设为首页 | 加入收藏
网站首页 本刊简介 编委会 投稿指南 过刊浏览 广告合作 网上订购 下载专区 联系我们  
社会价值取向滑块测验在青少年群体的适用性研究
作者:崔梦舒  张向葵  丁相玲  邓小平 
单位:1. 东北师范大学心理学院  长春 130024  2. 赣南师范大学教育科学学院  赣州 341000 
关键词:社会价值取向 滑块测验 青少年 
分类号:R395.1
出版年,卷(期):页码:2018,26(2):272-276
摘要:

目的:评估社会价值取向滑块测验在我国青少年群体中的适用性,并应用于分析青少年社会价值取向及亲社会者的行动动机的一般特点。方法:1031名初一至高三的青少年(年龄:15.09+2.15)进行滑块测验,并随机抽取350名中学生进行4周后的重测。结果:①滑块测试的重测信度为0.79,与三优势测验的聚合效度为0.59,与囚徒困境博弈的预测效度为0.14。②青少年群体中亲社会取向最多,个人取向其次,竞争者最少。③亲社会者的核心动机为不平等厌恶。结论:社会价值取向滑块测验在青少年群体中具有良好的信效度,可用于相关研究。

Objective:To evaluate the psychometric properties and development of SVO Slider Measure in adolescence. Methods:1031 adolescence from junior high school and senior high school were tested with SVO Slider Measure and 350 adolescences were selected to retest after 4 weeks. Results:①The correlation between the resulting angles from test-retest SVO Slider Measure was 0.79, the Triple Dominance Measure and the Slider Measure categorized the same subjects into the same SVO category 59% of the time. We found a statistically significant point-biserial correlation(r=0.135) between the subjects'SVO angles and their choices in the Prisoner's Dilemma. ②The majority of adolescences were classified as proso-cial, followed by individualists, and only a few competitors, and most of prosocial were sensitive to equality. ③The distribu-tion of SVO type showed significant regional and age differences. Conclusion:The SVO Slider Measure has good reliable and validity in Chinese adolescence.

基金项目:
江西省社会科学规划资助项目(15JY54)
作者简介:
参考文献:

1 张振, 张帆, 黄亮, 等. 决策中社会价值取向的理论与测评方法. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(1):48-56
2 吴宝沛, 寇彧. 西方社会价值取向的研究历程与发展趋势. 心理科学进展, 2008, 16(6):987-992
3 Fiedler S, Glöckner A, Nicklisch A, et al. Social Value Orientation and information search in social dilemmas:An eyetracking analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 2013, 120(2):272-284
4 Van Prooijen JW, De Cremer D, Van Beest I, et al. The egocentric nature of procedural justice:Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2008, 44(5):1303-1315
5 Van Prooijen JW, Ståhl T, Eek D, et al. Injustice for all or just for me? Social value orientation predicts responses to own versus other's procedures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2012, 38(10):1247
6 严进, 王重鸣. 群体任务中合作行为的跨阶段演变. 心理学报, 2003, 35(4):499-503
7 刘长江, 郝芳. 不对称社会困境中社会价值取向对合作的影响. 心理学报, 2011, 43(4):432-441
8 Murphy RO, Ackermann KA. Social value orientation:theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2014, 18 (1):13
9 刘毅, 李文琼. 社会价值取向及其测量方法. 山西经济管理干部学院学报, 2008, 16(1):80-82
10 Eek D, Gärling T. A New Look at the Theory of Social Value Orientations:Prosocials Neither Maximize Joint Outcome nor Minimize Outcome Differences but Prefer Equal Outcomes. Springer US, 2008:10-26
11 Eek D, Gärling T. Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2006, 45(Pt 2):321
12 Van Lange PAM. The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes:An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1999, 77 (2):337-349
13 Murphy RO, Ackerman KA, Handgraaf. MJJ. Measuring social value orientation. Judgment & Decision Making, 2011, 6 (8):771-781
14 张振, 张帆, 原胜, 等. 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, 13(3):404-409
15 Doesum NJV, Tybur JM, Lange PAMV. Class impressions:Higher social class elicits lower prosociality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2016, 68:11-20
16 Zelenski JM, Dopko RL, Capaldi CA. Cooperation is in our nature:Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2015, 42:24-31
17 Krämer F, Schmidt KM, Spann M, et al. Delegating Pricing Power to Customers:Pay What You Want or Name Your Own Price? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2017, 136:513-517
18 Turiegano E, Sanchez-Pages S. Two studies on the interplay between social preferences and individual biological features. Behaviour, 2013, 150(7):713-735
19 Van Lange PA, Otten W, De Bruin EM, et al. Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations:theory and preliminary evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1997, 73(4):733-746
20 Van Lange PA, De Creme D, Van Dijk E, et al. Social Psychology:Handbook of Basic Principles. New York:Guilford, 2007
21 孙宇理. 儿童社会价值取向的发展及其对合作行为的影响. 中国科学院心理研究所, 2009
22 Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Multiple contrasts and ordered Bonferroni procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1984, 76(6):1028-1034
23 Balliet DP, Parks C, Joireman JJ. Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas:A Meta-Analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2009, 12(4):533-547
24 M Deutsch. Trust and suspicion. The Journal of Confilct Resolution, 1958, 2:265-279
25 Eek D, Gärling T. Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2006, 45(2):321-337

服务与反馈:
文章下载】【加入收藏
您是第访问者

《中国临床心理学杂志》编辑部
地址:湖南省长沙市中南大学湘雅二医院内, 410011
电 话:0731-85292472    电子邮件:cjcp_china@163.com
本系统由北京博思汇文数字科技有限公司设计开发 技术服务电话:400-921-9838