The Wok Values of Teacher Training Students in a Spanish University_symbiosis Between Schwartz and Meaning of Work (Mow) Study Group

The Work Values of Teacher Training Students in aSpanish University. Symbiosis between Schwartzand Meaning of Work (MOW) Study Groupejed_1395 441..454

M.P. ALEJANDRA CORTÉS PASCUAL

Introduction

Work values are linked with other relevant variables in career development, such asprofessional interests or vocational personality (Finegan, 2000; Berings, Fruyt &Bouwen, 2004; Xenikou, 2005; Rottinghaus & Zytowski, 2006), are formed in aspecific work context (Mukherfee, 2006) and influence the orientation interven-tion designed, for example, as an element of the professional portfolio or thedevelopment of transversal participatory and personal skills (Valentine, 2004;Hirsch, 2006). These values were analysed from various theoretical perspectives(Cortés, 2006; 2008; Porfeli, 2006). In an Iranian context (Ali & Amirshahi, 2002),768 executives appreciated values that were closer to collectivism than to individu-alism. Ghorpade, Lackritz & Singh (2001) carried out a research with 749 uni-versity students (West Coast University) in various courses of study, concludingthat work values of altruism, initiative and collectivism correlated positively withthe capacity to lead in the working world, while individualism correlated negatively.Also, in the American context, Leong, Herdin & Gaylor (2005) measured thework values of medical students through the Values Scale (Super & Nevill, 1986),confirming that the use of skills, success, promotion, aesthetics, altruism, authorityand independence were the most appreciated and the least were psychologicalresistance and risk.Within the same scope and using identical instruments, Duffy& Sedlacek (2007) used a sample of 3,570 students to confirm that they preferredintrinsic values (especially females), followed by high salaries, contribution tosociety and prestige.

This project follows two theoretical lines: Schwartz and Meaning of Work(MOW). The Schwartz model (1990; 1992; 1994; 1999) derives from Rokeach(1973) and divides values into two types: instrumental and terminal.The Schwartzdomain structure is classified in two dimensions: openness to change (self-direction, stimulation and hedonism) vs. conservation (tradition, conformity andsecurity); and self-improvement (fulfilment and authority) vs. self-transcendence(universalism and benevolence).We agree with Arciniega & González (2000; 2002;2005; 2006) that the Schwartz model is very appropriate for the issue of workvalues because of its structure and widely verified multicultural validation(Schwartz, Lehmann & Roccas, 1999; Grand & Schwartz, 1998; 1999; Schwartz &Boehnke, 2004) and because it holds an inference in the intervention.We relate theSchwartz perspective to building up the professional and career development andthe entrepreneurial capacity.

European Journal of Education, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2009, Part II

© 2009 The Author. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Regarding the first, Myyry & Helkama (2001; 2002) established a relationshipbetween values, professional development and moral sensitivity. They concludedthat the values of benevolence and universalism influenced high ethical professionalskills and that exactly the contrary occurred with the priorities of power andhedonism.This study can be compared to that of Schwartz and Bardi (2001) whichwas carried out using workers in various professions. It constituted the basis for thestudy carried out by Abbott,White & Charles (2005) in a business context. Lyons,Duxbury & Higgins (2006), with a sample of 549 Canadian workers in the public,semi-public and private sectors, discovered that those in the first two sectors showedhigh values of universalism and benevolence and that those of the private sectorshowed high values in the latter and in self-direction. It was also influenced by acultural argument. For example, Siu (2003) highlighted that the Confucian phi-losophy (social harmony, reciprocity in relationships, collectivism, resistance, etc.)was apparent in the work values and in the meaning of life of Oriental workers.

Concerning entrepreneurial capacity, Moriano, Palací & Morales (2006) sur-veyed a sample of 340 wage-earners and self-employed people in Spain, Bulgariaand the Czech Republic with the help of various questionnaires, including theSchwartz values questionnaire (with 37 items) and The Meaning ofWorking of theMOW Group (1987). Generally, entrepreneurs identified themselves with indi-vidualist and hedonist values such as power, achievement, acknowledgement andpromotion. As for motivation, leadership values and ability to work within a group(Berings et al., 2004) were also relevant for the placement and development in theworld of work. The authors believe that professional training and orientation bearon the psycho-social profile of the university entrepreneur, since they offer self-employment as a work option.

Our other theoretical reference is the MOW (Meaning of Working Study)Group. The MOW International Research Group (1987) differentiates betweenfive components of the meaning of work: centrality of work, societal norms, resultsassessed, importance of work objectives, and identification with the work function.The MOW Group prepared a questionnaire, The Meaning ofWorking: An interna-tional View, (1987), with 27 items researching the aspects mentioned above. Theauthors have extended the studies, especially at an empiric level, to various con-texts (Ruiz Quintanilla & Wilpert, 1991), for example, Israel (Harpaz, 1988;Cinemon & Hellman, 2006). The MOW questionnaire was also used in Spain,adapted to Castilian Spanish and validated by a research group from the Univer-sidad de Valencia (Gracia et al., 1995; Salanova, 1992). It was used by variousauthors (García Martínez & Berrios, 1999; Gracia, Martín, Rodríguez y Peiró,2001; Zacarés, Ruiz-Alfonso y Llinares, 2004; Moriano et al., 2006).

This group (MOW, 1987) emphasises that the most important result of work isincome (35% of responses) and, secondly, its interesting and satisfactory nature(19.5%). It did not find any significant differences between men and women.As for work aims or values, an interesting job and learning were the most appre-ciated by both sexes, followed by a good salary, i.e. they tended to prefer moreintrinsic aspects, which also correlates with greater initiative in work. There werealso no differences regarding age. Though some authors, like Claes (1987), whobelongs to the MOW group, emphasise that the youngest prefer instrumentalvalues because they lack financial security and the oldest prefer expressive orintrinsic values, something also often noticed in persons with a higher level oftraining. Concerning the sex variable, Salanova et al. (1991) reviewed several

442 European Journal of Education, Part II

© 2009 The Author. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

studies carried out to date in which it is claimed that women give more importanceto social and emotional aspects at work, whilst men give it to salaries, promotionand independence.Yet, as already pointed out, the MOW Group did not find thesedistinctions.

Gracia et al. (2001) carried out a longitudinal research (at intervals of 6months, one and then two years) on two groups totalling 238 youths on their firstjobs (clerks and metal workers).The results indicate that the different componentsof the meaning of work vary in different degrees with time, i.e. as work progresses,less importance is given to work in itself, while extrinsic values of work (mainlymonetary) increase. This is often linked with work precariousness and instability.The fact is that security is often related with work satisfaction and intrinsic workvalues, as may be seen in a study with hired teachers (greater esteem for money)and permanent teachers (greater esteem for intrinsic values) carried out by Feather& Rauter (2004). Hattrup, Ghorpade & Lackritz (2007), in trans-cultural workwith 1,882 university students from Ecuador, Germany, the Indies, Mexico andUSA, found a positive correlation between the value of collectivism and centralityat work, but it was not significantly different in the five countries. These data aresimilar to those found in the work of Hansström & Kjellberg (2007) in whichcentrality is greater among nurses than engineers and especially among women,who defend the value of altruism.

Schwartz (1999) linked domains with the work values of the MOW (1987)group. Thus, intrinsic values are coherent with independence and hedonism, butconflict with the values of conservatism. Extrinsic values are compatible with thelatter and with power, but not with independence and hedonism. Social values arecongruent with universalism and benevolence, but conflict with power and com-petitiveness (Schwartz, 1999; Roe, Schwartz & Surkiss, 1999).

Method

Participants

The sample is made up of 374 university students (283 women and 91 men) withdifferent specialities in Teaching (first year): Musical Education, Primary Educa-tion, Physical Education, Hearing and Language, Education, Foreign Language,Special Education; and 2° cycle in Psychopedagogy. All are from the Faculty ofEducation in Zaragoza in which we teach (see Table I).

Table I. Sample distribution by sex and speciality

Specialities in Teaching Men Women Total

Musical Education 9 24 33Primary Education 12 58 70Physical Education 56 34 90Hearing and Language Education 0 3 3Foreign Language 7 52 59Special Education 4 89 93Psychopedagogy 3 23 26

Total 91 283 374

M.P. Alejandra Cortés Pascual 443


Procedure, Measurement Instrument and Type of Analysis

Three instruments were given to the university students during classes fromFebruary to May 2006. Before that, they were asked to provide some personal data(sex, specialty, level of studies and work situation of father/mother). There weretwo quantitative tests: 1) Schwartz’s work projection questionnaire (Arciniega &González, 2002), and 2) the MOW questionnaire (social norms, work values andwork centrality), adapted by Gracia et al. (1995; 2001); and one qualitative testthrough a hypothetic ethical dilemma and the request for a real one. We gatheredthe results of the first test and part of the second.The first questionnaire, validatedin Arciniega and González (2000) and self-correctable, contains 40 items. Par-ticipants are asked to select the box indicating how far the person described issimilar to the one answering the questionnaire. Six options are given: very like me(6 points), like me (5 points), somewhat like me (4 points), rather like me (3points), not like me (2 points) and not like me at all (1 point). All the items aredivided into the 10 domains/values proposed by Schwartz.The points for each oneof 10 values range from 1 to 6. The second test consists of data on work values(graded from 1 to 5), the relative centrality (share 100% between leisure, socialparticipation, work, religion and family) and absolute centrality (graded from 0 to7). The reliability of the scales was satisfactory since it resulted in a Cronbach’salpha of 0.73. in the first case and of 0.80. in the second, i.e. they adequatelymeasured what they needed to measure, since they were close to a unit. TheStatistical Package for Social Sciences software programme (version 14.00) wasused for the results with the descriptive tests on the situation between the domains,the correlation tests to check the strength and direction of the linear relationbetween the domains (the closer to 1, the greater the correlation), and the varianceanalysis, in order to find the probability that one score group average is differentfrom the average of another group, as detailed below.

Results

Objective I. Knowing work values from Schwartz’s perspective

Hypothesis I. Students favour values of benevolence and universalism as well as authorityand achievement. Regarding the first objective, i.e. knowing the profile of students’work values following the theory of Schwartz, it can be observed that the mostrepresentative are benevolence and universalism, and the least are fulfilment andauthority, as shown in Table II. The hypothesis is therefore fulfilled.

For an in-depth description of the objective, a correlation was carried outbetween domains, of which the most relevant were highlighted. The domain ofbenevolence positively correlated with universalism (.280), security (.126), con-formity (.286) and tradition (.261), but negatively with achievement (.111) andauthority (.183). The domain of universalism correlated positively with benevo-lence (.280) and self-direction (.202), and negatively with authority (.119). Thedomain of achievement correlated positively with self-direction (.178), stimula-tion (.229), hedonism (.336), authority (.548), security (.306) and conformity(.103), and negatively with benevolence (.111). The domain of authority corre-lated positively with self-direction (.178), stimulation (.186), hedonism (.236),achievement (.548) and security (.174), and negatively with benevolence (.183)



and universalism (.119). Likewise, when a factorial analysis was carried out inorder to find the relation between the 10 domains, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO) test was first carried out, whose value is 0.655, relatively close to theunit, which indicates the exactitude of our data (see Table III).

From here, a matrix of components is proposed and 3 appear (see Figure 1). Inthe first, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, authority and securitypositively correlate with one another. In the second, benevolence and universalismpositively correlate with security, conformity and tradition. And in the last, benevo-lence and universalism positively correlate with self-direction, stimulation andhedonism. Generally, two groups of values and domains were observed: one,universalism, benevolence, tradition, conservation and security; and the other,achievement, authority, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction. However,benevolence and universalism positively correlate with security, conformity andtradition, as well as with self-direction, stimulation and hedonism, though far morewith the first three.

Objective II. Knowing work values according to the MOW perspective

Hypothesis II.The work value with the highest grade is that of having an interesting job,especially among women. The values that obtain the highest scores are those relatedwith working in an interesting job, good interpersonal relations, job stability andopportunities to learn new things.The following subsequently appear from highestto lowest, in that order: good physical work conditions, a good balance between work

Table II. Work values (Schwartz) of university students

Domains/values Minimum Maximum Mean

Benevolence 2.5 6.5 4.83Universalism 2.8 8.67 4.72Self-direction 2 8 4.63Hedonism 2 8.2 4.45Stimulation 1.3 6.3 4.06Security 1.3 5.8 3.81Conformity 1 6 3.78Tradition 1 5.5 3.28Fulfilment 1 6 3.27Authoriy 0 5.3 2.31

Table III. Bartlett’s table for contrasts

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin. .655Bartlett Chi-cuadrado 645.913

Gl 45Sig. .000



demands and training, appropriate schedule, good salary, independence, settingnew challenges, possibility of innovation, opportunities for promotion and variety.Those with the least points are acknowledgement and power.There are significantdifferences in those two values, as well as in good salary, variety and good balancebetween work and training: women gave higher grades to the last value, while mengave them to the remaining four (see Table IV).

Hypothesis III. Family and leisure are the most valued familiar environments selected bythe students. Concerning the relative centrality, the family is the most valued aspect(37% approximately and an average of 36.89 points); then leisure (26%; 26.20points); work (19%; 18.74 points); social participation (11%; 10.98 points) andlast, religion (7%; 7.16 points). Hence, the hypothesis is verified, since family andleisure are those given most points by the university students. It may be observedthat, from absolute centrality, work has a medium-high centrality, i.e. 4.18 over 7(see Table V).

Objective III. Correlating results from Schwartz and MOW perspectives

Hypothesis IV. The values of promotion, a good salary, power and acknowledgementpositively correlate with authority and achievement. Considering that, as may beobserved in the first objective, achievement relevantly correlates with authority(.548), and it verifies that the four values proposed positively correlate with bothdomains, especially with reference to achievement, the hypothesis is confirmed.Though the average correlation between achievement and acknowledgement

Componente 10,90,60,30,0-0,3-0,6

Componente 30,9 0,6 0,3 0,0 -0,3

-0,6

Com

pone

nte

2

0,9

0,6

0,3

0,0

-0,3

-0,6

-0,9

-0,9

-0,9

AD ES

UN HE

BE LOAU

SETRCO

Gráfico de componentes

Figure 1. Representation of components related with work values (Schwartz) ofuniversity studentsNote: Gráfico de componentes (Components’ graph), BE (Benevolence), UN(Universalism), TR (Tradition), CO (Conformity), SE (Security), AD (Self-direction), ES (Stimulation), HE (Hedonism), AU (Authority), LO (Fulfilment).



Table IV. Work values (MOW)

N Average Typicaldeviation

F Sig.

Opportunities to learn newthings

Men 91 4.04 .815 2.902 .089Women 281 4.20 .759Total 372 4.16 .775

Good interpersonalrelationships (withsupervisors and colleagues)

Men 91 4.19 .815 1.743 .188Women 281 4.31 .726Total 372 4.28 .750

Good opportunities forpromotion

Men 90 3.64 .865 2.050 .153Women 280 3.50 .794Total 370 3.54 .813

Appropriate schedule Men 91 3.92 .957 1.320 .251Women 280 3.81 .793Total 371 3.84 .837

Variety Men 91 3.45 .820 7.190 .008*Women 275 3.18 .846Total 366 3.25 .847

Doing an interesting job (thatyou may like)

Men 91 4.49 .673 .391 .532Women 281 4.54 .659Total 372 4.53 .662

Good job stability Men 91 4.25 .754 .363 .547Women 280 4.20 .715Total 371 4.21 .724

A good adjustment betweenyour work requirements andtraining and experience

Men 91 3.74 .743 4.863 .028*Women 281 3.94 .753Total 372 3.89 .755

Good salary Men 91 3.99 .901 11.612 .001**Women 280 3.67 .738Total 371 3.75 .792

Good physical work conditions(temperature, cleanliness,reduced noise)

Men 90 3.94 .798 .026 .871Women 281 3.93 .794Total 371 3.93 .794

Independence (deciding on howto do your work)

Men 91 3.77 .955 1.874 .172Women 280 3.63 .815Total 371 3.66 .852

Possibility of constantly settingnew challenges andsurpassing yourself to reachthem

Men 91 3.77 .908 2.185 .140

Women 280 3.61 .856

Total 371 3.65 .870

Power (to direct and haveinfluence over others)

Men 91 2.64 .901 15.425 .000**Women 281 2.26 .761Total 372 2.35 .812

Possibilities of innovation(doing new things)

Men 91 3.53 .861 .125 .724Women 281 3.56 .800Total 372 3.55 .814

Acknowledgement (gaining ofsocial prestige andadmiration from others)

Men 91 3.19 1.032 10.059 .002**Women 280 2.80 .991Total 371 2.90 1.014



(.459) and between authority and power (.354) may be highlighted, the correlationis not very high in either of the two cases (see Table VI).

HypothesisV. Interpersonal value positively correlates with universalism and benevolence.The correlation between benevolence and universalism (.280) was verified in the firstobjective and though both correlate positively with the interpersonal value, it is doneon a low scale, that is, with benevolence (.164) and universalism (.103). Thehypothesis is therefore confirmed.

Discussion

The first aspect that comes to light is the relation between Schwartz’s approachand that of the MOW Group, as may be observed in the results according to thethird objective. Schwartz’s research in this area (Schwartz, 1999; Roe et al., 1999)is verified.

Table V. Variance analysis. Relative centrality of work (MOW)

N Overage Typicaldeviation

F Sig.

My leisure time (likings, hobbies,sports, entertainment andcontact with friends)

Men 87 30.29 13.674 15.645 .000Women 272 24.89 10.107Total 359 26.20 11.296

My social participation (forexample, in voluntary, politicaland union organizations)

Men 87 11.580 9.0611 .621 .431Women 272 10.794 7.7741Total 359 10.985 8.0986

My job Men 87 18.05 9.840 .591 .443Women 272 18.96 9.640Total 359 18.74 9.683

My religion (religious beliefs andactivities)

Men 87 6.65 8.093 .584 .445Women 272 7.32 6.839Total 359 7.16 7.157

My family Men 87 33.44 14.453 6.773 .010Women 272 38.00 14.151Total 359 36.89 14.339

Table VI. Correlation of authority and achievement (Schwartz) and values ofpromotion, good salary, power and acknowledgement (MOW)

Values MOW/Domains Schwartz Fulfilment Authority

Promotion .267 .251Good salary .217 .308Power .377 .354Acknowledgement .459 .292



Our university students prefer the benevolence and universalism domains(objective I), as well as intrinsic (doing interesting jobs, learning new things) andsocial (interpersonal relationships) values (objective II). It is more of a tendencytowards a mature career development; however, it is argued that domains such aspower and fulfilment, as well as extrinsic values (setting up new challenges,opportunities for promotion, innovation, etc.), which, though not given highpoints in the current research, may also be significant in the building of anacademic and professional lifelong project. Thus, the development of the capac-ity for independence and entrepreneurship is advocated, although it is notstressed enough during tertiary education. Self-direction, good use of workerskills and the promotion of continuous training are of key importance in coun-tries with a better economic development (Teichler, 2007) and, consequently,the values of the economic system may be drawn closer to those of the educationsystem (Levin, 2006), thus avoiding limitation to only this reductionist vision.Hence, the merging of both intrinsic and extrinsic elements, in our opinion,constitutes an essential basis for the progress of workers and for their personaland professional satisfaction, as pointed out in the research of Berings et al.(2004) in which university students and employers correlate both directionvalues (individualists) as well as working in groups (social) with an entrepre-neurial attitude.

Regarding relative centrality, the results demonstrate the relevance of familyand leisure versus lack of interest in social participation and religion, since they aremore vitally relevant in the development of the young. Work, in relative terms,appears in third place, which is coherent with scoring work as an absolute value,perhaps due to the evolution of the sample and to the itinerary of Psychopedagogystudies which lean towards collective and social values along the lines suggested byHattrup et al. (2007).

Regarding the future of work values research, some relevant aspects couldenrich the picture. They include carrying out longitudinal studies because theywould help us to see how work values may continue to undergo modificationthrough time, as suggested by Smola & Sutton (2002) and Porfeli (2006), inter-cultural studies (Hattrup et al., 2007) and interoccupational studies (Hansström &Kjellberg, 2007). Ethnographical studies are also suggested (Loughlin & Barling,2001) to pay methodological attention to the issue.

As regards intervention, there is a limitation that the study of work values ismerely theoretical and only becomes practical when a code of ethics or ofconduct in specific work fields is regulated (Shardlow, 2001). We believe thatwork values should be extrapolated in the manner of participatory ethical socio-professional (knowing what to do) and personal (knowing how to be) skills inorder to transversally include and develop them in various tertiary educationcourses like the author of this article is developing in an ongoing project (year2007–2008) through practicals for Professional Orientation students (Psychope-dagogy). Specifically, the competence of ethical reflection is developed throughthe following activities: preparation and discussion of the questionnaire on workvalues (of the MOW group, used here), debate on an ethical professionaldilemma and reflection on the contents of a lecture by education professionalsdescribing the ethical problems that are encountered in practice. These exercisesare valued as 8.3 over 10. Hence, the students react to this professional axiologi-cal learning in a positive way.



REFERENCES

Abbott, G. N., White, F. A. & Charles, M. A. (2005) Linking values andorganizational commitment: a correlational and experimental investigation intwo organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78,pp. 531–551.

Ali, A. J. & Amirshahi, M. (2002) The Iranian manager: work values andorientations, Journal of Business Ethics, 40, pp. 133–143.

Arciniega, L. & Gonzalez, L. (2000) Desarrollo y validación de la escala devalores hacia el trabajo EVAT 30, Revista de Psicología Social, 15, pp. 281–296.

Arciniega, L. & Gonzalez, L. (2002) Valores individuales y valores corporativospercibidos: una aproximación empírica, Revista de Psicología General y Apli-cada, 12, pp. 41–59.

Arciniega, L. & Gonzalez, L. (2005) Other-oriented values and job satisfaction,Problems and Perspectives in Management, 4, pp. 128–132.

Arciniega, L. & Gonzalez, L. (2006) ¿Cual es la influencia de los valores hacia eltrabajo en relación con otras variables en el desarrollo del compromiso orga-nizacional? Revista de Psicología Social, 21, pp. 35–50.

Berings, D., De Fruyt, F. D. & Bouwen, R. (2004) Work values and personalitytraits as predictors of enterprising and social vocational interests, Personalityand Individual Differences, 36, pp. 349–364.

Cinemon, R. G. & Hellman, S. (2006) Israeli counsellors facing terrorism: copingand professional development, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 34,pp. 209–229.

Claes, R. (1987) La centralidad en el trabajo en la vida de los jóvenes; in J. M.Peiro & D. Moret (Eds) Socialización laboral y Desempleo juvenil. LaTransiciónde la Escuela al Trabajo (pp. 81–100) (Valencia, Nau Llibres).

Cortes-Pascual, P. A. (2006) Valores y orientación profesional: líneas de investi-gación e intervención actuales, contextos educativos, Revista de Educación,6–7, pp. 233–248.

Cortes-Pascual, P. A. (2008) Educational technoethics applied to careers guid-ance, in: R. Luppicini & R. Adell (Eds) Handbook of Research on Technoethics(pp 215–232) (Ottawa, University of Ottawa).

Duffy, R. D. & Sedlacek, W. E. (2007) The work values of first-year collegestudents: exploring group differences, The Career Development Quarterly, 55,pp. 359–364.

Feather, N. T. & Rauter, K. A. (2004) Organizational citizenship behavioursin relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and iden-tication, job satisfaction and work values, Journal of Occupational and Organi-zational Psychology, 77, pp. 81–94.

Finegan, J. E. (2000) The impact of person and organizational values on organi-zational commitment, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,73, pp. 149–169.

Garcia Martinez, M. A. & Berrios, M. P. (1999) El significado del trabajo enpersonas con patrón de conducta tipo, Psicothema, 11, pp. 357–366.

Ghorpade, J., Lackritz, J. & Singh, G. (2001) Work values and preferences foremployee involvement in the management of organizations, Employee Respon-sibilities and Rights Journal, 13, pp. 191–203.



Gracia, F. J., Martin, P., Rodriguez, I. & Peiro, J. M. (2001) Cambios en loscomponentes del significado del trabajo durante los primeros años de empleo:Un análisis longitudinal, Anales de Psicología, 17, pp. 201–217.

Gracia, F. J., Salanova, M., Rodriguez, I., Ripoll, P., Palaci, F. & Prieto, F.(1995) Las definiciones del trabajo en jóvenes durante sus primeros años deempleo. Ciencia Psicológica, 1, pp. 11–23.

Grand, H. M. & Schwartz, S. H. (1998) Aspectos culturales en la estructura delos cuestionarios de valores CVS y RVS, Revista de Psicología Social, 2, pp.471–483.

Hansstrom, T. & Kjellberg, A. (2007) Stability and change in work valuesamong male and female nurses and engineers, Scandinavian Journal of Psy-chology, 48, pp. 143–151.

Harpaz, I. (1988) Work values in Israel: Stability and change over time, Executive,25, pp. 16–19.

Hattrup, K., Ghorpade, J. & Lackritz, J. R. (2007) Work group collectivism andthe centrality of work. A multinational investigation, Cross-Cultural Research,41, pp. 236–260.

Hirsch, A. (2006) Construcción de un estado del conocimiento sobre valoresprofesionales en México, Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 8, pp. 2.http://redie.uabc.mx/vol8no2/contenido-hirsch2.html.

Leong, T. L., Herdin, E. E. & Gaylor, M. (2005) Career specialty choice: acombined research-intervention project, Journal ofVocational Behavior, 67, pp.69–86.

Levin, J. S. (2006) Faculty work: tensions between educational and economicvalues, The Journal of Higher Education, 77, pp. 62–88.

Loughlin, C. & Barling, J. (2001) Young workers’ work values, attitudes, andbehaviours, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, pp.543–558.

Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L. E. & Higgins, C. A. (2006) A comparison ofthe values and commitment of private sector, public sector, and para-public sector employees, Public Administration Review, 66, pp. 605–617.

Moriano, J. A., Palaci, F. J. & Morales, J. F. (2006) El perfil psicosocial delemprendedor universitario, Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organiza-ciones, 22, pp. 75–99.

MOW International Research Team (1987) The Meaning ofWorking (London,Academia Press).

Mukherfee, S. (2006) Towards fulfillment in work and life: experience andinsights from India, in: S. Stashevsky (Ed) Word Values and Behavoir (pp.46–53) (N.Y, ISSWOV- International Society for the Study of Work & Orga-nizational Values).

Myyry, L. & Helkama, K. (2001) University Students’ Value Priorities andEmotional Empathy. Educational Psychology, International Journal of Experi-mental Educational Psychology, 21, pp. 25–40.

Myyry, L. & Helkama, K. (2002) The role of value priorities and professionalethics training in moral sensitivity, Journal of Moral Education, 31, pp. 35–50.

Porfeli, E. J. (2006) Work values system development during adolescence, JournalofVocational Behavior, 70, pp. 42–60.



Roe, R. A., Schwartz, S. H. & Surkiss, S. (1999) Basic individual values, workvalues, and meaning of work, Applied Psychology: an International Review, 48,pp. 49–71.

Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of HumanValues (New York, MacMillan).Rottinghaus, P. J. & Zytowski, D. G. (2006) Commonalities between adoles-

cents’ work values and interests, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling andDevelopment, 38, pp. 211–221.

Ruiz Quintanilla, S. A. & Wilpert, B. (1991) Are work meanings changing?EuropeanWork and Organizational Psychologist, 1, pp. 91–109.

Salanova, M. (1992) Un estudio del significado del trabajo en jóvenes de primer empleo.Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Universidad de Valencia.

Salanova, M., Osca, A., Peiro, J. M., Prieto, F. & Sacerni, M. D. (1991)Significado del trabajo en los jóvenes en la transición e incorporación almercado laboral, Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 44, pp. 113–125.

Schwartz, S. H. (1990) Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposedrefinements, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 21, pp. 139–157.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theo-retical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries, Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 25, pp. 1–20.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contentsof human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, pp. 19–45.

Schwartz, S. H. (1999) A theory of cultural values and some implications forwork, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, pp. 23–47.

Schwartz, S., Lehmann, A. & Roccas, S. (1999) Multimethod probes of basichuman; in J. Adamopoulos & Y. Kashima (Eds) Social Psychology and CulturalContext: Essays in Honor of Harry Triandis (Newbury Park, CA., Sage).

Schwartz, S. H. & Bardi, A. (2001) Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking asimilarities perspective, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, pp. 268–290.

Schwartz, S. H. & Boehnke, K. (2004) Evaluating the structure of human valueswith confirmatory factor analysis, Journal of Research in Personality, 38, pp.230–255.

Shardlow, S. (2001) Ethical aspects of social work. A common set of values andthe regulation of practice: England an example, in: A. Adams, P. Erath & S.M. Shardlow (Eds) Key Themes in European Social Work (pp. 39–46) (LymeRegis, Russell House).

Siu, O-L. (2003) Job stress and job performance among employees in Hong Kong:The role of Chinese work values and organizational commitment, InternationalJournal of Psychology, 38, pp. 337–347.

Smola, K. W. & Sutton, C. D. (2002) Generational differences: Revisiting gen-erational work values for the new millennium, Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 23, pp. 363–382.

Super, D. E. & Nevill, D. D. (1986) TheValues Scale (Palo Alto, CA, ConsultingPsychologists Press).

Teichler, U. (2007) Does higher education matter? Lessons from a comparativegraduate survey, European Journal of Education, 42, pp. 11–34.

Valentine, S. (2004) Employment counseling and organizational ethical values,Journal of Employment Counseling, 41, pp. 146–155.



Xenikou, A. (2005) The interactive effect of positive and negative occupationalattributional styles on job motivation, European Journal of Work and Organi-zational Psychology, 14, pp. 43–58.

Zacares, J. J., Ruiz-Alfonso, J. M. & Llinares, L. (2004) Identidad, orientaciónhacia el trabajo y proyecto vital de los jóvenes participantes en Programas deGarantía Social; in M. Molpeceres (Coord.) Identidades y formación para eltrabajo en los márgenes del sistema educativo: escenarios contradictorios en laGarantía Social (pp. 197–254) (Montevideo, Cinterfor/OIT).



Documents

The Wok Values of Teacher Training Students in a Spanish University_symbiosis Between Schwartz and Meaning of Work (Mow) Study Group