This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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.
1956). Defining goal: pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself. creating. Kluckhohn. (a varied life. 1977. self-respect) have multiple meanings. note its grounding in universal requirements. What distinguishes one value from another is the type of goal or motivation that the value expresses.. choosing own goals. These requirements are: needs of individuals as biological organisms. these goals and the values that express them have crucial survival significance. rather than threatening. To make the meaning of each value more concrete and explicit.. Berlyne. Some important value items (e. The values theory defines ten broad values according to the motivation that underlies each of them. 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.. 1960).g. Rather.3 The above are features of all values. (creativity. Values are the socially desirable concepts used to represent these goals mentally and the vocabulary used to express them in social interaction. privacy] Stimulation. Defining goal: independent thought and action--choosing. curious. 1951. Stimulation values derive from the organismic need for variety and stimulation in order to maintain an optimal. Defining goal: excitement. I list in parentheses the set of value items included in the first survey instrument to measure each value.g. people must articulate appropriate goals to cope with them. Bandura. 1986). 1975). From an evolutionary viewpoint (Buss.g.. communicate with others about them. 1975) and interactional requirements of autonomy and independence (e. intelligent. an exciting life. Individuals cannot cope successfully with these requirements of human existence on their own. According to the theory. and gain cooperation in their pursuit. they express the motivational goals of more than one value. Deci. independent)[self-respect. and refer to related value concepts. exploring. requisites of coordinated social interaction. Deci. I next define each of the ten values in terms of the broad goal it expresses. Presumably. Self-direction derives from organismic needs for control and mastery (e. and challenge in life. Morris. Self-Direction. daring) Hedonism. these values encompass the range of motivationally distinct values recognized across cultures.g. This need probably relates to the needs underlying self-direction values (cf. novelty. 1983. These items are listed in brackets. and survival and welfare needs of groups. positive. freedom. level of activation (e. . Hedonism values derive from organismic needs and the pleasure associated with satisfying them. Kohn & Schooler.
1951). groups must treat power as a value. Achievement values appear in many sources (e. 1965. moderate.g.. national security. national security). achievement values (e.. Even the latter. to a significant degree. 1968) mention hedonism. family security. To justify this fact of social life and to motivate group members to accept it. influential) [intelligent. Security values derive from basic individual and group requirements (cf.. of relationships. however. Defining goal: personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. authority.g. (authority. social recognition]3 Power. Williams.4 Theorists from many disciplines (e. 1951. . social power)[preserving my public image. clean). Competent performance that generates resources is necessary for individuals to survive and for groups and institutions to reach their objectives. Value analysts have mentioned power values as well (e. 3 Achievement values differ from McClelland's (1961) achievement motivation. harmony. reciprocation of favors)[healthy. successful. express. Morris. happiness is not included.g. sense of belonging] 2 Though it is an important value. (ambitious. The functioning of social institutions apparently requires some degree of status differentiation (Parsons.g. 1973). because people achieve it through attaining whatever outcomes they value (Sagiv & Schwartz. There are two subtypes of security values. Defining goal: social status and prestige. (social order. 1961). (pleasure. social recognition] Both power and achievement values focus on social esteem. Security. However. Rokeach. others wider group interests (e.. 1968). 1933. Freud. and stability of society. As defined here. ambitious) emphasize the active demonstration of successful performance in concrete interaction. thereby obtaining social approval. the goal of security for self (or those with whom one identifies). Kluckhohn. 2000). enjoying life. Power values may also be transformations of individual needs for dominance and control (Korman. Maslow. wealth) emphasize the attainment or preservation of a dominant position within the more general social system. It is expressed in self-direction values.. clean. The two subtypes can therefore be unified into a more encompassing value. control or dominance over people and resources.. and of self. Maslow. 1956. 1980). Defining goal: safety. Allport. Williams.g. Achievement motivation concerns meeting internal standards of excellence. self-indulgent) 2 Achievement. whereas power values (e. wealth.g. capable. achievement values emphasize demonstrating competence in terms of prevailing cultural standards. self-respect. Some serve primarily individual interests (e. A dominance/submission dimension emerges in most empirical analyses of interpersonal relations both within and across cultures (Lonner.g. 1974).. 1965.
Defining goal: restraint of actions. 1983. Defining goal: preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the ‘in-group’). self-discipline. Tradition values demand responsiveness to immutable expectations from the past. loyal. a spiritual life]. accepting my portion in life)[moderate. 1906). Both values may motivate the same helpful act. commitment. they share the goal of subordinating the self in favor of socially imposed expectations. bosses. usually with close others. Benevolence values derive from the basic requirement for smooth group functioning (cf. 1930. responsible] Tradition. Williams. honest. separately or together. conformity values emphasize self-restraint in everyday interaction.. 1951). Groups everywhere develop practices. inclinations. Defining goal: respect. ideas. These become sanctioned as valued group customs and traditions (Sumner. Virtually all value analyses mention conformity (e. They differ primarily in the objects to which one subordinates the self. They symbolize the group's solidarity. Conformity values derive from the requirement that individuals inhibit inclinations that might disrupt and undermine smooth interaction and group functioning. As I define them. Freud. Benevolence values emphasize voluntary concern for others’ welfare. conformity values promote cooperation in order to avoid negative outcomes for self.5 Conformity. humble. possibly changing expectations. In contrast. Benevolence. 1956. Korman.g. express its unique worth. Kluckhohn. As a corollary. benevolence values provide an internalized motivational base for such behavior. and beliefs that represent their shared experience and fate. Parsons. responsible. 1965). spiritual life] Tradition and conformity values are especially close motivationally. They often take the form of religious rites. true friendship. honoring parents and elders)[loyal. teachers. Maslow. meaning in life. (obedient. (respect for tradition. beliefs. Most critical are relations within the family and other primary groups. 1951. and contribute to its survival (Durkheim. 1974. Conformity entails subordination to persons with whom one is in frequent interaction—parents. and norms of behavior. politeness. Tradition entails subordination to more abstract objects—religious and cultural customs and ideas. Benevolence and conformity values both promote cooperative and supportive social relations. Parsons. However. symbols. mature love)[sense of belonging. 1951). devout. forgiving. Kohn & Schooler. conformity values exhort responsiveness to current. and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion provides. 1912/1954. Morris. . 1968) and from the organismic need for affiliation (cf. and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. (helpful.
Seeking success for self tends to obstruct actions aimed at enhancing the welfare of others who need one's help. wisdom. Niebuhr. world at peace. appreciation. The value survey therefore included possible markers for spirituality. Both motivate actions of submission to external expectations. pursuing achievement values typically conflicts with pursuing benevolence values. a spiritual life] An early version of the value theory (Schwartz. Practically. devout]. protecting the environment)[inner harmony. the theory explicates the structure of dynamic relations among the values. This contrasts with the in-group focus of benevolence values. equality. spirituality is not a value that has a consistent broad meaning across cultures. 1992) raised the possibility that spirituality might constitute another near-universal value. Actions in pursuit of values have practical. detachment)[unity with nature. Universalism values derive from survival needs of individuals and groups. accepting my portion in life. pursuing tradition values is congruent with pursuing conformity values. and inner harmony through transcending everyday reality. As noted below. social justice.6 Universalism. If finding ultimate meaning is a basic human need (e. and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. Another example: Pursuing novelty and change (stimulation values) is likely to undermine preserving timehonored customs (tradition values). 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. coherence. 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.g. world of beauty. For example. Universalism combines two subtypes of concern—for the welfare of those in the larger society and world and for nature (broadminded. The Structure of Value Relations In addition to identifying ten basic values. People may then realize that failure to accept others who are different and treat them justly will lead to life-threatening strife. unity with nature. inner harmony. choosing an action alternative that promotes one value (e. 1935).g. They may also realize that failure to protect the natural environment will lead to the destruction of the resources on which life depends. tolerance.. But pursuing both achievement and power values is usually compatible. taking drugs in a cultic rite—stimulation) may literally contravene or violate a competing value (obeying the precepts . Defining goal: understanding. meaning in life. 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. gleaned from widely varied sources. and social consequences. (a spiritual life.. psychological. then spirituality might be a distinct value found in all societies. The defining goal of spiritual values is meaning. In contrast.
Rather. (j) . values form a continuum of related motivations. (d) stimulation and self-direction--intrinsic interest in novelty and mastery. action. To clarify the nature of the continuum. (f) universalism and benevolence--enhancement of others and transcendence of selfish interests. This dimension captures the conflict between values that emphasize concern for the welfare and interests of others (universalism. And others may impose social sanctions by pointing to practical and logical inconsistencies between an action and other values the person professes. Of course. as noted above. unequivocal rejection of opposing values. (c) hedonism and stimulation--a desire for affectively pleasant arousal. Although the theory discriminates ten values. self-restriction. it postulates that. Viewing values as organized along two bipolar dimensions lets us summarize the oppositions between competing values. stimulation) and values that emphasize order.7 of one’s religion—tradition). but not in a single act. This signifies that tradition values conflict more strongly with the opposing values. Tradition and conformity are located in a single wedge because. This dimension captures the conflict between values that emphasize independence of thought. They therefore demand a stronger. at different times. Hedonism shares elements of both openness to change and self-enhancement. I note the shared motivational emphases of adjacent values: (a) power and achievement--social superiority and esteem. (b) achievement and hedonism--self-centered satisfaction. achievement). and resistance to change (security. one dimension contrasts ‘openness to change’ and ‘conservation’ values. As Figure 1 shows. they do so through different acts. at a more basic level. This continuum gives rise to the circular structure. benevolence) and values that emphasize pursuit of one's own interests and relative success and dominance over others (power. and in different settings. The expectations linked to tradition values are more abstract and absolute than the interaction-based expectations of conformity values. (h) benevolence and conformity--normative behavior that promotes close relationships. Conformity is more toward the center and tradition toward the periphery. people can and do pursue competing values. (e) self-direction and universalism--reliance upon one's own judgment and comfort with the diversity of existence. The second dimension contrasts ‘selfenhancement’ and ‘self-transcendence’ values. preservation of the past. (i) conformity and tradition--subordination of self in favor of socially imposed expectations. conformity. they share the same broad motivational goal. The person choosing what to do may also sense that such alternative actions are psychologically dissonant. The circular structure in Figure 1 portrays the total pattern of relations of conflict and congruity among values. (g) benevolence and tradition--devotion to one's in-group. tradition). and feelings and readiness for change (selfdirection.
I return to this implication below.4 Each item expresses an aspect of the motivational goal of one value. 1 (unlabeled). Schwartz. 0 (not important). 1992). 2005a). 4 . 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. 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. (l) security and power-avoiding or overcoming threats by controlling relationships and resources. One item in the 56-item SVS (1988) was dropped and two others added in the revised 57-item version (1994). 4 (unlabeled). The closer any two values in either direction around the circle. For example. 3 (important). the more similar their underlying motivations. An explanatory phrase in parentheses following the item further specifies its meaning. 1992. This is especially This followed Rokeach’s (1973) idea that ends values and means values function differently.8 tradition and security--preserving existing social arrangements that give certainty to life. 5. Conceiving values as organized in a circular motivational structure has an important implication for the relations of values to other variables. the circular arrangement of the values represents a motivational continuum. 5 Schwartz (1994) explains the rational for preferring rating of value importance to ranking. 5 People view most values as varying from mildly to very important. My research suggests that this distinction has no substantive importance (Schwartz. ‘EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all)’ is a universalism item. the more antagonistic their motivations. The first contains 30 items that describe potentially desirable end-states in noun form. 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). 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 second contains 26 or 27 items that describe potentially desirable ways of acting in adjective form. In sum. The scale also enables respondents to report opposition to values that they try to avoid expressing or promoting. -1 (opposed to my values). the more distant. 6 (very important). as revealed in pre-tests. It implies that the whole set of ten values relates to any other variable in an integrated manner. 2. (k) conformity and security--protection of order and harmony in relations. The SVS presents two lists of value items. ‘PLEASURE (gratification of desires)’ is a hedonism item. This nonsymmetrical scale is stretched at the upper end and condensed at the bottom in order to map the way people think about values.
Comparing other to self directs attention only to aspects of the other that are portrayed. respondents answer: “How much like you is this person? Responses are: very much like me. gender-matched with the respondent (Schwartz. to assess whether the values theory is valid independent of method required an alternative instrument. Each portrait describes a person’s goals. The SVS has been translated into 48 languages.68.9 necessary for cross-cultural studies because people in one culture or subculture may reject values from others cultures.61 for tradition to . teacher. of the elderly. Across 212 samples (national representative.75 for universalism (Schwartz. 2005b. and of persons not educated in Western schools that emphasize abstract. they capture the person’s values without explicitly identifying values as the topic of Both Brocke and Bilsky (2005) and Oishi. Respondents are asked to compare the portrait to themselves rather than themselves to the portrait. 2005b). Schwartz. So. The number of items to measure each value ranges from three (hedonism) to eight (universalism). “It is important to him to be rich. a little like me. and not like me at all. et al. alpha reliabilities of the 10 values average . aspirations. Schimmack. The SVS had not proven suitable to such samples. Equally important. 2005a) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA. student). or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a value. Diener. He likes to do things in his own original way” describes a person for whom self-direction values are important. 1992. We infer respondents’ own values from their self-reported similarity to people described implicitly in terms of particular values. context-free thinking. 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. For each portrait. 2001). The score for the importance of each value is the average rating given to items designated a priori as markers of that value. For example: “Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. Only value items that have demonstrated near-equivalence of meaning across cultures in analyses using multi-dimensional scaling (SSA. 2004) are included in the indexes. 1994. 6 . not like me. the similarity judgment is also likely to focus on these value-relevant aspects. Thus. ranging from . reflecting the conceptual breadth of the values. The verbal portraits describe each person in terms of what is important to him or her. and Suh (1998) have subsequently developed paired comparison instruments based on the SVS to measure the ten basic values. Schwartz & Boehnke.. like me. He wants to have a lot of money and expensive things” describes a person who cherishes power values.6 The PVQ includes short verbal portraits of 40 different people. somewhat like me. Schwartz.
The same term can refer both to a value and a trait (e. not the absolute importance of any one value. Others use the middle of the response scales.56. alpha reliabilities of the ten values averaged . ranging from .org) chose the theory and the PVQ as the basis for developing a human values scale to include in the survey. nor do those who exhibit a trait necessarily value the corresponding goal. the decisive factor in selecting items was to maximize coverage of the varied conceptual components of each value rather than to increase internal reliability. This is because it is the tradeoff among relevant values. obedience).36 (tradition) to . The designers of the European Social Survey (ESS: www. tradition values obviously have higher priority for a person who rates all other . The ESS version includes 21 items. ranging from . people who value a goal do not necessarily exhibit the corresponding trait. The appendix presents the male version of the ESS scale. which influences behavior and attitudes. All the value items have demonstrated nearequivalence of meaning across cultures in analyses using multi-dimensional scaling (SSA. Despite the same absolute score. 2005b).68. Schwartz.europeansocialsurvey. and power) to six (universalism). people may value creativity as a guiding principle in life but not be creative. hedonism. The PVQ asks about similarity to someone with particular goals and aspirations (values) rather than similarity to someone with particular traits.10 investigation. Some people rate most abstract values very important as guiding principles or most portraits very similar to themselves. And some creative people may attribute little importance to creativity as a value that guides them. most from the PVQ and a few revised to encompass additional ideas in order better to cover the content of the ten different values. As seen below. reflecting the conceptual breadth of the values. given the constraint of so few items.80 for achievement (Schwartz 2005b). and still others rate most values unimportant or most portraits dissimilar to themselves.70 (achievement). ambition. Say. For example. Across 20 representative national samples. These reliabilities reflect the fact that only two items measure each value (three for universalism).. The score for the importance of each value is the average rating given to these items. Alpha reliabilities of the values with this version averaged . Across 14 samples from 7 countries. The scale should measure people’s value priorities. two people rate tradition values 4. Equally important. despite low reliabilities these values predict behavior and attitudes systematically. The number of portraits for each value ranges from three (stimulation.47 for tradition to . all of which were designated a priori as markers of a value. Correcting Response Tendencies Respondents differ in their use of the response scales both in the SVS and the PVQ. However. wisdom. the relative importance of the different values.g.
Specifically. To measure value priorities accurately. I analyzed this matrix with Similarity Structure Analysis (SSA) (Borg & Shye.. To correct. The SVS data were gathered between 1988 and 2002 from 233 samples from 68 countries located on every inhabited continent (total N= 64. adolescents (10). religious. Rules for partitioning are described in Schwartz (1992. 1968). Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Theory of Value Content and Structure As evidence for the theory. like that shown in Figure 2. the more related they should be empirically and hence the closer their locations should be in the multidimensional space. but without partition lines. and occupational groups.271). one must correct individual differences in use of the response scales. 1995. If the motivational content of values is the most powerful principle that organizes people's value priorities. . grade k-12 school teachers (74). I bring the findings of assessments with data using the SVS and data using the ESS version of the PVQ. age. value items from adjacent types of values may intermix rather than emerge in clearly distinct regions. gender. The a priori assignment of items to values guides the partitioning of the maps. and adult convenience samples (22). I prepared a matrix of Pearson correlations between the 56 or 57 value items. For each sample. it should be possible to partition the space into distinct regions containing the items that represent each of the 10 values. 2006). This converts absolute value scores into scores that indicate the relative importance of each value to the person. The samples include highly diverse geographic.e. Items near the boundaries of adjacent values inevitably overlap somewhat in meaning. Because values form a motivational continuum. the relations among value items in the two-dimensional space should reflect this content. 2005a). 2005a. undergraduate students from a variety of fields (111). cultural. If the theory accurately describes the structure of value relations.11 values lower than for one who rates all other values higher. 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. the decisions about exact boundaries are arbitrary. SVS. linguistic. Samples include those that represent a nation or a region in it (16). i. Guttman. Consequently. in analyses in many samples. The greater the conceptual similarity between any two items. The SSA provides 2-dimensional spatial maps of relations among values. we center each person’s responses on his or her own mean (details in Schwartz. then the observed regions should form a circular pattern similar to the theoretical structure of Figure 1. the person’s value priorities.
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. The location of tradition between conformity and benevolence rather than behind conformity is a slight deviation better evaluated based on single sample findings. and Schwartz (submitted) analyzed the data from the 71 samples from 32 countries that participated in the first three rounds of the ESS. In the absence of evidence for a more specific structure. Bilsky. Janik. Nonetheless. The overall structure of relations among the 10 values determines the hypothesized locations of the 21 items relative to one another. with one divided into an inner and an outer segment that represent conformity and tradition (cf. ESS Human Values Scale. Design matrix. 2007) for the analyses. it may be adequate. Marker values are in bold. As a first step. Figure 3 presents results of an MDS analysis of these items based on all respondents in round 1 of the ESS. Central to this approach is a starting configuration which assigns every variable (i. 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 value items represent the 10 more general basic values in the theory. and security value regions.. Figure 1). theoretically grounded hypothesis about the structure of the values. The proposed spirituality items emerged most frequently in the tradition. 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. As can be seen. 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. The nine sectors serve as the basis . I elaborate on the MDS analyses of the ESS data in some detail. They chose a weakly constrained confirmatory approach (Borg & Staufenbiel. benevolence. every value formed either a distinctive region or an intermixed region with a conceptually adjacent value in at least 96% of samples. a design matrix of values was deduced from the structural model in which the 10 values are represented by nine sectors. this analysis confirms the structure of ten distinguishable values.e. Equal spacing of the nine sectors at 40° angles is not a defining feature of the Schwartz model. In separate analyses in 233 samples. every value item) its place within the hypothesized structure of values.12 Figure 2 presents an example of SSA results for 57 value items from the aggregate sample across all nations. Given the focus of this conference. respectively. A weakly constrained confirmatory MDS is appropriate given the explicit. such a simple and regular structure is functional. ordered around the circle according to theory. universalism. however.
Table 1 shows the design matrix. conformity and tradition. An MDS in each sample using the three other options for starting configurations in the PROXSCAL program. Moreover. The starting configuration. As can be seen. like the design matrix. may signify a real cultural difference if they recur across samples from the same country. in 42/71 samples. maximum iterations = 100). The matrices of Pearson correlation coefficients between the 21 PVQ–items were analyzed with ordinal MDS (defaults for ties and iteration criteria: keepties. Reversals of order. two items operationalize each of nine values and three items operationalize the tenth (universalism). This characterizes most of the deviations listed in Table 2. Schwartz and Boehnke (2004) demonstrated configural invariance for ten latent value factors across 23 countries.0001. whether reversals of the order around the circle or mixing of two values. The coordinates are determined trigonometrically by referring to the unit circle and summarizing them in the design matrix. every one of the deviations.0. Therefore. using the SVS. an MDS program in SPSS. the theorized circular order of values was perfectly reproduced.5 instead of 1. Data analysis. involved values that are adjacent in the circle.13 for specifying the prototypical location of each value by corresponding coordinates. and random (1000 random starts) yielded virtually the same mean stress values across all samples. The structural analyses of the ESS values data were accomplished with PROXSCAL. Torgerson. In the PVQ21. This occurred in Portugal and in Hungary in the order of the three conservation values. the starting configuration for all the value items is defined. Nine of the 10 values are represented by points on the periphery of this circle. Schmidt. Confirmatory factor analyses provide more formal statistical tests of the content and structure of values. stress convergence = . all items that index the same value receive the coordinates specified for that value in the design matrix. even among adjacent values. Starting configuration. Davidov. The coordinates of the tenth value (conformity) are determined in the same way. simplex (the default). Schwartz and Sagiv (1995) demonstrated that mixing of items from two adjacent values deviations are likely to be chance variations. minimum stress = . Table 2 summarizes results of the MDS structural analyses. It includes information about all observed deviations from the hypothesized circular structure. using the starting configuration in Table 1. security. and Schwartz (2008) had to unify pairs of values that are motivationally close into seven latent factors to . 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. As a second step. their coordinates derive from the centre of that circular arc which is marked by the respective (value) sector.0001. though with a radius of 0. should represent the prototypical structure of values.
2. self-direction. People seek to avoid conflict (conformity) and to maintain the current order (tradition. but their goals also regulate pursuit of own interests. They combined the following pairs of adjacent values: Universalism/benevolence. benevolence) express anxiety-free motivations. wealthy persons can pursue power values more easily. Pursuit of values on the left in Figure 4 serves to cope with anxiety due to uncertainty in the social and physical world. stimulation. universalism. They primarily concern others’ interests.7 A second principle is the interests that value attainment serves. but each orients the circle differently. Close examination of the structure suggests other dynamic principles (see Figure 4). Figure 1 shows that security and universalism values are boundary values. achievement. security) or actively to control threat (power). For example. Values in the bottom panel (benevolence. . Thus far. conformity.14 obtain configural and metric invariance across the 20 countries in the first round of the ESS. Relations of values to anxiety are a third organizing principle. 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. conformity/tradition. universalism. It may have been necessary to unify values because the 21-item ESS instrument measures each value with so few items. we now look more closely at the possible roots of this structure. Figures 1. stimulation. When examining relations of value priorities with other variables. security) primarily regulate how one relates socially to others and affects their interests. tradition. 7 The value theory specifies the order of the 10 values. Roots of the Dynamic Structure of Value Relations Having shown that the structure of relations among values is near-universal. Achievement values do both: Meeting social standards successfully may control anxiety and it may affirm one’s sense of competence. self-direction) primarily regulate how one expresses personal interests and characteristics. power/achievement. we identified congruence and conflict among the values that are implicated simultaneously in decisions as one dynamic principle that organizes the structure of values. and people who work in the free professions can express self-direction values more easily. hedonism. Rotation of the multi-dimensional representation of values does not affect the meaning of the structure. I note several instances in which the values that the CFA suggests combining have meaningfully different associations. Values on the right (hedonism. Values in the top panel of Figure 4 (power. 3 and 4 show the same order.
gender. 1984). They upgrade the importance they attribute to values they can readily attain and downgrade the importance of values whose pursuit is blocked (Schwartz & Bardi. stimulation. The reverse occurs with values that concern material well-being and security. people in jobs that afford freedom of choice increase the importance of self-direction values at the expense of conformity values (Kohn & Schooler. achievement) decrease. when they are attained easily. in turn. the social roles they play. but not to all values. This implies that self-transcendence values (benevolence.15 Life circumstances also impose constraints against pursuing or expressing values. they tend to become more embedded in social networks. 1997). When such values are blocked. 1983). 1997). their importance increases. their importance drops. more committed to habitual patterns. life circumstances make the pursuit or expression of different values more or less rewarding or costly. education. affect their value priorities. see Schwartz (2005b). Age and Life Course As people grow older. Upgrading attainable values and downgrading thwarted values applies to most. This section examines key sociodemographic variables as crucial antecedents of individual differences in value priorities. which. people adapt their values to their life circumstances. And people with strongly ethnocentric peers find it hard to express universalism values. This implies that conservation values (tradition. Having dependent children constrains parents to limit their pursuit of stimulation values. income and other characteristics affect their socialization and learning experiences. and the abilities they develop. differences in background characteristics largely determine the differences in life circumstances to which people are exposed. 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. they tend to become less preoccupied with their own strivings and more concerned with the welfare of others (Veroff. Thus. Typically. In other words. People’s age. & Feld. Once people enter families of procreation and attain stable positions in the occupational world. security) should increase with age and openness to change values (self-direction. hedonism) decrease. . Thus. conformity. universalism) increase with age and selfenhancement values (power. Reuman. 1974). and less exposed to arousing and exciting changes and challenges (Glen.8 8 For more detail. Thus. the expectations and sanctions they encounter.
with the exception of universalism values. education correlates positively with achievement values. All associations are monotonic. In addition. differences for conformity and tradition values are inconsistent. Universalism values begin to rise only in the last years of secondary school. Though ordered as expected. the correlations of age with achievement and power are quite different. Note that women gave higher priority than men to tradition values in all 20 ESS countries but conformity values in only 13 countries. expectations. despite the fact that these values are adjacent. These same experiences increase the openness to non-routine ideas and activity central to stimulation values. All the observed correlations confirm the expected associations and support the probable processes of influence. The increasing competencies to cope with life that people acquire through education may also reduce the importance of security values. Gender Various theories of gender difference lead researchers to postulate that men emphasize agentic-instrumental values like power and achievement. The associations of education with values are largely linear. They are substantially higher among those who attend university.16 The first column of Table 3 reports correlations of age with values across 20 ESS countries from round 1. flexibility. 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. Analyses with the SVS and PVQ instruments across 68 countries yield similar results. statistically significant. Gender differences for eight values are consistent. thereby undermining conformity and tradition values. could account for this. This may reflect both the broadening of horizons that university education provides and a tendency for . The number of countries in which the correlation was in the same direction as the overall correlation appears in parentheses. Most theorists expect gender differences to be small. while females emphasize expressive-communal values like benevolence and universalism (Schwartz & Rubel. 2005). Column 2 of Table 3 supports expectations regarding both the nature and strength of value relations to gender in the ESS data. In contrast. and small. tradition. these experiences challenge unquestioning acceptance of prevailing norms. The constant grading and comparing of performance in schools. Education Educational experiences presumably promote the intellectual openness. and security values. emphasizing meeting external standards. and traditions. and breadth of perspective essential for self-direction values (Kohn & Schooler 1983).
and power values. and achievement values and render security. the order of associations for the whole set of ten values follows a predictable pattern. The data in Table 3 illustrate this pattern. 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. The integrated structure of values makes it easier to theorize about relations of value priorities to other variables. self-direction. It reduces security threats and the need to restrict one’s impulses and to maintain supportive. the expected pattern of associations with all other values follows from the circular value structure. support these expectations. traditional ties. The value theory enables us to treat peoples’ value systems as coherent structures. This structure has two implications for value relations: (1) Values that are adjacent in the structure should have similar associations with other variables. or behavior (e. If a background variable. Table 3 lists the values in an order corresponding to their order around the circular structure of value relations (cf.. attitude.g. integrated manner. Higher income should therefore promote valuing of stimulation. achievement. The correlations in Table 3 generally exhibit both features of value relations. Income Affluence creates opportunities to engage in discretionary activities and to choose one’s life style freely. or behavior correlates most positively with one value and most negatively with another. Once theory identifies the values likely to relate most and least . Associations with universalism values have a different pattern than those with benevolence values. hedonism. Income contributed to higher stimulation.17 those who give high priority to universalism values to seek higher education. Figure 1). The critical idea is the circular motivational structure of values. equality and civil rights--Rokeach. It allows us to relate the full set of values to other variables in an organized. The correlations between total household income (12 categories) and value priorities. That is. 1984. primarily in the upper third of the income distribution and to lower tradition. in column 4 of Table 3. social class and obedience—Alwin. and tradition values less important. 1973). attitude. self-direction. conformity and security values. conformity. (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. 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.
9 For example. Tradition and stimulation values had especially low mean importance in these groups. Participants completed the SVS.9 Predicting Behavior with Basic Values Do people’s value priorities influence their behavior in systematic. they rated how frequently they had performed each behavior in the past year. Why? In this study. Second. weakened value-behavior relations. The association of education with achievement values is one such deviation. With other-reported behavior. intimate partners or close peers rated participants’ behavior too. Hence. 1996). consider three studies of everyday behavior. all but the security correlation are significant. and Christians in Israel modify associations of value priorities with readiness for contact with out-groups. normative group pressure was greatest for security. The integrated structure serves as a template that reveals “deviations” from the expected pattern. priorities for these values showed stronger value-behavior correlations.18 positively to a variable. and zero associations for the remaining values. Column 2 and 3 of Table 4 list the correlations between each value and its relevant behaviors. All correlations with self-reported behavior are significant and most are substantial. the circular motivational structure then implies a specific pattern of positive. external pressure is weaker for behaviors that express values of little importance to the group. As a first example of value-behavior relations. . predictable ways? For a discussion of the mechanisms through which values may influence behavior. one develops theoretical explanations for why or why not to expect these implied associations. The behavior indexes were the average frequency ratings of the behavior items that express each value. Next. even when a behavior opposes one’s own values. Self-reports probably exaggerate value-behavior relations. Deviations are especially interesting because they direct us to search for special conditions that enhance or weaken relations of a variable with values (Schwartz. Muslims. Sagiv and Schwartz (1995) show how unique aspects of relations among Jews. conformity. Bardi and Schwartz (2003) generated ten sets of 6-10 behaviors that primarily express one of the ten basic values. Some values correlate more strongly with their relevant behaviors than others do. In studies 2 and 3. permitting own values to have more influence. Everyday behavior. see Schwartz (2006). benevolence. relative to their opportunities to perform it. negative. and achievement behaviors. other reports probably underestimate them. Later. Yielding to normative pressure.
we must consider the importance of the values the behavior will harm as well as those it will promote. opposed in the circle. To the extent that citizens recognize these differences. The intended consequences of such a policy are compatible with power. Compared to the other choices. to behavior takes us outside the laboratory.8є to the other. Moreover. Typically. The cooperative choice entailed taking the equivalent of 1є for self and giving 0. The next example of how value systems relate. Both coalitions championed liberal democracy. perhaps. and family and national values. Participants who completed the SVS were paired with another student to play a game. Benevolence correlates most positively. this meant sacrificing a little of what one could gain (0. Analyses of the consequences of cooperative and noncooperative behavior for the goals of the ten values suggested that benevolence and power values. maximizing either one's absolute gain (individualism) or relative gain (competing). based on the motivational structure of value relations. universalism and. A study of cooperation/competition (Schwartz. power most negatively. 1996) illustrates the crucial idea of trade-offs between competing values in guiding behavioral choice. Power values should relate most strongly to noncooperation. The probability of a behavior depends on the relative priority a person gives to the relevant. Voting. But they may harm the opposing values in the value circle. are most relevant. But there were also policy differences. Each would receive the amount of money they allocated to self plus the amount their partner allocated to them. 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. They emphasize competitive advantage and legitimize maximizing own gain even at the expense of others. The other two choices were both not cooperative. To predict a behavior successfully.2є) and giving the maximum to the other. Hence. as expected. as integrated wholes. The latter values call for promoting the . Cooperation is more a matter of conventional decency and thoughtfulness in this setting than of basic commitment to social justice. the values whose attainment is most affected by them should influence their voting patterns. security. benevolence. They were to choose one of three alternatives for allocating money between self and a member of their group whose identity was not revealed.19 Cooperative behavior. The correlations in column 3 of Table 4 confirm the hypothesis. competing values. benevolence values should relate to cooperation most strongly. the order of the correlations follows the order around the value circle from benevolence to power (See Figure 5). and achievement values. center-right and center-left. There were two main coalitions in the Italian elections of 2001. The center-right emphasized entrepreneurship and the market economy. security.
social justice. 2006). occupation. Figure 5 portrays the pattern of correlations. marital status. political choice in these elections consisted of a trade-off between power. controlling gender. Figure 1). the correlation of universalism was the most negative. And universalism values express concern for the weak. contacting a politician. We computed point-biserial correlations of voting with the 10 values. we turn to political activism. and achievement values on the right and universalism and benevolence values on the left. For a final illustration of the effects of basic values on behavior. Column 4 of Table 4 presents correlations between value priorities and voting for the center-right. legal acts out of nine that respondents reported performing in the past year (e. Moreover. Adults from the Rome region completed the PVQ and reported the coalition they had voted for in the 2001 election. I hypothesized: Supporting the center-right vs. Because universalism values promote social . participating in a public demonstration. boycotting a product). those most likely to suffer from market-driven policies. security. center-left correlates most positively with the priority given to power and security values and most negatively with the priority given to universalism values. The intended consequences of such a policy are compatible with universalism and benevolence values. and those with benevolence values negative. and the correlation of benevolence was negative too. Thus.20 welfare of others even at cost to the self. income. however. note that correlations of individuals’ income. with pursuing individual power and achievement values and with security values that emphasize preserving the social order. On that basis. 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. values explained almost three times as much variance in voting as did the Big 5 personality traits (Caprara.. In contrast. The positive correlations with security. gender. age. Correlations with the priority of achievement values should also be positive.g. the center-left advocated social welfare. and tolerance even of groups that might disturb the conventional social order. Political activism was measured as the number of politically relevant. power. et al. showing the expected sinusoidal curve that reflects the motivational continuum of values. We coded vote as (0) for center-left and (1) for center-right. and age with vote were all less than . and achievement were also significant. The 21-item PVQ measured value priorities. education. equality. and education.. Political Activism. As hypothesized. Data are from 1244 French citizens in the 2003 national representative sample of the ESS. To put the strength of these correlations in perspective.08. They conflict.
those who cherish universalism values. and hedonism values are especially important should oppose immigration less. security and conformity should show the most negative correlations. 11 Schwartz (2006) reports analyses of individual and country differences in opposition to immigration in 15 West European countries. tradition.21 justice and environmental preservation—goals of much activism—they should correlate most strongly with activism. preserving secular and Christian French traditions. consider the effects of basic values on an attitude of major concern in Europe today. with their goal of acceptance.10 Opposition to Immigration. In contrast those who value openness to change should feel less threatened and might welcome enrichment of their society. 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 conformity values are especially important should more strongly oppose immigration. The simple pursuit of excitement also plays a role. and maintaining widespread norms. Three items in the ESS measured opposition to accepting ‘other’ immigrants—those of a different race/ethnic group. Those for whom security. Moreover. revealing the expected sinusoidal curve that reflects the motivational continuum of values with one exception. Here I focus on the sample of 1125 native born residents of France.11 Opposition to ‘other’ immigrants in the current French atmosphere likely reflects concern with preserving the status quo—protecting personal and social security. Stimulation values show a higher than expected positive correlation. 10 . These correlations fully confirm expectations. should oppose immigration least. appreciation. and concern for the welfare even of those who are different. Figure 5 portrays the pattern of correlations. Thus. Schwartz (2006) reports analyses of individual and country differences in political activism in all 20 ESS countries. Because activism is risky and oriented to change. people for whom selfdirection. 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. opposition to immigration. and poorer non-European countries. 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. stimulation. To conclude this section. from poorer European.
gender.15/. and the market economy. We still do not know whether the theory applies in more isolated tribal groups with minimal exposure to urbanization. perhaps because they feel more threatened by perceived social disruption. subjective assessment of adequacy of household income.22 The observed pattern of correlations fully supports these hypotheses. universalism. Security values correlate most positively with opposition (. years of education completed. Conclusion The values theory has identified ten basic. those who are married. whereas tradition values predict more opposition. motivationally distinguishable values that people in virtually all cultures implicitly recognize. having been unemployed for 3 months or more.. The validity of this claim does not depend on the way we measure values. having ever had children at home. They also experience conflict between pursuing self-transcendence or self-enhancement values. followed by security values (positive). and women oppose immigration more.28). . People everywhere experience conflict between pursuing openness to change values or conservation values. These processes may point the way toward a unifying theory of human motivation. I regressed opposition on the value priorities and on the following background variables: age. the tradeoff between giving high priority to promoting the welfare of all others (universalism values) and avoiding personal. Figure 5 presents results of the regression. The other predicted correlations are also significant (all >/. national. Since religiosity is in the regression. power vs. In order to provide a fuller picture of the antecedents of opposition to accepting ‘other’ immigrants in France. p<. degree of religiosity. Especially striking is the emergence of the same circular structure of relations among values across countries and measurement instruments. tradition vs.001). I suggested several dynamic processes that may account for the observed circular structure. Older people. Conflicts between specific values (e. mass media. marital status. Greater education and religiosity predict less opposition.g. 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). and interpersonal threat (security values) has the greatest impact on readiness to accept ‘other’ immigrants. The values theory applies in populations exposed to westernized schooling but also in populations with little or no education. hedonism) are also near-universal. Universalism values predicted opposition most strongly (negative).39) and universalism values correlated most negatively (-. the finding for tradition values signifies opposition based on protecting nonreligious customs and ways of doing things. Thus.
Values influence most if not all motivated behavior. condoms and drugs. They choose alternatives that promote higher as against lower priority values. and numerous voting studies. various environmental and consumer behaviors. social dominance. participation in sports. sexism. moral. delinquency.g. People tend to behave in ways that balance their opposing values. social contact with out-groups. religiosity. upholding. worries. This paper gave several examples of how value priorities relate to behavior and attitudes. attitudes toward ethical dilemmas. Future research must address possible interactions among background variables. independent and dependent behavior. Among personality variables studied are social desirability. prediction. Almost any behavior has positive implications for expressing. In keeping with the structure of values identified by the theory. but negative implications for the values across the structural circle in opposing positions. autocratic. As a result. hunting. subjective well-being. shoplifting. I have drawn only the simplest picture of the separate. Among the behaviors studied are use of alcohol. Researchers in more than 30 countries have used the system of ten basic values to understand and sometimes to predict other individual differences. Socio-demographic characteristics contribute to explaining individual differences in value priorities because they represent different sets of life experiences.23 Individual value priorities arise out of adaptation to life experiences.. competition. toward the environment. and the Big 5 personality traits. attitude. But the reverse occurs with values that concern material well-being and security. trust in institutions. self-direction and stimulation). occupation and medical specialty.. or attaining some values. the order of positive and negative associations between any specific behavior and the ten values tends to follow the order of the value circle. . religious and sexual behavior. and identification with one’s nation or group. organizational commitment. linear effects of a few background variables. authoritarianism. This proliferation of behavior. Adaptation may take the form of upgrading attainable values and downgrading thwarted values.g. antecedents affect priorities in a systematic manner. The values theory provides a framework for relating the system of ten values to behavior that enriches analysis. 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. They tend to enhance the importance of values that are adjacent in the value circle (e. choice of university major. and explanation of value-behavior relations. Among attitudinal variables studied are job satisfaction. interpersonal problems. conformity and security) but to undermine the importance of the competing values (e.
T. In T. Kohn.. Facet theory: Form and content. New York: Holt. The elementary forms of religious life. D. S. S. Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. Pattern and growth in personality. (1969).: Dorsey Press. (2007). Psychological Review. valences.. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. N. (1897/1964). Guttman. MA: Harvard University Press. H. N. & Schooler. 359-382. 72. Modernization and postmodernization..L. & Shye. 90. & Staufenbiel. C. NJ: Van Nostrand. Feather.). Korman. Psychometrica. L.W. Intrinsic motivation. traits. Rinehart & Winston. Englewood Cliffs. (1974). Inglehart. New York: McGraw-Hill. London: Sage.C. A. Lambert (Eds. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Deci. July).. Freud. (2001). The division of labor in society.. M.H. NJ: Princeton University Press. 41-50. Schmidt. 68. C. Homewood. (1995). NJ: Prentice-Hall. Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. (1980). (1977). Paper delivered at the 1st European Association for Survey Research Conference. I. Huber: Bern. P. E. Janik. E. A. Norwood. The origins of values: Essays in the Sociology and Philosophy of Beliefs. W. Suicide. (1983). Buss.. Durkheim. The measurement of value preferences by paired comparisons. London: Hogarth Press. D. Toward a general theory of action (pp. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. L. (1930). B. Borg. (1912/1954). 33.. Theorien und Methoden der Skalierung. C. Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. (1968). (2008). New York: Plenum. Davidov. Boudon.). S. Political Psychology. Shils (Eds. Princeton. D. Glencoe. Glencoe.24 References Allport. & Schwartz. Work and personality. Schwartz. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. H. (2006). M. 24. F. Can a social science be anchored in evolutionary biology? Four problems and a strategic solution. S. The structural organization of human values – evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS) Borg.. Parsons & E. 1135-1151. arousal and curiosity. (2005. Glen. 415. I.H. A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. 469-506. Kluckhohn. In H. 191-215. S. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales. Freud. (1965). 176-186. 29. IL: Free Press. (1974). Aging and conservatism. Maslow. Eupsychian management. S. The search for psychological universals. R. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.. Class and conformity. E. Berlyne. & Bilsky.: Free Press. & Schwartz. R. M.: Free Press. Brocke. Cambridge. Spain. (submitted). Vecchione.M. Bilsky. Values. W. 420-445. Il. American Journal of Sociology. H. Durkheim. Perspectives: Vol. IL: Dorsey. Capanna. (1995). 84. Bandura. The achieving society.. . (1984). Personality and politics: Values. A. 1-28. New York: Norton.. Triandis & W. Lonner. D. Caprara. Public Opinion Quarterly. T. NJ: Ablex. (1986). The psychology of motivation. & Schwartz. (1951).J.W. (1933). G. Princeton. G. C. McClelland. 1958-1983. E.. Barcelona. Alwin. D. W. Glencoe. Bardi. Civilization and its discontents. (1893/1964). (1960). (1961). (1997).L. & Barbaranelli.388-433). 1. Conflict. E. S. 1207-1220. and political choice. 27. (1961). Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit. Il. New introductory lectures in psychoanalysis. (1975). New York: Transaction Publishers. M. Kohn.C. Homewood. Durkheim. A. Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. and choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. IL. (2003).E. V.
L. (1987). C.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2001). Political Psychology. & Boehnke. H. New York: Free Press. some style. R.. In M. E. New York: Scribner’s.H.. Glencoe. (1997).. G. G. Folkways.. J. : Free Press. Sills (Ed. Value priorities and social desirability: Much substance. Schwartz. H. Veroff. 30.P. (2000).. Verkasalo.). Schwartz. Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. 8 (pp. 437-448. British Journal of Social Psychology. S. S. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 4. Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. 20. (1997). (2005a). Valores e comportamento nas organizações [Values and behavior in organizations] pp. 550-562. 24. (1935). Melech. & M. Schwartz. Basic human values: Their content and structure across countries.. The psychology of values: The Ontario Symposium. & Bilsky. G. . (1906). Schwartz. H. Schwartz. idem pp..1-24). Worries and values. 38. In C. S. Porto (Eds. 32. Value orientations: Measurement. Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Schwartz. 309-346. Schimmack. (2004).H. H. Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues.). H. R. 255-277. Schwartz. U. 25) (pp.. The nature of human values. Hillsdale. 56-95. S.89. Jr. Zanna (Eds. M. (1995). A. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 177-198. Influences of adaptation to communist rule on value priorities in Eastern Europe. & Eva. In E.. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. T. C.)..H. Developmental Psychology. 519-542. (2005b).. Schwartz. 36. & Rubel. Weber. & Boehnke. S. Olson. (1984). H. antecedents and consequences across nations.. Toward a psychological structure of human values. R. Diener. The social system. M. Seligman. 68. Rohan.1 Morris. K. & Harris. S. New York: Academic Press. H. In A. S. & Feld. (1905/1958). L. (2000). (1994). Fitzgerald. J. Schwartz. J. S. 19-45. 230-255. Williams. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries.W. (1992). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values. & Schwartz. Varieties of human value. Schwartz. 21-55. (2000). Boston: Ginn & Co. An interpretation of Christian ethics. H.).. 3-18. A rose by any name? The values construct. H. D. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. W. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. K. B. Vol. Lehmann. M. 1177-1189. Schwartz. Roberts. S. Burgess. (2006). European Journal of Social Psychology. A. & Sagiv. R. & Bardi. Zanna (Ed. 69. (1996). Oishi.. In A. & Suh. New York: Macmillan.. H. S. Values.. Motives in American men and women across the adult life span. Brazil: Vozes. (1998). (1951). (2005) Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Tamayo & J... Journal of Research in Personality. (1956). 53. A. S. W. & Schwartz. (Eds. New York: Harper. NJ: Erlbaum. S. Extending the crosscultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. In Jowell. Schwartz. S. T. E. S. Niebuhr. Rokeach.) Measuring attitudes crossnationally .lessons from the European Social Survey. S. (1973). Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects. Sagiv. 385-410. Parsons. S.. Antonovsky. M. B. Sumner. Sagiv. London: Sage.). H. M. M. Reuman. The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism. 18. Tamayo & J. Journal of Personality.. Schwartz. Petrópolis. (1968). Il. 1142-1158. S. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1-65). L. Personality and Social Psychology Review.. International encyclopedia of the social sciences. L. S. Porto (Eds. 50.M. H. Sagiv. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
AC It is important to her to live in secure surroundings. She believes everyone should have equal opportunities in life. She wants the state to be strong so it can defend its citizens. She wants people to do what she says. Female Version. She wants to care for their well-being. Looking after the environment is important to her. She wants to devote herself to people close to her. She wants to have a lot of money and expensive things. ST She believes that people should do what they're told. she still wants to understand them. ST 16 It is important to her always to behave properly. SE She likes surprises and is always looking for new things to do. She likes to do things in her own original way. PO She thinks it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. CO 17 It is important to her to get respect from others. SE 15 She looks for adventures and likes to take risks. PO 18 It is important to her to be loyal to her friends. BE 19 She strongly believes that people should care for nature. SD It is important to her to be rich. She tries to follow the customs handed down by her religion or her family. SD 12 It's very important to her to help the people around her. She wants to have an exciting life. She wants to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong. She thinks people should follow rules at all times. BE 13 Being very successful is important to her. CO It is important to her to listen to people who are different from her. even when no-one is watching. 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 . She hopes people will recognize her achievements. 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 thinks it is important to do lots of different things in life. UN It is important to her to be humble and modest. Keyed Here we briefly describe some people. She avoids anything that might endanger her safety. UN 20 Tradition is important to her. 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. She likes to be free and not depend on others.1 Appendix: The ESS Human Values Scale. Please read each description and think about how much each person is or is not like you. She wants people to admire what she does. TR 21 She seeks every chance she can to have fun. UN It's important to her to show her abilities. AC 14 It is important to her that the government insure her safety against all threats. It is important to her to do things that give her pleasure. She likes to “spoil” herself. She tries not to draw attention to herself. Even when she disagrees with them. HE 11 It is important to her to make her own decisions about what she does. Tick the box to the right that shows how much the person in the description is like you.
49 .34 . 5=Security(SE).50 –.50 .87 .17 .98 .00 –.94 70 30 350 350 310 270 230 190 150 110 Notes: 1=Universalism(UN).34 .64 . 6=Power(PO).64 –.09 –.1 Table 1 Prototypical specification of value structure: Design matrix based on the revised Schwartz model (1992. 2=Benevolence(BE). 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 . 9=Stimulation(ST).00 –. 7=Achievement(AC).17 –.77 –1.87 –.94 . 0=Self–direction(SD) .98 –. 4=Conformity(CO). p. 8=Hedonism(HE). 3=Tradition(TR).77 –.
TR+CO mixed.188.8.131.52. HE+ST mixed Austria CO peripheral to SE Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 .184.108.40.206 1.9.[3+4].16 8 8 10 10 10 6 6 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 8 8 [1+2].7.7.10 .0 HE+ST mixed.3/4.11 .7.0 220.127.116.11.0 Denmark Estonia 2.0 1.[8+9].3/18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 1.11 .15 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 1.3/4.0 1.5.10 .3.3.14 .2 Table 126.96.36.199 .0 1/2. HE+ST mixed Israel Italy Latvia .2.0 1/2.3/4.5.8/188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206.12 .12 .6. AC peripheral to HE.220.127.116.11. TR+CO mixed.5.9.3/4.8.3/18.104.22.168.3/4.0 1.2.9. SE&CO/TR reversed UN peripheral to BE.22.214.171.124 .8.5. CO peripheral to SE.0 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206.2.5.3/220.127.116.11/4.11 .2.0 UN peripheral to BE UN peripheral to BE.3/18.104.22.168 .8.0 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.3.0 1/2.6.12 .9.0 1/188.8.131.52.2.3/184.108.40.206/4.0 1/220.127.116.11.7.3/18.104.22.168.8.8.0 1.9.0 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199 .3/188.8.131.52.08 .4/5.13 .11 .184.108.40.206.2.6.12 .[3+4].220.127.116.11.8.6. AC&HE reversed UN peripheral to BE.8.b Deviations round Regions 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 .18.104.22.168.9. CO7 between SE&PO Iceland Ireland 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 .0 UN&BE reversed.4.1.[3+4].8.4/22.214.171.124.8.8.3/4.9.11 .8.[8+9].11 .126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.4.7.Stress1 Distinct Sequence of Values a.184.108.40.206.14 . Synopsis: Results of the Structural Analyses (ESS1–ESS3) Country ESS.5.6.3/4.3/4.7/220.127.116.11.12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 18.104.22.168 1. SE&TR+CO reversed.0 1/22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.6.0 188.8.131.52 . HE+ST mixed [1+2].9.[8+9].5.8.0 184.108.40.206.3/4.0 1.11 .5.0 1/220.127.116.11.[8+9].3/18.104.22.168 .7.7.0 1.0 1.10 .[8+9].6.2.12 . HE&ST reversed UN+BE mixed.3/4.5.9. HE+ST mixed 22.214.171.124.11 .0 126.96.36.199 .188.8.131.52.6.12 .6.6. 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.0 UN+BE mixed.7.6.13 .184.108.40.206.7.5.3/4. HE peripheral to ST UN peripheral to BE.0 1.3/4.11 .0 1/2.7.0 1.8.09 .4.0 UN peripheral to BE UN peripheral to BE.12 .0 1.5.12 .4.0 220.127.116.11.6.
0 1.0 1.7.3/4.0 [1+2].3/4.9.0 1.0 TR+CO mixed.8.0 UN+BE mixed Slovenia 18.104.22.168.8/9. ST peripheral to SE and TR/CO reversed.9.0 1.08 .3/4.0 1/22.214.171.124.5. 4=Conformity(CO).126.96.36.199.3/188.8.131.52/4.12 .184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.9.5.0 1.8.3/4.12 .5.12 . 3=Tradition(TR).2.8.8.[4+5].7.8.3/4.5.3 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.8.3/22.214.171.124.7.13 .2.14 .126.96.36.199.7.11 .6.[8+9].188.8.131.52.2.0 1.3. HE+ST mixed 1.6.0 1.5.0 1.6. 6=Power(PO).6.7.11 .184.108.40.206 .220.127.116.11.0 UN peripheral to BE.12 .3/4.11 .[8+9].18.104.22.168.0 1.0 1.0 22.214.171.124.8. 2=Benevolence(BE).0 1/2.2. 0=Self-direction(SD) a x/y: x = peripheral position.3/4.10 .0 1/126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.3.9. HE+ST mixed UN peripheral to BE.18.104.22.168.7.0 Deviations Norway TR+CO mixed Poland UN peripheral to BE UN peripheral to BE UN peripheral to BE SE&CO/TR reversed.8.11 .4.3/4.2.0 22.214.171.124.5.12 .5.6.3/126.96.36.199 1/188.8.131.52 1. HE peripheral to SE&TR.[4+5].184.108.40.206.6.11 .5.0 .7.2.[3+4].3/4.8.11 .220.127.116.11.12 .18.104.22.168.2.b Values .22.214.171.124.3/4.2.13 . CO reversed.14 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 1.0 1.3/4.12 .3/126.96.36.199.3/4.13 .5.0 1/2.5.08 .3/4.0 1.3.5.09 .2.7.0 1/2.3/188.8.131.52 1.9.6. 5=Security(SE).3/4.8.12 10 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11/18.104.22.168.11 .9.5.0 1/2.12 .7.0 1.9.0 1.8. 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 .6.12 .13 .5.9.0 22.214.171.124 .9.6. 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). 9=Stimulation(ST).9.7.3/126.96.36.199.5.12 10 10 8 10 6 10 10 10 10 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1.5.[3+4].188.8.131.52 .7.5.3/4/5. 8=Hedonism(HE).14 .6. y = central position b[x+y]: x and y mixed .0 1.5.13 .6.7.3/4.6.0 1.5.13 .4.9/8.2. 7=Achievement(AC).6.2.11 .184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.
05 (15) -.33 (20) .14 (20) -.14 (19) Education (N=34.08 (15) -.16 (19) .19 (20) .06 (19) -.4 Table 3: Correlations of Values with Age.26 (20) .12 (19) .04 (11)† .10 (18) .165) .13 (20) .37 (20) -.15 (19) -. 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.08 (20) .760) -. In parentheses is the number of countries with correlations in the indicated direction. Due to missing data.32 (20) .02 (13)† Income (N=28.09 (20) -.26 (20) -.11 (18) .06 (16) .18 (20) .33 (20) -.12 (20) -.22 (20) -. .08 (19) †Correlation does not differ significantly from zero.030) .14 (20) .06 (18) -. Gender. the number of respondents varies slightly around the indicated Ns.08 (19) .11 (20) .12 (20) -.16 (20) -.01 (14) † .12 (20) -.08 (15) .09 (18) Gender (Female) (N=35.22 (20) -.02 (13)† .20 (20) -.275) -.
5 Table 3.10** . 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 . **p < .10**) .18** .35*** .20** . C .07* (-.08 Vote for Center-Right vs.52*** . 1-tailed.12***) -.38*** .40*** .18* .08 .10 Cooperation in a Game (SVS) Israel N=90 -.64*** .14***) -.11*** (.05.08** .01 -.08** -. gender. and marital status ***p < . education.001.31*** (-.14** .10*** (.28** -.15***) . *p < .14***)C -.55*** .20** B Political Activism (PVQ21) France N=1244B -.09**) .01 -. B Ns vary slightly due to missing data.17*** (.16*** (-.25*** . In parentheses are partial correlations controlling age.21*** (.13***) -.43*** .32** .19* -.22***) A Values are corrected for scale use (see text).28*** (.38*** . income.01.42*** . Center-Left (PVQ) Italy N=2849 .70*** .26***) .18* -.47*** .14*** (-.12 .29*** .07** .03 -.24*** .37*** -.19*** (-.18* .51*** .31*** Other-Report N=141 .29*** .06 .12***) .
Theoretical model of relations among ten motivational types of value .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.
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). coefficient of alienation . Multidimensional Space Analysis (SSA) of 21 value items across 20 ESS countries in round 1 (N= 35.11 .8 Figure 3.
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. Dynamic underpinnings of the universal value structure .
Value Value Priorities Prioritiesand andBehavior Behavior 0.1 Correlations 0 -0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 -0.10 Figure 4. 5.1 -0.4 Pow Ach Hed Sti SDir Uni Ben Tra Values Con Sec .3 -0.
11 France: Opposition to ‘Other’ Immigrants ESS 2003. N=1111 Native Born Universalism V Security V Age Education Religiosity Married Tradition V Gender .25 .07 3 Item Index of Opposing Immigration -. Regression to Predict Opposition to ‘Other’ Immigrants by Native Born French .07 . p<.15 -.10 .20 Rsq .12 .02 Figure 6.18 -.282 All beta coefficients shown.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.