Schwartz Value Theory of basic human values

Schwartz Value Theory (SVT) postulates 10 motivationally different values. The universal basic values have been labeled as Universalism, Benevolence, Tradition, Conformity, Security, Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation and Self-Direction. From the aforementioned universal human conditions then stem the basic tensions expressed in the two continuums of SVT, namely self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence and openness to change vs. conservation.

The ten value categories are organized along these two dimensions forming a motivational continuum shown in Figure 1. Based on their motivational differences, values form a circular structure that results from the conflicts and congruities among all the values. The closer motivationally any given values are, the closer they are also on the circumplex (adjacent values showing a positive relation), and, conversely, the further their motivational core is, the further they are from one another, so that opposing values are situated on opposing sides of the continuum.

The values of Self-Enhancement (Power, Achievement) focus on the pursuit of personal relative success and control over others, i.e. on interests benefitting the individual even at the expense of others, whereas Self-Transcendence values (Benevolence, Universalism) underline the importance of the welfare and interests of others above the interests of the self. The second dimension juxtaposes Openness-to-Change values with Conservation values. The values emphasizing Openness-to-Change (Self-Direction, Stimulation) by definition are values majoring on the independence of thought and action, and on the seeking of novelty; whereas Conservation (Tradition, Conformity, Security) values emphasize the preference for order, protection of existing relationships be they with significant others, institutions or customs, thereby seeking to maintain the status quo. The tenth value category, Hedonism, finds its place between the poles of Openness to Change and Self-Enhancement.

28 Recently also to children, using a pictorial form of the questionnaire, see Döring et al., 2010.

29 This variation can be time-related, culture related, or context-related. Also, some values (e.g. security) become more important when there is a lack thereof (see Verkasalo et al., 2006)

Figure 1 Motivational continuum of values

In order to avoid the implicit preference expressed by the labeling of these continuums, Rohan (2000) calls these dimensions “Focus on Social Context Outcomes vs. Focus on Individual Outcomes” and “Focus on Opportunity vs. Focus on Organization”. In this study I have followed labels provided by Schwartz.

In addition to the bi-dimensional structure, later additions (e.g. Schwartz 1994, 2006) also postulate a third continuum, individuality vs. collectivism (see also Fontaine et al. 2008), used mainly to distinguish cultures and societies from each other. Somewhat similarly to Rohan’s (2000) proposal, values which regulate the expression of personal characteristics and interests, are called person-focused (Self-Direction, Stimulation, Hedonism, Power, Achievement), whereas the values regulating relations with others and effects on them are called social-focused (Benevolence, Universalism, Tradition, Conformity, Security).

Bilsky and Schwartz (1994) related values to needs³⁰, and, following Maslow (1954), they proposed that the ten value types can also be classified according to whether they represent growth versus deficiency needs. Growth needs mean that the more one value has been realized, the more it is valued, whereas deficiency needs mean that the less the goal the value denotes has been attained, the stronger the value is emphasized. Growth values are e.g. Self-Direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Achievement, and Stimulation. Security and Power values are deficiency values, meaning that their importance grows when there is a perceived lack of e.g. wealth (Power) or health (Security). ³¹

Table 1 explains the content of the motivational goal of each value type in greater detail, and gives examples of the single value items representing each type.

30 See also Calogero et al, (2009)

31 This is also taken up by Schwartz 2011a as a direction for future studies: where do Conformity, Tradition and Hedonism need to be placed interms of growth vs. defense(or deficiency)?

Table 1. Definitions of value types in terms of their goals and the single values that represent them

Type Definition of goal Value item(s) Power Social status and prestige, control

or dominance over people and resources

Social power, authority, wealth, preserving public image, social recognition

Achievement Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards

Successful, capable, ambitious, influential, intelligent, self-respect Hedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratification

for oneself

Pleasure, enjoying life, self-indulgence

Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life

Daring, a varied life, an exciting life

Self-Direction

Independent thought and action Creativity, freedom, independent, curious, choosing own goals Universalism Understanding, appreciation,

tolerance and protection of the welfare of all people and nature

Broadminded, wisdom, social justice, equality, a world at peace, a world of beauty, unity with nature, inner harmony Benevolence Preservation and enhancement of

the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact

Helpful, honest, loyal, forgiving, responsible, trustworthy, true friendship

Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms

Self-disciplined, obedient, politeness, honoring parents and elders

Tradition Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self

Accepting one’s portion in life, humble, devout, moderate, respect for tradition

Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society, relationships, and self

Family security, national security, social order, clean, reciprocation of favors, sense of belonging

Values therefore differ from one another by the motivational goal they express.

There is a link between motivational goals (and hence values) and behavior.³² Values are linked to many different behaviors e.g. political choices (Caprara et al., 2006), voting (Helkama et al. 1991; Schwartz et al., 2010), political orientation (Piurko et al. 2011), religiosity (Saroglou et al., 2004; Roccas, 2005; Schwartz &

Huismans, 1995), life satisfaction (Sortheix & Lönnqvist, in press), perception of

32 See e.g. Bardi & Schwartz (2003), and Maio et al. (2009).

Brcic, 2011).

The hierarchical aspect of cultures was explored by Schwartz & Bardi (2001), which resulted in a pan-cultural value hierarchy. The following table is adapted from their results (p.275).

Table 2. Pan-cultural values according to Schwartz & Bardi (2001)

Ranking Value type

1 Benevolence

2.5 Self-direction

2.5 Universalism

4 Security

5 Conformity

6 Achievement

7 Hedonism

8 Stimulation

9 Tradition

10 Power

They note that in addition to Self-Direction and Universalism being tied for the second most important value, also the difference between Achievement and Hedonism was very small.

One of the requisites of pursuing these motivational goals on a societal level is the use of cognitive symbols (the foremost, but by no means the only one of which is language). The usage of cognitive symbols as a way to pursue these goals together with others stems from the fact that there is a level of cooperation which is necessary between humans for the attainment of goals.

In order to coordinate with others the pursuit of the goals that are important to them, groups and individuals represent these requirements cognitively (linguistically) as specific values about which they communicate.

Schwartz, 2007, p. 1

For the purposes of the present study, this aspect of articulated values is at the forefront, as it allows for the study of values as expressed in linguistic form, i.e. in the rulers’ public speeches.

The lexical value studies (e.g. Bardi, 2008; Helkama & Seppälä, 2006, Suedfeld

& Weizbeck, 2004; Suedfeld et al. 2010, 2011) have all used as their basis the assumption that the linguistic representation of values even in natural speech (newspapers, interviews and diaries, respectively) can be used as a basis for

assessing expressed values³³. However, in these studies the value structure thus formed has not been reported.