Moderating Effects of Social Value Orientation on the Effect of Social Influence in Prosocial Decisions.

Zhenyu Wei, Zhiying Zhao, Yong Zheng
Author Information
  1. Zhenyu Wei: Center for Studies of Education and Psychology of Ethnic Minorities in Southwest China, Southwest UniversityChongqing, China; Faculty of Psychology, Southwest UniversityChongqing, China.
  2. Zhiying Zhao: Key Laboratory for NeuroInformation of Ministry of Education, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China Chengdu, China.
  3. Yong Zheng: Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality (MOE), Southwest University Chongqing, China.

Abstract

Prosocial behaviors are susceptible to individuals' preferences regarding payoffs and social context. In the present study, we combined individual differences with social influence and attempted to discover the effect of social value orientation (SVO) and social influence on prosocial behavior in a trust game and a dictator game. Prosocial behavior in the trust game could be motivated by strategic considerations whereas individuals' decisions in the dictator game could be associated with their social preference. In the trust game, prosocials were less likely than proselfs to conform to the behavior of other group members when the majority of group members distrusted the trustee. In the dictator game, the results of the three-way ANOVA indicated that, irrespective of the type of offer, in contrast to proselfs, prosocials were influenced more by others' generous choices than their selfish choices, even if the selfish choices were beneficial to themselves. The overall results demonstrated that the effect of social influence appears to depend on individuals' SVO: that is, prosocials tend to conform to prosocial rather than proself behaviors.

Keywords

References

  1. J Abnorm Psychol. 1964 Sep;69:318-23 [PMID: 14216346]
  2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Oct;73(4):733-46 [PMID: 9325591]
  3. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Jan;92(1):56-66 [PMID: 17201542]
  4. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Dec 24;7:896 [PMID: 24399954]
  5. Front Psychol. 2016 May 18;7:728 [PMID: 27242633]
  6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Dec 6;108(49):19761-6 [PMID: 22106300]
  7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 11;105(10):3721-6 [PMID: 18316737]
  8. Br J Soc Psychol. 2008 Sep;47(Pt 3):453-80 [PMID: 17915044]
  9. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975 Nov;32(5):922-31 [PMID: 1185519]
  10. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:591-621 [PMID: 14744228]
  11. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2016 Aug;42(8):1045-62 [PMID: 27229679]
  12. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1966 Sep;4(3):307-15 [PMID: 5969157]
  13. Horm Behav. 2010 Mar;57(3):368-74 [PMID: 20080100]
  14. Neuron. 2009 Jan 15;61(1):140-51 [PMID: 19146819]
  15. PLoS One. 2007 Nov 07;2(11):e1128 [PMID: 17987115]
  16. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Nov;99(5):771-84 [PMID: 20649364]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0socialgameinfluencetrustProsocialindividuals'prosocialbehaviordictatorprosocialschoicesbehaviorseffectvalueorientationproselfsconformgroupmembersresultsselfishSocialsusceptiblepreferencesregardingpayoffscontextpresentstudycombinedindividualdifferencesattempteddiscoverSVOmotivatedstrategicconsiderationswhereasdecisionsassociatedpreferencelesslikelymajoritydistrustedtrusteethree-wayANOVAindicatedirrespectivetypeoffercontrastinfluencedothers'generousevenbeneficialoveralldemonstratedappearsdependSVO:tendratherproselfModeratingEffectsValueOrientationEffectInfluenceDecisionsgenerositydecision

Similar Articles

Cited By