You are on page 1of 53

Basic Human Values: Theory, Measurement, and Applications

Shalom H. Schwartz
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Appeared in Revue française de sociologie, 47/4 (2006)
This research was supported by Israel Science Foundation Grant o. !"#$%".
&pplyin' the values construct in the social sciences has suffered from the absence of an
a'reed(upon conception of basic values) of the content and structure of relations amon' these
values) and of reliable methods to measure them. This article presents data from over *%
countries) usin' two different instruments) to validate a theory intended to fill part of this 'ap.
It concerns the basic values that individuals in all cultures reco'nize. The theory identifies #%
motivationally distinct values and specifies the dynamics of conflict and con'ruence amon'
them. These dynamics yield a structure of relations amon' values common to culturally
diverse 'roups) su''estin' a universal or'anization of human motivations. Individuals and
'roups differ in the priorities they assi'n to these values. The article e+amines sources of
individual differences in value priorities and behavioral and attitudinal conse,uences that
follow from holdin' particular value priorities. In doin' so) it considers processes throu'h
which values are influenced and throu'h which they influence action.
-alues have been a central concept in the social sciences since their inception. For both
.ur/heim 0#1!2) #1!*3 and 4eber 0#!%53) values were crucial for e+plainin' social and
personal or'anization and chan'e. -alues have played an important role not only in
sociolo'y) but in psycholo'y) anthropolo'y) and related disciplines as well. -alues are used
to characterize societies and individuals) to trace chan'e over time) and to e+plain the
motivational bases of attitudes and behavior.
.espite or) perhaps) because of the widespread use of values) many different
conceptions of this construct have emer'ed 0e.'.) 6oudon) "%%#7 In'lehart) #!!*7 8ohn)
#!9!7 :arsons) #!5#7 ;o/each #!*23. &pplication of the values construct in the social
sciences has suffered) however) from the absence of an a'reed(upon conception of basic
values) of the content and structure of relations amon' these values) and of reliable empirical
methods to measure them 0Hitlin < :iliavin) "%%=7 ;ohan) "%%%3. This article presents a
theory intended to fill the part of this 'ap concerned with the values of individuals 0Schwartz)
#!!") "%%5a3.
The theory concerns the basic values that people in all cultures reco'nize. It identifies
ten motivationally distinct value orientations and specifies the dynamics of conflict and
con'ruence amon' these values. Some values contradict one another 0e.'.) benevolence and
power3 whereas others are compatible 0e.'.) conformity and security3. The >structure> of
values refers to these relations of conflict and con'ruence amon' values) not to their relative
importance. If value structures are similar across culturally diverse 'roups) this would su''est
that there is a universal or'anization of human motivations. ?f course) even if the types of
human motivation that values e+press and the structure of relations amon' them are
universal) individuals and 'roups differ substantially in the relative importance they attribute
to their values. That is) individuals and 'roups have different value @prioritiesA or
This article e+plicates the theory of personal values and describes two different
instruments to measure the values it identifies. .ata 'athered with these instruments in over
*% countries around the world have validated both the contents and structure of values
postulated by the theory. I will also e+amine some sources of individual differences in value
priorities and some of the behavioral and attitudinal conse,uences that follow from holdin'
particular value priorities. In doin' so) I will consider processes throu'h which values are
influenced and throu'h which they influence action.
The Theory of Value ontents and !tructure
The "ature of Values
4hen we thin/ of our values we thin/ of what is important to us in life. Bach of us
holds numerous values 0e.'.) achievement) security) benevolence3 with varyin' de'rees of
importance. & particular value may be very important to one person but unimportant to
another. The value theory 0Schwartz) #!!") "%%5a3 adopts a conception of values that
specifies si+ main features that are implicit in the writin's of many theoristsC

0#3 Values are $eliefs lin/ed ine+tricably to affect. 4hen values are activated) they become
infused with feelin'. :eople for whom independence is an important value become aroused if
their independence is threatened) despair when they are helpless to protect it) and are happy
when they can enDoy it.
0"3 Values refer to desira$le %oals that motivate action. :eople for whom social order) Dustice)
and helpfulness are important values are motivated to pursue these 'oals.
023 Values transcend specific actions and situations. ?bedience and honesty) for e+ample)
are values that may be relevant at wor/ or in school) in sports) business) and politics) with
family) friends) or stran'ers. This feature distin'uishes values from narrower concepts li/e
norms and attitudes that usually refer to specific actions) obDects) or situations.
e.'.) &llport) #!9#7 Feather) #!!57 In'lehart) #!!*7 8ohn) #!9!7 8luc/hohn) #!5#7 Eorris) #!597
;o/each #!*27 Schwartz < 6ils/y) #!1*.
0=3 Values ser&e as standards or criteria. -alues 'uide the selection or evaluation of actions)
policies) people) and events. :eople decide what is 'ood or bad) Dustified or ille'itimate) worth
doin' or avoidin') based on possible conse,uences for their cherished values. 6ut the impact of
values in everyday decisions is rarely conscious. -alues enter awareness when the actions or
Dud'ments one is considerin' have conflictin' implications for different values one cherishes.
053 Values are ordered $y importance relative to one another. :eopleFs values form an
ordered system of value priorities that characterize them as individuals. .o they attribute more
importance to achievement or Dustice) to novelty or traditionG This hierarchical feature also
distin'uishes values from norms and attitudes.
093 The relative importance of multiple &alues %uides action. &ny attitude or behavior
typically has implications for more than one value. For e+ample) attendin' church mi'ht e+press
and promote tradition) conformity) and security values at the e+pense of hedonism and
stimulation values. The tradeoff amon' relevant) competin' values is what 'uides attitudes and
behaviors 0Schwartz) #!!") #!!93. -alues contribute to action to the e+tent that they are relevant
in the conte+t 0hence li/ely to be activated3 and important to the actor.
The above are features of all values. 4hat distin'uishes one value from another is the
type of 'oal or motivation that the value e+presses. The values theory defines ten broad values
accordin' to the motivation that underlies each of them. :resumably) these values encompass
the ran'e of motivationally distinct values reco'nized across cultures. &ccordin' to the theory)
these values are li/ely to be universal because they are 'rounded in one or more of three
universal re,uirements of human e+istence with which they help to cope. These re,uirements
areC needs of individuals as biolo'ical or'anisms) re,uisites of coordinated social interaction)
and survival and welfare needs of 'roups.
Individuals cannot cope successfully with these re,uirements of human e+istence on
their own. ;ather) people must articulate appropriate 'oals to cope with them) communicate
with others about them) and 'ain cooperation in their pursuit. -alues are the socially
desirable concepts used to represent these 'oals mentally and the vocabulary used to e+press
them in social interaction. From an evolutionary viewpoint 06uss) #!193) these 'oals and the
values that e+press them have crucial survival si'nificance.
I ne+t define each of the ten values in terms of the broad 'oal it e+presses) note its
'roundin' in universal re,uirements) and refer to related value concepts. To ma/e the
meanin' of each value more concrete and e+plicit) I list in parentheses the set of value items
included in the first survey instrument to measure each value. Some important value items
0e.'.) self(respect3 have multiple meanin's7 they e+press the motivational 'oals of more than
one value. These items are listed in brac/ets.
Self-Direction. .efinin' 'oalC independent thou'ht and action((choosin') creatin')
e+plorin'. Self(direction derives from or'anismic needs for control and mastery 0e.'.)
6andura) #!**7 .eci) #!*53 and interactional re,uirements of autonomy and independence
0e.'.) 8luc/hohn) #!5#7 8ohn < Schooler) #!127 Eorris) #!593. 0creativity) freedom)
choosin' own 'oals) curious) independent3Hself(respect) intelli'ent) privacyI
Stimulation. .efinin' 'oalC e+citement) novelty) and challen'e in life. Stimulation
values derive from the or'anismic need for variety and stimulation in order to maintain an
optimal) positive) rather than threatenin') level of activation 0e.'.) 6erlyne) #!9%3. This need
probably relates to the needs underlyin' self(direction values 0cf. .eci) #!*53. 0a varied life)
an e+citin' life) darin'3
Hedonism. .efinin' 'oalC pleasure or sensuous 'ratification for oneself. Hedonism
values derive from or'anismic needs and the pleasure associated with satisfyin' them.
Theorists from many disciplines 0e.'.) Freud) #!227 Eorris) #!597 4illiams) #!913 mention
hedonism. 0pleasure) enDoyin' life) self(indul'ent3

Thou'h it is an important value) happiness is not included) because people achieve it throu'h
attainin' whatever outcomes they value 0Sa'iv < Schwartz) "%%%3.
Achievement. .efinin' 'oalC personal success throu'h demonstratin' competence
accordin' to social standards. Jompetent performance that 'enerates resources is necessary
for individuals to survive and for 'roups and institutions to reach their obDectives.
&chievement values appear in many sources 0e.'.) Easlow) #!957 ;o/each) #!*23. &s
defined here) achievement values emphasize demonstratin' competence in terms of
prevailin' cultural standards) thereby obtainin' social approval. 0ambitious) successful)
capable) influential3 Hintelli'ent) self(respect) social reco'nitionI
Power. .efinin' 'oalC social status and presti'e) control or dominance over people
and resources. The functionin' of social institutions apparently re,uires some de'ree of status
differentiation 0:arsons) #!5#3. & dominance$submission dimension emer'es in most
empirical analyses of interpersonal relations both within and across cultures 0Konner) #!1%3.
To Dustify this fact of social life and to motivate 'roup members to accept it) 'roups must
treat power as a value. :ower values may also be transformations of individual needs for
dominance and control 08orman) #!*=3. -alue analysts have mentioned power values as well
0e.'.) &llport) #!9#3. 0authority) wealth) social power3Hpreservin' my public ima'e) social
6oth power and achievement values focus on social esteem. However) achievement
values 0e.'.) ambitious3 emphasize the active demonstration of successful performance in
concrete interaction) whereas power values 0e.'.) authority) wealth3 emphasize the attainment
or preservation of a dominant position within the more 'eneral social system.
Security. .efinin' 'oalC safety) harmony) and stability of society) of relationships) and
of self. Security values derive from basic individual and 'roup re,uirements 0cf. 8luc/hohn)
#!5#7 Easlow) #!957 4illiams) #!913. There are two subtypes of security values. Some serve
primarily individual interests 0e.'.) clean3) others wider 'roup interests 0e.'.) national
&chievement values differ from EcJlellandLs 0#!9#3 achievement motivation. &chievement
motivation concerns meetin' internal standards of e+cellence. It is e+pressed in self(direction values.
security3. Bven the latter) however) e+press) to a si'nificant de'ree) the 'oal of security for
self 0or those with whom one identifies3. The two subtypes can therefore be unified into a
more encompassin' value. 0social order) family security) national security) clean)
reciprocation of favors3Hhealthy) moderate) sense of belon'in'I
Conformity. .efinin' 'oalC restraint of actions) inclinations) and impulses li/ely to
upset or harm others and violate social e+pectations or norms. Jonformity values derive from
the re,uirement that individuals inhibit inclinations that mi'ht disrupt and undermine smooth
interaction and 'roup functionin'. -irtually all value analyses mention conformity 0e.'.)
Freud) #!2%7 8ohn < Schooler) #!127 Eorris) #!597 :arsons) #!5#3. &s I define them)
conformity values emphasize self(restraint in everyday interaction) usually with close others.
0obedient) self(discipline) politeness) honorin' parents and elders3Hloyal) responsibleI
Tradition. .efinin' 'oalC respect) commitment) and acceptance of the customs and
ideas that oneLs culture or reli'ion provides. Groups everywhere develop practices) symbols)
ideas) and beliefs that represent their shared e+perience and fate. These become sanctioned as
valued 'roup customs and traditions 0Sumner) #!%93. They symbolize the 'roupLs solidarity)
e+press its uni,ue worth) and contribute to its survival 0.ur/heim) #!#"$#!5=7 :arsons)
#!5#3. They often ta/e the form of reli'ious rites) beliefs) and norms of behavior. 0respect for
tradition) humble) devout) acceptin' my portion in life3Hmoderate) spiritual lifeI
Tradition and conformity values are especially close motivationally7 they share the
'oal of subordinatin' the self in favor of socially imposed e+pectations. They differ primarily
in the obDects to which one subordinates the self. Jonformity entails subordination to persons
with whom one is in fre,uent interactionMparents) teachers) bosses. Tradition entails
subordination to more abstract obDectsMreli'ious and cultural customs and ideas. &s a
corollary) conformity values e+hort responsiveness to current) possibly chan'in'
e+pectations. Tradition values demand responsiveness to immutable e+pectations from the
Benevolence. .efinin' 'oalC preservin' and enhancin' the welfare of those with
whom one is in fre,uent personal contact 0the Nin('roupF3. 6enevolence values derive from
the basic re,uirement for smooth 'roup functionin' 0cf. 8luc/hohn) #!5#7 4illiams) #!913
and from the or'anismic need for affiliation 0cf. 8orman) #!*=7 Easlow) #!953. Eost critical
are relations within the family and other primary 'roups. 6enevolence values emphasize
voluntary concern for othersF welfare. 0helpful) honest) for'ivin') responsible) loyal) true
friendship) mature love3Hsense of belon'in') meanin' in life) a spiritual lifeI.
6enevolence and conformity values both promote cooperative and supportive social
relations. However) benevolence values provide an internalized motivational base for such
behavior. In contrast) conformity values promote cooperation in order to avoid ne'ative
outcomes for self. 6oth values may motivate the same helpful act) separately or to'ether.
Universalism. .efinin' 'oalC understandin') appreciation) tolerance) and protection
for the welfare of all people and for nature. This contrasts with the in('roup focus of
benevolence values. Universalism values derive from survival needs of individuals and
'roups. 6ut people do not reco'nize these needs until they encounter others beyond the
e+tended primary 'roup and until they become aware of the scarcity of natural resources.
:eople may then realize that failure to accept others who are different and treat them Dustly
will lead to life(threatenin' strife. They may also realize that failure to protect the natural
environment will lead to the destruction of the resources on which life depends. Universalism
combines two subtypes of concernMfor the welfare of those in the lar'er society and world
and for nature 0broadminded) social Dustice) e,uality) world at peace) world of beauty) unity
with nature) wisdom) protectin' the environment3Hinner harmony) a spiritual lifeI
&n early version of the value theory 0Schwartz) #!!"3 raised the possibility that
spirituality mi'ht constitute another near(universal value. The definin' 'oal of spiritual
values is meanin') coherence) and inner harmony throu'h transcendin' everyday reality. If
findin' ultimate meanin' is a basic human need 0e.'.) iebuhr) #!253) then spirituality mi'ht
be a distinct value found in all societies. The value survey therefore included possible
mar/ers for spirituality) 'leaned from widely varied sources. 0a spiritual life) meanin' in life)
inner harmony) detachment3Hunity with nature) acceptin' my portion in life) devoutI. &s
noted below) spirituality is not a value that has a consistent broad meanin' across cultures.
The !tructure of Value 'elations
In addition to identifyin' ten basic values) the theory e+plicates the structure of
dynamic relations amon' the values. The value structure derives from the fact that actions in
pursuit of any value have conse,uences that conflict with some values but are con'ruent with
others. For e+ample) pursuin' achievement values typically conflicts with pursuin'
benevolence values. See/in' success for self tends to obstruct actions aimed at enhancin' the
welfare of others who need oneLs help. 6ut pursuin' both achievement and power values is
usually compatible. See/in' personal success for oneself tends to stren'then and to be
stren'thened by actions aimed at enhancin' oneLs own social position and authority over others.
&nother e+ampleC :ursuin' novelty and chan'e 0stimulation values3 is li/ely to undermine
preservin' time(honored customs 0tradition values3. In contrast) pursuin' tradition values is
con'ruent with pursuin' conformity values. 6oth motivate actions of submission to e+ternal
&ctions in pursuit of values have practical) psycholo'ical) and social conse,uences.
:ractically) choosin' an action alternative that promotes one value 0e.'.) ta/in' dru's in a cultic
riteMstimulation3 may literally contravene or violate a competin' value 0obeyin' the precepts
of oneFs reli'ionMtradition3. The person choosin' what to do may also sense that such
alternative actions are psycholo'ically dissonant. &nd others may impose social sanctions by
pointin' to practical and lo'ical inconsistencies between an action and other values the person
professes. ?f course) people can and do pursue competin' values) but not in a sin'le act.
;ather) they do so throu'h different acts) at different times) and in different settin's.
The circular structure in Fi'ure # portrays the total pattern of relations of conflict and
con'ruity amon' values. Tradition and conformity are located in a sin'le wed'e because) as
noted above) they share the same broad motivational 'oal. Jonformity is more toward the
center and tradition toward the periphery. This si'nifies that tradition values conflict more
stron'ly with the opposin' values. The e+pectations lin/ed to tradition values are more abstract
and absolute than the interaction(based e+pectations of conformity values. They therefore
demand a stron'er) une,uivocal reDection of opposin' values.
-iewin' values as or'anized alon' two bipolar dimensions lets us summarize the
oppositions between competin' values. &s Fi'ure # shows) one dimension contrasts ‘openness
to chan!e" and ‘conservation" values. This dimension captures the conflict between values that
emphasize independence of thou'ht) action) and feelin's and readiness for chan'e 0self(
direction) stimulation3 and values that emphasize order) self(restriction) preservation of the past)
and resistance to chan'e 0security) conformity) tradition3. The second dimension contrasts ‘self-
enhancement" and ‘self-transcendence" values. This dimension captures the conflict between
values that emphasize concern for the welfare and interests of others 0universalism)
benevolence3 and values that emphasize pursuit of oneLs own interests and relative success and
dominance over others 0power) achievement3. Hedonism shares elements of both openness to
chan'e and self(enhancement.
&lthou'h the theory discriminates ten values) it postulates that) at a more basic level)
values form a continuum of related motivations. This continuum 'ives rise to the circular
structure. To clarify the nature of the continuum) I note the shared motivational emphases of
adDacent valuesC 0a3 power and achievement((social superiority and esteem7 0b3 achievement and
hedonism((self(centered satisfaction7 0c3 hedonism and stimulation((a desire for affectively
pleasant arousal7 0d3 stimulation and self(direction((intrinsic interest in novelty and mastery7 0e3
self(direction and universalism((reliance upon oneLs own Dud'ment and comfort with the
diversity of e+istence7 0f3 universalism and benevolence((enhancement of others and
transcendence of selfish interests7 0'3 benevolence and tradition((devotion to oneLs in('roup7 0h3
benevolence and conformity((normative behavior that promotes close relationships7 0i3
conformity and tradition((subordination of self in favor of socially imposed e+pectations7 0D3
tradition and security((preservin' e+istin' social arran'ements that 'ive certainty to life7 0/3
conformity and security((protection of order and harmony in relations7 0l3 security and power((
avoidin' or overcomin' threats by controllin' relationships and resources.
In sum) the circular arran'ement of the values represents a motivational continuum. The
closer any two values in either direction around the circle) the more similar their underlyin'
motivations7 the more distant) the more anta'onistic their motivations. The idea that values
form a motivational continuum has a critical implicationC The division of the domain of value
items into ten distinct values is an arbitrary convenience. It is reasonable to partition the domain
of value items into more or less fine(tuned distinct values accordin' to the needs and obDectives
of oneFs analysis. Jonceivin' values as or'anized in a circular motivational structure has an
important implication for the relations of values to other variables. It implies that the whole set
of ten values relates to any other variable in an inte'rated manner. I return to this implication
Measurin% Value (riorities
The !ch)art* Value !ur&ey
The first instrument developed to measure values based on the theory is now /nown
as the Schwartz -alue Survey 0S-S7 Schwartz) #!!") "%%5a3. The S-S presents two lists of
value items. The first contains 2% items that describe potentially desirable end(states in noun
form7 the second contains "9 or "* items that describe potentially desirable ways of actin' in
adDective form.
Bach item e+presses an aspect of the motivational 'oal of one value. &n
e+planatory phrase in parentheses followin' the item further specifies its meanin'. For
e+ample) NBOU&KITP 0e,ual opportunity for all3F is a universalism item7 N:KB&SU;B
0'ratification of desires3F is a hedonism item.
;espondents rate the importance of each value item >as a 'uidin' principle in EP
life> on a !(point scale labeled * 0of supreme importance3) 9 0very important3) 5) =
0unlabeled3) 2 0important3) ") # 0unlabeled3) % 0not important3) (# 0opposed to my values3.

:eople view most values as varyin' from mildly to very important. This nonsymmetrical
scale is stretched at the upper end and condensed at the bottom in order to map the way
people thin/ about values) as revealed in pre(tests. The scale also enables respondents to
report opposition to values that they try to avoid e+pressin' or promotin'. This is especially
necessary for cross(cultural studies because people in one culture or subculture may reDect
values from others cultures. The S-S has been translated into =* lan'ua'es.
The score for the importance of each value is the avera'e ratin' 'iven to items
desi'nated a priori as mar/ers of that value. The number of items to measure each value
ran'es from three 0hedonism3 to ei'ht 0universalism3) reflectin' the conceptual breadth of the
values. ?nly value items that have demonstrated near(e,uivalence of meanin' across cultures
in analyses usin' multi(dimensional scalin' 0SS&7 Schwartz) #!!") #!!=) "%%5a3 and
confirmatory factor analysis 0JF&7 Schwartz < 6oehn/e) "%%=3 are included in the inde+es.
&cross "#" samples 0national representative) teacher) student3) alpha reliabilities of the #%
values avera'e .91) ran'in' from .9# for tradition to .*5 for universalism 0Schwartz) "%%5b3.
This followed ;o/eachFs 0#!*23 idea that ends values and means values function differently. Ey
research su''ests that this distinction has no substantive importance 0Schwartz) #!!"3. ?ne item in
the 59(item S-S 0#!113 was dropped and two others added in the revised 5*(item version 0#!!=3.
Schwartz 0#!!=3 e+plains the rational for preferrin' ratin' of value importance to ran/in'.
The (ortrait Values +uestionnaire
The :ortrait -alues Ouestionnaire 0:-O3 is an alternative to the S-S developed in
order to measure the ten basic values in samples of children from a'e ##) of the elderly) and
of persons not educated in 4estern schools that emphasize abstract) conte+t(free thin/in'.
The S-S had not proven suitable to such samples. B,ually important) to assess whether the
values theory is valid independent of method re,uired an alternative instrument.

The :-O includes short verbal portraits of =% different people) 'ender(matched with
the respondent 0Schwartz) "%%5b7 Schwartz) et al.) "%%#3. Bach portrait describes a personFs
'oals) aspirations) or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a value. For e+ampleC
@Thin/in' up new ideas and bein' creative is important to him. He li/es to do thin's in his
own ori'inal wayA describes a person for whom self(direction values are important. @It is
important to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money and e+pensive thin'sA describes
a person who cherishes power values.
For each portrait) respondents answerC @How much li/e you is this personG ;esponses
areC very much li/e me) li/e me) somewhat li/e me) a little li/e me) not li/e me) and not li/e
me at all. 4e infer respondentsF own values from their self(reported similarity to people
described implicitly in terms of particular values. ;espondents are as/ed to compare the
portrait to themselves rather than themselves to the portrait. Jomparin' other to self directs
attention only to aspects of the other that are portrayed. So) the similarity Dud'ment is also
li/ely to focus on these value(relevant aspects.
The verbal portraits describe each person in terms of what is important to him or her.
Thus) they capture the personFs values without e+plicitly identifyin' values as the topic of
investi'ation. The :-O as/s about similarity to someone with particular 'oals and aspirations
0values3 rather than similarity to someone with particular traits. The same term can refer both
6oth 6roc/e and 6ils/y 0"%%53 and ?ishi) Schimmac/) .iener) and Suh 0#!!13 have subse,uently
developed paired comparison instruments based on the S-S to measure the ten basic values.
to a value and a trait 0e.'.) ambition) wisdom) obedience3. However) people who value a 'oal
do not necessarily e+hibit the correspondin' trait7 nor do those who e+hibit a trait necessarily
value the correspondin' 'oal. For e+ample) people may value creativity as a 'uidin' principle
in life but not be creative. &nd some creative people may attribute little importance to
creativity as a value that 'uides them.
The number of portraits for each value ran'es from three 0stimulation) hedonism) and
power3 to si+ 0universalism3) reflectin' the conceptual breadth of the values. The score for the
importance of each value is the avera'e ratin' 'iven to these items) all of which were
desi'nated a priori as mar/ers of a value. &ll the value items have demonstrated near(
e,uivalence of meanin' across cultures in analyses usin' multi(dimensional scalin' 0SS&7
Schwartz) "%%5b3. &cross #= samples from * countries) alpha reliabilities of the ten values
avera'ed .91) ran'in' from .=* for tradition to .1% for achievement 0Schwartz "%%5b3.
The desi'ners of the Buropean Social Survey 0BSSC www.europeansocialsurvey.or'3
chose the theory and the :-O as the basis for developin' a human values scale to include in
the survey. The BSS version includes "# items) most from the :-O and a few revised to
encompass additional ideas in order better to cover the content of the ten different values.
&cross "% representative national samples) &lpha reliabilities of the values with this version
avera'ed .59) ran'in' from .29 0tradition3 to .*% 0achievement3. These reliabilities reflect the
fact that only two items measure each value 0three for universalism3. B,ually important)
'iven the constraint of so few items) the decisive factor in selectin' items was to ma+imize
covera'e of the varied conceptual components of each value rather than to increase internal
reliability. &s seen below) despite low reliabilities these values predict behavior and attitudes
orrectin% 'esponse Tendencies
;espondents differ in their use of the response scales both in the S-S and the :-O.
Some people rate most abstract values very important as 'uidin' principles or most portraits
very similar to themselves. ?thers use the middle of the response scales) and still others rate
most values unimportant or most portraits dissimilar to themselves. The scale should measure
peopleFs value priorities) the relative importance of the different values. This is because it is
the tradeoff amon' relevant values) not the absolute importance of any one value) which
influences behavior and attitudes. Say) two people rate tradition values =. .espite the same
absolute score) tradition values obviously have hi'her priority for a person who rates all other
values lower than for one who rates all other values hi'her. To measure value priorities
accurately) one must correct individual differences in use of the response scales. To correct)
we center each personFs responses on his or her own mean 0details in Schwartz) "%%5a) "%%93.
This converts absolute value scores into scores that indicate the relative importance of each
value to the person) i.e.) the personFs value priorities.
ross,ultural -&idence for the Theory of Value ontent and !tructure
&s evidence for the theory) I brin' the findin's of assessments with data usin' the
S-S and data usin' the BSS version of the :-O. The S-S data were 'athered between #!11
and "%%" from "22 samples from 91 countries located on every inhabited continent 0total Q
9=)"*#3. The samples include hi'hly diverse 'eo'raphic) cultural) lin'uistic) reli'ious) a'e)
'ender) and occupational 'roups. Samples include those that represent a nation or a re'ion in
it 0#93) 'rade /(#" school teachers 0*=3) under'raduate students from a variety of fields 0###3)
adolescents 0#%3) and adult convenience samples 0""3.
For each sample) I prepared a matri+ of :earson correlations between the 59 or 5*
value items. I analyzed this matri+ with Similarity Structure &nalysis 0SS&3 06or' < Shye)
#!!57 Guttman) #!913. This nonmetric multi(dimensional scalin' techni,ue maps items as
points in a multidimensional space such that the distances between the points reflect the
interrelations amon' the items. The 'reater the conceptual similarity between any two items)
the more related they should be empirically and hence the closer their locations should be in
the multidimensional space. The SS& provides "(dimensional spatial maps of relations amon'
values) li/e that shown in Fi'ure ") but without partition lines. The a priori assi'nment of items
to values 'uides the partitionin' of the maps.
If the motivational content of values is the most powerful principle that or'anizes
peopleLs value priorities) the relations amon' value items in the two(dimensional space should
reflect this content. Specifically) it should be possible to partition the space into distinct
re'ions containin' the items that represent each of the #% values. If the theory accurately
describes the structure of value relations) then the observed re'ions should form a circular
pattern similar to the theoretical structure of Fi'ure #. 6ecause values form a motivational
continuum) the decisions about e+act boundaries are arbitrary. Items near the boundaries of
adDacent values inevitably overlap somewhat in meanin'. Jonse,uently) in analyses in many
samples) value items from adDacent types of values may intermi+ rather than emer'e in clearly
distinct re'ions. ;ules for partitionin' are described in Schwartz 0#!!") "%%5a3.
Fi'ure " presents an e+ample of SS& results for 5* value items from the a''re'ate
sample across all nations. Ear/er values are in bold. The locations of specific items in
re'ions of basic values in this fi'ure completely support both the content of each value and
the circular structure of relations amon' them. &nalyses in sin'le samples typically show at
least small deviations such as intermi+in' of items from conceptually adDacent values and
misplacement of a few value items to nearby re'ions. In separate analyses in "22 samples)
however) every value formed either a distinctive re'ion or an intermi+ed re'ion with a
conceptually adDacent value in at least !9R of samples. Spirituality items formed a distinct
re'ion in only 21R of samples. The proposed spirituality items emer'ed most fre,uently in
the tradition) benevolence) universalism) and security value re'ions) respectively.
These data show that people in most cultures respond to ten types of values as distinct
and that the broader value orientations captured by adDacent values are discriminated nearly
universally. Findin's with the "# item :-O used in the BSS lead to the same conclusion. &n
SS& based on the responses of 25)#9# respondents from "% countries yields a spatial array of
items that can be partitioned into #% distinct re'ions) each encompassin' the a priori value
mar/ers. Eoreover) the order of the values re'ions follows the theorized circular structure.
Separate analyses in each of the "% countries that completed the values scale yield structures
very similar to Fi'ure ". In #5 countries) the ten values form ten distinct re'ions. In the
remainin' five countries) ei'ht values form distinct re'ions and the items of two conceptually
adDacent values intermi+.
The SS& analyses provide 'raphic evidence to support the value theory across
cultures) measurin' values with two ,uite different methods. Jonfirmatory factor analyses
provide more formal statistical tests of the content and structure of values. Schwartz and
6oehn/e 0"%%=3 demonstrated confi'ural invariance for ten latent value factors across "2
countries) usin' the S-S. .avidov) Schmidt) and Schwartz 0"%%53 had to unify pairs of
values that are motivationally close into seven latent factors to obtain confi'ural and metric
invariance across the "% BSS countries. It was probably necessary to unify values because the
"#(item BSS instrument measures each value with so few items.
&nother ,uestion addressed in this research concerns whether the ten basic values
identified by the theory are comprehensive. .o they leave out any broad values to which
individuals across societies attribute at least moderate importanceG It is difficult definitively
to reDect the possibility that some universal values are missin'. 6ut the findin's ma/e this
unli/ely. Jollaborators in many different countries added value items they thou'ht mi'ht be
missin' in the S-S. 4hen included in the SS&s) these items typically emer'ed in re'ions
appropriate to their meanin's 0e.'.) national identity in security7 chastity in conformity3.
Thus) they identified no new) potentially universal values.
4ere any basic types of values missin') we would e+pect empty re'ions in the SS&
maps. To test whether the analyses were sufficiently sensitive to identify potentially missin'
values) I ran SS&s on the S-S data after intentionally e+cludin' values. ?nly after droppin'
all the items from two ad#acent values did empty re'ions appear. The absence of empty
re'ions in the full SS&s therefore implies that no broad value orientations are missin'. Future
theorizin' may su''est additional) narrow values. It is li/ely) however) that the values in the
theory cover the full ran'e of broad) near(universal values.

The (an,ultural Baseline of Value (riorities
Individuals differ substantially in the importance they attribute to the ten values. &t the
societal level) however) consensus re'ardin' the hierarchical order of the values is
surprisin'ly hi'h. &cross representative samples) usin' different instruments) the importance
ran/s for the ten values are ,uite similar. 6enevolence) universalism) and self(direction
values are most important. :ower and stimulation values are least important. Tradition
values) measured with the S-S and full :-O also have low importance) but the two items
used in the "#(item :-O of the BSS yield moderate importance ratin's. Security values are
=th) conformity values 5
or 9
) hedonism *
) and achievement 9
to 1
. This hierarchy
provides a baseline to which to compare the priorities in any sample. Such comparison is
critical for identifyin' which) if any) of the value priorities in a sample are distinctively hi'h
or low. & sample may ran/ benevolence hi'hest) for e+ample) but compared with other
samples the importance ratin' of this value may still be relatively low.
4hy is there a pan(cultural consensus on value prioritiesG &nd why this particular
hierarchy of valuesG The pan(cultural consensus li/ely derives from the adaptive functions of
4ach and Hammer 0"%%23 added sets of items intended to measure NveritS rationnelleF and NveritS
non rationnelleF to the :-O in a French national sample. The former items emer'ed with self(
direction whose 'oal they e+press. The latter formed a re'ion between power and security. &s
formulated) however) those items measured beliefs more than values.
Schwartz < 6ardi 0"%%#3 provide a detailed e+amination of this topic on which this section draws.
values in maintainin' societies and from shared human nature 0e.'.) Jampbell) #!*57 :arsons)
#!5#7 Schwartz < 6ardi) #!!*3. Socializers and social control a'ents will discoura'e values
that clash with the smooth functionin' of si'nificant 'roups or the lar'er society. -alues that
clash with human nature are unli/ely to be important.
The basic social function of values is to motivate and control the behavior of 'roup
members 0:arsons) #!5#3. Two mechanisms are critical. First) values serve as internalized
'uides for individuals7 they relieve the 'roup of the necessity for constant social control.
Second) people invo/e values to define particular behaviors as socially appropriate) to Dustify
their demands on others) and to elicit desired behaviors. Socializers see/) consciously or not)
to instill values that promote 'roup survival and prosperity. To e+plain the pan(cultural value
hierarchy) we must e+plain why particular values are viewed as more or less desirable across
Three demands of human nature and re,uirements of societal functionin' are especially
relevant for e+plainin' the observed pan(cultural value hierarchy. 0#3 Eost important is
promotin' and preservin' cooperative and supportive relations amon' members of primary
'roups. The most critical focus of value transmission is to develop commitment to positive
relations) identification with the 'roup) and loyalty to its members. 0"3 Second) individuals
must be motivated to invest the time) the physical and the intellectual effort needed to
perform productive wor/) to solve problems that arise durin' tas/ performance) and to
'enerate new ideas and technical solutions. 023 Third) it is socially functional to le'itimize
'ratification of self(oriented needs and desires to the e+tent this does not undermine 'roup
'oals. ;eDection of all such 'ratification would frustrate individuals) leadin' them to withhold
their ener'ies from the 'roup and its tas/s.
This does not mean that the pan(cultural value hierarchy reflects individual tendencies to respond in a
socially desirable manner to value surveys. The personality variable of social desirability does not
correlate consistently with the importance individuals attribute to the values that are hi'h in the pan(
cultural hierarchy 0Schwartz) et al.) #!!*3.
The hi'h importance of benevolence values 0#
3 derives from the centrality of positive)
cooperative social relations in the family) the main settin' for initial and continuin' value
ac,uisition. 6enevolence values provide the internalized motivational base for such relations.
They are reinforced and modeled early and repeatedly.
Universalism values 0"
3 also contribute to positive social relations. They are
functionally important primarily when 'roup members must relate to those with whom they
do not readily identify) in schools) wor/(places) and so on. They may even threaten in('roup
solidarity durin' times of inter'roup conflict. Therefore) universalism values are less
important than benevolence values.
Security 0=
3 and conformity 05
3 values also promote harmonious social relations. They
do this by helpin' to avoid conflict and violations of 'roup norms. 6ut these values are
usually ac,uired in response to demands and sanctions to avoid ris/s) control forbidden
impulses) and restrict the self. This reduces their importance because it conflicts with
'ratifyin' self(oriented needs and desires. Eoreover) the emphasis of these values on
maintainin' the status ,uo conflicts with innovation in findin' solutions to 'roup tas/s.
&ctin' on tradition values 0overall 1
3 can also contribute to 'roup solidarity and thus to
smooth 'roup functionin' and survival. 6ut tradition values find little e+pression in the
behavior that interaction partners have a vital interest in controllin'. They lar'ely concern
commitment to abstract beliefs and symbols.
:ursuin' power values 0#%
3 may harm or e+ploit others and dama'e social relations.
Still) they have some importance because power values help to motivate individuals to wor/
for 'roup interests. They also Dustify the hierarchical social arran'ements in all societies.
Self(direction 02
3 values serve the second and third basic functions of values without
underminin' the first. They foster creativity) motivate innovation) and promote copin' with
challen'es the 'roup may face in times of crisis. 6ehavior based on these values is
intrinsically motivated. It satisfies individual needs without harmin' others. Hence) it rarely
threatens positive social relations.
The moderate importance of achievement values 0*
3 may reflect a compromise amon'
the bases of value importance. ?n the positive side) these values motivate individuals to
invest in 'roup tas/s. They also le'itimize self(enhancin' behavior) so lon' as it contributes
to 'roup welfare. ?n the ne'ative side) these values foster efforts to attain social approval
that may disrupt harmonious social relations and interfere with 'roup 'oal attainment.
The importance of hedonism 09
3 and stimulation 0!
3 values derives from the
re,uirement to le'itimize inborn needs to attain pleasure and arousal. These values are
probably more important than power values because) unli/e power values) their pursuit does
not necessarily threaten positive social relations.

'oots of the /ynamic !tructure of Value 'elations
Havin' shown that the structure of relations amon' values may be universal) we now
loo/ more closely at the possible roots of this structure. Thus far) we identified con'ruence
and conflict amon' the values that are implicated simultaneously in decisions as one dynamic
principle that or'anizes the structure of values. Jlose e+amination of the structure su''ests
other dynamic principles 0see Fi'ure 23.

& second principle is the interests that value attainment serves. -alues in the top
panel of Fi'ure 2 0power) achievement) hedonism) stimulation) self(direction3 primarily
re'ulate how one e+presses personal interests and characteristics. -alues in the bottom panel
0benevolence) universalism) tradition) conformity) security3 primarily re'ulate how one
relates socially to others and affects their interests. Fi'ure # shows that security and
universalism values are boundary values. They primarily concern othersF interests) but their
Schwartz and 6ardi 0"%%#3 use these same principles to e+plain the maDor deviation from the pan(
cultural hierarchy found in sub(Saharan &frican samples where conformity is most important.
The value theory specifies the order of the #% values. Fi'ures #) ") and 2 show the same order) but
each orients the circle differently. ;otation of the multi(dimensional representation of values does not
affect the meanin' of the structure.
'oals also re'ulate pursuit of own interests.
;elations of values to an+iety are a third or'anizin' principle. :ursuit of values on the
left in Fi'ure 2 serves to cope with an+iety due to uncertainty in the social and physical
world. :eople see/ to avoid conflict 0conformity3 and to maintain the current order 0tradition)
security3 or actively to control threat 0power3. -alues on the ri'ht 0hedonism) stimulation)
self(direction) universalism) benevolence3 e+press an+iety(free motivations. &chievement
values do bothC Eeetin' social standards successfully may control an+iety and it may affirm
oneFs sense of competence.
The an+iety aspect of the value structure relates to the two basic self(re'ulation
systems that Hi''ins 0#!!*3 has proposed. ?ne system re'ulates avoidance of punishment
and focuses people on the 'oal of preventin' loss. Security needs) obli'ations) and the threat
of loss tri''er this system. -alues on the left in Fi'ure 2) most centrally security and
conformity) motivate this type of self(re'ulation. They 'uide attention and action to avoid or
overcome actual or potential dan'er. Hi''insF second system re'ulates pursuit of rewards and
focuses people on the 'oal of promotin' 'ain. urturance needs) ideals) and opportunities to
'ain tri''er this system. -alues on the ri'ht in Fi'ure 2) most centrally self(direction)
motivate this type of self(re'ulation. They 'uide attention and action to intrinsically
rewardin' social) intellectual) and emotional opportunities.
The structure of relations amon' the ten values may also have a bio'enetic basis. The
ten values map e+actly onto four innate drives proposed by Kawrence and ohria 0"%%".
:resumably) these drives emer'ed as a set of decision 'uides in the course of evolution and
are central to human nature. The four drives areC 0#3 to ac,uireMto see/) ta/e) control) and
hold material and status resources and pleasurable e+periences7 0"3 to bondMto form social
relationships and develop mutually carin' commitments7 023 to learnMto /now) comprehend)
believe) appreciate) and understand their environment and themselves via curiosity7 0=3 to
defendMto defend themselves and their valued accomplishments whenever they perceive
them to be endan'ered. The drives to ac,uire and to bond often come into conflict when
ta/in' decisions about an action) as do the drives to learn and to defend.
Bach value appears to e+press one drive or a blend of two. -alues transform drives
into desirable 'oals that are available to awareness and that can therefore be used in
conscious plannin' and decision(ma/in'. The matches are as followsC benevolenceMto bond7
universalismMto bond T to learn7 self(directionMto learn7 stimulationMto learn 0T to ac,uire
pleasurable e+perience37 hedonismM0to learn3 T to ac,uire pleasurable e+perience7
achievementMto ac,uire7 powerMto ac,uire T to defend7 securityMto defend7 conformity
and traditionMto defend T to bond. This mappin' of values onto drives 'oes around the value
circle 0Fi'ure #3. The oppositions between values parallel the conflicts between drives that
Kawrence and ohria 0"%%"3 identify. The matchin' of values to drives su''ests that an
innate basis may help account for the near(universality of the value structure.
!ources of 0ndi&idual /ifferences in Basic Values
(rocesses 1in2in% Bac2%round Varia$les to Value (riorities
:eopleFs life circumstances provide opportunities to pursue or e+press some values
more easily than others. For e+ample) wealthy persons can pursue power values more easily)
and people who wor/ in the free professions can e+press self(direction values more easily.
Kife circumstances also impose constraints a'ainst pursuin' or e+pressin' values. Havin'
dependent children constrains parents to limit their pursuit of stimulation values. &nd people
with stron'ly ethnocentric peers find it hard to e+press universalism values. In other words)
life circumstances ma/e the pursuit or e+pression of different values more or less rewardin'
or costly.
Typically) people adapt their values to their life circumstances. They up'rade the
importance they attribute to values they can readily attain and down'rade the importance of
values whose pursuit is bloc/ed 0Schwartz < 6ardi) #!!*3. Thus) people in Dobs that afford
freedom of choice increase the importance of self(direction values at the e+pense of
conformity values 08ohn < Schooler) #!123. Up'radin' attainable values and down'radin'
thwarted values applies to most) but not to all values. The reverse occurs with values that
concern material well(bein' and security. 4hen such values are bloc/ed) their importance
increases7 when they are attained easily) their importance drops. Thus) 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 0In'lehart) #!!*3.
:eopleFs a'e) education) 'ender) income and other characteristics affect their
socialization and learnin' e+periences) the social roles they play) the e+pectations and
sanctions they encounter) and the abilities they develop. Thus) differences in bac/'round
characteristics lar'ely determine the differences in life circumstances to which people are
e+posed) which) in turn) affect their value priorities. This section e+amines /ey socio(
demo'raphic variables as crucial antecedents of individual differences in value priorities.
A%e and 1ife ourse
&s people 'row older) they tend to become more embedded in social networ/s) more
committed to habitual patterns) and less e+posed to arousin' and e+citin' chan'es and
challen'es 0Glen) #!*=3. This implies that conservation values 0tradition) conformity)
security3 should increase with a'e and openness to chan'e values 0self(direction) stimulation)
hedonism3 decrease. ?nce people enter families of procreation and attain stable positions in
the occupational world) they tend to become less preoccupied with their own strivin's and
more concerned with the welfare of others 0-eroff) ;euman) < Feld) #!1=3. This implies that
self(transcendence values 0benevolence) universalism3 increase with a'e and self(
enhancement values 0power) achievement3 decrease.
For more detail) see Schwartz 0"%%5b3.
The first column of Table # reports correlations of a'e with values across the "% BSS
countries. The number of countries in which the correlation was in the same direction as the
overall correlation appears in parentheses. &ll the observed correlations confirm the e+pected
associations and support the probable processes of influence. &ll associations are monotonic.
-arious theories of 'ender difference lead researchers to postulate that men
emphasize a'entic(instrumental values li/e power and achievement) while females emphasize
e+pressive(communal values li/e benevolence and universalism 0Schwartz < ;ubel) "%%53.
Eost theorists e+pect 'ender differences to be small. Jolumn " of Table # supports
e+pectations re'ardin' both the nature and stren'th of value relations to 'ender in the BSS
data. &nalyses with the S-S and :-O instruments across 91 countries yield similar results.
Gender differences for ei'ht values are consistent) statistically si'nificant) and small7
differences for conformity and tradition values are inconsistent. 6oth evolutionary and social
role theories help to e+plain how adaptations to prehistoric and$or current life circumstances
mi'ht produce the observed 'ender differences 0Schwartz < ;ubel) "%%53.
Bducational e+periences presumably promote the intellectual openness) fle+ibility)
and breadth of perspective essential for self(direction values 08ohn < Schooler #!123. These
same e+periences increase the openness to non(routine ideas and activity central to
stimulation values. In contrast) these e+periences challen'e un,uestionin' acceptance of
prevailin' norms) e+pectations) and traditions) thereby underminin' conformity and tradition
values. The increasin' competencies to cope with life that people ac,uire throu'h education
may also reduce the importance of security values. Jolumn 2 of Table # reveals the e+pected
positive correlations of years of formal education with self(direction and stimulation values
and ne'ative correlations with conformity) tradition) and security values.
In addition) education correlates positively with achievement values. The constant
'radin' and comparin' of performance in schools) emphasizin' meetin' e+ternal standards)
could account for this. The associations of education with values are lar'ely linear) with the
e+ception of universalism values. Universalism values be'in to rise only in the last years of
secondary school. They are substantially hi'her amon' those who attend university. This may
reflect both the broadenin' of horizons that university education provides and a tendency for
those who 'ive hi'h priority to universalism values to see/ hi'her education.
&ffluence creates opportunities to en'a'e in discretionary activities and to choose
oneFs life style freely. It reduces security threats and the need to restrict oneFs impulses and to
maintain supportive) traditional ties. Hi'her income should therefore promote valuin' of
stimulation) self(direction) hedonism) and achievement values and render security)
conformity) and tradition values less important. The correlations between total household
income 0#" cate'ories3 and value priorities) in column = of Table #) support these
e+pectations. Income contributed to hi'her stimulation) self(direction) achievement) and
power values) primarily in the upper third of the income distribution.
The (attern of Value 'elations )ith 4ther Varia$les: An 0nte%rated !ystem
Eost research on the antecedents or conse,uences of values has e+amined empirical
relations between a few tar'et values and a particular bac/'round variable) attitude) or
behavior 0e.'.) social class and obedienceM&lwin) #!1=7 e,uality and civil ri'hts((;o/each)
#!*23. The value theory enables us to treat peoplesF value systems as coherent structures. It
allows us to relate the full set of values to other variables in an or'anized) inte'rated manner.
The critical idea is the circular motivational structure of values. This structure has two
implications for value relationsC 0#3 -alues that are adDacent in the structure should have
similar associations with other variables. 0"3 &ssociations of values with other variables
should decrease monotonically in both directions around the circle from the most positively to
the most ne'atively associated value. That is) the order of associations for the whole set of ten
values follows a predictable pattern. If a bac/'round variable) trait) attitude) or behavior
correlates most positively with one value and most ne'atively with another) the e+pected
pattern of associations with all other values follows from the circular value structure.
The data in Table " illustrate this pattern. Table " lists the values in an order
correspondin' to their order around the circular structure of value relations 0cf. Fi'ure #3. The
correlations in Table " 'enerally e+hibit both features of value relations. &dDacent values
have lar'ely similar associations with the bac/'round variables and the associations of the
values lar'ely decrease monotonically in both directions around the circle from the most
positively to the most ne'atively associated value.
The inte'rated structure of values ma/es it easier to theorize about relations of value
priorities to other variables. ?nce theory identifies the values li/ely to relate most and least
positively to a variable) the circular motivational structure then implies a specific pattern of
positive) ne'ative) and zero associations for the remainin' values. e+t) one develops
theoretical e+planations for why or why not to e+pect these implied associations. The
inte'rated structure serves as a template that reveals @deviationsA from the e+pected pattern.
The association of education with achievement values is one such deviation. .eviations are
especially interestin' because they direct us to search for special conditions that enhance or
wea/en relations of a variable with values 0Schwartz) #!!93.
(redictin% Beha&ior )ith Basic Values
.o peopleFs value priorities influence their behavior in systematic) predictable waysG I
first e+amine processes throu'h which values can influence behavior. Then I describe
e+emplary studies of value(behavior relations.
For e+ample) Sa'iv and Schwartz 0#!!53 show how uni,ue aspects of relations amon' Jews)
Euslims) and Jhristians in Israel modify associations of value priorities with readiness for contact
with out('roups.
1in2in% (rocesses
$alue activation. -alues affect behavior only if they are activated 0-erplan/en <
Holland) "%%"3. &ctivation may or may not entail conscious thou'ht about a value. Euch
information(processin' occurs outside of awareness. The more accessible a value) i.e.) the
more easily it comes to mind) the more li/ely it will be activated. 6ecause more important
values are more accessible 06ardi) "%%%3) they relate more to behavior.
-alue(relevant aspects of situations activate values. & Dob offer may activate
achievement values and a car accident may activate security values. Bven coincidental
increases in the accessibility of a value) say by comin' across value(relevant words in a
puzzle) increase chances it will be activated. If it is a hi'h(priority value) it may then lead to
behavior. Focusin' attention on the self may also increase value(behavior relations because it
activates values that are central to the self(concept) values of hi'h importance. -erplan/en
and Holland 0"%%"3 demonstrated these effects in e+periments where they manipulated the
accessibility of values in one study and self(focus in another. &ctivation e+periments are
particularly important because they show that activatin' values causes behavior. The studies
of value(behavior relations discussed below cannot demonstrate causality. &lthou'h the
reasonin' is causal) they are all correlational.
$alues as a source of motivation. :eopleFs values) li/e their needs) induce valences on
possible actions 0Feather) #!!53. That is) actions become more attractive) more valued
subDectively) to the e+tent that they promote attainment of valued 'oals. :eople who value
stimulation would li/ely be attracted to a challen'in' Dob offer whereas those who value
security mi'ht find the same offer threatenin' and unattractive. Hi'h(priority values are
central to the self(concept. Sensin' an opportunity to attain them sets off an automatic)
positive) affective response to actions that will serve them. Sensin' a threat to value
attainment sets off a ne'ative affective response.
-alues may influence the attractiveness of actions even without conscious wei'hin'
of alternatives and their conse,uences. 4e rarely realize the influence of our values when we
choose which pro'ram to watch on T-) for e+ample. Jonscious thou'ht may later modify the
attractiveness of actions by brin'in' their many conse,uences to mind 0e.'.) impacts of ta/in'
a new Dob on the family3. 6asic values also affect action throu'h the specific attitudes they
underlie. Bven when values motivate people) they are unli/ely to act unless they believe they
have the capacity to carry out the action and that it is li/ely to produce the desired outcomes
0Feather) #!!53.
%nfluence of values on attention& perception& and interpretation in situations. Hi'h
priority values are chronic 'oals that 'uide people to see/ out and attend to value(relevant
aspects of a situation 0Schwartz) Sa'iv) < 6oehn/e) "%%%3. ?ne woman may attend to the
opportunities a Dob offers for self(direction) another to the constraints it imposes on her social
life. Bach defines the situation in li'ht of her own important values. Bach interpretation
su''ests that a different line of action is desirable. -alue priorities also influence the wei'ht
people 'ive to each value issue. Bven if both women reco'nize the same value(relevant
opportunities and constraints) the wei'ht they 'ive them will differ dependin' on their value
%nfluence of values on the plannin! of action. Eore important 'oals induce a stron'er
motivation to plan thorou'hly 0Gollwitzer) #!!93. The hi'her the priority 'iven to a value) the
more li/ely people will form action plans that can lead to its e+pression in behavior. :lannin'
focuses people on the pros of desired actions rather than the cons. It enhances their belief in
their ability to reach the valued 'oal and increases persistence in the face of obstacles and
distractions. 6y promotin' plannin') value importance increases value(consistent behavior.
-5emplary !tudies
&s a first e+ample of value(behavior relations) consider three studies of everyday
'ehavior. 6ardi and Schwartz 0"%%23 'enerated ten sets of 9(#% behaviors that primarily
e+press one of the ten basic values. :articipants completed the S-S. Kater) they rated how
fre,uently they had performed each behavior in the past year) relative to their opportunities to
perform it. In studies " and 2) intimate partners or close peers rated participantsF behavior too.
The behavior inde+es were the avera'e fre,uency ratin's of the behavior items that e+press
each value.
Jolumn " and 2 of Table " list the correlations between each value and its relevant
behaviors. &ll correlations with self(reported behavior are si'nificant and most are
substantial. 4ith other(reported behavior) all but the security correlation are si'nificant. Self(
reports probably e+a''erate value(behavior relations) other reports probably underestimate
Some values correlate more stron'ly with their relevant behaviors than others do.
4hyG In this study) normative 'roup pressure was 'reatest for security) conformity)
benevolence) and achievement behaviors. Pieldin' to normative pressure) even when a
behavior opposes oneFs own values) wea/ened value(behavior relations. Second) e+ternal
pressure is wea/er for behaviors that e+press values of little importance to the 'roup)
permittin' own values to have more influence. Tradition and stimulation values had
especially low mean importance in these 'roups. Hence) priorities for these values showed
stron'er value(behavior correlations.
& study of cooperative 'ehavior in the laboratory 0Schwartz) #!!93 illustrates the
crucial idea of trade(offs between competin' values in 'uidin' behavioral choice. Typically)
the conse,uences of a behavior promote the e+pression or attainment of one set of values at
the e+pense of the opposin' values in the circle. To predict a behavior successfully) we must
consider the importance of the values the behavior will harm as well as those it will promote.
The probability of a behavior depends on the relative priority a person 'ives to the relevant)
competin' values.
:articipants who completed the S-S were paired with another student to play a
'ame. They were to choose one of three alternatives for allocatin' money between self and a
member of their 'roup whose identity was not revealed. Bach would receive the amount of
money they allocated to self plus the amount their partner allocated to them. The cooperative
choice entailed ta/in' the e,uivalent of #U for self and 'ivin' %.1U to the other. Jompared to
the other choices) this meant sacrificin' a little of what one could 'ain 0%."U3 and 'ivin' the
ma+imum to the other. The other two choices were both not cooperative) ma+imizin' either
oneLs absolute 'ain 0individualism3 or relative 'ain 0competin'3.
&nalyses of the conse,uences of cooperative and noncooperative behavior for the
'oals of the ten values su''ested that benevolence and power values) opposed in the circle)
are most relevant. Jooperation is more a matter of conventional decency and thou'htfulness
in this settin' than of basic commitment to social Dustice. Hence) benevolence values should
relate to cooperation most stron'ly. :ower values should relate most stron'ly to
noncooperation. They emphasize competitive advanta'e and le'itimize ma+imizin' own
'ain even at the e+pense of others. The correlations in column 2 of Table " confirm the
hypothesis. 6enevolence correlates most positively) power most ne'atively. Eoreover) as
e+pected) based on the motivational structure of value relations) the order of the correlations
follows the order around the value circle from benevolence to power.
&nalyzin' the data in another way demonstrates clearly that trade(offs amon'
competin' values 'uided behavior. Splittin' the sample at the median on benevolence and on
power values and crossin' these sub(samples yielded four 'roups. In the 'roup that valued
benevolence hi'hly and 'ave low importance to power values) 1*R cooperated. This was
twice the rate in any other 'roup 025R(=2R3. Thus) to elicit a hi'h level of cooperation
re,uired 'oth hi'h priority for values that promote cooperation 0benevolence3 and low
priority for values that oppose it 0power3.
$otin!. The ne+t e+ample of how value systems relate) as inte'rated wholes) to
behavior ta/es us outside the laboratory. There were two main coalitions in the Italian
elections of "%%#) center(ri'ht and center(left. 6oth coalitions championed liberal democracy.
6ut there were also policy differences. To the e+tent that citizens reco'nize these differences)
the values whose attainment is most affected by them should influence their votin' patterns.
The center(ri'ht emphasized entrepreneurship and the mar/et economy) security) and
family and national values. The intended conse,uences of such a policy are compatible with
power) security) and achievement values. 6ut they may harm the opposin' values in the value
circle) universalism and) perhaps) benevolence. The latter values call for promotin' the
welfare of others even at cost to the self. &nd universalism values e+press concern for the
wea/) those most li/ely to suffer from mar/et(driven policies. In contrast) the center(left
advocated social welfare) social Dustice) e,uality) and tolerance even of 'roups that mi'ht
disturb the conventional social order. The intended conse,uences of such a policy are
compatible with universalism and benevolence values. They conflict) however) with pursuin'
individual power and achievement values and with security values that emphasize preservin'
the social order.
Thus) political choice in these elections consisted of a trade(off between power)
security) and achievement values on the ri'ht and universalism and benevolence values on the
left. ?n that basis) I hypothesizedC Supportin' the center(ri'ht vs. center(left correlates most
positively with the priority 'iven to power and security values and most ne'atively with the
priority 'iven to universalism values. Jorrelations with the priority of achievement values
should also be positive) and those with benevolence values ne'ative. Stated as an inte'rated
hypothesis for the whole value circleC Jorrelations should decline from most positive for
power and security values to most ne'ative for universalism values in both directions around
the circle 0cf. Fi'ure #3.
&dults from the ;ome re'ion completed the :-O and reported the coalition they had
voted for in the "%%# election. 4e coded vote as 0%3 for center(left and 0#3 for center(ri'ht.
4e computed point(biserial correlations of votin' with the #% values) controllin' 'ender) a'e)
income) and education. Jolumn = of Table " presents correlations between value priorities
and votin' for the center(ri'ht.
&s hypothesized) the correlation of universalism was the most ne'ative) and the
correlation of benevolence was ne'ative too. The positive correlations with security) power)
and achievement were also si'nificant. Fi'ure = portrays the pattern of correlations) showin'
the e+pected sinusoidal curve that reflects the motivational continuum of values. To put the
stren'th of these correlations in perspective) note that correlations of individualsF income)
occupation) education) 'ender) marital status) and a'e with vote were all less than .%1.
Eoreover) values e+plained almost three times as much variance in votin' as did the 6i' 5
personality traits 0Japrara) et al.) "%%53.
For a final illustration of the effects of basic values on behavior) we turn to political
activism. .ata are from #"== French citizens in the "%%2 national representative sample of
the BSS. The "#(item :-O measured value priorities. :olitical activism was measured as the
number of politically relevant) le'al acts out of nine that respondents reported performin' in
the past year 0e.'.) contactin' a politician) participatin' in a public demonstration) boycottin'
a product3. 6ecause universalism values promote social Dustice and environmental
preservationM'oals of much activismMthey should correlate most stron'ly with activism.
6ecause activism is ris/y and oriented to chan'e) security and conformity should show the
most ne'ative correlations. 6oth reasonin' about the motivations underlyin' activism and the
order of the inte'rated motivational circle of values su''ested wea/er positive correlations
for benevolence and self(direction values and wea/er ne'ative correlations for power and
tradition values.
Jolumn 5 of Table " presents both the zero(order correlations of value priorities with
political activism and the correlations controllin' five socio(demo'raphic variables. These
correlations fully confirm e+pectations. Fi'ure = portrays the pattern of correlations)
revealin' the e+pected sinusoidal curve that reflects the motivational continuum of values
with one e+ception. Stimulation values show a hi'her than e+pected positive correlation. This
deviation from the curve points to the fact that political activism is motivated not only by
ideolo'ical considerations such as those that e+press universalism or security values. The
simple pursuit of e+citement also plays a role.
To conclude this section) consider the effects of basic values on an attitude of maDor
concern in Burope today) opposition to immi'ration. Three items in the BSS measured
opposition to acceptin' NotherF immi'rantsMthose of a different race$ethnic 'roup) from
poorer Buropean) and poorer non(Buropean countries. Here I focus on the sample of ##"5
native born residents of France.

?pposition to NotherF immi'rants in the current French atmosphere li/ely reflects
concern with preservin' the status ,uoMprotectin' personal and social security) preservin'
secular and Jhristian French traditions) and maintainin' widespread norms. Those for whom
security) tradition) and conformity values are especially important should more stron'ly
oppose immi'ration. In contrast those who value openness to chan'e should feel less
threatened and mi'ht welcome enrichment of their society. Thus) people for whom self(
direction) stimulation) and hedonism values are especially important should oppose
immi'ration less. Eoreover) those who cherish universalism values) with their 'oal of
Schwartz 0"%%93 reports analyses of individual and country differences in political activism in all "%
BSS countries.
Schwartz 0"%%93 reports analyses of individual and country differences in opposition to immi'ration
in #5 4est Buropean countries.
acceptance) appreciation) and concern for the welfare even of those who are different) should
oppose immi'ration least.
The observed pattern of correlations fully supports these hypotheses. Security values
correlate most positively with opposition 0.2!3 and universalism values correlated most
ne'atively 0(."13. The other predicted correlations are also si'nificant 0all V$.#5$) pW.%%#3. In
order to provide a fuller picture of the antecedents of opposition to acceptin' NotherF
immi'rants in France) I re'ressed opposition on the value priorities and on the followin'
bac/'round variablesC a'e) 'ender) years of education completed) marital status) havin' ever
had children at home) havin' been unemployed for 2 months or more) subDective assessment
of ade,uacy of household income) de'ree of reli'iosity. Fi'ure 5 presents results of the
Universalism values predicted opposition most stron'ly 0ne'ative3) followed by
security values 0positive3. Thus) the tradeoff between 'ivin' hi'h priority to promotin' the
welfare of all others 0universalism values3 and avoidin' personal) national) and interpersonal
threat 0security values3 has the 'reatest impact on readiness to accept NotherF immi'rants.
?lder people) those who are married) and women oppose immi'ration more) perhaps because
they feel more threatened by perceived social disruption. Greater education and reli'iosity
predict less opposition) whereas tradition values predict more opposition. Since reli'iosity is
in the re'ression) the findin' for tradition values si'nifies opposition based on protectin' non(
reli'ious customs and ways of doin' thin's.
The values theory has identified ten basic) motivationally distinct values that people
in virtually all cultures implicitly reco'nize. The validity of this claim does not depend on the
way we measure values. The ten basic values emer'e whether people report e+plicitly on
their values 0S-S3 or whether we infer peopleFs values indirectly from their Dud'ments of
how much various other people are li/e them 0:-O3. The values theory applies in
populations e+posed to westernized schoolin' but also in populations with little or no
education. 4e still do not /now whether the theory applies in more isolated tribal 'roups
with minimal e+posure to urbanization) mass media) and the mar/et economy.
Bspecially stri/in' is the emer'ence of the same circular structure of relations amon'
values across countries and measurement instruments. :eople everywhere e+perience conflict
between pursuin' openness to chan'e values or conservation values. They also e+perience
conflict between pursuin' self(transcendence or self(enhancement values. Jonflicts between
specific values 0e.'.) power vs. universalism) tradition vs. hedonism3 are also near(universal. I
su''ested several dynamic processes that may account for the observed circular structure.
These processes may point the way toward a unifyin' theory of human motivation.
&n astonishin' findin' of the cross(cultural research is the hi'h level of consensus
re'ardin' the relative importance of the ten values across societies. In the vast maDority of
nations studied) benevolence) universalism) and self(direction values appear at the top of the
hierarchy and power) tradition) and stimulation values appear at the bottom. This implies that
the aspects of human nature and of social functionin' that shape individual value priorities
are widely shared across cultures. I proposed an initial) functionalist e+planation of this
phenomenon. It deserves much more analysis in depth.
Individual value priorities arise out of adaptation to life e+periences. &daptation may
ta/e the form of up'radin' attainable values and down'radin' thwarted values. 6ut the
reverse occurs with values that concern material well(bein' and security. Socio(demo'raphic
characteristics contribute to e+plainin' individual differences in value priorities because they
represent different sets of life e+periences. In /eepin' with the structure of values identified
by the theory) antecedents affect priorities in a systematic manner. They tend to enhance the
importance of values that are adDacent in the value circle 0e.'.) conformity and security3 but to
undermine the importance of the competin' values 0e.'.) self(direction and stimulation3. I
have drawn only the simplest picture of the separate) linear effects of a few bac/'round
variables. Future research must address possible interactions amon' bac/'round variables.
-alues influence most if not all motivated behavior. The values theory provides a
framewor/ for relatin' the system of ten values to behavior that enriches analysis) prediction)
and e+planation of value(behavior relations. It ma/es clear that behavior entails a trade(off
between competin' values. &lmost any behavior has positive implications for e+pressin')
upholdin') or attainin' some values) but ne'ative implications for the values across the
structural circle in opposin' positions. :eople tend to behave in ways that balance their
opposin' values. They choose alternatives that promote hi'her as a'ainst lower priority
values. &s a result) the order of positive and ne'ative associations between any specific
behavior and the ten values tends to follow the order of the value circle.
This chapter several e+amples of how value priorities relate to behavior and attitudes.
;esearchers in more than 2% countries have used the system of ten basic values to understand
and sometimes to predict other individual differences. &mon' the behaviors studied are use
of alcohol) condoms and dru's) delin,uency) shopliftin') competition) huntin') various
environmental and consumer behaviors) moral) reli'ious and se+ual behavior) autocratic)
independent and dependent behavior) choice of university maDor) occupation and medical
specialty) participation in sports) social contact with out('roups) and numerous votin' studies.
&mon' attitudinal variables studied are Dob satisfaction) or'anizational commitment)
trust in institutions) attitudes toward ethical dilemmas) toward the environment) se+ism)
reli'iosity) and identification with oneFs nation or 'roup. &mon' personality variables
studied are social desirability) social dominance) authoritarianism) interpersonal problems)
subDective well(bein') worries) and the 6i' 5 personality traits. This proliferation of behavior)
attitude) and personality studies testifies to the fruitfulness of the values theory and its
promise for future research.
&llport) G.4. 0#!9#3. Pattern and !rowth in personality. ew Por/C Holt) ;inehart <
&lwin) .. F. 0#!1=3. Trends in parental socialization valuesC .etroit) #!51(#!12.
American (ournal of Sociolo!y& )*& 25!(21".
6andura) &. 0#!**3. Self efficacyC Toward a unifyin' theory of behavioral chan'e.
Psycholo!ical +eview& ,-& #!#("#5.
6ardi) &. 0"%%%3. +elations of values to 'ehavior in everyday situations. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. The Hebrew University.
6ardi) &.) < Schwartz) S. H. 0"%%23. -alues and behaviorC Stren'th and structure of
relations. Personality and Social Psycholo!y Bulletin& .)& #"%*(#""%.
6erlyne) ..B. 0#!9%3. Conflict& arousal and curiosity. ew Por/C EcGraw(Hill.
6or') I.) < Shye) S. 0#!!53. /acet theory0 /orm and content. KondonC Sa'e.
6oudon) ;. 0"%%#3. The ori!ins of values0 1ssays in the Sociolo!y and Philosophy of
Beliefs. ew Por/C Transaction :ublishers.
6roc/e) 6. < 6ils/y) 4. 0"%%5) July3. The measurement of value preferences by paired
comparisons. :aper delivered at the #st Buropean &ssociation for Survey ;esearch
Jonference) 6arcelona) Spain.
6uss) ..E. 0#!193. Jan a social science be anchored in evolutionary biolo'yG Four
problems and a strate'ic solution. +evue 1urop2enne des Sciences Sociales& .-& =#(5%.
Jampbell) .. T. 0#!*53. ?n the conflicts between biolo'ical and social evolution and
between psycholo'y and moral tradition. American Psycholo!ist& 3*& ##%2(##"9.
Japrara) G. -.) Schwartz) S. H.) JabaXa) J.) -accine) E.) < 6arbaranelli) J. 0"%%53.
:ersonality and politicsC -alues) traits) and political choice. Political Psycholo!y&
.avidov) B.) Schmidt) :.) < Schwartz) S. H. 0"%%5) July3. 6rin'in' values bac/ inC &
multiple 'roup comparison with "% countries usin' the Buropean Social Survey. :aper
delivered at the #st Buropean &ssociation for Survey ;esearch Jonference) 6arcelona) Spain
.eci) B.K. 0#!*53. %ntrinsic motivation. ew Por/C :lenum.
.ur/heim) B. 0#1!2$#!9=3. The division of la'or in society. Glencoe) IK.C Free :ress.
.ur/heim) B. 0#1!*$#!9=3. Suicide. Glencoe) Il.C Free :ress.
.ur/heim) B. 0#!#"$#!5=3. The elementary forms of reli!ious life. Glencoe) IKC Free
Feather) . T. 0#!!53. -alues) valences. and choiceC The influence of values on the
perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. (ournal of Personality and Social
Psycholo!y& 4,& ##25(##5#.
Freud) S. 0#!2%3. Civili5ation and its discontents. KondonC Ho'arth :ress.
Freud) S. 0#!223. 6ew introductory lectures in psychoanalysis. ew Por/C orton.
Glen) . .. 0#!*=3. &'in' and conservatism. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science& -78& #*9(#19.
Gollwitzer) :. E. 0#!!93. The volitional benefits of plannin'. In :. E. Gollwitzer < J. &.
6ar'h 0Bds.3) The Psycholo!y of action. ew Por/C Guilford.
Guttman) K. 0#!913. & 'eneral nonmetric techni,ue for findin' the smallest coordinate
space for a confi'uration of points. Psychometrica& 33) =9!(5%9.
Hi''ins) B.T. 0#!!*3. 6eyond pleasure and pain. American Psycholo!ist& 8.& #"1%(
Hitlin) S. and J. &. :iliavin 0"%%=3. -aluesC ;evivin' a dormant concept. Annual +eview
of Sociolo!y& 3*& 25!(2!2.
In'lehart) ;. 0#!!*3. 9oderni5ation and postmoderni5ation. :rinceton) JC :rinceton
University :ress.
8luc/hohn) J. 0#!5#3. -alues and value(orientations in the theory of actionC &n
e+ploration in definition and classification. In T. :arsons < B. Shils 0Bds.3) Toward a !eneral
theory of action 0pp.211(=223. Jambrid'e) E&C Harvard University :ress.
8ohn) E. K. 0#!9!3. Class and conformity. Homewood) Il.C .orsey :ress.
8ohn) E.K.) < Schooler) J. 0#!123. :or; and personality. orwood) JC &ble+.
8orman) &. 0#!*=3. The psycholo!y of motivation. Bn'lewood Jliffs) JC :rentice(Hall.
Kawrence) :. ;.) < ohria) . 0"%%"3. Driven0 How human nature shapes our choices.
San Francisco) J&C Jossey 6ass.
Konner) 4.J. 0#!1%3. The search for psycholo'ical universals. In H.J. Triandis < 4.4.
Kambert 0Bds.3) Hand'oo; of cross-cultural psycholo!y. Perspectives0 $ol. 7. 6ostonC &llyn
< 6acon.
Easlow) &.H. 0#!953. 1upsychian mana!ement. Homewood) IKC .orsey.
EcJlelland) ..J. 0#!9#3. The achievin! society. :rinceton) JC -an ostrand.
Eorris) J.4. 0#!593. $arieties of human value. Jhica'oC University of Jhica'o :ress.
iebuhr) ;. 0#!253. An interpretation of Christian ethics. ew Por/C Harper.
?ishi) S.) Schimmac/) U.) .iener) B.) < Suh) B. 0#!!13. The measurement of values and
individualism(collectivism. Personality and Social Psycholo!y Bulletin& .-& ##**(##1!.
:arsons) T. 0#!5#3. The social system. Glencoe) Il. C Free :ress.
;o/each) E. 0#!*23. The nature of human values. ew Por/C Free :ress.
;ohan) E. J. 0"%%%3. & rose by any nameG The values construct. Personality and Social
Psycholo!y +eview& -& "55("**.
Sa'iv) K.) < Schwartz) S.H. 0#!!53. -alue priorities and readiness for out('roup
social contact. (ournal of Personality and Social Psycholo!y& 4)& =2*(==1.
Sa'iv) K.) < Schwartz) S. H. 0"%%%3. -alue priorities and subDective well(bein'C .irect
relations and con'ruity effects. 1uropean (ournal of Social Psycholo!y& 3*& #**(#!1.
Schwartz) S. H. 0#!!"3. Universals in the content and structure of valuesC Theory and
empirical tests in "% countries. In E. Yanna 0Bd.3) Advances in e<perimental social
psycholo!y =$ol. .8> 0pp. #(953. ew Por/C &cademic :ress.
Schwartz) S. H. 0#!!=3. &re there universal aspects in the content and structure of
valuesG (ournal of Social %ssues& 8*& #!(=5.
Schwartz) S.H. 0#!!93. -alue priorities and behaviorC &pplyin' a theory of inte'rated
value systems. In J. Seli'man) J.E. ?lson) < E.:. Yanna 0Bds.3) The psycholo!y of values0
The ?ntario Symposium& $ol. , 0pp.#("=3. Hillsdale) JC Brlbaum.
Schwartz) S. H. 0"%%5a3. 6asic human valuesC Their content and structure across
countries. In &. Tamayo < J. 6. :orto 0Bds.3) $alores e comportamento nas or!ani5a@Aes
H-alues and behavior in or'anizationsI pp. "#(55. :etrZpolis) 6razilC -ozes.
Schwartz) S. H. 0"%%5b3. ;obustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in
individual human values. In &. Tamayo < J. 6. :orto 0Bds.3) idem pp. 59(!5.
Schwartz) S. H. 0"%%93. -alue orientationsC Eeasurement) antecedents and conse,uences
across nations. In Jowell) ;.) ;oberts) J.) Fitz'erald) ;. < Bva) G. 0Bds.3 9easurin! attitudes
cross-nationally - lessons from the 1uropean Social Survey. KondonC Sa'e.
Schwartz) S.H.) < 6ardi) &. 0#!!*3. Influences of adaptation to communist rule on value
priorities in Bastern Burope. Political Psycholo!y) 7,) 215(=#%.
Schwartz) S. H.) < 6ardi) &. 0"%%#3. -alue hierarchies across culturesC Ta/in' a
similarities perspective. (ournal of Cross-Cultural Psycholo!y& 3.& "91("!%
Schwartz) S. H.) < 6ils/y) 4. 0#!1*3. Toward a psycholo'ical structure of human
values. (ournal of Personality and Social Psycholo!y& 83) 55%(59".
Schwartz) S. H.) < 6oehn/e) 8. 0"%%=3. Bvaluatin' the structure of human values with
confirmatory factor analysis. (ournal of +esearch in Personality& 3,) "2%("55.
Schwartz) S. H.) Eelech) G.) Kehmann) &.) 6ur'ess) S.) < Harris) E. 0"%%#3. B+tendin'
the cross(cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of
measurement. (ournal of Cross-Cultural Psycholo!y& 3.& 5#!(5=".
Schwartz) S. H.) < ;ubel) T. 0"%%53 Se+ differences in value prioritiesC Jross(cultural
and multi(method studies. (ournal of Personality and Social Psycholo!y&,)&
Schwartz) S. H.) Sa'iv) K.) < 6oehn/e) 8. 0"%%%3. 4orries and values. (ournal of
Personality& 4,& 2%!(2=9.
Schwartz) S. H.) -er/asalo) E.) &ntonovs/y) &.) < Sa'iv) K. 0#!!*3. -alue priorities and
social desirabilityC Euch substance) some style. British (ournal of Social Psycholo!y& 34& 2(#1.
Sumner) 4. G. 0#!%93. /ol;ways. 6ostonC Ginn < Jo.
-eroff) J. ;euman) ..) < Feld) S. 0#!1=3. Eotives in &merican men and women across the
adult life span. Developmental Psycholo!y& .*& ##="(##51.
-erplan/en) 6.) < Holland) ;. 4. 0"%%"3. Eotivated decision ma/in'C Bffects of
activation and self(centrality of values on choices and behavior. (ournal of Personality and
Social Psycholo!y& ,.& =2=(==*.
4ach) E.) < Hammer) 6. 0"%%23. Ba structure des valeurs& est-elle universelleC DenEse et
validation du modEle compr2hensif de Schwart5. :arisC KFHarmattan.
4eber) E. 0#!%5$#!513. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. ew Por/C
4illiams) ;. E.) Jr. 0#!913. -alues. In B. Sills 0Bd.3) %nternational encyclopedia of the
social sciences. ew Por/C Eacmillan.
Table #C Jorrelations of -alues with &'e) Gender) Bducation) and Income in "% Jountries in
the Buropean Social Survey
Gender 0Female3
Security ."9 0"%3 .## 0"%3 (."% 0"%3 (.#" 0"%3
Jonformity .2" 0"%3 .%" 0#23[ (."" 0"%3 (.#= 0"%3
Tradition .22 0"%3 .%1 0"%3 (."" 0"%3 (.#9 0"%3
6enevolence .#2 0"%3 .#1 0"%3 (.%= 0##3[ (.%5 0#53
Universalism .#5 0#!3 .#" 0"%3 .%9 0#93 (.%# 0#=3 [
Self(.irection (.%1 0#53 (.%9 0#!3 .#! 0"%3 .#% 0#13
Stimulation (.2* 0"%3 (.%! 0"%3 .#9 0#!3 .## 0#13
Hedonism (.22 0"%3 (.%9 0#13 .%1 0#53 .%1 0#!3
&chievement (."9 0"%3 (.#" 0"%3 .#= 0"%3 .#" 0#!3
:ower (.%! 0#13 (.#= 0#!3 .%" 0#23[ .%1 0#!3
[Jorrelation does not differ si'nificantly from zero.
In parentheses is the number of countries with correlations in the indicated direction.
.ue to missin' data) the number of respondents varies sli'htly around the indicated s.
Table ". Jorrelations of -alue :riorities with 6ehavior
6ehavior across Jonte+ts
Self(;eport ?ther(;eport
Jooperation in
a Game
-ote for
vs. Jenter(Keft
0:-O3 Italy
-alues Q "!2 Q#=# Q!% Q"1=!
:ower .5"\\\ ."5\\\ (.2*\\\ .#=\\ (.#=\\\
&chievement .21\\\ ."%\\ (.#!\ .%1\\
Hedonism .55\\\ ."!\\\ (.#1\ .%#
Stimulation .9=\\\ .25\\\ (.%1 (.%2
Self(direction .=*\\\ ."!\\\ .%9 (.%1\\
Universalism .5#\\\ ."=\\\ .2"\\ (."1\\
6enevolence .=2\\\ .#1\ .21\\\ (.#1\\
Tradition .*%\\\ .="\\\ .#" .%*\\
Jonformity .=%\\\ .#1\ .%# .#%\\
Security .2#\\\ .#% (.%1 ."%\\
-alues are corrected for scale use 0see te+t3.
s vary sli'htly due to missin' data.
In parentheses are partial correlations controllin' a'e) 'ender) education) income) and
marital status
\\\p W .%%#) \\p W .%#) \p W .%5) #(tailed.
4(-""-!! !-16,
T4 !elf,/irection 7ni&ersalism T'A"!-",
HA"3- /-"-


Hedonism Tradition



!-16, 4"!-',
-"HA"-M-"T (o)er !ecurity VAT04"
6i%ure #8 Theoretical model of relations amon% ten moti&ational types of &alue



6i%ure 28 2,/imensional !mallest !pace Analysis: 0ndi&idual 1e&el Value !tructure A&era%ed Across 6. ountries
An5iety,$ased values An5iety,free values
(re&ention of loss 'oals (romotion of 'ain 'oals
!elf,protection a'ainst threat !elf,e5pansion and 'rowth
;e'ulatin' how
one e+presses
personal interests
< characteristics
(ersonal 6ocus
!ocial 6ocus
;e'ulatin' how
one relates
socially to others
and affects them
6i%ure 98 /ynamic underpinnin%s of the uni&ersal &alue structure
Openness to Change
Figure 4. Value Priorities and Behavior
France: Opposition to ‘Other’ Immigrants
ESS 2003, N1111 Nati!e "orn
3 te! nde"
o# $%%osing
Universalis! V
Securit& V
( .,*
All .eta coe##icients shown/ %0.+)
1s2 .)-)
( .,)
Tradition V
6i%ure :8 'e%ression to (redict 4pposition to ;4ther< 0mmi%rants $y "ati&e Born 6rench