial area of the self/other allocation plane and have approximately the same magnitude 

(ranging between 50 and 100) as the six primary Slider items. One noteworthy feature is that all of 

the distribution ranges intersect the diagonal line. This is an important feature of the set as the diag- 

onal line corresponds to perfectly equal allocations, i.e., those distributions that minimize inequality 

between the DM and the other person. A participant motivated to minimize inequality would make 

allocations on or very near the 45 ◦ line. Conversely a participant motivated to maximize joint gains 

would make allocations near the endpoints, as far from the diagonal as possible, as these allocations 

maximize collective earnings. Previous measures of SVO have not been able to make a differentiation 

between these two motivations. The nine items are shown in Figure 9. An example of results from 

these items is discussed in Section §5.6. 

4.3 Web-based SVO Slider Measure 

In addition to being administrable as a paper-based measure, the Slider Measure has been pro- 

grammed as an online research tool (http://vlab.ethz.ch/svo/slider/). Once a researcher has 

an account, he or she can create a new study. This requires two things. First the researcher must 

6 It would be possible to extend the Slider Measure in such a way that it would have a symmetric set of items and thus 

have a rotationally symmetric convex hull of possible scores. This extended measure certainly would be more aesthetically 

pleasing and would have intuitive angles as boundaries between the categories. However, this extended measure would 

require about five times as many items and would likely yield no better estimation of a person’s SVO as the additional items 

would be targeting the sparsely populated categories (e.g. martyr, sadomasochistic). In developing the Slider Measure we 

strove for efficiency over aesthetics. 

31

5 

10 


Figure 9: This figure shows the location of the nine secondary items for the Slider Measure in the 

self/other allocation plane. 


100 

75 

50 

25 

50 

100 

70 

100 

90 

100 

0 25 

50 

Payoff to Self 

75 100 

select which SVO measures to use (Slider primary items and/or Slider secondary items); second the 

researcher must input a list of subjects’ emails. These subjects then receive an email invitation to par- 

ticipate in online research. Each email invitation has a unique tokened link that when clicked upon 

takes the subject directly to the SVO website. Once there, the subject is presented with instructions 

and then a series of allocation choices. For each subject, the items are presented in a random order. 

Subjects record their choices by moving a slider back and forth, changing the joint allocations until 

they find their most preferred outcome (see Figure 10 for a screen shot). Once they are satisfied with 

the distribution, they finalize it by clicking the “Submit” button. Then the program takes them to 

the next item or if they have answered all of the items, to a conclusion and “thanks for participating” 

page. After all the subjects on the invitation list have participated (or a predetermined end date/time, 

whichever happens first) the researcher is sent via email a datafile with the subjects’ identifying infor- 

mation, item order, all of their choices, summary scores, and transitivity verification. 

32 

100 

90 

100 

70 

100 

50

5 

10 

15 


Figure 10: Online Slider Measure. 

5 Psychometric properties of SVO measures 

Considering the relatively large number of measurement methods that have been developed, rel- 

atively little effort has been made to validate them. However, some data are available. For example, 

Liebrand & van Run (1985) reported 73% agreement between the ring measure and the decomposed 

game procedure proposed by Kuhlman & Marshello (1975a), but only under the terms that altru- 

ists and cooperators were combined into a single category. Otherwise, the agreement between the 

two measures can at best be deemed only moderate, at least with respect to the altruistic and co- 

operative categories. Another test of the convergent validity of two SVO measures was performed 

by Parks (1994), who compared data from a classical decomposed game technique (Kuhlman et al. 

1986) to data from the regression and clustering approach (Knight & Dubro 1984). In coding data 

from both measures so that higher scores indicate greater cooperation, he reported a very small and 

non-significant correlation (r = 0.08) between the two SVO measures, hence challenging the basic as- 

sumption that the same construct was assessed. Although there are other studies in which different 

measures of SVO were applied (e.g. Sheldon 1999, Van Lange 1999), results from which convergent 

validity could be inferred are often neither reported nor sufficiently elucidated. 

5.1 Slider Measure validation procedure 

In order to assess the psychometric properties of the new SVO Slider Measure it was tested in tan- 

dem with the established and commonly used measures of SVO; namely the Triple-Dominance Mea- 

33

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


sure and the Ring Measure. Fifty-six individuals were recruited to participate in a multi-part “decision 

making study” at a European university. Participation was voluntary and no deception was used in 

this research. Participants were guaranteed strict confidentiality for all of their answers. The stimuli in 

the experiment were made incentive compatible by means of a lottery: for each experimental session 

four participants were randomly selected after making their choices and for each selected person one 

of their allocation decisions was implemented (i.e. their allocation choice was carried out such that 

they received some chosen payoff, as well as did some other randomly selected person, according to 

their actual choice). For all research sessions, participants were reminded that their decisions were 

private and that there was a real chance that their choices would have a pecuniary effect upon them- 

selves and some other person if they happened to be selected by lottery. DMs selected by lottery were 

paid privately in cash within a week of their participation. The average earnings were about 70 Swiss 

francs (US$68) each. 

Three research sessions were run, with one week separating the sessions. Each research session 

required fewer than 15 minutes to conduct and used paper based methods. In the first session, partic- 

ipants completed the 9-item Triple-Dominance Measure and the 24 item Ring Measure. In the second 

session, participants completed the Slider Measure (the 6 primary items) and the Triple-Dominance 

Measure. In the third session, participants completed the Ring Measure and the Slider Measure. All 

of the measures used standardized values between 0 and 100. This design allowed us to assess the 

test-retest reliability of the Triple-Dominance Measure, the Ring Measure, and the Slider Measure. It 

also allowed us to compute the associations between the different measures and establish norming 

data and convergent validity for the new SVO Slider Measure. 

5.2 Results 

Table 4 shows the percentage of individuals that were assigned to each of the different SVO cat- 

egories by the different measurement methods, ordered by experimental session. Across all mea- 

surement methods there is a clear majority type, namely prosocial, occurring about 59% of the time. 

Individualist is less common, but found about 34% of the time. Competitive and unclassifiable types 

complete the remainder of the sample representing about 3-4% each. 

34

5 

10 


Table 4: The percentage of individuals that were assigned to each of the different SVO categories by 

the different measurement methods, ordered by experimental session. 

5.3 Reliability 

SVO 

Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Grand 

TD RM TD SM RM SM mean 

Prosocial 60 53 61 58 57 64 59 

Individualistic 21 45 32 39 36 34 34 

Competitive 2 2 4 4 4 2 3 

Unclassifiable 17 0 4 0 2 0 4 

5.3.1 Triple-Dominance Measure test-retest reliability 

Table 5: A cross tabulation showing the frequency of categorization from test-retest for the Triple- 

Dominance Measure. 

Session 1 

Session 2 

Prosocial Individualistic Competitive Unclassifiable 

Prosocial 23 1 0 1 

Individualistic 2 8 0 0 

Competitive 0 1 0 0 

Unclassifiable 3 5 1 1 

Forty-six participants completed both sessions 1 and 2. Of those, 32 (23+8+0+1) were categorized 

in the same SVO category each time by the Triple-Dominance Measure, yielding a consistency of 70% 

(Goodman and Kruskal’s gamma 7 = 0.391). 

5.3.2 Ring Measure test-retest reliability 

Forty-four participants completed both sessions 1 and 3. Of those, 30 (18 + 12 + 0 + 0) were cate- 

gorized into the same SVO category each time by the Ring Measure, yielding a consistency of 68%. 

Further the correlation between the resulting angles from the test-retest of the ring measure was 

r = 0.599. 

7 As the Triple-Dominance Measure yields a nominal level variable with more than two categories, a Pearson product 

moment correlation coefficient is not an appropriate statistic for assessing its reliability, hence the non-parametric 

Gamma statistic is used as an index of test-retest association. 

35

5 

10 


Table 6: A cross tabulation showing the frequency of categorization from test-retest for the Ring Measure. 

9 

Session 1 

Session 3 






5.3.3 Slider Measure test-retest reliability 

Table 7: A cross tabulation showing the frequency of categorization by test-retest for the Primary SVO 

Slider items. 

Session 2 

Session 3 






Forty-six participants completed both sessions 2 and 3. Of those, 41 were categorized in the same 

SVO category each time by the Slider Measure, yielding a consistency of 89%. Further the correlation 

between the resulting angles from the test-retest SVO Slider Measure was r = 0.915. 

5.4 Convergent validity 

5.4.1 Categorical agreement 

Across research sessions, the Triple-Dominance Measure and the Ring Measure categorized the 

same subjects into the same SVO category 62% of the time. The Triple-Dominance Measure and the 

Slider Measure categorized the same subjects in the same SVO category 70% of the time. And the Ring 

Measure and the Slider Measure categorized the same subjects in the same SVO category 75% of the 

time. 

36

5 

10 

15 

20 


5.4.2 Correlational agreement 

The Ring Measure and Slider Measure both produce continuous results (in the form of angles 

within the self/other allocation plane), and these results are amenable to computing correlation co- 

efficients across different measures. Table 8 displays these correlation coefficients, showing both the 

test-retest reliability of the Ring Measure (r = 0.599) and Slider Measure (r = 0.915), as well as the 

correlations between SVO angles across the different measurement methods. 

Table 8: The correlation coefficients between the different sessions and methods. These values show 

both the test-retest reliabilities, as well as the cross method correlations (in grayed boxes) which address 

convergent validity. 

RM-1 RM-3 SM-2 SM-3 

RM-1 1 - - - 

RM-3 0.599 1 - - 

SM-2 0.724 0.536 1 - 

SM-3 0.680 0.641 0.915 1 

The results show that the Slider Measure correlates as well with the Ring Measure as the Ring 

Measure does with itself across retests. This is strong evidence that the methods are measuring the 

same thing and further it demonstrates that the Slider Measure is more reliable than the Ring Measure 

(the mean correlation between the different methods is r = 0.649 whereas the test-retest correlation 

for the Ring Measure is only r = .599). 

5.5 Additional results 

As noted before, one advantage of the Slider Measure is its resolution as it yields a ratio level mea- 

surement. Previous measures of SVO often reduced output to categorical levels, which can be a limita- 

tion. Retaining the ratio level variable, the distribution of SVO angles can be plotted and the density of 

different orientations can be estimated. Figure 11 shows this distribution. A lowess (Cleveland & De- 

vlin 1988) smoothed kernel density estimation was made of the distribution of SVO scores to provide 

some general idea of its shape. We find a multimodal distribution of SVO types in our sample. The 

largest clustering is in the prosocial region shifted slightly to the left (toward individualistic). The sec- 

ond clustering is in the individualistic region and is shifted to the right (toward prosocial). Within this 

37

5 

10 

15 


Figure 11: The distribution of SVO scores from the Slider Measure as represented by angles. The dark 

line is a smoothed kernel density estimation. 

region is the most common SVO score of 7.82 ◦ which corresponds to perfectly individualistic choices. 

The density function trails off to the left, denoting only a few competitive types. 

The transitivity of responses can also be assessed with the Slider Measure. We found that 97% of 

our subjects produced completely transitive sets of social preferences. This finding stands in stark 

contrast to the consistency results from the Ring Measure where only 53% of the same subjects pro- 

duced internally consistent results. The cause of this difference is likely the result of the Ring Mea- 

sure’s blanket approach to measuring social preferences which introduces a substantial amount of 

noise. 

The full ranking of people’s social preferences can be obtained from evaluating the primary items 

of the Slider Measure. Across sessions the majority of people’s first preference was consistent with a 

prosocial orientation (see Table 9 for the full rankings). Considering these people who most preferred 

to be prosocial, about 66% of them had individualistic as their next preference, whereas the remaining 

34% preferred altruism. The least preferred SVO from the Slider Measure was competitive, with 52% 

of subjects revealing this as their least favorite orientation. Altruism was also commonly the least 

preferred option, being ranked last by 42% of the participants. 

38

5 

10 

15 

20 


Table 9: Full rank orderings of social preferences from the SVO Slider Measure across sessions 

First preference Second preference Third preference Least prefered Percent 

Prosocial Individualistic Altruistic Competitive 28% 

Prosocial Altruistic Individualistic Competitive 25% 

Prosocial Individualistic Competitive Altruistic 13% 

Individualistic Prosocial Competitive Altruistic 24% 

Individualistic Competitive Prosocial Altruistic 5% 

Individualistic Prosocial Altruistic Competitive 2% 

Competitive Individualistic Prosocial Altruistic 3% 

5.6 Separating joint maximization and inequality aversion 

The Secondary items from the Slider Measure are designed to differentiate between two different 

prosocial motivations: joint maximization and inequality aversion. As prosocial behavior can arise 

from both of these underlying motivations, we demonstrate here how to disentangle these motiva- 

tions using the Secondary Slider items. 

In order to identify prosocial DM’s underlying motivations, two mean difference scores were com- 

puted for each subject. The first difference score was defined as the average distance each of the 

subject’s allocations was from the allocation that minimized the difference between the payoff for the 

self and the other. Distance here was defined geometrically in the self/other plane. If a DM always 

chose allocations that were on the diagonal line (see Figure 9), her mean difference score would be 0, 

indicating perfect consistency with inequality aversion. A second difference score was computed for 

each participant that was defined as the mean distance between her selected allocation on an item 

and the particular allocation that maximized joint payoff for that item. If the mean difference for this 

second index was zero, it indicates that a DM’s allocation choices are perfectly consistent with joint 

maximization. These indexes are by definition negatively correlated given our set of nine items, as the 

more inequality averse a DM was, the less joint maximizing she was, and vice versa. Based on these 

goodness-of-fit scores, DMs could be categorized as inequality averse or joint gain maximizing. 

Results from session 2 show that for the 34 people who were prosocial (according to the primary 

slider items from session 2), 21 (62%) were joint maximizing whereas 12 (35%) were inequality averse; 

one participant left some items blank and was excluded from this analysis. The results were similar for 

39

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


session 3 in which of the 36 people who were categorized as prosocial (again according to the primary 

slider items from that session), 20 (56%) were joint maximizing and 16 (44%) were inequality averse. 

Between sessions, we find that 76% of subjects had the same categorization. 

Although it is beyond the scope of this paper, the data from the SVO Slider Measure (both primary 

and secondary items) are amendable to sophisticated modeling. Several models of other regarding 

preferences have been developed in behavioral economics (see, for instance Fehr & Schmidt 1999, 

Bolton & Ockenfels 2000, Andreoni & Miller 2002, Charness & Rabin 2002, Engelmann & Strobel 2004) 

that address issues of equity, inequality aversion, fairness, and reciprocity. The psychological litera- 

ture related to the same issues has developed in parallel but largely done so independently. Perhaps 

one reason for this schism is the lack of a common measurement methods between the two fields. 

The SVO Slider Measure could act as a bridge to connect these two related but estranged research 

streams. 

6 Discussion 

The arc of scientific knowledge is bounded by our ability to measure things. This paper is about 

measuring SVO, a fundamental concept in social decision making. We have provided an overview 

of different ways social preferences have been measured to date across a variety of disciplines, high- 

lighted limitations with existent measures, and reported on the development of a new measure of 

individuals’ social preferences. This new measure is efficient, easy to implement, has very good psy- 

chometric properties (established convergent validity and high test-retest reliability), yields a score at 

the ratio level, and facilitates comparison to previous findings. The advent of a high resolution mea- 

sure of SVO opens opportunities for different research streams to use social preferences as a depen- 

dent variable. These types of studies could address questions regarding how context, information, 

experience, and framing affect peoples’ propensities to make tradeoffs in resources between them- 

selves and others. These lines of research could also answer larger questions like: when is Homo 

Economics a generally good approximation of human behavior and when is it insufficient or even 

grossly inaccurate. 

Social preferences are of utmost importance in understanding how interrelated DMs allocate scarce 

40

5 

10 


resources among themselves and others. The postulate of narrow self interest is a point conjecture, 

namely that DMs have exactly zero interest in the outcomes of other people. Although this is a useful 

baseline assumption in that it facilitates tractable models with precise predictions, and in many cases 

works well as an “as if” model, there are numerous examples where it fails to account for DMs’ be- 

havior. Real people’s preferences are often much richer, more nuanced, and complex than narrow self 

interest. Moreover it is worth recognizing that the point conjecture is inadequate not only to account 

for different people having different social preferences, but the malleability of these preferences in 

different situations. 

The notion that a DM’s utility is not exclusively a function of his own material well being, but 

is also affected by the well being of others (No man is an island. . . ) is not a new idea. Edgeworth 

(1881) explicitly postulated this idea and anticipated a wide range of social orientations. The modern 

challenge is quantifying Edgeworth’s fraction by building reliable and efficient methods to measure 

this degree of entanglement in DM’s utilities and thus expanding theories of social decision making 

that can accommodate the richness and dynamics of social preferences. 

41

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


References 

Anderson, N. (1968). A simple model for information integration. In R. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. McGuire, T. New- 

comb, M. Rosenberg, & P. Tannenbaum (Eds.) Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago: 

Rand McNally. 

Anderson, N. (1970). Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. Psychological Review, 77(3), 

153–170. 

Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to garp: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences 

for altruism. Econometrica, 70(2), 737–753. 

Au, W., & Kwong, J. (2004). Measurements and effects of social-value orientation in social dilemmas: A review. 

In R. Suleiman, D. Budescu, I. Fischer, & D. Messick (Eds.) Contemporary Psychological Research on Social 

Dilemmas, (pp. 71–98). New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Balliet, D., Parks, C., & Joireman, J. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A 

meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533–547. 

Batson, C. (1995). Prosocial motivation: Why do we help others? In A. Tesser (Ed.) Advanced Social Psychology, 

(pp. 333–381). Boston: McGraw-Hill. 

Bogaert, S., Boone, C., & Declerck, C. (2008). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A 

review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 453–480. 

Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. The American Economic 

Review, 90(1), 166–193. 

Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of 

Economics, 117(3), 817–869. 

Cleveland, W. S., & Devlin, S. J. (1988). Locally weighted regression: An approach to regression analysis by local 

fitting. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(403), 596–610. 

Cornelissen, G., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. (2007). Social value orientation as a moral intuition: Decision-making 

in the dictator game. Unpublished paper, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=978469. 

Crandall, J. (1975). A scale for social interest. Journal of Individual Psychology, 31(2), 187–195. 

de Kwaadsteniet, E., van Dijk, E., Wit, A., & de Cremer, D. (2006). Social dilemmas as strong versus weak situa- 

tions: Social value orientations and tacit coordination under resource size uncertainty. Journal of Experi- 

mental Social Psychology, 42(4), 509–516. 

42

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


de Waal, F., Leimgruber, K., & Greenberg, A. (2008). Giving is self-rewarding for monkeys. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, 105(36), 13685–13689. 

Declerck, C., & Bogaert, S. (2008). Social value orientation: Related to empathy and the ability to read the mind 

in the eyes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(6), 711–726. 

Dehue, F., McClintock, C., & Liebrand, W. (1993). Social value related response latencies: Unobtrusive evidence 

for individual differences in information processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 273–293. 

Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human Relations, 13(2), 

123–139. 

Edgeworth, F. (1881). Mathematical psychics. (L.S.E. Reprint 1934). 

Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distri- 

bution experiments. American Economic Review, 94(4), 857–869. 

Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation*. Quarterly Journal of Eco- 

nomics, 114(3), 817–868. 

Griesinger, D., & Livingston, J. (1973). Toward a model of interpersonal motivation in experimental games. 

Behavioral Science, 18(3), 173–188. 

Harrison, M. (1998). The bioeconomics of altruism and rivalry. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Eco- 

nomics, University of Texas at Austin. 

Haruno, M., & Frith, C. (2009). Activity in the amygdala elicited by unfair divisions predicts social value orien- 

tation. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 160–161. 

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R., Alvard, M., Barr, A., Ensminger, 

J., Henrich, N., Hill, K., Gil-White, F., Gurven, M., Marlowe, F., Patton, J., & Tracer, D. (2005). “Economic 

man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and 

Brain Sciences, 28(06), 795–855. 

Higgins, E. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. 

Iedema, J., & Poppe, M. (1994a). The effect of self-presentation on social value orientation. The Journal of Social 

Psychology, 134(6), 771–782. 

Iedema, J., & Poppe, M. (1994b). Effects of social value orientation on expecting and learning others’ orienta- 

tions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 565–579. 

43

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


Iedema, J., & Poppe, M. (1995). Perceived consensus of one’s social value orientation in different populations in 

public and private circumstances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 497–507. 

Joireman, J., Van Lange, P., & Van Vugt, M. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of cars?: Those 

with an eye toward the future. Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 187–206. 

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory - An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 

263–292. 

Kelley, H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. Wiley, New York. 

Knight, G., & Dubro, A. (1984). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic social values - an individualized 

regression and clustering approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 98–105. 

Knight, G., & Kagan, S. (1977). Development of prosocial and competitive bahaviors in anglo-american and 

mexican-american children. Child Development, 48(4), 1385–1394. 

Kuhlman, D., Brown, C., & Teta, P. (1992). Judgements of cooperation and defection in social dilemmas: The 

moderating role of judges’s social orientation. In W. Liebrand, D. Messick, & H. Wilke (Eds.) Social dilem- 

mas: Theoretical issues and research findings, (pp. 111–132). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. 

Kuhlman, D., Camac, C., & Cunha, D. (1986). Individual differences in social orientation. In H. Wilke, D. Messick, 

& C. Rutte (Eds.) Experimental social dilemmas, (pp. 150–176). New York: Verlag Peter Lang. 

Kuhlman, D., & Marshello, A. (1975a). Individual-differences in game motivation as moderators of prepro- 

grammed strategy effects in prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 922– 

931. 

Kuhlman, D., & Marshello, A. (1975b). Individual-differences in game motives of own, relative, and joint gain. 

Journal of Research in Personality, 9(3), 240–251. 

Liebrand, W. (1984). The effect of social motives, communication and group-size on behavior in an n-person 

multi-stage mixed-motive game. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14(3), 239–264. 

Liebrand, W., & McClintock, C. (1988). The ring measure of social values: A computerized procedure for as- 

sessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation. European Journal of 

Personality, 2(3), 217–230. 

Liebrand, W., & van Run, G. (1985). The effects of social motives on behavior in social dilemmas in two cultures. 

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 86–102. 

44

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


Luce, R., & Tukey, J. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. 

Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27. 

MacCrimmon, K., & Messick, D. (1976). A framework for social motives. Behavioral Science, 21(2), 86–100. 

MacCrimmon, K., & Toda, M. (1969). The experimental determination of indifference curves. The Review of 

Economic Studies, 36(4), 433–451. 

McClintock, C., & Allison, S. (1989). Social value orientation and helping behavior. Journal of Applied Social 

Psychology, 19, 353–362. 

McClintock, C., & Liebrand, W. (1988). Role of interdependence structure, individual value orientation, and 

another’s strategy in social decision making: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 55(3), 396–409. 

McClintock, C., & Messick, D. (1965). Non-zero sum games - A conceptional orientation. In Game theory and 

social behavior. Presented during symposium at Western Psychological Association, Honolulu. 

McClintock, C., Messick, D., Kuhlman, D., & Campos, F. (1973). Motivational bases of choice in three-choice 

decomposed games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(6), 572–590. 

McClintock, C., & Van Avermaet, E. (1982). Social values and rules of fairness: A theoretical perspective. In 

V. Derlega, & J. Grzelak (Eds.) Cooperation and Helping Behavior, (pp. 43–71). Academic Press, New York. 

Messick, D., & McClintock, C. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experi- 

mental Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–25. 

Parks, C. (1994). The predictive ability of social values in resource dilemmas and public goods games. Person- 

ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 431–438. 

Platow, M., McClintock, C., & Liebrand, W. (1990). Predicting intergroup fairness and ingroup bias in the mini- 

mal group paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 221–239. 

Pruitt, D. (1967). Reward structure and cooperation: The decomposed prisoners dilemma game. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 7(1), 21–27. 

Radzicki, J. (1976). Technique of conjoint measurement of subjective value of own and other’s gains. Polish 

Psychological Bulletin, 7(3), 179–186. 

Rushton, J., Chrisjohn, R., & Fekken, G. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. 

Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293–302. 

Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

45

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 


Sawyer, J. (1966). Altruism scale - A measure of co-operative, individualistic, and competitive interpersonal 

orientation. American Journal of Sociology, 71(4), 407–416. 

Schulz, U., & May, T. (1989). The recording of social orientations with ranking and pair comparison procedures. 

European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 41–59. 

Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2009). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, 106(35), 15073. 

Sheldon, K. (1999). Learning the lessons of tit-for-tat: Even competitors can get the message. Journal of Person- 

ality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1245–1253. 

Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Con- 

sumer Research, 16(2), 158–174. 

Sonnemans, J., van Dijk, F., & Winden, F. (2006). On the dynamics of social ties structures in groups. Journal of 

Economic Psychology, 27(2), 187–204. 

Stevens, S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680. 

Stevens, S. (1950). Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. In S. Stevens (Ed.) Handbook of Experi- 

mental Psychology, (pp. 1–49). Wiley, New York. 

Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). All is well that ends well, at least for proselfs: Emotional reac- 

tions to equality violation as a function of social value orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 

35(6), 767–783. 

Thurstone, L. (1931). The indifference function. Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 139–167. 

Tricomi, E., Rangel, A., Camerer, C., & O’Doherty, J. (2010). Neural evidence for inequality-averse social prefer- 

ences. Nature, 463(7284), 1089–1091. 

Utz, S. (2004). Self-activation is a two-edged sword: The effects of “I” primes on cooperation. Journal of Exper- 

imental Social Psychology, 40(6), 769–776. 

Utz, S., Ouwerkerk, J., & Van Lange, P. (2004). What is smart in a social dilemma? Differential effects of priming 

competence on cooperation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 317–332. 

van den Bos, W., van Dijk, E., Westenberg, M., Rombouts, S., & Crone, E. (2009). What motivates repayment? 

Neural correlates of reciprocity in the trust game. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4(3), 294– 

304. 

46

5 

10 

15 

20 


van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D., & Handgraaf, M. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness 

in ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 697–707. 

Van Lange, P. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social 

value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 337–349. 

Van Lange, P., Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T., & Van Vugt, M. (2007). From games to giving: Social value orientation 

predicts donations to noble causes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 375–384. 

Van Lange, P., De Cremer, D., van Dijk, E., & Van Vugt, M. (2007). Self-interest and beyond: Basic principles of 

social interaction. In A. Kruglanski, & E. Higgins (Eds.) Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 

(pp. 540–561). New York: Guilford Press. 

Van Lange, P., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1994). Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and 

intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 

126–126. 

Van Lange, P., & Liebrand, W. (1991). Social value orientation and intelligence: A test of the goal prescribes 

rationality principle. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 273–292. 

Van Lange, P., Otten, W., De Bruin, E., & Joireman, J. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and 

competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 

73(4), 733–746. 

van Prooijen, J., De Cremer, D., van Beest, I., Ståhl, T., van Dijke, M., & Van Lange, P. (2008). The egocentric nature 

of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures. 

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1303–1315. 

Wyer, R. (1969). Prediction of behavior in 2-person games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(3), 

222–238. 

Wyer, R. (1971). Effects of outcome matrix and partner’s behavior in two-person games. Journal of Experimental 

Social Psychology, 7, 190–210. 

47


Appendix 

a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Figure 12: Paper based SVO Slider Measure, primary items 

In the following decision task, you are given the opportunity to distribute money between yourself and some other 

person whom you will remain anonymous. For each of the following 6 questions, please indicate the distribution you 

prefer most by marking the respective position along the midline. You can only make one mark for each question. 

There are no right or wrong answers, just place your mark at the position of your most preferred distribution. After 

you have made your decision, write the resulting distribution of money on the spaces on the right. 

In the example below, a person has chosen to distribute money so that he/she receives 50 dollars, while the 

anonymous other person receives 40 dollars. 

You receive 

30 

50 

100 

50 

100 

50 

100 

85 

85 

85 

85 

100 

50 

54 59 63 68 72 76 81 85 

98 

56 63 69 75 81 88 94 100 

94 

54 59 63 68 72 76 81 85 

89 

88 81 75 69 63 56 50 

79 68 58 47 36 26 15 

87 89 91 93 94 96 98 100 

81 

76 72 68 63 59 54 50 

85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 

76 

68 59 50 41 33 24 15 

98 96 94 93 91 89 87 85 

46 

Instructions 

Example: 

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 

Other receives 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Other 40 

You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


96 94 93 91 89 87 85 

41 37 33 28 24 19 15 

48 

You 

50 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other


Figure 13: Paper based SVO Slider Measure, secondary items 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


You receive 


100 

100 

50 

100 

94 

56 63 69 75 81 88 94 100 

99 

88 

81 

70 74 78 81 85 89 93 96 

70 

100 

50 

100 

100 

96 

75 

69 

98 96 95 94 93 91 90 

63 

56 

50 

100 

74 78 81 85 89 93 96 100 

96 

56 63 69 75 81 88 94 100 

94 

96 

93 

93 89 85 81 78 74 70 

88 81 75 69 63 56 50 

93 

89 

50 56 63 69 75 81 88 94 

90 

100 

100 

89 

90 91 93 94 95 96 98 99 

85 

85 

81 

81 

78 

78 

74 

74 

70 

100 

91 93 94 95 96 98 99 100 

99 

99 

98 96 95 94 93 91 90 

98 

96 

70 74 78 81 85 89 93 96 

90 

100 

95 

94 

93 

91 

90 

100 

70 

100 

91 93 94 95 96 98 99 100 

94 

88 81 75 69 63 56 50 

49 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other 

You 

Other


Table 10: The standardized items from the 24-item Ring Measure. Notice how the values have been 

transformed to be positive and range between 0 and 100. 

Option 1 Option 2 

Item Self Other Self Other 

1 50 100 37 98 

2 37 98 25 93 

3 25 93 15 85 

4 15 85 7 75 

5 7 75 2 63 

6 2 63 0 50 

7 0 50 2 37 

8 2 37 7 25 

9 7 25 15 15 

10 15 15 25 7 

11 25 7 37 2 

12 37 2 50 0 

13 50 0 63 2 

14 63 2 75 7 

15 75 7 85 15 

16 85 15 93 25 

17 93 25 98 37 

18 98 37 100 50 

19 100 50 98 63 

20 98 63 93 75 

21 93 75 85 85 

22 85 85 75 93 

23 75 93 63 98 

24 63 98 50 100 

50


Figure 14: SVO measurement overview. The diagram reflects a subjective estimation of influences 

certain measurement techniques had on the development of subsequent ones. Arrows in the diagram 

mean that there are respective citations. When two papers are not connected to each other in this 

figure, it does not necessarily mean that there is no relation between them, it simply means that there 

is no citation. 

1965 

1970 

1980 

1990 

1995 

Utility & Conjoint Tradition Decomposed Games Tradition 

Sawyer 

(1966) 

Altruism Scale 

Griesinger & Livingston 

(1973) 

Geometric Model 

Radzicki 

(1976) 

Conjoint Measurement 

Wyer 

(1969) 

Utility Measurement 

Knight & Dubro 

(1984) 

Regression & Clustering 

Schulz & May 

(1989) 

Sphere Measure 

Iedema & Poppe 

(1994) 

Rank Correlation Procedure 

51 

Messick & McClintock 

(1968) 

Decomposed Games 

Liebrand 

(1984) 

Ring Measure 

Kuhlman & Marshello 

(1975) 

DG Procedure 

VanLange & Kuhlman 

(1994) 

9 Item Triple Dominance Scale 

Pruitt 

(1967) 

Decomposed Games 

McClintock et al. 

(1973) 

Three option DG 

Knight & Kagan 

(1977) 

Social Behavior Scale 

Kuhlman et al. 

(1992) 

DG Procedure


Table 11: SVO Item endpoints and subsequent slopes that define each of the Slider Measure items. 

Option 1 Option 2 Descriptive information 

Item Self Other Self Other Slope Equation 

1 50 100 85 85 -0.43 y = − 3 850 

7 · x + 7 

2 50 100 100 50 -1.00 y = −1 · x + 150 

3 50 100 85 15 -2.43 y = − 17 

4 85 85 100 50 -2.33 

1550 

7 · x + 7 

y = − 7 850 

3 · x + 3 

5 85 85 85 15 Undefined y ∈ [15,85], x = 85 

6 100 50 85 15 2.33 y = 7 550 

3 · x + 3 

7 100 50 70 100 -1.67 y = − 5 650 

3 · x + 3 

8 90 100 100 90 -1.00 y = −1 · x + 190 

9 100 70 50 100 -0.60 y = − 3 

5 · x + 130 

10 100 70 90 100 -3.00 y = −3 · x + 370 

11 70 100 100 70 -1.00 y = −1 · x + 170 

12 50 100 100 50 -1.00 y = −1 · x + 150 

13 100 90 70 100 -0.33 

3 

y = − 1 

14 100 90 70 100 -0.33 

370 

3 · x + 3 

y = − 1 370 

3 · x + 3 

15 90 100 100 50 -5.00 y = −5 · x + 550 

52

Measuring Social Value Orientation - Judgment and Decision Making

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?