This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Shalom H. Schwartz The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Appeared in Revue française de sociologie, 47/4 (2006)
This research was supported by Israel Science Foundation Grant No. 921/02.
2 Abstract Applying the values construct in the social sciences has suffered from the absence of an agreedupon conception of basic values, of the content and structure of relations among these values, and of reliable methods to measure them. This article presents data from over 70 countries, using two different instruments, to validate a theory intended to fill part of this gap. It concerns the basic values that individuals in all cultures recognize. The theory identifies 10 motivationally distinct values and specifies the dynamics of conflict and congruence among them. These dynamics yield a structure of relations among values common to culturally diverse groups, suggesting a universal organization of human motivations. Individuals and groups differ in the priorities they assign to these values. The article examines sources of individual differences in value priorities and behavioral and attitudinal consequences that follow from holding particular value priorities. In doing so, it considers processes through which values are influenced and through which they influence action.
3 Values have been a central concept in the social sciences since their inception. For both Durkheim (1893, 1897) and Weber (1905), values were crucial for explaining social and personal organization and change. Values have played an important role not only in sociology, but in psychology, anthropology, and related disciplines as well. Values are used to characterize societies and individuals, to trace change over time, and to explain the motivational bases of attitudes and behavior. Despite or, perhaps, because of the widespread use of values, many different conceptions of this construct have emerged (e.g., Boudon, 2001; Inglehart, 1997; Kohn, 1969; Parsons, 1951; Rokeach 1973). Application of the values construct in the social sciences has suffered, however, from the absence of an agreed-upon conception of basic values, of the content and structure of relations among these values, and of reliable empirical methods to measure them (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Rohan, 2000). This article presents a theory intended to fill the part of this gap concerned with the values of individuals (Schwartz, 1992, 2005a). The theory concerns the basic values that people in all cultures recognize. It identifies ten motivationally distinct value orientations and specifies the dynamics of conflict and congruence among these values. Some values contradict one another (e.g., benevolence and power) whereas others are compatible (e.g., conformity and security). The "structure" of values refers to these relations of conflict and congruence among values, not to their relative importance. If value structures are similar across culturally diverse groups, this would suggest that there is a universal organization of human motivations. Of course, even if the types of human motivation that values express and the structure of relations among them are universal, individuals and groups differ substantially in the relative importance they attribute to their values. That is, individuals and groups have different value “priorities” or “hierarchies.” This article explicates the theory of personal values and describes two different instruments to measure the values it identifies. Data gathered with these instruments in over 70
4 countries around the world have validated both the contents and structure of values postulated by the theory. I will also examine some sources of individual differences in value priorities and some of the behavioral and attitudinal consequences that follow from holding particular value priorities. In doing so, I will consider processes through which values are influenced and through which they influence action. The Theory of Value Contents and Structure The Nature of Values When we think of our values we think of what is important to us in life. Each of us holds numerous values (e.g., achievement, security, benevolence) with varying degrees of importance. A particular value may be very important to one person but unimportant to another. The value theory (Schwartz, 1992, 2005a) adopts a conception of values that specifies six main features that are implicit in the writings of many theorists:1 (1) Values are beliefs linked inextricably to affect. When values are activated, they become infused with feeling. People for whom independence is an important value become aroused if their independence is threatened, despair when they are helpless to protect it, and are happy when they can enjoy it. (2) Values refer to desirable goals that motivate action. People for whom social order, justice, and helpfulness are important values are motivated to pursue these goals. (3) Values transcend specific actions and situations. Obedience and honesty, for example, are values that may be relevant at work or in school, in sports, business, and politics, with family, friends, or strangers. This feature distinguishes values from narrower concepts like norms and attitudes that usually refer to specific actions, objects, or situations. (4) Values serve as standards or criteria. Values guide the selection or evaluation of actions, policies, people, and events. People decide what is good or bad, justified or illegitimate, worth
e.g., Allport, 1961; Feather, 1995; Inglehart, 1997; Kohn, 1969; Kluckhohn, 1951; Morris, 1956; Rokeach 1973; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987.
5 doing or avoiding, based on possible consequences for their cherished values. But the impact of values in everyday decisions is rarely conscious. Values enter awareness when the actions or judgments one is considering have conflicting implications for different values one cherishes. (5) Values are ordered by importance relative to one another. People’s values form an ordered system of value priorities that characterize them as individuals. Do they attribute more importance to achievement or justice, to novelty or tradition? This hierarchical feature also distinguishes values from norms and attitudes. (6) The relative importance of multiple values guides action. Any attitude or behavior typically has implications for more than one value. For example, attending church might express and promote tradition, conformity, and security values at the expense of hedonism and stimulation values. The tradeoff among relevant, competing values is what guides attitudes and behaviors (Schwartz, 1992, 1996). Values contribute to action to the extent that they are relevant in the context (hence likely to be activated) and important to the actor. The above are features of all values. What distinguishes one value from another is the type of goal or motivation that the value expresses. The values theory defines ten broad values according to the motivation that underlies each of them. Presumably, these values encompass the range of motivationally distinct values recognized across cultures. According to the theory, these values are likely to be universal because they are grounded in one or more of three universal requirements of human existence with which they help to cope. These requirements are: needs of individuals as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated social interaction, and survival and welfare needs of groups. Individuals cannot cope successfully with these requirements of human existence on their own. Rather, people must articulate appropriate goals to cope with them, communicate with others about them, and gain cooperation in their pursuit. Values are the socially desirable concepts used to represent these goals mentally and the vocabulary used to express them in
Hedonism values derive from organismic needs and the pleasure associated with satisfying them. 1977. 1975). and challenge in life. 1986).6 social interaction. and refer to related value concepts. Theorists from many disciplines (e. an exciting life. I list in parentheses the set of value items included in the first survey instrument to measure each value. Kohn & Schooler. 1968) mention hedonism. note its grounding in universal requirements. Some important value items (e. Defining goal: independent thought and action--choosing. novelty. self-indulgent) 2 Achievement. Stimulation values derive from the organismic need for variety and stimulation in order to maintain an optimal. rather than threatening.g. Morris... exploring. happiness is not included. freedom. From an evolutionary viewpoint (Buss. (creativity. 1951. Kluckhohn. Defining goal: pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself. these goals and the values that express them have crucial survival significance. Berlyne. because people achieve it through attaining whatever outcomes they value (Sagiv & Schwartz.g. These items are listed in brackets. Defining goal: personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. 1960). 1956)..g.g. .g. (a varied life... positive. Deci. enjoying life. Deci. Self-direction derives from organismic needs for control and mastery (e. 1975) and interactional requirements of autonomy and independence (e. Williams. daring) Hedonism. Self-Direction. This need probably relates to the needs underlying self-direction values (cf. curious. 1933. 1983. Morris. (pleasure. creating. intelligent. they express the motivational goals of more than one value. Freud. independent)[self-respect. choosing own goals. Bandura. I next define each of the ten values in terms of the broad goal it expresses. level of activation (e. To make the meaning of each value more concrete and explicit. privacy] Stimulation. 1956. Competent performance that generates resources is necessary for 2 Though it is an important value. 2000). selfrespect) have multiple meanings. Defining goal: excitement.
social recognition]3 Power. Even the latter. Power values may also be transformations of individual needs for dominance and control (Korman. of relationships. wealth. wealth) emphasize the attainment or preservation of a dominant position within the more general social system. Value analysts have mentioned power values as well (e.g.g.g.g. To justify this fact of social life and to motivate group members to accept it. (ambitious. however. Some serve primarily individual interests (e.. The two subtypes can therefore be unified into a more 3 Achievement values differ from McClelland's (1961) achievement motivation. It is expressed in self-direction values. express. Maslow. capable. control or dominance over people and resources. authority. and stability of society.. However. A dominance/submission dimension emerges in most empirical analyses of interpersonal relations both within and across cultures (Lonner. successful. achievement values emphasize demonstrating competence in terms of prevailing cultural standards. clean). 1968). 1965.. Achievement values appear in many sources (e. the goal of security for self (or those with whom one identifies). harmony.g. 1951). 1980). influential) [intelligent. self-respect. Defining goal: safety.. social recognition] Both power and achievement values focus on social esteem. Maslow. Allport. Kluckhohn. As defined here. Rokeach. 1961).7 individuals to survive and for groups and institutions to reach their objectives. 1973). others wider group interests (e. thereby obtaining social approval. The functioning of social institutions apparently requires some degree of status differentiation (Parsons.g. to a significant degree. Security. ambitious) emphasize the active demonstration of successful performance in concrete interaction.. social power)[preserving my public image. groups must treat power as a value. Security values derive from basic individual and group requirements (cf. achievement values (e. Williams. Defining goal: social status and prestige. whereas power values (e. 1951. Achievement motivation concerns meeting internal standards of excellence. There are two subtypes of security values. and of self. 1974). .. 1965. (authority. national security).
Conformity values derive from the requirement that individuals inhibit inclinations that might disrupt and undermine smooth interaction and group functioning. Parsons. Benevolence. sense of belonging] Conformity. 1951). usually with close others. As a corollary. Parsons. Defining goal: preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the ‘in-group’). symbols. They symbolize the group's solidarity. reciprocation of favors)[healthy. Tradition entails subordination to more abstract objects—religious and cultural customs and ideas. conformity values exhort responsiveness to current. 1956.g. bosses. they share the goal of subordinating the self in favor of socially imposed expectations. humble. (respect for tradition. Tradition values demand responsiveness to immutable expectations from the past. politeness. inclinations. As I define them. family security. 1930. Groups everywhere develop practices. commitment. teachers. Morris.. Conformity entails subordination to persons with whom one is in frequent interaction—parents. clean. and norms of behavior. express its unique worth. spiritual life] Tradition and conformity values are especially close motivationally. 1906). honoring parents and elders)[loyal. accepting my portion in life)[moderate. moderate. responsible] Tradition. and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. national security. Defining goal: respect. They often take the form of religious rites. (social order. conformity values emphasize self-restraint in everyday interaction. 1912/1954. possibly changing expectations. (obedient. Benevolence values derive from the basic . ideas. self-discipline. Kohn & Schooler. These become sanctioned as valued group customs and traditions (Sumner. 1983. Virtually all value analyses mention conformity (e. devout. beliefs. and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion provides. Freud. Defining goal: restraint of actions. 1951).8 encompassing value. and contribute to its survival (Durkheim. and beliefs that represent their shared experience and fate. They differ primarily in the objects to which one subordinates the self.
Niebuhr.9 requirement for smooth group functioning (cf. People may then realize that failure to accept others who are different and treat them justly will lead to life-threatening strife. Williams. tolerance. 1974. loyal. Defining goal: understanding. Universalism. conformity values promote cooperation in order to avoid negative outcomes for self. 1935). equality. responsible. However. benevolence values provide an internalized motivational base for such behavior. a spiritual life]. But people do not recognize these needs until they encounter others beyond the extended primary group and until they become aware of the scarcity of natural resources. If finding ultimate meaning is a basic human need (e. meaning in life. a spiritual life] An early version of the value theory (Schwartz. unity with nature. Most critical are relations within the family and other primary groups. This contrasts with the in-group focus of benevolence values. Kluckhohn.. 1992) raised the possibility that spirituality might constitute another near-universal value. appreciation. Both values may motivate the same helpful act. honest. true friendship. wisdom. The value survey therefore included possible markers for . 1968) and from the organismic need for affiliation (cf. Benevolence values emphasize voluntary concern for others’ welfare. They may also realize that failure to protect the natural environment will lead to the destruction of the resources on which life depends. protecting the environment)[inner harmony. world of beauty. social justice. Benevolence and conformity values both promote cooperative and supportive social relations. (helpful. The defining goal of spiritual values is meaning. mature love) [sense of belonging. coherence. 1965). Universalism values derive from survival needs of individuals and groups. and inner harmony through transcending everyday reality. and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. separately or together. Korman. then spirituality might be a distinct value found in all societies. Maslow.g. forgiving. Universalism combines two subtypes of concern—for the welfare of those in the larger society and world and for nature (broadminded. 1951. world at peace. In contrast.
As noted below. For example. detachment)[unity with nature. Seeking personal success for oneself tends to strengthen and to be strengthened by actions aimed at enhancing one's own social position and authority over others. at different times.10 spirituality.g. And others may impose social sanctions by pointing to practical and logical inconsistencies between an action and other values the person professes. But pursuing both achievement and power values is usually compatible. and social consequences. In contrast. spirituality is not a value that has a consistent broad meaning across cultures. pursuing achievement values typically conflicts with pursuing benevolence values. but not in a single act. people can and do pursue competing values. The circular structure in Figure 1 portrays the total pattern of relations of conflict and congruity among values. Rather. meaning in life. (a spiritual life. they do so through different acts. Seeking success for self tends to obstruct actions aimed at enhancing the welfare of others who need one's help. devout]. Actions in pursuit of values have practical. the theory explicates the structure of dynamic relations among the values. Of course. pursuing tradition values is congruent with pursuing conformity values. The value structure derives from the fact that actions in pursuit of any value have consequences that conflict with some values but are congruent with others. The Structure of Value Relations In addition to identifying ten basic values. choosing an action alternative that promotes one value (e. Practically. inner harmony. psychological. as . taking drugs in a cultic rite—stimulation) may literally contravene or violate a competing value (obeying the precepts of one’s religion—tradition). Another example: Pursuing novelty and change (stimulation values) is likely to undermine preserving time-honored customs (tradition values). The person choosing what to do may also sense that such alternative actions are psychologically dissonant. and in different settings. gleaned from widely varied sources.. accepting my portion in life. Both motivate actions of submission to external expectations. Tradition and conformity are located in a single wedge because.
Conformity is more toward the center and tradition toward the periphery. values form a continuum of related motivations. To clarify the nature of the continuum. The expectations linked to tradition values are more abstract and absolute than the interaction-based expectations of conformity values. and resistance to change (security. This continuum gives rise to the circular structure. one dimension contrasts ‘openness to change’ and ‘conservation’ values. self-restriction. As Figure 1 shows. Hedonism shares elements of both openness to change and selfenhancement. (e) self-direction and universalism--reliance upon one's own judgment and comfort with the diversity of existence.11 noted above. preservation of the past. Although the theory discriminates ten values. The second dimension contrasts ‘selfenhancement’ and ‘self-transcendence’ values. They therefore demand a stronger. (f) universalism and benevolence--enhancement of others and transcendence of selfish interests. unequivocal rejection of opposing values. (d) stimulation and self-direction--intrinsic interest in novelty and mastery. I note the shared motivational emphases of adjacent values: (a) power and achievement--social superiority and esteem. (c) hedonism and stimulation--a desire for affectively pleasant arousal. conformity. This dimension captures the conflict between values that emphasize concern for the welfare and interests of others (universalism. This dimension captures the conflict between values that emphasize independence of thought. action. This signifies that tradition values conflict more strongly with the opposing values. (g) benevolence and tradition--devotion to one's in-group. Viewing values as organized along two bipolar dimensions lets us summarize the oppositions between competing values. at a more basic level. benevolence) and values that emphasize pursuit of one's own interests and relative success and dominance over others (power. (h) benevolence and . they share the same broad motivational goal. and feelings and readiness for change (self-direction. achievement). tradition). stimulation) and values that emphasize order. it postulates that. (b) achievement and hedonism--self-centered satisfaction.
‘EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all)’ is a universalism item. One item in the 56-item SVS (1988) was dropped and two others added in the revised 57-item version (1994). For example. (k) conformity and security-protection of order and harmony in relations. The SVS presents two lists of value items. (j) tradition and security-preserving existing social arrangements that give certainty to life. It implies that the whole set of ten values relates to any other variable in an integrated manner.12 conformity--normative behavior that promotes close relationships. (i) conformity and tradition-subordination of self in favor of socially imposed expectations. 4 This followed Rokeach’s (1973) idea that ends values and means values function differently. the circular arrangement of the values represents a motivational continuum. I return to this implication below. 1992). An explanatory phrase in parentheses following the item further specifies its meaning. It is reasonable to partition the domain of value items into more or less fine-tuned distinct values according to the needs and objectives of one’s analysis. The first contains 30 items that describe potentially desirable end-states in noun form. the more antagonistic their motivations. The closer any two values in either direction around the circle. 1992. Measuring Value Priorities The Schwartz Value Survey The first instrument developed to measure values based on the theory is now known as the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS. . My research suggests that this distinction has no substantive importance (Schwartz. The idea that values form a motivational continuum has a critical implication: The division of the domain of value items into ten distinct values is an arbitrary convenience. Conceiving values as organized in a circular motivational structure has an important implication for the relations of values to other variables. In sum. the second contains 26 or 27 items that describe potentially desirable ways of acting in adjective form. (l) security and power--avoiding or overcoming threats by controlling relationships and resources. the more distant. ‘PLEASURE (gratification of desires)’ is a hedonism item. the more similar their underlying motivations.4 Each item expresses an aspect of the motivational goal of one value. Schwartz. 2005a).
2005b). 5. Both Brocke and Bilsky (2005) and Oishi. . and of persons not educated in Western schools that emphasize abstract. Schimmack. teacher. of the elderly. The scale also enables respondents to report opposition to values that they try to avoid expressing or promoting. 2004) are included in the indexes. This nonsymmetrical scale is stretched at the upper end and condensed at the bottom in order to map the way people think about values. This is especially necessary for cross-cultural studies because people in one culture or subculture may reject values from others cultures. The SVS had not proven suitable to such samples. Across 212 samples (national representative.6 5 6 Schwartz (1994) explains the rational for preferring rating of value importance to ranking. alpha reliabilities of the 10 values average .75 for universalism (Schwartz. 1994. student). and Suh (1998) have subsequently developed paired comparison instruments based on the SVS to measure the ten basic values. The score for the importance of each value is the average rating given to items designated a priori as markers of that value. The number of items to measure each value ranges from three (hedonism) to eight (universalism). to assess whether the values theory is valid independent of method required an alternative instrument. The SVS has been translated into 47 languages. 0 (not important). 2005a) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA. 3 (important). reflecting the conceptual breadth of the values. ranging from .68. Only value items that have demonstrated near-equivalence of meaning across cultures in analyses using multi-dimensional scaling (SSA. Diener.61 for tradition to . 5 People view most values as varying from mildly to very important. Schwartz & Boehnke. Equally important. 1 (unlabeled). as revealed in pre-tests. The Portrait Values Questionnaire The Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) is an alternative to the SVS developed in order to measure the ten basic values in samples of children from age 11. Schwartz. 4 (unlabeled). 1992. -1 (opposed to my values).13 Respondents rate the importance of each value item "as a guiding principle in MY life" on a 9-point scale labeled 7 (of supreme importance). 6 (very important). 2. context-free thinking.
He likes to do things in his own original way” describes a person for whom self-direction values are important. like me. Comparing other to self directs attention only to aspects of the other that are portrayed. However.. et al. a little like me. the similarity judgment is also likely to focus on these value-relevant aspects.g. The PVQ asks about similarity to someone with particular goals and aspirations (values) rather than similarity to someone with particular traits. they capture the person’s values without explicitly identifying values as the topic of investigation. respondents answer: “How much like you is this person? Responses are: very much like me. people may value creativity as a guiding principle in life but not be creative. somewhat like me. ambition. The number of portraits for each value ranges from three (stimulation. hedonism.. Each portrait describes a person’s goals. reflecting the conceptual breadth of the values. We infer respondents’ own values from their self-reported similarity to people described implicitly in terms of particular values. 2005b. gender-matched with the respondent (Schwartz. For each portrait. For example: “Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. obedience). Respondents are asked to compare the portrait to themselves rather than themselves to the portrait.14 The PVQ includes short verbal portraits of 40 different people. people who value a goal do not necessarily exhibit the corresponding trait. “It is important to him to be rich. Thus. Schwartz. For example. or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a value. aspirations. nor do those who exhibit a trait necessarily value the corresponding goal. and not like me at all. not like me. 2001). wisdom. The same term can refer both to a value and a trait (e. And some creative people may attribute little importance to creativity as a value that guides them. and power) to six (universalism). So. The score for the . He wants to have a lot of money and expensive things” describes a person who cherishes power values. The verbal portraits describe each person in terms of what is important to him or her.
15 importance of each value is the average rating given to these items. which influences behavior and attitudes. The ESS version includes 21 items.org) chose the theory and the PVQ as the basis for developing a human values scale to include in the survey. ranging from .56. Others use the middle of the response scales. Across 14 samples from 7 countries. As seen below. 2005b). two people rate tradition values 4. given the constraint of so few items. tradition values obviously have higher priority for a person who rates all other values lower . Correcting Response Tendencies Respondents differ in their use of the response scales both in the SVS and the PVQ. not the absolute importance of any one value.47 for tradition to . ranging from . Some people rate most abstract values very important as guiding principles or most portraits very similar to themselves. all of which were designated a priori as markers of a value.europeansocialsurvey. and still others rate most values unimportant or most portraits dissimilar to themselves.70 (achievement). Say. Despite the same absolute score. Across 20 representative national samples. despite low reliabilities these values predict behavior and attitudes systematically. These reliabilities reflect the fact that only two items measure each value (three for universalism). The scale should measure people’s value priorities. This is because it is the tradeoff among relevant values.36 (tradition) to . All the value items have demonstrated nearequivalence of meaning across cultures in analyses using multi-dimensional scaling (SSA. the relative importance of the different values. Schwartz.80 for achievement (Schwartz 2005b). Alpha reliabilities of the values with this version averaged .68. most from the PVQ and a few revised to encompass additional ideas in order better to cover the content of the ten different values. The designers of the European Social Survey (ESS: www. the decisive factor in selecting items was to maximize coverage of the varied conceptual components of each value rather than to increase internal reliability. Equally important. alpha reliabilities of the ten values averaged .
The greater the conceptual similarity between any two items. Guttman. The SSA provides 2-dimensional spatial maps of relations among values.e. age. This converts absolute value scores into scores that indicate the relative importance of each value to the person. 1968). The a priori assignment of items to values guides the partitioning of the maps. If the motivational content of values is the most powerful principle that organizes people's value priorities. it should be possible to partition the space into distinct regions . undergraduate students from a variety of fields (111). the person’s value priorities. I prepared a matrix of Pearson correlations between the 56 or 57 value items. 1995. religious. i. we center each person’s responses on his or her own mean (details in Schwartz. the more related they should be empirically and hence the closer their locations should be in the multidimensional space. To correct.. To measure value priorities accurately. cultural. The SVS data were gathered between 1988 and 2002 from 233 samples from 68 countries located on every inhabited continent (total N= 64. 2006). adolescents (10). grade k-12 school teachers (74). the relations among value items in the two-dimensional space should reflect this content. For each sample. gender. I analyzed this matrix with Similarity Structure Analysis (SSA) (Borg & Shye. The samples include highly diverse geographic.16 than for one who rates all other values higher. and adult convenience samples (22). Specifically. linguistic. and occupational groups. 2005a. one must correct individual differences in use of the response scales. I bring the findings of assessments with data using the SVS and data using the ESS version of the PVQ.271). Samples include those that represent a nation or a region in it (16). This nonmetric multi-dimensional scaling technique maps items as points in a multidimensional space such that the distances between the points reflect the interrelations among the items. but without partition lines. Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Theory of Value Content and Structure As evidence for the theory. like that shown in Figure 2.
If the theory accurately describes the structure of value relations. Rules for partitioning are described in Schwartz (1992. 2005a). Because values form a motivational continuum. Separate analyses in each of the 20 countries that completed the values scale yield structures very similar to Figure 2. In separate analyses in 233 samples. Findings with the 21 item PVQ used in the ESS lead to the same conclusion. Consequently. Items near the boundaries of adjacent values inevitably overlap somewhat in meaning. Figure 2 presents an example of SSA results for 57 value items from the aggregate sample across all nations. In 15 countries. then the observed regions should form a circular pattern similar to the theoretical structure of Figure 1. the ten values form ten distinct regions.17 containing the items that represent each of the 10 values. benevolence. the decisions about exact boundaries are arbitrary. each encompassing the a priori value markers. The proposed spirituality items emerged most frequently in the tradition.161 respondents from 20 countries yields a spatial array of items that can be partitioned into 10 distinct regions. In the . These data show that people in most cultures respond to ten types of values as distinct and that the broader value orientations captured by adjacent values are discriminated nearly universally. Moreover. the order of the values regions follows the theorized circular structure. universalism. however. Marker values are in bold. The locations of specific items in regions of basic values in this figure completely support both the content of each value and the circular structure of relations among them. Analyses in single samples typically show at least small deviations such as intermixing of items from conceptually adjacent values and misplacement of a few value items to nearby regions. An SSA based on the responses of 35. Spirituality items formed a distinct region in only 38% of samples. respectively. in analyses in many samples. and security value regions. every value formed either a distinctive region or an intermixed region with a conceptually adjacent value in at least 96% of samples. value items from adjacent types of values may intermix rather than emerge in clearly distinct regions.
7 7 Wach and Hammer (2003) added sets of items intended to measure ‘verité rationnelle’ and ‘verité . chastity in conformity). Thus. measuring values with two quite different methods. they identified no new. Only after dropping all the items from two adjacent values did empty regions appear. The SSA analyses provide graphic evidence to support the value theory across cultures. these items typically emerged in regions appropriate to their meanings (e. Schwartz and Boehnke (2004) demonstrated configural invariance for ten latent value factors across 23 countries. Davidov. Future theorizing may suggest additional. and Schwartz (2005) had to unify pairs of values that are motivationally close into seven latent factors to obtain configural and metric invariance across the 20 ESS countries. narrow values. potentially universal values. near-universal values. When included in the SSAs. The absence of empty regions in the full SSAs therefore implies that no broad value orientations are missing. I ran SSAs on the SVS data after intentionally excluding values. It was probably necessary to unify values because the 21-item ESS instrument measures each value with so few items. eight values form distinct regions and the items of two conceptually adjacent values intermix. Schmidt. Were any basic types of values missing.18 remaining five countries. But the findings make this unlikely. using the SVS.. Collaborators in many different countries added value items they thought might be missing in the SVS. Confirmatory factor analyses provide more formal statistical tests of the content and structure of values.g. Do they leave out any broad values to which individuals across societies attribute at least moderate importance? It is difficult definitively to reject the possibility that some universal values are missing. national identity in security. we would expect empty regions in the SSA maps. that the values in the theory cover the full range of broad. It is likely. To test whether the analyses were sufficiently sensitive to identify potentially missing values. Another question addressed in this research concerns whether the ten basic values identified by the theory are comprehensive. however.
consensus regarding the hierarchical order of the values is surprisingly high. using different instruments. for example. Two mechanisms are critical. measured with the SVS and full PVQ also have low importance. universalism. Benevolence. Security values are 4th. This hierarchy provides a baseline to which to compare the priorities in any sample. As formulated. and self-direction values are most important.19 The Pan-Cultural Baseline of Value Priorities8 Individuals differ substantially in the importance they attribute to the ten values. they relieve the group of the necessity for constant social control. Parsons. Socializers and social control agents will discourage values that clash with the smooth functioning of significant groups or the larger society. Campbell. Across representative samples. and achievement 6th to 8th. 1975. but compared with other samples the importance rating of this value may still be relatively low.. hedonism 7th. but the two items used in the 21-item PVQ of the ESS yield moderate importance ratings. Schwartz & Bardi. however. people invoke values to define particular behaviors as socially appropriate. Values that clash with human nature are unlikely to be important. First. . Tradition values. A sample may rank benevolence highest. values serve as internalized guides for individuals. to justify non rationnelle’ to the PVQ in a French national sample. 1951). Power and stimulation values are least important. 1997). those items measured beliefs more than values. however.g. The former items emerged with selfdirection whose goal they express. The basic social function of values is to motivate and control the behavior of group members (Parsons. At the societal level. of the value priorities in a sample are distinctively high or low. Why is there a pan-cultural consensus on value priorities? And why this particular hierarchy of values? The pan-cultural consensus likely derives from the adaptive functions of values in maintaining societies and from shared human nature (e. Such comparison is critical for identifying which. 8 Schwartz & Bardi (2001) provide a detailed examination of this topic on which this section draws. conformity values 5th or 6th. the importance ranks for the ten values are quite similar. 1951. Second. if any. The latter formed a region between power and security.
(3) Third. (2) Second. To explain the pan-cultural value hierarchy. The most critical focus of value transmission is to develop commitment to positive relations.20 their demands on others. individuals must be motivated to invest the time. the main setting for initial and continuing value acquisition. They are reinforced and modeled early and repeatedly. to solve problems that arise during task performance. work-places. and to generate new ideas and technical solutions. and loyalty to its members. it is socially functional to legitimize gratification of self-oriented needs and desires to the extent this does not undermine group goals. 1997). The high importance of benevolence values (1st) derives from the centrality of positive. leading them to withhold their energies from the group and its tasks. The personality variable of social desirability does not correlate consistently with the importance individuals attribute to the values that are high in the pancultural hierarchy (Schwartz. the physical and the intellectual effort needed to perform productive work. and to elicit desired behaviors. Rejection of all such gratification would frustrate individuals. and so on. .9 Three demands of human nature and requirements of societal functioning are especially relevant for explaining the observed pan-cultural value hierarchy. consciously or not.. Universalism values (2nd) also contribute to positive social relations. to instill values that promote group survival and prosperity. Socializers seek. (1) Most important is promoting and preserving cooperative and supportive relations among members of primary groups. we must explain why particular values are viewed as more or less desirable across societies. They may even threaten in-group solidarity during 9 This does not mean that the pan-cultural value hierarchy reflects individual tendencies to respond in a socially desirable manner to value surveys. Benevolence values provide the internalized motivational base for such relations. cooperative social relations in the family. They are functionally important primarily when group members must relate to those with whom they do not readily identify. identification with the group. et al. in schools.
The moderate importance of achievement values (7th) may reflect a compromise among the bases of value importance. On the negative side. But tradition values find little expression in the behavior that interaction partners have a vital interest in controlling. Security (4th) and conformity (5th) values also promote harmonious social relations. Still. Acting on tradition values (overall 8th) can also contribute to group solidarity and thus to smooth group functioning and survival. On the positive side. and promote coping with challenges the group may face in times of crisis. Therefore. universalism values are less important than benevolence values. They foster creativity. Moreover. these values foster efforts to attain social approval that may disrupt harmonious social relations and interfere with group goal attainment. control forbidden impulses. It satisfies individual needs without harming others. They do this by helping to avoid conflict and violations of group norms. Self-direction (3rd) values serve the second and third basic functions of values without undermining the first. . They also legitimize self-enhancing behavior. these values motivate individuals to invest in group tasks.21 times of intergroup conflict. But these values are usually acquired in response to demands and sanctions to avoid risks. and restrict the self. Behavior based on these values is intrinsically motivated. motivate innovation. the emphasis of these values on maintaining the status quo conflicts with innovation in finding solutions to group tasks. they have some importance because power values help to motivate individuals to work for group interests. Pursuing power values (10th) may harm or exploit others and damage social relations. it rarely threatens positive social relations. They largely concern commitment to abstract beliefs and symbols. Hence. This reduces their importance because it conflicts with gratifying self-oriented needs and desires. They also justify the hierarchical social arrangements in all societies. so long as it contributes to group welfare.
Values in the top panel of Figure 3 (power. conformity. achievement. but each orients the circle differently. self-direction) primarily regulate how one expresses personal interests and characteristics. hedonism. 11 The value theory specifies the order of the 10 values. stimulation. People seek to avoid conflict (conformity) and to maintain the current order (tradition. we now look more closely at the possible roots of this structure.11 A second principle is the interests that value attainment serves. universalism. benevolence) express anxiety-free motivations. self-direction. we identified congruence and conflict among the values that are implicated simultaneously in decisions as one dynamic principle that organizes the structure of values. Values in the bottom panel (benevolence. universalism. security) primarily regulate how one relates socially to others and affects their interests. tradition. stimulation. . but their goals also regulate pursuit of own interests. These values are probably more important than power values because. Figures 1. Thus far. 2. Achievement values do both: Meeting social standards successfully may control anxiety and it may affirm one’s sense of 10 Schwartz and Bardi (2001) use these same principles to explain the major deviation from the pancultural hierarchy found in sub-Saharan African samples where conformity is most important. unlike power values. security) or actively to control threat (power). Pursuit of values on the left in Figure 3 serves to cope with anxiety due to uncertainty in the social and physical world. Values on the right (hedonism. Figure 1 shows that security and universalism values are boundary values.10 Roots of the Dynamic Structure of Value Relations Having shown that the structure of relations among values may be universal. Rotation of the multi-dimensional representation of values does not affect the meaning of the structure. their pursuit does not necessarily threaten positive social relations. Close examination of the structure suggests other dynamic principles (see Figure 3). They primarily concern others’ interests. Relations of values to anxiety are a third organizing principle.22 The importance of hedonism (6th) and stimulation (9th) values derives from the requirement to legitimize inborn needs to attain pleasure and arousal. and 3 show the same order.
The matches are as follows: benevolence—to bond. comprehend. take. Values transform drives into desirable goals that are available to awareness and that can therefore be used in conscious planning and decision-making. universalism—to bond + to learn. The four drives are: (1) to acquire—to seek. most centrally security and conformity. and emotional opportunities. obligations. and opportunities to gain trigger this system. control. intellectual. these drives emerged as a set of decision guides in the course of evolution and are central to human nature. ideals. Each value appears to express one drive or a blend of two. (3) to learn—to know. most centrally self-direction. and understand their environment and themselves via curiosity. believe. motivate this type of selfregulation. and hold material and status resources and pleasurable experiences. The drives to acquire and to bond often come into conflict when taking decisions about an action.23 competence. and the threat of loss trigger this system. appreciate. Nurturance needs. They guide attention and action to avoid or overcome actual or potential danger. Presumably. Values on the right in Figure 3. The structure of relations among the ten values may also have a biogenetic basis. stimulation—to learn (+ to acquire . Higgins’ second system regulates pursuit of rewards and focuses people on the goal of promoting gain. self-direction—to learn. The anxiety aspect of the value structure relates to the two basic self-regulation systems that Higgins (1997) has proposed. (2) to bond—to form social relationships and develop mutually caring commitments. Values on the left in Figure 3. They guide attention and action to intrinsically rewarding social. motivate this type of self-regulation. The ten values map exactly onto four innate drives proposed by Lawrence and Nohria (2002. (4) to defend—to defend themselves and their valued accomplishments whenever they perceive them to be endangered. One system regulates avoidance of punishment and focuses people on the goal of preventing loss. Security needs. as do the drives to learn and to defend.
In other words. The reverse occurs with values that concern material well-being and security. power—to acquire + to defend. hedonism—(to learn) + to acquire pleasurable experience. security—to defend. but not to all values. Thus. For example. people adapt their values to their life circumstances. They upgrade the importance they attribute to values they can readily attain and downgrade the importance of values whose pursuit is blocked (Schwartz & Bardi. people in jobs that afford freedom of choice increase the importance of self-direction values at the expense of conformity values (Kohn & Schooler. conformity and tradition—to defend + to bond. their importance increases. Upgrading attainable values and downgrading thwarted values applies to most. And people with strongly ethnocentric peers find it hard to express universalism values.24 pleasurable experience). and people who work in the free professions can express self-direction values more easily. when they are attained easily. 1997). Typically. 1983). The matching of values to drives suggests that an innate basis may help account for the near-universality of the value structure. life circumstances make the pursuit or expression of different values more or less rewarding or costly. This mapping of values onto drives goes around the value circle (Figure 1). wealthy persons can pursue power values more easily. people who suffer economic . Having dependent children constrains parents to limit their pursuit of stimulation values. When such values are blocked. Life circumstances also impose constraints against pursuing or expressing values. Thus. The oppositions between values parallel the conflicts between drives that Lawrence and Nohria (2002) identify. achievement—to acquire. their importance drops. Sources of Individual Differences in Basic Values Processes Linking Background Variables to Value Priorities People’s life circumstances provide opportunities to pursue or express some values more easily than others.
This section examines key socio-demographic variables as crucial antecedents of individual differences in value priorities. security) should increase with age and openness to change values (self-direction. differences in background characteristics largely determine the differences in life circumstances to which people are exposed. the social roles they play. This implies that conservation values (tradition. 1997). in turn. and the abilities they develop. conformity. income and other characteristics affect their socialization and learning experiences. Gender Various theories of gender difference lead researchers to postulate that men emphasize agentic-instrumental values like power and achievement. The number of countries in which the correlation was in the same direction as the overall correlation appears in parentheses. This implies that selftranscendence values (benevolence. stimulation. hedonism) decrease. they tend to become more embedded in social networks. Once people enter families of procreation and attain stable positions in the occupational world. & Feld. gender. All the observed correlations confirm the expected associations and support the probable processes of influence.12 The first column of Table 1 reports correlations of age with values across the 20 ESS countries. they tend to become less preoccupied with their own strivings and more concerned with the welfare of others (Veroff. 1974). which. Reuman. achievement) decrease. affect their value priorities. education. while females emphasize expressive12 For more detail. universalism) increase with age and self-enhancement values (power. All associations are monotonic. Thus.25 hardship and social upheaval attribute more importance to power and security values than those who live in relative comfort and safety (Inglehart. see Schwartz (2005b). the expectations and sanctions they encounter. People’s age. more committed to habitual patterns. and less exposed to arousing and exciting changes and challenges (Glen. Age and Life Course As people grow older. . 1984).
Column 3 of Table 1 reveals the expected positive correlations of years of formal education with self-direction and stimulation values and negative correlations with conformity. This may reflect both the broadening of horizons that university education provides and a tendency for those who give high priority to universalism values to seek higher education. differences for conformity and tradition values are inconsistent. These same experiences increase the openness to non-routine ideas and activity central to stimulation values. thereby undermining conformity and tradition values. education correlates positively with achievement values.26 communal values like benevolence and universalism (Schwartz & Rubel. these experiences challenge unquestioning acceptance of prevailing norms. The increasing competencies to cope with life that people acquire through education may also reduce the importance of security values. In contrast. Universalism values begin to rise only in the last years of secondary school. and security values. The associations of education with values are largely linear. Most theorists expect gender differences to be small. and breadth of perspective essential for self-direction values (Kohn & Schooler 1983). Both evolutionary and social role theories help to explain how adaptations to prehistoric and/or current life circumstances might produce the observed gender differences (Schwartz & Rubel. and traditions. could account for this. Gender differences for eight values are consistent. tradition. statistically significant. and small. 2005). In addition. with the exception of universalism values. Analyses with the SVS and PVQ instruments across 68 countries yield similar results. emphasizing meeting external standards. Column 2 of Table 1 supports expectations regarding both the nature and strength of value relations to gender in the ESS data. Education Educational experiences presumably promote the intellectual openness. flexibility. They are substantially higher among those who attend university. . 2005). The constant grading and comparing of performance in schools. expectations.
The value theory enables us to treat peoples’ value systems as coherent structures. integrated manner. It allows us to relate the full set of values to other variables in an organized. or behavior (e. The . trait. The correlations between total household income (12 categories) and value priorities. The Pattern of Value Relations with Other Variables: An Integrated System Most research on the antecedents or consequences of values has examined empirical relations between a few target values and a particular background variable. Table 2 lists the values in an order corresponding to their order around the circular structure of value relations (cf.g. conformity. Higher income should therefore promote valuing of stimulation. in column 4 of Table 1. (2) Associations of values with other variables should decrease monotonically in both directions around the circle from the most positively to the most negatively associated value. and tradition values less important. hedonism. attitude. the order of associations for the whole set of ten values follows a predictable pattern. Figure 1). If a background variable. primarily in the upper third of the income distribution. The data in Table 2 illustrate this pattern. That is. self-direction. 1973). equality and civil rights--Rokeach. self-direction. and power values. or behavior correlates most positively with one value and most negatively with another. support these expectations. social class and obedience—Alwin. the expected pattern of associations with all other values follows from the circular value structure. 1984.. achievement. and achievement values and render security.27 Income Affluence creates opportunities to engage in discretionary activities and to choose one’s life style freely. The critical idea is the circular motivational structure of values. Income contributed to higher stimulation. attitude. This structure has two implications for value relations: (1) Values that are adjacent in the structure should have similar associations with other variables. It reduces security threats and the need to restrict one’s impulses and to maintain supportive. traditional ties.
The integrated structure of values makes it easier to theorize about relations of value priorities to other variables. 1996). and zero associations for the remaining values. the more easily it comes to mind. Value-relevant aspects of situations activate values. one develops theoretical explanations for why or why not to expect these implied associations. the more likely it will be activated. 2000). Adjacent values have largely similar associations with the background variables and the associations of the values largely decrease monotonically in both directions around the circle from the most positively to the most negatively associated value. Muslims. and Christians in Israel modify associations of value priorities with readiness for contact with out-groups. A job offer may activate 13 For example. Much information-processing occurs outside of awareness. The integrated structure serves as a template that reveals “deviations” from the expected pattern. predictable ways? I first examine processes through which values can influence behavior. Because more important values are more accessible (Bardi.28 correlations in Table 2 generally exhibit both features of value relations. 2002).13 Predicting Behavior with Basic Values Do people’s value priorities influence their behavior in systematic. negative. Deviations are especially interesting because they direct us to search for special conditions that enhance or weaken relations of a variable with values (Schwartz. the circular motivational structure then implies a specific pattern of positive. The association of education with achievement values is one such deviation. Sagiv and Schwartz (1995) show how unique aspects of relations among Jews. they relate more to behavior. Linking Processes Value activation. The more accessible a value. Then I describe exemplary studies of value-behavior relations.. Next. Once theory identifies the values likely to relate most and least positively to a variable.e. i. Values affect behavior only if they are activated (Verplanken & Holland. Activation may or may not entail conscious thought about a value. .
impacts of taking a new job on the family). We rarely realize the influence of our values when we choose which program to watch on TV. If it is a high-priority value. Conscious thought may later modify the attractiveness of actions by bringing their many consequences to mind (e. People’s values. The studies of value-behavior relations discussed below cannot demonstrate causality. Values as a source of motivation. 1995). increase chances it will be activated. affective response to actions that will serve them. say by coming across value-relevant words in a puzzle. Although the reasoning is causal. for example. Values may influence the attractiveness of actions even without conscious weighing of alternatives and their consequences.. That is. Activation experiments are particularly important because they show that activating values causes behavior. People who value stimulation would likely be attracted to a challenging job offer whereas those who value security might find the same offer threatening and unattractive. induce valences on possible actions (Feather. Basic values also affect action through the specific attitudes they underlie. High-priority values are central to the self-concept. Even coincidental increases in the accessibility of a value. they are all correlational. Even when values motivate people. actions become more attractive.29 achievement values and a car accident may activate security values. to the extent that they promote attainment of valued goals. they are unlikely to act unless they believe they . Verplanken and Holland (2002) demonstrated these effects in experiments where they manipulated the accessibility of values in one study and self-focus in another. Focusing attention on the self may also increase value-behavior relations because it activates values that are central to the self-concept. Sensing an opportunity to attain them sets off an automatic. more valued subjectively.g. positive. Sensing a threat to value attainment sets off a negative affective response. like their needs. it may then lead to behavior. values of high importance.
One woman may attend to the opportunities a job offers for self-direction. Exemplary Studies As a first example of value-behavior relations. It enhances their belief in their ability to reach the valued goal and increases persistence in the face of obstacles and distractions. another to the constraints it imposes on her social life. consider three studies of everyday behavior.30 have the capacity to carry out the action and that it is likely to produce the desired outcomes (Feather. 2000). 1995). 1996). Even if both women recognize the same value-relevant opportunities and constraints. Each interpretation suggests that a different line of action is desirable. By promoting planning. Influence of values on attention. Value priorities also influence the weight people give to each value issue. Sagiv. The higher the priority given to a value. relative to their opportunities to perform it. Each defines the situation in light of her own important values. intimate partners or close peers rated participants’ behavior too. the weight they give them will differ depending on their value priorities. More important goals induce a stronger motivation to plan thoroughly (Gollwitzer. Later. The behavior indexes were the average frequency ratings of the behavior items that express each value. the more likely people will form action plans that can lead to its expression in behavior. High priority values are chronic goals that guide people to seek out and attend to value-relevant aspects of a situation (Schwartz. In studies 2 and 3. Planning focuses people on the pros of desired actions rather than the cons. and interpretation in situations. they rated how frequently they had performed each behavior in the past year. perception. Influence of values on the planning of action. . value importance increases value-consistent behavior. & Boehnke. Bardi and Schwartz (2003) generated ten sets of 6-10 behaviors that primarily express one of the ten basic values. Participants completed the SVS.
other reports probably underestimate them. Why? In this study. Hence. To predict a behavior successfully. Tradition and stimulation values had especially low mean importance in these groups. Typically.2є) and giving the maximum . weakened value-behavior relations. conformity. priorities for these values showed stronger value-behavior correlations. benevolence. Participants who completed the SVS were paired with another student to play a game. the consequences of a behavior promote the expression or attainment of one set of values at the expense of the opposing values in the circle. Each would receive the amount of money they allocated to self plus the amount their partner allocated to them. With other-reported behavior.8є to the other. competing values. even when a behavior opposes one’s own values. external pressure is weaker for behaviors that express values of little importance to the group. we must consider the importance of the values the behavior will harm as well as those it will promote. The cooperative choice entailed taking the equivalent of 1є for self and giving 0. all but the security correlation are significant. Some values correlate more strongly with their relevant behaviors than others do.31 Column 2 and 3 of Table 2 list the correlations between each value and its relevant behaviors. this meant sacrificing a little of what one could gain (0. normative group pressure was greatest for security. The probability of a behavior depends on the relative priority a person gives to the relevant. They were to choose one of three alternatives for allocating money between self and a member of their group whose identity was not revealed. permitting own values to have more influence. Yielding to normative pressure. 1996) illustrates the crucial idea of trade-offs between competing values in guiding behavioral choice. and achievement behaviors. Second. A study of cooperative behavior in the laboratory (Schwartz. Self-reports probably exaggerate value-behavior relations. Compared to the other choices. All correlations with self-reported behavior are significant and most are substantial.
as expected. Analyzing the data in another way demonstrates clearly that trade-offs among competing values guided behavior. The next example of how value systems relate. Analyses of the consequences of cooperative and noncooperative behavior for the goals of the ten values suggested that benevolence and power values. Power values should relate most strongly to noncooperation. There were two main coalitions in the Italian elections of 2001. Moreover. The other two choices were both not cooperative. They emphasize competitive advantage and legitimize maximizing own gain even at the expense of others. Both coalitions championed liberal democracy. as integrated wholes.32 to the other. Splitting the sample at the median on benevolence and on power values and crossing these sub-samples yielded four groups. Thus. This was twice the rate in any other group (35%-43%). To the extent that citizens recognize these differences. 87% cooperated. power most negatively. But there were also policy differences. center-right and center-left. Voting. based on the motivational structure of value relations. Cooperation is more a matter of conventional decency and thoughtfulness in this setting than of basic commitment to social justice. maximizing either one's absolute gain (individualism) or relative gain (competing). In the group that valued benevolence highly and gave low importance to power values. Benevolence correlates most positively. the values whose attainment is most affected by them should influence their voting patterns. Hence. opposed in the circle. the order of the correlations follows the order around the value circle from benevolence to power. to behavior takes us outside the laboratory. benevolence values should relate to cooperation most strongly. . are most relevant. to elicit a high level of cooperation required both high priority for values that promote cooperation (benevolence) and low priority for values that oppose it (power). The correlations in column 3 of Table 2 confirm the hypothesis.
I hypothesized: Supporting the center-right vs. On that basis. and education. social justice. and tolerance even of groups that might disturb the conventional social order. the center-left advocated social welfare. . controlling gender. But they may harm the opposing values in the value circle. Adults from the Rome region completed the PVQ and reported the coalition they had voted for in the 2001 election. We computed point-biserial correlations of voting with the 10 values. with pursuing individual power and achievement values and with security values that emphasize preserving the social order. security. equality. In contrast. Thus. The latter values call for promoting the welfare of others even at cost to the self. They conflict. Correlations with the priority of achievement values should also be positive. and family and national values. and those with benevolence values negative. The intended consequences of such a policy are compatible with universalism and benevolence values. benevolence. and achievement values on the right and universalism and benevolence values on the left. perhaps. security. political choice in these elections consisted of a trade-off between power. We coded vote as (0) for center-left and (1) for center-right. center-left correlates most positively with the priority given to power and security values and most negatively with the priority given to universalism values. And universalism values express concern for the weak. Figure 1).33 The center-right emphasized entrepreneurship and the market economy. income. security. and achievement values. Stated as an integrated hypothesis for the whole value circle: Correlations should decline from most positive for power and security values to most negative for universalism values in both directions around the circle (cf. Column 4 of Table 2 presents correlations between value priorities and voting for the center-right. universalism and. however. The intended consequences of such a policy are compatible with power. those most likely to suffer from market-driven policies. age.
contacting a politician.08.34 As hypothesized. Figure 4 portrays the pattern of correlations. legal acts out of nine that respondents reported performing in the past year (e. the correlation of universalism was the most negative. gender. The positive correlations with security.. note that correlations of individuals’ income. showing the expected sinusoidal curve that reflects the motivational continuum of values. security and conformity should show the most negative correlations. boycotting a product). Because activism is risky and oriented to change.g. and achievement were also significant. Moreover. revealing the expected sinusoidal curve that reflects the motivational continuum of values with one exception.. Column 5 of Table 2 presents both the zero-order correlations of value priorities with political activism and the correlations controlling five socio-demographic variables. Data are from 1244 French citizens in the 2003 national representative sample of the ESS. Stimulation values show a higher than expected positive correlation. Figure 4 portrays the pattern of correlations. occupation. Both reasoning about the motivations underlying activism and the order of the integrated motivational circle of values suggested weaker positive correlations for benevolence and self-direction values and weaker negative correlations for power and tradition values. and the correlation of benevolence was negative too. To put the strength of these correlations in perspective. values explained almost three times as much variance in voting as did the Big 5 personality traits (Caprara. et al. marital status. For a final illustration of the effects of basic values on behavior. These correlations fully confirm expectations. This deviation from the curve points to the fact that political activism is motivated not only by ideological . power. Because universalism values promote social justice and environmental preservation— goals of much activism—they should correlate most strongly with activism. education. participating in a public demonstration. The 21-item PVQ measured value priorities. Political activism was measured as the number of politically relevant. and age with vote were all less than . we turn to political activism. 2005).
and hedonism values are especially important should oppose immigration less. 15 Schwartz (2006) reports analyses of individual and country differences in opposition to immigration in 15 West European countries.15/.14 To conclude this section. I regressed opposition on the value priorities and on the following background variables: age.15 Opposition to ‘other’ immigrants in the current French atmosphere likely reflects concern with preserving the status quo—protecting personal and social security. years of education completed. marital status. Security values correlate most positively with opposition (. and concern for the welfare even of those who are different. those who cherish universalism values. having been unemployed for 3 months or more. having ever had children at home. and maintaining widespread norms. In contrast those who value openness to change should feel less threatened and might welcome enrichment of their society. stimulation.28). people for whom self-direction. appreciation. . consider the effects of basic values on an attitude of major concern in Europe today. Here I focus on the sample of 1125 native born residents of France. and conformity values are especially important should more strongly oppose immigration.39) and universalism values correlated most negatively (-. opposition to immigration. tradition. should oppose immigration least. The observed pattern of correlations fully supports these hypotheses. Those for whom security. In order to provide a fuller picture of the antecedents of opposition to accepting ‘other’ immigrants in France. p<. with their goal of acceptance. and poorer non-European countries. from poorer European. preserving secular and Christian French traditions. gender. The simple pursuit of excitement also plays a role. subjective assessment of 14 Schwartz (2006) reports analyses of individual and country differences in political activism in all 20 ESS countries. Moreover. The other predicted correlations are also significant (all >/. Thus. Three items in the ESS measured opposition to accepting ‘other’ immigrants—those of a different race/ethnic group.35 considerations such as those that express universalism or security values.001).
Universalism values predicted opposition most strongly (negative). We still do not know whether the theory applies in more isolated tribal groups with minimal exposure to urbanization. mass media. degree of religiosity. Thus. hedonism) are also near-universal.36 adequacy of household income. universalism. Conflicts between specific values (e. and the market economy. perhaps because they feel more threatened by perceived social disruption. The ten basic values emerge whether people report explicitly on their values (SVS) or whether we infer people’s values indirectly from their judgments of how much various other people are like them (PVQ). the tradeoff between giving high priority to promoting the welfare of all others (universalism values) and avoiding personal. those who are married. I . motivationally distinct values that people in virtually all cultures implicitly recognize. and women oppose immigration more. Conclusion The values theory has identified ten basic. Older people.g. Especially striking is the emergence of the same circular structure of relations among values across countries and measurement instruments. whereas tradition values predict more opposition. the finding for tradition values signifies opposition based on protecting nonreligious customs and ways of doing things. People everywhere experience conflict between pursuing openness to change values or conservation values. The validity of this claim does not depend on the way we measure values. and interpersonal threat (security values) has the greatest impact on readiness to accept ‘other’ immigrants. national.. power vs. Figure 5 presents results of the regression. followed by security values (positive). tradition vs. Since religiosity is in the regression. They also experience conflict between pursuing self-transcendence or self-enhancement values. The values theory applies in populations exposed to westernized schooling but also in populations with little or no education. Greater education and religiosity predict less opposition.
g. I proposed an initial. upholding. and stimulation values appear at the bottom. It makes clear that behavior entails a trade-off between competing values. This implies that the aspects of human nature and of social functioning that shape individual value priorities are widely shared across cultures. Adaptation may take the form of upgrading attainable values and downgrading thwarted values. self-direction and stimulation). But the reverse occurs with values that concern material well-being and security. People tend to behave in ways that balance their . universalism.. In keeping with the structure of values identified by the theory. The values theory provides a framework for relating the system of ten values to behavior that enriches analysis.37 suggested several dynamic processes that may account for the observed circular structure. prediction. Socio-demographic characteristics contribute to explaining individual differences in value priorities because they represent different sets of life experiences. functionalist explanation of this phenomenon. They tend to enhance the importance of values that are adjacent in the value circle (e. Future research must address possible interactions among background variables. benevolence. These processes may point the way toward a unifying theory of human motivation. tradition. Almost any behavior has positive implications for expressing. linear effects of a few background variables. An astonishing finding of the cross-cultural research is the high level of consensus regarding the relative importance of the ten values across societies. Individual value priorities arise out of adaptation to life experiences. but negative implications for the values across the structural circle in opposing positions. In the vast majority of nations studied. Values influence most if not all motivated behavior. or attaining some values.g. antecedents affect priorities in a systematic manner. conformity and security) but to undermine the importance of the competing values (e.. and explanation of value-behavior relations. I have drawn only the simplest picture of the separate. and self-direction values appear at the top of the hierarchy and power. It deserves much more analysis in depth.
subjective well-being. authoritarianism. condoms and drugs. interpersonal problems. As a result. toward the environment. This chapter several examples of how value priorities relate to behavior and attitudes. the order of positive and negative associations between any specific behavior and the ten values tends to follow the order of the value circle. trust in institutions. religious and sexual behavior. sexism. Among attitudinal variables studied are job satisfaction. attitudes toward ethical dilemmas. various environmental and consumer behaviors. independent and dependent behavior. social dominance. choice of university major. and identification with one’s nation or group. and the Big 5 personality traits. competition. attitude. shoplifting. moral. occupation and medical specialty. This proliferation of behavior. and personality studies testifies to the fruitfulness of the values theory and its promise for future research. religiosity. They choose alternatives that promote higher as against lower priority values. Researchers in more than 30 countries have used the system of ten basic values to understand and sometimes to predict other individual differences. Among personality variables studied are social desirability. organizational commitment.38 opposing values. delinquency. hunting. worries. social contact with out-groups. . Among the behaviors studied are use of alcohol. participation in sports. autocratic. and numerous voting studies.
30. (1984). 1207-1220. Boudon. C. Relations of values to behavior in everyday situations. Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. C.. American Journal of Sociology. 90. 359-382. T. (1977). Buss.. Rinehart & Winston. and political choice. R.. Cabaña. D. H.. G. Pattern and growth in personality. H. Personality and politics: Values. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. & Bilsky. On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition. Spain. & Barbaranelli. New York: Holt. 191-215. Schwartz. (1961). B. 41-50. New York: McGraw-Hill. D. I. Psychological Review.M. Conflict. Bandura. V. Political Psychology. 29. (2003). Bardi. G.39 References Allport. Paper delivered at the 1st European Association for Survey Research Conference. Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit. July). Alwin. (2005. M. Berlyne. Bardi. F. 84. Can a social science be anchored in evolutionary biology? Four problems and a strategic solution. S.E. D. A. 1958-1983. traits. Caprara. Borg. & Shye. . (2000). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. New York: Transaction Publishers. 1103-1126. The Hebrew University. Facet theory: Form and content. London: Sage. 24. Brocke. D.W. W. arousal and curiosity. American Psychologist. The origins of values: Essays in the Sociology and Philosophy of Beliefs. S. (1995). (2001). & Schwartz. (1975). S. Vaccine. Campbell. (1986).. The measurement of value preferences by paired comparisons. A. (1960). A. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales. Barcelona.. (2005).
Durkheim. In P. P. S. (1997). Annual Review of Sociology. IL. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Princeton. Freud. Gollwitzer & J. Hitlin. (1974).. 359-393. . Paper delivered at the 1st European Association for Survey Research Conference. Glencoe. The elementary forms of religious life. and choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. New York: Norton. Barcelona.: Free Press. E. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.L. 176-186. Il. 415. (1975). S. P. New introductory lectures in psychoanalysis. Durkheim. New York: Plenum. (1897/1964). Feather. A. (2005. Suicide. Bringing values back in: A multiple group comparison with 20 countries using the European Social Survey. Beyond pleasure and pain. July). (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. The division of labor in society. and J. M. The volitional benefits of planning. London: Hogarth Press. E. Guttman. (1933). Inglehart. R. Civilization and its discontents. The Psychology of action. M. valences. (1930). E. 469-506. & Schwartz. Glencoe. (1912/1954). Values. Modernization and postmodernization. E. 33. Intrinsic motivation.T. Higgins. N. T. E. A. D. Bargh (Eds. S. New York: Guilford. 52. Freud. (1995). (1893/1964). (1996). Durkheim. Psychometrica. 30.). Gollwitzer. (1997). Schmidt. IL: Free Press. Glen.: Free Press. L. N. Aging and conservatism. Piliavin (2004). Spain Deci. Glencoe. NJ: Princeton University Press. Values: Reviving a dormant concept. American Psychologist. 1135-1151. S.40 Davidov. 68. 1280-1300. H.. E.
Toward a general theory of action (pp. Kohn. Cambridge. NJ: Prentice-Hall. The social system. Sagiv.C. Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. Varieties of human value.H.. Sagiv. A.W. & Schwartz. (1983). Niebuhr. & Schwartz. (1973). H. IL: Dorsey. In H. E. L. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology. N. D. A rose by any name? The values construct. Homewood. 1177-1189. W. S. The search for psychological universals. Morris. Shils (Eds. Parsons & E. Kohn. NJ: Ablex..). (2002). Rohan. Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects. A. Korman. C.. Norwood. (2000).. The achieving society. C.). MA: Harvard University Press. CA: Jossey Bass. Eupsychian management. T. Parsons. Il. Schimmack. The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism. Princeton. C. 1. (1961). 30.J.. L. Englewood Cliffs. McClelland. & Suh. Glencoe. Lonner. Class and conformity. 255-277. (1965). (1974). . An interpretation of Christian ethics. & Nohria. Lawrence. (1935). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Personality and Social Psychology Review. L. S.. P.: Dorsey Press. The nature of human values.C. (1951). R. Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. 69. New York: Free Press. & Schooler. : Free Press. NJ: Van Nostrand. 24. San Francisco. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 177-198. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Perspectives: Vol. Maslow. M. U.. The psychology of motivation. 4. J. 437-448. R.L. (1998). M. In T. (2000). (1969). E. M. (1951).41 Kluckhohn. Il. (1995). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.H. Oishi. M. Lambert (Eds. Rokeach. Work and personality. (1980). Diener. S. Homewood.388-433).W. New York: Harper. Triandis & W. Driven: How human nature shapes our choices. (1956).
H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. . 230-255. Vol. H. Schwartz. H. Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues. Schwartz. Zanna (Eds. Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Porto (Eds.). K. Porto (Eds.. Petrópolis. Olson. 50. Basic human values: Their content and structure across countries.). & M. London: Sage.H. G. 18. S. (1997). In Jowell.. S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53. H. In M. Schwartz. (2006).1-24). B.). (1994). S. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 25) (pp.. (2001). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values. Tamayo & J.42 Schwartz. Schwartz. (2005b). Value orientations: Measurement. Schwartz. H. & Bilsky. J. (1996). Tamayo & J. S.P. (2005a). The psychology of values: The Ontario Symposium. H. (1987). Roberts. & Eva. Valores e comportamento nas organizações [Values and behavior in organizations] pp. 385-410. & Bardi..) Measuring attitudes cross-nationally . S. B. S. C. idem pp. R. W. & Boehnke. Zanna (Ed. 268-290 Schwartz. In A. S. New York: Academic Press. antecedents and consequences across nations. Journal of Research in Personality.. 550-562. NJ: Erlbaum. Seligman. S.H. Toward a psychological structure of human values. (Eds.). A. 1-65). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis.. 21-55. Hillsdale. (2004).lessons from the European Social Survey. 8 (pp. Political Psychology. Schwartz. Influences of adaptation to communist rule on value priorities in Eastern Europe. Schwartz. In A. In C. R. 38. S. & Bardi. Schwartz. Brazil: Vozes. 32. 19-45. H.M. Fitzgerald. A. S. Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. (1992). 56-95. H.
L. & Rubel. Verplanken. H. Folkways. & Sagiv. Developmental Psychology. Melech. 36. Jr. Motives in American men and women across the adult life span. S. 32.. Schwartz. & Holland. M. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. W. 82. Lehmann.. & Feld.. M. Sagiv. 1142-1158. (1968). S. International encyclopedia of the social sciences. J. H. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. S. W. (1984). L.. S. M. In E. (2000). 309-346. Weber. G. Wach. Value priorities and social desirability: Much substance.). Boston: Ginn & Co. Values. (2002). Burgess. 20.. A. (1997). H. 519-542.. M. (2003). (1905/1958).. Paris: L’Harmattan. B. some style. Worries and values. 68. & Harris. Schwartz.. 3-18. R.. (2001). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. La structure des valeurs. (2005) Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multi-method studies. Journal of Personality. Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. S.43 Schwartz.. & Hammer. H. Sills (Ed. M. New York: Macmillan. R.. D.89. Williams. G. A. Reuman. B. . 434-447. Antonovsky. (1906).. & Boehnke. S. Schwartz. T. est-elle universelle? Genèse et validation du modèle compréhensif de Schwartz. Verkasalo... Sumner. New York: Scribner’s. Veroff. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. K. Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology.
16 (19) .760) -. . and Income in 20 Countries in the European Social Survey Age Value Security Conformity Tradition Benevolence Universalism Self-Direction Stimulation Hedonism Achievement Power (N=35. Due to missing data.22 (20) -.12 (19) .14 (20) -.12 (20) -.16 (20) -.22 (20) -.08 (20) .33 (20) -.26 (20) .11 (18) .165) .33 (20) .11 (20) .37 (20) -.26 (20) -.10 (18) . Gender.19 (20) .08 (15) -.09 (18) Gender (Female) (N=35.275) -.08 (19) †Correlation does not differ significantly from zero.12 (20) -.04 (11)† .030) .01 (14) † .08 (15) .18 (20) . the number of respondents varies slightly around the indicated Ns.08 (19) .06 (19) -.05 (15) -. Education.15 (19) -.02 (13)† .14 (20) .44 Table 1: Correlations of Values with Age.32 (20) . In parentheses is the number of countries with correlations in the indicated direction.20 (20) -.02 (13)† Income (N=28.09 (20) -.13 (20) .12 (20) -.06 (18) -.06 (16) .14 (19) Education (N=34.
10 Cooperation in a Game (SVS) Israel N=90 -.15***) .31*** (-.13***) -. income.32** .12 .10** .52*** .17*** (.19* -.05.12***) -.42*** .64*** .07* (-.09**) .70*** . **p < .35*** . Correlations of Value Priorities with BehaviorA Behavior across Contexts (SVS) Israel Self-Report Values Power Achievement Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction Universalism Benevolence Tradition Conformity Security N= 293 .12***) .18* .10**) .08** .29*** .18* -.28** -.22***) A Values are corrected for scale use (see text).01 -.43*** . *p < .26***) .47*** .21*** (.40*** .14***)C -.14** .55*** .38*** . and marital status ***p < . 1-tailed. education.08** -.18* . gender.06 .08 .16*** (-.19*** (-. B Ns vary slightly due to missing data.10*** (.14*** (-. C In parentheses are partial correlations controlling age.20** Political Activism (PVQ21) France N=1244B -.01 -. Center-Left (PVQ) Italy N=2849B . .08 Vote for Center-Right vs.18** .01.51*** .11*** (.28*** (.31*** Other-Report N=141 .07** .29*** .37*** -.38*** .25*** .45 Table 2.20** .03 -.001.14***) -.24*** .
46 OPENNESS TO CHANGE Self-Direction Universalism SELFTRANSCENDENCE Benevolence Stimulation Hedonism Conformity Tradition Achievement SELFENHANCEMENT Power Security CONSERVATION Figure 1. Theoretical model of relations among ten motivational types of value .
47 SECURITY ACCEPTING MY* PORTION IN LIFE MODERATE* NATIONAL SECURITY* * OBEDIENT *DEVOUT *DETACHMENT RESPECT FOR* TRADITION POWER PRESERVING SOCIAL POWER* *PUBLIC IMAGE AUTHORITY* WEALTH* TRADITION SENSE OF *BELONGING *RECIPROCATION OF FAVORS SOCIAL *RECOGNITION *CLEAN *SOCIAL ORDER *FAMILY SECURITY HONOR HEALTHY* *ELDERS *POLITENESS *SELF DISCIPLINE ACHIEVEMENT *AMBITIOUS *SUCCESSFUL *CAPABLE INTELLIGENT * *INFLUENTIAL *HUMBLE HEDONISM PLEASURE* *SELF-INDULGENCE ENJOYING LIFE* CONFORMITY BENEVOLENCE HONEST* FORGIVING* SPIRITUAL*LIFE *SOCIAL JUSTICE INNER HARMONY* *HELPFUL LOYAL* * RESPONSIBLE *MEANING IN LIFE TRUE* FRIENDSHIP MATURE LOVE* *WORLD AT PEACE WORLD OF BEAUTY* *UNITY WITH NATURE *WISDOM * SELFRESPECT *PRIVACY EXCITING LIFE* VARIED*LIFE STIMULATION *DARING *CHOOSING OWN GOALS *CREATIVITY *CURIOUS *INDEPENDENT UNIVERSALISM PROTECT* ENVIRONMENT SELF-DIRECTION .
2-Dimensional Smallest Space Analysis: Individual Level Value Structure Averaged Across 68 Countries .EQUALITY* BROAD* MINDED *FREEDOM 48 Figure 2.
Anxiety-based values Prevention of loss goals Self-protection against threat Regulating how one expresses personal interests & characteristics Personal Focus Self-Enhancement Achievement Power Anxiety-free values Promotion of gain goals Self-expansion and growth Openness to Change Hedonism Stimulation Self-Direction Social Focus Regulating how one relates socially to others and affects them Conservation Security Conformity Tradition Self-Transcendence Universalism Benevolence Figure 3. Dynamic underpinnings of the universal value structure .
Figure 4.2 0. Value Priorities and Behavior 0.3 0.2 -0.1 Correlations 0 -0.4 0.3 -0.1 -0.4 Pow Ach Hed Sti SDir Uni Ben Values Tra Con Sec .
02 .1 8 -.0 7 .0 7 3 I tem I n dex of Opposing I m m igration .1 5 -..2 0 R sq .282 All beta coefficients shown.12 . N=1111 Native Born U niversalism V S ecurity V A ge Education R eligiosity M arried Tradition V Gen der .1 0 .25 .France: Opposition to‘Other’ Immigrants ESS 2003. p<.
Figure 5. Regression to Predict Opposition to ‘Other’ Immigrants by Native Born French .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?