Two studies investigated how values affect competitive versus cooperative behavior. Each Study presented a new social-dilemma game, in which participants' interpretations of the dilemma (i.e., their subjective payoff matrix)-and consequently the dominant (i.e., rational) behavioral choice-depended on their values. The Paired Charity Game (Study 1) framed the situation in terms of cooperation. As hypothesized, contribution correlated positively with universalism and benevolence values that reflect concern for others and negatively with power, achievement, and hedonism values that promote self-interests. Furthermore, values, but not traits, predicted the participants' contribution. The Group Charity Game (Study 2) was designed to frame the situation in terms of competition. As hypothesized, contribution correlated positively with emphasizing benevolence over power values. Moreover, the impact of values was stronger when they were rendered accessible, indicating a causal influence of values on behavior. Furthermore, when their value hierarchy was rendered accessible, participants explained their choices in terms of those values that were (a) important to them and (b) relevant to the situation. The findings thus point to the mechanism through which accessible values affect behavior. Taken together, the studies promote our understanding of the value-behavior relationships, by highlighting the impact of values on perception. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Suppose you are a sales person in a telemarketing team. You are paid according to the number of calls you make per day. A co-worker who just joined your team asks for your help and advice. By taking the time to help, you increase her chances of performing well and thus contributing to the overall performance of your team. At the same time, however, the time spent means fewer calls for you, and a direct decease in your own salary. Furthermore, the new team member, using your knowledge and tips, may improve and eventually outperform you. By keeping your knowledge to yourself you can maintain your high status in the team. Should you help? The answer depends on what is important to you in life. If success and social status are most important, you may view helping your co-worker as an obstacle to personal success. Refraining from helping would be the reasonable decision in this case. In contrast, if caring about others is most important to you, you may perceive this situation as an opportunity to express such care, and thus helping would be the rational choice.Competition and cooperation are integral parts of most interpersonal and intergroup encounters. When people interact with others they frequently have to decide whether to cooperate with them, often at some cost for themselves, or to compete, possibly at the expense of others. We employ Schwartz's (1992) theory of personal values to explain individuals' competitive versus cooperative behavior in social dilemma settings. We reason that because values affect the interpretation of social dilemmas, the ra...

Following an analysis of the concept of "imposed change," we propose 2 factors that jointly contribute to an individual's experience of ambivalence to imposed change. In a secondary analysis of data (N = 172) and 2 field studies (N = 104, N = 89), we showed that individuals' personal orientation toward change interacts with their orientation toward the change agent and yields ambivalence. Specifically, among employees with a positive orientation toward the change agent (i.e., high trust in management, identification with the organization), the relationship between employees' dispositional resistance to change and ambivalence was positive. The opposite pattern emerged among employees with a negative orientation toward the change agent (Studies 2 and 3). Our findings suggest that researchers may have been misinterpreting employees' reactions to change, neglecting the possibility that some may simultaneously hold strong, yet conflicting, views about the change. By accounting for, and predicting, ambivalence, these studies provide a more accurate explanation of employees' responses to change.

Internal motivational conflicts that arise in the context of imposed change were investigated through a personal values perspective. It is suggested that in the context of imposed change different aspects of the same value dimension will tend to come in conflict. As demonstrated in two studies, this conflict is manifested in what at a surface level appears as a weak relationship between values and reaction to the change. In Study 1, a field study of 107 employees, individuals' dispositional resistance to change was controlled to disentangle the conflicting forces that employees experienced in response to a campus relocation. In Study 2, a laboratory study of 128 undergraduates, in addition to replicating the results of Study 1, the different motivational dynamics that exist in voluntary versus imposed change situations were demonstrated.