Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Values and dimensions of culture Lecture 10 Values General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals Life guidelines Criteria of evaluating.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Values and dimensions of culture Lecture 10 Values General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals Life guidelines Criteria of evaluating."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 Values and dimensions of culture Lecture 10

3 Values General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals Life guidelines Criteria of evaluating goals, activities, and events Hierarchical structure: ultimate (autonomous) goals  instrumental goals

4 Basic values – do they exist? Abraham Maslow: –Deficit needs (food, security, self-esteem) –Growth needs (achievement, self-actualization) Idea used by Ronald Inglehart in studies of nations values

5 Abraham Maslow – Need Hierarchy Physiological needs Safety needs Belongingness and love Esteem needs Cognitive needs Aesthetic Self- actuali zation Deficiency needs Growth needs

6 Gordon Allport G. Allport: six value types: –economic –political –aesthetic –social –religious –theoretical

7 Value classifications Milton Rokeach – 36 values –Autonomous and instrumental values –Personal and social values –Competence and morality-related values Shalom Schwartz – 56 values, 10 categories –Three basic categories of demands: Biological demands of an organism Demands of social interactions Demands of smooth functioning of social groups –Two dimensions „openness to change” – „conservatism” „ self-transcendence” – „self-enhancement”

8 Shalom Schwartz Values circumplex

9 Shalom Schwartz’ theory of values Conservation Self-enhancement Self-transcendence Openeness to change Security Achievement Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction Uniwersalism Benevolence Conformity Tradition Power

10

11 Self-enhancement Power: –Social status –Control albo dominance over people and resources –Values: Social power Authority Wealth Preserving public image Social recognition

12 Self enhancement Achievements –Personal success due to own competences, in agreement with social standards successful Capable Ambitious Influential Intelligent Self respect

13 Openness to change Hedonism –Pleasures and sensory gratifications Pleasure Enjoying life Stimulation –Excitement, novelty, life challenges Daring Varied life Exciting life

14 Openness to change Self-direction –Independence of though and decison, creativity, exploration Creativity Freedom Independence Curious Choosing own goals

15 Self-transcendence Universalism –Undestanding, tolerance, caring about welfare of all people and nature Open mind, Broad-minded Social justice Equality World peace Beautiful world Unity with nature Inner harmony Protect environment

16 Self-transcendence Benevolence –Caring about well-being of close ones Helpful Honest Forgiving Loyal Responsible True friendship Mature love

17 Conservatism Tradition –Respecting customs –Belief that tradition, culture and religion serve individual Humble Accepting my role in life Respect for tradition Religiosity Moderate

18 Conservatism Conformity –Inhibition of actions and impulses that can hurt or are not accepted by others and that go against social norms. Politeness Obedience Self-discipline Honor elders

19 Conservatism Security Security, harmony and stability of society and own person Family Security National security Social order Clean Reciprocation of favors Sense of belonging Health

20 Another classification of values by Shalom Schwartz Conservatism Egalitarian Commitment Security Power Achievement Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction Universalism Benevolence Conformity Tradition Hierarchy Mastery Affective autonomy Intellectual autonomy Harmony

21 Studies with the Value Questionnaire 56 values –52 – the 10 main types –4 – ”spiritual” values Autonomous vs. Instrumental values –30 – autonomous (nouns) –26 instrumental (adjective) Rating on 9-point scale –-1 – against my values –0 – neutral for me –7 – highest importance

22 Profiles (examples) (from Very much like me to Not like me at all) Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to her. She likes to do things in her own way (Self-Direction) It is important for her to be rich. She wants to have a lot of money and expensive things (Power) She thinks that it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. She belives everyone should have equal opportunities in life (Universalism)

23 Cross-cultural studies 97 samples (about 200 subjects in a sample) 44 countries from all continents Years Samples –Teachers from elementary and high schools –University students and pupils –Together 25, 863 subjects

24 Factor analysis of mean national values Conservatism- openness to change Self-transcendence- self-enhancement Conservatism -0, Affective autonomy 0,8670,150 Intellectual autonomy 0,764-0,207 Hierarchy -0,2660,842 Mastery 0,3510,696 Harmony 0,270-0,777 Egalitarian commitment 0,683-0,319

25 Main dimensions after factor analysis Conservatism Egalitarian Commitment Security Power Achievement Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction Universalism Benevolence Conformity Tradition Hierarchy Mastery Affective autonomy Intellectual autonomy Harmony Conservation- Self-transcendence Self-enhancemenet Openness to change

26 Structure of values in postcommunist countries Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)

27 Structure of values in postcommunist countries Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)

28 Relations between values in different countries Universal values (social justice, world peace, equality) opposite to security values (social order, national security) In Eastern Europe – no opposition

29

30

31

32 0 Australia USA Japan Denmark Finland Germany Switzerland France Spain New Zealand Italy Israel Portugal Greece Hong Kong Slovenia Czech Republic Poland Hungary Slovakia Estonia Mexico Bulgaria Malaysia Russia Brasil Tailand Georgia Turkey China Conservation Openness for experience Self-transcendence Self- enhancement Ordering of countries (teacher samples) after Schwartz

33 Schwartz’s theory od values and social orientations

34 Prisoner’s dilemma and social orientations A B cooperatesdefects cooperates defects

35 Social orientations as shown in social dilemmas games Individualism – maximize own gain Altruism – maximize partner’s gain Cooperation – maximize joint profit Competition – maximize relative gain over partner Equality – minimize difference between own and partner’s gain Agression – maximize partner’s losses Masochism – maximize own losses Martyrdom – maximize relative gain of the partner Sadomasochism – mazimize joint loss

36 Social values according to McClintock (1988) individualismmasochism Aggression sadomasochism altruism Cooperation competition martyrdom OTHER MYSELF

37 Theory of values of Shalom Schwartz and social orientations Competition Individualism Security Power Achievement Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction Universalism Benevolence Conformity Tradition Altruism aggression Martyrdom Cooperation

38 Structure of values and social orientations (cooperation vs. competition) After: Schwartz (1996)

39 Another presentation of value structure Power achievement Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction Tradition Security Conformity Benevolence universalism competence morality Values beyond an individual Values within an individual

40 Ronald Inglehart Two dimensions of values –Secular-rational vs. traditional authority –Survival (materialistic) vs. post-materialistic values The World Value Survey

41 Diagnostic questions: materialism vs. postmaterialism People sometimes talk about what the aims of this country should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. Would you please say which one of these you, yourself, consider the most important? And which one would be the next most importanrt? –A high level of economic growth (M) –Making sure this country has strong defense forces (M) –Seeing that people have more to say about how things are done at their jobs and in their communities –Trying to make our cities and countryside more beautiful

42 If you had to choose, which one of the things on this card would you say is most important? And which would be the next most important? –Maintaining order in the nation (M) –Giving people more say in important government decisions –Protecting freedom of speech –Fighting rising prices (M) Here is another list.... –A stable economy (M) –Progress toward a less impersonal and more humane society –Progress toward soecirty in which ideas count more than money –The fight against crime (M)

43 Ordering of questions on the dimension of materialism- postmaterialism (study 1974)

44 Traditional (religious) vs. secular values (1) monoteism – faith in one God (2) family sacred (attitudes towards abortion, betrayal, prostitution, homosexualism) (3) social order (attitudes towards theft, lie, agression)

45

46 Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people? 1. Most people can be trusted 2. Need to be careful Social trust

47 European Social Survey – level of trust in European countries

48

49

50

51

52

53 Causes of value change Cohort effects (generation) –Socialization factors in early childhood effect the rest of life Historical period effects –Periods of economic depression  increase in materialistic values Age effects –As people grow older they become more materialistic (conservative?)

54 Cohort effects Cohort + historical period Age effects Results

55 Inglehart vs. Schwartz Factor IFactor II Traditonal- secular authority 0,822 Survival- postmaterialistic values 0,892-0,148 Conservatism- openness to change 0,925 Self-transendence – self-enhancement 0,147-0,725

56 Schwartz vs. Inglehart (?) Conservatism Egalitarian Commitment Security Power Achievement Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction Universalism Benevolence Conformity Tradition Hierarchy Mastery Affective autonomy Intellectual autonomy Harmony Conservation- Self-transcendence Self-enhancemenet Openness to change survival Well-being traditional secular

57 Level of happiness and Inglehart’s dimensions r(59)=0,870***r(59)=-0,205, n.i.

58 Level of happiness and Schwartz’ dimensions r(27)=0,646*** R(27)=0,045

59 Other ways of measuring values If I had a million....

60 Studied regions

61 Spending a milion – percent mentioned

62 Three clusters Cluster I (materialistic) (N=695) Cluster II (mixed) (N=217) Cluster III (family) (N=364) Poland

63 Generational changes (Poland) Lewicka (2003)Inglehart (1990)

64 Polish value shift? Poland - shift from postmaterialistic to materialistic values

65 Dimensions of cultures - Geert Hofstede „Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations” (2002)

66 Investigating cultures – methodological problems Emic vs. Etic –Equivalent of the linguistic distinction of (fon)emic and (fon)etic aspect of speech –„emic” – studying culture from inside, as member of the culture –„etic” – studying culture from outside, as external observer, comparing cultures on common dimensions

67 Emic vs. etic „Emic” approach„Etic” approach Studies behavior within a system Studies behavior from outside of the system Studies only one cultureCompares many cultures Researcher discovers structure of relationships Researcher imposes structure of relationships Criteria relative to the studied object Criteria absolute and universal

68 Steps in investigating cultures (after: Berry, 1989) Step Activity of researcher Culture A (own) Culture B (other) 1 Start from own culture Emic A 2 Trasnfer to other culture Imposed etic 3 Discover other culture Emic B 4 Compare both cultures Emic A Emic B 5-1 Comparison impossible Emic A Emic B 5-2 Comparison possible AB Derived Etic

69 Methodological approaches to cross- cultural comparisons 10 cultures x 20 Item-questionnaire x 100 Subjects per culture –Ecological level analysis: Cross-cultural approach: means from 100 Ss for each culture (20 items x 10 cultures) –Individual level analysis: Intra-cultural approach: separate (matrices) for each culture (10 analyses) (Emic) –Universal level analysis: Pancultural approach: combining all 10 x 100 Ss together (20 items x 1000 Ss) (Etic)

70 Dimensions of culture G. Hofstede – years 70s and 80s –Studies of IBM employes in 66 countries –Attempt at finding ”etic” dimensions which would differentiate cultures Hierarchy Intolerance of ambiguity Individualism-collectvism Masculinity-feminity „time perspective” („emic” Chinese dimension)

71 Dimensions suggested by Hofstede Power distance – degree of pecking order in organizations Uncertainty avoidance – intolerance of ambiguity, need for clear rules and laws Individualism – collectivism – Caring for oneself vs own goup Masculinity-feminity – focus on ”masculine” goals (finances, achievement, assertiveness) vs. „feminine” goals (friendship, caring for others)

72 Power distance - Family Low PDI –Parents treat children as equals –Children should enjoy leisure –Infertility no reason for divorce –Children treat parents and old relatives as equal –Children expected to be socially competent at young age –Children play no role in old- age security of parents –Small enterprises set up for job reasons High PDI –Parents teach children obedience –Children should work hard –Infertility – reason for divorce –Respect for parents and older relatives is a basic virtue –Children not seen as competent –Children a source of old-age security –Small enterprises for family interests

73 Power distance at school Low PDI –Teachers treat students as equal –Students treat teachers as equals –Student-centered education –Students inititate some communication in the class –Teachers are experts who transfer impersonal truths –Educational system focuses on middle levels High PDI –Students depend on teachers –Students treat teachers with respect, even outside class –Teacher-centered education –Teacher initiate all communication in the class –Teachers are gurus who transfer personal wisdom –Educational system focuses on top level

74 Power distance in the work organization Decentralized decision structures: less concentration of authority Flat organization pyramids Subordinates expect to be consulted Narrow salary range between top and bottom of organization Manual work same status as clerical work Centralized decision structures; more concentration on authority Tall organization pyramids Subordinates expect to be told Wide salary range between top and bottom of organization White-collar jobs valued more than blue-collar jobs

75 Power distance in political systems Low PDI –Pluralist government based on outcome of majority vote –Usually social democratic governments –Strong center, relatively weak right and left wings –Gradual changes in form of government (evolution and stability) –Power, status and wealth do not need to go together –Small income differentials in society, further reduced by the tax system –Less corruption: scandals end political career –Citizens read more newspapers High PDI –Military, autocratic or oligarchic government –Usually right-wing government –Polarization between left and right with weak center –Sudden changes in the form of government (revolution and/or instability) –Status consistency: power brings status and wealth –Large income differentials in society, further increased by the tax system –More corruption: scandals expected to be covered up –Citizens watch more television

76 Power distance We should give him something, after all it is our professor of music Low PD: Students treat teachers as equals

77 Individualism vs. collectvism Individualism – societies in which relations between individuals are loose, concern for oneself and closest family Collectivism – societies in which individuals from early childhood learn to integrate with strong, coherent groups which in return for absolute loyality guarantee them security and protection.

78 Individualism - collectivism and societal norms Low IDV –In society, people are born into extended families or class, which protect them in exchange for loyality –„we” consciousness –Gemeinschaft (community) –Value standards differ for in- and out-group: particularism –„shame” culture –Emphasis on belonging: membership ideal –Private life invaded by institutions and organizations to which one belongs –Survival High IDV –In society, everyone is supposed to take care of him- herself and his or her immediate family only –„I” consciousness –Gesellschaft (society) –Value standards should apply to all: universalism –„guilt” cultures –Emphasis on individual initiative and achievement: leadership ideal –Everyone has a right to private life –Hedonism

79 Individualism-collectivism and family Low IDV –People live with or close to relatives or clan members –Family provides protection in exchange for life-long loyality –Strong family ties, frequent contacts –Fewer divorces –Care for aged relatives and worship of ancestors –Mothers expect to live with children in their old age –Nobody is ever alone –Financial and ritual obligations to relatives –Living with in-laws and shared income and religion normal High IDV –People live in nuclear or one- parent families –Children are supposed to take care of themselves as soon as possible –Weak family ties, rare contacts –More divorces –Aged relatives should care for themselves; ancestors unknown, irrelevant –Mothers expected to live apart in their old age –Privacy is normal –Financial independence of relatives, few family rituals –Living with in-laws undesirable; independence of income and religion

80 Individualism-collectivism at school Low IDV –Teachers deal with pupils as a group –Pupils’ individual initiatives discouraged –Harmony, face and shaming in class –Students will not speak up in class or large groups –Purpose of education is how to do –Diplomas provide entry to higher-status groups High IDV –Teachers deal with individual pupils –Pupils’ individual initiatives encouraged –Students’ selves to be respected –Students expected to speak up in class or large groups –Purpose of education is learning how to learn –Diplomas increase economic worth and/or self- respect

81 Individualism-collectivism and consumer behavior Low IDV –Live in apartments or flats –Live with human companions –Security by social networks –Ask friends for job around the house –Read fewer book, use fewer home computers, enjoy TV more –Social network main source of information High IDV –Live in detached houses with private gardens –Live with cats and/or dogs –Security by home and life insurance –Do-it-yourself for jobs around the home –More books, use computer, use answering machines –Media main source of information

82 Individualism-collectivism and political systems Low IDV –Collective interests supposed to prevail over individual interests –Economy based on collective interests –State capitalism or state socialism –Economic monopolies –Private life is invaded by public interests –Rigid social and occupational class system –Small share of national budget spent on education High IDV –Individual interests supposed to prevail over collective interests –Economy based on individual interests –Market capitalism or market socialism –Competition stimulated –Everyone has a right to privacy –Social and occupational mobility –Large share of national budget spent on education

83 Individualism-collectivism It is a free country and everybody can do what one wants High IDV: Emphasis on individual initiative

84 Individualism-collectivism – comparison (after: Kim, Triandis et al. 1994) IndividualismCollectivism Basic assumption Rationality, Reason Basic assumption Relatedeness Principles Regulations, principles, law Individuation Self-actualization uniquenessAssertiveness Freedom of choice Autonomy conciliation nurturance interdependence Duties, obligations Common goods harmony support help Common fate

85 Bulgaria China Czechia Estonia Hungary Poland Romania Russia Slovakia

86 Uncertainty avoidance Low UAI –Lower work stress –Emotions have to be controlled –More subjective well-being –Less hesitation to change employer –Company loyalty is not a virtue –If necessary, employees may break rules –Less resistance to changes –Most people can be trusted High UAI –Higher work stress –Expression of emotion normal –Less subjective well-being –Tendency to stay with same employer –Company loyality is a virtue –Company rules should not be broken –More resistance to changes –One can’t be careful enough with other people, not even with family

87 High uncertainty avoidance Nowadays even own dog cannot be trusted

88 BLG China Czechia Estonia Hungary Poland Romania Russia Slovakia

89 Masculinity-feminity Low MAS –Cooperation at work important –Values of women and man hardly different –Promotion by merit –Work not central in a person’s life space –Higher well-being in rich countries High MAS –Challenge and recognition in jobs important –Values of women and men very different –Promotion by protection –Work very central in a person’s life space –Higher well-being in poor countries

90 Masculinity-feminity and societal norms Low MAS –Relationship orientation –Quality of life and people are important –Sympathy for the weak –Small and slow are beautiful –Men and women should be modest –Minimum emotional and social role differentiation between the genders High MAS –Ego orientation –Money and things are important –Sympathy for the strong –Big and fast are beautiful –Men should be and women may be assertive and ambitious –Maximum emotional and social role differentiattion between genders

91 Masculinity - feminity Write: I love Joan ! Low MAS Relationship orientation

92 BLG China Czechia Estonia Hungary Poland RO Russia Slovakia

93 Hofstede vs. Schwartz Hofstede –Originally no post-communist countries in the sample (added later) –Sample limited to employees of big corporations –Studies in years : Before changes in Europe in 1989 No acknowledgement of ”postmaterialistic” changes in structure of values in Western Europe

94 Schwartz vs. Hofstede Collectivism Low power distance Security Power Achievement Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction Universalism Benevolence Conformity Tradition Masculinity Individualism Feminity High power distance High UA Low UA

95 Factor analysis of Schwartz, Inglehart and Hofstede Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3 Openness to change 0,686 Self-enhancement 0,745 Secular authority -0,852 Postmaterialism 0,910 Power distance -0,874 individualism 0,753 Uncertainty avoidance -0,531 Masculinity 0,795

96 Cultural vs. objective dimensions: How much of our values is due to conditions of life? Lecture 11

97 Monitoring of the world United Nations Development Programs –Yearly reports comparing countries on measures indicative of quality of life Transparency International –Reports on perceived corruption OECD – Program for International Student Assessment

98 Questions „Hard” vs. „soft” measures – mutual relationships? Standard of life or values - the best predictor of happiness? Comparison of Poland with other countries (world, Europe) on hard and soft measures

99 Measures HDI - Human Development Index – (values 0 – 1) GDP - Gross Domestic Product index – (values 0 – 1) CPI - Corruption Perception Index – (values 0 – 10) GINI – Gini Index – Index of social inequalities (values 0 – 100) PISA - Program for International Student Assessment) – International exam of 15 years old in reading ability, mathematical knowledge and scientific thinking (values 400 – 600; mean 500 points)

100 Human Development Index Components: –Life expectancy –Scholarization index - levels I, II & III –Living standard (PPP –how much can be bought with average salary) Values: 0 – 1 and rank of the country Description: long, wise, and affluent life of an average inhabitant of the country

101 valueValue for Poland Compar ison N countrie s Position of Poland (rank) Best scoreWorst score 0-10,841World175350,944 Norway 0,275 Sierra Leone Europe39230,944 Norway 0,700 Moldova 13 new EU countrie s 1350,891 Cyprus 0,734 Turkey Human Development Index – position of Poland (2003)

102 ValueValue for Poland Compar ison N countrie s Position of Poland (rank) Best scoreWorst score 9 450World Luxembou rg 470 Sierra Leone Europe Luxembou rg 2150 Moldova 13 new EU countrie s Cyprus Romania Gross Domestic Product (GDP –US$)– position of Poland (2001)

103 Ranking of countries according to GDP & HDI (HDI minus GDP)

104 Groups of countries & level of happiness (studies by Inglehart 2003, N=82)

105 Index of Perceived Corruption (CPI) Transparency International ‘Measure of lost chances’

106 ValueValue for Poland Compar ison N countrie s Position of Poland (rank) Best scoreWorst score 0-103,6World133649,7 Finland 1,3 Bangladesh Europe35289,7 Finland 2,3 Macedonia Ukraine 13 new EU countrie s 12106,1 Cyprus 2,8 Romania Corruption Perception Index– position of Poland (2003)

107 Gini Index of social inequalities Deviation of GDP from the perfectly equal distribution Area below Lorenz curve and the hypothetical curve of the perfectly equal distribution Values 0 – 100 –0 – whole product distributed equally (everybody gets the same share) –100 – The whole product in hands of one person

108

109 ValueValue for Poland Compar ison N countrie s Position of Poland (rank) Best scoreWorst score ,6World ,4 Hungary 70,7 Namibia Europe321624,4 Hungary 45,6 Russia 13 new EU countrie s 11624,4 Hungary 40,0 Turkey Gini Index of social inequalities (1998)

110 Cross-cultural comparisons of values and cultural dimensions Shalom Schwartz – Value circumplex with two dimensions: –conservatism – openness to experience –self-enhancement – self-transcendence Ronald Inglehart – two dimensions of values: – materialistic (‘survival’) vs. postmaterialistic (‘dobrostan’) –traditional vs. secular-rational authority Geert Hofstede – four dimensions of culture: –individualism – collectivism –power distance –tolerance of uncertainty –masculinity - feminity

111 Correlations of objective measures and Schwartz value dimensions (N=30) Openness to experience- conservatism Self-enhancement- Self-transcendence Human Development Index 0,639** Technology Advancement Index 0,362 GDP index 0,684** GINI Index 0,440* Corruption Perception Index 0,609**

112 Correlations of objective measures & Inglehart’s value dimensions (N=60) Secular vs. traditional authority Postmaterialistic. vs. materialistic Human Development Index 0,529**0,623** Technology Advancement Index 0,554**0,634** GDP index 0,311*0,781** GINI -0,704**-0,103 Corruption Perception Index 0,373**0,810**

113 Correlations of objective measures & Hofstede’s four dimensions of culture (N=66) Power distance Uncertainty avoidance Collectivism individualism Masculinity - feminity CPI -0,679***-0,300**0,666***-0,173 GDP -0,613***-0,0720,690***-0,018 HDI -0,550***-0,0170,611***-0,042 GINI 0,355***0,106-0,470***0,005

114 Factor analysis of dimensions from three theories (Schwartz, Inglehart & Hofstede) Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3 Openness to experience 0,686 Self enhancement 0,745 Secular authority -0,852 Postmaterialism 0,910 Power distance -0,874 Individualism 0,753 Uncertainty avoidance -0,531 Masculinity 0,795

115 Factor analysis of value factors and objective measures (CPI, HDI, GDP, GINI) factor 1 (general development ) factor 2 (secularity, equality) factor 3 (achievements) Postmat.+openess exp.+indiv.+power dist.+uncertainty tol. 0,950 Self-enhancement +masculinity 0,998 Secular authority 0,927 HDI 0,927 GDP 0,936 CPI 0,944 GINI -0,885

116 Australia USA Japan Switzerland Denmark FinlandFrance Germany Spain New Zealand Italy Portugal Slovenia Czech Rep. Poland Hungary SlovakiaEstonia Mexico Bulgaria Brasil Turkey China Russia General development - high General development - low Secularity, equality - low Secularity, equality - high

117 Australia USA Japan Switzerland Denmark Finland FranceGermany Spain New Zealand Italy Portugal Slovenia Czech Rep. Poland Hungary Slovakia Estonia Mexico Bulgaria Russia Brasil TurkeyChina General development - high General development - low Achievements- high Achievements - low

118 Predictors of happiness?

119 R(24)=0,815*** R(24)=0,011 R(24)=-0,225, n.i. Factor I general development Factor II achievement Factor III secularity /equality Happiness (Inglehart) & three factors

120 Predictors of happiness – structural model Chi-2=8,084, df=6, p=0,232 RMSEA=0,045


Download ppt "Values and dimensions of culture Lecture 10 Values General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals Life guidelines Criteria of evaluating."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google