Schwarz Value Survey

Research of S.H. Schwartz

Schwartz designed the "Schwartz Values Inventory" to target individual human values, which he quotes Kluckhohn as defining as "desirable goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people's lives." He theorized that values address three human needs: biological, social and group survival and that society represents these needs (for the purpose of communication) as specific values. "The crucial content aspect that distinguishes among values is the type of motivational goals they express." (Schwartz 94, 88).
Of particular significance is that Schwartz endeavoured to identify a universal set of values which would not only operate on the ecological or cultural level but also at the individual level and argues that the two are not identical. On the ecological level, values "presumably reflect the different solutions that societies evolve to the problems of ...human activities" (Schwartz 1984, 92). In contrast, values on the individual level reflect "psychological dynamics of conflict and compatibility that individuals experience in ...pursuing their different values in everyday life." However, theoretically, they should be similar. Schwartz cites three reasons for this: 1) societal (group) values will address many of the same human concerns as the individual values; 2) individuals in a society are socialized to internalise the values of that society; and 3) reinforcement mechanisms are set up by societies to ensure that conflict or harmony will be experienced when one pursues individual values that are in contrast or agreement with a society's values.
Schwartz identified and validated ten motivationally distinct types of individual values. This group included: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security. From this list, he generated 56 values. He determined that the value matched the value type if the central goal of that type was promoted when people acted in ways that expressed that value (Schwartz 94, 88). For example, wealth and social power were associated with the "power" value type. Honouring elders and respecting tradition were associated with the "tradition" value type.
He proposes four representations of the basic issues that every social group faces and for which values will exist on an individual as well as a national level. The first is related to the individualism/collectivism dimension, but Schwartz takes great care to be specific in his definition. He describes it as the extent to which a person is "embedded" in a group: the perception of the individual as an "autonomous entity" versus the person as "part of the social fabric" (Schwartz 1984, 94). The second hypothesis addresses the way that "interdependencies" are handled and specifically pertains to the use of power. The third is concerned with a person's ability to master his/her universe. The last concerns how the welfare of others (especially the weak) and the quality of life are handled. These values are often in conflict or opposition, for example, commitment to tradition versus openness to change. The interplay between these values and how the conflicts are resolved will give a good view of an individual's or culture's value preferences. Schwartz represented his four hypotheses concerning major social group issues in terms of two bipolar generalizations: Autonomy versus Conservatism and Hierarchy and Mastery versus Egalitarian Commitment. All fifty-six values and ten value types are placed into this framework.

Schwartz's approach was to use two distinct groups of matched samples: schoolteachers and university students. Because these groups represent different populations within the target country, Schwartz planned to compare the scores to determine any significant variation between the two groups. If such a variation were discovered, it would indicate that another factor (e.g. age) was significantly affecting the results. If not, the conclusion would be that both (or either) group was representative of the culture-at-large.
From 1988-1992, Schwartz's survey was administered to respondents from forty-one cultural groups in thirty-eight nations. The respondents were asked to rate each of the fifty-six values on a scale from 0 to 7, where "0" is not important, "1" is opposed to one's values and "7" is very important (Schwartz 1984, 91). The survey was administered in the respondents' native language; back translation was used for validation of the instrument.8 The respondents were comprised of two distinctly different groups: thirty-eight samples of elementary school teachers from grades 3-12 and thirty-eight samples of university students, from a wide range of majors. In twenty-six nations, samples were obtained from both groups. The minimum number of responses from any one group was 76 and the largest was 1,868.
Schwartz published national scores for his "schoolteacher" sample only. His reasoning was that teachers "may be the best available group when one is trying to characterize cultural priorities. They play an explicit role in value socialization, they are presumably key carriers of culture..." (Schwartz 1984, 91). He did, however, compare the ordering of nations resulting from the teacher sample with that resulting from the student sample. Despite the expectation that the ordering would vary, due to significant differences in the educational background, age and economic levels of the respondents, the ordering of the nations between the two groups of respondents was very similar.
References

Close the window