~lcta Psychologica 31 (1969) 2Tt=284; © North-Holland Publis,~#1g Co., Amsterdam Not tO be, reproduced in any tbrm without written perm:'ssion from the publisher

A CROSS C U L T U R A L STUDY OF VALUES AND NEEDS

S. W. JOHNSON and R. J. $TIGGINS State U?dversity College o/ Arts. and Science, Plattsburgh, New York, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

Differences in relative value strengths and psychological needs at'e investigated between Jordanian and American college students. Statistically significant dif- feret~7,-- are found on six of eigLt value scales and seven of sixteen need variables. The largest need variafi¢,n was found in the area of heterosexua;Jty, and the prestige value differed mo~,~t w'd,Av of the value scales. Variations in cultural patterns which contribme ta these personality variations are discussed.

Results are seen as consistent wth previous research in the area of cross- cultural need e~mparisons. They are also cited as demonstrating tk~ relative imtx~tance of euhure in the determination of needs and values. Needs are showq to be more individualistic in origin, while values are somewhat mo~e culturally bou ad,

The cross-cultural study of personality variables has taken many

diEerent directions in the past decade. Sex differences bctw2en two culturcs on personality inventories have been examined (FuSVER, 1962; G~EI, 19669.) as well as two cuiture studies of personality variation within one sex (GHF_I, i966b; MORRIS and JoNEs, 1955). More than two culturcs have been compared by others (SIN~H~ HUANG and THO:CIPSON, 1962).

Some of these stv.d:cs purport to measure psychological needs, while

olhers compare value structure. In man 3, there is confusion ..as to which set or construct is being measured. Some operationally define ,~alue in

much the same way as othels define need. Colffusiou comes from ac,zeptance of research findings in which needs

and values are used interchangeably. However, DU~ES (1955) claims

that t~cse two personality characteristics can be distinguished. He notes that values are directly acquired as part of the socialization process,

while needs may be present hi some more basic form from birth. KLtICKHOHN and MURRAY (I959) point out that a value i.s 'a formulation

of the desirable "ought" or "should" '. Implied here are value strengths which are learned and culturally determined. Need.q, on the other hand, are less bound by social desirability (EowARDS, 1959), and are therefore

277

~78 S. W. .fOI~SON AND R, J. S]'IGGINS

to be considered on mor, a of an individual level. It was apparently this lack of social influence o~a needs that resuit~xt in the findings of MEnLIN and FLE~tNG (1963) and KLETT (1957) th*~t only a small number of the need variables on the Edwards Personai PreJerence Schedule were related significantly to seeio-economic class.

It wa.,~ the purpose ot the present study to examine these supposed definitive differences between needs and values measured cross- culturally, as displayed in the manifest psychological needs and the reiative value strengths of Jordanian and American college students. Additionally, the study was designed to provide more general informa- tion regarding differences i~ ~crsonality str'ueture between cultures.

~ E THOD

Subjects

A total of 240 freshman male college education students were subjects 123 from Jordan and 117 from the UniteC States.

The Jordanian subjects were enrolled st Amman Teachers College, In-Service Te~cher Education Center, Amman, H. K., Jordan, and were cho~n from a non-stratified cross-section of the indigenous college population and all listed Arabic as their mother tongue.

The American subjects were enrolled in education at an American, New York State college. A maior~ty were from rural and urban areas of New York State and were of ~ middle class family background.

Procedure

Arabic trar~slalions of the Edwards Personal Pre]erenoe Schedule, EDWAROS (1959)consisting of 15 psychological need variables, and the Poe Inventory oj Values (POE, 1954), an Allport-Vernon, Likert type values ilwentory, were admiJ~,,istered to the Jordanian subjects. Transla- tion was carried out through the Department of EAucation o!! the Government of Jordan in 1965. The administration of these instruraents was accomplished through the Director of Amman Teachers College in the fall of 1965.

The ~,~ame measurement instruments, in English, were administer.~xl to the Ulfited States subjects in the fall of 1967.

Of the Jorda-aian subjects who took part in the study, 66 were administered beth the EPPS and the PIV. Each of the American subjects was administered both the EPPS and PIV.

A CROSS CULTURAL STUDY OF VALUES AND NEEDS 279

~:~ESULTS

It was necessary initi~dly to determine the difference between tb: two samples in manifest psychological needs and relative value strengths. The results of t-tests on each of the 8 variables of the PIV and 15 variables of the EPPS revealed significant differences on ,~ total of b of the value scales and 7 of the need variab~zs. The raw score means and variances

and the probability levels for obtained differences are shown in tables 1 and 2.

"FABLE 1

Comparison of va.lue strengths for tctal sample.

United States Jordan (N= 11'") ( N = 123)

Valne area 2 Variance ,~ Varia,ce t

I. Aesthelic 34.42 67.98 22.68 113.72 8.99 *'0'~ 2. Intellectual 47.63 62.56 ,16.68 87.52 0.8d- 3. Material 39.75 :06.86 30.66 118.90 6.64'* 4. Power 49.08 ~04.47 4-,'.88 140.45 0.56 5. Social c~,~ntact 45.94 64.83 52.27 109.47 4.87** 6, Reiigious 36,62 6S,59 32. I6 160.30 3.26* 7, Prest.;ge 56.21 74.14 38.00 114.73 14,47"* 8. Humanitarian 50.36 74.56 47.20 84.50 3.18"

* p .< o.0t ** p < o.0ol

The grez,test variation in the PIV was found in the strength ot tile

value placed on Prestige. Significant differences were also found in Aesthetic, Material, Social contact, Religious and Humanitariw:' values strengths. The Jordanian sample was found to have lesser absolut.e scores

on all but one of the 8 scales. On the EPPS comparison, significant differences were rewzaled in

Order, Exhibit;~on, Autonomy, Nurturance, Endurance, tteterosexuality, and Aggression, with the greatest difference occurring on the Hetero- sexual need scale. No one consistant direction of difference patlern was

found. Of primary interest here were any exis,:r,g inter-relationship between

need and value variables. Therefore, a matr~, of correlations for twenty-

280 s. w. JOHNSON AND R. J. STI6GINS

TABLE 2

Comparison cf :;~c~ fo,: totnl sz~-nple.

United States Jordan ( N = 117) (N = 74)

~ e ~ ar~l ~ Variance ~ Variance t

1. Achievement 14.12 16.15 14.50 12.91 0.66 2. Deference 1 "-.23 16.97 12.16 10,55 ~.65 3. Order 9,56 19.15 13.1.6 24.95 5.29*** 4, Exhibition 15.10 16.00 12.58 13.97 4.36*** 5. Autonomy 14.45 26.01 12.34 11.73 2.26* 6. Affiliation 14.56 19.01 14.50 11.I0 0.07 7. Intraoeption 15.55 22.09 16.09 12.64 0.59 8. Sueeoranee 11.33 22.54 !t.07 16.69 0.39 9. ~ a n c e 14.71 29.81 15.72 10.04 1.08

~0. Aba~rtent 14.93 22.94 13.70 13.23 1.32 I1. Nurtora~oe 14.21 27.67 ~7.34 1 7 . 3 2 4.33*** 12. Change 15.21 23.23 15.59 14,42 0.58 13. Endurance 12.3'9 27.65 15.64 1 4 . 1 8 3.38*** 14. Heterosexuality 18.00 37.06 9.76 27.52 9.62*** 15. Aggression 13.39 20.88 15.89 11.28 2.77** 16. Consistaney 11.21 4.22; 10.24 1.~7 3.50" **

* p = <"~ 0.05 *~ p = <Z 0.01

***' p : < 0.0~1

three variables was obta ined for each saxaple. 'The n u m b e i of corre la t ions

which were found to be significant at different levels are shown in

table 3.

TAa3LE 3

Interoorrelation EPPS vs. PIV To~l ----- 120

Sig. level United States Jordan

p <~ 0.05 5 0 p ~ 0.01 10 0 p <~ 0.001 17 !

TOTAL 32 1 p < 0,05

.k CROSS CULTUR/kL STUDY OF VALUES AND NEEDS 281

DISCUSSION

It is interesting to note that the results of the present study are in a~eement wkh the findings of previous research of cross-cl~ttural personality assessment. GHEI (1966a) and FUST aR (1962) found simi!ar difference patterns in comparing samples from two different reglon~ of India with American college stud- ~ts. Both found that male subject; varied to a significant degree cross-culturally on Deferenoe, Ot~er, Autonomy, Nurturance, Endurance, and Heterosexuality need scales. The preaent study revealed very similar patterns in a sample from a different Mideastem cultme. The following need scr~'.s were found to vary significantly (p = < 0.05) when comparing each of the ~hree samples with American students: Order, Exhibition, Nurt~mmce, Endurances; and Heterosexuality. In most cases, the direction of the difference was the same. The direction of difference varied with the need scale.

When these findings are combined with the pronounced difference between Jordanian and American value strengths, in the light of the basic cultural background of each sample, interesting relationsh:ips are suggested.

Th~ statistically significant differences in 6 of the 8 value areas ",Aesthetic, Intellect~al, Social contact, Religio~s, Prestige, and Humani- tar'urn) are largely in agreement with what might oe expected, if the value definition offered earlier is accepted. That is, wtlues are instilled in ~.he personality of each individual as part of the soei ~lizatien process. It would be expected, according to this hypothesis that values compared cross-culturally would differ greatly, as they have been shown to differ in the present study.

Needs, on the other hand, were said to be more individually oriented, and would be expected to dif;er to a lesser extent than did values. These ditte~nees are, in fact, not a~ prominent (5 of 15 scales) as those found in value strengths. It should also be noted that while consistent direction of differences in value strengths were found, no such relatiov.,ship was revea:~,d in the need differences. Support is found here for the indi- viduality of needs as it would appear that varying social structure is not necessarily resulting in correlated need differences.

The direction of the prominent value differences poses an interestin~ problem in the present study. The relative value strengths of the Jordanian sample were found to be consistantly lower (7 of 8 scale~) than American strengths, One might speculate that the functions reported by

282 S. W. JOHNSON AND R. J. STIGGINS

MORRIS avd JONES (1955) and PROTrarto (1958) are also operating here. They found that aoeial restraint and self-control were in themselves valued 'w~sys to live' in Mideastern culture (India). The manit'estation of this sel~-control could result in less of an outward commitment to a value structure. Morris and Jones also cite indecision in w~lue struciure as being characteristic of the Indian value system. The scores on the consistency measure of the EPPS also show less stability on the part of Jordanian students. Additional research on &is point is necessary.

The greatest differences between the two samples on each of the instruments were found to exist in the strength of the prestige and heterosexu~d value area. The very strong need difference in the hetero- sexual area could be the result of relative weak heterosexual aeed,,~ on the part .of the Mideastern students, as suggested by GnEI (1966a). It is pointed out in that study that such weak needs in this area are the result of the joint family structure dominating easter.u c~alture which gives rise to arranged marriages, tn sv.ch a setting, heterosext~al relationships for the unmarried college student would be less ~mportant. There is, how- ever, an alternate hypothesis, involving the serf-restraint mentioned earlier. T/~e lack ,ff verbalization on the subject of heterosexual relztion- ship could be playing a role here.

The Prestige ~ealue was also found to differ greatly. Evidence in defense of this difference might possibly have been found in relationship between values and needs. For example, it might be expected that such needs as Achievement, Exhibition, Autonomy, Dominance, Endurance, and Aggression would be stronger ia Amedca, because the prestige value (desire for social position) is more highly wdued by Americans. How- ever, ~his was foum;; not to be the case, as Americans were higher on only 2 (Autonomy and Exhibition) of ~e anticipated oc~,:s. Therefore, support, was found for the statement of KLUCKHOHN and MuaRAV (1959) that 'not ad needs have been as di,.;positions operating in the service of a certain kind of value'.

Further evidence of the inconsistency of need/value relationships is found in the number of sigmficant intercorrelations between EPPS and PIV variables. There were 32 such relationslfips in the American sample of 123 possible and only one in t.~.e Jord~,nian comparison.

Intercorrelations found b~tween the value variables, however, do serve to ex??lain, ~,! least in part, the pre~tige difference. Prestige was found to correlate highly with Material (r ----- ~. 0.73) and Power (r = < 0.55) values in the American sample and with Material (r = < 0.:J0) and

A CROSS CULTURAL STUDY OF VALUES AND NEEDS 283

P o w e r (r - - <~ 0.64) i~ the J ordanian sample. There was found to be no significant difference ~e~wee, n the two groups in the power walue, but there was a large variation in material with the Americans significantly higher (p = <~ 0.0fA). This suggests that what is involved here is a material prestige valued by Americans. This idea would be in accordance with the results of the SiNG~X, eta]. (1962) study which found American students more self-centered, it would also be consistant with tl~e materialistic orientation of American Society.

CONCLUSION

The present study investigated differences in relative value strellgth~ and psychological needs between Jordanian and American college students. Comparisons were made with previous research in the area of cross-cultural personality stady, and some confusion as to definiti tt of needs and values is dealt ~ith. in sum, these were the findings,;: (1) There are definable patterns in comparing students' Mideastern cultures with those o~ American students. Needs of students from two separate regions of India and from Jordan are very similar when compared to U. S. students. (2) The largest need variation between Jordanian and American students is in the area of heterosexuality. Inhibition of expresston r,~ther than difference in the need i ,self may be the cause, (:3) The prestige value differed most widely of the value scales. Evidence was found that the American s':udents are higher on the prestige valuc as a result of a materialistic orientat;on. (4) Values are socially d.etermined while needs are more indiv~dur~ in nature.

The 1;,,:~sibility for further research lit this area is as broad as the number of cultures not a~ yet compared. Longitvdinal study m a y also contribute to knowledge of changing value and need patterns in crosg- cultural personality comparisons.

REFERENCES

DUKES, WM. F., 1955. Psychological studies of values. P,.ychot. Bull. 5,~ (l), 24---50.

EDWARr~S, A. L., 1959. Edwards personal preference schedule: ma.'mal (rev. ed.). New York: Ps3cholo:gical Corporation.

FgUSTER, J. M., 1962. A study of the Edwards personal preference schedule on Indian college students. I. soc. Psychol. 57, 309--314. (Eng. trans, rr#f.)

2 8 4 S. W. JOHNSON AND R, J. STIGGINS

GA~DNr.st, E, F,, J963. C~.~ values really be measured? Cath. psychol. Rec. 1, (2), 23--3'. (abstract), 'ought-to' v~lues are perceived as desirable for good life. (Psych. A. G., 65, 1509.)

Gr~I, S. No, 1966a. A c~oss-cultural study of need profiles. J. Per.,;. soc. Psychol. 3, (5), 580---5~5. (F_ag. trans, m/f.)

- ~ , 1966b. Needs of Indian and American college females. J. soc. Psyehol. 69 (1), 3---11.

KLETT, J, C., 1957. PeJNormaJure of high school students on the Edwards Per- sonal Preference schedule. L consult. Psychol. 21, 68--72.

KLtJC~HO~'~ C., A. H. N~I~Ra.~Y and D. M. SC~rCetDER, 1959. Personality in nature, society ?~nd culture. New York: Knopf.

Me,;LM.~'t~, M. R. and L E, FL~ML~, 1963. Social stra'tification and some per- sonality variables. J. gen. Psychol. 69, 158~165.

MORRIS, C, and L. V, JosEs, 1955. Value scales and dimensions. J. abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51, 523--535.

Poe, W, 1954. Differential value patterns of college students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Univ. of Nebraska. (Abstract.)

Pr~oT~Ro, E. T., 1958. P~rab students choices of ways to live. J. soc. Psychol. 47, 3.--7. Arabs most preferred ways to live involving activity, g~'oup participation and self-eon~trol.

Ro~o, WM. G., 1959. Cross-cuttt~,r~ ' -~- ~f 'The study of values'. Psychological 2, J57--164. (Abstract.) Chinese translation of Allport-Vernon.

5~Grt, P. N., S. C. HOA~G and G. G. "I~OMPSON, 1962. 'A comparative study of selected ~ttit,Jdes values, and personality characteristic of Amer ic~, Chinese and Indian students'. J. soc. Psychol. 57 (1), 123--132. (Abstract.)