IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i13p6999-d579480.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The 9-SRA Scale: A Simplified 9-Items Version of the SRA Scale to Assess Altruism

Author

Listed:
  • Enrique Manzur

    (FEN Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Chile, Santiago 8330015, Chile)

  • Sergio Olavarrieta

    (FEN Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Chile, Santiago 8330015, Chile)

Abstract

In a classic study, Rushton and colleagues presented a 20-item scale to assess the altruistic behavior of people: the Self-Report Altruism (SRA) scale. This article focuses on the development of a simplified 9-item scale—the 9-SRA scale—describing the entire refinement and validation procedure using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The 9-SRA shows adequate reliability and validity and represents a more parsimonious instrument to assess altruism and for use in empirical studies focused on human and prosocial behavior. The article discusses the advantages and potential applications of the new scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Enrique Manzur & Sergio Olavarrieta, 2021. "The 9-SRA Scale: A Simplified 9-Items Version of the SRA Scale to Assess Altruism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:6999-:d:579480
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/6999/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/6999/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Derbaix, Christian & Pecheux, Claude, 2003. "A New Scale to Assess Children's Attitude toward TV Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(4), pages 390-399, December.
    2. Joseph Henrich, 2001. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 73-78, May.
    3. Simon, Herbert A, 1993. "Altruism and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 156-161, May.
    4. Fehrler, Sebastian & Przepiorka, Wojtek, 2013. "Charitable Giving as a Signal of Trustworthiness: Disentangling the Signaling Benefits of Altruistic Acts," IZA Discussion Papers 7148, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Roth, Alvin E. & Vesna Prasnikar & Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara & Shmuel Zamir, 1991. "Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1068-1095, December.
    6. Kentaka Aruga, 2020. "Is Environmental Awareness a Good Predictor of an Individual’s Altruism Level?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-12, September.
    7. Keiichiro Kobayashi & Asako Chiba, 2020. "Intergenerational Bubbles of Beliefs for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "The nature of human altruism," Nature, Nature, vol. 425(6960), pages 785-791, October.
    9. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    10. Isabel-María García-Sánchez & Nicola Raimo & Arcangelo Marrone & Filippo Vitolla, 2020. "How Does Integrated Reporting Change in Light of COVID-19? A Revisiting of the Content of the Integrated Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-11, September.
    11. Samuel Bowles & Robert Boyd & Colin Camerer & Ernst Fehr & Herbert Gintis & Joseph Henrich & Richard McElreath, 2001. "In search of homo economicus: Experiments in 15 small-scale societies," Artefactual Field Experiments 00068, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Sanxing Sun, 2018. "From Defensive Altruism to Pathological Altruism," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, June.
    13. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    14. Sang-soo Kim & Woo-yeul Baek & Kevin K. Byon & Sung-bum Ju, 2020. "Creating Shared Value and Fan Loyalty in the Korean Professional Volleyball Team," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-12, September.
    15. Woo-yeul Baek & Hyun-seok Song & Doo-Han Kim & Kevin K. Byon, 2020. "Cause-Related Marketing and Purchase Intention toward Team-Licensed Products: Moderating Effects of Sport Consumers’ Altruism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, April.
    16. Yanmin He & Hideki Kitagawa & YeeKeong Choy & Xin Kou & Peii Tsai, 2020. "What Affects Chinese Households’ Behavior in Sorting Solid Waste? A Case Study from Shanghai, Shenyang, and Chengdu," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    17. Henry Kaiser, 1974. "An index of factorial simplicity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(1), pages 31-36, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaofeng Wang & Xiaojie Chen & Long Wang, 2020. "Evolution of egalitarian social norm by resource management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Shanshan Zhen & Rongjun Yu, 2016. "Tend to Compare and Tend to Be Fair: The Relationship between Social Comparison Sensitivity and Justice Sensitivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin, 2016. "A Theory of Experiments: Invariance of Equilibrium to the Strategy Method of Elicitation and Implications for Social Preferences," TSE Working Papers 16-724, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Feb 2020.
    4. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    5. Burnham, Terence C., 2013. "Toward a neo-Darwinian synthesis of neoclassical and behavioral economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(S), pages 113-127.
    6. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    7. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    8. Ehmke, Mariah & Lusk, Jayson & Tyner, Wallace, 2010. "Multidimensional tests for economic behavior differences across cultures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-45, January.
    9. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    10. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    11. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    12. van Damme, Eric & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Roth, Alvin E. & Samuelson, Larry & Winter, Eyal & Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Gneezy, Uri & Kocher, Martin G, 2014. "How Werner Güth's ultimatum game shaped our understanding of social behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 292-318.
    13. Ahrens, Steffen & Snower, Dennis J., 2014. "Envy, guilt, and the Phillips curve," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 69-84.
    14. Uri Gneezy & Andreas Leibbrandt & John A. List, 2016. "Ode to the Sea: Workplace Organizations and Norms of Cooperation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(595), pages 1856-1883, September.
    15. Romina Boarini & Jean-François Laslier & Stéphane Robin, 2009. "Interpersonal comparisons of utility in bargaining: evidence from a transcontinental ultimatum game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 341-373, October.
    16. Ekström, Mathias, 2017. "Seasonal Social Preferences," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 4/2017, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    17. Klaus M. Schmidt, 2011. "Social Preferences and Competition," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43, pages 207-231, August.
    18. Ekström, Mathias, 2017. "Seasonal Social Preferences," Working Paper Series 1159, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    19. Cochard, François & Le Gallo, Julie & Georgantzis, Nikolaos & Tisserand, Jean-Christian, 2021. "Social preferences across different populations: Meta-analyses on the ultimatum game and dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    20. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann & Christian Thoeni, 2010. "Culture and Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2010-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:6999-:d:579480. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.