Upload
frederica-mccoy
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Values
• General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals
• Life guidelines• Criteria of evaluating goals, activities, and
events• Hierarchical structure: ultimate (autonomous)
goals instrumental goals
Basic values – do they exist?
• Abraham Maslow: – Deficit needs (food, security, self-esteem)
– Growth needs (achievement, self-actualization)
• Idea used by Ronald Inglehart in studies of nations values
Abraham Maslow – Need Hierarchy
Physiological needs
Safety needs
Belongingness and love
Esteem needs
Cognitive needs
Aesthetic
Self-actualization
Deficiency
needs
Grow
th
needs
Gordon Allport
• G. Allport: six value types:– economic
– political
– aesthetic
– social
– religious
– theoretical
Value classifications
• Milton Rokeach – 36 values– Autonomous and instrumental values– Personal and social values– Competence and morality-related values
• Shalom Schwartz – 56 values, 10 categories– Three basic categories of demands:
• Biological demands of an organism• Demands of social interactions• Demands of smooth functioning of social groups
– Two dimensions• „openness to change” – „conservatism”• „ self-transcendence” – „self-enhancement”
Shalom Schwartz’ theory of valuesConservation
Self-enhancement
Self-transcendence
Openeness to change
Security
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-directionUniwersalism
Benevolence
Conformity
Tradition
Power
Self-enhancement
• Power:– Social status
– Control albo dominance over people and resources
– Values:• Social power
• Authority
• Wealth
• Preserving public image
• Social recognition
Self enhancement
• Achievements– Personal success due to own competences, in
agreement with social standards • successful• Capable• Ambitious• Influential• Intelligent• Self respect
Openness to change
• Hedonism– Pleasures and sensory gratifications
• Pleasure
• Enjoying life
• Stimulation– Excitement, novelty, life challenges
• Daring
• Varied life
• Exciting life
Openness to change
• Self-direction– Independence of though and decison, creativity,
exploration • Creativity
• Freedom
• Independence
• Curious
• Choosing own goals
Self-transcendence
• Universalism– Undestanding, tolerance, caring about welfare of all
people and nature• Open mind, • Broad-minded • Social justice• Equality• World peace• Beautiful world• Unity with nature• Inner harmony• Protect environment
Self-transcendence
• Benevolence– Caring about well-being of close ones
• Helpful• Honest• Forgiving• Loyal• Responsible• True friendship• Mature love
Conservatism
• Tradition– Respecting customs
– Belief that tradition, culture and religion serve individual
• Humble
• Accepting my role in life
• Respect for tradition
• Religiosity
• Moderate
Conservatism
• Conformity– Inhibition of actions and impulses that can hurt or are
not accepted by others and that go against social norms. • Politeness
• Obedience
• Self-discipline
• Honor elders
Conservatism
• SecuritySecurity, harmony and stability of society and own person
• Family
• Security
• National security
• Social order
• Clean
• Reciprocation of favors
• Sense of belonging
• Health
Another classification of values by Shalom Schwartz
Conservatism
EgalitarianCommitment
Security Power
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-directionUniversalism
Benevolence
Conformity
Tradition
Hierarchy
Mastery
Affective autonomy
Intellectualautonomy
Harmony
Studies with the Value Questionnaire
• 56 values– 52 – the 10 main types
– 4 – ”spiritual” values
• Autonomous vs. Instrumental values– 30 – autonomous (nouns)
– 26 instrumental (adjective)
• Rating on 9-point scale– -1 – against my values
– 0 – neutral for me
– 7 – highest importance
Profiles (examples)(from Very much like me to Not like me at all)
Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to her. She likes to do things in her own way (Self-Direction)
1 2 3 4 5 6
It is important for her to be rich. She wants to have a lot of money and expensive things (Power)
1 2 3 4 5 6
She thinks that it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. She belives everyone should have equal opportunities in life (Universalism)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Cross-cultural studies
• 97 samples (about 200 subjects in a sample)• 44 countries from all continents• Years 1988-1993• Samples
– Teachers from elementary and high schools– University students and pupils– Together 25, 863 subjects
Factor analysis of mean national values
Conservatism-openness to change
Self-transcendence-self-enhancement
Conservatism -0,973 ------Affective autonomy
0,867 0,150
Intellectual autonomy
0,764 -0,207
Hierarchy -0,266 0,842Mastery 0,351 0,696Harmony 0,270 -0,777Egalitarian commitment
0,683 -0,319
Main dimensions after factor analysis
Conservatism
EgalitarianCommitment
Security Power
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-directionUniversalism
Benevolence
Conformity
Tradition
Hierarchy
Mastery
Affective autonomy
Intellectualautonomy
Harmony
Conservation-
Self-transcendence
Self-en
hanc
emen
et
Ope
nnes
s to
cha
nge
Structure of values in postcommunist countries Teachers
0123456
Conse
rvati
sm
Hierar
chy
Harmon
y
Egalit
arian
ism
Emotion
al Auto
n.
Intel
lectua
l Auto
n.
Mas
tery
Eastern Europe
Western Europe
Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)
Structure of values in postcommunist countries
Students
0123456
Conse
rvati
sm
Hierarc
hy
Harm
ony
Egalit
arian
ism
Emotio
nal A
uton
.
Intel
lectu
al Aut
on.
Mas
tery
Eastern Europe
Western Europe
Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)
Relations between values in different countries
• Universal values (social justice, world peace, equality) opposite to security values (social order, national security)
• In Eastern Europe – no opposition
0
AustraliaUSA
Japan
Denmark
Finland
Germany
SwitzerlandFrance
Spain
New Zealand
ItalyIsrael
Portugal
Greece
Hong Kong
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Poland
Hungary
SlovakiaEstonia
Mexico
Bulgaria
MalaysiaRussia
BrasilTailand
Georgia
Turkey
China
Conservation
Openness for experience
Self-transcendence
Self- enhancement
Ordering of countries (teacher samples) after Schwartz
Prisoner’s dilemma and social orientations
AB
cooperates defectsco
oper
ates
defe
cts
+4
+4
+10
-5
+10
-5
-3
-3
Social orientations as shown in social dilemmas games
• Individualism – maximize own gain• Altruism – maximize partner’s gain• Cooperation – maximize joint profit• Competition – maximize relative gain over partner• Equality – minimize difference between own and partner’s
gain• Agression – maximize partner’s losses• Masochism – maximize own losses• Martyrdom – maximize relative gain of the partner• Sadomasochism – mazimize joint loss
Social values according to McClintock (1988)
individualismmasochismA
gg
ress
ion
sadomasochism
alt
ruis
m
Cooperation
com
petiti
on
marty
rdom
1 2 3 4 5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
-5-4-3-2-1
12345
OTHER
MYSELF
Theory of values of Shalom Schwartzand social orientations
Competition
Individualism
Security Power
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-directionUniversalism
Benevolence
Conformity
Tradition
Altruism
aggression
Martyrdom
Cooperation
Another presentation of value structure
Powerachievement
HedonismStimulationSelf-direction
TraditionSecurityConformity
Benevolenceuniversalism
com
pete
nce
mora
lity
Values beyond an individual
Values within an individual
Ronald Inglehart
Two dimensions of values– Secular-rational vs.
traditional authority– Survival (materialistic) vs.
post-materialistic values
The World Value Survey
Diagnostic questions: materialism vs. postmaterialism
• People sometimes talk about what the aims of this country should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. Would you please say which one of these you, yourself, consider the most important? And which one would be the next most importanrt? – A high level of economic growth (M)
– Making sure this country has strong defense forces (M)
– Seeing that people have more to say about how things are done at their jobs and in their communities
– Trying to make our cities and countryside more beautiful
If you had to choose, which one of the things on this card would you say is most important? And which would be the next most important? – Maintaining order in the nation (M)
– Giving people more say in important government decisions
– Protecting freedom of speech
– Fighting rising prices (M)
• Here is another list....– A stable economy (M)
– Progress toward a less impersonal and more humane society
– Progress toward soecirty in which ideas count more than money
– The fight against crime (M)
Traditional (religious) vs. secular values
• (1) monoteism – faith in one God
• (2) family sacred (attitudes towards abortion, betrayal, prostitution, homosexualism)
• (3) social order (attitudes towards theft, lie, agression)
Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people?
1. Most people can be trusted2. Need to be careful
Social trust
Causes of value change
• Cohort effects (generation) – Socialization factors in early childhood effect the rest
of life
• Historical period effects – Periods of economic depression increase in
materialistic values
• Age effects– As people grow older they become more materialistic
(conservative?)
Inglehart vs. Schwartz
Factor I Factor II
Traditonal- secular authority
0,822
Survival-postmaterialistic values
0,892 -0,148
Conservatism- openness to change
0,925
Self-transendence – self-enhancement
0,147 -0,725
Schwartz vs. Inglehart (?)
Conservatism
EgalitarianCommitment
Security Power
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-directionUniversalism
Benevolence
Conformity
Tradition
Hierarchy
Mastery
Affective autonomy
Intellectualautonomy
Harmony
Conservation-
Self-transcendence
Self-en
hanc
emen
et
Openness to change
survival
Well-being
traditional
secular
inglehart_survival
3210-1-2
Ha
pp
ine
ss_
Ing
leh
art
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Level of happiness and Inglehart’s dimensions
Inglehart_authority
210-1-2-3
Ha
pp
ine
ss_
Ing
leh
art
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
r(59)=0,870*** r(59)=-0,205, n.i.
Level of happiness and Schwartz’ dimensions
Schwartz1_konserwatyzm - otwartosc
3210-1-2
Ha
pp
ine
ss_
Ing
leh
art
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Schwartz2_wzmacnianie ja_przekraczanie ja
3210-1-2
Ha
pp
ine
ss_
Ing
leh
art
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
r(27)=0,646*** R(27)=0,045
Spending a milion – percent mentioned
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
pro
cent
wzm
ianek
Poland Ukraine
house familybank carcharity travelinvesting pleasureslife children's educationown education black hourflat for children healthhobby debtsearth emigrationothers family's futurefarm
Three clusters
05
101520
25303540
house ca
r
inve
sting
bank
land
cluster Icluster IIcluster III
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
house
child
ren
trav
el
health
educa
tion
hobby
char
ity
ever
yday
other
s
cluster Icluster IIcluster III
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
family
cluster Icluster IIcluster III
Cluster I (materialistic) (N=695)
Cluster II (mixed) (N=217)
Cluster III (family) (N=364)
Poland
Generational changes (Poland)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
80-95 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 15-19
family materialistic
Lewicka (2003) Inglehart (1990)
Dimensions of cultures - Geert Hofstede
„Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations” (2002)
Investigating cultures – methodological problems
• Emic vs. Etic – Equivalent of the linguistic distinction of
(fon)emic and (fon)etic aspect of speech– „emic” – studying culture from inside, as
member of the culture– „etic” – studying culture from outside, as
external observer, comparing cultures on common dimensions
Emic vs. etic
„Emic” approach „Etic” approach
Studies behavior within a system
Studies behavior from outside of the system
Studies only one culture Compares many cultures
Researcher discovers structure of relationships
Researcher imposes structure of relationships
Criteria relative to the studied object
Criteria absolute and universal
Steps in investigating cultures (after: Berry, 1989)
Step Activity of researcher
Culture A(own)
Culture B(other)
1 Start from ownculture
EmicA
2 Trasnfer to other culture
Imposedetic
3 Discover other culture EmicB
4 Compare both cultures
EmicA
EmicB
5-1 Comparison impossible
Emic A
EmicB
5-2 Comparisonpossible A BDerived
Etic
Methodological approaches to cross-cultural comparisons
• 10 cultures x 20 Item-questionnaire x 100 Subjects per culture– Ecological level analysis: Cross-cultural approach:
means from 100 Ss for each culture (20 items x 10 cultures)
– Individual level analysis: Intra-cultural approach: separate (matrices) for each culture (10 analyses) (Emic)
– Universal level analysis: Pancultural approach: combining all 10 x 100 Ss together (20 items x 1000 Ss) (Etic)
Dimensions of culture
• G. Hofstede – years 70s and 80s– Studies of 117 000 IBM employes in 66 countries
– Attempt at finding ”etic” dimensions which would differentiate cultures
• Hierarchy
• Intolerance of ambiguity
• Individualism-collectvism
• Masculinity-feminity
• „time perspective” („emic” Chinese dimension)
Dimensions suggested by Hofstede
• Power distance – degree of pecking order in organizations
• Uncertainty avoidance – intolerance of ambiguity, need for clear rules and laws
• Individualism – collectivism – Caring for oneself vs own goup
• Masculinity-feminity – focus on ”masculine” goals (finances, achievement, assertiveness) vs. „feminine” goals (friendship, caring for others)
Power distance - Family
• Low PDI– Parents treat children as
equals
– Children should enjoy leisure
– Infertility no reason for divorce
– Children treat parents and old relatives as equal
– Children expected to be socially competent at young age
– Children play no role in old-age security of parents
– Small enterprises set up for job reasons
• High PDI– Parents teach children
obedience
– Children should work hard
– Infertility – reason for divorce
– Respect for parents and older relatives is a basic virtue
– Children not seen as competent
– Children a source of old-age security
– Small enterprises for family interests
Power distance at school
• Low PDI– Teachers treat students as
equal– Students treat teachers as
equals– Student-centered education– Students inititate some
communication in the class– Teachers are experts who
transfer impersonal truths– Educational system focuses
on middle levels
• High PDI– Students depend on teachers– Students treat teachers
with respect, even outside class
– Teacher-centered education– Teacher initiate all
communication in the class– Teachers are gurus who
transfer personal wisdom– Educational system focuses
on top level
Power distance in the work organization
• Decentralized decision structures: less concentration of authority
• Flat organization pyramids
• Subordinates expect to be consulted
• Narrow salary range between top and bottom of organization
• Manual work same status as clerical work
• Centralized decision structures; more concentration on authority
• Tall organization pyramids
• Subordinates expect to be told
• Wide salary range between top and bottom of organization
• White-collar jobs valued more than blue-collar jobs
Power distance in political systems
• Low PDI– Pluralist government based on
outcome of majority vote– Usually social democratic
governments– Strong center, relatively weak
right and left wings– Gradual changes in form of
government (evolution and stability)
– Power, status and wealth do not need to go together
– Small income differentials in society, further reduced by the tax system
– Less corruption: scandals end political career
– Citizens read more newspapers
• High PDI– Military, autocratic or oligarchic
government– Usually right-wing
government– Polarization between left and
right with weak center– Sudden changes in the form of
government (revolution and/or instability)
– Status consistency: power brings status and wealth
– Large income differentials in society, further increased by the tax system
– More corruption: scandals expected to be covered up
– Citizens watch more television
Power distance
We should give him something, after all it is our professor of music
Low PD:
Students treat teachers as equals
Individualism vs. collectvism
• Individualism – societies in which relations between individuals are loose, concern for oneself and closest family
• Collectivism – societies in which individuals from early childhood learn to integrate with strong, coherent groups which in return for absolute loyality guarantee them security and protection.
Individualism - collectivism and societal norms
• Low IDV– In society, people are born into
extended families or class, which protect them in exchange for loyality
– „we” consciousness– Gemeinschaft (community)– Value standards differ for in- and
out-group: particularism– „shame” culture– Emphasis on belonging:
membership ideal– Private life invaded by institutions
and organizations to which one belongs
– Survival
• High IDV– In society, everyone is supposed
to take care of him-herself and his or her immediate family only
– „I” consciousness– Gesellschaft (society)– Value standards should apply to
all: universalism– „guilt” cultures– Emphasis on individual
initiative and achievement: leadership ideal
– Everyone has a right to private life
– Hedonism
Individualism-collectivism and family
• Low IDV– People live with or close to
relatives or clan members– Family provides protection in
exchange for life-long loyality– Strong family ties, frequent
contacts– Fewer divorces– Care for aged relatives and
worship of ancestors– Mothers expect to live with
children in their old age– Nobody is ever alone– Financial and ritual
obligations to relatives– Living with in-laws and
shared income and religion normal
• High IDV– People live in nuclear or one-
parent families– Children are supposed to take
care of themselves as soon as possible
– Weak family ties, rare contacts– More divorces– Aged relatives should care for
themselves; ancestors unknown, irrelevant
– Mothers expected to live apart in their old age
– Privacy is normal– Financial independence of
relatives, few family rituals– Living with in-laws
undesirable; independence of income and religion
Individualism-collectivism at school
• Low IDV– Teachers deal with pupils as
a group– Pupils’ individual
initiatives discouraged– Harmony, face and shaming
in class– Students will not speak up
in class or large groups– Purpose of education is
how to do– Diplomas provide entry to
higher-status groups
• High IDV– Teachers deal with
individual pupils– Pupils’ individual
initiatives encouraged– Students’ selves to be
respected– Students expected to speak
up in class or large groups– Purpose of education is
learning how to learn– Diplomas increase economic
worth and/or self-respect
Individualism-collectivism and consumer behavior
• Low IDV– Live in apartments or
flats– Live with human
companions– Security by social
networks– Ask friends for job around
the house– Read fewer book, use fewer
home computers, enjoy TV more
– Social network main source of information
• High IDV– Live in detached houses
with private gardens
– Live with cats and/or dogs
– Security by home and life insurance
– Do-it-yourself for jobs around the home
– More books, use computer, use answering machines
– Media main source of information
Individualism-collectivism and political systems
• Low IDV– Collective interests
supposed to prevail over individual interests
– Economy based on collective interests
– State capitalism or state socialism
– Economic monopolies– Private life is invaded by
public interests– Rigid social and
occupational class system– Small share of national
budget spent on education
• High IDV– Individual interests
supposed to prevail over collective interests
– Economy based on individual interests
– Market capitalism or market socialism
– Competition stimulated– Everyone has a right to
privacy– Social and occupational
mobility– Large share of national
budget spent on education
Individualism-collectivism
It is a free country and everybody can do what one wants
High IDV:
Emphasis on individual initiative
Individualism-collectivism – comparison (after: Kim, Triandis et al. 1994)
Individualism Collectivism
Basic assumptionRationality, Reason
Basic assumptionRelatedeness
PrinciplesRegulations,
principles, law
Individuation
Self-actualization
uniqueness Assertiveness
Freedom ofchoice
Autonomy
conciliation
nurturance
interdependence
Duties, obligations
Common goodsharmony
support
help
Common fate
Uncertainty avoidance
• Low UAI– Lower work stress– Emotions have to be
controlled– More subjective well-being– Less hesitation to change
employer– Company loyalty is not a
virtue– If necessary, employees
may break rules– Less resistance to changes– Most people can be
trusted
• High UAI– Higher work stress– Expression of emotion
normal– Less subjective well-being– Tendency to stay with
same employer– Company loyality is a virtue– Company rules should not
be broken– More resistance to
changes– One can’t be careful
enough with other people, not even with family
Masculinity-feminity
• Low MAS– Cooperation at work
important
– Values of women and man hardly different
– Promotion by merit
– Work not central in a person’s life space
– Higher well-being in rich countries
• High MAS– Challenge and recognition
in jobs important
– Values of women and men very different
– Promotion by protection
– Work very central in a person’s life space
– Higher well-being in poor countries
Masculinity-feminity and societal norms
• Low MAS– Relationship orientation– Quality of life and people
are important– Sympathy for the weak– Small and slow are
beautiful– Men and women should
be modest– Minimum emotional and
social role differentiation between the genders
• High MAS– Ego orientation– Money and things are
important– Sympathy for the strong– Big and fast are beautiful– Men should be and
women may be assertive and ambitious
– Maximum emotional and social role differentiattion between genders
Hofstede vs. Schwartz
• Hofstede– Originally no post-communist countries in the
sample (added later)– Sample limited to employees of big
corporations– Studies in years 1967-1973:
• Before changes in Europe in 1989• No acknowledgement of ”postmaterialistic”
changes in structure of values in Western Europe
Schwartz vs. Hofstede
Collectivism
Low power distance
SecurityPower
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-directionUniversalism
Benevolence
Conformity
Tradition
Masculinity
IndividualismFeminity
High power distance
High UA
Low UA
Factor analysis of Schwartz, Inglehart and Hofstede
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Openness to change
0,686
Self-enhancement 0,745Secular authority -0,852Postmaterialism 0,910Power distance -0,874individualism 0,753Uncertainty avoidance
-0,531
Masculinity 0,795
Monitoring of the world
• United Nations Development Programs– Yearly reports comparing countries on
measures indicative of quality of life
• Transparency International– Reports on perceived corruption
• OECD – Program for International Student Assessment
Questions
• „Hard” vs. „soft” measures – mutual relationships?
• Standard of life or values - the best predictor of happiness?
• Comparison of Poland with other countries (world, Europe) on hard and soft measures
Measures
• HDI - Human Development Index – (values 0 – 1)
• GDP - Gross Domestic Product index – (values 0 – 1)
• CPI - Corruption Perception Index – (values 0 – 10)
• GINI – Gini Index – Index of social inequalities (values 0 – 100)
• PISA - Program for International Student Assessment) – International exam of 15 years old in reading ability, mathematical knowledge and scientific thinking (values 400 – 600; mean 500 points)
Human Development Index
• Components:– Life expectancy– Scholarization index - levels I, II & III– Living standard (PPP –how much can be
bought with average salary)
• Values: 0 – 1 and rank of the country • Description: long, wise, and affluent life of
an average inhabitant of the country
value Value for Poland
Comparison
N countries
Position of Poland (rank)
Best score Worst score
0-1 0,841 World 175 35 0,944
Norway
0,275
Sierra Leone
Europe 39 23 0,944
Norway
0,700
Moldova
13 new EU countries
13 5 0,891
Cyprus
0,734
Turkey
Human Development Index – position of Poland (2003)
Value Value for Poland
Comparison
N countries
Position of Poland (rank)
Best score Worst score
9 450 World 175 52 53 780
Luxembourg
470
Sierra Leone
Europe 38 26 53 780
Luxembourg
2150
Moldova
13 new EU countries
13 8 21 190
Cyprus
5 830
Romania
Gross Domestic Product (GDP –US$)– position of Poland (2001)
Ranking of countries according to GDP & HDI (HDI minus GDP)
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20Africa
Arab countries
Western Europe &North AmericaOceania
South America
Central-Eastern Europe
post-Soviet countries
-1
0
1
2
3
4
ha
pp
ine
ss
Western Europe + North America
South America
Asia
Arab countries
Africa
Central-Eastern Europe
post-Soviet countries
Groups of countries & level of happiness (studies by Inglehart 2003, N=82)
Value Value for Poland
Comparison
N countries
Position of Poland (rank)
Best score Worst score
0-10 3,6 World 133 64 9,7
Finland
1,3
Bangladesh
Europe 35 28 9,7
Finland
2,3
Macedonia
Ukraine
13 new EU countries
12 10 6,1
Cyprus
2,8
Romania
Corruption Perception Index– position of Poland (2003)
Gini Index of social inequalities
• Deviation of GDP from the perfectly equal distribution
• Area below Lorenz curve and the hypothetical curve of the perfectly equal distribution
• Values 0 – 100– 0 – whole product distributed equally (everybody gets
the same share)
– 100 – The whole product in hands of one person
Value Value for Poland
Comparison
N countries
Position of Poland
(rank)
Best score Worst score
0-100 31,6 World 124 24-25 24,4
Hungary
70,7
Namibia
Europe 32 16 24,4
Hungary
45,6
Russia
13 new EU countries
11 6 24,4
Hungary
40,0
Turkey
Gini Index of social inequalities (1998)
Cross-cultural comparisons of values and cultural dimensions
• Shalom Schwartz – Value circumplex with two dimensions: – conservatism – openness to experience – self-enhancement – self-transcendence
• Ronald Inglehart – two dimensions of values:– materialistic (‘survival’) vs. postmaterialistic (‘dobrostan’)– traditional vs. secular-rational authority
• Geert Hofstede – four dimensions of culture:– individualism – collectivism– power distance– tolerance of uncertainty– masculinity - feminity
Correlations of objective measures and Schwartz value dimensions (N=30)
Openness to experience-conservatism
Self-enhancement-
Self-transcendence
Human Development Index
0,639**
Technology Advancement Index
0,362
GDP index 0,684**
GINI Index 0,440*
Corruption Perception Index
0,609**
Correlations of objective measures & Inglehart’s value dimensions (N=60)
Secular vs. traditional authority
Postmaterialistic. vs. materialistic
Human Development Index
0,529** 0,623**
Technology Advancement Index
0,554** 0,634**
GDP index 0,311* 0,781**
GINI -0,704** -0,103
Corruption Perception Index
0,373** 0,810**
Correlations of objective measures & Hofstede’s four dimensions of culture
(N=66)
Power distance
Uncertainty avoidance
Collectivism individualism
Masculinity - feminity
CPI -0,679*** -0,300** 0,666*** -0,173
GDP -0,613*** -0,072 0,690*** -0,018
HDI -0,550*** -0,017 0,611*** -0,042
GINI 0,355*** 0,106 -0,470*** 0,005
Factor analysis of dimensions from three theories (Schwartz, Inglehart & Hofstede)
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Openness to experience
0,686
Self enhancement 0,745Secular authority -0,852Postmaterialism 0,910Power distance -0,874Individualism 0,753Uncertainty avoidance
-0,531
Masculinity 0,795
Factor analysis of value factors and objective measures (CPI, HDI, GDP, GINI)
factor 1 (general
development)
factor 2 (secularity, equality)
factor 3
(achievements)
Postmat.+openess exp.+indiv.+power dist.+uncertainty tol.
0,950
Self-enhancement
+masculinity0,998
Secular authority 0,927
HDI 0,927GDP 0,936CPI 0,944GINI -0,885
AustraliaUSA
Japan
Switzerland
DenmarkFinlandFrance
Germany
Spain
New Zealand
ItalyPortugal
Slovenia
Czech Rep.Poland
Hungary
SlovakiaEstonia
Mexico
Bulgaria
Brasil
Turkey
China
Russia
General development - high
General development - low
Secularity, equality - low
Secularity, equality - high
AustraliaUSAJapan
SwitzerlandDenmark
Finland
France Germany
Spain
New Zealand
ItalyPortugal
SloveniaCzech Rep.
Poland
Hungary
SlovakiaEstonia
Mexico
Bulgaria
Russia
Brasil
Turkey China
General development - high
General development - low
Achievements- high
Achievements - low
Schw+Ingl+Hof _postm+otwartosc+indyw+malydyst+toleran
2,01,51,0,50,0-,5-1,0-1,5-2,0
Ha
pp
ine
ss_
Ing
leh
art
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
R(24)=0,815***
Schw+Ingl+Hof_wzmacniaja+maskulinizm
3210-1-2
Ha
pp
ine
ss_
Ing
leh
art
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
R(24)=0,011
Schw+Ingl+Hof_autorytet_swiecki+maskulinizm
1,51,0,50,0-,5-1,0-1,5-2,0-2,5
Ha
pp
ine
ss_
Ing
leh
art
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
R(24)=-0,225, n.i.
Factor I general development
Factor II achievement
Factor III secularity /equality
Happiness (Inglehart) & three factors