A Typology of European Values and Russians' Basic Human Values

Russian Social Science Review
ISSN: 1061-1428 (Print) 1557-7848 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mrss20
A Typology of European Values and Russians’ Basic

Human Values
Vladimir Magun, Maksim Rudnev & Peter Schmidt
To cite this article: Vladimir Magun, Maksim Rudnev & Peter Schmidt (2017) A Typology of
European Values and Russians’ Basic Human Values, Russian Social Science Review, 58:6,
509-540, DOI: 10.1080/10611428.2017.1398547
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611428.2017.1398547
Published online: 20 Nov 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 6
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mrss20
Download by: [Australian National University] Date: 29 December 2017, At: 00:00
Russian Social Science Review, vol. 58, no. 6,
November-December 2017, pp. 509 – 540
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1061-1428 (print)/ISSN 1557-7848 (online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611428.2017.1398547
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 00:00 29 December 2017
VLADIMIR MAGUN, MAKSIM RUDNEV, AND

PETER SCHMIDT
A Typology of European Values and

Russians’ Basic Human Values
Research on social values of the Russian population usually is based on

dominant or average values as reflected in public opinion surveys. The
research reported in this article takes a different approach, looking not
at averages but at how differences in values are distributed throughout
the society. This shows a more complex picture, and one that is changing
with each new generation.
Keywords: Russian society, Russian values, European values, cultural
change, postsocialist societies
Introduction
1
The basic human values of Russians and the people of other European
countries are usually compared using the average values of individual
variables. Previous studies have made these comparisons using Shalom
Schwartz’s value variables (Magun and Rudnev, 2008; 2015a). In these
English translation © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, from the Russian text © 2015
“Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniia.” “Evropeiskaia tsennostnaia tipologiia i bazovye
tsennosti rossiian,” Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniia, 2015, nos. 3–4, pp. 74–93.
Vladimir Samuilovich Magun is at the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy
of Science, and the National Research University Higher School of Economics. Maksim
Gennad’evich Rudnev is at the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Science,
and the National Research University Higher School of Economics. Peter Schmidt is at
the Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
Translated by Nora Seligman Favorov. Translation reprinted from Sociological
Research, Vol. 56, no. 2, DOI: 10.1080/10610154.2017.1358029.
509
510 RUSSIAN SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW
Finland
Spain Iceland
1.8
1.6 Belgium Sweden

Germany Western Europe
Self-Enhancement–Self-Transcendence
Denmark
Norway
1.4 Estonia
Switzerland
Cyprus Belgium Northern Europe

1.2
Great Britain
Holland
Poland
Slovenia Mediterranean Countries
1 Ireland
0.8 Slovakia Hungary

Post-Socialist Countries
Bulgaria Czech Republic
Portugal
0.6
Kosovo Israel
0.4 Russia
0.2
0
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Conservation–Openness to Change
Figure 1. Average Values for Russians and the People of 23 Other

European Countries Arranged Along the Value Axes Conservation–
Openness to Change and Self-Enhancement–Self-Transcendence.
The figure is based on data from ESS Round 6 (2012) using design weight and
post-stratification weight. Countries falling within the vertical rectangle do not
differ from Russia to a statistically significant extent in terms of Conservation–
Openness, while those falling within the horizontal rectangle do not differ from
Russia to a statistically significant extent in terms of Self-Enhancement–Self-
Transcendence; p < 0.05.
types of studies, countries are described in terms of ten basic values or by

plotting values data on a graph. Figure 1 shows results obtained using this
method, with European countries arranged along two values axes showing
the extent to which some values are preferred over others. The figure makes
it evident that the Russian population, on average, exhibits one of the
strongest preference for the value Conservation over the value Openness
to Change and the weakest preference for the value of Concern for People
and Nature over the value of Self-Enhancement.
It is much less common to compare the value systems typical within
specific countries. A search for typical value systems that is focused on the
NOV EMBER–DECEMBER 2017 511
country averages shown in Figure 1 might lead to the conclusion that, for
example, the typical Russian combines a preference for Conservation over
Openness, with the weakest (compared to other countries) preference for
Concern for People and Nature over Self-Enhancement. However, a coun-
try’s average values profile does not reflect the variety of individual value
systems (equating them reflects what is known as an “ecological fallacy”).
Taking this variety into account when comparing countries requires a
typology that uses data for individuals. Such a typology has been presented
in one of our previous publications (Magun, Rudnev, and Schmidt, 2015).
The purpose of this article is to briefly present the typology we have
designed and describe Russian values in terms of the values classes used
throughout Europe. It begins with an explanation of Schwartz’s Theory of
Basic Human Values, treating it as an approach focused on variables, before
offering an alternative, typological approach to values and describing the
value types that were discovered.2 It will demonstrate how these value
types are distributed across the countries of Europe and identify the factors
associated with this distribution. The article will also include an examina-
tion of what value types are represented among Russians and what char-
acteristics are associated with belonging to a particular type. Finally, it will
analyze how the prevalence of various values types has changed in recent
years in Russia.
Values in Schwartz’s theory: An approach focused on variables

Schwartz defines basic values as “desirable trans-situational goals, varying
in importance, that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person”
(Schwartz, 1994, p. 21). Based on his research, Schwartz modeled the
structure of values using a circular diagram divided into ten sections,
each corresponding to an individual value (Figure 2) .4 Schwartz identifies
the three organizing principles that led to this way of structuring values: 1)
the relationships among values associated with real-life decisions; 2) the
interest values serve; and 3) their relationship to anxiety.
The closer values are to one another on the circle, the closer their motiva-
tional content and the more closely they correlate. Correspondingly, values on
opposite sides of the circle correlate negatively with one another. Based on
these interrelations, ten values have been organized into four first-level values
categories (Openness to Change, Self-Transcendence, Conservation, Self-
Enhancement). Within Schwartz’s circle, these categories encompass smaller
sub-categories. Each of these four categories is paired with its polar opposite:
Conservation with Openness to Change and Self-Enhancement with Self-
Growth
ge
Se
an
lf-
h
Tr
C
an
o
s t Independence
sc
s
e
ne Universalism
nd
en
en
Op
ce
Stimulation
Personal Focus
Social Focus
Hedonism Benevolence
Conformity
Achievement Tradition
Se n
lf- Security tio
En
ha Power
r va
e
nc
em ns
Co
en
t
Self-Protection
Figure 2. Schwartz’s Values Circle Reflecting the Interconnections Among

Values.
Designed based on Schwartz, Hammer, and Wach (2006).
Transcendence. Where individuals and countries fall along the axis formed by
these polar opposites reflects their value preferences, and preferences are
measured as the difference between scores for the corresponding values
categories. The values of Security, Conformity, and Tradition fall within the
Conservation section of the circle, while the semantically opposite Openness to
Change section includes the values Stimulation, Self-Direction, and
Hedonism. The Self-Enhancement section of the circle includes the values of
Power and Achievement, while the Self-Transcendence section on the other
side of the circle includes Universalism and Benevolence.
With Schwartz’s ideas as our starting point, we are taking the organiza-
tion of values a step further and adding two broad categories of second-
level values: Personal Focus vs. Social Focus and Self-Protection vs.
Growth (Schwartz, Hammer, and Wach, 2006). These value groupings are
reflected in two outer rings of Schwartz’s circular diagram, but they were
not used in empirical studies. In this article, we attempt to realize their

heuristic and explanatory potential.
The second-level category Social Focus encompasses the values Self-
Transcendence and Conservation, while the Personal Focus category encom-
passes the values of Self-Enhancement and Openness to Change. This
reflects the principle of organizing values in terms of the interests they serve.
The Personal Focus and Social Focus categories are the opposite poles of
a value axis that, unlike those mentioned above, could be characterized as a

second-level axis. In cross-cultural studies literature it is traditional to
assign great weight to the individualism–collectivism parameter, a multi-
valent parameter that can be operationalized in different ways (Markus and
Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1994; Hoftede, 2001; Nisbett, 2003; Inglehart
and Oyserman, 2004). It is therefore not surprising that Schwartz uses this
capacious characteristic to describe the value differences among individuals
in similar terms. It is interesting that each pole of the Personal Focus–Social
Focus axis has a dual nature. One pole combines two different types of
individualisms, one of which, the “egoistic” (Self-Enhancement) one, is
associated with the values of competition for a particular good (as part of a
zero-sum game, win-lose), while the other, the “creative” (Openness to
Change) one, is expressed in the values of independence and self-realiza-
tion, which are not necessarily associated with competition and can accom-
modate a win–win strategy.5 Correspondingly, the other pole combines two
different types of sociality, the opposites of these types of individualism.
Altruistic, horizontal sociality incorporates the value of concern for the
welfare of others, while subservience, vertical sociality, values protection
and guidance from others.
We believe that both poles of the Personal Focus–Social Focus value
parameter can be interpreted using the principle of social exchange
(Homans, 1961; Gouldner, 1960), the idea that people realize two main
types of equivalent exchange, or two equilibrium states. When people
adhere to Self-Transcendence, preferring it to Self-Enhancement, in
exchange they expect protection and guidance from those around them,
which is reflected in the value assigned to Conservation (security, confor-
mity, tradition) at the expense of Openness. On the other hand, when people
adhere to egoistic values of Self-Enhancement to the same degree as to the
values of Self-Transcendence, they have no reason to expect reciprocal help
and will have to rely on themselves, favoring the value of Openness to
Change (Self-Direction and Stimulation) over Conservation. The first of
these types of exchanges resembles Social Focus, while the second resem-
bles Personal Focus (even though in the first case, the social values of Self-
Transcendence also bring personal “advantages”).6
The second-level category Growth encompasses the values of Openness and

Self-Transcendence, while Self-Protection encompasses Conservation and Self-
Enhancement, an opposition that corresponds to Schwartz’s principle of a value’s
relation to anxiety. Explaining the basis for organizing values in this way,
Schwartz writes: “People seek to avoid conflict (conformity) and to maintain
the current order (tradition, security) or actively to control threat (power). Values
on the right (hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence)
express anxiety-free motivations” (Schwartz, 2012). The names of these cate-

gories can be traced back to Maslow’s theory of growth motivation and defi-
ciency motivation, where growth is associated with a person’s striving toward
develop and self-actualization, and Higgins’s theory of promotion/prevention,
according to which there are two types of self-regulation: one associated with the
avoidance of loss or prevention of harm and another associated with a striving to
acquire something new (Maslow, 1968; Higgins, 1997).
Schwartz devised several methods for measuring the value sets he pro-
posed. The European Social Survey (ESS), on whose findings this article is
based, uses a modified Portrait Value Survey developed by Schwartz and his
colleagues (Schwartz, Lehmann, and Roccas, 1999; Schwartz et al., 2001;
Schwartz, 2005). Respondents were given twenty-one verbal portraits of
people characterized through a particular set of values (see Table 1) and
asked to rate each portrait by selecting one of six options, ranging from 6,
“very much like me,” to 1, “not like me at all.”7 Identifying a higher degree of
similarity suggests that the value judgment in question is of greater importance
to the respondent. This instrument is aimed at measuring ten individual and
motivationally distinct basic values. The hierarchy of value indicators—from
the descriptions contained in the questionnaire statements to the first-level
values categories—is presented in Table 1.
A typological approach to studying values

Schwartz’s structural model is clearly aimed at distinguishing and grouping
various numerically scaled variables that to varying degrees of generalization
describe an individual’s values. This places the focus on individual properties and
how they can be grouped and used to compare people. This type of analysis can
be described as a variable-centered approach. An alternative, person-centered
approach is built around looking at and typifying individuals holistically. In this
approach, attention is focused on the sets of characteristics possessed by indivi-
duals and then grouping people with similar sets of characteristics, in this case,
similarities in the sets of values to which they assign importance.
Table 1
Hierarchy of Values Indicators Measured by Schwartz’s Portrait Value Questionnaire
Aggregated First-
Level Value
First-Level Value Categories Categories Basic Values Phrasing Given to Respondents8
Openness to Change– Conservation Security It is important to him to live in secure surroundings. He avoids
Conservation anything that might endanger his safety.
It is important to him that the government ensures his safety
against all threats. He wants the state to be strong so it can
defend its citizens.
Conformity He believes that people should do what they’re told. He thinks
people should follow rules at all times, even when no one is
watching.
It is important to him always to behave properly. He wants to avoid
doing anything people would say is wrong.
Tradition It is important to him to be humble and modest. He tries not to
draw attention to himself.
Tradition is important to him. He tries to follow the customs handed
down by his religion or his family.
Openness to Self-Direction Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. He
Change likes to do things his own original way.
It is important to him to make his own decisions about what he
does. He likes to be free and not depend on others.
Stimulation He likes surprises and is always looking for new things to do. He
thinks it is important to do lots of different things in life.
He looks for adventures and likes to take risks. He wants to have
an exciting life.
Hedonism Having a good time is important to him. He likes to “spoil” himself.
(Continued )
Table 1
(Continued)
Aggregated First-
Level Value
First-Level Value Categories Categories Basic Values Phrasing Given to Respondents8
He seeks every chance he can to have fun. It is important to him to

do things that give him pleasure.
Self-Transcendence–Self- Self-Enhancement Achievement It is very important to him to show his abilities. He wants people to
Enhancement admire what he does.

Being very successful is important to him. He likes to impress
other people.
Power It is important to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money
and expensive things.
It is important to him to get respect from others. He wants people
to do what he says.
Self- Benevolence It’s very important to him to help the people around him. He wants
Transcendence to care for their well-being.
It is important to him to be loyal to his friends. He wants to devote
himself to people close to him.
He thinks it is important that every person in the world should be
treated equally. He believes everyone should have equal
opportunities in life.
Universalism It is important to him to listen to people who are different from him.
Even when he disagrees with them, he still wants to understand
them.
He strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking
after the environment is important to him.
Until recently, researchers have shown little interest in the typological

approach to studying values. This approach, however, represents a time-
honored tradition (Spranger, 1928) and has been the basis for a number of
empirical studies (Szakolczai and Füstös, 1998; Moors and Vermunt, 2007;
Magun and Rudnev, 2012), some of which used Schwartz’s indicators, or
indicators close to them in meaning (Magun and Rudnev, 2008,2011,
2015a; Lee et al., 2011). We used Latent Class Analysis (LCA) to classify
individuals in terms of the values measured by Schwartz’s method. LCA is

a variation on Latent Structure Analysis, first proposed by Lazarsfeld and
Henry, and, unlike classical cluster techniques, such as k-means clustering,
it uses a statistical model that explains measurement errors and is based on
probabilities. Furthermore, it is a more flexible classification method and
provides more robust results than other cluster analysis techniques
(Lazarsfeld and Henry, 1968; Magidson and Vermunt, 2002).9 Finally,
LCA allows for control of responses, usually corrected using arithmetic
centering (see, for example, Schwartz, 1992; Rudnev2013).
The classification of Europeans in terms of their basic values that is
described in this article was derived previously (Magun, Rudnev, and
Schmidt, 2015; Rudnev, Magun, and Schmidt, forthcoming) in works using
data from Rounds 4, 5, and 6 of the ESS, collected in 2008, 2010, and 2012,
respectively, from representative national samples (Jowell et al., 2007).
The countries of Europe have been divided into four groups based on
geographic and historical criteria: Northern European, Western European,
Mediterranean, and the Post-Socialist countries of Eastern and Central
Europe.10 Round 4 includes data for four Northern European countries
(Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), seven Western European countries
(Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Ireland, and
Switzerland), six Mediterranean countries (Cyprus, Greece, Israel,
Portugal, Spain, and Turkey), and twelve Post-Socialist countries
(Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland,
Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine). During Round 4, a
total of 55,454 respondents from 29 countries answered questions about
values (this total was derived after the removal of a negligible number of
omitted responses—less than 3 percent).
Data from Round 5 include information about 51,514 respondents from
27 European countries, the same ones as in Round 4 with the exception of
Latvia, Romania, and Turkey but with the addition of Lithuania.
Round 6 covered 45,887 respondents from 24 countries differing from
those participating in Round 4 by the exclusion of Croatia, France, Greece,
Latvia, Romania, Turkey, and Ukraine and the addition of Kosovo and Spain.
The objective of devising a European value typology using LCA was to

sort individuals into groups whose members resemble one another in terms
of the aggregate of their values while being distinctly different from
members of other groups. Values classes or types each have a distinct
value profile reflected in the combination of value indicators (out of the
21 included in the study) that characterizes them. Using the likelihood ratio
statistic (Lo, Mendell, Rubin, 2001) it was determined that, for Europe, the
optimal number of values classes is five.

The value typology for Europeans proved to be stable (invariant) for data
from the three ESS rounds conducted in 2008, 2010, and 2012, even
though these rounds did not perfectly overlap in terms of the countries
included (Rudnev, Magun, and Schmidt, 2015a).11 In each round, the
optimal number of classes was five, and from round to round, the content
of classes remained the same. This allowed us to examine a typology that
was the same for all three ESS rounds, focusing attention on one survey
2.5
Strong Social Focus

2
Growth Values
1.5
Self-Enhancement–Self-Transcendence
Weak Social Focus
0.5
Weak Personal Focus
0
Strong Personal Focus
-0.5
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Conservation–Openness to Change
Round 4 Round 5 Round 6
Figure 3. Value Classes for Europe’s Population Plotted Using Schwartz’s

Value Axes.
Aggregated typology for European countries based on three rounds of the ESS,
2008–2012; classes are plotted in accordance with average values.
round at a time. In devising this typology, data were weighted using

population size weights and design weights.12
In order to concisely summarize the content of each of the values
classes, a full description of which would incorporate a comparison of
twenty-one indicators among five classes, we placed these classes within
a field formed by Schwartz’s two value axes: Conservation–Openness to
Change and Self-Enhancement–Self-Transcendence (Figure 3). It can be
clearly seen that the position of classes within this field did not significantly
change from round to round.
Four values classes fall along a line that goes from the upper left corner
to the lower right corner of Figure 3. At one end of this European diagonal
is the values class whose members combine a maximally strong preference
for the values of Conservation over the values of Openness to Change with
a maximally strong preference for the values of Self-Transcendence over
values of Self-Enhancement. This class can be seen as having a Strong
Social Focus. At the other end of this diagonal is a values class whose
members exhibit a maximal preference for Openness to Change over
Conservation and a minimal (almost zero) preference for Self-
Transcendence over Self-Enhancement. This class can be labeled as having
a Strong Personal Focus. One of the two types falling between these two
extremes adjoins the Strong Social Focus class, while the other is closer to
the Strong Personal Focus class. These intermediate classes are accordingly
labeled Weak Social Focus and Weak Personal Focus. Within the pairs of
Social Focus and Personal Focus classes there are strong differences. For
example, the Strong Social Focus class is distinguished from the Weak
Social Focus class by a strong preference for the value of Self-
Transcendence and, to a much lesser extent, by a strong preference for
the value of Conservation. The Strong Personal Focus class is distinguished
from the Weak Personal Focus class by the stronger expression of all of its
value preferences, including for Self-Enhancement over Self-
Transcendence and Openness to Change over Conservation.
The diagonal in Figure 3 means that for Europeans who belong to the
classes positioned along it, the Conservation–Openness to Change and Self-
Enhancement–Self-Transcendence axes are closely linked by inverse rela-
tionships (indeed, the corresponding correlation coefficients among the
members of these four classes are negative and strongly marked in terms
of their absolute values: r = –0.49, N = 49278 in Round 4; r = –0.47, N =
42851 in Round 5; and r = –0.48, N = 35387 in Round 6). A correlation
coefficient close to –0.50 between two value axes for people who fall
within the classes positioned along the diagonal shows that the connection
between the two types of individualism and two types of sociality described
Table 2
Value Classes Among the European Sample
Value Classes
Weak Weak Strong

Growth Strong Social Personal Personal

ESS round Values Social Focus Focus Focus Focus
4 (2008) 16% 18% 26% 23% 17%

5 (2010) 18% 16% 28% 21% 17%
6 (2012) 16% 15% 30% 21% 18%
Note. Based on data from three rounds of the European Social Survey. See Weighting European
Social Survey Data: https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/ESS_weighting_
data_1.pdf
above really exists. However, since this coefficient is far from –1, it is also
evidence of a significant degree of autonomy between different types of
individualism and sociality within the values classes we are examining. As
seen in Table 2, 80 percent of the population falls within the four classes
positioned along this diagonal, and this can likely be explained by the fact
that most Europeans base their value preferences on the principle of social
exchange.
The fifth European values class is positioned away from the value
diagonal. The people who fall within this class fundamentally differ from
the four classes positioned along the diagonal in that they combine a strong
preference for the values of Openness to Change over Conservation with
the values of Self-Transcendence over Self-Enhancement. This combination
is impossible for the classes positioned along the diagonal. It is apparently
the uniqueness of this combination of values that makes this class the most
stable and clearly formed. We have labeled this the Growth Values class in
keeping with the organization of values shown on the Schwartz circle in
Figure 2.
When classes are described using the language of specific indicators, it
becomes evident, for example, that members of the Strong Social Focus
class have a stronger preference than other classes for security, equality/
justice, and altruism, while members of the Strong Personal Focus class
prefer values of freedom, stimulation, and wealth. Members of the Growth
Values class combine values that do not come together for members of the
two classes at the opposite ends of the diagonal: the respondents who make
up the Growth Values class combine an adherence to the ideals of equality,

justice, and the welfare of others with an adherence to personal freedom
and independence.
Based on the interpretation of the Social Focus–Personal Focus axis
offered above, it could be concluded that the preferences of people who
fall within the classes along the diagonal reflect a belief in the principle of
reciprocity. This principle does not govern the thinking of people who fall
within the Growth Values class. Members of the Growth Values class do
not see a rigid link between altruism and social dependence or between
egoism and independence. This type of person strongly adheres to a belief
in caring for others (Self-Transcendence) but does not expect others to give
them guidance on how to live and act, or reciprocal protection and care:
they are committed to independence and are not afraid to take risks. This is
the altruism of independent people. Something similar was found in
research into employee motivation in economically advanced European
countries: there, workers do not exhibit a belief in the principle of recipro-
city in their relations with employers. Researchers explain this by pointing
to more extensive public benefits not tied to employee contributions and
distributed by governments and civic foundations (Magun and Monusova,
2014; 2015). In summary, it could be said that the norm of reciprocity
operates in social systems with limited resources, but when resources
abound, this abundance leads to a breakdown of local reciprocal ties. If
the analogy with employee motivation holds, it can be anticipated that
members of the Growth Values class tend to reside in more economically
advanced countries.
On the values map presented in Figure 3, there are three areas where
people sharing similar values are concentrated: the upper right corner,
representing the Growth Values class; the upper left corner, representing
Strong and Weak Social Focus classes; and the lower right corner, repre-
senting individualistic preferences. The lower left corner remains empty.
This is where a Self-Protection class would be located, combining a strong
preference for Conservation values over Openness to Change and for Self-
Enhancement over Self-Transcendence. This illustrates the usefulness of the
typological approach, the only approach that provides information about
dense points and blank spots, where people are either concentrated or
absent. Theoretically, in less developed parts of the world, this class is
entirely possible, but it is not found in Europe. This is why the differences
among Europeans along the Personal Focus–Social Focus axis are more
strongly expressed than the differences along the Growth–Self-Protection
axis, and the personal–social parameter is key to describing the interper-
sonal value differences within Europe’s population.
Iceland
Sweden
Finland
Denmark
Switzerland
Germany
Norway
Holland
Spain
Belgium
Great Britain
Estonia
Ireland
Slovenia
Cyprus
Israel
Hungary
Portugal
Poland
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
Russia
Slovakia
Kosovo
Growth Values Strong Social Focus Weak Social Focus
Weak Personal Focus Strong Personal Focus
Figure 4. Distribution of Europeans by Values Class.

The probability of a person’s falling into a particular class is given in percentages
for greater clarity. Country order is based on Growth Value class probability.
Aggregated typology for European countries is based on three rounds of the
European Social Survey, ESS Round 6 data, 2012.
Country characteristics and membership in Europe’s values

classes
Figure 4 shows the probability distributions for membership in a particular
values class for the people of each European country.13 It shows that all
surveyed countries are heterogeneous, all have members of all five values
classes (with the exception of Kosovo, where the probability for one class is
not significantly different from zero), and all differ in how the population is
distributed among classes. The values held by the people of any given
European country are not a unique and homogeneous “national culture,”
but rather a combination of several groups with different values. All this is
consistent with the findings of Fischer and Schwartz (2011), which showed
that the range of values across individuals is much greater than the range
across countries, but conflicts with the conclusions of Minkov and Hofstede
(2012), who claim that intercountry differences have much greater weight
in determining values than intracountry differences. It turns out that indi-
viduals have more in common with members of their values class living in
other countries than compatriots who belong to different values classes,
leading to certain similarities even between the most dissimilar countries.

The most striking difference in the prevalence of values classes across
countries involves the Growth Values class, whose members simulta-
neously assign great importance to the values of Openness to Change and
Self-Transcendence. The chance of falling into this class is much greater for
the people of Northern and Western Europe than for those in the
Mediterranean and Post-Socialist countries. The shares of other classes
are higher in the Mediterranean and Post-Socialist countries than in
Northern and Western Europe, although the differences among countries
are not as great as in the case of the Growth Values class. The distribution
of all values classes for the four groups of European countries [and Russia]
is shown in Figure 5.
To determine which country characteristics are responsible for intercoun-
try value differences, the proportions of values classes within countries
have been juxtaposed with various indicators characterizing their
Northern Europe
Western Europe
Mediterranean Countries
Post-Socialist Countries
Russia
Growth Values Strong Social Focus Weak Social Focus

Weak Personal Focus Strong Personal Focus
Figure 5. Value Class Distribution for Populations Across the Four Groups
of European Countries and Russia.
for greater clarity. Probabilities were averaged taking into account population
figures in individual countries. Russia has not been included in Post-Socialist
averages. Aggregated typology for European countries based on three rounds of
the European Social Survey, ESS Round 6 data, 2012.
Table 3
Correlation Coefficients Among Countries’ Values Class Shares (in

Percentages) and Other Country Indicators
Values Classes
Strong Weak Weak Strong

Values Social Social Personal Personal
Class Focus Focus Focus Focus
Per capita GNI 2012, Atlas 0.81* –0.51* –0.46* –0.27 –0.29
method
Life expectancy at birth, 2012 0.73* –0.50* –0.20 –0.24 –0.46*
–Controlling for per capita GNI 0.30 –0.18 0.22 –0.05 –0.38
Government spending on 0.59* –0.45* –0.06 –0.27 –0.30
education as a percent of
government expenditures
–Controlling for per capita GNI 0.19 –0.17 0.28 –0.13 –0.15
Note. In calculating correlations (including partial correlations) with per capita GNI, Norway was
excluded due to its exceptionally high per capita GNI, so in this case n = 23, while in all other
cases n = 24. Source: World Bank DataBank, 2015.
*Correlation significant at the level of p < 0.05 or at a stricter level of significance.
development level (Table 3). One of the key parameters, per capita GNI
(gross national income), measures the wealth produced by a country and the
level of its economic development. Per capita GNI positively and very
strongly correlates with the relative size of a country’s Growth Values class.
As noted, the share of the Growth Values class is higher among the
populations of more developed countries. It is therefore not surprising
that the correlation between the proportion of this class in a country and
per capita GNI is very high, 0.91 in ESS Round 4; 0.86 in Round 5; and
0.81 in Round 6 (Figure 6) .14 The shares of all other classes within a
country’s population correlate negatively or insignificantly with the level of
economic development. Indicators for life expectancy and government
spending on education also correlate significantly and positively with the
probability that a country’s people will belong to the Growth Values class
and negatively or insignificantly with the probability of belonging to other
values classes. However, when we controlled these correlations for the level
of per capita GNI, they all became statistically insignificant. This suggests
that a country’s domestic product and wealth are the most direct and
significant correlates for a country’s Growth Values share. The share of
50%
45% Iceland
40% r=0.81
Share of Growth Values class
Sweden
35%
Finland
30% Germany Denmark Switzerland
25% Spain Norway

Holland
Belgium
20% Great Britain
Estonia
15% Ireland
Slovenia
Cyprus
10% Hungary Israel
Poland Portugal
5% Bulgaria Russia Czech Republic
Slovakia
0% Kosovo
0 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000
Per capita GNI in current dollars
Figure 6. The Share of the Growth Values Class and Level of Per Capital
GNI in European Countries.
The probability of the Growth Values class is given in percentages for greater
clarity. Aggregated typology for European countries based on three rounds of the
European Social Survey, ESS Round 6 data, 2012.
all other values classes is negatively or insignificantly associated with a

country’s wealth. In other words, the poorer a country, the more strongly its
value diagonal formed by the opposing Social Focus and Personal Focus
values is expressed and the less likely its people are to belong to the
Growth Values class.
The cause-and-effect relationship among the correlations we describe
between economic indicators and a given country’s values composition can
operate in a number of ways. On one hand, there is Maslow’s logic,
according to which higher-level needs and values intensify once lower-
level needs have been more or less met. The assignment of great impor-
tance to both the values of Openness to Change and Self-Transcendence,
the combination that defines the Growth Values class, corresponds to the
needs Maslow places higher up his hierarchy, while the values of
Conservation and Self-Enhancement are lower down and include physio-
logical needs and the need for safety (Maslow, 1970a; 1970b). The ability
to satisfy these basic needs is tied to a country’s level of economic devel-
opment, so wealth and economic efficiency facilitate the formation of the
Growth Values class among a country’s people. Furthermore, members of
the Growth Values class, because they intrinsically value creativity and
cooperation, can promote the production of national wealth, which con-

tributes to the correlation under discussion.
The content of the Growth Values class suggests a similarity between the
members of that class and those valuing self-expression or emancipation
(Inglehart, 1997; Welzel, 2004; Dobewall and Rudnev, 2014) described in
theories positing a values post-modernization and a new sense of human
empowerment. The authors of these theories emphasize the strong associa-
tion between these values and the resources of countries and individuals.
Values classes in Russia: Additional features and trends

Russia represents all values classes (Figures 4 and 5), although only 2 percent
of the population falls within the Growth Values class. The fact that the
country has one of the smallest proportions of this values class corresponds
to its relatively low level of economic development: in Figure 6, which
shows the relationship between the share of the Growth Values class and
per capita GNI, Russia is right on the line reflecting the European trend.
Almost all Russians therefore fall within classes positioned along the
European values diagonal. During ESS Round 6, conducted in 2012, a little
less than half the population exhibited a predominant social focus—20
percent fell in the Strong Social Focus class and 24 percent in the Weak
Social Focus class—and a little more than half fell on the personal focus
side of the dichotomy—26 percent in the Strong Personal Focus and 28
percent in the Weak Personal Focus class. Typological analysis allows us to
see a picture where Russia represents a distribution of different value
systems, a picture that cannot be seen in the distribution of country
averages shown in Figure 1. The combination of values that would have
been expected based on averages (strong preferences for the values of
Conservation over the values of Openness to Change and weak preferences
for Self-Transcendence over Self-Enhancement) is simply absent from the
European values space.
Russia is characterized by a relatively strong (in comparison with other
countries) prevalence of the two Personal Focus classes. Based on the
proportion of these two classes added together, Russia winds up among
Europe’s top four countries (along with Hungary, Portugal, and the Czech
Republic). Only among these four European countries, plus Israel, does
more than half of the population fall into a Personal Focus class.
Furthermore, Russia is somewhat less different from Mediterranean and
Post-Socialist countries in terms of the proportion of these classes than its
difference from Scandinavia and Western Europe (Figure 4).
Table 4
Characteristics of the Four Russian Values Classes, as Percentage of Responses Among Respondents Belonging to
Each Class or Average Scores by Class, With Standard Errors in Parentheses
Strong Weak Strong

Social Focus Weak Social Personal Personal
Class Focus Class Focus Class Focus Class
Respondent Characteristics or Responses N=491* N=596 N=702 N=432
Age and Sex

Average age (number of years lived) 54.7 (0.80) 51.5 (0.69) 42.4 (0.64) 38.3 (0.65)
Percentage male 31 (2) 35 (2) 39 (2) 45 (2)
Most important quality in a child (% that selected):

diligence 88 (1) 88 (1) 80 (2) 75 (2)
patience and respect for others 67 (2) 65 (2) 56 (2) 51 (2)
obedience 33 (2) 20 (2) 21 (2) 22 (2)
decisiveness, assertiveness 33 (2) 39 (2) 45 (2) 49 (2)
independence 24 (2) 27 (2) 39 (2) 39 (2)
imagination 6 (1) 8 (1) 16 О) 17 (1)
Gays and lesbians should have the right to live the lifestyle that corresponds 22 (2) 18 (2) 24 (2) 29 (2]
to their views (% of “agree” plus “completely agree” responses)
The government should take measures to reduce discrepancies among 83 (2) 84 (2) 69 (2) 67 (2)
people's incomes (% of “agree” plus “completely agree” responses)
Social Interactions
Spend time with friends, relatives, or colleagues outside work once or more 39 (2) 43 (2) 43 (2) 55 (2)
per week, %
Friends and acquaintances are “very important” or “rather important” to the 83 (2) 87 (1) 92 (1) 91 (1)
respondent, %
(Continued )
Table 4
(Continued)
Strong Weak Strong

Social Focus Weak Social Personal Personal
Class Focus Class Focus Class Focus Class
Respondent Characteristics or Responses N=491* N=596 N=702 N=432
Turned to local or federal government authorities or a specific politician over 12 (1) 7 (1) 6 (1) 6 (1)
the past year, %
Watch television on typical workdays 2.5 hours or more, % 49 (2) 39 (2) 36 (2) 29 (2)
Watch television news or broadcasts about politics on typical workdays .5 72 (2) 61 (2) 62 (2) 58 (2)
hours per day or more, %
Education
Respondent's education 12.3 (0.15) 12.5 (0.12) 13.0 (0.10) 13.3 (0.11)
Number of years of education (secondary)
Below secondary, % 14 (2) 10 (1) 7 (1) 10 (1)
Secondary, % 59 (2) 61 (2) 61 (2) 51 (2)
Higher, % 26 (2) 29 (2) 32 (2) 39 (2)
Father's education, %
Below secondary 39 (2) 36 (2) 22 (2) 13 (1)
Secondary 27 (2) 35 (2) 42 (2) 47 (2)
Higher 11 (1) 11 (1) 16 (1) 20 (2)
Mother's education, %
Below secondary 43 (2) 40 (2) 21 (2) 14 (1)
Secondary 33 (2) 37 (2) 48 (2) 49 (2)
Higher 9 (1) 13 (1) 19 (1) 26 (2)
Financial Resources and Consumption
Household income, % 36 (2) 25 (2) 20 (2) 16 (2)

Under 12,000 rubles
More than 30,000 rubles 19 (2) 22 (2) 28 (2) 36 (2)
Respondent /family has personal computer, % 51 (2) 54 (2) 71 (2) 81 (2)
Respondent/family has car, % 32 (2) 36 (2) 49 (2) 54 (2)
Respondent has smartphone, % 11 (1) 11 (1) 25 (2) 31 (2)
Respondent traveled abroad on vacation over the past 12 months, % 5 (1) 7 (1) 11 (1) 22 (2)
Subjective Wellbeing
Considering all aspects of life, how satisfied are you currently with your life 5.55 (0.12) 5.59 (0.09) 5.86 (0.08) 6.08 (0.10)
overall? (average using an 11 point scale)
Almost every day I have a sense of satisfaction because things are working 44 (2) 40 (2) 47 (2) 52 (2)
out for me (% of “agree” plus “completely agree” responses)
Respondent did not sleep well the entire preceding week or most of it, % 33 (2) 25 (2) 20 (2) 16 (1)
How would you assess your overall health? (% of “good” plus “very good” 21 (2) 25 (2) 42 (2) 50 (2)
responses)
Self-assessment of social status (average using an 11 point scale) 4.14 (0.08) 4.22 (0.07) 4.62 (0.06) 4.92 (0.07)
“We live on our [family] income without financial problems” plus “This income 40 (2) 39 (2) 47 (2) 54 (2)
is basically sufficient,” %
There are many areas in which I'm strong (% of “agree” plus “completely 34 (2) 35 (2) 40 (2) 51 (2)
agree” responses)
Totals for Russian classes; due to omitted values for other variables, fewer respondents participated in pairwise comparisons.
To provide a more detailed look at the content of Russia’s values classes, we

offer a description of the traits that characterize them that go beyond the
expressed values used to form these classes (Table 4). Since the Growth
Values class is extremely small in Russia, we did not include it in this analysis.
The first set of additional characteristics is respondents’ age and sex. A
steady rise in average age can be seen going from the Strong Personal Focus
class to the Strong Social Focus class, and the greatest differences are seen
when we compare personal and social classes: the average age in round figures
for each class is 38, 42, 52, and 55, respectively. There are significantly more
men in the Strong Personal Focus class than in the Social Focus classes.
The second set of additional characteristics distinguishing Russian values
classes is closely tied to the original value indicators used in creating the
classes. It includes qualities that respondents considered to be most important
to instill in their families’ children (there is significant overlap between these
qualities and the respondents’ own values; see Rudnev and Savel’kaeva,
2015).15 Members of the two Social Focus classes are more likely than
members of Personal Focus classes to select “patience and respect” and
“diligence,” and the Strong Social Focus class is furthermore distinguished
from all other classes by the frequency with which qualities such as “obedi-
ence” are selected (all differences mentioned in connection with Table 4 are
statistically significant with a probability of at least p < 0.05). Obedience as a
value is directly tied to Schwartz’s Conformity, and patience and respect for
others incorporates Schwartz’s Benevolence, Universalism, and Conformity
—all values intrinsic to the Social Focus classes. Diligence does not figure in
the list of Schwartz’s values, but it is associated with the value of
Conservation (Okol’skaia, n.d.). On the other hand, the values of indepen-
dence (nezavisimost’), imagination, and decisiveness are closely associated
with Schwartz’s Independence (samostoiatel’nost’), and it is therefore not at
all surprising that members of both Personal Focus classes would select these
values more often than members of the Social Focus classes.
Values classes related differently to tolerance for gays and lesbians than
to tolerance overall: attitudes in this area involve social practices that only
recently began to acquire legitimacy, which is why greater tolerance in this
areas is manifested by members of the Strong Personal Focus class, who
value novelty and are freer of the conventional social norms to which
members of Social Focus classes generally adhere more strongly.
Members of the two Social Focus classes are more inclined than mem-
bers of the Personal Focus classes to agree with the statement that “The
government should take measures to reduce discrepancies among people’s
incomes,” which reflects attitudes about equality and reliance on govern-
ment support. Placing a high value on “equal opportunity” is one of the
defining features of the Social Focus class. However equality of opportu-

nity is not the same as reducing income inequality, which implies equality
of outcomes. Conceptually, these two types of equality (or inequality) are
not the same, but differences in income are, in commonplace thinking,
generally attributed to differences in opportunity, thus minimizing the
significance of this semantic nuance. Furthermore, the value of a strong
state is an aspect of Schwartz’s Security value, which is also one of the
formative elements of the Social Focus classes.

The questions relating to people’s actual social interactions are also
relevant here. It turns out that members of the two Social Focus classes
do not engage in more frequent non-work-related social interactions than
members of the Personal Focus classes; in fact, the Strong Personal Focus
class leads in this regard. This same pattern can be observed in respondents’
ratings of the importance of friends and acquaintances: members of the
Social Focus classes are somewhat less likely to rate such interactions as
“very important” and “rather important.” People from the Strong Social
Focus class do surpass others in the amount of time they spend watching
television (both general and political programming) and in the frequency
with which they reach out to the authorities, which is also a form of social
interaction. These last two differences may, in part, be associated with the
fact that there is a greater proportion of elderly people and retirees in the
Social Focus classes as compared to the Personal Focus classes. But the
effect of the age factor is most likely also mediated by corresponding value
differences expressed in the stronger focus on government among the
Social Focus values classes. In this case, it is expressed in a focus on
state sources of information and interactions with government offices. All
this points to the fact that for Russian values classes, sociality is more
strongly expressed vertically than horizontally.
The third group of additional traits that distinguish Russian values classes
from one another describes the extent to which members have various personal
resources at their disposal. Here, we include both objective resources and their
subjective reflections in the form of satisfaction ratings and individual self-
assessments. Comparisons of classes show that individuals falling into the
Personal Focus values classes have at their disposal greater personal resources
of various sorts than people with socially focused values.16
First and foremost among these resources would be education, which is tied
to cultural and human capital. Members of both Personal Focus classes tend to
have more years of education. Compared to members of the two Social Focus
classes, members of the Strong Personal Focus class furthermore are more
likely to have had higher education (whereas the education of members of the
other groups more often did not extend beyond secondary school).
An even greater contrast among members of different classes has to do with

the extent of educational resources enjoyed by their parents’ families—the
families within which they were raised. In this case, across all of the educational
categories that we examined, we see advantages for members of the Personal
Focus class: the parents of members of both Personal Focus classes, compared
with Social Focus classes, had more education both at the secondary and post-
secondary levels. The correlation of education level across generations is note-
worthy. Overall, children, of course, are better educated than their parents, but
educational intergenerational mobility is not the same across the different values
classes: in the two Social Focus classes and in the Weak Personal Focus class, the
share of those who received both higher and secondary education grew, as
compared with their parents. However, within the Strong Personal Focus class,
intergenerational mobility was seen only pertaining to the highest level of
educational attainment: only the share of children with higher education grew
in comparison with their parents. This result fits the profile of the Strong Personal
Focus class, which assigns great priority to the value of achievement.
Another type of resource we examined was financial, along with the benefits
such resources bring. Both Personal Focus classes surpass both Social Focus
classes in family income. Furthermore, income consistently declines across the
Strong Personal Focus–Strong Social Focus spectrum. The same is true for travel
abroad, where the sharpest difference is seen between the frequency of travel by
members of the Strong Personal Focus class and all the rest. As might be
expected, members of the Personal Focus classes are also more likely to own
assets such as computers, smartphones, and cars.
All these objective indicators of well-being are also reflected in higher
subjective assessments of well-being. Members of the Strong Personal Focus
class surpass those of both Social Focus classes in how satisfied they are with
life and their sense of success in all they do. Correspondingly, they also sleep
better (less often experience troubled, anxious sleep). This same pattern is
seen in self-assessments. Self-assessments of health, social status, and family
income are higher for both Personal Focus classes than for the Social Focus
classes, and the self-assessment of status is higher for the Strong Personal
Focus class than the weak one. Self-assessment of competence is higher for
the Strong Personal Focus class than for any other class.
The evidence suggests that the Personal Focus classes comprise people
who have significant personal resources, while the Social Focus classes
comprise people with relatively few. This correlation between resources and
values is easy to explain: people with resources are more self-sufficient and
adhere to values that correspond to the value of self-sufficiency, while those
who have few resources are forced to turn to other people and organizations
for resources, as well as to the government; their values reflect this real-life
need for outside assistance. This interpretation sees resources as cause and
values as effect, but in the case of certain types of resources (education,
family income) and their subjective correlates, the cause and effect relation-
ship could, of course, be reversed: people with individualistic value systems
might put greater effort into acquiring resources for themselves, while
people with a greater social focus could be inclined to rely on social
resources and more rarely pursue acquisition.
Values classes were correlated with personal resources on the descriptive

level. In other words, these correlations were not made using control variables.
Therefore, the conclusion that membership in the Personal Focus classes, espe-
cially the Strong Personal Focus class, necessarily implies relatively more
resources must be considered tentative. But if we do provisionally accept these
conclusions and extrapolate them onto other countries, we find that country-
specific and individual resources have opposite effects on membership in
Personal Focus classes: the proportion of these classes is higher in less wealthy
European countries (see Table 3), but within countries the probability of a person
falling into them is higher among people with greater resources. This opposite
effect is not seen in regard to Social Focus classes: the proportion of these classes
is higher in less wealthy countries, but within a country, the probability of falling
into them is also higher among people with fewer resources.
Values classes and their trends within Russia

As expected, the distribution of values classes within the countries of
Europe was quite stable over the four years from 2008 to 2012, and
differences in the proportions of classes did not exceed 10 percent (with
the exception of two countries, Cyprus and Slovenia). The proportions of
values classes in Russia also proved to be generally stable, with the
approximately even division of the Russian population between Social
Focus and Personal Focus classes holding steady throughout our time
frame (Figure 7). Nevertheless, by the end of four years, a statistically
significant increase had been seen in the proportion of people belonging to
the Personal Focus class (the Strong and Weak Personal Focus classes
combined) and a statistically significant decline in the proportion of people
in the Social Focus classes (the Strong and Weak Social Focus classes
combined). While in 2008 there were slightly more people with socially
oriented value systems, by 2012 the balance had shifted and there were
more people with individualistic values: 54 percent versus 44 percent (the
proportion of the Growth Values class did not essentially change from
survey to survey). For comparison it should be noted that no clear pattern
was seen among other countries of the Post-Socialist category. A trend
Growth Values
Strong Social Focus
Weak Social Focus
Weak Personal Focus

Strong Personal Focus
Russia
Figure 7. Stability and Changes in the Distribution of Russians Across

Values Classes, 2008–2012.
for greater clarity. Aggregated typology for European countries across three
rounds of the European Social Survey.
similar to the one seen in Russia in regard to Social and Personal Focus
values classes was also observed in Ukraine (comparing only 2008 and
2010), Hungary, and Slovakia, while in Slovenia, Poland, and Estonia an
opposite trend was measured.17
Additional studies have shown that the shift toward individualistic
classes is attributable to the young generations, whose values were shaped
by powerful political, economic, and cultural changes in the 1980s and
early 1990s (Magun and Rudnev, 2010; Rudnev and Magun, 2014).
Russian sociology has had a constructive tradition of using the typolo-
gical approach in studying the public consciousness, a tradition with ties to
the idea of the “simple Soviet person” (see Levada, 1993; Gudkov, 2007).
We are proposing a more differential look at the palette of Russian values
classes. The social changes identified using our approach attest, in parti-
cular, to a shrinking proportion of “simple Soviet people” (who resembled
our description of members of Social Focus classes) and to an increased
share of people with different core values.
Conclusions
1. Using values measured by Schwartz’s questionnaire and Latent Class

Analysis, the populations of 32 European countries were divided into
five transnational values classes. It was shown that all of these values
classes are represented in Russia. Almost the entire Russian population
falls within a continuum represented by the Social Focus–Individual
Focus axis, specifically, within the Strong Social Focus, Weak Social
Focus, Weak Personal Focus, and Strong Personal Focus classes.
Approximately 2–3 percent of the population fall within the Growth
Values class.
The Social Focus pole is created when the values of Self-Transcendence and
Conservation come together, while the Personal Focus pole is created through
a combination of Self-Enhancement and Openness to Change. These combi-
nations are interpreted as corresponding to two main types of equivalent
exchange, two equilibrium states. People who belong to the Strong or Weak
Social Focus class exhibit loyalty to those around them (Self-Transcendence)
and in exchange expect to receive protection and guidance, as reflected in a
greater value placed on Security, Conformity, and Tradition (Conservation).
People who belong to the Weak or Strong Personal Focus class, suggesting a
strong adherence to the egoistic values of Self-Enhancement, have no basis for
expecting reciprocal help and are forced to be self-reliant and favor the values
of Self-Direction and Stimulation (Openness to Change).
2. It has been demonstrated that members of the Personal Focus classes

in Russia generally have more resources to draw on than members of
the Social Focus classes. This is also reflected in higher indicators for
satisfaction and happiness and in higher self-assessments.
In Russia, the Social Focus values class is characterized by vertical

sociality, manifested in an orientation toward authorities, the government
first and foremost. This vertical sociality differs from the horizontal soci-
ality exhibited by members of the Growth Values class, which is almost
non-existent in Russia. The focus on vertical relationships is also seen in
members of the Personal Focus classes, the difference being that they are
more interested in placing themselves above other people.
3. Over the course of the four years separating Rounds 4 and 6 of the
European Social Survey, a statistically significant shift toward individu-
alism took place among Russians that altered how they are distributed
among values classes. While in 2008 the Social Focus classes were
slightly larger, by 2012 the balance had shifted and there were now
more people with Personal Focus value systems. This occurred primarily
due to a shift toward individualistic values among Russia’s younger
generations. As of 2012, Russia was among the four European countries

(including Hungary, Portugal, and the Czech Republic) with the highest
proportions of people who fell in the two Personal Focus classes. Only
among these four European countries and Israel did the Personal Focus
classes represent more than 50 percent of the population.
4. Like our previous studies, this exploration of values classes is based

on comparisons of individual values variables and does not confirm
the view that cultural phenomena are not essentially immutable
(“archetypes,” “cultural genotypes,” “institutional matrices”) that
rigidly constrain the form and substance of social processes. It also
does not support the idea of a special inclination toward selfless
altruism, collectivism, or sobornost’ that has been attributed to
Russians.18 Our results suggest that “In comparison with other coun-
tries at similar levels of economic and political development, Russia is
closer to being the norm than the exception” (Shleifer and Treisman,
2004; Treisman and Shleifer, 2014).
What is most lacking in Russia, as in most other Post-Socialist countries,

is the Growth Values class, which combines an adherence to the Social
Focus values of Self-Transcendence (altruism, tolerance, equality, and
justice) with the Personal Focus values of Openness to Change (indepen-
dence, boldness, and a striving toward the new). This class is difficult to
discuss in terms of the familiar individualism–collectivism or materialism–
spiritualism spectrums, but it is a distinct feature of the populations of
advanced European countries.
Notes
1. The first two authors conducted the research presented here at the National
Research University Higher School of Economics in 2015 as part of the Program
for Basic Research. The authors wish to express their gratitude to M.S. Fabrikant
for her valuable comments and suggestions.
2. Here and elsewhere we use “type” and “class” synonymously.
3. In an updated model, the number of values has grown to 19 (Schwartz et al.,
2012).
4. The European Social Survey (ESS) is an international project for which the
results are publicly available. The project website is www.europeansocialsurvey.
org. In Russia, the European Social Survey has been conducted by the Institute for
Comparative Social Research since 2006. The national coordinator is A.V.
Andreenkova (www.ess-ru.ru). A web page titled “Weighting European Social
Survey Data, 2014” provides information about how ESS data is weighted: http://
www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/ESS_weighting_data_1.pdf.
5. I.M. Kliamkin and B.G. Kapustin have addressed the differences between the
two types of individualistic values (1994).
6. For a more in-depth exploration of this see Magun and Rudnev (2015b).
7. The ESS scale goes in the opposite direction, from 1, “very much like me,” to
6, “not at all like me.” In this article the order was reversed so that the highest value
corresponds to the higher level of importance of the corresponding value.
8. Feminine pronouns were used for female respondents.

9. Our analysis was performed using Mplus (Linda K. Muthén and Bengt O.
Muthén, Mplus User’s Guide, 6th ed., Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén, 2010).
In the earlier studies mentioned above that we were involved in, we constructed an
individual values classification using a more primitive procedure, k-means cluster-
ing. This explains the differences between the current typology and the one
previously described.
10. Norris and Davis (2007) have successfully used a similar classification
system.
11. In strict statistical terms, this would be described as a partial invariance.
12. See “Weighting European Social Survey Data”: https://www.europeansocial
survey.org/docs/methodology/ESS_weighting_data_1.pdf
13. Intra-country distributions (Figures 4 and 5) take into account the fact that
including respondents in a particular class based on latent class analysis rests on
probability estimates. In other words, respondents are characterized based on the
distribution of probabilities that they will fall into a particular class. Data have been
weighted using design weight.
14. We used the per capita GDI indicator measured using the World Bank Atlas
method for international dollars (World Bank DataBank, 2015).
15. The following and several other questions that figure in Table 4 were not
included in the basic ESS questionnaire: “Before you is a list of qualities that you
could instill in your family’s children. Which of them, if any, are the most
important in your opinion? You can select up to five qualities.”
16. A number of Russian sociologists have explored people’s various resources or
capital as an important social feature: see, for example, Iadov (2001), Radaev
(2003), Tikhonova (2006), and Shkaratan et al. (2003).
17. See the table in Rudnev, Magun, and Schmidt (Forthcoming, Appendix 3, p. 40).
18. Sobornost’, an untranslatable term, is associated with Slavophile philosophy
and refers to the idea of a special spiritual bond among Slavic peoples and their
inclination toward cooperation over individualism.
References
Dobewall, Henrik, and Maksim Rudnev. 2014. “Common and Unique Features of Schwartz’s And
Inglehart’s Value Theories at the Country and Individual Levels.” Cross-Cultural Research, vol.
48, pp. 45–77.
Fischer, Ronald, and Shalom Schwartz. 2011. “Whence Differences in Value Priorities? Individual,
Cultural, or Artifactual Sources.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 42, pp. 1127–
1144.
Gouldner, Alvin. 1960. “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement.” American

Sociological Review, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 161–178.
Gudkov, L.D. 2007. “‘Sovetskii chelovek’ v sotsiologii Iuriia Levady.” Obshchestvennye nauki i
sovremennost’, no. 6.
Higgins, E.T. 1997. “Beyond Pleasure and Pain.” American Psychologist, vol. 52, pp. 1280–1300.
Homans, George Caspar. 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Hoftede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Iadov, V.A. 2001. “Sotsial’nyi resurs individov i grupp kak ikh kapital: vozmozhnost’ primeneniia
universal’noi metodologii issledovaniia real’nogo rassloeniia v rossiiskom obshchestve.” In Kto
i kuda stremitsia vesti Rossiiu? Aktory makro-, mezo- i mikrourovnei sovremennogo transfor-
matsionnogo protsessa, ed. T.I. Zaslavskaia. Moscow: Moskovskaia vysshaia shkola sotsial’-
nykh i ekonomicheskikh nauk, pp. 310–318.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political
Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R., and D. Oyserman. 2004. “Individualism, autonomy, self-expression. The human
development syndrome.” In International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology, pp.
74–96.
Jowell, Roger, Caroline Roberts, Rory Fitzgerald, and Gillian Eva, eds. 2007. Measuring Attitudes
Cross-Nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey. London: Sage.
Kapustin, B.G., and I.M. Kliamkin. 1994. “Liberal’nye tsennosti v soznanii rossiian.” Polis.
Politicheskie issledovaniia, nos. 1–2.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Neil W. Henry. 1968. Latent Structure Analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lee, Julie Anne, et al. 2011. “Schwartz Values Clusters in the United States and China.” Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 42, pp. 234–252.
Levada, Iu.A., ed. 1993. Sovetskii prostoi chelovek: Opyt sotsial’nogo portreta na rubezhe 90-kh.
Moscow: Mirovoi okean.
Lo, Yungtai, Nancy R. Mendell, and Donald B. Rubin. 2001. “Testing the Number of Components
in a Normal Mixture.” Biometrika, vol. 88, pp. 767–778.
Magidson, Jay, and Jeroen Vermunt. 2002. “Latent Class Models for Clustering: A Comparison
With K-Means.” Canadian Journal of Marketing, vol. 20, pp. 36–43.
Magun, V.S., and G.A. Monusova. 2014.“Ierarkhii trudovykh tsennostei v evropeiskikh stranakh.”
14th April International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development, Book 3,
ed. E.G. Iasin. Moscow: Izdatel’skii dom Natsional’nyi issledovatel’skii universitet—Vysshaia
shkola ekonomiki
Magun, V.S., and G.A. Monusova. 2015. “Lichnye usiliia i obshchestvennye blaga v soznanii
zhitelei evropeiskikh stran.” 15th April International Academic Conference on Economic and
Social Development, Book 3, ed. E.G. Iasin. Moscow: Izdatel’skii dom Natsional’nyi issledo-
vatel’skii universitet–Vysshaia shkola ekonomiki,
Magun, V., and M. Rudnev. 2008. “Zhiznennye tsennosti rossiiskogo naseleniia: skhodstva i
otlichiia v sravnenii s drugimi evropeiskimi stranami.” Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniia.
Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 33–58.
Magun, V., and M. Rudnev. 2010. “Mezhdunarodnye sravneniia bazovykh tsennostei rossiiskogo
naseleniia i dinamika protsessov sotsializatsii.” Obrazovatel’naia politika, vol. 47–48, nos.
9–10, pp. 65–72.
Magun, V., and M. Rudnev. 2012. “Tsennostnaia geterogennost’ naseleniia evropeiskikh stran:
tipologiia po pokazateliam R.Inglkharta.” Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniia. Dannye. Analiz.
Diskussii, nos. 3–4, pp. 12–24.
Magun, V., and M. Rudnev. 2015a. “Basic Human Values of the Russians: Both Different from and
Similar to Other Europeans.” In Culture Matters in Russia and Everywhere: Backdrop for the
Russia-Ukraine Conflict, ed. Lawrence Harrison and Evgeny Yasin. London: Lexington Books.
Magun, V., and M. Rudnev. 2015b. “Al’ternativnye struktury tsennostnykh peremennykh Sh.
Shvartsa v Evrope.” In 15th April International Academic Conference on Economic and
Social Development, ed. E.G. Iasin, Book 4. Moscow: Izdatel’skii dom Natsional’nyi issledo-
vatel’skii universitet—Vysshaia shkola ekonomiki
Magun, V., M. Rudnev, and P. Schmidt. 2015. “Within- and Between-Country Value Diversity in
Europe: A Typological Approach.” European Sociological Review. First published online:
August 24, 2015: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv080.full

Markus, Hazel Rose, and Shinobu Kitayama. 1991. “Culture and the Self: Implications for
Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.” Psychology Review, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 224–253.
Schwartz, S.H. 1994. “Are There Universal Aspects in the Content and Structure of
Values?” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 50, pp. 19–45.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1968“Deficiency Motivation and Growth Motivation.” In Abraham H.
Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 21–43.
———-. 1970a. Motivation and Personality, 2d ed., New York.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1970b Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences. New York: Penguin (ori-
ginally published in 1964).
McCutcheon, Allan L. 1987. Latent Class Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences, no. 07-064. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Minkov, Michael, and Geert Hofstede. 2012. “Is National Culture a Meaningful Concept? Cultural
Values Delineate Homogeneous National Clusters of In-Country Regions.” Cross-Cultural
Research, vol. 46, pp. 133–159.
Moors, Guy, and Jeroen Vermunt. 2007. “Heterogeneity in Post-Materialist Value Priorities.
Evidence from a Latent Class Discrete Choice Approach.” European Sociological Review,
vol. 23, pp. 631–648.
Nisbett, Richard E. 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think
Differently . . . and Why. New York: The Free Press.
Norris, Рippa, and James Davis. 2007. “Continental Divide? Social Capital in the US and Europe.”
In Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey. London:
Sage, pp. 239–264.
Okol’skaia, L.A. Personal communication, n.d.
Radaev, V.V. 2003. “Poniatie kapitala, formy kapitalov i ikh konvertatsiia.” Obshchestvennye nauki
i sovremennost’, no. 2, pp. 5–16.
Rudnev, M. G. 2013. “Invariantnost’ izmereniia bazovykh tsennostei po metodike Shvartsa sredi
russkoiazychnogo naseleniia chetyrekh stran.” Sotsiologiia: metodologiia, metody, matemati-
cheskoe modelirovanie, vol. 37, pp. 7–38.
Rudnev, M.G., and V.S. Magun. 2014. “Mezhpokolennaia dinamika bazovykh tsennostei: post-
sotsialisticheskie strany v sravnenii so stranami Zapadnoi i Severnoi Evropy.” 14th April
International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development, Book 3, ed. E.G.
Iasin. Moscow: Izdatel’skii dom Natsional’nyi issledovatel’skii universitet–Vysshaia shkola
ekonomiki, pp. 537–548.
Rudnev, Maksim, Vladimir Magun, and Peter Schmidt. Forthcoming. “Basic Human Values:
Stability of Value Typology in Europe.” In Values, Economic Crisis and Democracy, ed.
Malina Voicu, Ingvill C. Mochmann, and Hermann Dulmer. Abingdon: Routledge. (First
published online: Maksim Rudnev, Vladimir Magun, and Peter Schmidt. 2014. “The Stability
of the Value Typology of Europeans: Testing Invariance with Confirmatory Latent Class
Analysis.” Working papers by NRU Higher School of Economics. Series SOC Sociology, no.
51: http://www.hse.ru/data/2014/08/29/1313633672/51SOC2014.pdf)
Rudnev, M.G., and A.S. Savel’kaeva [Savelkaeva]. 2015. “Peredacha bazovykh tsennostei vnutri
sem’i: kontseptualizatsiia i pilotnoe issledovanie.” In 15th April International Academic
Conference on Economic and Social Development, ed. E.G. Iasin, Book 3. Moscow:
Izdatel’skii dom Natsional’nyi issledovatel’skii universitet–Vysshaia shkola ekonomiki, pp.
397–404.
Schwartz. Shalom H. 1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical
Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” In Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, ed. Mark P. Zanna, vol. 25. Academic Press: New York, pp. 1–65.
Schwartz. Shalom H. 2005. “Basic Human Values: Their Content and Structure Across Countries.”
In Valores e Comportamento nas Organizações [Values and behavior in organizations], ed.

Álvaro Tamayo e Juliana Barreiros Porto. Petropolis, Brazil: Vozes, pp. 21–55.
Schwartz. Shalom H. 2012. “An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values.” In Online
Reads in Psychology and Culture: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1116&context=orpc
Schwartz, Shalom H., Arielle Lehmann, and Sonia Roccas. 1991. “Multimethod Probes Of Basic
Human Values.” In Social Psychology and Culture Context: Essays in Honor of Harry C.
Triandis, ed. John Adamopoulos and Yoshihisa Kashima, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, Shalom H., Beatrice Hammer, and Monique Wach. 2006. “Les valeurs de base de la
personne: Théorie, mesures et applications.” Revue française de sociologie, vol. 47, no. 4, pp.
929–968.
Schwartz, Shalom H., et al. 2001. “Extending the Cross-Cultural Validity of the Theory of Basic
Human Values with a Different Method of Measurement.” Journal of Cross Cultural
Psychology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 519–542.
Schwartz, Shalom H., et al. 2012. “Refining the Theory of Basic Individual Values.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 103(4), pp. 663–688.
Shkaratan, O.I., et al. 2003. Sotsial’noe rassloenie i ego vosproizvodstvo v sovremennoi Rossii.
Moscow: Gosudarstvennyi universitet—Vysshaia shkola ekonomiki.
Shleifer, A., and D. Treisman. 2004. “Rossiia–normal’naia strana.” Rossiia v global’noi politike,
no. 2.
Spranger, Eduard. 1928. Types of Men, trans. P.J.W. Pigors. New York: G.E. Stechert Company.
Szakolczai, Arpád, and László Füstös. 1998. “Value Systems in Axial Moments A Comparative
Analysis of 24 European Countries.” European Sociological Review, vol. 14, pp. 21–229.
Tikhonova, N.E. 2006. “Resursnyi podkhod kak novaia teoreticheskaia paradigma v stratifikatsion-
nykh issledovaniiakh.” Ekonomicheskaia sotsiologiia, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 11–26.
Treisman, D., and A. Shleifer. 2014. “Normal’nye strany.” Rossiia v global’noi politike, no. 6.
Triandis, Harry C. 1994. Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Welzel, Christian. 2013. Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

A Typology of European Values and Russians' Basic Human Values

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Typology of European Values and Russians' Basic Human Values

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Russian Social Science Review

ISSN: 1061-1428 (Print) 1557-7848 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mrss20

A Typology of European Values and Russians’ Basic

Vladimir Magun, Maksim Rudnev & Peter Schmidt

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611428.2017.1398547

Published online: 20 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

VLADIMIR MAGUN, MAKSIM RUDNEV, AND

A Typology of European Values and

Research on social values of the Russian population usually is based on

1.6 Belgium Sweden

Cyprus Belgium Northern Europe

0.8 Slovakia Hungary

Figure 1. Average Values for Russians and the People of 23 Other

types of studies, countries are described in terms of ten basic values or by

Values in Schwartz’s theory: An approach focused on variables

Figure 2. Schwartz’s Values Circle Reflecting the Interconnections Among

not used in empirical studies. In this article, we attempt to realize their

a value axis that, unlike those mentioned above, could be characterized as a

The second-level category Growth encompasses the values of Openness and

express anxiety-free motivations” (Schwartz, 2012). The names of these cate-

A typological approach to studying values

Hierarchy of Values Indicators Measured by Schwartz’s Portrait Value Questionnaire

He seeks every chance he can to have fun. It is important to him to

Enhancement admire what he does.

Until recently, researchers have shown little interest in the typological

individuals in terms of the values measured by Schwartz’s method. LCA is

The objective of devising a European value typology using LCA was to

optimal number of values classes is five.

Strong Social Focus

Weak Social Focus

Round 4 Round 5 Round 6

Figure 3. Value Classes for Europe’s Population Plotted Using Schwartz’s

round at a time. In devising this typology, data were weighted using

Value Classes Among the European Sample

Weak Weak Strong

Growth Strong Social Personal Personal

4 (2008) 16% 18% 26% 23% 17%

up the Growth Values class combine an adherence to the ideals of equality,

Growth Values Strong Social Focus Weak Social Focus

Weak Personal Focus Strong Personal Focus

Figure 4. Distribution of Europeans by Values Class.

Country characteristics and membership in Europe’s values

leading to certain similarities even between the most dissimilar countries.

Growth Values Strong Social Focus Weak Social Focus

Correlation Coefficients Among Countries’ Values Class Shares (in

Strong Weak Weak Strong

25% Spain Norway

all other values classes is negatively or insignificantly associated with a

cooperation, can promote the production of national wealth, which con-

Values classes in Russia: Additional features and trends

Strong Weak Strong

Age and Sex

Most important quality in a child (% that selected):

Strong Weak Strong

Household income, % 36 (2) 25 (2) 20 (2) 16 (2)

To provide a more detailed look at the content of Russia’s values classes, we

defining features of the Social Focus class. However equality of opportu-

formative elements of the Social Focus classes.

An even greater contrast among members of different classes has to do with