This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
By Liubov V. Borisova
December 8, 2009
‘Theories of Values’ – Introduction Theory of Basic Human Values – individual level
Theory of Cultural Values – ‘cultural’ level Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) Validation of Theories and Empirical Results
• Theory of Basic Human Needs • Theory of Cultural Values
Critical Assessment and Discussion
‘Theories of Values’ (1) 3 Theory inspired by the works of Rokeach (1973) and Hofstede (1980. 1983) – the ‘early classics’ of value research. 2004). 1982. Idea of competing and complementary types of values (Schwartz. Schwartz & Bilsky. Methodologically arises from the idea of circumplex structure of personality: “Personality or affect variables lie on the circumference of a circle. Schwartz developed a theory of ‘content and structure of values’ on the basis of empirical cross-cultural studies (Schwartz 1992. and the strength of the association between variables decreases as the distance between variables on the circle increases” (Schwartz & Boehnke. 1987. 1996) . 1990).
integrated values on the individual level (in terms of “motivational types of values and their goals“) are distinguished from cultural orientations: While motivational dimensions are found in every culture.‘Theories of Values’ (2) 4 Three major questions within the project (Schwartz. the level of importance of each dimension varies from one culture to the next . 1992): How are the value priorities of individuals affected by their social experiences? How do the value priorities held by individuals affect their behavioural orientations and choices? How do value priorities from matched groups in various countries differ between each other? According to Schwartz.
ordered by importance as guiding principles of life” (Schwartz. evaluate people and events. . organizational leaders. … [Values] are transsituational criteria or goals. and explain their actions and evaluations. policy-makers.Concept of Values 5 Values are “conceptions of the desirable that guide the way social actors (e. individual persons) select actions.g. 1999).
1996): Biological needs Coordinated social interaction Demand of group survival and functioning Schwartz creates 10 motivational types. .Theory of Basic Human Values 6 The type of motivational goal the values express distinguishes among different values Three universal requirements of human existence (Schwartz. which are comprised of 57 (45) single values and plots them in the circumplex structure within the two dimensions.
Wealth Successful. This value type is derived from physical needs and the pleasure associated with satisfying them. an Exciting Life Stimulation: excitement. Hedonism: pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself. Freedom. Capable. choosing. Creativity. a Varied Life.de . Curious. Enjoying Life Daring. and the control or dominance over people and resources. creating. Ambitious.imo-international. Self-Direction: independent thought and action (for example. Influential Achievement: personal success through demonstrated competence.Motivational Types and Individual Values (1) 7 Power: motivational goal of power values is the attainment of social status and prestige. Independent. Pleasure. Choosing Own Goals From SVS Official Web-site www. exploring). novelty. Social Power. and challenge in life. Authority.
Protecting the Environment Benevolence: preserving and enhancing the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact. Social Order. tolerance. harmony.imo-international. commitment. a World of Beauty. and stability of society. Forgiving. Humble. inclinations. Originally there was 11th type – Spirituality. Honest. Politeness. Devout. Moderate Conformity: restraint of actions. and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms.Motivational Types and Individual Values (2) 8 Universalism: understanding. Equality.de . Responsible Tradition: respect. National Security. Self-Discipline. and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion imposes on the individual. appreciation. Unity with Nature. but it was not found to be ‘universal’ From SVS Official Web-site www. Clean. relationships. Honoring Parents and Elders Family Security. Social Justice. Obedient. Wisdom. and protection of the welfare for all people and for nature. Respect for Tradition. Accepting my Portion of Life. Broadminded. Reciprocation of Favours Security: safety. and of self. Loyal. a World at Peace. Helpful.
protection of stability). Self-Transcendence vs. and favouring change vs.Motivational Types and Individual Values (3) 9 All the 10 motivational types/integrated values can be summarised in terms of the two-dimensional structure (this is empirically driven): Openness to change vs. Self-Enhacement (conflict of acceptance of others as equals and concern for their welfare vs. selfrestriction. preservation of traditional practices. Conservation (conflict between emphasis on own independent thought and action. pursuit of own relative success and dominance over others) .
2005: 1011 .Theorised Structure of the Individual-Level Motivational Types 10 Schwartz & Rubel.
the way the societal institutions function and their goals express cultural value priorities. Individuals learn to accept shared social values through adaptation to social reality. formal and informal socialisation. . right. 1999) According to Schwartz. and desirable in a society” (Schwartz. Schwartz infers societal value priorities by aggregating the value priorities of individuals. Thus. Individual value priorities are a product of a)shared culture and b)personal experiences.Theory of Cultural Values (1) 11 Cultural values – “implicitly or explicitly shared abstract ideas about what is good.
Theory of Cultural Values (2) 12 Three major issues which confront all societies. Egalitarianism The relation to the natural and social world vs. Harmony Mastery The seven value types form three bipolar dimensions . on which cultural values can be compared: Relationship Responsible Hierarchy between individual and group: vs. (Intellectual and Affective) Autonomy Conservatism behaviour to preserve ‘social fabric’: vs.
1999: 29 .Theorised Structure of the Culture-Level Value Types 13 Schwartz.
they are presumably key carriers of culture and they probably reflect the mid-range of prevailing value priorities in most societies” (Schwartz. To argue for his point. By now: more than 60. Schwartz compares the order of different nations from the teacher samples with student samples and finds many similarities. 1999:34) . 38 – of university students Reasoning: “school teachers may have a number of advantages for characterizing cultural priorities.Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) (1) 14 Established 1987 by Schwartz and Bilsky 1988-1992: survey administered within 41 cultural groups in 38 nations 38 samples of school teachers. … they play an explicit role in value socialization.000 individuals in 64 nations on all continents .
de .g.imo-international. phrased as adjectives: independent Some divergence of responses to terminal and instrumental values But also Schwartz and Bilsky discuss the possibility of the order of values influencing the answers Each item followed in parentheses by a short explanatory phrase. “EQUALITY (equal opportunities for all)” Respondents need to rate each item as a ‘guiding principle in their life’ on a 9-point scale: from 7 (‘of supreme importance’) through 0 (‘not important’) to -1 (‘opposed to my principles’) Demographic questionnaire Address: www. expressed in nouns: equality Instrumental – modes of behaviour.Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) (2) 15 Structure: 2 sets of single items/values (56 or 57 total) 21 values identical to those proposed by Rokeach (1973) Terminal vs. instrumental values (Schwartz. E. 1992) Terminal – end states.
2009:671 .Motivational Types and Individual Items 16 Miao et al..
1992) OR Similarity Structure Analysis (Schwartz. the more similar they are (separate samples) . 1999) – both SSA Intercorrelation matrix of Pearson correlations between the importance of ratings within samples Computed on the multidimensional space through MDS (nonmetric multidimensional scaling) – the closer the ‘points’ are.Validation of Theory – Individual Level 17 Validation of Theory of Basic Human Values through empirical analysis Smallest Space Analysis (Schwartz.
Value Structure. 1992: 24 . averaged 18 Schwartz.
Value Structure. 1992: 34 . teacher sample 19 Schwartz.
student sample 20 Schwartz. 1992: 33 .Value Structure.
Example 21 Comparison of sportsmen and trainers with teachers. Aplin in “The Values of Physical Education Trainees in Singapore” . By Dr Nicholas G.
Validation of Theory – Cultural Level 22 Validation of Theory of Cultural Values through empirical analysis (Schwartz. 1999) SSA Means of each of the single items for each of the 122 samples Correlations between items within sample Covariation in the mean importance ratings across samples determines the culture-level dimensions .
culture-level 23 Schwartz.Value structure. 1999: 31 .
Broadminded and Curious Comparing nations in terms of relative importance ascribed to each value type taken alone Co-plot technique . mean for Intellectual Autonomy would consist of average of Creativity. for example.Empirical implications 24 Comparing cultures Assumption: teachers are a good representation of national value priorities Finding the importance attributed to each dimension through averaging the values which represent each dimension – creating a mean for each nation/sample for each dimension Thus.
Co-plot of nations 25 Schwartz. 1999: 36 .
1999: 36 .WVS vs. SVS 26 WVS Website. www.org Schwartz.worldvaluessurvey.
values might be too sensitive to change. . and theory might ‘work’ ONLY for this type of study. In cross-country research no attention to value change. but rather ‘value-driven’ Developed structure of values on both individual and ‘nation’ level Problem of sampling – the main assumption is too stretched? Problem of measuring – is rating importance really expresses a value The usual dilemma in ‘value’ research – do people across nations understand similar concepts under one phrasing? Very theory-based. trying to seek for a fuller range of value dimensions Not politically-driven.Critical Assessment 27 Pros Cons SVS provides less ‘limited’ aspects of culture.
A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Vol 97(4). 1999. Rees. Gregory R. Rubel. M. Cheung. 48 (1). In M. 2005. Zanna (Eds. Boehnke. 699-715 Schwartz. Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230–255 Schwartz. 1010–1028 Schwartz. Tammy. (1996). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. Shalom H. Shalom H. Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. pp.. & M. Wing-Yee.). Changing. 89. Sex Differences in Value Priorities: CrossCultural and Multimethod Studies. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW. J. Shalom H. Schwartz. In C. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1–65). P. S. 8. New York: Academic Press. Oct 2009. Hillsdale. The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1–24). No. Klaus. Seligman. P. H. Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. 25. and acting on values: Effects via motivational relations in a circular model. Ali. pp. 23–47 Schwartz. 6.Sources 28 Maio. (1992). . Olson. Zanna (Ed.. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. priming. H. S. Pakizeh. Vol. Kerry J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. NJ: Erlbaum.).
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 listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.