evaluating the human values

JOURNAL OF

ESEARCH IN
R
Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230–255

www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

PERSONALITY

Evaluating the structure of human valueswith confirmatory factor analysis

Shalom H. Schwartza,* and Klaus Boehnkeb

a Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israelb International University Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Abstract

This is the first statistical test of a theory of the structure of human values (Schwartz, 1992).

The theory postulates that 10 basic values are discriminated in all societies and that these val-

ues form a quasi-circumplex structure based on the inherent conflict or compatibility between

their motivational goals. Past support for the theory came from subjective judgments of visual

plots of the relations among value items in samples from over 60 countries. We formally test

the postulated structure and several potential refinements. We employ a specially designed

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach with new data from two sets of 23 samples from

27 countries (N¼ 10,857). In both data sets, CFAs confirm the 10 basic values, a modified

quasi-circumplex rather than a simple circumplex structure, and the claim that values form

a motivational continuum.

� 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Values; Confirmatory factor analysis; Value structure; Cross-cultural analyses

1. Introduction

The past 45 years have seen a steady stream of papers that propose that the best

way to represent personality and affect is a circumplex structure (Fabrigar, Visser, &Browne, 1997; Tracey, 2000). That is, they postulate that personality or affect vari-

ables lie on the circumference of a circle, and the strength of association between

variables decreases as the distance between variables on the circle increases. A recent

book on models of personality and emotions (Plutchik & Conte, 1997a) has given

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (S.H. Schwartz).

0092-6566/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00069-2

mail to: [email protected]

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230–255 231

this approach even greater impetus. The current paper concerns the domain of

individual values in which the most widely recognized current model also proposes

a circumplex structure (Rohan, 2000; Schwartz, 1992).

Factor/principal components analysis and multidimensional scaling (MDS) are the

methods commonly used to test circumplex structures, but they are usually inade-quate to provide statistical tests. Neither offers a simple, quantifiable method to for-

mally assess the extent to which the observed data possess a circumplex structure (for

detailed critiques of these methods, see Fabrigar et al., 1997 or Tracey, 2000). Instead,

researchers typically reach conclusions by making two subjective judgments of the ob-

served plot of relations among variables. First, they assess how well this plot appears

to conform to a circular pattern. Then they assess the extent to which the order of the

variables around the circle appears to correspond to the order in the theory. All past

assessments of the structure of basic human values have relied on such subjectivejudgments of plots produced by an MDS approach. This paper is the first direct,

quantitative evaluation of the postulated circumplex structure of values.

2. Value theory and past assessments

The theory of basic human values (Schwartz, 1992) identifies 10 motivationally

distinct types of values that are likely to be recognized within and across cultures:power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevo-

lence, tradition, conformity, and security. Table 1, below, defines the 10 values.

The most important feature of the theory is the structure of dynamic relations

among the 10 values that it explicates. It postulates that actions expressive of any

value have practical, psychological, and social consequences that may conflict or

be compatible with the pursuit of other values. For example, actions that express he-

donism values are likely to conflict with those that express tradition values and vice

versa, and acting on self-direction values is likely to conflict with maintaining con-formity values and vice versa. On the other hand, hedonism values are compatible

with self-direction values, and tradition values are compatible with conformity val-

ues. Studies in 19 countries reveal systematic associations of many behavior, atti-

tude, and personality variables with priorities for these values (see citations in

Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). The structure of value relations explains the patterns of

these associations. When the constructs in a set vary in the degree of their similarity

and dissimilarity or conflict, as the values do, they are likely to yield a circumplex

structure (Plutchik & Conte, 1997b).The circular structure in Fig. 1 portrays the total pattern of relations among val-

ues postulated by the theory. The circular arrangement of the values represents a

motivational continuum. The closer any two values in either direction around the

circle, the more similar their underlying motivations; and the more distant any

two values, the more antagonistic their underlying motivations. The motivational

significance of items that operationalize adjacent values overlaps in part but differs

sharply from that of items that operationalize distant values. This structure is a cir-

cumplex, except for the placement of tradition outside conformity. The claim of a

Table 1

Samples included in the analyses

Set I Set II

N N

Belgium University Students 249 Australia University Students 111

Denmark School Teachers 682 Austria School Teachers 196

East Germany Adults 233 Brazil University Students 151

East Germany University Students 441 Bulgaria University Students 241

France (Nancy) University Students 214 England School Teachers 209

Ghana School Teachers 214 France (Paris) University Students 390

Hong Kong University Students 222 Ghana University Students 210

Hungary University Students 160 Hong Kong School Teachers 126

Israel School Teachers 188 Hungary School Teachers 130

Japan School Teachers 173 Israel Adults 181

Macedonia University Students 245 Israel University Students 427

Netherlands University Students 217 Japan University Students 327

Peru University Students 145 Macedonia School Teachers 206

Philippines University Students 289 Mexico School Teachers 361

Poland University Students 141 Philippines School Teachers 157

Russia School Teachers 194 Russia Adults 189

Russia in Israel Adult Immigrants 202 Russia in Ber-

lin

Adult Immigrants 181

Slovakia School Teachers 186 Slovakia University Students 233

Turkey University Students 242 Switzerland University Students 264

USA School Teachers 108 Uganda University Students 188

USA (Seattle) University Students 270 USA (Illinois) University Students 374

West Germany University Students 388 USA Nurses 259

West Germany School Teachers 148 West Germany University Students 195

5551 5306

232 S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230–255

motivational continuum is especially important for relating value priorities to other

variables. It implies that these relations take the shape of a sinusoidal curve that fol-

lows the order of the values around the circle (Schwartz, 1992). Note that the theory

postulates a circular arrangement of the 10 values, not of the items. For items, it pos-

tulates that each item correlates more highly with the set of items that measure the

same value than with the set of items that measure a different value. Thus, in tech-

nical terms, the theory assumes that the items in the value survey form 10 latent fac-

tors and only the factors relate to one another in a circular manner.Extensive research has assessed the theory in over 200 samples in more than 60

countries from every inhabited continent (representative national samples, school

teachers, university students, adolescents, samples of workers in specific occupa-

tions). Researchers examined two-dimensional projections of the relations among

value items, using MDS or Similarity Structure Analysis (SSA; Borg & Shye,

1993; Guttman, 1968). They concluded that the data largely support (a) the distinc-

tiveness of the 10 values, (b) the idea that these values are comprehensive of the ma-

jor, motivationally distinctive types of values, and (c) the ordering of valuespostulated by the circumplex structure (Fontaine, 1999; Schwartz, 1992, 1994;

Schwartz & Bardi, 2001; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995; Schwartz, in press).

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of relations among 10 motivational types of values.


These conclusions were based on visual inspection of the spatial plots, guided by apriori criteria (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). They revealed that, in the

vast majority of samples, the items that operationalize each value occupied a distinct

region in the space, with no substantial empty spaces between regions. Moreover, the

order of these distinct regions around the circle generally approximated the theorized

order shown in Fig. 1. As noted, however, visual inspections cannot formally test

whether the observed data possess a circumplex structure. Data that appear to fit

a circumplex structure may or may not be found to fit such a structure when tested

directly, as Fabrigar et al. (1997) demonstrated. Therefore, a first objective of thispaper is directly to test the circumplex structure of the theory of human values using

an application of structural equation modeling designed for this purpose. We ask:

Does confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) corroborate the theoretical structure of va-

lue relations that was supported by interpretations of past SSA and MDS analyses?

Equally important is our second objective—to test possible refinements to the va-

lue theory. These refinements were suggested in the published literature but never

tested. Each refinement was inspired by examining the separate plots of relations

among value items in large numbers of samples. The refinements fit the majorityof samples. The theory formally incorporated one refinement: It modified the strict

circumplex structure of 10 values into the structure shown in Fig. 1. This structure

places tradition and conformity values at the same polar angle around the circle,

but tradition is outside conformity. It provided a better visual fit than the strict cir-

cumplex to the average plot of the first 40 samples studied and to the separate plots

in 29 of these samples, and no worse a fit in the remaining 11 samples (Schwartz,

1992, p. 35). Although this presumed refinement has been justified conceptually, it

has never been tested formally.


3. Models tested

Below, we spell out each refinement proposed to the theory, note the conceptual

arguments for it, and then test it. One could perform these tests with the data from

past research. However, the refinements drew upon post hoc examination of thosedata. Hence, this would not test the power of the theory to account for new data.

Therefore, for totally independent, stringent tests of the theory and tentative refine-

ments, we analyze data that have not figured in any previous assessments of the

structure of values. We wish to assess which theoretical model best fits the basic pat-

tern of value relations common to cultures, rather than to identify unique variants in

particular cultures. We therefore combine the individual data from many cultures. In

order to assess the robustness of the findings, we replicate the analyses in two inde-

pendent sets of samples.

3.1. Model 1: 10 orthogonal factors

The theory of basic human values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994) derived the 10 motiva-

tionally distinct types of values from three universal requirements of the human con-

dition: needs of individuals as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated social

interaction, and survival and welfare needs of groups. The theory holds that groups

and individuals represent these requirements cognitively, as specific values aboutwhich they communicate in order to coordinate with others in pursuing the goals

that are important to them. The 10 values are the content aspect of the theory.

The structural aspect of the theory specifies relations of similarity and dissimilarity

among these values. Perhaps, however, each value is independent. This would be

in line with Rokeach�s (1973) view of values, on which Schwartz built, and with tra-

ditional exploratory factor analysis. We therefore first test how well a model of 10

orthogonal factors fits the data.

3.2. Model 2: A quasi-circumplex model of 10 factors1

At the beginning of the chapter that first presented the value theory, Schwartz

(1992, pp. 13–15) speculated that the 10 values might form a perfect circular struc-

ture. That is, the 10 values would form a circle as in Fig. 1, but with tradition located

between benevolence and conformity. The theory made no assumption as to whether

1 A comment on the terminology used with circumplex models is necessary to clarify the usage that

follows. Guttman (1954) first used the term ‘circumplex’ to include any model that postulates a circular

arrangement of relations among variables. He subdivided such models into those that assume the variables

are equally spaced on the circumference of the circle (circulant) and those that do not assume equal spacing

(quasi-circumplex). We use these terms as he did. Guttman provided no label for models that assume a

circular arrangement of variables but do not locate all the variables on the circumference of the circle.

Hence, there is no term for the ‘‘definitive’’ model proposed by the value theory. It postulates that

conformity values are more central and tradition values more peripheral (see Fig. 1). The remaining values

are arrayed in order around the circle, though not necessarily equidistant. We label this model ‘‘modified

quasi-circumplex.’’


values are spaced equally around the circle (a circulant model) or unequally (a quasi-

circumplex model). The chapter rejected this circumplex, but provided no direct,

quantitative test of the appropriate circumplex model to justify this rejection. We

therefore next test the fit of a circumplex model to the data. Because the theory does

not assume that the values are distributed at equal intervals around the circle (circ-ulant model), we test a quasi-circumplex model. We compare the fit of this model to

the fit of the model of ten orthogonal factors.

3.3. Model 3: The 1992 theory—A modified quasi-circumplex model

The ‘‘definitive’’ version of the theory of basic values postulates the modified qua-

si-circumplex structure presented in Fig. 1. As noted, this change derived from find-

ing that a theory that locates tradition outside of conformity at the same polar anglein the circle was a better visual fit to the plots of data in the available samples. Scru-

tinizing plots from many later samples reaffirmed this model (Schwartz, 1994; Sch-

wartz & Sagiv, 1995). The theoretical explanation for locating conformity and

tradition at the same polar angle in the circle is that they share the same broad mo-

tivational goal—subordinating self in favor of socially imposed expectations. What

distinguishes them is that ‘‘conformity values entail subordination to persons with

whom one is in frequent interaction—parents, teachers, and bosses. Tradition values

entail subordination to more abstract objects—religious and cultural customs andideas’’ (Schwartz, 1992, p. 40). Conformity values emphasize restraint of actions, in-

clinations, and impulses that might upset or harm others and violate their expecta-

tions. Tradition values emphasize respect, commitment, and acceptance of the

customs and ideas of one�s culture or religion.

Central versus peripheral locations in a circle typically reflect differences between

constructs in the degree of their abstractness, closeness to the self, or prevalence in

everyday interaction (Levy, 1985). On all three counts, tradition values are more

likely to be located peripherally than conformity values. The more peripheral the lo-cation of a value, the less positive its correlations with the values on the opposite side

of the circle. Hence, the peripheral location of tradition would signify that it is less

compatible than conformity with hedonism and stimulation values. We test the fit of

the ‘‘definitive,’’ modified quasi-circumplex model of values to the data and compare

its fit to that of the quasi-circumplex model. We label this model ‘‘modified quasi-cir-

cumplex’’ because it orders the values around the circle but includes central vs. pe-

ripheral positioning.

3.4. Model 4: Combining tradition and conformity to yield nine values

If tradition and conformity values share the same broad motivational goal, per-

haps a simpler, more parsimonious model would fit the data better. Tradition and

conformity may constitute a single value. This would be a quasi-circumplex model

of nine values, with the combined tradition/conformity value located between benev-

olence and security. We formally test this quasi-circumplex model and compare it

with the modified quasi-circumplex model.


3.5. Model 5: Power values peripheral to achievement values

In discussing the plots of the first 40 samples studied, Schwartz (1992, p. 40) noted

that, in 26 samples, a distinct region of power values could be drawn toward the periph-

ery of the circle behind achievement values. In most samples, however, it was also pos-sible to connect the region of power values to the center of the circle. Hence, the

‘‘definitive’’ version of the theory located power values between achievement and secu-

rity. Was this decision correct? Might a model locating achievement and power values

at the same polar angle in the circle, with power peripheral to achievement, fit the data

better? Theoretical arguments for this alternative model appear in Schwartz (1992, pp.

40–41):

[Both values] focus on social esteem. However, achievement values refer more to striving to

demonstrate competence in everyday interaction. . . whereas power values refer more to the

abstract outcomes of action in the form of status in the social structure. . . .achievement val-

ues refer to the striving of the individual. . . whereas power values also refer to the hierarchi-

cal organization of relations in society.

Thus, like tradition and conformity, power and achievement differ on character-istics that might lead to a central versus peripheral order: degree of abstractness,

closeness to the self, and prevalence in everyday interaction. We therefore test

whether this model fits the data better than the previous models. We also test

whether a more parsimonious model that treats power and achievement as a single

value (model 6) is an even better fit.

3.6. Model 7: Higher-order types of value

Based on the SSA analyses in the first 40 samples, Schwartz (1992, p. 43) sug-

gested a simpler way to view value structures. Relationships among the values can

be summarized in terms of a two-dimensional structure composed of four higher-or-

der value types. One higher-order type, called openness to change, combines stimu-

lation and self-direction values. It forms a bipolar dimension with the higher-ordertype called conservation that combines security, conformity, and tradition values.

This dimension arrays values in terms of the extent to which they motivate people

to follow their own emotional and intellectual interests in unpredictable and uncer-

tain directions (openness) versus to preserve the status quo and the certainty it pro-

vides (conservation).

A third higher-order type, called self-enhancement, combines power and achieve-

ment values. It forms a bipolar dimension with the higher-order type called self-tran-

scendence that combines universalism and benevolence values. This dimensionarrays values in terms of the extent to which they motivate people to enhance their

own personal interests even at the expense of others (self-enhancement) versus to

transcend selfish concerns and promote the welfare of others, close and distant,

and of nature (self-transcendence). Hedonism values share some elements of both

openness and self-enhancement. Consequently, hedonism is located between these

two higher-order types.


Schwartz treats the higher-order types merely as a way to describe the value struc-

ture more simply. Nevertheless, he and others sometimes use these four types, rather

than the 10 values, to predict behavior and attitudes (e.g., Bilsky, 1998; Hrubes, Aj-

zen, & Daigle, 2001; Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999; Schwartz, 1994). If one wants

to simplify the value structure, is this particular set of higher-order types more mean-ingful than other possible groupings of values? Or do the values form a continuum,

so any combination of adjacent values (e.g., power with security) would be equally

legitimate? We address these questions by evaluating their implications for associa-

tions among the values.

Let us assume that this particular set of four higher-order types is more meaning-

ful conceptually than alternative combinations. We would then expect adjacent val-

ues within these higher-order types to be more strongly associated with one another

substantively and empirically than they are with the adjacent values from other high-er-order types. For example, the two self-transcendence values, universalism and

benevolence, should be more highly intercorrelated than universalism is with self-di-

rection (also adjacent, but in the openness higher-order type) or than benevolence is

with conformity (adjacent, but a conservation value). We put this idea to a formal

test by specifying a model in which correlations between values within higher-order

types are higher than the correlations of these values with adjacent values from other

higher-order types.

3.7. Model 8: Freely estimating hedonism correlations

The theory of value structure locates hedonism values between stimulation and

achievement values because they share elements of both openness and self-enhance-

ment. The theory does not specify whether hedonism is related more to one or to the

other higher-order type, so the above models treated it as equally linked to both.

The CFA approach enables us to ask whether hedonism is closer to openness, to

self-enhancement, or equally close to both. Model 8 addresses this question.

3.8. Models 9 and 10: Subtypes of values

Partitioning the domain of value items, like partitioning any circular structure, en-

tails an arbitrary selection of class-intervals (Plutchik & Conte, 1997b). The domain

could as easily be partitioned into more or fewer intervals, since the values constitute

a motivational continuum. Schwartz (1992) judged that 10 distinct values are suffi-

cient to capture the major motivational differences in value meanings and to createuseful indexes for measuring individuals� value priorities. These 10 values are psy-

chologically and socially meaningful and each has links to important constructs in

the literature. However, for some purposes, finer discriminations may be desirable

within particular values.

3.8.1. (9) Nature and social concern subtypes within universalism

Two potentially useful subtypes of universalism have been proposed (Sagiv, 1994;

Schwartz, 1997; Schwartz, Sagiv, & Boehnke, 2000). One subtype, labeled �social


concern,� includes the value items equality, world at peace, and social justice. This

subtype is more strongly associated than the other universalism items with concern

for and action to promote the welfare of people outside one�s in-group. The second

proposed subtype, labeled �nature,� includes the value items unity with nature, pro-

tecting the environment, and world of beauty. This subtype is more strongly associ-ated than the other universalism items with environmental attitudes and actions.

Are these merely subsets of universalism items worth distinguishing only when

one studies particular topics to which they are relevant? Or are they real subtypes

in the sense that the value items within each are more closely related to one another

than to the other universalism items? We test a model that represents them as real

subtypes that constitute components of universalism.

3.8.2. (10) Personal and group subtypes within security

In presenting the value theory, Schwartz (1992, p. 9) raised the possibility of split-

ting security into two separate types of values, one concerned with personal security

and the other with the security of larger groups. The motivational goal of the general

security value is safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of

self. Visual examination of the plots in the first 40 samples supported the existence

of a single security value. Perhaps, security of one�s groups is a precondition for se-

curity for self. Nonetheless, the plots did suggest ‘‘that people may distinguish some-

what between the security of self and that of the collectivities of which they aremembers’’ (Schwartz, 1992, p. 41). We therefore test a model that represents per-

sonal and group subtypes as components of security.

Various additional refinements to the structure of values postulated in the value

theory are possible. However, we limit ourselves to the above models because they

cover all of the refinements suggested in the literature until now.

4. Methods

4.1. Samples

Respondents from 46 samples in 27 countries (N¼ 10,857) provided the values

data. None of these respondents had been included in assessments of the structure

of values in past reports. Table 1 describes the sample characteristics. Samples were

volunteers recruited at their place of work or study or at home. We randomly as-

signed each sample to one of the two sets, in order to replicate the analyses in eachset of samples. Set I included 5551 individuals and set II 5306 individuals.

4.2. Instrument

Respondents completed a slightly expanded, 57-item version, of the Schwartz Va-

lue Survey (SVS) in their native language. Each item is followed in parentheses by a

short explanatory phrase (e.g., EQUALITY [equal opportunity for all]). Respondents

rate the importance of each value item as a guiding principle in their life on a 9-point

Table 2

Definitions of the motivational types of values and items used as markers

Power: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources (authority, social

power, wealth, preserving my public image)

Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards

(ambitious, successful, capable, influential)

Hedonism: Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself (pleasure, enjoying life, self-indulgent)

Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life (daring, a varied life, an exciting life)

Self-direction: Independent thought and action—choosing, creating, exploring (creativity, freedom,

independent, choosing own goals, curious)

Universalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and

for nature (equality, social justice, wisdom, broadminded, protecting the environment, unity with

nature, a world of beauty)

Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent

personal contact (helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal, responsible)

Tradition: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or

religion provide (devout, respect for tradition, humble, moderate)

Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate

social expectations or norms (self-discipline, politeness, honoring parents and elders, obedience)

Security: Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self (family security, national

security, social order, clean, reciprocation of favors)


scale from ‘‘opposed to my principles’’ ()1), through ‘‘not important’’ (0), to ‘‘of su-

preme importance’’ (7). As markers for each of the 10 values, we used the items rec-

ommended as standard indexes for cross-cultural research, based on the consistency

of their meanings across cultures (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). Table 2 presents brief def-

initions of each value followed by its marker items. We included ‘‘self-indulgence,’’

from the expanded SVS, to provide a third item to measure hedonism.

4.3. Analyses

We designed an approach for the CFA analyses suited for testing all of the differ-

ent structural models. This approach must test quasi-circumplex models as well as

modified quasi-circumplex models. It must also test a model that specifies different

distances among particular values, to represent relations within and between high-

er-order value types. Additionally, it must test the existence of subtypes within values

(universalism and security). Finally, the approach must treat the values as latentvariables and the items as observed variables, allowing a test of the appropriateness

of the marker items for measuring the 10 values in a unified analysis.

Tracey (2000) described computer programs specifically designed to test circum-

plex conceptual models. Both of the most available programs, CIRCUM (Browne,

1992) and RANDALL (Tracey, 1997), do not fit the requirements of testing all as-

pects of the current theory and its proposed refinements. Neither program permits

specifying two-level models as required here. We cannot test the circumplex assump-

tion for the latent variables (the values) together with a simple factorial structure forthe manifest variables. This limitation, that precludes simultaneously modeling rela-

tionships of items to factors and relations among factors, is the primary reason we

do not use these programs. In addition, neither program provides an appropriate


way to handle more central as opposed to peripheral locations of factors in a circle.

Hence, they are not suited to testing the ‘‘definitive’’ model of the value theory, a

modified quasi-circumplex. We therefore developed a strategy tailored to the require-

ments of testing all aspects of the models of interest, using a structural equation

modeling program (LISREL 8.14; J€oreskog & S€orbom, 1993).We tested the model of 10 orthogonal factors with an ordinary CFA on 10 latent

variables. To test the theory-driven models of the value structure, we specified a ref-

erence matrix of expected correlations among the values for each model. This matrix

represents exactly a pattern of expected correlations among the values that repro-

duces the model. We then tested the fit of the reference matrix to the observed data.

In order to create a reference matrix for a model, it is necessary to specify actual

correlation coefficients that fit the expected pattern of associations of the model to be

tested. Any set of arbitrarily chosen coefficients that fits the pattern of expected as-sociations might be used, because the model must reproduce the pattern. Once refer-

ence values are chosen for any two correlation coefficients, all the remaining

coefficients follow from the pattern needed to reproduce the model.

We adopted a data-driven approach to determine reasonable reference coefficients.

In a preliminary analysis, we estimated a model of 10 freely intercorrelated latent fac-

tors in both samples, with LISREL. We then calculated the average intercorrelation

between all of the pairs of factors that the theory postulates to be adjacent in the circle

(e.g., self-direction/universalism; see Fig. 1). This yielded a reference correlation of .68for adjacent values. We applied the same procedure to all pairs of values that the the-

ory postulates to have opposing substantive contents (e.g., self-direction/security) and

obtained a reference correlation of .08 for values on opposite sides of the circle.

Based on these analyses, we fixed the correlation coefficient between all pairs of

adjacent values at .68 for the circumplex model of 10 equally spaced values. Thus,

we fixed the correlations for power/achievement, power/security, security/conformi-

ty, and so on around the circle, at .68 in the reference matrix. Similarly, we fixed the

correlation between all pairs of values on opposite sides of the circle (universalism/power, benevolence/achievement, etc.) at .08. Distances between pairs of values

around a circle of 10 values can range from adjacent to four �steps� away (opposite).

We therefore computed the amount to reduce the correlation for each step by divid-

ing the difference between the maximum correlation (.68) and the minimum (.08) by

four. This yielded a reduction of .15 for each step. Table 3, below the diagonal, pre-

sents the resulting reference matrix. Table 3 arranges the values according to their

postulated order around the circle from universalism to self-direction. The greater

the distance between any pair of values, the less positive the correlation betweenthem. The coefficients that reproduce the five expected distances among 10 values

around the circle are .68, .53, .38, .23, and .08.2

2 A reviewer of an earlier version of this paper remarked that a constant difference between correlation

coefficients does not produce equidistance of items along a circle. This is not a problem for the current

approach because the theory does not posit equidistance among the 10 values. Rather, it posits relations of

q1 > q2 > q3 > q4 > q5 < q6 < q7 < q8 < q9, where q1 to q9 stand for the correlations of one value with

the other nine values in the order presented in Fig. 1. The reference matrix represents this set of relations.

Table 3

Reference matrixes of expected factor intercorrelations for confirmatory factor analyses: 10 factor quasi-

circumplex (model 2) below the diagonal and basic theory modified quasi-circumplex (model 3) above the

diagonal

Values UN BE TR CO SE PO AC HE ST SD

Universalism (UN) 1.00 .68 .43 .48 .28 .08 .08 .28 .48 .68

Benevolence (BE) .68 1.00 .68 .68 .48 .28 .08 .08 .28 .48

Tradition (TR) .53 .68 1.00 .88 .68 .43 .18 ).07 ).07 .18

Conformity (CO) .38 .53 .68 1.00 .68 .48 .28 .08 .08 .28

Security (SE) .23 .38 .53 .68 1.00 .68 .48 .28 .08 .08

Power (PO) .08 .23 .38 .53 .68 1.00 .68 .48 .28 .08

Achievement (AC) .23 .08 .23 .38 .53 .68 1.00 .68 .48 .28

Hedonism (HE) .38 .23 .08 .23 .38 .53 .68 1.00 .68 .48

Stimulation (ST) .53 .38 .23 .08 .23 .38 .53 .68 1.00 .68

Self-Direction (SD) .68 .53 .38 .23 .08 .23 .38 .53 .68 1.00


For each subsequent model (3–8), we modified the reference matrix of expected

correlations to represent the relations among the values expected according to that

model. In the results, we explain how we constructed the reference matrix of ex-

pected correlations for each of these models. The models that postulate the existence

of subtypes (9 and 10) imply that each subtype consists of items that correlate more

highly with one another than expected from their relation to the same latent value.

That is, the correlations with the latent value of the items expected to constitute each

subtype do not account fully for the intercorrelations among the items themselves.To model this pattern, we permitted correlated errors between the items in each sub-

type. We then tested whether models with these correlated errors fit the data better

than models with no correlated errors.

Our criterion for the goodness of fit of the models is a combination of two in-

dexes, RMSEA and SRMR, recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999; cf. MacCallum

& Austin, 2000). RMSEA is especially sensitive to models with misspecified factor

covariances or latent structures, SRMR to models with misspecified factor loadings.

Hu and Bentler suggest that, for samples of 5000, the approximate size of our sam-ples, the probabilities of rejecting a valid model or of accepting an invalid model are

extremely small when RMSEA is close to .06 and SRMR to .11. We report v2 sta-

tistics to test differences in fit between nested models. Many of the models are not

nested, however. To test differences between non-nested models, we report the Ak-

aike information criterion, AIC (Akaike, 1973; Sakamoto, Ishiguro, & Kitagawa,

1986). Among a set of hypothesized, non-nested models, the best model is the one

that minimizes the value of AIC. In all cases, our aim is to select the best model

for describing the data among the theory-based alternatives.3

3 The decision whether one model fits the data better than another is sometimes difficult in this study.

With the large samples, trivial differences in v2 are statistically significant. We therefore set a conservative

probability level of p < :001 for considering Dv2 between nested models to be significant. Moreover,

differences in the fit coefficients of the models are often small. When this is so, we use the differences in the

RMSEA, SRMR, and AIC as aids to choice, picking the model that is most convincing conceptually and

that is also best according to the set of statistics.


As noted, we conducted all analyses on two independent sets of data. For both

data sets, we first calculated ordinary covariance matrixes.4 All analyses used max-

imum-likelihood estimation.

5. Results

5.1. Model 1: 10 orthogonal factors

We first tested amodel that treats each value as independent. Table 4 reports results

for this model of 10 orthogonal factors. An RMSEA index greater than .06 and an

SRMR index greater than .11 indicate that this model fit the empirical data poorly.

5.2. Model 2: A quasi-circumplex of 10 factors

The preliminary model of the value theory, suggested but then rejected by Sch-

wartz (1992), was a perfect circumplex structure of 10 factors. We tested this model

by using the reference correlation matrix below the diagonal in Table 3. The pattern

of correlations among all the values in this matrix represents exactly the pattern of

expected correlations for a circumplex structure. The second row in Table 4 presents

the fit statistics for this model. The RMSEA index is slightly higher than the recom-mended cutoff criterion in set I and just at that level in set II. The SRMR criterion is

met in both sets of samples. Thus, the 10-factor quasi-circumplex model shows a

moderate fit to the data. It clearly fits the data better than the model of 10 orthog-

onal factors. Both the v2 value and the AIC value decreased substantially in both sets

of samples. In this and all subsequent theory-driven models, all items loaded signif-

icantly (p < :0001) on the appropriate latent value.

5.3. Model 3: The 1992 theory—A modified quasi-circumplex model

The ‘‘definitive’’ representation of the value theory is the quasi-circumplex struc-

ture presented in Fig. 1 (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). It locates tradition outside of confor-

mity, but at the same polar angle in the circle. This reduces the number of locations

around the circle from 10 to 9. The pattern of expected correlations above the diag-

onal in Table 3 represents this structure. We generated this pattern by modifying the

correlations for the quasi-circumplex model (below the diagonal in Table 3) as fol-

lows. With only nine locations of values, the number of �steps� from any value tothe opposite location in either direction around the circle is three. We therefore de-

4 The samples that make up the data sets vary substantially in size. Hence, we also did the analyses on a

correlation matrix for each set that weighted each sample equally. We constructed the average matrixes as

follows. We transformed the correlations in each sample-specific correlation matrix into a Fisher-Z score,

averaged these Z-scores across the samples of the data set, and transformed the mean Z-scores back into

correlation coefficients. Analyses of these average correlation matrixes yielded results very similar to those

reported below. Because the mathematical properties of a matrix of averaged correlation coefficients are

uncertain, the text reports analyses on the unweighted covariance matrix.

Table 4

Confirmatory analyses of models of the structure of values in two sets of samples

Model df Sample set I, N ¼ 5551 Sample set II, N ¼ 5306

v2 RMSEA SRMR AIC v2 RMSEA SRMR AIC

1. Ten orthogonal factors 989 39126.8 .083 .160 39310.8 33538.2 .079 .150 33722.2

2. Quasi-circumplex of 10 factors 989 24048.0 .065 .088 24232.0 19611.1 .060 .079 19795.1

3. The 1992 theory—a modified

quasi-circumplex

989 23356.1 .064 .081 23540.1 19031.8 .059 .073 19215.8

4. Combining tradition and

conformity to yield nine values

989 23532.6 .064 .082 23716.6 18964.7 .059 .072 19148.7

5. Power values peripheral to

achievement values

989 24036.5 .065 .083 24220.5 19334.3 .059 .074 19518.9

6. Combining power and achievement

to yield nine values

989 24711.2 .066 .083 24595.2 19699.2 .060 .074 19883.2

7. Higher-order types of value 989 23526.3 .064 .080 23710.3 19170.2 .059 .074 19354.2

8. Free estimation of hedonism 987 22730.9 .063 .080 22918.9 18635.5 .058 .072 18823.5

9. Subtypes within universalism:

nature and social concern

981 21153.9 .061 .079 21353.9 17343.1 .056 .072 17543.1

10. Subtypes within security:

personal and group

977 20840.0 .061 .078 21048.0 17044.1 .056 .072 17252.1

S.H

.Schwartz,

K.Boehnke/JournalofResea

rchin

Perso

nality

38(2004)230–255

243


termined the size of a step by subtracting the minimum correlation between pairs of

values (.08) from the maximum (.68) and dividing by three, yielding steps of .20.

Thus, in the reference matrix, adjacent values are expected to correlate .68, values

separated by one other value around the circle (e.g., universalism and stimulation)

.48, those separated by two other values (e.g., universalism and hedonism) .28,and those separated by three other values (e.g., universalism and achievement) .08.

In order to represent the fact that tradition and conformity are located at the

same polar angle, we increased the expected correlation between them by one step

to .88. To represent the location of tradition toward the periphery of the circle,

we reduced the expected correlations of tradition with the values that were one,

two, and three steps away from it around the circle. The reduction had to increase

with each step without reaching the equivalent of a full step, .20. We therefore re-

duced the expected correlations of tradition by .05 for each step. The expected cor-relations of tradition with its adjacent values (benevolence and security) were

unchanged at .68. Its expected correlations with the values one step away (universal-

ism and power) were reduced by .05, compared with the expected correlations of

conformity, and fixed at .43. The expected correlations of tradition with the values

two steps away (self-direction and achievement) were reduced by .10 and fixed at

.18. Finally, its expected correlations with the values three steps away, on the oppo-

site side of the circle (hedonism and stimulation), were reduced by .15 and fixed at

).07.Row three in Table 4 presents the fit statistics for this model. The RMSEA index

is slightly higher than the recommended cutoff criterion in set I and the criterion is

met in set II. The SRMR criterion is met in both sets of samples. As compared with

the quasi-circumplex model (2), the modified quasi-circumplex model fits the empir-

ical data somewhat better. The goodness of fit indexes improved slightly in both sets

of samples, and both the AIC value and the v2 value decreased substantially both in

set I and in set II.

5.4. Model 4: Combining tradition and conformity to yield nine values

The modified quasi-circumplex model locates tradition and conformity values at

the same polar angle on the circle because they share the same broad motivational

goal. Model 4 asks whether tradition and conformity might better be treated as a sin-

gle value rather than as separate values. This model is a quasi-circumplex with nine

rather than 10 values. It combines the tradition and conformity items to form a sin-

gle value located between benevolence and security. The reference matrix of expectedcorrelations to reproduce this model is similar to that for model 3. However, tradi-

tion values are dropped from the matrix. The joint tradition/conformity value has

the same expected correlations as conformity did in model 3.

Row four in Table 4 presents the fit statistics for this model. RMSEA shows no

improvement in either set of samples compared with model 3. SRMR increases

slightly in set I and decreases slightly in set II. Both models fit the data reasonably

well. The increase in the AIC value in set I (176.5) suggests that model 3 is better, but

the decrease in the AIC value in set II (67.1) favors model 4. Thus, treating tradition


and conformity as a single value reduces the goodness of fit a little in set I and

improves it even less in set II. On empirical grounds, it is difficult to choose between

the two models. To remain consistent with the value theory and with the research

evidence that conformity and tradition have meaningfully different associations

with other variables, we retain model 3. We treat conformity and tradition as distinctvalues, as the basis for further analyses.

5.5. Model 5: Power values peripheral to achievement values

Schwartz (1992) raised the possibility that power and achievement values might be

located at the same polar angle in the circle, with power peripheral to achievement.

The proposed relationship between these two values parallels the relationship of tra-

dition and conformity. We therefore followed the same procedures used to generatethe matrix of expected correlations for model 3 in order to generate the matrix for

model 5. That is, we fixed the correlation between power and achievement at .88

and reduced the expected correlations of power with the values that are one, two,

and three steps away from it around the circle by .05, .10, and .15, respectively, as

compared with achievement. The expected correlations of power with its adjacent

values are fixed at .68 for security and hedonism. Its expected correlations with

the values one step away are fixed at .43 (stimulation and conformity) and .38 (tra-

dition). Its expected correlations with the values two steps away are fixed at .18 (be-nevolence and self-direction). Finally, its expected correlation with universalism, the

only value three steps away, is fixed at ).07.Row five in Table 4 presents the fit statistics for this model. Compared to model 3,

the RMSEA and the SRMR indexes show a poorer fit in both sets of samples. The

substantially higher AIC values in both sets indicate that model 5 describes the data

less well than model 3. We therefore reject this model and continue to use model 3,

the modified quasi-circumplex, as the basis for comparing subsequent models.

5.6. Model 6: Combining power and achievement to yield nine values

Model 6 asks whether power and achievement might better be treated as a single

value rather than as separate values. The reference matrix of expected correlations to

reproduce this model is similar to that for model 3 in Table 3, with necessary changes

to reflect reducing the number of distinct values by one.5 Row five in Table 4 indi-

cates that this model fits the observed data less well than model 3 in both sets of sam-

ples, judged by all indexes. We therefore reject this model as an improvement on themodified quasi-circumplex model.

5 The combined power/achievement value has the same expected correlations with security, tradition,

and conformity that power did in model 3, and the same expected correlations with hedonism, stimulation,

and self-direction that achievement did in model 3. In addition, the expected correlations of hedonism are

.2 higher with conformity and security and .1 higher with tradition, and the expected correlation of

stimulation with security is .2 higher.


5.7. Model 7: Higher-order types of value

Schwartz (1992, 1994) proposed that four sets of values form higher-order value

types: openness to change—joining stimulation and self-direction values; conserva-

tion—joining security, conformity, and tradition values; self-enhancement—joiningpower and achievement values; and self-transcendence—joining universalism and be-

nevolence values. The 1992 chapter treated the higher-order types as descriptive.

Some later publications, however, treated them as though the values within each

are substantively more related to one another than they are to the adjacent values

from other higher-order types. If this is so, the correlations between the values within

each higher-order type should be greater than their correlations with the adjacent

values in another higher-order type.

To generate a reference matrix of expected correlations to reproduce this model,we increased the correlations among values within the same higher-order type by .05,

from .68 to .73 (e.g., self-direction/stimulation).6 Correlations between adjacent pairs

of values from different higher-order types were left at .68 (e.g., power/security). Ac-

cording to the theory, hedonism shares elements with both openness and self-en-

hancement. To model this, we increased correlations of hedonism with the values

in these higher-order types by .025, half the increase between the values within each

higher-order type. This yielded expected correlations of hedonism with achievement

and stimulation of .705, and with self-direction and power of .505.Row seven in Table 4 presents the fit statistics for this model. The RMSEA index

is slightly higher than the recommended cutoff criterion in set I and the criterion is

met in set II. The SRMR criterion is met in both sets of samples. Thus, a quasi-cir-

cumplex structure that treats the higher-order types as more than merely descriptive

provides a reasonable fit to the empirical data. Comparing this model (7) to the mod-

ified quasi-circumplex model (3) that assumes no greater association among values

within the same higher-order type reveals no improvement of fit. RMSEA is un-

changed and SRMR decreases slightly in sample set I but increases slightly in sampleset II. However, the AIC values are larger for model 7 than for model 3 in both sam-

ple sets (set I, 170.2; set II, 138.4). This suggests that model 3 fits the observed data

better. The greater simplicity and conceptual elegance of model 3, together with the

statistics, support retaining the theory of values as forming a motivational contin-

uum that it represents rather than accepting this refinement.

5.8. Model 8: Freely estimating hedonism correlations

The modified quasi-circumplex model (3) constrained hedonism to correlate

equally with its adjacent values, achievement and stimulation. This assumed that

the motivation underlying hedonism is as much self-enhancement as openness. By

freeing the correlations of hedonism with achievement and stimulation, model 8

6 The correlation between tradition and conformity was not increased further because it had already

been increased to .88 in model 3.


evaluated this assumption. This and the subsequent models are nested, so we use Dv2

to estimate the significance of changes.

The fit statistics in row eight of Table 4 all show some improvement over model 3.

Dv2 values decreased significantly in both sample sets (Dv2 ¼ 625:2 and 396.3, 2df,

p < :001). The freely estimated correlations of hedonism in sets I and II, respectively,were .39 and .42 with achievement and .63 and .64 with stimulation. This indicates

that hedonism is closer to openness, though it also relates to self-enhancement.

Given the significant improvement in fit, we compare the remaining models with

model 8.

5.9. Model 9: Nature and social concern subtypes within universalism

This model tests the existence of two potential subtypes of universalism proposedin the literature: social concern—including the items equality, world at peace, and

social justice; and nature—including the items unity with nature, protecting the en-

vironment, and world of beauty. The existence of these subtypes implies that each

consists of items that correlate more highly with one another than expected from

their relation to the latent universalism factor. To model this pattern, we permitted

correlated errors between the items in each subtype. We then tested whether this

model fits the data better than the model with no correlated errors.

Row nine in Table 4 presents the fit statistics for this model. Compared to model8, RMSEA improves in both sets of samples and SRMR improves in set I. More-

over, v2 values are significantly lower in both sample sets (Dv2 ¼ 1577 and 1292.4,

7df, p < :001). This test supports the existence of social concern and nature subtypes

within universalism values.

5.10. Model 10: Personal and group subtypes within security

This model tests the existence of two potential subtypes of security: personal se-curity—including the items family security, reciprocation of favors, and clean; and

group security or security of the wider collectivity—including the items social order

and national security. Following the same procedure as in model 9, we modeled this

pattern by permitting correlated errors between the items in each subtype.

Row 10 in Table 4 presents the fit statistics for this model. Compared to model 9,

RMSEA is unchanged in both sets of samples, while SRMR improves slightly only

in set I. However, v2 values are significantly lower in both sample sets (Dv2 ¼ 313:7and 298.9, 4df, p < :001), indicating improved fit. These findings support, albeitweakly, discriminating the personal and group subtypes within security values.

5.11. Loadings of items on factors in the final model

Table 5 provides the loading patterns of items on the latent factors in the final

model (10) for both data sets. Not only are all loadings significant (p < :001), butall are substantial (>.40), with only one exception. �Accepting one�s portion in life�loads .26 on the tradition value factor in set I, though it too is significant

le 5

ding pattern of items on latent factors for final model (10)

em Universal-

ism

Benevo-

lence

Tradition Confor-

mity

Security Power Achieve-

ment

Hedonism Stimula-

tion

Self-

direction

SI SII SI S II SI SII SI SII SI SII SI SII SI SII SI SII SI SII SI SII

quality .43 .46

orld at peace .49 .51

nity with

nature

.40 .47

isdom .45 .41

orld of beauty .48 .54

cial justice .58 .59

roadminded .59 .43

otecting the

environment

.54 .54

oyal .57 .49

onest .66 .58

elpful .62 .63

esponsible .59 .52

orgiving .55 .49

espectful .49 .53

oderate .51 .44

umble .61 .50

ccepting one�sportion in life

.26 .30

evout .53 .48

liteness .66 .64

lf-discipline .57 .57

onoring

parents and

elders

.73 .66

248

S.H

.Schwartz,


rchin

Perso

nality

38(2004)230–255

Tab

Loa

It

E

W

U

W

W

So

B

Pr

L

H

H

R

F

R

M

H

A

D

Po

Se

H

Obedient .61 .57

Social order .53 .52

National

security

.62 .59

Reciprocation of

favors

.53 .45

Family security .48 .45

Clean .67 .64

Social power

Wealth

Authority

Preserving

public image

Ambitious .62 .56

Influential .57 .57

Capable .55 .50

Successful .69 .63

Pleasure .69 .66

Enjoying life .71 .66

Self-indulgent .60 .57

Exciting life .66 .69

Varied life .62 .69

Daring .52 .53

Freedom .54 .53

Creativity .47 .53

Independent .52 .34

Choosing own

goals

.57 .45

Curious .46 .50

Note. SI is sample set I; SII is sample set II.

S.H

.Schwartz,


rchin

Perso

nality

38(2004)230–255

249

.54 .54

.59 .58

.62 .65

.54 .57


p < :001. Furthermore, loadings are quite similar in the two data sets, differing by .08

or less for 43 items. Only in three cases, �broadminded�, �independent,� and �humble,�is there a difference in loadings of more than .10 between the two data sets.

6. Discussion

The current analyses are the first formal, quantitative assessment of the theory of

the structure of basic human values (Schwartz, 1992). Analyses in two independent

sets of 23 samples from 27 countries yielded very similar results. We can therefore

have considerable confidence in the conclusions these results suggest. The analyses

support the ‘‘definitive,’’ modified quasi-circumplex version of the theory and some

proposed refinements, but reject others.

6.1. The basic value structure

The discrimination of items into 10 distinct values, each defined by its motiva-

tional content, is confirmed. Each of the 46 items correlates significantly

(p < :001) with its a priori latent value factor. The SRMR statistic, which is espe-

cially sensitive to misspecified factor loadings, shows an excellent fit. Moreover,

had correlations with multiple factors been permitted, no item would have correlatedas highly with any other factor.7

The poor fit of the model of 10 orthogonal factors confirms that the 10 values are

not independent. The quasi-circumplex structure of relations among the 10 values

(model 2), proposed as a preliminary theory (Schwartz, 1992), provides a reasonable

fit to the data. Subjective judgments of the SSA plots of relations among values in 40

samples had led Schwartz (1992) to reject the simple quasi-circumplex structure. In-

stead, he proposed a modified quasi-circumplex, with tradition values peripheral to

conformity values (model 3). The current analyses support this change. Substantialimprovements in AIC and in the RMSEA and SRMR indexes in both sets of samples

provide a statistical justification for adopting the modified quasi-circumplex as the

‘‘definitive’’ model for the theory of value structure.

6.2. Proposed model refinements

6.2.1. Tradition and conformity

Because tradition and conformity values share the same broad motivationalgoal, we evaluated a simpler model that combined them into one (model 4). Com-

pared with the modified quasi-circumplex, the fit indexes are virtually the same for

this model. The AIC values indicate a better fit for model 3 in sample set I but a

better fit for model 4 in sample set II. Thus, the CFA results give no definitive an-

swer whether to retain the distinction between tradition and conformity values. A

decision therefore depends on the fruitfulness of this distinction. Because tradition

7 The relevant modification indexes are available from the authors.


and conformity values are adjacent in the value structure, their associations with

other variables should be quite similar. This is indeed the most common finding.

However, numerous differences in the associations of these two values indicate that

it is fruitful to treat them as distinct. We cite a subset of the varied findings that

support the distinction.Tradition and conformity values have significantly different correlations with

three of the ‘‘Big 5’’ traits—agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness

(Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002), with views of how much the govern-

ment is doing about human rights (Spini & Doise, 1998), and with indicators of

religiosity, across religions and nations (e.g., Schwartz & Huismans, 1995). Tradi-

tion values discriminate strongly among voters for different political parties in

many nations, whereas conformity values do not (Barnea, 2003; Barnea & Sch-

wartz, 1998). Parent–child value similarity is high for tradition values, among bothadolescents and young adults, but low for conformity values (Boehnke, 2001; Kna-

fo & Schwartz, 2002). Finally, in samples from 61 nations, conformity values tend

to be moderately important (typically 5th or 6th in the hierarchy of 10 values),

whereas tradition values are significantly less important (typically 8th or 9th; Sch-

wartz & Bardi, 2001).

6.3. Power and achievement

Like tradition and conformity, power and achievement differ on characteristics

that might lead to a central versus peripheral order. The peripheral location of power

(model 5) is rejected by the analyses. It yields poorer fit indexes than the modified

quasi-circumplex in both sets of samples. The simpler model that combines power

and achievement into a single value (model 6) is also rejected.

6.4. Higher-order value types

The most significant, applied modification of the value structure has been to use

only the four higher-order value types—openness to change, conservation, self-en-

hancement, and self-transcendence types—as predictors. Are these particular high-

er-order types more justified than other possible groupings of the 10 values? Use

of these particular types implies that the values that constitute each are substantively

closer to one another than to the other values to which they are adjacent in the value

circle (model 7). Schwartz (1992, 1994) attributed no substantive significance to the

particular higher-order types. He grouped the 10 values only to describe the valuestructure more simply. He maintained that the values form a motivational contin-

uum. If the 10 values do form a continuum, other groupings of adjacent values

(e.g., universalism with self-direction) would be equally legitimate for purposes of

simplifying.

The CFA analyses reveal that increasing intercorrelations among values within

higher-order types provides no improvement in fit. This supports the assumption

that the values do indeed form a motivational continuum. The continuum idea

implies that the array of value items can be partitioned into as many or as few


categories as is optimal for a researcher�s purposes. Higher-order types can be

formed, but alternative combinations of adjacent values into higher-order types

are as legitimate as the previously designated higher-order types.

Universalism and self-direction, for example, can form a higher order ‘‘intellec-

tual openness’’ type, and power and security an ‘‘uncertainty control’’ type. Thesehigher-order types predict a classic liberal vs. conservative orientation in politics,

whereas the previously specified higher-order types do not (Barnea, 2003). Benev-

olence, tradition, and conformity, for example, can form a ‘‘conventional proso-

cial’’ type that predicts the agreeableness trait of the Five Factor Model more

strongly than either the previously specified self-transcendence or conservation

higher-order types (data from Roccas et al., 2002). In sum, the support for a mo-

tivational continuum of values gives researchers the freedom and flexibility to

choose higher-order combinations of adjacent values particularly suited to the top-ics they study.

6.5. Hedonism

Hedonism values share with power and achievement values their emphasis on the

interests of self. They share with stimulation and self-direction their emphasis on

openness to change. The value theory does not specify which emphasis is stronger.

Freeing the correlations of hedonism with its adjacent values (model 8) addressedthis issue. A significant improvement in fit indexes in both sets of samples indicates

that hedonism is not equally close to self-enhancement and openness. Although it

correlates significantly with both, it is clearly closer to openness. This suggests that,

for most people, hedonism values focus more on freely experiencing pleasure and less

on pursuing pleasure competitively.

6.6. Universalism and security subtypes

The motivational goal of universalism values is to understand, appreciate, and

protect the welfare of all people and nature. The literature suggested that this broad

value includes two separable subtypes, social concern and nature. Allowing corre-

lated errors among the items in each subtype (model 9) significantly improves fit in-

dexes in both sample sets. This supports the division of universalism into subtypes.

The motivational goal of security values is safety, harmony, and stability of society,

relationships, and self. Schwartz (1992) suggested that this value too might include

separable subtypes, one focused more on self and the other on groups and society.Allowing correlated errors among the items in these subtypes (model 10) also im-

proves the fit indexes in both sample sets.

We did not test the possibility of treating the subtypes of universalism and of se-

curity as distinct values, because such a model has not been proposed in the litera-

ture. For studying particularly relevant issues, however, separate indexes for the

subtypes might be useful. For example, a nature index might be used for environ-

mental issues and a personal security index for personal safety issues (e.g., installing

burglar alarms and other home protection devices).


6.7. Reflections on the theory of value structure

One crucial assumption underlies the theory of value structure: Actions that ex-

press any value have consequences that conflict or are compatible with the pursuit

of other values. The motivational goals of some values (e.g., power and benevolence)are postulated to be inherently antagonistic, the goals of others (e.g., power and

achievement) to be inherently congruent. The total set of antagonistic and congruent

relations among the 10 values gives rise to the modified quasi-circumplex value struc-

ture (Fig. 1). Conflict or antagonism implies negative correlations between values on

opposite sides of the structure. Yet, the correlations between opposing values in the

reference matrixes for the various models ranged only from +.08 to ).07. Does this

contradict the assumption of opposition between conflicting values?

As noted above, some people tend to rate all values relatively high or low, regard-less of content. This biases observed intercorrelations among values upward. Stan-

dardizing each participant�s responses eliminates this bias, though it introduces

other problems.8 Freely estimated correlations among the latent factors for the 10

values, based on the standardized data, provide a rough assessment of the true de-

gree of opposition. The correlations between pairs of values that the theory describes

as antagonistic ranged from ).49 to ).81, averaging ).72. Thus, these data support

the assumption of opposition between conflicting values that is central to the value

theory.Future theorizing about the value structure might consider and test two issues

that our analyses indirectly raised. First, do the 10 values differ in the breadth of

their content? Schwartz (1992) suggested that universalism and security are concep-

tually broad, including subtypes that were confirmed here. Are other values espe-

cially narrow conceptually (e.g., hedonism and stimulation)? The method

employed here could be used to model and test theory-based specifications of differ-

ences in the conceptual breadth of the values. For that purpose, however, it would be

desirable to index each value with an equal number of items.The second issue concerns the central-peripheral distinction found with confor-

mity and tradition values. Do values vary on this general dimension in addition to

the dimension of motivational content? This dimension was interpreted as indicating

variation in the closeness of a value to the self, its involvement in everyday interac-

tion, and its specificity vs. abstractness. Centrality may also signify greater normative

importance (Melech, 2001). The centrality of value items in the space correlates pos-

itively with their importance ratings. Systematic theorizing that considers the loca-

tions of value items on this potential dimension might enrich the value theory andpoint to hypotheses testable with the methods used here.

In conclusion, it is worth noting the overlap between the inferences supported by

different methods. The theory of the structure of values was refined by examining

8 We did not standardize in the main analyses for two reasons. First, this would impose the same

variance on everyone�s responses. But people differ greatly in the degree to which they discriminate among

their values. Hence standardizing would distort responses. Second, standardizing exacerbates problems

with missing data.


subjective judgments of SSA plots in many samples. Such judgments can be mislead-

ing. In this case, however, the key judgments were supported by the statistical tests.

This was so even though the theoretical model makes fine distinctions and the tests

were performed on new data. Studies using multidimensional scaling methods led to

the conclusion that the value structure is robust to respondents� gender, age, or levelof education (Schwartz, 1992, 1994; Struch, Schwartz, & van der Kloot, 2002). The

fact that the CFAs confirm the value structure inferred from earlier visual inspec-

tions increases our confidence in this conclusion. The success of these subjective

judgments demonstrates that visual inspection of spatial representations can reveal

reliable, theoretically meaningful relations among variables. It is most successful

when guided by a clear theory and when replicated in many samples.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Grant No. 94-00063 from the United States–Israel

Binational Science Foundation (BSF) and by a grant from theNational Science Foun-

dation (Israel Academy of Sciences) to the first author, and by Grant I-242-065.04/92

from theGerman-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research andDevelopment to both

authors, and was facilitated by the Leon and Clara Sznajderman Chair of Psychology.

References

Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N.

Petrov, & N. Csaki (Eds.), Second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267–281).

Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.

Barnea, M. (2003). Relations of personal values to political orientations across cultures. Doctoral

Dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

Barnea, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (1998). Values and voting. Political Psychology, 19, 17–40.

Bilsky, W. (1998). Values and motives. Paper presented at the International Research Workshop ‘‘Values:

Psychological Structure, Behavioral Outcomes, and Inter-Generational Transmission.’’ Maale-

Hachamisha, Israel.

Boehnke, K. (2001). Parent-offspring value transmission in a societal context: Suggestions for a utopian

research design with empirical underpinnings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 241–255.

Borg, I., & Shye, S. (1993). Facet theory: The method and its application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Browne, M. W. (1992). Circumplex models for correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 57, 469–497.

Fabrigar, L. R., Visser, P. S., & Browne, M. W. (1997). Conceptual and methodological issues in testing

the circumplex structure of data in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 1, 184–203.

Fontaine, J. R. J. (1999). Cultural bias in Schwartz’ value instrument: An exemplary study on cultural bias in

social psychological and personality questionnaires. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Katholieke

Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.

Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.),

Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258–348). New York: Columbia University Press.

Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a

configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469–506.

Hrubes, D., Ajzen, I., & Daigle, J. (2001). Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An application of

the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences, 23, 165–178.


Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

J€oreskog, K., & S€orbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS.

Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Accounting for parent–child value congruence: perception, acceptance,

and beyond. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, submitted manuscript.

Levy, S. (1985). Lawful roles of facets in social theories. In D. Canter (Ed.), The facet approach to social

research (pp. 59–96). New York: Springer-Verlag.

MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological

research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226.

Melech, G. (2001). Value development in adolescence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Hebrew

University of Jerusalem, Israel.

Plutchik, R., & Conte, H. R. (Eds.). (1997a). Circumplex models of personality and emotions. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Plutchik, R., & Conte, H. R. (1997b). Epilogue: The future of the circumplex. In R. Plutchik, & H. R.

Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models of personality and emotions. Washington, DC: American Psycholog-

ical Association.

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality 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.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic Individual values, work values, and the meaning of

work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 49–71.

Sagiv, L. (1994, July). Cross-cultural differences in the components and meaning of universalism values.

Paper presented at the XII International Conference of the International Association for Cross-

Cultural Psychology, Pamplona, Spain.

Sakamoto, Y., Ishiguro, M., & Kitagawa, G. (1986). Akaike information criterion statistics. Dordrecht,

Netherlands: Reidel.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20

countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New

York: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social

Issues, 50, 19–45.

Schwartz, S. H. (1997). When are universalism values particularistic? Paper presented at the International

Colloquium: Universalism vs. Particularism Toward the 21st Century, Prague, Czech Republic.

Schwartz, S. H. (in press). Basic human values: Their content and structure across countries. In A. Tamayo

& J. Porto (Eds.), Valores e trabalho [Values and work]. Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology., 32, 268–290.

Schwartz, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four Western religions. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88–107.

Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture specifics in the content and structure of values.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92–116.

Schwartz, S. H., Sagiv, L., & Boehnke, K. (2000). Worries and values. Journal of Personality, 68, 309–346.

Spini, D., & Doise, W. (1998). Organizing principles of involvement in human rights and their social

anchoring in value priorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 603–622.

Struch, N., Schwartz, S. H., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2002). Meanings of basic values for women and men:

A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16–28.

Tracey, T. J. G. (1997). RANDALL: A Microsoft FORTRAN program for the randomization test of

hypothesized order relations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 164–168.

Tracey, T. J. G. (2000). Analysis of circumplex models. In H. E. A. Tinsley, & S. D. Brown (Eds.),

Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 641–664). New York:

Academic Press.

evaluating the human values

Documents