社会价值取向滑块测验中文版的测量学分析*

心理与行为研究 ›› 2015, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (3): 404-409.

社会价值取向滑块测验中文版的测量学分析^*

张振¹,张帆²,原胜¹,郭丰波¹,王益文¹

1 天津师范大学心理与行为研究院, 天津 300074;
2 山东中医药高等专科学校, 烟台 264199

收稿日期:2014-08-18 出版日期:2015-05-20 发布日期:2015-07-03
通讯作者: 王益文，E-mail: wangeven@126.com。
基金资助:
教育部人文社科研究基地重大项目（12JJD190004）、新世纪优秀人才支持计划（NCET-11-1065）、国家自然科学基金（31371045）、中青年骨干创新人才培养计划和天津市教育科学规划项目（CE2003）。

Psychometric Analysis of the SVO Slider Measure in Chinese Cultural Context

Zhang Zhen¹,Zhang Fan²,Yuan Sheng¹,Guo Fengbo¹,Wang Yiwen¹

1 Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074;
2 Shandong College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Yantai 264199

Received:2014-08-18 Online:2015-05-20 Published:2015-07-03

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以大学生群体为样本，对社会价值取向滑块测验（The Slider Measure）中文版的心理测量学特征进行分析，并考察大学生社会价值取向分布的一般特点。研究结果发现滑块测验中文版的重测信度为0.76，与三优势测验的聚合效度为0.57；大学生社会价值取向的分布表现为亲社会者最多，个人主义者次之，竞争者最少的模式，且绝大多数亲社会者行为动机为追求双方相对收益最小化的平等取向；社会价值取向的类型分布在性别与是否独生子女维度上表现出较高的同质性与一致性。社会价值取向滑块测验中文版具有较好的信效度，可以作为测量中国大学生社会价值取向的有效工具。

关键词: 社会价值取向, 滑块测验, 三优势测量, 亲社会。

Abstract: The purposes of this research are to investigate the psychometric properties of the Chinese edition of SVO Slider Measure, and the structure and characteristics of Chinese college students’ social value orientation. Psychometric analysis showed that the Chinese version of the Slider Measure had good test-retest stability and convergent validity. The distribution of observed SVO angles in our sample showed a commonly found distribution, with the majority being classified as prosocial(65.5%), followed by individualists(31.1%), and only a few competitors(3.1%). What’s more, the distribution of prosocial individual’s IA index suggested that prosocial individuals were not homogeneous with respect to their more nuanced prosocial preference, and the most people were sensitive to equality between payoffs, whereas others seem to be striving for maximizing joint gain. In addition, further analysis of the data implied that the distributions of SVO were not significantly different between female group and male group, or between one-child group and non-one-child group, indicating that the percentages of pro-socials, individualists, and competitors were indeed very similar in these groups. To conclude, these results suggested that the Chinese edition SVO Slider Measure could provide a reliable and valid measure of college student’s SVO in Chinese cultural context.

Key words: social value orientation, slider measure, triple-dominance scale, prosocial.

中图分类号:

B841

张振,张帆,原胜,郭丰波,王益文. 社会价值取向滑块测验中文版的测量学分析^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(3): 404-409.

Zhang Zhen,Zhang Fan,Yuan Sheng,Guo Fengbo,Wang Yiwen. Psychometric Analysis of the SVO Slider Measure in Chinese Cultural Context[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2015, 13(3): 404-409.

参考文献

[1] 刘长江, 郝芳.(2011). 不对称社会困境中社会价值取向对合作的影响. 心理学报, 43(4), 432-441.
[2] 王沛, 汲惠丽.(2009). 社会价值取向与反馈对动态社会两难决策的影响: 以水资源两难决策为例. 心理与行为研究, 7, 93-97.
[3] 魏换霞, 宋耀武.(2013). 个体价值取向在合作与竞争行为中的差异. 河北师范大学学报 (教育科学版), 15(3), 88-91.
[4] 吴宝沛, 寇彧.(2008). 西方社会价值取向的研究历程与发展趋势. 心理科学进展, 16, 987-992.
[5] 谢中华.(2010). MATLAB统计分析与应用：40个案例分析. 北京: 北京航空航天大学出版社.
[6] 张振, 张帆, 黄亮, 袁博, 王益文.(2014). 决策中社会价值取向的理论与测评方法. 心理科学进展, 22(1), 48-56.
[7] Burkart, J. M., Fehr, E., Efferson, C., & van Schaik, C. P.(2007). Other-regarding preferences in a non-human primate: Common marmosets provision food altruistically. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19762-19766.
[8] Eek, D., & Gärling, T.(2006). Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 321-337.
[9] Eek, D., & Gärling, T.(2008). A new look at the theory of social value orientations: Prosocials neither maximize joint outcome nor minimize outcome differences but prefer equal outcomes. In New issues and paradigms in research on social dilemmas (pp. 10-26). Springer US.
[10] Murphy, R. O., & Ackermann, K. A.(2013). Social value orientation theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1088868313501745.
[11] Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J.(2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771-781.
[12] Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E.(2005). All is well that ends well, at least for proselfs: Emotional reactions to equality violation as a function of social value orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(6), 767-783.
[13] Van den Bergh, B., Dewitte, S., & De Cremer, D.(2006). Are prosocials unique in their egalitarianism? The pursuit of equality in outcomes among individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), 1219-1231.
[14] Van Lange, P. A.(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.
[15] Van Lange, P. A., De Bruin, E., Otten, W., & Joireman, J. A.(1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(4), 733-746.
[16] Van Lange, P. A., Schippers, M., & Balliet, D.(2011). Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Personality and individual differences, 51(3), 279-284.