Dspace.palermo.edu

Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems Value Priorities and Behavior:
Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems
Shalom Schwartz *
Abstract
A major goal of research on values has been to relate individual differences in value priorities to differences in attitudes, behavior and background variables. Past researchmost commonly adopted one of two approaches. Much research has selected a fewsingle target values whose priorities were postulated to associate with the attitude,behavior and background variable of interest and then examined empirical relationships.
Other research has been more exploratory.It has related lists of values to various othervariables and then discussed the significant associations that emerge. The focus onrelationships with single values make both these approaches insatisfying. My workhas sought to overcome those approaches.It has derived what may be a nearlycomprehensive set of different motivational types of values, recognized across cultures.
Each value type is represented by a number of single values that are combined to formrelatively reliable indexes of values priorities. Value systems can be treated as integratedwholes in their relations with behaviors and, thereby, encourages researches to abandomthe prevailing single-values approaches.
Key words: Values. Behavior. Values Systems.
Prioridad de Valores y Comportamiento: La Aplicación de una
Propuesta Teórica acerca de un Sistema Integrado de Valores
Uno de los objetivos centrales de las investigaciones sobre valores ha sido el estudio de las relaciones entre las diferencias individuales en actitudes, comportamientosy marcos o contextos de referencia. Las investigaciones del pasado han adoptado unode los siguientes enfoques. Muchos estudios seleccionaron un conjunto de priridadesentre valores singulares las que se postularon en asociocion con variables específicas * The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The research reported here was supported by grant 187/92 from the Basic Research Foundation (Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities) and by a grantfrom the Israel Foundations Trustees, and by the Leon and Clara Sznajderman Chair in Psychology.
It was published in 1996 by Lawrence Erlbaum. The Psychology of Values. The Ontario Symposium.
Volume 8. E-mail: Shalom.Schwartz@mscc.huji.ac.il Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad de interés (actitudes, comportamientos, contexto), y se examinaron las relacionesempíricas existentes. Otras investigaciones han sido más exploratorias. Relacionaronlistas de valores con otras variables, discutiéndose luego las asociaciones significativashalladas. El hecho de focalizarse en relaciones con valores singulares o específicoshace que ambos tipos de enfoques resulten insatisfactorios. Mi trabajo personal haintentado superar estas dificultades. He podido verificar que cabe referirse a un conjuntocomprehensivo integrado por diferentes tipos de valores motivacionales, reconocidosen marcos culturales diversos. Cada tipo de valor está representado por un número devalores singulares que, combinados. conforman índices relativamente confiables deprioridades.
Los sistemas de valores pueden ser analizados, en sus relaciones con los comportamientos, en tanto totalidades o conjuntos, hecho que debe alentar a que losinvestigadores dejen de lado los estudios centrados en valores aislados.
Palabras claves: valores. Comportamientos. Sistemas de valores.
Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems A major goal of research on values has been to relate individual differences in value priorities to differences in attitudes, behavior, and background variables. Past researchmost commonly adopted one of two approaches. Much research has selected a fewsingle target values whose priorities were postulated to associate with the attitude,behavior, or background variable of interest and then examined empirical relationships(e.g., obedience and social class—Alwin, 1984; world at peace and pacifism—Mayton& Furnham, 1994; equality and civil rights—Rokeach, 1973). Other research has beenmore exploratory. It has related lists of values to various other variables and thendiscussed the significant associations that emerged (e.g., with personality inventories—Furnham, 1984; with race, nationality, and age—Rokeach, 1973; with quality of teaching—Greenstein, 1976). The associations with single values that emerge can, of course,almost always be interpreted as making sense, post hoc.
The focus on relationships with single values makes both these approaches unsatisfying. It leads to a piecemeal accumulation of bits of information about valuesthat is not conducive to the construction of coherent theories. Three noteworthyproblems beset these approaches. First, the reliability of any single value is quite low.
Hence chance may play a substantial role in the emergence or nonemergence ofsignificant associations with single values. Second, absent a comprehensive set ofvalues or of a broad theory to guide selection of target values, values that were notincluded in a study may be equally or more meaningfully related to the phenomenon inquestion than those studied (e.g., the almost total absence of power values in theliterature on values and political orientations).
Third, and most important, these single-value approaches ignore the widely shared assumption that attitudes and behavior are guided not by the priority given to a singlevalue but by tradeoffs among competing values that are implicated simultaneously in abehavior or attitude (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992; Tetlock, 1986). Indeed, values mayplay little role in behavior except when there is value conflict—when a behavior hasconsequences promotive of one (or more) value but opposed to others that are alsocherished by the person. It is in the presence of conflict that values are likely to be activated,to enter awareness, and to be used as guiding principles. In the absence of valueconflict, values may draw no attention. Instead, habitual, scripted responses may suffice.
My work has sought to overcome these three problems. It has derived what may be a nearly comprehensive set of different motivational types of values, recognized acrosscultures. Because the value set is nearly comprehensive, it is unlikely that importanttypes of values will be overlooked in analyses of the relations of values to other variables.
Each of these value types is represented by a number of single values that are combinedto form relatively reliable indexes of value priorities. Most importantly, the theoryconceptualizes the set of value types as an integrated system. Consequently, the fullset of value priorities can be related to other variables in an organized, coherent mannerrather than in a piecemeal fashion.
This chapter illustrates how value systems can be treated as integrated wholes in their relations with behavior and, thereby, encourages researchers to abandon the Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad prevailing single-values approaches. For this purpose, it discusses three examples ofthe relations of value priorities with a diverse set of behavioral variables: cooperativebehavior, voting in national elections, and readiness for contact with members of anout-group.
Overview of Theory
Influenced heavily by Rokeach (1973) and Kluckhohn (1951), the theory defines values as desirable, transsituational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guidingprinciples in people’s lives (see Schwartz, 1992, for a fuller elaboration of the theory).
The crucial content aspect that distinguishes among values is the type of motivationalgoal they express. I derived a typology of the different contents of values by reasoningthat values represent, in the form of conscious goals, three universal requirements ofhuman existence: biological needs, requisites of coordinated social interaction, anddemands of group survival and functioning. Groups and individuals represent theserequirements cognitively as specific values about which they communicate in order toexplain, coordinate, and rationalize behavior.
Ten motivationally distinct types of values were derived from the three universal requirements. A conformity type was derived, for example, both from the prerequisite ofsmooth interaction and of group survival—that individuals restrain impulses and inhibitactions that might hurt others. There is substantial, cross-cultural, support for thedistinctiveness of these ten types in research with samples from 41 countries (Schwartz,1992, 1994; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). Table 1.1 lists the value types, each defined interms of its central goal, and followed, in parentheses, by specific single values thatprimarily represent it. A specific value represents a type when actions that express thevalue or lead to its attainment promote the central goal of the type.
TABLE 1.1 Definitions of Motivational Types of Values in Terms of
Their Goals and the Single Values That Represent Them
POWER (PO): Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources. (SocialPower, Authority, Wealth) [Preserving my Public Image, Social Recognition]a ACHIEVEMENT (AC): Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards.
(Successful, Capable, Ambitious, Influential)[Intelligent, Self-Respect] HEDONISM (HE): Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. (Pleasure, Enjoying Life) STIMULATION (ST): Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. (Daring, a Varied Life, an Exciting Life) SELF-DIRECTION (SO): Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring. (Creativity,Freedom, Independent, Curious, Choosing own Goals) [Self-Respect] Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems UNIVERSALISM (UN): Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of allpeople and for nature. (Broadminded, Wisdom, Social Justice, Equality, a World at Peace, a World ofBeauty, Unity with Nature, Protecting the Environment) BENEVOLENCE (BE): Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is infrequent personal contact. (Helpful, Honest, Forgiving, Loyal, Responsible) [True Friendship, Mature Love] TRADITION (TR): Respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional cultureor religion provide the self. (Humble, Accepting my Portion in Life, Devout, Respect for Tradition,Moderate) CONFORMITY (CO): Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others andviolate social expectations or norms. (Politeness, Obedient, Self-Discipline, Honoring Parents and Elders) SECURITY (SE): Safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. (Family Security,National Security, Social Order, Clean, Reciprocation of Favors) [Sense of Belonging, Healthy] Note. a. Values in brackets are not used in computing the standard indexes for value types becausetheir meanings are not consistent across samples and cultures (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). For example,self-respect is found almost equally frequently with achievement and with achievement values.
Additional values included to measure a possible spirituality value type that was not found were: aSpiritual Life, Meaning in Life, Inner Harmony, Detachment.
In addition to propositions regarding the content of values, the theory specifies dynamic relations among the types of values. Actions taken in pursuit of each type ofvalues have psychological, practical, and social consequences that may conflict withor may be compatible with the pursuit of other value types. The total pattern of relationsof value conflict and compatibility among value priorities gives rise to a circular structureof value systems. This structure, has also received substantial support in cross-culturalresearch (Schwartz, 1992, 1994; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995).1 Competing value types emanatein opposing directions from the center; complementary types are in close proximitygoing around the circle.
The nature of the compatibilities among value types is clarified by noting the shared motivational orientations of the adjacent value types. Viewed in terms of these sharedorientations, the adjacent types form a motivational continuum around the circularvalue structure.
Power and achievement both emphasize social superiority and esteem.
Achievement and hedonism both express self-centeredness.
Hedonism and stimulation both entail a desire for affectively pleasant arousal.
1. The near universality of the structure of relations among value types indicates that the meaning of each type is similar in the vast majority of samples. However, the importance of the ten valuetypes varies substantially across samples. It is the similarity of meaning that makes it possible tointerpret the differences in value importance.
Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad Stimulation and self-direction both involve intrinsic motivation for mastery and Self-direction and universalism both express reliance upon one’s own judgment and comfort with the diversity of existence.
Universalism and benevolence both entail concern for enhancement of other and Benevolence and tradition/conformity all promote devotion to one’s in-group.
Tradition/conformity and security all emphasize conservation of order and harmony Security and power both stress avoiding or overcoming the threat of uncertainties by controlling relationships and resources.
In contrast, the motivational goals of the value types in opposing positions around the circle cannot easily be pursued at the same time. For example, the pursuit ofachievement values may conflict with the pursuit of benevolence values: Seekingpersonal success for oneself is likely to obstruct actions aimed at enhancing the welfareof others who need one’s help.
Two major value conflicts that structure value systems have been found in over 95% of samples I have studied in 41 countries (Schwartz, 1994). This enablesus to conceptualize the total structure of value systems as organized on two basicdimensions. Each is a polar opposition between two higher order value types.
One dimension opposes Openness to Change (combining the self-direction and stimulation value types) to Conservation (combining security, conformity, and tradition).
This dimension reflects a conflict between emphases on own independent thought andaction and favoring change versus submissive self-restriction, preservation of traditionalpractices, and protection of stability. The second dimension opposes Self-Transcendence(combining benevolence and universalism) to Self-Enhancement (combining powerand achievement). This dimension reflects a conflict between acceptance of others asequals and concern for their welfare versus pursuit of one’s own relative success anddominance over others. Hedonism shares elements of both Openness and Self-Enhancement.
This view of value systems as integrated structures facilitates the generation of systematic, coherent hypotheses regarding the relations of the full set of value prioritiesto other variables (e.g., behaviors). It also facilitates interpretation of the observedrelations of sets of values to other variables in a comprehensive manner. Two statementssummarize the implications of the interrelatedness of value priorities for generatinghypotheses and interpreting findings: 1. Any outside variable tends to be associated similarly with value types that are 2. Associations with any outside variable decrease monotonically as one moves around the circular structure of value types in both directions from the mostpositively associated value type to the least positively associated value type(Schwartz, 1992).
Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems Statement one implies that the associations for value types that are adjacent in the value structure may not differ significantly from one another, unless the sample size islarge. Statement two implies that order of these associations is, nonetheless, preciselypredicted. Although the order of the value types is set by the theory, it is not necessarilythe case that the types most and least positively associated with an outside variable arethose in exactly opposing positions in Fig.1.1. As illustrated in study three below, this isbecause the specific characteristics of the behavior in question make particular motivationalgoals more or less relevant to a decision. I now apply these ideas to explain behavior.
Interpersonal Cooperation
Single behaviors are influenced by a large variety of factors specific to the situation in which they occur. Hence it is difficult to predict single behaviors from a transsituationalvariable like values. Nonetheless, it should be possible to relate value prioritiessystematically to a single behavior if the setting is controlled in a manner that reducesrandom variation and eliminates overwhelming situational influences. This allowsindividual differences in motivation to have a major impact. Liron Natan, Gary Bornstein,and I chose cooperation in an experimental game as a likely behavioral variable (Natan,1993). Such games are constructed to tap behaviors that express relatively puremotivations straightforwardly.
Ninety Hebrew University students (45 male, 45 female), recruited for a decision- making experiment, participated in small groups. They first completed a 56-item valuesurvey (Schwartz, 1992) in which they rated the importance of each value “as a guidingprinciple in my life” on a 9-point scale ranging from 7 (of supreme importance) to 0 (notimportant) to -1 (opposed to my values). Indexes of the importance of each value typewere computed by averaging the importance ratings of the values representative of thattype (see Table 1.1).
Each participant then read that, for this task, he or she was paired with another student from their group, whose identity was not revealed. Participants were eachgiven the matrix in Table 1.2, without the labels “cooperation, noncooperation,competition, and individualism.” This matrix was adapted from games like thedecomposed prisoner’s dilemma in order to measure cooperation versus noncooperation(Messick & McClintock, 1968; Pruit, 1967).
TABLE 1.2 Matrix of Allocation Choices in Cooperation Experiment
Cooperation
Noncooperation
Allocation to:
Competition
Individualism
Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad Participants were asked to choose one of the three alternatives for allocating money between self and a member of their group. They learned that each person would receivethe amount of money he or she allocated to self plus the amount their partner allocatedto him or her. The cooperative choice entailed taking 2.5 shekels (about $1) for self andgiving 2 shekels to the other. Compared to the other choices, this meant sacrificing alittle of what one could gain (not taking 3 shekels) and giving the maximum to the other.
The other two choices were both noncooperative, maximizing either one’s absolutegain (individualism) or relative gain (competition).
In order to derive hypotheses, we consider the consequences of each allocation option for attaining or expressing the motivational goal of each of the ten types ofvalues. In a task of allocating resources between self and other, the relevant valuedimension is Self-Enhancement (including power and achievement values) versus Self-Transcendence (including benevolence and universalism values). Analyses of the fitbetween the consequences of cooperative and noncooperative behavior and the goalsof the value types yields the following set of hypotheses: 1. The strongest predictor of failure to cooperate is the importance attributed by the individual to power values. This value type emphasizes competitiveadvantage. Power values legitimize seeking to maximize own gain even at theexpense of others. Achievement values also predict noncooperation becausethey promote self-interest as well. But they are a weaker predictor because obtainingresources through noncooperation would probably be a weak source of socialadmiration, the core goal of achievement, as defined in the values theory. Hedonism alsopredicts noncooperation because cooperation would entail some self-sacrifice inimicalto hedonistic goals.
2. The strongest predictor of cooperation is the importance attributed by the individual to benevolence value, with universalism second. The experimentalsetting probably makes cooperation more an expression of conventional decencyand thoughtfulness than of basic commitment to social justice. Thus it is morerelevant to the goals of benevolence than of universalism values. Conformityalso predicts cooperation because cooperation is the normative, conventionalbehavior in society.
3. Self-direction, stimulation, security, and tradition are all less relevant to this decision, so we expect correlations near zero for them.
These hypotheses can be viewed as predicting the correlations with cooperation of ten separate value types—three negative correlations (hypothesis 1), threepositive (hypothesis 2), and four near zero (null hypothesis 3). If, however, thestructure of values is considered as an integrated whole, the predicted correlationswith cooperation form a systematic pattern that reflects the structure of dynamicrelations among the value types.
Specifically, the predicted pattern of correlations shows the two earlier noted characteristics regarding the associations of the system of value priorities with anyoutside variable: Cooperation is similarly related with value types that are adjacent in Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems the value structure and its associations decrease monotonically as one moves aroundthe circular structure of value types in both directions from the most positively associatedvalue type (benevolence) to the least positively associated value type (power).
Unfolding the value structure circle yields an integrated prediction of values- cooperation correlations with a sinusoidal shape. The observed point-biserialcorrelations between cooperation (scored 0-1) and the importance attributed to eachvalue type are shown in Fig. 1.2.2 The hypotheses were largely confirmed. Benevolencewas most positively correlated and power most negatively. More important, the orderof the correlations followed the order around the value circle from benevolence topower. The fact that self-direction, stimulation, security, and tradition had correlationsnear zero leads to more than merely accepting the null hypothesis in this context. Itconveys information about the systematic relationship of the whole system of valuesto cooperation.
FIG. 1.2. Point-biserial correlations of value priorities with cooperation
versus noncooperation
Correlation
Value Types
2. Correlations are partialled for each person’s mean response to all 56 values, in order to control for differential use of the response scale (see Schwartz, 1992).
Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad The six value types hypothesized to be relevant to cooperation in this setting had a multiple correlation of .53 with the dichotomous behavioral variable. They thusaccounted for 28% of its variance, a very respectable proportion for a single behavior.
Although the curve relating value priorities with cooperation is sinusoidal, it is not symmetrical. For example, power is much more negatively related to cooperationthan is security, which is adjacent to it. This illustrates the fact that the theory ofvalue structure provides a baseline only for the order of associations. More precisehypotheses about differences in the absolute strength of associations requireanalyses of the specific relevance of each value type to the behavior in question.
The brief explications of the hypotheses presented earlier suggested that poweris much more relevant to cooperation than is security.
Another view of the data further clarifies the joint impact of power and benevolence—the two value types that were postulated to be most relevant tocooperation, to have the strongest influence, and to operate in opposing directions.
We split the sample at the median on each of these value types and compared theproportion who cooperated in the four subsamples formed by the 2 X 2 cross-classification. Table 1.3 shows that cooperation was twice as frequent among thosewho attributed high importance to benevolence and low importance to power values(87%) than in any of the other subsamples (35%-43%). That is, a commitment tovalues that promote cooperation (benevolence), in the absence of conflict with acommitment to values opposed to cooperation (power), was necessary to elicit ahigh level of cooperation.
TABLE 1.3 Proportion of Cooperation as a Function of the
Importance of Benevolence and Power Values
BENEVOLENCE
___________________________________________________
The next example of how value systems relate, as integrated wholes, to behavior takes us outside the laboratory to the study of voting behavior. Voting is the outcomeof a complex of causes, one of which might be the person’s value priorities.
Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems Voting Behavior
Political psychologists and political scientists have often downgraded the importance of value priorities as predictors of voting (e.g., Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes,1960; see Sears, 1987). No doubt, other variables such as group membership, specialinterests, and the character of the candidates are influential (Kinder & Sears, 1985).
But parties do convey broad ideological messages that are not entirely obscureand confusing; and the public has some understanding of these messages(Himmelweit, Humphreys, Jaeger, & Katz, 1981). Thus people can form an impressionof possible consequences of voting for one party rather than another for theattainment of their values. By identifying the stands of parties on basic ideologicaldimensions, it should therefore be possible to specify some systematic, predictiverelations of values to voting.
Students of politics (e.g., Himmelweit et al., 1981; Janda, 1980; Lipset & Rokkan, 1967; Seliger, 1975) have identified two major dimensions of political ideology on whichparties in various countries are differentiated. One dimension is concerned with issuesof civil liberties, law, and order, and the other with economic issues. We refer to theseas classical liberalism and economic egalitarianism, respectively. In Israel, where thisstudy was conducted, the first dimension, classical liberalism, is critical for discriminatingamong parties, the second of relatively little importance (Arian, 1989; Arian & Shamir,1990). We therefore focus on the classical liberalism dimension.
On this dimension, parties differ in their emphases on individual freedoms, minority rights, readiness for social change, and in their views on whether government shouldgive primacy to its role as the guardian of civil rights or as the protector of societyagainst the threat of deviant behavior from within or enemies from without. Incontemporary Israel, the problems of security and the Arab-Israeli conflict make thisdimension especially salient.
Relations between religion and state constitute a subdimension of liberalism in Israel (Liebman & Don-Yehiya, 1984). Many religious citizens wish to ground allaspects of public life in Israeli society in Jewish religious law. Other citizensoppose this religious conception of the Israeli state. Ideologically, opposition tothe penetration of religion into civil law is based in commitment to individualfreedoms, hence the link to liberalism. Support for religious penetration into thestate emphasizes conformity to religious norms in order to preserve a sacred socialorder, even at the expense of individual freedoms—a nonliberal position.
Experts were asked to rate Israeli parties on each of the dimensions of political ideology, as they presumably are seen by the public. Ratings of the parties differedlittle on the economic egalitarianism dimension. They differed substantially onboth the classical liberalism and state/religion dimensions. Moreover, ratings onthe latter two dimensions were very similar, as expected. Therefore, in our study ofvalues and voting, Marina Barnea and I focused on the liberalism dimension,combining ratings of parties on the two related dimensions. This gave special Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad emphasis to the parties’ ideological stances on freedom of expression for individualideas and life styles.
Column 1 of Table 1.4 orders eight Israeli political parties from the one rated most liberal to the one rated least liberal.3 The religious parties rated lowest becausethey favor imposing religious law, thereby limiting individual freedom in all domainsof life. Following each party name is the number of respondents in a representativenational survey done in 1990 who had voted for the party in the 1988 national elections.
TABLE 1.4 Order of Israeli Political Parties on Classical Liberalism
Ideology
According to
According to Group
Judges’ Ratings
Centroids on Value-Based
Discriminant Function 1
In order to derive hypotheses, we consider the consequences of electing parties with various stands on the liberalism dimension for attaining or expressing themotivational goal of each of the ten types of values. Because the parties are primarilydiscriminated according to their views on freedom of individual expression versusmaintenance of order and control of “deviance,” the relevant value dimension forpredicting voting, as shown earlier in Fig. 1.1, is the Openness to Change (includingself-direction and stimulation) versus Conservation (tradition, conformity, security)dimension of values.
3. Religious parties include four different religious parties. Mapam-Ratz includes two parties with similar platforms emphasizing civil liberties. Parties that received fewer than 10 votes in our samplewere not included in the analyses.
Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems The associations with the importance attributed to tradition and to self-direction values should be strongest, because the attainment of their core goals is most affectedby policy differences on individual freedoms versus order and control. The more aparty is seen as emphasizing order and control of deviance at the expense of individualfreedoms, the more likely are those for whom tradition values (humility, devoutness,moderation, accepting ones portion in life, respect for tradition) are of great importanceand self-direction values (creativity, freedom, independence, choosing own goals,curiosity) of little importance to vote for it.
Giving priority to conformity and to security values should also promote support for parties that favor order and control, because both these value types emphasizepreservation of social order and maintenance of harmony in relations. Giving priority tostimulation and hedonism values should promote support for parties that emphasizefreedom, because both value types stress the individual’s pursuit of pleasant arousal innovel ways and according to personal preference. A concern for opportunities to pursuesocial recognition for distinctive individual achievements may also lead those who givepriority to achievement values to support parties that emphasize freedom.
The remaining value types (benevolence, universalism, and power) are more relevant to the economic egalitarianism dimension of political ideology on which Israeli partiesare not strongly discriminated. They are less relevant to the liberalism dimension. Wetherefore did not anticipate that they would be related to party support in Israel.
As with the hypotheses for cooperation, the hypotheses for voting can be viewed as predicting the relations of ten separate value types with behavior. Here too, however,considering the structure of values as an integrated whole reveals that the hypothesizedrelations with liberal voting preferences form a systematic pattern that reflects thestructure of dynamic relations among the value types (cf. Fig. 1.1). Associations withthe priority given to self-direction values are predicted to be most positive, andassociations with the other value types are hypothesized to be progressively lesspositive as one moves in both directions around the circular structure of value types totradition, the most negatively associated value type.
The hypotheses were tested with data from a representative sample of the Jewish population in Israel above age 19, who responded to a survey in their homes during thesummer of 1990. They first completed an abbreviated version of the value survey thatincluded 37, rather than the usual 56, single values selected to represent all ten valuetypes. The values representing benevolence and universalism did not separateempirically in the multidimensional scaling analysis (SSA; Guttman, 1968) on thesedata. They were therefore combined to form a single Self-Transcendence value type.4Because both benevolence and universalism values were expected to have no association 4. This combination corresponds to a higher-order value type found almost universally with the original 56 value survey (Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995).
Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad with voting, this combination posed no problem. At the end of the survey, respondentsindicated the party for which they voted in the most recent national elections (1988).
The 769 respondents who voted for parties with at least ten supporters in the samplewere included in the analyses.
Discriminant function analysis was used to assess the associations of values with voting. We derived the functions that discriminate significantly among supporters ofthe eight political parties, using the nine value types as discriminant variables. Twosignificant discriminant functions were found. The first accounted for 74% of the commonvariance, the second only for 21%.
As noted earlier, the prevailing view of Israeli politics assumes that the liberalism (freedom of expression) ideological dimension is paramount. Hence, if values are relevantto voting, one would expect the first, value-based function to tap variation amongparties essentially on this dimension. To establish if this was so, we examined theordering of the parties on the group centroids of the first function. We compared theorder of the parties on these centroids (Table 1.3, col. 2) with their order on the liberalismdimension based on the a priori, judges’ ratings (Table 1.3, col. 1). As shown in thetable, the centroids ordered the groups in almost exactly the same order as the judges’ratings (Spearman rank correlation .95). Thus this value-based function ordered theparties on their perceived policies toward classical liberalism.5 Because the first function can be interpreted as representing party differences on liberalism ideology, we can test the hypotheses for the specific value types by examiningthe associations of each value type with this function. We ask, do the value typeshypothesized to promote support for parties committed to individual freedoms associatepositively with the function? And, do value types hypothesized to promote support forparties that emphasize order and control associate negatively? And, is the order ofassociations of the nine value types the same as the order predicted from the integratedstructure of value relations? The most accurate measures of the association of discriminant variables (here, value types) with functions are the total structure coefficients (Klecka, 1980). For eachvalue type, the total structure coefficient, indicating its association with function 1, isindicated on the graph in Fig. 1.3.
5. The much weaker second function was largely unipolar and defined mainly by positive associa- tions with achievement, security, conformity, and power values. The group centroids for thisfunction were unrelated to any of the judges’ ratings, suggesting no clear ideological interpretation ofthis weak function.
Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems FIG. 1.3. Total structure coefficients for the association of value priorities
with function 1 for discriminating among party voters
Total Structure -.2
Coefficient
Value Types
The four value types hypothesized to associate positively (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement), and two of the three types hypothesized to associatenegatively (tradition, conformity, but not security) with classical liberalism showedsignificant associations (p < .01) in the predicted direction. No significant associationsemerged for the value types for which none was expected (power and self-transcendence[benevolence plus universalism]).
Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad Most important, as shown by the sinusoid curve, the order of coefficients was almost exactly as predicted by the integrated hypothesis for the whole structure ofvalues (small reversal for Stimulation/Hedonism): Self-direction was most positive, withthe coefficients progressively less positive as one moves around the structural circle(Fig. 1.1) in both directions toward power.6 The relationship between value priorities and party voting is also revealed in the comparison of individuals who voted for the two most extreme groups on the liberalismdimension—Mapam-Ratz and Religious. The mean ratings of the importance of valuetypes for these individuals, as well as for supporters of the two major parties, are shownin Table 1.5.
Self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism values were rated more important by supporters of Mapam-Ratz (high liberalism) than by voters for the Religious parties(low liberalism). Tradition and conformity values were rated more important by votersfor the Religious parties. Voters for the two major parties attributed intermediate levelsof importance to these value types. For these five types, differences between the extremegroups all exceeded .75 standard deviations (p < .0001). For the remaining types,differences were smaller and less systematically related to the order of the parties onclassical liberalism. In keeping with the integrated hypothesis, the size and sign of thedifferences between the extreme groups followed the order of the value types aroundthe structural circle with a deviation of only one place for stimulation.
TABLE 1.5 Mean Ratings of the Importance of Value Types as a
Function of Political Party Preference
Value Types
6. The security situation in Israel probably led to the absence of an association for security.
Regardless of party preference, respondents rated security values much more important than iscommon across nations (unpublished data).
Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems Overall, the findings supported the hypothesized relationships between value priorities and party voting. Using the value-based discriminant functions to classifyvoters as supporters of one of the eight political parties yielded 51% correctclassifications. As calculated by Goodman and Kruskal’s Tau, knowledge of individuals’value priorities permitted a 32% improvement compared with chance classification(Z = 10.24, p < .01). Finally, the order of associations supported our argument thatvalue systems relate as integrated wholes to other variables.
Readiness for Outgroup Social Contact
The final study examines how the value priorities of individuals help to explain their readiness for social contact with members of an outgroup. Rokeach (1973) reported theonly study I know that directly related to this topic. He found that 21 of the 36 singlevalues in his value lists were significantly associated with an index that included bothreadiness for social contact and attitudes toward Blacks. In his post hoc discussion,Rokeach portrayed his findings as consistent with descriptions of prejudiced people,but he offered no framework to organize them. The theory of value contents and structurecan be used to develop an integrated set of hypotheses to relate the comprehensivesystem of value priorities to readiness for outgroup contact.
Lilach Sagiv and I applied the theory to study the readiness of Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs for social contact with one another (Sagiv & Schwartz, 1995). Becausethe meaning of contact is different for dominant and minority groups, it is importantto note that Jews are the dominant group in Israel and Arabs are a minority. Membersof dominant groups are likely to understand contact as entailing acceptance ofminority group members as fully privileged members of their society. In contrast,members of minority groups are likely to understand broad social contact as implyingtheir own integration into the larger society, or even their assimilation. Thesedifferent consequences of contact imply different relations with values. I discussonly the dominant group here.
In order to generate hypotheses, we considered the consequences of contact with members of the Arab minority group for the attainment or expression of the motivationalgoals of the value types by members of the dominant Jewish group. This suggested thefollowing hypotheses: 1. Attributing importance to all three Conservation value types (tradition, conformity, security) correlates negatively with readiness for out-groupcontact. The most negative correlation is for tradition values because contactentails exposure to divergent traditions and customs, threatening those forwhom maintenance of own traditions is important. Moreover, tradition valuescorrelate highly with religiosity (particular among Israeli Jews: Schwartz &Huismans, 1995), and religiosity is related to ethnocentrism (see Wulff, 1991).
The negative correlation for conformity values is because contact withculturally different minorities places one in situations where familiar norms Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad do not apply, making it difficult to maintain smooth relations and to avoidviolating expectations. The negative correlation for security values is becauseoutgroup members may disrupt the prevailing social order, especially ifthey feel oppressed and demand change.
2. Attributing importance to both Openness to Change value types (self- direction and stimulation) correlates positively with readiness for outgroupcontact. The positive correlation for self-direction values is strong becauseintergroup contact provides exposure to new and different ways of life andopportunities to learn about and explore them. Moreover, people whoemphasize self-direction values are more likely to reject negative stereotypesof outgroups because they prefer to make independent judgments basedon their own experience. A positive correlation is expected for stimulationvalues because contact with outgroups provides opportunities for noveltyand excitement. But, in the context of conflict between Jews and Arabs, thecorrelation should be weakened because outgroup contact may threatenanother goal of stimulation values—enjoyable arousal.
3. Attributing importance to both Self-Transcendence value types (benevolence and universalism) correlates positively with readiness forcontact. The most positive correlation among all ten value types is foruniversalism values because they emphasize understanding, accepting, andshowing concern for the welfare of all human beings. This value type, with itsgoal of tolerance and acceptance even of those with different ideas and lifestyles, is most relevant to outgroup contact. A positive correlation is expectedfor benevolence values because they also emphasize concern for others. Butbenevolence values are mainly expressed in everyday relations with close others,not with outgroups. This should weaken the correlation, especially because theJewish-Arab conflict makes group boundaries salient.
4. We expected correlations near zero for the Self-Enhancement value types (power and achievement) and for hedonism. Social contact is relevant to power valuesboth positively and negatively. Contact may provide members of a dominantgroup opportunities to exercise power and experience superiority overminorities of inferior status. But accepting minorities into society mayendanger the current dominance hierarchy, especially if the minority isstruggling to gain status. The correlation will depend on the relative strengthof these opposing processes. If they are balanced, it may be near zero.
Social contact with Arabs is not especially relevant to attaining the goals ofachievement values, hence no correlation is expected. This is because, inIsrael, the Arab minority has little impact in the occupational and educationalarenas where members of dominant group compete for success andrecognition (Chemansky, Guvran, & Hmaisi, 1984; Graham-Brown, 1984).
Because outgroup contact is not relevant to the goals of hedonism, nocorrelation is expected.
Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems When the findings reported by Rokeach (1973) are classified according to our value types, the directions of the correlations are compatible with these hypotheses,with the exception of hedonism. This set of hypotheses also forms an integratedwhole that reflects the structure of relations among value types. The predictedcorrelations are progressively less positive as one moves in both directions aroundthe circle from universalism (most positive) to tradition (most negative) values.
The order of associations implied by the set of hypotheses forms the usual sinusoid curve, but this curve is not symmetrical. For example, an especially sharp drop incorrelations is expected from universalism to benevolence, despite the fact that theseare adjacent types in the structural circle. This reflects the special relevance to thebehavior of outgroup social contact of tolerance for all (universalism) in contrast toconcern for one’s ingroup (benevolence).
The types predicted to have the most and the least positive associations with readiness for outgroup social contact are not located in polar opposition in thetheoretical structure of value relations. This reflects the most critical motivationalissue related to this behavior in this setting—tolerance versus intolerance. Onthis issue, universalism and tradition are the most opposed. The prototypicalopposition of universalism is with power. The issue central to this opposition, protectingthe interests of others (universalism) versus exploiting them for personal advantage(power), is less critically relevant here.
Jewish public school teachers (n = 151), in Grades 6 through 10, from schools around the country, provided the data to test these hypotheses. They first completedthe 56-item value survey. Subsequently, they indicated their readiness, on a 5-pointwillingness scale, for 7 types of contact with Israeli Arabs: (1) occasional superficialsocial contact; (2) business or trade relations; (3) living in the same neighborhood; (4)inviting as a guest to your home; (5) having as a close friend; (6) having as a next-doorneighbor; (7) having your children play together. Responses to these items were summedto form an overall index (alpha = .95).
The correlations between value priorities and readiness for social contact are shown in Fig. 1.4.7 The types of values hypothesized to have negative correlations(tradition, conformity, security), and those hypothesized to have positivecorrelations (universalism and self-direction), were correlated as expected (p < .01). Thecorrelations for the two types hypothesized to have weaker positive correlations(benevolence and stimulation) were in the expected direction, but not reliablydifferent from zero. Finally, as hypothesized, the correlation for universalism wasmost positive and that for tradition most negative.
7. Differential use of the response scale for ails was controlled by standardizing value ratings within Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad FIG. 1.4. Correlations of the value priorities of Israeli Jewish teachers
with their readiness for social contact with Israeli Arabs
Correlation
Value Types
The order of correlations matched that specified by the integrated hypothesis, as described by a sinusoid curve, with only a slight deviation for achievement. As expected,given their order in the integrated hypothesis, the correlations for power, achievement,and hedonism were close to zero. Together, the seven value types hypothesized toaffect readiness for outgroup social contact explained a substantial 39% of the variancein the readiness of Israeli Jewish teachers for contact with Arabs.
Another way to look at these data is to consider the combined effects on readiness for outgroup social contact of the two value types hypothesized to be most relevantand most in conflict in this setting—universalism and tradition. for this purpose, wesplit the sample at the median on each of these value types. We then compared thereadiness for contact of the four subsamples formed by the 2 (universalism: high/low)X 2 (tradition: high/low) cross-classification. The two-way analysis of variance yieldedsignificant main effects for universalism and tradition (F (1,130df) = 21.57 and 15.65,respectively, p <.001), but no interaction. Table 1.6 shows the means for the foursubsamples.
Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems TABLE 1.6 Mean Readiness of Israeli Jews for Outgroup Contact
With Israeli Arabs as a Function of the Importance of
Universalism and Tradition Values
TRADITION
UNIVERSALISM
___________________________________________ Note. a. Response scale: 1 = Not at all willing; 5 = Definitely willing The high universalism-low tradition subsample exhibited substantially more readiness for outgroup contact than the low universalism-high tradition subsample (M= 3.98 vs. 2.31). The other two subsamples, whose members were expected to experiencevalue conflict in the face of outgroup contact, showed intermediate levels of readiness.
Whereas universalism and tradition values are strongly opposed with regard to themotivation of critical relevance in this setting, they are relatively independent withregard to the broader motivations they express, as described in Table 1.1 and illustratedgraphically in Fig. 1.1. This independence is reflected in the almost equal numbers ofrespondents found in each of the four subsamples in Table 1.6.
Here, I cannot fully discuss the hypotheses and results of parallel studies of the readiness of Christian Arab and Muslim Arab minority groups for social contact withJews. However, two aspects of these studies are worth mentioning because they highlightpoints that are crucial when relating value systems to behavior. First, four of the ninehypotheses that we generated for the minority groups differed from those generated forthe Jewish group. Second, the set of hypotheses for the minority groups did not followthe usual order around the value circle.
These differences point to the necessity of analyzing the specific context in which values are expressed or pursued in order to make sense of value-behavior relations. Thedifferences in the hypotheses reflected the different significance of contact for minorityand dominant groups, as integration or as assimilation into the larger society, or asacceptance of minorities as full citizens. Clearly, the different meanings of social contactaffect its implications for value expression. Moreover, the deviations of the pattern ofpredicted correlations suggest that the sociopolitical context of Arab minorities inIsrael has modified the usual reinforcement contingencies that link individual valueattainment to action in social life. When the order of associations does not correspond Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad to the order implied by the theory of the structure of value relations, it is likely that the“psycho-logic” of conflicts and compatibilities among values is being distorted byexternally imposed social constraints.
For example, for the Israeli Muslim Arab minority, in contrast to the dominant Jewish group, outgroup social contact is relevant to the goal of achievement values—successaccording to prevailing social standards. The arena for most social achievement inIsrael, even for minority group members, is the larger societal world of work in whichcontact with outgroup members is required. Although minority group members mightwish to pursue economic or academic success within their ingroup, there are fewopportunities to do so. There is no separate Israeli Arab economy and no Arab university.
Hence, in order to demonstrate high levels of competence and success, Arabs arealmost entirely constrained to obtain higher economic and educational positions byactive immersion in the institutions of the larger society (Smooha, 1984).
The foregoing analysis led to the hypothesis that an emphasis on achievement values correlates positively with readiness for outgroup contact among Israeli MuslimArabs. The combination of this hypothesis with an hypothesized positive correlationfor benevolence values violates the order of associations implied by the prototypicalstructure of value relations. Yet, both these hypotheses were confirmed. This observedpattern of associations reflects the unusual organization of social reinforcements towhich a weak minority group that seeks to preserve its uniqueness is exposed.
Conclusions
This chapter began by identifying three problems in past research on the relations of values to other variables: (1) use of unreliable single-item indexes of value importance;(2) use of value lists that fail to cover the full range of motivations expressed in valuesthat are likely to influence behavior; (3) failure to view value systems as integratedwholes with coherent relations to other variables that entail tradeoffs among competingvalue priorities. I conclude by summarizing the responses to these problems that areprovided by the current approach.
The three studies discussed here demonstrate that using priorities for value types rather for than single values permits consistent, theory-based prediction of behavior.
When the analyses reported here for the indexes of value types are performed withsingle values, a much less lucid picture emerges in each study. Of course, many singlevalues do show significant associations with behavior in the directions hypothesizedfor the value types they represent. However, exactly the pattern expected with unreliableindicators is observed: nonsignificant associations in the predicted as well as the reversedirection for single values from these same types, and a few significant associations forsingle values from types expected to be unrelated to the behavior.
The same could be demonstrated for the relations of values with attitudinal variables (e.g., environmental attitudes—Grunert & Juhl, 1991) and with background variables(e.g., age—Schwartz, 1992). This gain over single values reflects two advantages of the Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems indexes of value types. First, as multiple-item indicators, they are more reliable thansingle values. Second, as sets of value items that share a core of meaning acrossindividuals and cultures, their shared variance is a more valid measure of specifiablemotivational goals. In contrast, single values are likely to have idiosyncratic meanings.
Use of the full set of value types also offers considerable—though not complete— protection against the second problem identified, overlooking values that are important forunderstanding behaviors or attitudes of interest. When researchers in various countriesadded values that they judged to be missing from the survey, these values emergedempirically as exemplars of the existing value types (Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). It may well beuseful to add values of special relevance when studying a particular topic, but the tenvalue types probably cover most, if not all, the broad types of motivation that are relevant.
Popular instruments currently used to study values, attitudes, and behavior are considerably more problematic. It is possible to form indexes for value types from theitems in the Rokeach survey, for example (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). These indexes areless well-defined, however, and the coverage is less broad because power and traditionvalues are omitted. The List of Values (Kahle, 1983) uses single items to measure ninevalues, and it omits universalism, tradition, and conformity values.8 These are importanttypes to miss, as evidenced by their substantial relations to behavior in the studiesdiscussed here.
With regard to the third problem, conceptualizing value types as forming a structure that relates as an integrated whole to other variables promotes systematic theory buildingand testing rather than ad hoc interpretation. The first step required is a close analysisof the consequences of a behavior or attitude for the expression or attainment of themotivational goals of the value types, leading to the identification of the most relevanttype. Once this is done, the structure of value types facilitates the generation ofhypotheses for the remaining types. With such an approach, the relative sizes ofassociations of the types are informative, not only their statistical significance. Indeed,even near zero associations provide meaningful evidence regarding the systematicnature of relations of values with an attitude or behavior, because they help to corroboratethe coherent pattern of associations with the whole structure of values.
The data reported in all three examples in the current chapter largely followed the sinusoid curves implied by the structure of value systems. True sine curve patternswere not found, however, nor should they be expected. As noted, the specific relevance(e.g., power in the cooperation study) or irrelevance (e.g., hedonism in the outgroupcontact study) of each value type to the behavior in question is likely to produceasymmetries in the curve. The order of associations is ordinarily, preserved, however. Ifit is not, as with the Israeli Muslim Arabs in the outgroup contact study, distortions inthe patterns of reinforcement typical of human social relations should be sought.
8. Another problem with the List of Values (LOV) is that 5 of its 9 items are values with cross- culturally inconsistent meanings (Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). A test of the validity of the LOV in fiveeconomically advanced nations rejected the cross-cultural comparability of its items (Grunert, Grunert,& Kristensen, in press).
Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad Finally, viewing value types as an integrated system fits the conception that attitudes and behavior are guided by tradeoffs among relevant competing values(Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992; Tetlock, 1986). The set of hypotheses typicallypredicts both positive and negative associations, because the structure of relationsamong value types is based on oppositions between motivational goals that tendto be mutually exclusive. This chapter calls upon researchers into behavior andattitudes to take competition between the relatively enduring systems ofindividuals’ value priorities into account. The promise of this approach has beendescribed here. It should now face the test of extensive research and the inevitablecorrections that will bring.
Bibliography
Alwin, D. F. (1984). Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 90, 359-382.
Arian, A. (1989). Politics in Israel. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Arian, A., & Shamir, M. (1990). The elections in Israel: 1988. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter.
New York: Wiley.
Chemansky, D., Guvran, R., & Hmaisi, R. (1984). Employment potential for universitygraduates in Arab towns in Israel. In M. Meir-Brodniz, & D. Chemansky, (Eds.), Economicdevelopment in the Israeli arab sector. Haifa: The Technion.
Furnham, A. (1984). Personality and values. Personality and individual differences, 5,483-485.
Graham-Brown, S. (1984). Education, repression and liberation: Palestinians. London:World University Service.
Greenstein, T. N. (1976). Behavior change through value self-confrontation: A fieldexperiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 254-262.
Grunert, S. C., Grunert, K. G., & Kristnesen, K. (in press). On a method for estimating thecross-cultural validity of measurement instruments: The case of measuring consumervalues by the List of Values LOV. Recherches et Applications en Marketing, Grunert, S. C., & Juhl, H. J. (1991). Values, environmental attitudes, and buyingbehaviour of organic foods: Their relationships in a sample of Danish teachers(Working paper, Series H No. 60). Aarhus: The Aarhus School of Business, Departmentof Information Science.
Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinatespace for a configuration of points. Psychometrica, 33, 469-506.
Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems Himmelweit, H. T., Humphreys, P., Jaeger, M., & Katz, M. (1981). How voters decide.
European monographs in social psychology, Vol. 27. New York: Academic Press.
Janda, J. (1980). Political parties. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Kahle, L. R. (Ed.). (1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America.
New York: Praeger.
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In G. Lindzey &E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 659-741). New York:Random House.
Klecka, W. R. (1980). Discriminant analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: Anexploration in definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward ageneral theory of action (pp.388-433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Liebman, C. S., & Don-Yehiya, E. (1984). Religion and politics in Israel. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.
Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Party systems and voter alignments. London: FreePress.
Mayton, D. M. II, & Furnham, A. (1994). Values, world peace, and political activism. Journalof Social Issues, 50, Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational basis of choice in experimentalgames. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1-25.
Natan, L. (1993). Hashpa’at conflict beyn kvutzati, motivatziot hevratiot u’kdimuyotarachim al shituf p’ula b’dilemmot hevratiot toch-kvutzatiot [The influence ofintergroup conflict, social motivations, and value priorities on cooperation in within-group social dilemmas]. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Hebrew University ofJerusalem.
Pruitt, D. G. (1967). Reward structure and cooperation: The decomposed prisoner’sdilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 21-27.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S.H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for out-group socialcontact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoreticaladvances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocial psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 1-65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents ofhuman values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.
Psicodebate. Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
Schwartz, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four Westernreligions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88-107.
Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content andstructure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92-116.
Sears, D. O. (1987). Political psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 229-255.
Seliger, M. (1975). Ideology and politics. London: Allen & Unwin.
Smooha, S. (1984). The orientation and politicization of the Arab minority in Israel.
Haifa, Israel: The Jewish-Arab Center, University of Haifa.
Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 50, 819-827.
Wulff, D. W. (1991). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary view. NewYork: Wiley.

Source: http://dspace.palermo.edu/dspace/bitstream/10226/368/1/2Psico%2007.pdf