Social Cognition
Social Value Orientation Test
Also called: social value orientation measure, SVO angle, social preference slider
Measure how people weigh points for themselves against points for another person: six choices along lines of nine splits give an angle in degrees and one of four types.
2-4 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 348
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 14
What it measures
Measures how a person weighs points for themselves against points for another person: six choices along lines of nine splits give an angle in degrees and one of four types.
Constructs
- Social preferences
- Prosocial orientation
- Weight on outcomes for others
- Cooperation
Research uses
- Behavioral economics and social psychology research
- Cooperation and social dilemma studies
- Social decision-making research in clinical groups
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
Social value orientation measures how much weight a person gives to points for another person against points for themselves. On each of six screens the participant chooses one of nine ways to share points. The nine ways lie on a straight line between two of four points on a ring, in the plane of points for self and points for the other person: altruistic, prosocial, individualistic and competitive. The six items make every comparison of two of those points once, as the primary items of Murphy, Ackermann and Handgraaf (2011) do. The numbers were written for this test on a ring with center 60 and radius 56, so every allocation is a whole number and no item repeats a published number.
More about the paradigm
The participant clicks or taps a column, or moves a slider under the columns, then confirms. No column is selected at the start, and there is no time limit. Item order is drawn from the session's seed. One practice item with feedback comes first. By default the instructions say the points are for a research measure and that no one receives them; a study that pays for the points or pairs people can use a neutral wording.
The main score is the angle: the arctangent of mean points for the other person minus 60, over mean points for self minus 60, in degrees. Higher angles give more weight to the other person. The type follows from the angle, with cut-offs computed for this ring by the source's method: altruistic above 57.04 degrees, prosocial from 22.55 to 57.04, individualistic from -12.15 to 22.55, and competitive below -12.15. The source recommends the angle over the types for analysis because it keeps the full range of differences between people. In a meta-analysis of 82 studies, social value orientation was related to cooperation in social dilemmas at r = .30 (Balliet, Parks and Joireman, 2009). Two checks are flagged and never exclude: how far the choices are from the best-fitting single angle, and whether the ranking of the four points is transitive. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- SVO Angledegrees
- Arctangent of mean points for the other person minus 60, over mean points for self minus 60, when all six items are answered.
- Higher angles give more weight to the other person
- SVO Type (1 altruistic, 2 prosocial, 3 individualistic, 4 competitive)score
- The type the angle falls in, with cut-offs computed for this ring.
- Informational; use the angle for analysis
- Mean Points for Selfpoints
- Mean points for the participant over the answered items.
- Informational
- Mean Points for Otherpoints
- Mean points for the other person over the answered items.
- Informational
- Item 1 Columnscore
- Column chosen, 1 to 9 from the left, on the line from prosocial to competitive.
- Informational
- Item 2 Columnscore
- Column chosen, 1 to 9 from the left, on the line from competitive to individualistic.
- Informational
- Item 3 Columnscore
- Column chosen, 1 to 9 from the left, on the line from altruistic to prosocial.
- Informational
- Item 4 Columnscore
- Column chosen, 1 to 9 from the left, on the line from altruistic to competitive.
- Informational
- Item 5 Columnscore
- Column chosen, 1 to 9 from the left, on the line from individualistic to altruistic.
- Informational
- Item 6 Columnscore
- Column chosen, 1 to 9 from the left, on the line from individualistic to prosocial.
- Informational
- Fit to One Angle (columns)score
- The mean number of columns between the choices and the columns nearest the best-fitting single angle. 0 is a perfect fit; above 1.5 is flagged.
- Lower supports interpretation
- Transitive Ranking0/1
- 1 when the preferences between the four points implied by the choices have no cycle.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Practice Correctflag
- 1 when the practice item was answered as asked, 0 when not.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Median Decision Timems
- Median time from an item's screen to Confirm.
- Informational
- Items Answereditems
- Scored items, out of six.
- Six are needed for an angle
Use and evidence
348 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 20% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 74 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 104 |
| 2024 | 64 |
| 2023 | 55 |
| 2022 | 60 |
| 2021 | 65 |
| 2020 | 57 |
| 2019 | 49 |
| 2018 | 67 |
| 2017 | 61 |
| 2016 | 55 |
| 2015 | 45 |
| 2014 | 43 |
| 2013 | 44 |
| 2012 | 40 |
| 2011 | 36 |
| 2010 | 29 |
| 2009 | 34 |
| 2008 | 36 |
| 2007 | 18 |
| 2006 | 17 |
| 2005 | 19 |
| 2004 | 12 |
| 2003 | 9 |
| 2002 | 15 |
| 2001 | 10 |
| 2000 | 9 |
Use grade B
300 to 999 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 7
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 70
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 14
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Items
- Six, each a line of nine evenly spaced ways to share points between two of four points on a ring: altruistic, prosocial, individualistic and competitive. The items make every comparison of two of those points once, in an order drawn from the session's seed.
- Points
- Written for this test on a ring with center 60 and radius 56, so all nine columns of every item are whole numbers and no item repeats a published number.
- Choice
- Nine columns of what the participant gets and what the other person gets, chosen by clicking or tapping a column or with a slider, and confirmed. No column is selected at the start. No time limit.
- Practice
- One item on a line off the ring, with feedback: choose the column where the other person gets a stated number.
- Angle
- The arctangent of mean points for the other person minus 60, over mean points for self minus 60, in degrees.
- Types
- Altruistic above 57.04 degrees, prosocial from 22.55 to 57.04, individualistic from -12.15 to 22.55 and competitive below -12.15, computed for this ring by the source's method.
- Checks
- How far the choices are from the best-fitting single angle, flagged above 1.5 columns on average, and whether the ranking of the four points is transitive. Both flag and never exclude.
- Other person
- The standard instructions say the points are for a research measure, no one receives them and the other person is imagined. A study that pays for the points or pairs people can use a neutral wording.
Murphy and colleagues (2011) used a ring with center 50 and radius 50 and report cut-offs of 57.15, 22.45 and -12.04 degrees. This test keeps their geometry on its own numbers, so its cut-offs differ slightly and the figures they report for their items describe that version. Their nine optional items on inequality are not included. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the scored run's items. All 6 items must be answered, or the session is invalid. No choice is correct, so accuracy is not judged against chance, and repeating a column does not invalidate. Choices that fit no single angle (more than 1.5 columns from the best angle on average), an intransitive ranking of the four points on the ring and a wrong practice answer are flagged for review and never exclude. Confirming in under 200 ms on at least half the items invalidates.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. The angle is the mean of all 6 allocations, so it has no defined value with fewer. A preference should fit one angle and rank the four points without a cycle, and random responding rarely does, but an odd pattern can still be a real preference, so these checks flag and never exclude. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Who the other person is | Points for a research measure (standard) | Points for a research measure (standard), The study information explains the points |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Social Value Orientation task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Murphy RO, Ackermann KA, Handgraaf MJJ, 2011; Murphy RO, Ackermann KA, 2014), with the standard settings (who the other person is: Points for a research measure). The main score was SVO angle (arctangent of mean points for the other person minus 60, over mean points for self minus 60, when all six items are answered).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771-781. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500004204
- Murphy, R. O., & Ackermann, K. A. (2014). Social value orientation: Theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 13-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313501745
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105040Why the measure predicts cooperation.
Source papers
- Murphy, Ackermann and Handgraaf (2011): the slider measure, its angle and cut-offs. Balliet, Parks and Joireman (2009): meta-analysis of 82 studies.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Social Value Orientation Test take?
About 2 to 4 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
SVO Angle, SVO Type (1 altruistic, 2 prosocial, 3 individualistic, 4 competitive), Mean Points for Self, Mean Points for Other, Item 1 Column, Item 2 Column, Item 3 Column, Item 4 Column, Item 5 Column, Item 6 Column, Fit to One Angle (columns), Transitive Ranking, Practice Correct, Median Decision Time and Items Answered. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Social Value Orientation Test used in research?
348 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 20% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 74 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade B). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Social Value Orientation Test have?
In the published research, 7 papers report its test-retest reliability and 14 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Who the other person is (Points for a research measure (standard), The study information explains the points). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests