Basic Human Values

Shalom H. Schwartz The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

This paper is based on excerpts from the following publications, modified for the purposes of the Cross-National Comparison Seminar on the Quality and Comparability of Measures for Constructs in Comparative Research: Methods and Applications, Bolzano (Bozen), Italy, June 10-13, 2009: Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Les valeurs de base de la personne: Théorie, mesures et applications [Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications]. Revue française de sociologie, 42, 249-288. Bilsky, W., Janik, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (submitted). The structural organization of human values – evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS)

Abstract Applying the values construct in the social sciences has suffered from the absence of an agreed-upon conception of basic values, of the content and structure of relations among these values, and of reliable methods to measure them. This paper presents data from over 70 countries, using three 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 paper 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.

1 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 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

2 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 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.

e.g., Allport, 1961; Feather, 1995; Inglehart, 1997; Kohn, 1969; Kluckhohn, 1951; Morris, 1956; Rokeach 1973; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987.

1

1956). positive. self-respect) have multiple meanings. communicate with others about them. 1986). 1983. 1975). These requirements are: needs of individuals as biological organisms.. According to the theory. Deci. Rather. daring) Hedonism. choosing own goals. rather than threatening. requisites of coordinated social interaction. curious. 1960). Defining goal: pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself. intelligent. an exciting life. (creativity. To make the meaning of each value more concrete and explicit. Self-direction derives from organismic needs for control and mastery (e. The values theory defines ten broad values according to the motivation that underlies each of them. and challenge in life. I list in parentheses the set of value items included in the first survey instrument to measure each value. Defining goal: excitement. Berlyne. these goals and the values that express them have crucial survival significance. Stimulation values derive from the organismic need for variety and stimulation in order to maintain an optimal. freedom. 1975) and interactional requirements of autonomy and independence (e.g. note its grounding in universal requirements. independent)[self-respect.g. people must articulate appropriate goals to cope with them. they express the motivational goals of more than one value. privacy] Stimulation. Kluckhohn. Presumably.. I next define each of the ten values in terms of the broad goal it expresses. Values are the socially desirable concepts used to represent these goals mentally and the vocabulary used to express them in social interaction. 1977. Hedonism values derive from organismic needs and the pleasure associated with satisfying them.g. Bandura. exploring. Defining goal: independent thought and action--choosing.. Self-Direction. and refer to related value concepts. level of activation (e.. This need probably relates to the needs underlying self-direction values (cf. These items are listed in brackets. and survival and welfare needs of groups. Kohn & Schooler. these values encompass the range of motivationally distinct values recognized across cultures. Morris. 1951. Deci. (a varied life. 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. and gain cooperation in their pursuit. What distinguishes one value from another is the type of goal or motivation that the value expresses. Some important value items (e. creating. novelty. From an evolutionary viewpoint (Buss. Individuals cannot cope successfully with these requirements of human existence on their own. .g.3 The above are features of all values.

1965.. 3 Achievement values differ from McClelland's (1961) achievement motivation. however. Security values derive from basic individual and group requirements (cf. Kluckhohn. clean). Maslow. control or dominance over people and resources.g.. social power)[preserving my public image. national security. wealth) emphasize the attainment or preservation of a dominant position within the more general social system. because people achieve it through attaining whatever outcomes they value (Sagiv & Schwartz. clean. 2000). Allport. Maslow. It is expressed in self-direction values. 1965. enjoying life. achievement values emphasize demonstrating competence in terms of prevailing cultural standards. Defining goal: personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. Williams.g. To justify this fact of social life and to motivate group members to accept it. others wider group interests (e. 1968).g..g. capable. There are two subtypes of security values. Security. 1980). the goal of security for self (or those with whom one identifies). Even the latter..4 Theorists from many disciplines (e. ambitious) emphasize the active demonstration of successful performance in concrete interaction. Power values may also be transformations of individual needs for dominance and control (Korman. 1951). social recognition]3 Power. thereby obtaining social approval. Freud. However.g. authority. 1968) mention hedonism. whereas power values (e. Rokeach. 1961). Value analysts have mentioned power values as well (e. As defined here. Competent performance that generates resources is necessary for individuals to survive and for groups and institutions to reach their objectives. The two subtypes can therefore be unified into a more encompassing value. social recognition] Both power and achievement values focus on social esteem. 1974). Morris. reciprocation of favors)[healthy. 1933. 1951. moderate. . of relationships.g. Williams. harmony. (pleasure.. A dominance/submission dimension emerges in most empirical analyses of interpersonal relations both within and across cultures (Lonner. and stability of society. successful. influential) [intelligent. wealth. The functioning of social institutions apparently requires some degree of status differentiation (Parsons.g. family security. express. Defining goal: safety. (social order.. groups must treat power as a value. and of self. Some serve primarily individual interests (e. Achievement motivation concerns meeting internal standards of excellence. happiness is not included. 1973). (authority. Achievement values appear in many sources (e. 1956. sense of belonging] 2 Though it is an important value. self-indulgent) 2 Achievement.. achievement values (e. Defining goal: social status and prestige. (ambitious. self-respect. national security). to a significant degree.

Parsons. 1956. spiritual life] Tradition and conformity values are especially close motivationally. meaning in life. Tradition values demand responsiveness to immutable expectations from the past. loyal. Benevolence and conformity values both promote cooperative and supportive social relations. 1930. commitment. benevolence values provide an internalized motivational base for such behavior. forgiving. responsible] Tradition. Benevolence. 1951). However. mature love)[sense of belonging. ideas. possibly changing expectations. As I define them. they share the goal of subordinating the self in favor of socially imposed expectations. Tradition entails subordination to more abstract objects—religious and cultural customs and ideas. conformity values exhort responsiveness to current. conformity values emphasize self-restraint in everyday interaction. beliefs. 1906). . express its unique worth. honest. Both values may motivate the same helpful act. They symbolize the group's solidarity. self-discipline.g. Morris. In contrast.. They often take the form of religious rites. 1951). 1968) and from the organismic need for affiliation (cf. Maslow. a spiritual life]. and norms of behavior. 1983. Korman. Benevolence values derive from the basic requirement for smooth group functioning (cf. Defining goal: respect. and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. Most critical are relations within the family and other primary groups. 1965). Benevolence values emphasize voluntary concern for others’ welfare. inclinations. 1974. Williams. politeness. bosses. conformity values promote cooperation in order to avoid negative outcomes for self. and contribute to its survival (Durkheim. responsible. separately or together. Parsons. Defining goal: restraint of actions. They differ primarily in the objects to which one subordinates the self. Defining goal: preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the ‘in-group’). and beliefs that represent their shared experience and fate. true friendship. Kohn & Schooler. accepting my portion in life)[moderate. usually with close others. teachers. humble. (respect for tradition. Freud. symbols. Conformity entails subordination to persons with whom one is in frequent interaction—parents. Conformity values derive from the requirement that individuals inhibit inclinations that might disrupt and undermine smooth interaction and group functioning. 1951. (obedient. and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion provides. As a corollary. These become sanctioned as valued group customs and traditions (Sumner. Groups everywhere develop practices. honoring parents and elders)[loyal.5 Conformity. (helpful. devout. Kluckhohn. Virtually all value analyses mention conformity (e. 1912/1954.

and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. People may then realize that failure to accept others who are different and treat them justly will lead to life-threatening strife. Both motivate actions of submission to external expectations. world of beauty. equality. the theory explicates the structure of dynamic relations among the values. gleaned from widely varied sources.6 Universalism. spirituality is not a value that has a consistent broad meaning across cultures. This contrasts with the in-group focus of benevolence values. coherence. world at peace. The value survey therefore included possible markers for spirituality. For example. Another example: Pursuing novelty and change (stimulation values) is likely to undermine preserving timehonored customs (tradition values). pursuing achievement values typically conflicts with pursuing benevolence values. The defining goal of spiritual values is meaning. But pursuing both achievement and power values is usually compatible. a spiritual life] An early version of the value theory (Schwartz. accepting my portion in life. (a spiritual life. 1935). The Structure of Value Relations In addition to identifying ten basic values.. 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. Universalism values derive from survival needs of individuals and groups. Defining goal: understanding. psychological. and social consequences. unity with nature. 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. Universalism combines two subtypes of concern—for the welfare of those in the larger society and world and for nature (broadminded. In contrast. social justice. choosing an action alternative that promotes one value (e. wisdom. If finding ultimate meaning is a basic human need (e. 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.g. 1992) raised the possibility that spirituality might constitute another near-universal value. meaning in life. detachment)[unity with nature. Seeking success for self tends to obstruct actions aimed at enhancing the welfare of others who need one's help. inner harmony. Practically. 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. then spirituality might be a distinct value found in all societies. pursuing tradition values is congruent with pursuing conformity values.g. devout]. and inner harmony through transcending everyday reality. tolerance. Niebuhr. As noted below. taking drugs in a cultic rite—stimulation) may literally contravene or violate a competing value (obeying the precepts . Actions in pursuit of values have practical. appreciation..

and feelings and readiness for change (selfdirection. This continuum gives rise to the circular structure. self-restriction. at a more basic level. (b) achievement and hedonism--self-centered satisfaction. unequivocal rejection of opposing values. Of course. stimulation) and values that emphasize order. tradition). Conformity is more toward the center and tradition toward the periphery. as noted above. (i) conformity and tradition--subordination of self in favor of socially imposed expectations. achievement). To clarify the nature of the continuum. The person choosing what to do may also sense that such alternative actions are psychologically dissonant. (f) universalism and benevolence--enhancement of others and transcendence of selfish interests. they share the same broad motivational goal. This dimension captures the conflict between values that emphasize concern for the welfare and interests of others (universalism. conformity. benevolence) and values that emphasize pursuit of one's own interests and relative success and dominance over others (power. Although the theory discriminates ten values. (e) self-direction and universalism--reliance upon one's own judgment and comfort with the diversity of existence. Viewing values as organized along two bipolar dimensions lets us summarize the oppositions between competing values. They therefore demand a stronger. at different times. This signifies that tradition values conflict more strongly with the opposing values. (c) hedonism and stimulation--a desire for affectively pleasant arousal. As Figure 1 shows. I note the shared motivational emphases of adjacent values: (a) power and achievement--social superiority and esteem. Hedonism shares elements of both openness to change and self-enhancement. values form a continuum of related motivations. but not in a single act. it postulates that. and resistance to change (security. and in different settings. This dimension captures the conflict between values that emphasize independence of thought. The circular structure in Figure 1 portrays the total pattern of relations of conflict and congruity among values. action. preservation of the past. people can and do pursue competing values. one dimension contrasts ‘openness to change’ and ‘conservation’ values. they do so through different acts. The second dimension contrasts ‘selfenhancement’ and ‘self-transcendence’ values. Rather. (d) stimulation and self-direction--intrinsic interest in novelty and mastery. (j) .7 of one’s religion—tradition). (g) benevolence and tradition--devotion to one's in-group. Tradition and conformity are located in a single wedge because. And others may impose social sanctions by pointing to practical and logical inconsistencies between an action and other values the person professes. (h) benevolence and conformity--normative behavior that promotes close relationships. The expectations linked to tradition values are more abstract and absolute than the interaction-based expectations of conformity values.

as revealed in pre-tests. This is especially This followed Rokeach’s (1973) idea that ends values and means values function differently. Conceiving values as organized in a circular motivational structure has an important implication for the relations of values to other variables. 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. ‘EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all)’ is a universalism item. I return to this implication below. 1992. 5 People view most values as varying from mildly to very important. 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. The scale also enables respondents to report opposition to values that they try to avoid expressing or promoting. In sum.8 tradition and security--preserving existing social arrangements that give certainty to life. 5. Schwartz. 0 (not important). (k) conformity and security--protection of order and harmony in relations. 1 (unlabeled). 2. The SVS presents two lists of value items. 4 (unlabeled). ‘PLEASURE (gratification of desires)’ is a hedonism item. The first contains 30 items that describe potentially desirable end-states in noun form. (l) security and power-avoiding or overcoming threats by controlling relationships and resources. the more antagonistic their motivations. For example. 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. the circular arrangement of the values represents a motivational continuum. the more distant. 6 (very important).4 Each item expresses an aspect of the motivational goal of one value. 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). 4 . the more similar their underlying motivations. It implies that the whole set of ten values relates to any other variable in an integrated manner. -1 (opposed to my values). 2005a). 1992). 5 Schwartz (1994) explains the rational for preferring rating of value importance to ranking. An explanatory phrase in parentheses following the item further specifies its meaning. the second contains 26 or 27 items that describe potentially desirable ways of acting in adjective form. 3 (important). The closer any two values in either direction around the circle. This nonsymmetrical scale is stretched at the upper end and condensed at the bottom in order to map the way people think about values. My research suggests that this distinction has no substantive importance (Schwartz. One item in the 56-item SVS (1988) was dropped and two others added in the revised 57-item version (1994).

Diener. student). The verbal portraits describe each person in terms of what is important to him or her. or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a value. Each portrait describes a person’s goals.6 The PVQ includes short verbal portraits of 40 different people. ranging from . He likes to do things in his own original way” describes a person for whom self-direction values are important. 2005a) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA. For example: “Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. and of persons not educated in Western schools that emphasize abstract.61 for tradition to . gender-matched with the respondent (Schwartz. and not like me at all. Respondents are asked to compare the portrait to themselves rather than themselves to the portrait. 1992. alpha reliabilities of the 10 values average . The SVS had not proven suitable to such samples. So. they capture the person’s values without explicitly identifying values as the topic of Both Brocke and Bilsky (2005) and Oishi. aspirations. We infer respondents’ own values from their self-reported similarity to people described implicitly in terms of particular values. context-free thinking. 2001). Schwartz & Boehnke.68. Across 212 samples (national representative. The score for the importance of each value is the average rating given to items designated a priori as markers of that value. Schimmack. reflecting the conceptual breadth of the values. 6 . Schwartz. and Suh (1998) have subsequently developed paired comparison instruments based on the SVS to measure the ten basic values. the similarity judgment is also likely to focus on these value-relevant aspects. Equally important. not like me. 1994. 2005b. Thus. of the elderly. 2005b). He wants to have a lot of money and expensive things” describes a person who cherishes power values. a little like me.9 necessary for cross-cultural studies because people in one culture or subculture may reject values from others cultures. 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. The number of items to measure each value ranges from three (hedonism) to eight (universalism). somewhat like me. 2004) are included in the indexes. For each portrait. like me.75 for universalism (Schwartz. The SVS has been translated into 48 languages. et al. Only value items that have demonstrated near-equivalence of meaning across cultures in analyses using multi-dimensional scaling (SSA. respondents answer: “How much like you is this person? Responses are: very much like me. Schwartz. to assess whether the values theory is valid independent of method required an alternative instrument. Comparing other to self directs attention only to aspects of the other that are portrayed. teacher.. “It is important to him to be rich.

The appendix presents the male version of the ESS scale. Schwartz. ranging from . Others use the middle of the response scales. the decisive factor in selecting items was to maximize coverage of the varied conceptual components of each value rather than to increase internal reliability. Some people rate most abstract values very important as guiding principles or most portraits very similar to themselves.68.56. all of which were designated a priori as markers of a value. ambition. obedience). and still others rate most values unimportant or most portraits dissimilar to themselves. two people rate tradition values 4.europeansocialsurvey. wisdom.. alpha reliabilities of the ten values averaged . The same term can refer both to a value and a trait (e.36 (tradition) to . For example. The scale should measure people’s value priorities. The ESS version includes 21 items.10 investigation. Across 14 samples from 7 countries. 2005b). ranging from . The score for the importance of each value is the average rating given to these items. not the absolute importance of any one value. the relative importance of the different values. The number of portraits for each value ranges from three (stimulation.47 for tradition to .org) chose the theory and the PVQ as the basis for developing a human values scale to include in the survey. Say.80 for achievement (Schwartz 2005b). Across 20 representative national samples. and power) to six (universalism). people may value creativity as a guiding principle in life but not be creative. people who value a goal do not necessarily exhibit the corresponding trait. reflecting the conceptual breadth of the values. hedonism. The designers of the European Social Survey (ESS: www. given the constraint of so few items. Alpha reliabilities of the values with this version averaged . As seen below. nor do those who exhibit a trait necessarily value the corresponding goal. These reliabilities reflect the fact that only two items measure each value (three for universalism). However.70 (achievement). Correcting Response Tendencies Respondents differ in their use of the response scales both in the SVS and the PVQ. All the value items have demonstrated nearequivalence of meaning across cultures in analyses using multi-dimensional scaling (SSA. which influences behavior and attitudes. This is because it is the tradeoff among relevant values. And some creative people may attribute little importance to creativity as a value that guides them.g. despite low reliabilities these values predict behavior and attitudes systematically. Despite the same absolute score. tradition values obviously have higher priority for a person who rates all other . The PVQ asks about similarity to someone with particular goals and aspirations (values) rather than similarity to someone with particular traits. most from the PVQ and a few revised to encompass additional ideas in order better to cover the content of the ten different values. Equally important.

The SSA provides 2-dimensional spatial maps of relations among values. and adult convenience samples (22).e. If the motivational content of values is the most powerful principle that organizes people's value priorities. value items from adjacent types of values may intermix rather than emerge in clearly distinct regions. the relations among value items in the two-dimensional space should reflect this content. Rules for partitioning are described in Schwartz (1992. For each sample. one must correct individual differences in use of the response scales. The greater the conceptual similarity between any two items.. Specifically. but without partition lines. I bring the findings of assessments with data using the SVS and data using the ESS version of the PVQ. cultural. linguistic. Consequently. I prepared a matrix of Pearson correlations between the 56 or 57 value items. adolescents (10). 2005a. Items near the boundaries of adjacent values inevitably overlap somewhat in meaning. the person’s value priorities. the more related they should be empirically and hence the closer their locations should be in the multidimensional space. 1968). If the theory accurately describes the structure of value relations. grade k-12 school teachers (74). Guttman.11 values lower than for one who rates all other values higher. then the observed regions should form a circular pattern similar to the theoretical structure of Figure 1. 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. gender.271). like that shown in Figure 2. Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Theory of Value Content and Structure As evidence for the theory. To measure value priorities accurately. 1995. 2005a). the decisions about exact boundaries are arbitrary. it should be possible to partition the space into distinct regions containing the items that represent each of the 10 values. i. we center each person’s responses on his or her own mean (details in Schwartz. This converts absolute value scores into scores that indicate the relative importance of each value to the person. 2006). I analyzed this matrix with Similarity Structure Analysis (SSA) (Borg & Shye. religious. Because values form a motivational continuum. The samples include highly diverse geographic. To correct. and occupational groups. in analyses in many samples. age. Samples include those that represent a nation or a region in it (16). undergraduate students from a variety of fields (111). . The SVS data were gathered between 1988 and 2002 from 233 samples from 68 countries located on every inhabited continent (total N= 64. SVS. The a priori assignment of items to values guides the partitioning of the maps.

Equal spacing of the nine sectors at 40° angles is not a defining feature of the Schwartz model. The value items represent the 10 more general basic values in the theory. this analysis confirms the structure of ten distinguishable values. and Schwartz (submitted) analyzed the data from the 71 samples from 32 countries that participated in the first three rounds of the ESS. Design matrix. The overall structure of relations among the 10 values determines the hypothesized locations of the 21 items relative to one another. Nonetheless. such a simple and regular structure is functional. As can be seen. As a first step. 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. Central to this approach is a starting configuration which assigns every variable (i. Janik. theoretically grounded hypothesis about the structure of the values. benevolence. every value item) its place within the hypothesized structure of values. every value formed either a distinctive region or an intermixed region with a conceptually adjacent value in at least 96% of samples. and security value regions. Figure 3 presents results of an MDS analysis of these items based on all respondents in round 1 of the ESS. ordered around the circle according to theory. 2007) for the analyses. Spirituality items formed a distinct region in only 38% of samples. Findings with the 21 item PVQ used in the ESS lead to the same conclusion. They chose a weakly constrained confirmatory approach (Borg & Staufenbiel. 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. Given the focus of this conference. In separate analyses in 233 samples. ESS Human Values Scale.12 Figure 2 presents an example of SSA results for 57 value items from the aggregate sample across all nations. Bilsky. with one divided into an inner and an outer segment that represent conformity and tradition (cf. Marker values are in bold. The location of tradition between conformity and benevolence rather than behind conformity is a slight deviation better evaluated based on single sample findings. The nine sectors serve as the basis . a design matrix of values was deduced from the structural model in which the 10 values are represented by nine sectors.e. 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. The proposed spirituality items emerged most frequently in the tradition. Figure 1). In the absence of evidence for a more specific structure. I elaborate on the MDS analyses of the ESS data in some detail. universalism. respectively.. it may be adequate. A weakly constrained confirmatory MDS is appropriate given the explicit. however.

0.13 for specifying the prototypical location of each value by corresponding coordinates. an MDS program in SPSS. The theory-based starting configuration did not bias the resulting MDS structure in favor of the theory at the expense of the adequacy of the fit with the data. Data analysis.0001. using the starting configuration in Table 1.5 instead of 1. In the PVQ21. Schwartz and Sagiv (1995) demonstrated that mixing of items from two adjacent values deviations are likely to be chance variations. their coordinates derive from the centre of that circular arc which is marked by the respective (value) sector. This occurred in Portugal and in Hungary in the order of the three conservation values. should represent the prototypical structure of values. Starting configuration. As can be seen. Table 2 summarizes results of the MDS structural analyses. As a second step. The starting configuration. whether reversals of the order around the circle or mixing of two values. may signify a real cultural difference if they recur across samples from the same country. simplex (the default).0001. two items operationalize each of nine values and three items operationalize the tenth (universalism). This characterizes most of the deviations listed in Table 2. The structural analyses of the ESS values data were accomplished with PROXSCAL. Nine of the 10 values are represented by points on the periphery of this circle. though with a radius of 0. Table 1 shows the design matrix. all items that index the same value receive the coordinates specified for that value in the design matrix. and random (1000 random starts) yielded virtually the same mean stress values across all samples. Moreover. maximum iterations = 100). The coordinates of the tenth value (conformity) are determined in the same way. The coordinates are determined trigonometrically by referring to the unit circle and summarizing them in the design matrix. Reversals of order. like the design matrix. stress convergence = . Confirmatory factor analyses provide more formal statistical tests of the content and structure of values. Therefore. minimum stress = . and Schwartz (2008) had to unify pairs of values that are motivationally close into seven latent factors to . The matrices of Pearson correlation coefficients between the 21 PVQ–items were analyzed with ordinal MDS (defaults for ties and iteration criteria: keepties. Davidov. the theorized circular order of values was perfectly reproduced. every one of the deviations. It includes information about all observed deviations from the hypothesized circular structure. An MDS in each sample using the three other options for starting configurations in the PROXSCAL program. using the SVS. Schwartz and Boehnke (2004) demonstrated configural invariance for ten latent value factors across 23 countries. the starting configuration for all the value items is defined. Torgerson. Schmidt. even among adjacent values. in 42/71 samples. security. conformity and tradition. involved values that are adjacent in the circle.

.7 A second principle is the interests that value attainment serves. stimulation. Values on the right (hedonism. When examining relations of value priorities with other variables. They primarily concern others’ interests. we identified congruence and conflict among the values that are implicated simultaneously in decisions as one dynamic principle that organizes the structure of values. 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. Relations of values to anxiety are a third organizing principle. Figures 1. we now look more closely at the possible roots of this structure. Rotation of the multi-dimensional representation of values does not affect the meaning of the structure. It may have been necessary to unify values because the 21-item ESS instrument measures each value with so few items. but each orients the circle differently. security) or actively to control threat (power). achievement. universalism. 3 and 4 show the same order. Figure 1 shows that security and universalism values are boundary values. 7 The value theory specifies the order of the 10 values. Thus far. self-direction) primarily regulate how one expresses personal interests and characteristics. For example.14 obtain configural and metric invariance across the 20 countries in the first round of the ESS. self-direction. Pursuit of values on the left in Figure 4 serves to cope with anxiety due to uncertainty in the social and physical world. power/achievement. Roots of the Dynamic Structure of Value Relations Having shown that the structure of relations among values is near-universal. They combined the following pairs of adjacent values: Universalism/benevolence. security) primarily regulate how one relates socially to others and affects their interests. tradition. Achievement values do both: Meeting social standards successfully may control anxiety and it may affirm one’s sense of competence. 2. People seek to avoid conflict (conformity) and to maintain the current order (tradition. Values in the bottom panel (benevolence. I note several instances in which the values that the CFA suggests combining have meaningfully different associations. Close examination of the structure suggests other dynamic principles (see Figure 4). hedonism. wealthy persons can pursue power values more easily. universalism. but their goals also regulate pursuit of own interests. stimulation. conformity. benevolence) express anxiety-free motivations. and people who work in the free professions can express self-direction values more easily. Values in the top panel of Figure 4 (power. conformity/tradition.

The reverse occurs with values that concern material well-being and security. people adapt their values to their life circumstances. and less exposed to arousing and exciting changes and challenges (Glen. people in jobs that afford freedom of choice increase the importance of self-direction values at the expense of conformity values (Kohn & Schooler. they tend to become less preoccupied with their own strivings and more concerned with the welfare of others (Veroff. 1983). and the abilities they develop. the social roles they play. Thus. Age and Life Course As people grow older. Having dependent children constrains parents to limit their pursuit of stimulation values.8 8 For more detail. Reuman.15 Life circumstances also impose constraints against pursuing or expressing values. Thus. This section examines key sociodemographic variables as crucial antecedents of individual differences in value priorities. they tend to become more embedded in social networks. differences in background characteristics largely determine the differences in life circumstances to which people are exposed. the expectations and sanctions they encounter. This implies that self-transcendence values (benevolence. which. 1997). 1984). people who suffer economic hardship and social upheaval attribute more importance to power and security values than those who live in relative comfort and safety (Inglehart. affect their value priorities. In other words. stimulation. in turn. This implies that conservation values (tradition. 1974). life circumstances make the pursuit or expression of different values more or less rewarding or costly. 1997). & Feld. They upgrade the importance they attribute to values they can readily attain and downgrade the importance of values whose pursuit is blocked (Schwartz & Bardi. education. Typically. Once people enter families of procreation and attain stable positions in the occupational world. universalism) increase with age and selfenhancement values (power. Upgrading attainable values and downgrading thwarted values applies to most. hedonism) decrease. achievement) decrease. When such values are blocked. income and other characteristics affect their socialization and learning experiences. . but not to all values. conformity. gender. when they are attained easily. Thus. more committed to habitual patterns. their importance increases. And people with strongly ethnocentric peers find it hard to express universalism values. People’s age. see Schwartz (2005b). security) should increase with age and openness to change values (self-direction. their importance drops.

The number of countries in which the correlation was in the same direction as the overall correlation appears in parentheses. despite the fact that these values are adjacent. differences for conformity and tradition values are inconsistent. education correlates positively with achievement values. Universalism values begin to rise only in the last years of secondary school. with the exception of universalism values. Column 3 of Table 3 reveals the expected positive correlations of years of formal education with self-direction and stimulation values and negative correlations with conformity. emphasizing meeting external standards. and breadth of perspective essential for self-direction values (Kohn & Schooler 1983). and security values. flexibility. tradition.16 The first column of Table 3 reports correlations of age with values across 20 ESS countries from round 1. Column 2 of Table 3 supports expectations regarding both the nature and strength of value relations to gender in the ESS data. could account for this. while females emphasize expressive-communal values like benevolence and universalism (Schwartz & Rubel. Gender differences for eight values are consistent. All the observed correlations confirm the expected associations and support the probable processes of influence. They are substantially higher among those who attend university. The associations of education with values are largely linear. thereby undermining conformity and tradition values. These same experiences increase the openness to non-routine ideas and activity central to stimulation values. and small. Analyses with the SVS and PVQ instruments across 68 countries yield similar results. and traditions. 2005). In addition. statistically significant. The constant grading and comparing of performance in schools. The increasing competencies to cope with life that people acquire through education may also reduce the importance of security values. Note that women gave higher priority than men to tradition values in all 20 ESS countries but conformity values in only 13 countries. In contrast. Most theorists expect gender differences to be small. All associations are monotonic. This may reflect both the broadening of horizons that university education provides and a tendency for . Though ordered as expected. Education Educational experiences presumably promote the intellectual openness. Gender Various theories of gender difference lead researchers to postulate that men emphasize agentic-instrumental values like power and achievement. expectations. the correlations of age with achievement and power are quite different. these experiences challenge unquestioning acceptance of prevailing norms.

self-direction. the order of associations for the whole set of ten values follows a predictable pattern. and tradition values less important. Figure 1). It reduces security threats and the need to restrict one’s impulses and to maintain supportive. attitude. conformity and security values. 1973). The correlations in Table 3 generally exhibit both features of value relations. The critical idea is the circular motivational structure of values. If a background variable. 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. trait. 1984. traditional ties. The data in Table 3 illustrate this pattern. Associations with universalism values have a different pattern than those with benevolence values.17 those who give high priority to universalism values to seek higher education. integrated manner. the expected pattern of associations with all other values follows from the circular value structure.. The integrated structure of values makes it easier to theorize about relations of value priorities to other variables. or behavior (e. and achievement values and render security. conformity. It allows us to relate the full set of values to other variables in an organized. Income Affluence creates opportunities to engage in discretionary activities and to choose one’s life style freely. in column 4 of Table 3. and power values. attitude. The value theory enables us to treat peoples’ value systems as coherent structures.g. equality and civil rights--Rokeach. primarily in the upper third of the income distribution and to lower tradition. self-direction. This structure has two implications for value relations: (1) Values that are adjacent in the structure should have similar associations with other variables. social class and obedience—Alwin. Table 3 lists the values in an order corresponding to their order around the circular structure of value relations (cf. (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. or behavior correlates most positively with one value and most negatively with another. Income contributed to higher stimulation. achievement. That is. Higher income should therefore promote valuing of stimulation. Once theory identifies the values likely to relate most and least . support these expectations. The correlations between total household income (12 categories) and value priorities. hedonism. 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.

Second. conformity. Why? In this study. other reports probably underestimate them. Bardi and Schwartz (2003) generated ten sets of 6-10 behaviors that primarily express one of the ten basic values. Yielding to normative pressure. Some values correlate more strongly with their relevant behaviors than others do. Self-reports probably exaggerate value-behavior relations. negative. Everyday behavior. intimate partners or close peers rated participants’ behavior too. weakened value-behavior relations. priorities for these values showed stronger value-behavior correlations. permitting own values to have more influence. benevolence. all but the security correlation are significant. Tradition and stimulation values had especially low mean importance in these groups.18 positively to a variable. external pressure is weaker for behaviors that express values of little importance to the group. and achievement behaviors. see Schwartz (2006). they rated how frequently they had performed each behavior in the past year. Later. relative to their opportunities to perform it. With other-reported behavior. Next.9 Predicting Behavior with Basic Values Do people’s value priorities influence their behavior in systematic. Muslims. The integrated structure serves as a template that reveals “deviations” from the expected pattern. The behavior indexes were the average frequency ratings of the behavior items that express each value. Deviations are especially interesting because they direct us to search for special conditions that enhance or weaken relations of a variable with values (Schwartz. and zero associations for the remaining values. Hence. normative group pressure was greatest for security. one develops theoretical explanations for why or why not to expect these implied associations. and Christians in Israel modify associations of value priorities with readiness for contact with out-groups. 9 For example. In studies 2 and 3. Sagiv and Schwartz (1995) show how unique aspects of relations among Jews. . As a first example of value-behavior relations. Participants completed the SVS. predictable ways? For a discussion of the mechanisms through which values may influence behavior. The association of education with achievement values is one such deviation. consider three studies of everyday behavior. even when a behavior opposes one’s own values. 1996). the circular motivational structure then implies a specific pattern of positive. All correlations with self-reported behavior are significant and most are substantial. Column 2 and 3 of Table 4 list the correlations between each value and its relevant behaviors.

To predict a behavior successfully. Power values should relate most strongly to noncooperation. are most relevant. Both coalitions championed liberal democracy. The latter values call for promoting the .19 Cooperative behavior. Moreover. opposed in the circle. benevolence values should relate to cooperation most strongly. Benevolence correlates most positively. the order of the correlations follows the order around the value circle from benevolence to power (See Figure 5). maximizing either one's absolute gain (individualism) or relative gain (competing). to behavior takes us outside the laboratory. But they may harm the opposing values in the value circle. The center-right emphasized entrepreneurship and the market economy. the values whose attainment is most affected by them should influence their voting patterns. Analyses of the consequences of cooperative and noncooperative behavior for the goals of the ten values suggested that benevolence and power values. The next example of how value systems relate. A study of cooperation/competition (Schwartz. The other two choices were both not cooperative. perhaps. The probability of a behavior depends on the relative priority a person gives to the relevant. universalism and. Compared to the other choices. Participants who completed the SVS were paired with another student to play a game. They were to choose one of three alternatives for allocating money between self and a member of their group whose identity was not revealed.8є to the other. The intended consequences of such a policy are compatible with power. 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. we must consider the importance of the values the behavior will harm as well as those it will promote. Hence. and achievement values. security. There were two main coalitions in the Italian elections of 2001. Each would receive the amount of money they allocated to self plus the amount their partner allocated to them. To the extent that citizens recognize these differences. competing values. as integrated wholes. Typically. 1996) illustrates the crucial idea of trade-offs between competing values in guiding behavioral choice. benevolence. security. 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. this meant sacrificing a little of what one could gain (0. They emphasize competitive advantage and legitimize maximizing own gain even at the expense of others. The cooperative choice entailed taking the equivalent of 1є for self and giving 0.2є) and giving the maximum to the other. Voting. power most negatively. center-right and center-left. and family and national values. The correlations in column 3 of Table 4 confirm the hypothesis. But there were also policy differences. as expected.

equality. and tolerance even of groups that might disturb the conventional social order. Figure 5 portrays the pattern of correlations. controlling gender. Correlations with the priority of achievement values should also be positive. note that correlations of individuals’ income. those most likely to suffer from market-driven policies. showing the expected sinusoidal curve that reflects the motivational continuum of 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. And universalism values express concern for the weak.. social justice. The intended consequences of such a policy are compatible with universalism and benevolence values.08. and achievement values on the right and universalism and benevolence values on the left. We coded vote as (0) for center-left and (1) for center-right. political choice in these elections consisted of a trade-off between power. we turn to political activism. The positive correlations with security. et al. Moreover. I hypothesized: Supporting the center-right vs. Adults from the Rome region completed the PVQ and reported the coalition they had voted for in the 2001 election.20 welfare of others even at cost to the self. contacting a politician. Because universalism values promote social . boycotting a product). values explained almost three times as much variance in voting as did the Big 5 personality traits (Caprara. and achievement were also significant. The 21-item PVQ measured value priorities. Data are from 1244 French citizens in the 2003 national representative sample of the ESS. Column 4 of Table 4 presents correlations between value priorities and voting for the center-right. Figure 1). and the correlation of benevolence was negative too. and education. As hypothesized. and age with vote were all less than .g. with pursuing individual power and achievement values and with security values that emphasize preserving the social order. power. age. They conflict. the correlation of universalism was the most negative.. gender. however. income. For a final illustration of the effects of basic values on behavior. center-left correlates most positively with the priority given to power and security values and most negatively with the priority given to universalism values. education. Political activism was measured as the number of politically relevant. In contrast. security. 2006). We computed point-biserial correlations of voting with the 10 values. marital status. To put the strength of these correlations in perspective. and those with benevolence values negative. participating in a public demonstration. Political Activism. On that basis. Thus. the center-left advocated social welfare. legal acts out of nine that respondents reported performing in the past year (e. occupation.

tradition. Schwartz (2006) reports analyses of individual and country differences in political activism in all 20 ESS countries. should oppose immigration least.21 justice and environmental preservation—goals of much activism—they should correlate most strongly with activism. These correlations fully confirm expectations.10 Opposition to Immigration. Figure 5 portrays the pattern of correlations. 10 . from poorer European. and hedonism values are especially important should oppose immigration less. 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. Thus. Three items in the ESS measured opposition to accepting ‘other’ immigrants—those of a different race/ethnic group. people for whom selfdirection. and concern for the welfare even of those who are different.11 Opposition to ‘other’ immigrants in the current French atmosphere likely reflects concern with preserving the status quo—protecting personal and social security. stimulation. preserving secular and Christian French traditions. Those for whom security. consider the effects of basic values on an attitude of major concern in Europe today. Moreover. with their goal of acceptance. 11 Schwartz (2006) reports analyses of individual and country differences in opposition to immigration in 15 West European countries. and poorer non-European countries. In contrast those who value openness to change should feel less threatened and might welcome enrichment of their society. Column 5 of Table 4 presents both the zero-order correlations of value priorities with political activism and the correlations controlling five socio-demographic variables. To conclude this section. and maintaining widespread norms. those who cherish universalism values. The simple pursuit of excitement also plays a role. opposition to immigration. appreciation. revealing the expected sinusoidal curve that reflects the motivational continuum of values with one exception. Because activism is risky and oriented to change. security and conformity should show the most negative correlations. and conformity values are especially important should more strongly oppose immigration. Stimulation values show a higher than expected positive correlation. This deviation from the curve points to the fact that political activism is motivated not only by ideological considerations such as those that express universalism or security values. Here I focus on the sample of 1125 native born residents of France.

I suggested several dynamic processes that may account for the observed circular structure. motivationally distinguishable values that people in virtually all cultures implicitly recognize. The other predicted correlations are also significant (all >/. The values theory applies in populations exposed to westernized schooling but also in populations with little or no education. national. In order to provide a fuller picture of the antecedents of opposition to accepting ‘other’ immigrants in France. They also experience conflict between pursuing self-transcendence or self-enhancement values. Thus. hedonism) are also near-universal. Since religiosity is in the regression. degree of religiosity.001). the tradeoff between giving high priority to promoting the welfare of all others (universalism values) and avoiding personal. whereas tradition values predict more opposition. Universalism values predicted opposition most strongly (negative). Security values correlate most positively with opposition (. Older people.28).15/. These processes may point the way toward a unifying theory of human motivation. The validity of this claim does not depend on the way we measure values.39) and universalism values correlated most negatively (-..g. the finding for tradition values signifies opposition based on protecting nonreligious customs and ways of doing things. having ever had children at home. p<. I regressed opposition on the value priorities and on the following background variables: age. power vs. gender. and interpersonal threat (security values) has the greatest impact on readiness to accept ‘other’ immigrants. having been unemployed for 3 months or more. followed by security values (positive). universalism. and the market economy. years of education completed. mass media. tradition vs. 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). Especially striking is the emergence of the same circular structure of relations among values across countries and measurement instruments. Figure 5 presents results of the regression. marital status. subjective assessment of adequacy of household income. and women oppose immigration more. those who are married. perhaps because they feel more threatened by perceived social disruption.22 The observed pattern of correlations fully supports these hypotheses. People everywhere experience conflict between pursuing openness to change values or conservation values. Conclusion The values theory has identified ten basic. . We still do not know whether the theory applies in more isolated tribal groups with minimal exposure to urbanization. Conflicts between specific values (e. Greater education and religiosity predict less opposition.

attitudes toward ethical dilemmas. Researchers in more than 30 countries have used the system of ten basic values to understand and sometimes to predict other individual differences. It makes clear that behavior entails a trade-off between competing values. and personality studies testifies to the fruitfulness of the values theory and its promise for future research. choice of university major. Values influence most if not all motivated behavior.. organizational commitment. This paper gave several examples of how value priorities relate to behavior and attitudes. shoplifting. Almost any behavior has positive implications for expressing. or attaining some values. occupation and medical specialty. attitude. Future research must address possible interactions among background variables. upholding. social contact with out-groups. self-direction and stimulation). but negative implications for the values across the structural circle in opposing positions. As a result. authoritarianism. toward the environment. the order of positive and negative associations between any specific behavior and the ten values tends to follow the order of the value circle. independent and dependent behavior. antecedents affect priorities in a systematic manner. moral. prediction. participation in sports. They choose alternatives that promote higher as against lower priority values. I have drawn only the simplest picture of the separate. worries. sexism. competition. condoms and drugs. . delinquency. But the reverse occurs with values that concern material well-being and security. trust in institutions. interpersonal problems.. and numerous voting studies. linear effects of a few background variables. They tend to enhance the importance of values that are adjacent in the value circle (e. The values theory provides a framework for relating the system of ten values to behavior that enriches analysis. Among personality variables studied are social desirability. conformity and security) but to undermine the importance of the competing values (e.g. Adaptation may take the form of upgrading attainable values and downgrading thwarted values. This proliferation of behavior.23 Individual value priorities arise out of adaptation to life experiences. autocratic. social dominance. religious and sexual behavior. various environmental and consumer behaviors. Among attitudinal variables studied are job satisfaction. subjective well-being. and explanation of value-behavior relations. People tend to behave in ways that balance their opposing values. hunting.g. religiosity. Among the behaviors studied are use of alcohol. and identification with one’s nation or group. In keeping with the structure of values identified by the theory. Socio-demographic characteristics contribute to explaining individual differences in value priorities because they represent different sets of life experiences. and the Big 5 personality traits.

Public Opinion Quarterly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. L. Barcelona. M..). 84.E. NJ: Ablex.. W. (1912/1954). Schwartz.). Political Psychology. Bilsky.388-433). Triandis & W. R. C.: Free Press. (1980).W. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Theorien und Methoden der Skalierung. T.. Psychometrica. B. Borg.C. Durkheim. New York: Plenum. Janik. Brocke. Homewood.C. (1974). E. Civilization and its discontents.L. Durkheim. 469-506. (1997). Perspectives: Vol. The measurement of value preferences by paired comparisons. The psychology of motivation. N.. P. D. D. (submitted). Feather.. 1135-1151. (1974). 90. I.M. A. Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit. Values. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales.: Free Press. 33. Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. New introductory lectures in psychoanalysis. H. Berlyne. E. (1986). (1893/1964). IL: Free Press. The achieving society. July). 27. Durkheim. G. H. valences. W. and political choice. (1984). Deci. D. Guttman. (1961). The elementary forms of religious life. (2007).H. Englewood Cliffs. Cambridge. Pattern and growth in personality. traits. Class and conformity. F. (1983). In T. E. & Bilsky. A. Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. London: Hogarth Press. Princeton. Toward a general theory of action (pp. N. IL: Dorsey.W. Kohn. 68.. Alwin. (1897/1964). MA: Harvard University Press.. (1969). London: Sage. Norwood. Buss. E. (1995). Schmidt. Glencoe. Eupsychian management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Princeton. C. NJ: Prentice-Hall.. Personality and politics: Values. & Schooler. (2003). L. 41-50. & Schwartz. Conflict. The origins of values: Essays in the Sociology and Philosophy of Beliefs. (1975). A. Bandura. V. Inglehart. New York: Holt. Il. M. E. S. New York: Transaction Publishers. In H. Korman. Kluckhohn. (1977). (1960). . Lambert (Eds. Lonner. 72. Capanna. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. & Staufenbiel. Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. 420-445.: Dorsey Press. 191-215. C. Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. (2008). (1965). & Barbaranelli. The structural organization of human values – evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS) Borg.. & Shye. Bardi. Caprara. Facet theory: Form and content.24 References Allport. S. & Schwartz. W. Spain. Kohn. New York: Norton. T. R. A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Modernization and postmodernization.. Shils (Eds. 176-186. 1958-1983. D. 1207-1220. (2001). 1. Suicide. and choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Vecchione.H. (1930). 415. Aging and conservatism. Homewood. G. Glen. 29. M. Maslow. Davidov.. (2006). Intrinsic motivation. Can a social science be anchored in evolutionary biology? Four problems and a strategic solution. S. M. S. S. Work and personality. Glencoe. NJ: Van Nostrand. & Schwartz. (1995). D. I. American Journal of Sociology. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology.L. Il. Paper delivered at the 1st European Association for Survey Research Conference.. (1951).J. 359-382. Freud. Rinehart & Winston. Huber: Bern. S. (1933). A. 1-28. McClelland. (1961). (1968). 24. Glencoe. IL. arousal and curiosity. The search for psychological universals. Boudon. Freud. H. S. C. (2005. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. NJ: Princeton University Press. The division of labor in society. Parsons & E. Psychological Review.

The psychology of values: The Ontario Symposium. Sagiv. Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects. Roberts. Rohan. T. 550-562. D. Olson. Melech. (2005b). W.). The social system.1 Morris.).. (1998). S. S. & Sagiv. 1177-1189. Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. Extending the crosscultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. (1906). 69. 32.. antecedents and consequences across nations. (2000). H. R. (1973). Jr. Oishi. (1956). In A. Sagiv. J. New York: Harper. (1987). Schwartz. Tamayo & J.H. Influences of adaptation to communist rule on value priorities in Eastern Europe. & Harris. C.. Hillsdale. : Free Press. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (1984). 385-410. Values. In C. G.. Schwartz. New York: Academic Press. Brazil: Vozes. 36. Schwartz.). H. H... R. Boston: Ginn & Co.H. Verkasalo. British Journal of Social Psychology. S. 25) (pp. (1995). M. H. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1-65). R. & Boehnke. 19-45. S. 230-255. Glencoe. 56-95.P. 20. Zanna (Ed. Seligman. (2001).. Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues. (1997).). H. Sumner. In M.. G. In Jowell. 255-277. 177-198. Schwartz. New York: Scribner’s. A. C. S. An interpretation of Christian ethics. Weber.. S. Diener. (1996).). S. Journal of Research in Personality. Value orientations: Measurement. Burgess. E... Fitzgerald.W. H.. Personality and Social Psychology Review.. & Boehnke. & Suh. S. In A. 519-542.. & Schwartz. A. Williams. S. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. & Rubel. Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values.H. (Eds. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. A rose by any name? The values construct. H. (1992). Porto (Eds. Schwartz.. S. Varieties of human value. 30. 53. Folkways. some style. 4. S. NJ: Erlbaum. London: Sage. (2000). 8 (pp. & Feld. H. L.. Schimmack. (1968). 437-448. 3-18.. S. Sagiv. S. B. Journal of Personality. S. A. . (2000). E. H. Rokeach. (2004). Developmental Psychology. Parsons. (1997). S. 38. International encyclopedia of the social sciences. U. Reuman. Sills (Ed. (2006). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In E. New York: Free Press. L. & Bilsky. Petrópolis. Basic human values: Their content and structure across countries.89. Il. 18. Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. Niebuhr. H.lessons from the European Social Survey. Lehmann. (2005a). Porto (Eds. (1994). H. Value priorities and social desirability: Much substance. L. M. Schwartz. Motives in American men and women across the adult life span. 50. T. J. G. H. Tamayo & J. & Schwartz. M. & Eva. (1935).) Measuring attitudes crossnationally . Schwartz. W. M. B. (1905/1958). S. M.1-24). & Bardi. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Political Psychology. (2005) Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. & M. Schwartz. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. K. 24. M. New York: Macmillan. (1951). 68. European Journal of Social Psychology. idem pp. Schwartz. Valores e comportamento nas organizações [Values and behavior in organizations] pp. Antonovsky. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Vol. S. Worries and values... Schwartz. 21-55.. Schwartz. Zanna (Eds. L. J.M. Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. The nature of human values. R. 1142-1158. 309-346. The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism.. Schwartz. Veroff. S. Schwartz. K.

TR 1 1 1 Like me 2 2 2 Somewhat like me 3 3 3 A little like me 4 4 4 Not like me 5 5 5 Not like me at all 6 6 6 4 5 6 7 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 Having a good time is important to her. She wants to have a lot of money and expensive things. She believes everyone should have equal opportunities in life. Keyed Here we briefly describe some people. She wants to devote herself to people close to her. Looking after the environment is important to her. she still wants to understand them. It is important to her to do things that give her pleasure. UN It's important to her to show her abilities. AC It is important to her to live in secure surroundings. She wants people to do what she says. HOW MUCH LIKE YOU IS THIS PERSON? Very much like me 1 2 3 Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to her. UN 20 Tradition is important to her. Even when she disagrees with them.1 Appendix: The ESS Human Values Scale. She tries not to draw attention to herself. SE She likes surprises and is always looking for new things to do. SD 12 It's very important to her to help the people around her. Tick the box to the right that shows how much the person in the description is like you. She hopes people will recognize her achievements. She likes to be free and not depend on others. HE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 . CO 17 It is important to her to get respect from others. SE 15 She looks for adventures and likes to take risks. CO It is important to her to listen to people who are different from her. TR 21 She seeks every chance she can to have fun. She avoids anything that might endanger her safety. UN It is important to her to be humble and modest. ST 16 It is important to her always to behave properly. PO 18 It is important to her to be loyal to her friends. even when no-one is watching. She tries to follow the customs handed down by her religion or her family. SD It is important to her to be rich. Please read each description and think about how much each person is or is not like you. AC 14 It is important to her that the government insure her safety against all threats. She thinks people should follow rules at all times. ST She believes that people should do what they're told. PO She thinks it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. She wants to have an exciting life. Female Version. She likes to “spoil” herself. She wants the state to be strong so it can defend its citizens. BE 13 Being very successful is important to her. She wants to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong. She wants to care for their well-being. She likes to do things in her own original way. She wants people to admire what she does. She thinks it is important to do lots of different things in life. HE 11 It is important to her to make her own decisions about what she does. BE 19 She strongly believes that people should care for nature.

49 . p. 9=Stimulation(ST).09 –.98 .00 –. 0=Self–direction(SD) .00 –.17 –.1 Table 1 Prototypical specification of value structure: Design matrix based on the revised Schwartz model (1992. 45) Value Value Sequence Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Angle UN BE TR CO SE PO AC HE ST SD . 6=Power(PO).77 –.64 .87 . 5=Security(SE). 3=Tradition(TR).77 –1.34 .64 –.34 .94 .94 70 30 350 350 310 270 230 190 150 110 Notes: 1=Universalism(UN).17 . 8=Hedonism(HE). 2=Benevolence(BE).50 . 7=Achievement(AC). 4=Conformity(CO).50 –.87 –.98 –.

6.8.3/4. HE10 between PO&AC Finland 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 TR+CO mixed France Germany Greece Hungary UN peripheral to BE.6.6.5.12 .0 1.0 1.0 1.4.9.4.7.5.8.5.6.5.5.6.5.15 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 1.0 1/2.3/4.0 1.4.6.8.9.7.9.7.0 1.6.4.5.3.2.8.0 1/2. TR+CO mixed.4/5.9.4.3.6.2. HE&ST reversed UN+BE mixed.7.2.9.11 .7.5.[3+4].9.4. AC peripheral to HE.4.8.2.[8+9].0 1.9.9.7.14 .9. HE+ST mixed Austria CO peripheral to SE Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 .8.6. HE peripheral to ST UN peripheral to BE.13 .0 UN peripheral to BE UN peripheral to BE.3.0 1.3.2.2.6.b Deviations round Regions 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 .6.9.6.0 HE+ST mixed.9. HE+ST mixed Israel Italy Latvia .1.7.6.3/4.[8+9].7.3/4.5. HE+ST mixed 1.3/4.5.13 .6.2.10 .6.11 .6.3/4.2.0 1/2.6.9.0 1.0 1.3/4.7.8.2.7.11 .2.8.5.3.7.2.9.0 UN&BE reversed.0 1.16 8 8 10 10 10 6 6 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 8 8 [1+2].0 1.7.9.7.6.12 .12 .7.0 UN peripheral to BE UN peripheral to BE.0 UN+BE mixed.9.Stress1 Distinct Sequence of Values a.6.2.4.6.13 .8.2.3.2 Table 2.6.0 1/2.6.6.7.9.11 .9.7.5.8.6.7.5.5.11 .9.3/4.8.0 1.7.7.8.2.9.3/4.3/4.12 .5.2.5. HE+ST mixed [1+2].6.0 1/2.12 .8.3/4.[8+9].6.5.5. SE&CO/TR reversed UN peripheral to BE.6.7.14 .8.5.3/4.7.0 1.11 .0 1.4/5.8.5.9.[3+4].6.5.9.0 1/2.7.9.0 Denmark Estonia 2.5.3/4.8.5.5.[8+9].5.9.09 .5. AC&HE reversed UN peripheral to BE.2.7.3.0 1.12 .08 .0 1.9.7.2.8.14 .7/8.7.8.9.0 1.8.8/9.2.7.0 1.12 .7.0 1/2.7.4. CO peripheral to SE.8.7.5.8.5.2.12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1.3/4.7.0 1.7.14 .5.3/4.8.6.6.5.2.2. TR+CO mixed.11 . Synopsis: Results of the Structural Analyses (ESS1–ESS3) Country ESS.3.3/4.6.3.8.6.8.7.12 .8.5.9.5.7.2.2.10 .14 .0 1.9. SE&TR+CO reversed.8.3.9.0 1.12 .8.6.11 .12 .3/4.7.6.0 1/2.11 .9.8.3/4.2.8.3/4.9.6.3/4.2.6.3/4.3.[8+9].5.7.5.12 .[3+4].10 . CO7 between SE&PO Iceland Ireland 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 .3/4.0 1.

8.3/4.9.0 TR+CO mixed.2.5.4.5.7.3/4. HE peripheral to SE&TR.12 .5.0 1. 5=Security(SE).6.7.9.9.7.6.2.12 .8.0 1.6.2.6.3.9.11 .13 .5.6.13 .0 1.6.3.8.9.0 1.8.0 1/2.5.2.0 Deviations Norway TR+CO mixed Poland UN peripheral to BE UN peripheral to BE UN peripheral to BE SE&CO/TR reversed.8.3/4.2.[3+4].9.6.7.8.12 .6.3/4.7.8. 0=Self-direction(SD) a x/y: x = peripheral position.2.9.11 .2.7.2.3/4.7.b Values .2.6.8.12 .11 . 7=Achievement(AC).5. CO&SE reversed UN peripheral to BE UN peripheral to BE CO+SE mixed CO+SE mixed Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Notes: 1=Universalism(UN).0 1.7.7.3/4.8.12 .[8+9].3/4.6.3/4.12 .7.0 1.2.0 1.9.9. HE+ST mixed UN peripheral to BE.8.6.3/4.5. HE+ST mixed 1.2.[3+4].5.9.2.3/4.5.6.8.6.7.3.0 1.3.2.8.6.0 1/2.5.5.4.11 .08 .8.5.7.9.7.0 1.0 1.3/4.6.8.5.12 10 10 8 10 6 10 10 10 10 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1.3/4/5.6.7.7.9.0 1.0 UN peripheral to BE.4.13 .12 .9.6.0 [1+2].13 .8.[8+9].5.5.4.3/4.3/4.8.14 .2.7.6.9.5. 9=Stimulation(ST).8.7.7.9.5.9.8.8.0 1.6.3.8.7.3/4.5. 6=Power(PO).5.7.5.8.7.6.0 1.5.3/4.9.9.11 .12 .4.09 .0 1/2.3/4.12 .3/4.7.11 .8.8.6.9.6.5.2.0 1/2.4.3 Table 2 (continued) Country Luxembourg Netherlands ESS2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 Stress1 Distinct Sequence of a.6.7.7.5. y = central position b[x+y]: x and y mixed .6.9.9.9.3.5. TR/CO peripheral to SE Portugal Romania Russia Slovakia 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 .08 .7.0 1/2.8.11 .2.9/8.2.2. 4=Conformity(CO).10 .11 .5.6.5.2.3.5.9.8.7.3/4. CO reversed.5.8/9.3/4.3.13 .0 1.9.9.0 1.9.0 1.0 1.0 1/2.0 1/2.12 10 1.7.6.3.0 1.6.6.9.0 1.0 UN+BE mixed Slovenia 1.13 .4.7.8.2.8.[4+5].2.3/4.5.6.14 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 1.2.8.6.12 .3/4.9.0 1.6.0 1.14 .8.6.8.11 .9.7.2.2.7.5.9. 3=Tradition(TR).6.3/4.7.2.6.5. ST peripheral to SE and TR/CO reversed.9. 8=Hedonism(HE).0 .[4+5].7.7.7.7. 2=Benevolence(BE).6.3/4.2.8.0 1.5.13 .2.

14 (19) Education (N=34.12 (20) -.22 (20) -.26 (20) .37 (20) -.030) .08 (19) .15 (19) -.20 (20) -.12 (20) -.32 (20) .12 (19) .165) .33 (20) -.26 (20) -.05 (15) -.4 Table 3: Correlations of Values with Age.01 (14) † . Due to missing data.09 (20) -.12 (20) -.08 (15) .02 (13)† Income (N=28.16 (20) -.04 (11)† .08 (20) .11 (20) .08 (19) †Correlation does not differ significantly from zero. In parentheses is the number of countries with correlations in the indicated direction. 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. Education.760) -. Gender.13 (20) .275) -.09 (18) Gender (Female) (N=35.19 (20) .06 (18) -. the number of respondents varies slightly around the indicated Ns.08 (15) -.02 (13)† .22 (20) -.33 (20) .14 (20) -.14 (20) .10 (18) . .06 (16) .11 (18) .06 (19) -.16 (19) .18 (20) .

52*** .11*** (.07* (-.38*** . B Ns vary slightly due to missing data.12 .22***) A Values are corrected for scale use (see text).35*** .42*** . **p < .10 Cooperation in a Game (SVS) Israel N=90 -. gender.19* -. 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 . education.18* .20** .31*** (-.13***) -.51*** .10*** (.37*** -.12***) -.31*** Other-Report N=141 .05.08 .001.01 -.25*** .10**) . Center-Left (PVQ) Italy N=2849 .14** .16*** (-.5 Table 3.19*** (-.20** B Political Activism (PVQ21) France N=1244B -.26***) .70*** .18* .08** -.01.43*** .14*** (-.14***)C -.08** .38*** .08 Vote for Center-Right vs.01 -.06 .29*** .40*** . In parentheses are partial correlations controlling age.10** . income. 1-tailed. C .47*** .28*** (.15***) .32** .03 -.17*** (. and marital status ***p < .55*** .14***) -.24*** . *p < .28** -.29*** .21*** (.07** .64*** .18** .18* -.12***) .09**) .

6 OPENNESS TO CHANGE Self-Direction(0) Universalism(1) SELFTRANSCENDENCE Benevolence(2) Stimulation(9) Hedonism(8) Conformity (4) Tradition (3) Achievement(7) SELFENHANCEMENT Power(6) Security(5) CONSERVATION Figure 1. Theoretical model of relations among ten motivational types of value .

2-Dimensional Smallest Space Analysis: Individual Level Value Structure Averaged Across 68 Countries .7 SECURITY ACCEPTING MY* PORTION IN LIFE POWER PRESERVING SOCIAL POWER* *PUBLIC IMAGE AUTHORITY* WEALTH* MODERATE* NATIONAL SECURITY* * OBEDIENT TRADITION RESPECT FOR* TRADITION SENSE OF *BELONGING *RECIPROCATION OF FAVORS SOCIAL *RECOGNITION *DEVOUT *DETACHMENT *CLEAN *SOCIAL ORDER *FAMILY SECURITY HONOR HEALTHY* *ELDERS *POLITENESS *SELF DISCIPLINE ACHIEVEMENT *AMBITIOUS *INFLUENTIAL *SUCCESSFUL *CAPABLE *HUMBLE HEDONISM CONFORMITY INTELLIGENT * PLEASURE* LOYAL* * RESPONSIBLE *MEANING IN LIFE *HELPFUL TRUE* FRIENDSHIP MATURE LOVE* *WISDOM * SELFRESPECT *PRIVACY *CHOOSING OWN GOALS *SELF-INDULGENCE ENJOYING LIFE* BENEVOLENCE HONEST* FORGIVING* EXCITING LIFE* STIMULATION VARIED*LIFE *DARING SPIRITUAL*LIFE *WORLD AT PEACE *SOCIAL JUSTICE INNER HARMONY* WORLD OF BEAUTY* *UNITY WITH NATURE BROAD* MINDED *CREATIVITY *INDEPENDENT *CURIOUS UNIVERSALISM PROTECT* ENVIRONMENT EQUALITY* SELF-DIRECTION *FREEDOM Figure 2.

161).11 . Multidimensional Space Analysis (SSA) of 21 value items across 20 ESS countries in round 1 (N= 35.8 Figure 3. coefficient of alienation .

Dynamic underpinnings of the universal value structure .9 Anxiety-based values Prevention of loss goals Self-protection against threat Regulating how one expresses personal interests & characteristics Personal Focus Anxiety-free values Promotion of gain goals Self-expansion and growth Self-Enhancement Achievement Power 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 4.

2 0. 5. Value Value Priorities Prioritiesand andBehavior Behavior 0.10 Figure 4.4 Pow Ach Hed Sti SDir Uni Ben Tra Values Con Sec .1 Correlations 0 -0.3 0.4 0.1 -0.3 -0.2 -0.

15 -.25 .12 .20 Rsq .282 All beta coefficients shown.02 Figure 6. N=1111 Native Born Universalism V Security V Age Education Religiosity Married Tradition V Gender . p<. Regression to Predict Opposition to ‘Other’ Immigrants by Native Born French .07 3 Item Index of Opposing Immigration -.10 .18 -.11 France: Opposition to ‘Other’ Immigrants ESS 2003.07 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful