Wherefore art thou competitors? How situational affordances help differentiate among prosociality, individualism, and competition

The Triple Dominance Measure (choosing between prosocial, individualistic, and competitive options) and the Slider Measure (“sliding” between various orientations, for example, from individualistic to prosocial) are two widely used techniques to measure social value orientation, that is, the weight individuals assign to own and others’ outcomes in interdependent situations. Surprisingly, there is only moderate correspondence between these measures, but it is unclear why and what the implications are for identifying individual differences in social value orientation. Using a dataset of 8021 participants from 31 countries and regions, this study revealed that the Slider Measure identified fewer competitors than the Triple Dominance Measure, accounting for approximately one-third of the non-correspondence between the two measures. This is (partially) because many of the Slider items do not afford a competitive option. In items where competition is combined with individualism, competitors tended to make the same choices as individualists. Futhermore, we demonstrated the uniqueness of competitors. Compared to prosocials and individualists, competitors exhibited lower levels of both social mindfulness and trust. Overall, the present work highlights the importance of situational affordances in measuring personality, the benefits of distinguishing between individualists and competitors, and the importance of utilizing a measure that distinguishes between these two proself orientations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Personality
Published
2024-11-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241298850
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Social and Intergroup Psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.26

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Wherefore art thou competitors? How situational affordances help differentiate among prosociality, individualism, and competition

Boris Maciejovsky, Hyun Euh, Jan B. Engelmann, Yi Liu et al.
2 citations
European Journal of Personality
Social and Intergroup Psychology
2.26
article

Wherefore art thou competitors? How situational affordances help differentiate among prosociality, individualism, and competition

Boris Maciejovsky, Hyun Euh, Jan B. Engelmann, Yi Liu, Justin Friesen, Cecilia Reyna, Ursula Athenstaedt, Ryan O. Murphy, Toko Kiyonari, Martina Hřebı́čková, Siugmin Lay, Camilo García, Susann Fiedler, Tim Wildschut, Chandrasekhar Pammi, Jose C. Yong, Efrat Aharonov‐Majar, Ali Mashuri, Karin S. Moser, Michael J. Platow, Nancy R. Buchan, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Sven Waldzus, Liying Bai, Bernd Weber, Leander van der Meij, Fabian Winter, Ori Weisel, Chris Reinders Folmer, Junhui Wu, D. Michael Kuhlman, Marcello Gallucci, Adrian Netedu, Kitty Dumont, Paul A. M. Van Lange, Zoi Manesi, Cláudia Simão, Yu Kou, Katarzyna Growiec, Kimmo Eriksson, Adam W. Stivers, Norman P. Li, Niels J. Van Doesum, ROBERT M. BOHM, Gökhan Karagonlar, Roberto González, Yiwen Wang, Aurelia Mok, Xiaoping Chen, Sylvie Graf, Sonja Utz, Yang Li, Simon Gächter, Jeff Joireman
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The Triple Dominance Measure (choosing between prosocial, individualistic, and competitive options) and the Slider Measure (“sliding” between various orientations, for example, from individualistic to prosocial) are two widely used techniques to measure social value orientation, that is, the weight individuals assign to own and others’ outcomes in interdependent situations. Surprisingly, there is only moderate correspondence between these measures, but it is unclear why and what the implications are for identifying individual differences in social value orientation. Using a dataset of 8021 participants from 31 countries and regions, this study revealed that the Slider Measure identified fewer competitors than the Triple Dominance Measure, accounting for approximately one-third of the non-correspondence between the two measures. This is (partially) because many of the Slider items do not afford a competitive option. In items where competition is combined with individualism, competitors tended to make the same choices as individualists. Futhermore, we demonstrated the uniqueness of competitors. Compared to prosocials and individualists, competitors exhibited lower levels of both social mindfulness and trust. Overall, the present work highlights the importance of situational affordances in measuring personality, the benefits of distinguishing between individualists and competitors, and the importance of utilizing a measure that distinguishes between these two proself orientations.

European Journal of PersonalityVol. 40(1)
Vienna University of Economics and Business (AT), University of California, Riverside (US), Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (PT), Australian National University (AU), Gonzaga University (US), Leiden University (NL), University of Copenhagen (DK), Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL), University of Vienna (AT), Aoyama Gakuin University (JP), Cologne Institute for Economic Research (DE), University of Bonn (DE), Alexandru Ioan Cuza University (RO), University of Nottingham (GB), Universidad Veracruzana (MX), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR), University of South Carolina (US), University of Graz (AT), University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL), Tel Aviv University (IL), The University of Queensland (AU), University of South Africa (ZA), Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (AR), City University of Hong Kong (HK), University of Allahabad (IN), University of Brawijaya (ID), University of Cologne (DE), University of Toronto (CA), Dokuz Eylül University (TR), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN), Tinbergen Institute (NL), University of Washington (US), Czech Academy of Sciences (CZ), University of Zurich (CH), Universidade Católica Portuguesa (PT), Beijing Normal University (CN), Ghent University Hospital (BE), Ghent University (BE), Uniwersytet SWPS (PL), Clinical Insights (US), James Cook University Singapore (SG), Institute of Psychology (PL), Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN), Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (DE), Sonoco (United States) (US), Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Psychology (CZ), Behavioral Tech (US), University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN), University of Southampton (GB), Nagoya University (JP), University of Milano-Bicocca (IT), Washington State University (US), Singapore Management University (SG), University of Tübingen (DE), Fuzhou University (CN), Mälardalen University (SE), Eindhoven University of Technology (NL), James Cook University (AU), University of Delaware (US), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL), The University of Winnipeg (CA), University of Amsterdam (NL)
Grantová Agentura České Republiky, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Akademie Věd České Republiky, China Scholarship Council, Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo, Centro de Estudios de Conflicto y Cohesión Social, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Fondo de Financiamiento de Centros de Investigación en Áreas Prioritarias, H2020 European Research Council
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Social and Intergroup Psychology
2.26
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.