This section presents the quantitative results starting with descriptive statistics. There will first be tables with general statistical results, followed by values preferences (i.e. ranking order), and lastly a section on the SVT and Non-SVT values.
The following table presents the general descriptive statistic information of the values across all speeches.
Table 15. Descriptive statistics: Percentage of frequency of mention across all speeches 1809-2000.
Value N M SD
PO 355 8.2 9.0
AC 355 3.9 4.6
HE 355 0.4 1.8
ST 355 1.8 3.4
SD 355 4.8 6.2
UN 355 10.6 8.2
BE 355 14.9 9.1
CO 355 12.3 6.8
TR 355 4.9 4.8
SE 355 9.7 7.1
WO 355 8.4 7.3
SP 355 14.7 15.6
ED 355 5.2 5.6
Note: PO = Power, AC = Achievement, HE = Hedonism, ST= Stimulation, SD = Self-Direction, UN = Universalism, BE = Benevolence, CO = Conformity, TR = Tradition, SE = Security, WO = Work-related values, SP = Spirituality, ED = Education
The value with the highest amount of variance is Spirituality, followed by Power and Benevolence values. As can be seen, Universalism, Benevolence, Conformity and Spirituality values together cover more than 50% of all the values mentioned.
The following table shows value occurrences in speeches per speech type.
The highest occurrences for each speech type have been highlighted.
Table 16. Occurrence of values per speech type in percentage.
Speech
type PDD NYS POS Other All
N 173 66 104 12 355
PO 59.9 100 85.6 75 73
AC 34.1 90.9 83,7 66.7 60.3
HE 11.6 7.6 10.6 0 10.1
ST 18.5 56.1 51 16.7 34.9
SD 44.5 87.9 69.2 58.3 60.3
UN 93.6 100 87.5 91.7 93
BE 94.8 100 94.2 91.7 95.5
CO 100 98.5 91.4 100 97.2
TR 93.1 78.8 49 41.7 75.8
SE 85.6 97 91.4 100 89.9
WO 65.9 97 91.4 58.3 78.9
SP 100 40.9 28.9 25 65.6
ED 71.7 84.9 74 33.3 73.5
Note 1: PO = Power, AC = Achievement, HE = Hedonism, ST= Stimulation, SD = Self-Direction, UN = Universalism, BE = Benevolence, CO = Conformity, TR = Tradition, SE = Security, WO = Work-related values, SP = Spirituality, ED = Education
Note 2: PDD= Prayer Day Declarations, NYS = New Year’s Speech, POS = Parliament Opening Speeches, Other = Declarations and public speeches not classified into the previous three categories
Values present in almost all 355 speeches are Conformity, Benevolence, Universalism, and Security. Of the Non-SVT values, Work-related values are present in four-fifths of all the speeches. In the other end of frequencies, Hedonism is present only in about ten percent of the speeches, the lowest score of all. The second rarest is Stimulation, occurring in one-third of the speeches. These findings are quite in line with the hypothesis, in which I assumed that due to the SVT basic assumptions (Schwartz, 1992) they would be present throughout. The presence of the Non-SVT values also follows the presented hypothesis.
As can be expected, in all Prayer Day Declarations (PDD, N = 173) Spirituality values are present. Also occurring in all is Conformity. The other most favored ones are in order of frequency Benevolence, Universalism, Tradition, and Security.
In New Year’s Speeches (NYS, N = 66) the following occur in all speeches:
Universalism, Benevolence and Power. Conformity, Security, and Work-related values are present in all but one (Conformity) or two (Security and Work-related) speeches.
In Parliament Opening Speeches (POS, N = 104), Benevolence, Conformity, Security, and Work-related values are present in most speeches, but there is no single value category that would be present in all. For the category of “Other Speeches”, Conformity and Security are present in every speech, and Universalism and Benevolence are present in all but one.
The following table (17) shows how the relative importance for each value has fluctuated. The highest score for each value is highlighted. As can be seen, Benevolence and Conformity values form a fairly stable top two. Albeit Spirituality values scored very high initially, their position dropped and Power and Universalism values rose to pre-eminence. Achievement, Hedonism and Stimulation values have always been ranked very low.
Tradition values remain in the mid-low range for the whole period. Security values rise in importance during the 20th century.
Results in context Table 17.Ranking order of values per decade 1809 -191820 -291830 -391840 -491850 -591860 -691870 -791880 -891890 -991900 -111917 -191920 -291930 -391940 -491950 -591960 -691970 -791980 -89 PO9 9 10 9 7 7 6 10 10 6 8 7 2 5 6 1 1 6 AC11 10 9 10 11 10 9 9 8 10 6 10 10 10 10 9 10 9 HE12 12 12 12 10 12 9 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 ST 13 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 SD 8 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 9 8 2 9 10 8 9 10 8 11 UN 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 8 5 4 5 4 7 6 4 5 2 1 BE1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 6 3 TR5 6 5 8 5 8 7 4 11 9 11 8 8 9 11 10 11 10 CO3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 4 2 1 7 1 4 3 5 SE6 8 8 6 8 4 5 6 4 3 1 5 5 3 5 8 4 2 WO 7 7 6 7 9 5 11 5 7 7 7 6 6 1 7 3 5 4 SP 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 9 1 3 4 3 6 9 7 ED10 5 7 4 6 9 8 7 5 12 10 11 9 11 8 7 7 8 Note: PO = Power, AC = Achievement, HE = Hedonism, ST= Stimulation, SD = Self-Direction, UN = Universalism, BE = Benevolence, CO = Conformity, TR = Tradition, SE = Security, W Work-related values, SP = Spirituality, ED = Education
7.2.1 SVT VALUES VS. NON-SVT VALUES
Table 18. Percentual ratio of Schwartz Value Theory (SVT) value dimensions and Non-SVT values across all speeches.
Note: PO = Power, AC = Achievement, HE = Hedonism, ST= Stimulation, SD = Self-Direction, UN = Universalism, BE = Benevolence, CO = Conformity, TR = Tradition, SE = Security, WO = Work-related values, SP = Spirituality, ED = Education
As can be seen, a little less than three quarters of the endorsed values can be categorized as SVT values and a little over one-fourth as Non-SVT Finnish values. When looked at from the point of SVT value dimensions, Self-Enhancement values (Power and Achievement) amount to little over twelve percent, whereas Self-Transcendence Values (Universalism and Benevolence) cover doubly so much of all the values. Conservation (Conformity, Tradition and Security) values cover nearly one-third of all, and Openness-to-Change values (Hedonism, Stimulation and Self-Direction) under ten percent. The Non-SVT values (Spirituality, Work-related values, and Education) cover nearly one-third of the values mentioned187, which indicates that they are needed to gain a comprehensive picture of the values in this data.
The following figure shows the fluctuation over time of these dimensions in proportion to one another. The format of the figure (percentile area rather than e.g. columns) was chosen for the sake of clarity to better illustrate the continuous aspect of the fluctuations of the dimensions in relation to one another.
187 Helkama & Seppälä (2006) report of similar findings of values in media interviews, but they found a larger percentage (ca. 40%) of values not fitting to the SVT definition of values.
Figure 3 Fluctuation of SVT value dimensions and Non SVT values across all speeches 1809-2000 per decade
The figure above shows how the value dimensions have fluctuated in proportion to each other during time.
The Conservation values on a whole have remained quite stable, accounting for 22-33% of the values throughout the period. The proportion of Openness-to-Change values, albeit steadily increasing, remains at ca. 10%
at the end of the period. They also show the greatest fluctuation from 1% to 16%.
Self-Transcendence values decrease from ca. 40% in the 1850s till the ca.
19% in the 1880s , but remain fairly the same after that, except for the last decades in the time period under, when they again are increasing, covering a nearly third of all endorsed values.
Self-Enhancement values also show a lot of fluctuation, from ca. 3% to ca.
22% in the 1960s after which there is a steady decrease till the ca. 11% of the 1990s.
The proportion of Non-SVT values is at its lowest in the first decade of the 20th century, but stays after it at about 22 %. The changes in singular values will be looked at in greater detail in junction to time in the section 7.3.