Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ESS Launch Conference Brussels November 25, 2003

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "ESS Launch Conference Brussels November 25, 2003"— Presentation transcript:

1 ESS Launch Conference Brussels November 25, 2003
Basic Values in Europe Shalom Schwartz The Hebrew University of Jerusalem ESS Launch Conference Brussels November 25, 2003

2 As a guiding principle in your life, how important is:
equality loyalty wealth ambition obedience pleasure creativity humility social order an exciting life

3 What are basic values? Basic values are beliefs about desirable goals in life. Values are intrinsically positive (unlike goals) Values apply across situations--all (e.g., honesty, security, freedom) apply at work, in the family, and with friends People’s values form a fairly stable hierarchy of relative importance (success>hedonism>security) Relative importance of values is crucial to decisions Take a new job and move family? (achievement & stimulation vs. security & benevolence)

4 Why are values important?
Functions of values motivate choice of behavior--what we do justify past behavior--why we do it standards to evaluate people & events-- who and what we like, underlie our attitudes direct attention and perception--what we notice

5 Inferring Basic Values in Surveys
Surveys typically measure values with attitude questions in specific life domains (religion, morality, politics, work, etc.). Infer underlying basic value orientations from responses to these specific questions (e.g., materialism, individualism) But meanings of responses depend on specific social and economic conditions (e.g., meaning of “give people more say in government” depends on whether one favors or opposes current government policies)


7 Empirical Tests of Theory
75,000 + respondents, varied samples in 68 countries Instrument lists 57 abstract value items “How important is each item as a guiding principle in your life?”

8 Near Universal Content & Structure
Each of 10 values distinguished in vast majority of countries Comprehensive: Added items identified no other values Oppositions present in virtually all countries Openness vs. Conservation Self-Enhancement vs. Self Transcendence 10 values ordered around circle as theorized in vast majority of countries

9 Some Correlates of Value Priorities Replicated across Countries
voting for conservative vs liberal parties adopting technological innovations environmentally friendly attitudes, activities religiosity [6 monotheistic religions] SE/PO vs UN/SD ST/SD vs SE/TR/CO UN/SD vs PO/AC TR/CO vs HE/ST Self-Direction UNiversalism BEnevolence STimulation Hedonism TRadition AChievement COnformity POwer SEcurity

10 ESS Basic Values Instrument
Need easy instrument for heterogeneous samples 21 items, each portraying a person in terms of one value (goal) that is important to him/her It's very important to him to help the people around him. He wants to care for their well-being. (BE) Respondent rates how similar that person is to me Indirectly reveals what values are more or less important to self

11 How much like you is this person?
ESS Basic Values Exemplary Items and Response Scale How much like you is this person? Very much like me Like me Some-what like me A little like me Not like me Not like me at all 1.Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to her. She likes to do things in her own original way. (Self-Direction) 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. It is important to her to be rich. She wants to have a lot of money and expensive things. (Power) 3. She thinks it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. She believes everyone should have equal opportunities in life. (Universalism)

12 Value Structures in Europe: Findings
Across Europe, people’s values are organized in the same way as postulated by theory Oppositions (openness vs. conservation; self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence) present in all countries Exactly or very near theorized order of 10 values in every country In 13 countries, every item in expected value region; in two countries, one item near region This signifies relative equivalence of value meanings across countries—now compare importance

13 This is a spatial map of how national populations are similar and different in their value priorities. The closer together any two countries on this map the more similar the priorities of their populations across the ten values. So Finland and Norway, on the top right, are quite similar as are Poland and the Czech Republic on the top left, and Hungary and Slovenia on the bottom left. The map also shows, in blue, the relative importance of the different values across Europe. The most important value in most countries is Benevolence; it is among the four most important in every country (see ranks 1-4 on right side). The least important value in most countries is Power; it is among the three least important in every country (ranks 8-10 on the left). Universalism and Security are the other two most important values, never ranked below 5th. Stimulation, like power, is ranked low in all countries. Populations in the countries on the upper left of the map all attribute quite high importance to conformity, security and tradition values—the three types of values concerned with preserving the status quo. This is shown by the location of these three types of values in blue in the upper left part of the map. These same countries—Greece, Czech Rep., Poland, Spain attribute relatively low importance to self-direction and stimulation values on the right lower side of the map. These are values that emphasize openness to change. Other countries on the left of the map, Portugal, Hungary and Slovenia are also relatively low in openness to change values, especially self-direction. Thus, all of the traditionally Catholic countries plus the one Orthodox country, Greece, attribute relatively high importance to values of submitting the self to external expectations and low importance to self-direction values. The opposite is true of the historically Protestant nations on the mid and upper right of the map. Not surprisingly, the Scandinavian populations attribute especially high importance to universalism values while the East Central European and Israeli populations attribute less importance to these values (though still ranking them in the top 4). Populations in Israel, Slovenia, Portugal and Hungary attribute considerably more importance to achievement values than populations in the Czech Rep and in the Scandinavian countries. My studies in other countries around the world yield a similar picture: rich industrialized countries attribute relatively less importance to achievement and power values, whereas countries that are in early or middle phases of escape from weak economies and moving toward capitalist development attribute relatively more importance to these values. Among the industrialized countries, however, the English speaking countries—the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK—attribute the most importance to values related to achievement and pragmatic self-assertion. There is much more to say about differences in national value priorities in Europe, but it is equally important to recognize that there are people within every country who give high importance to values not considered important by their fellow nationals and those who give little or no importance to the values their fellows consider most important. That is, within every country there is a great deal of variation in the value priorities of individual people. These individual differences are extremely significant for understanding the attitudes and behaviors of people in Europe. The next slide provides an example of how individual differences in value priorities can be used to understand attitudes and behavior.

14 Opposition to Outgroup Immigration Predictors in 10 West European Countries
Universalism Values -.15 Security Values .11 Education Years -.11 R2=.085 Religiosity .07 .05 Allow no immi-grants Conformity Values Tradition Values .04 Native Born .04 Red predictors were significant in 8 within nation analyses. Beta for Religiosity conflicts with findings within nations (2 significant negative and 4 positive vs. positive .07 here). Beta for gender overstates findings within nations (1 significant positive vs. significant .04 here) Age shows no association here. However, older people oppose significantly more in 6/10 countries. In the 4 East-Central European countries UN values did not predict nor did BE. However, the strongest predictors were HE (.13), TR (.11), and CO (-.10). Also significant were SE (.07), ST (-.07), and AC (.06). Education was weaker (-.07), and religiosity (-.07), Unemployment (.05) and rural (.05) also predicted significantly. Native born, iincome, age, and gender did not predict. Gender Male .04 -.03 Household Income -.03 Benevolence Values Opposition: allow people of a different race or ethnic group from most, residualized on allow same (1-4 scale). All betas p<.001. Age, unemployment, rural-urban do not predict significantly.

15 Index of 6 Positive Effects
Perceived Consequences of Immigration Predictors in 10 West European Countries Universalism Values .20 Education Years .17 Native Born -.14 R2=.173 Security Values -.11 .07 Index of 6 Positive Effects Household Income Benevolence Values .06 Religiosity -.05 Red predictors: UN & Educ were significant in 9/10 within nation analyses, Native born & SE in 7/10. In the 4 East-Central European countries R2 = .080 for parallel analysis. UN values were substantially weaker (.07), as were SE values (-08), TR was the same and BE did not contribute. Education was about the same (.16), income a little stronger (.10), religiosity considerably stronger (.12), and native born and gender of no importance. Rural reversed to -.07 -.05 Tradition Values .04 Rural .03 -.03 Conformity Values Gender M Consequences: increase jobs, pay more taxes than services used, improve economy, enrich culture, country better place to live, reduce crime problem: alpha at least .80 in all countries. All betas p<.001; Age & Unemployment do not predict significantly

16 Value Structures in Europe: Test
MDS analysis in each country Arranges items in space to show which ones are similar and different—based on correlations Items representing each value should form a distinct region Value regions should array in space around circle as in theory

17 Self-Direction Universalism Benevolence Stimulation Hedonism
Highest Lowest CH, SE PL, GR FI, CH GR, IL Benevolence Stimulation SE, CH HU, SL GB, FI HU, CZ Tradition Hedonism GR, PT FI, NL CH, HU CZ, PL Conformity Achievement All differences between highest and lowest are highly significant statistically. However: Benevolence: Note that even in Hungary and Slovakia it is in rank 3 and 4, respectively, though in Sweden and Switzerland it is first. Stimulation: Even though it is highest in Great Britain and Finland, its ranks are 9th and 8th, whereas in Hungary and Czech Rep. it is 9th and 10th, respectively. IL, SL FI, CZ CZ PL PT, CH Power Security GR, IL CH, FI CZ, HU NO, SE

18 Note BE is most important in 9 countries and at least 4th in all
Note PO is last in 10 countries and no higher than 8th Hedonism is most varied, 8 countries ranked 7th but ranges from 4th to 10th No country differs radically from the average order of ten values shown here. Lowest rank order correlation is Israel (.84) and highest is Spain (.99), with average rank correlation of .92.

19 Countries Ordered on Value Priorities 1
TRADITION CONFORMITY SECURITY 1 Greece Czech Rep. 2 Poland Hungary 3 Portugal Norway 4 Finland 5 Slovenia 6 Spain Netherlands Ireland 7 8 9 Sweden Great Britain Israel 10 11 Switzerland 12 13 14 15

20 Countries Ordered on Value Priorities 2
POWER ACHIEVEMENT HEDONISM 1 Greece Israel Switzerland 2 Slovenia Hungary 3 Poland Portugal Netherlands 4 Spain Sweden 5 Czech Rep. Great Britain 6 Ireland 7 8 Norway Finland 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

21 Countries Ordered on Value Priorities 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 STIMULATION SELF-DIRECTION UNIVERSALISM BENEVOLENCE Great Britain Switzerland Finland Sweden Slovenia Netherlands Czech Rep. Norway Spain Ireland Poland Israel Portugal Hungary Greece

22 Comments on Value Circle 1
Aim to derive set of universally recognized values Content of values derives from the basic goals that people in all societies must pursue People must communicate with each other to gain cooperation in pursuing their goals needs of biological organism--e.g. hedonism demands of social interaction--e.g. achievement requirements for group survival--e.g. security

23 Comments on Value Circle 2
Define each value in turn, noting exemplary value items Openness to Change SELF‑DIRECTION: Independent thought and action‑choosing, creating, exploring. (Creativity, Freedom, Independent, Curious...) STIMULATION: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. (Daring, a Varied Life, an Exciting Life) Conservation SECURITY: Safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. (Family Security, National Security, Social Order, Clean...) CONFORMITY: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. (Politeness, Obedient, Honoring Parents and Elders...) TRADITION: Respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self. (Humble, Devout, Respect for Tradition...) Self-Enhancement POWER: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources. (Social Power, Authority, Wealth...) ACHIEVEMENT: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. (Successful, Ambitious, Influential...) Self-Transcendence UNIVERSALISM: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. (Broadminded, Social Justice, Equality, Protecting the Environment) BENEVOLENCE: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact. (Helpful, Honest, Forgiving...) HEDONISM: Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. (Pleasure, Enjoying Life)

24 Comments on Value Circle 3
Structure reflects consequences of acting on various values Adjacent values share motivation & are compatible (conformity & security) (power & achievement) Distant values have opposing motivations, conflict (power vs. benevolence) (hedonism & tradition) Values form a motivational continuum [colors not categorical] Theory aspires to comprehensive coverage of major motivationally distinct types of values

25 Linking Value Priorities & Other Variables
Circular structure and motivational continuum imply all 10 values associate systematically with any other variable value with most positive association is usually opposite value with most negative association SD UN ST BE HE TR CO AC PO SE

Download ppt "ESS Launch Conference Brussels November 25, 2003"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google