Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 85(2), 170–178 Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

SHORTLINDEMANSCHWARTZ’SAND VERKASALOVALUE SURVEY

Measuring Values With the Short Schwartz’s Value Survey

Marjaana Lindeman and Markku Verkasalo

Department of Psychology University of Helsinki

The reliability and validity of the Short Schwartz’s Value Survey (SSVS) was examined in 4 studies. In Study 1 (N = 670), we examined whether value scores obtained with the SSVS corre- late with those obtained with Schwartz’s Value Survey (SVS; Schwartz, 1992, 1996) and the Portrait Values Questionnaire (Schwartz et al., 2001) and whether the quasi-circular structure of values can be found with the SSVS. In Study 2 (N = 3,261), we replicated the quasi-circular structure in a more heterogeneous sample and assessed whether the SSVS can differentiate ap- propriately between gender, religiosity, students from different fields, and supporters of left- and right-wing political parties. In Study 3 (N = 112), we examined the test–retest reliability of the SSVS and in Study 4 (N = 38), time saving gained by the SSVS compared to the SVS. The results show that the new scale had good reliability and validity and that the values measured by the SSVS were arrayed on a circle identical to the theoretical structure of values. We also pro- vided equations that can be used in future studies to measure individuals’ scores on the 2 main value dimensions, Self-Transcendence and Conservation.

Many researchers have suggested that values function as standards that guide thought and action (Feather, 2002; Rohan, 2000; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990). As Rokeach (1973) put it:

Values are multifaceted standards that guide conduct in a va- riety of ways. They lead us to take particular positions on so- cial issues and they predispose us to favor one ideology over another. They are standards employed to evaluate and judge others and ourselves.

Considering their central role in social life, values deserve more research attention than they have received thus far. For example, Rohan observed that no discussion of value theory appears in a sample of 10 introductory social psychology and personality textbooks published between 1990 and 2000. The most commonly used method in recent value research is Schwartz’s Value Survey (SVS; Schwartz, 1992), which is based on Schwartz’s value theory. According to the theory, the 57 value items of the SVS represent 10 motivationally distinct values that are theoretically derived from universal requirements of human life, namely, Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-Direction, Universalism, Be- nevolence, Tradition, Conformity, and Security. Thus, the focus of the SVS is highly similar to that of a new branch of psychology, namely, positive psychology: The SVS mea- sures individual and cultural differences in certain abstract

ideals, and research on positive psychology addresses how very similar types of ideals turn into courses of action and virtues such as wisdom, humanity, courage, and justice (Pe- terson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; “Values in Action,” n.d.). Schwartz’s (1992, 1994; Struch, Schwartz, & van der Kloot, 2002) value theory suggests that the 10 values, each named after its central goal, have a quasi-circular structure of relations (Figure 1). The structure is quasi-circular in that the values are spaced on a circle, but they are not equally spaced (for details, see Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004). The quasi-circular structure indicates, first, which values are compatible, incompatible, or unrelated. For ex- ample, Self-Direction is in opposition to Conformity in that preferring reliance on one’s own capacities contradicts de- pendence on social expectations. In turn, the location of Self-Direction on the boundary of Stimulation indicates that both of these values serve similar individual interests and are therefore compatible. Tradition is located outside of Conformity because the two are empirically distinct (Con- formity values entail subordination to persons, and Tradi- tion values entail subordination to abstract objects) while sharing the same motivational goal (subordination of self in favor of socially imposed expectations). In addition, the quasi-circular structure of the 10 values in- dicates that together they form a two-dimensional space

SHORT SCHWARTZ’S VALUE SURVEY

171

SHORT SCHWARTZ’S VALUE SURVEY 171 1995), interpersonal cooperation (Schwartz, 1996), behav- ior aimed at value

1995), interpersonal cooperation (Schwartz, 1996), behav- ior aimed at value attainment (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003), gender (Feather, 1984; Kasser, Koestner, & Lekes, 2002;

Struch et al., 2002; Verkasalo, Daun, & Niit, 1994), field of study (Verkasalo et al., 1994), and the Big Five personality traits (Roccas et al., 2002). However, in many studies, a scale with 57 items may be

too time-consuming to fill in, and it may take up too much

space in questionnaires. Empirical value research could ben- efit greatly from the development of a more compact mea- sure that does not have these shortcomings. Therefore, we conducted a set of studies to develop a short version of the SVS. The first aim of this study was to analyze whether the 10 values can be reliably and validly examined with only 10 items, that is, by asking the respondents to rate the impor- tance of the 10 values directly.too time-consuming to fill in, and it may take up too much In addition, we argue

In addition, we argue that examination of individuals’ val-

ues on the two dimensions would yield important informa- tion especially in studies in which only rough information about people’s values is needed. Therefore, the second aim of this work was to analyze whether Conservation and Self- Transcendence can be reliably and validly examined with a shortened version of the SVS. We designed a set of studies in which we examined the reliability and validity of the Short Schwartz’s Value Sur- vey (SSVS). In Study 1, we examined whether value scores obtained with the SSVS correlate with those obtained with the original SVS and whether the quasi-circular structure of values can be found with the SSVS. To examine the con- current validity further, we analyzed correlations between the SSVS and a related scale, The Portrait Values Question- naire (PVQ; Schwartz et al., 2001). Schwartz et al. devel- oped the PVQ to enable individuals with less abstract thinking ability—such as young individuals, those with minimal schooling, the elderly, and people from rural areas of less developed nations—to participate in value surveys. In Study 2, we analyzed the validity of the SSVS with a more heterogeneous sample than the student population tested in Study 1. In Study 3, we examined the test–retest reliability of the SSVS and in Study 4, the time savings when using the SSVS.

SSVS and in Study 4, the time savings when using the SSVS. FIGURE 1 Schwartz’s model

FIGURE 1 Schwartz’s model of the relations between values. Note. From “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: The- oretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” by S. Schwartz, 1992, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25, p. 45. Copyright 1992 by Elsevier. Adapted with permission.

(Schwartz, 1992). The dimensions can be understood in terms of two fundamental human problems that need to be solved (Rohan, 2000; Schwartz, 1992). The first dimension is called Conservation versus Openness to Change. It relates to the conflict between the motivation to preserve the status quo and the certainty that conformity to norms provides (high Conservation), on one hand, and the motivation to fol- low one’s own intellectual and emotional interests (low Con- servation) on the other hand. The second dimension is called Self-Transcendence versus Self-Enhancement and it relates to the conflict between concern for the welfare of other peo- ple (high Self-Transcendence) and concern for individual outcomes and personal interests (low Self-Transcendence). Hedonism is related to both higher order value dimensions as indicated by the dashed line around Hedonism. On the SVS, the respondents first rate 57 value items for importance. Scores on each of the 10 value scales are then calculated by averaging the scores on items that belong to each value. Studies in some 70 countries have supported the validity of the SVS. These studies have shown that the 10 values measured by the SVS encompass all basic values within and across cultures and that they have a quasi- circular structure in that conflicts and congruity of values are universally found as postulated by the theory (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990). In addi- tion, values measured with the SVS have shown predictable and systematic relations with, among others, political and environmental attitudes (Duriez, Luyten, Snauwaert, & Hutsebaut, 2002; Grunert & Juhl, 1995; Helkama, Uutela, & Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz, 1996), religiosity (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002; Schwartz & Huismans,

STUDY 1

Method

Participants

A total of 670 individuals from Finland (72.3% women)

whose ages ranged from 15 to 58 years (M = 19.76 years, SD = 5.23 years) participated in this study. Of those, 392 were in

senior high school and 278 were university students studying psychology either as their major or a minor. Of the 690 indi- viduals who originally took part, 20 were excluded because of missing data.

172

LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO

Procedure

The participants were recruited from the University of Helsinki and from four senior high schools, three in Helsinki and one in Central Finland. All participants were adminis- tered the questionnaires in group settings. The participants were told that the study concerned values, that participation would be voluntary, and that all information would be treated confidentially.

Measures

SVS. The original SVS (Schwartz, 1992, 1996) in- cludes 57 items and 10 value scales. Schwartz (1992) sug- gested that to enable cross-cultural comparisons, only those 45 items that show intercultural stability are to be included in the 10 scales. Accordingly, the scales, with the value items in parentheses, are Power (social power, authority, wealth), Achievement (success, capability, ambition, influ- ence on people and events), Hedonism (gratification of de- sires, enjoyment in life, self-indulgence), Stimulation (dar- ing, a varied and challenging life, an exciting life), Self- Direction (creativity, freedom, curiosity, independence, choosing one’s own goals), Universalism (broad- mindedness, beauty of nature and arts, social justice, a world at peace, equality, wisdom, unity with nature, envi- ronmental protection), Benevolence (helpfulness, honesty, forgiveness, loyalty, responsibility), Tradition (respect for tradition, humbleness, accepting one’s portion in life, devo- tion, modesty), Conformity (obedience, honoring parents and elders, self-discipline, politeness), and Security (na- tional security, family security, social order, cleanliness, re- ciprocation of favors). Scores on these 10 value scales have been shown to load on two dimensions: Conservation ver- sus Openness to Change and Self-Transcendence versus Self-Enhancement (Schwartz, 1992). We used the Finnish version of the SVS, which was back translated by a native speaker of English. Schwartz accepted the back translation as equivalent (S. Schwartz, personal communication, Sep- tember, 1988). The participants were asked to rate the importance they would give to the 57 value items as life-guiding principles on a 9-point rating scale ranging from –1 (opposed to my princi- ples), 0 (not important), 3 (important), to 7 (of supreme im- portance). To control rating bias, we used proportional sum variables. This was done in the following way. A personal mean of all 57 items was counted for each participant sepa- rately. The reason for selecting all 57 items was that the mean of the 45 items would have caused the problem of linear de- pendency in some analyses. Scores for each of the 10 scales were obtained by dividing the sum of the appropriate items by the personal mean of all items multiplied by the number of items on the scale. For example, the score of value Power was counted as follows: Power = (social power + wealth + authority)/(3 × personal mean of all items).

SSVS. In the short version of Schwartz’s scale, partici- pants were presented with the name of each value together with its value items. For instance, the participants were asked to rate the importance as a life-guiding principle of “Power, that is, social power, authority, wealth” and “Achievement, that is, success, capability, ambition, and influence on people and events.” A similar phrasing was used for all 10 values. Hence, the SSVS included 10 items, each of which indicated one original value and the related original value items as descriptors. The 10 value items were rated on a 9-point scale ranging from 0 (opposed to my principles), 1 (not important), 4 (important), to 8 (of supreme importance).

PVQ. The 10 basic values were also measured by the PVQ, which includes short verbal portraits of 40 different people (Schwartz et al., 2001). Each portrait describes a per- son’s goals, aspirations, or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a value. For example, the item “Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. He likes to do things in his own original way” describes a person for whom self-direction values are important, and “It is impor- tant to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money and ex- pensive things” describes a person who cherishes Power val- ues. For each portrait, the participants were asked to indicate “How much like you is this person?” ranging from 6 (very much like me) to 1 (not like me at all). Again, proportional sum variables were used. For computation of the personal mean, 30 of the 40 items were selected. These 30 items were selected to be as representative of the 10 values as possible. The reason for selecting only 30 items of the total number of 40 items was that the mean of all 40 items would have caused the problem of linear dependency in some analyses. We ob- tained scores for each of the 10 scales by dividing the sum of the appropriate items by the personal mean of all 30 items multiplied by the number of items on the scale.

Analysis and Results

Toexaminewhetheratwo-dimensionalstructureofvaluescan

befoundwiththeSSVS,weconductedmultidimensionalscal-

ing. First, the two-dimensional spatial representations of the correlations among the 10 values of the SSVS were produced by Kruskal, Young, Shepard, and Torgerson (KYST; Kruskal, Young, & Seery, 1973). KYST is a tool for multidimensional scaling with which all values can be represented simulta- neously in a multidimensional space. The distances between thepointsreflecttheempiricalrelationsamongthevalues.The more similar two values are conceptually, the higher the intercorrelation between their importance ratings, the more similar their pattern of correlations with all other values, and the closer they lie in the multidimensional space. Dissimilar values have opposing patterns of correlations and will thus be located at a substantial distance from one another. The two-dimensional spatial representation also includes scores for each variable, in this case, for each of the items.

SHORT SCHWARTZ’S VALUE SURVEY 173

These scores were rotated toward a configuration in which the Self-Direction item was kept as a marker variable. In other words, the Self-Direction value item was allocated on the left side of the x-axis representing the Openness to Change end of the Openness to Change versus Conservation dimension. In addition, the Power item was situated low on the y-axis representing the Self-Enhancement end of the Self-enhancement versus Self-Transcendence dimension. These spatial relations display a similar structure as has been obtained in earlier studies (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). This structure forms the theoretical basis of the two-dimensional model of values (Figure 1). The results (Figure 2) indicate high similarity with the structure obtained by the SVS (Fig- ure 1). The Security value item situates a little higher than in the original model, but the structure does not essentially dif- fer from that found in other studies (Schwartz et al., 2001). To enable assessment of the value dimensions Conserva- tion and Self-Transcendence and to examine the stability of the two-dimensional structure across samples, we con- structed Conservation and Self-Transcendence variables. We rotated the loadings obtained from KYST so that the means for the newly constructed variables were forced to be 0 and the standard deviations 1. Based on the constant (first in the equation) and the weights obtained, individuals’ scores on the two value dimension variables were calculated as a linear combination of each participants’ responses on the items in the following way:

Conservation = .82 + (.05 × Power) + (.06 × Achievement) – (.04 × Hedonism) – (.09 × Stimulation) – (.18 × Self-Direction) – (.16 × Universalism) +

(.03 × Benevolence) + (.16 × Tradition) + (.18 × Conformity) + (.11 × Security).

(1)

× Tradition) + (.18 × Conformity) + (.11 × Security). (1) FIGURE 2 The two-dimensional structure
× Tradition) + (.18 × Conformity) + (.11 × Security). (1) FIGURE 2 The two-dimensional structure
× Tradition) + (.18 × Conformity) + (.11 × Security). (1) FIGURE 2 The two-dimensional structure
× Tradition) + (.18 × Conformity) + (.11 × Security). (1) FIGURE 2 The two-dimensional structure
× Tradition) + (.18 × Conformity) + (.11 × Security). (1) FIGURE 2 The two-dimensional structure
× Tradition) + (.18 × Conformity) + (.11 × Security). (1) FIGURE 2 The two-dimensional structure

FIGURE 2

The two-dimensional structure of values in Study 1.

Self-Transcendence = –.60 – (.19 × Power) – (.14 × Achievement) – (.09 × Hedonism) – (.11 × Stimulation) + (.01 × Self-Direction) + (.10 × Universalism) + (.13 × Benevolence) + (.07 × Tradition) + (.06 × Conformity) + (.02 × Security).

(2)

Note that the constant must be added to the equation to obtain a distribution with a mean of 0 and that these weights apply only to 9-point scales. Weevaluatedinternalconsistencyofthetwoscaleswiththe general reliability coefficient (GRC; Tarkkonen & Vehkalahti, in press). Like Cronbach’s alpha ( α), this is a sta- tistical technique for assessing reliability of composite scales. The advantages of the GRC are that it reports the exact internal consistency, not only the lower bound, and it does not have the same rigid assumptions of equal variances and correlations of theitemsasCronbach’salpha.TheGRCforConservationwas .78, and for Self-Transcendence, it was .72, whereas their re- spective alpha coefficients, .60 and .58, were lower. Both reli- ability measures are expressed on the same scale on which the GRC scores can be considered adequate. We used the following procedures to examine the congru- ence validity of the SSVS and the SVS, that is, to evaluate to what extent the two scales measure the same constructs. For the first evaluation, we conducted two-dimensional multidi- mensional scaling on the 10 sum variables of the SVS. We rotated the variables thus obtained using the same procedure as described previously for the SSVS variables. We assessed the similarity of the SVS and SSVS matrices with the coeffi- cient of congruence (Harman, 1976), which amounted to .96. This value indicates very high similarity of the matrices. For our second evaluation of the congruence validity of the SSVS with the SVS and the PVQ, we formed Conserva- tion and Self-Transcendence variables for the SVS and the PVQ. We did this by giving weights as described in Equa- tions 1 and 2 to the 10 sum variables of the SVS and PVQ. The Conservation variable of the SSVS correlated .75 and .76 with the Conservation variables of the SVS and PVQ, re- spectively. The corresponding correlations for the Self- Transcendence scales were .78 and .76. Notice that these cor- relations are of the same order of magnitude as the GRCs of the SSVS and remarkably higher than the Cronbach alpha reliabilities. This result implies two things. First, the congru- ence validity of the two-dimensional measures of the SVS is very high, and second, the Cronbach alphas probably under- estimate the true reliability of the SVS. The reader is referred to Tarkkonen and Vehkalahti (in press) for reasons for this underestimation. Next, the correlations between values assessed with the SSVS, the SVS, and the PVQ were obtained (Table 1). They ranged from .45 to .70, the average correlation being .61, and the correlations between SSVS and SVS were of a similar order of magnitude as the correlations between SVS and PVQ.

174

LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO

TABLE 1 Correlations of Value Scores Measured With the SSVS, the SVS and the PVQ

SSVS and

SSVS and

SVS and

Value

SVS

PVQ

PVQ

Power

.68

.66

.59

Achievement

.61

.63

.63

Hedonism

.70

.71

.66

Stimulation

.70

.72

.72

Self-direction

.65

.64

.67

Universalism

.68

.62

.78

Benevolence

.56

.52

.55

Tradition

.54

.45

.64

Conformism

.61

.59

.52

Security

.45

.46

.57

Note. All ps < .001. SSVS = Short Schwartz’ Value Survey; SVS = Schwartz’s Value Survey; PVQ = Portrait Questionnaire.

STUDY 2

A methodological consideration that limits the conclusive-

ness of the findings of Study 1 is the low number of male par- ticipants and the homogenous nature of the sample (high school and psychology students). Therefore, in Study 2, we examined whether the quasi-circular structure of the 10 value items could be replicated in a more heterogenous sample. We also examined the criterion validity of the SSVS. Pre- vious studies have shown that women attach less importance

to power and more to universalism and benevolence than

men (Feather, 1984; Kasser et al., 2002; Verkasalo et al., 1994). In addition, voting for right-wing parties has been shown to correlate positively with power, security, and achievement and negatively with universalism and benevo- lence (Schwartz, 1996). As regards values and interests in different academic disciplines, earlier work has shown that business and technology students value power more and uni- versalism less than students of the humanities and social sci- ences (Verkasalo et al., 1994). Furthermore, there is preliminary evidence that religiosity is positively associated with tradition and negatively with hedonism and stimulation values (Roccas et al., 2002). We expected that these relation- ships would be found with the SSVS.

Method

Participants

dents and 23% attended a vocational school. Among the uni- versity students, there were 77 business students (69% women), 193 technology students (44% women), 408 hu- manities students (88% women), 181 theology students (62% women), and 107 social science students (77% women). Other disciplines represented among the university students were medical sciences, psychology, philosophy, natural sciences, law, forestry, architecture, and education, whereas the vocational school students represented the fields of arts and crafts, technology, business, and service.

Procedure

Theparticipantswererecruitedthroughsixuniversitiesand 10 vocational schools in Finland. Where applicable, a recruit-

ment message was sent to an electronic student mailing list. If nosuchlistwasinuse,anemployeeoftheeducationalinstitute

postedinformationonthestudyonanelectronicorarealbulle-

tinboard,dependingonwhichwasavailable.Aminorityofthe participants (N = 279) was informed about the study by a re- searcher at the beginning of a lecture at their school. The 54 email lists that we targeted had an estimated total of 16,000 subscribed members, and the educational institutes that posted messages on their communication boards had a to- tal of approximately 4,000 students. Because no data is avail- able on how many people were reached by the recruitment message, the response rate cannot be reliably calculated. The participants were told that the study concerned be- liefs, personality, cognition, and values (data for other stud- ies were also gathered with the questionnaire). Our names and contact information were available in the recruitment message. Students were referred to the questionnaire, which was posted on the Internet. In the messages sent out to the mailing lists, a hyperlink to the questionnaire was included. Confidentiality and voluntariness of participation were stressed, and the respondents were given between 1 and 3 weeks time to participate in the study. The respondents were informed that by taking part, they had a chance of winning a 50 E boat trip for two to the city of Tallinn. All the participants were also promised feedback on their responses approximately 2 months after their participa- tion in the study, which would require them to reveal their pseudonym but not their identity. Such feedback, given on request, consisted of a general description of the phenomena studied, absolute scale ranges and means, and the partici- pant’s own score on each of the scales.

A total of 3,087 individuals took part in the study. Ori- ginally, 3,261 participated, but 174 were excluded because of missing data. Participants’ mean age was 24 years (SD = 4.70) with a range from 15 to 60. Of the participants, 74% were women (14 participants did not report their gender). Of all participants, 85% reported being full-time students, 9 % were full-time employed, and the remainder 6 % were other- wise occupied. Of those studying, 77% were university stu-

Measures

SVSS. The SSVS was used as described in Study 1 ex- cept that the values were measured on a 7-point scale ranging from –1 (against my principles) to 5 (of supreme impor- tance). A narrower scale range was used because researchers have suggested that a scale with five to seven response choices is optimal (Betz, 1996).

SHORT SCHWARTZ’S VALUE SURVEY 175

the results showed that in comparison with the students from the humanities and social sciences, business and technology students valued Power more, F(1, 1217) = 27.32, p < .001, d = .30andUniversalismless, F(1,1217)=91.04, p <.001, d =.53.

Incomparisontootherstudents,theologystudentsvaluedTra-

dition more, F(1, 2912) = 50.70, p < .001, d = .54, and both He-

donism, F(1, 2912) = 54.42, p < .001, d = .56; and Stimulation less, F(1, 2912) = 16.14, p < .001, d = .31. All means can be seen in Table 2. Next, to replicate the finding that the quasi-circular struc- ture of value items can be detected with the SSVS, we con- ducted multidimensional scaling in a similar way as in Study 1. Figure 3 shows that the structure of the value items was again highly similar to that obtained with the original SVS (Figure 1) and with the SSVS in Study 1 (Figure 2). Using multidimensional scaling in a similar way as in Study 1, individuals’ scores on the higher order dimensions Conservation and Self-Transcendence were calculated. Based on the constants and weights obtained, scores on the two dimensions were obtained with the following equations:

Political orientation and religiosity.

The participants

were given the name of the eight political parties in the Finn- ish Parliament, and they were asked to indicate which party

they would vote for if the general elections were now. Partici- pants who said they would vote for the National Coalition Party or the True Finns were categorized as supporters of right-wing orientation (N = 522). Participants who said they would vote for the Social Democratic Party or Left Alliance were categorized as supporters of left-wing orientation (N = 561). Religiosity was operationalized in two separate ways. Those who either voted for The Finnish Christian League (N

= 109) or studied theology (N = 181) were placed in the cate-

gory “clearly religious”; other participants were categorized as “religiosity unclear.”

Results

First, the relationships between endorsement of single val- ues, gender, political orientation, religiosity, and study disci- pline were analyzed by analyses of variance (ANOVAs). To avoid Type I error, the alpha level was adjusted downward (p < .001). The results show that in comparison to men, women attached more importance to Universalism, F(1, 3071) = 66.92, p < .001, d = .32; and to Benevolence, F(1, 3071) = 144.95, p < .001, d = .49; and less to Power, F(1, 3072) = 8.61, p < .003, d = .12. When compared to the supporters of left-wing political par- ties, supporters of right-wing political parties put more value on Power, F(1, 1081) = 91.92, p < .001, d = .56; Security, F(1, 1081) = 44.04, p < .001, d = .40; and Achievement, F(1, 1081)

= 47.83, p < .001, d = .41 and less on Universalism, F(1, 1081)

= 52.33, p < .001, d = .43. The hypothesis that supporters of

right-wing political parties would value Benevolence less than left-wingers was not supported, F(1, 1081) = 2.41, ns, d = .09. As regards participants who voted for the Finnish Chris- tian League, it turned out that they valued Tradition more, F(1, 2912) = 50.70, p < .001, d = .54; and both Hedonism, F(1, 2912) = 54.42, p < .001, d = .56 and Stimulation less than other participants, F(1, 2912) = 16.14, p < .001, d = .31. In addition,

Conservation = .92 + (.15 × Power) + (.03 × Achievement) – (.17 × Hedonism) – (.25 × Stimulation) – (.31 × Self-Direction) – (.26 × Universalism) + (.04 × Benevolence) + (.30 × Tradition) + (.30 × Conformity) + (.20 × Security)

Self-Transcendence = –.56 – (.30 × Power) – (.33 × Achievement) – (.16 × Hedonism) – (.14 × Stimulation) + (.04 × Self-Direction) + (.22 × Universalism) + (.24 × Benevolence) + (.12 × Tradition) + (.03 × Conformity) + (.03 × Security).

(3)

(4)

These weights apply only to 7-point scales. It should be noted that the constant must be added to the equation to ob- tain a distribution with a mean of 0. The general reliability

TABLE 2 Means of Value Scores (Ranging From –1 to 5) Measured With the Short Schwartz’s Value Survey

Gender

Political Orientation

Study Field

 

Humanities and

Business and

Value

Women

Men

Right

Left

Christian

Social Sciences

Technology

Theology

Power

2.24

2.39

2.85

2.15

1.84

2.11

2.48

2.00

Achievement

3.43

3.48

3.81

3.39

2.74

3.29

3.57

3.03

Hedonism

4.05

3.94

4.16

3.96

3.46

3.97

4.13

3.57

Stimulation

3.43

3.51

3.57

3.39

3.22

3.41

3.59

3.15

Self-Direction

4.35

4.21

4.25

4.30

3.97

4.44

4.26

4.27

Universalism

4.06

3.74

3.49

3.97

3.63

4.23

3.72

4.09

Benevolence

4.65

4.32

4.42

4.49

4.84

4.62

4.39

4.78

Tradition

2.82

2.59

3.00

2.63

3.65

2.58

2.72

3.38

Conformism

3.19

3.07

3.50

3.00

3.81

2.87

3.25

3.21

Security

4.10

3.71

4.27

3.87

4.14

3.76

4.02

4.02

176

LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO

176 LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO FIGURE 3 The two-dimensional structure of values in Study 2. coefficient (Heise
176 LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO FIGURE 3 The two-dimensional structure of values in Study 2. coefficient (Heise
176 LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO FIGURE 3 The two-dimensional structure of values in Study 2. coefficient (Heise
176 LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO FIGURE 3 The two-dimensional structure of values in Study 2. coefficient (Heise
176 LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO FIGURE 3 The two-dimensional structure of values in Study 2. coefficient (Heise

FIGURE 3

The two-dimensional structure of values in Study 2.

coefficient (Heise & Bohrnstedt, 1970; Tarkkonen &

Vehkalahti, in press) for Conservation was .75, and for Self- Transcendence, it was .69. To confirm that the weights for Conservation and Self-

TranscendenceobtainedinStudy1andStudy2weresimilarto

eachotherandthusapplicabletofuturestudiesaswell,weana-

lyzed whether the results would remain the same if the weights obtained from data in Study 1 were used in Study 2. Note that the weights and scores were different because in Study 1, a 9- point scale was used, whereas in Study 2, a 7-point scale was used. We thus expected the scores to be similar in their relative

size,notintheirabsolutesize.Consequently,besidestheorigi-

nal Conservation and Self-Transcendence variables obtained in Study 2, we obtained two new variables: Conservation 2 and Self-Transcendence 2 . The results showed that the correlation between Conservation and Conservation 2 was .98, p < .001, and between Self-Transcendence and Self-Transcendence 2 , it was .99, p < .001. As a second test, we correlated the weights themselves and found very similar results: for the Conserva- tion variables, .97 and for the Self-Transcendence variables, .98. The results indicate high stability of the weights between different samples and show that these weights can be used in future studies to calculate individuals’ scores on the two value dimensions. To examine whether the two value dimensions differenti- ate between gender, religiosity, study discipline, and politi- cal orientation in a similar way as the individual values did, ANOVAs were conducted to compare the scores on the two value dimensions among the groups. The results showed, first, that women scored higher on the Self-Transcendence dimension (M = .09) than men (M = –.28), F(1, 3071) = 80.05, p < .001, d = .36. No gender differences were found on Conservatism, F(1, 3071) = 1.64, ns, d = .08. The results also indicated that the supporters of right-wing political parties put more weight on Conservatism values (M = .50) than the supporters of left-wing parties (M = –.10), F(1, 1081) =

99.26, p < .001, d = .60 and that they endorsed less Self- Transcendence values (M = –.40) than the supporters of left- wing parties (M = –.01), F(1, 1081) = 43.08, p < .001, d = .39. In addition, participants who voted for the Finnish Chris- tian League endorsed Conservatism values more (M = .58) than participants who voted for other parties (M = .00), F(1, 2718) = 35.47, p < .001, d = .58 and endorsed Self- Transcendence values more (M = .80) than participants who voted for other parties (M = –.04), F(1, 2718) = 75.62, p < .001, d = .84. Furthermore, the students from the humanities and the social sciences attached less importance to Conserva- tism (M = –.34) than business and technology students (M = .15), F(1, 1217) = 75.34, p < .001, d = .39 and more impor- tance to Self-Transcendence values (M = .10) than business and technology students (M = –.29), F(1, 1217) = 48.40, p < .001, d = .39. Theology students, in turn, valued Conserva- tism (M = .16) more than other students (M = –.01), F(1, 2912) = 5.20, p < .001, d = .17 and also placed more impor- tance on Self-Transcendence (M = .63) than other students (M = –.06), F(1, 2912) = 82.95, p < .001, d = .69. Thus, the re- sults concerning the validity of the two value dimensions were equally good as those concerning the value items.

STUDY 3

The test–retest reliability of the SSVS was analyzed with a sample of 112 participants (81% women) who were included

inStudy1.Ofthose,35werestudentsofseniorhighschooland

77studiedpsychologyeitherasamajororasaminor.Theirage

varied from 15 to 41 years (M = 20.77, SD = 4.77). The partici- pants filled in the SSVS twice with a 2-week interval. The intraclass correlations between the test and retest are shown in Table 3. Except Self-Direction, the results indicate sufficient reliability for the measure. It should be noted that the standard deviation of the Self-Direction item was the

TABLE 3 2-Week Test–Retest ICC of the Value Scores Obtained With the SSVS

Values

ICC

Power

.77

Achievement

.60

Hedonism

.74

Stimulation

.61

Self-Direction

.34

Universalism

.67

Benevolence

.50

Tradition

.58

Conformism

.60

Security

.54

Spirituality

.53

Value dimensions

Conservation

.71

Self-transcendence

.78

Note. All correlations are significant at p < .001. ICC was computed using the SPSS model ICC(3,1) agreement. ICC = interclass correlation; SPSS = Short Schwartz’s Value Survey.

SHORT SCHWARTZ’S VALUE SURVEY 177

expense of others. The latter dimension shows whether peo- ple resist change and emphasize self-restriction and order or whether they are ready for new experiences and emphasize independent action and thought. These two dimensions reflect the different motivational goals of the 10 basic values and the two major conflicts that organize the whole value system. As Schwartz (1996) and his associates (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003) have noted, attitudes and behaviors are guided by these goals and conflicts, not by the priority given to a single value such as universalism or hedonism. Moreover, Rohan (2000) suggested that these two dimensions may reflect people’s ideologies and beliefs about human nature, personality traits, temperament, self-theories and self-regulatory focus. In this study, we offered equations that can be applied in future studies to assess individuals’ scores on the two value dimensions. We provided two types of equations, one to be used with 9-point rating scales and one for 7-point scales. We ended up producing two equations because the original SVS has nine response alternatives, but most experts of psychological measurement agree that be- tween five and seven is an optimal number of response choices (Betz, 1996). Besides assessing the two value dimensions, SSVS is a convenient measure for conducting value comparisons. For example, if respondents are asked to fill in the SSVS several times in a row—for example, to compare their own values with what they believe are those of others—important infor- mation about potential value conflicts or concurrences in the respondent’s life space can be obtained. Such comparisons are much more laborious to conduct with the 57-item SVS or with the 40-item PVQ. On the whole, the SSVS and the SVS are more appropriate value questionnaires for adults than the PVQ, which contains verbal reports of people and does not identify values as the topic of investigation. Thus, unlike the SSVS or the SVS, the PVQ does not ask self-conscious values, and the respondents are unaware that they are answering a value questionnaire (Schwartz, in press; Schwartz et al., 2001). In addition, as Schwartz noted, the language level of PVQ is that of around 11-year-olds, and therefore, PVQ is not the best value ques- tionnaire for educated, Western adults. Of the 13 hypothesized relationships between SSVS value scores and their validity criteria, 12 received support, and as a whole, the criteria for abbreviating an existing scale were met (Smith, McCarthy, & Anderson, 2000). However, this study did not provide information on how its validity coeffi- cients compare to those of the SVS. Because of the different operationalizations of theoretical constructs such as religios- ity or political orientation, different types of measurements (continuous vs. discrete vs. dichotomous variables), different statistical methods, and the omission of effect sizes from pre- vious studies, we do not know whether the concurrent valid- ity of SSVS is of sufficient magnitude to support its validity across all domains. In addition, some of the correlations be- tween the values measured with the SSVS and the SVS were

lowest, and its mean was among the highest in the whole scale. It is thus possible that its correlation was deflated.

STUDY 4

To compare the cognitive load of the SSVS, the SVS, and the PVQ, 38 psychology students filled in the three question- naires as a course requirement. The participants were asked to write down the exact time when they started and finished filling in each scale. The results show that it took on average 12 min to fill in the 57-item SVS, 6 min and 40 sec to fill in the 40-item PVQ, and 2 min to fill in the 10-item SSVS.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

These four studies showed that the 10-item SSVS provides a practicable alternative to the original 57-item SVS. The new scale had good internal consistency and temporal stability, the scores obtained with the SSVS were highly correlated with those obtained with the original SVS and with the PVQ, and the value scores were arrayed on a circle in a way that is identical both to the structure obtained in a variety of cultures and to the theoretical structure of values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). Values measured by the SSVS were also associated with various validity criteria as expected on the basis of pre- vious studies (Feather, 1984; Roccas et al., 2002; Schwartz, 1996; Verkasalo et al., 1994). Accordingly, women valued universalism and benevolence more than men, and voting for right-wing parties was positively associated with endorse- ment of power, security, and achievement and negatively with endorsement of universalism values. Moreover, busi- ness and technology students valued power more and univer- salism less than students of the humanities and social sci- ences, and theology students valued tradition more and hedonism and stimulation less than others. The short value scale gives insight in broad values, not in the 57 specific values measured with the SVS. Thus, if de- tailed and comprehensive information is needed, the original SVS remains the best available scale for a more thorough as- sessment of values. In addition, the SSVS measures the 10 values with only one item each, whereas the original SVS measures them with three to nine items. Single-item mea- sures are typically discouraged in psychological research be- cause they are presumed to be unreliable and because internal consistency coefficients cannot be calculated for them. Although evidence of good reliability and validity of the SSVS was obtained here, researchers who are reluctant to use single-item measures may use the SSVS as an instrument for rapid assessment of the two broad value dimensions, that is, Self-Transcendence versus Self-Enhancement and Con- servation versus Openness to Change. The former reflects whether people are motivated to transcend selfish concerns and promote the welfare of others or whether they are more motivated to enhance their own personal interests even at the

178

rather low. Therefore, the validity of SSVS should be ana- lyzed in more detail in future studies. Values are psychological constructs that are inherently linked with personality, motivation, and behavior, but they have a unique contribution for understanding any psycholog- ical phenomenon that somehow ties in with evaluation, justi- fication, or selection of actions. However, researchers’ experience with the original SVS has indicated that consider- able abbreviation of the scale is needed to make the instru- ment more suitable for use with a wider range of respondents and for a possible combination with other instruments of in- terest (Grunert & Juhl, 1995). We hope that the SSVS scale proves useful for researchers who are interested in a brief screening of what people regard important in their lives.

LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook of classification. New York: Oxford University Press. Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big five per- sonality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789–801. Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 255–277. Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theo- retical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experi- mental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45. Schwartz, S. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of in- tegrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, and M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Schwartz, S. (in press). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values. In A. T. J. Porto (Ed.), Valores e trabalho [Values and work]. Brasilia, Brazil: Editora Vozes. Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological struc- ture of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study was supported by Grant 200828 from the Acad- emy of Finland.

REFERENCES

Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,

1207–1220.

Betz, N. E. (1996). Test construction. In F. T. L. Leong & J. T. Austin (Eds.), The psychology research handbook (pp. 239–250). Thousands Oaks, CA:

Sage. Duriez, B., Luyten, P., Snauwaert, B., & Hutsebaut, D. (2020). The impor- tance of religiosity and values in predicting political attitudes: Evidence for the continuing importance of religiosity in Flanders (Belgium). Men- tal Health, Religion & Culture, 5, 35–54. Feather, N. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, psychological androgyny, and the structure of values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 604–620. Feather, N. T. (2002). Values and value dilemmas in relation to judgments concerning outcomes of an industrial conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 446–459. Grunert, S., & Juhl, H. J. (1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and buy- ing of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 39–62. Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press. Helkama, K., Uutela, A., & Schwartz, S. (1992). Value systems and political cognition. In G. M. Breakwell (Ed.), Social psychology of political and economic cognition (pp. 7–31). London: Surrey University. Kasser, T., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2002). Early family experiences and adult values: A 26 year prospective study. Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Bulletin, 28, 826–835. Kruskal, J. B., Young, F. W., & Seery, J. B. (1973). How to use KYST, a very flexible program to do multidimensional scaling and unfolding. Murray Hills, NJ: Bell Laboratories.

550–562.

Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891. Schwartz, S., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human val- ues with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230–255. Schwartz, S., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four western religions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88–107. Schwartz, S., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic hu- man values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111. Struch, N., Schwartz, N., & van der Kloot, W. (2002). Meanings of basic val- ues for women and men: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16–28. Tarkkonen, L., & Vehkalahti, K. (in press). Errors in multivariate measure- ment scales. Journal of Multivariate Analysis. Values in action (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2004 from:

http://www.viastrengths.org/ Verkasalo, M., Daun, Å., & Niit, T. (1994). Universal values in Estonia, Fin- land and Sweden. Ethnologia Europaea, 24, 101–117.

Markku Verkasalo P.O. Box 9 00014 University of Helsinki Helsinki, Finland Email: markku.verkasalo@helsinki.fi

Received May 12, 2004 Revised January 26, 2005