Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 899–930 | Cite as

Basic Personal Values Underlie and Give Coherence to Political Values: A Cross National Study in 15 Countries

  • Shalom H. Schwartz
  • Gian Vittorio Caprara
  • Michele Vecchione
  • Paul Bain
  • Gabriel Bianchi
  • Maria Giovanna Caprara
  • Jan Cieciuch
  • Hasan Kirmanoglu
  • Cem Baslevent
  • Jan-Erik Lönnqvist
  • Catalin Mamali
  • Jorge Manzi
  • Vassilis Pavlopoulos
  • Tetyana Posnova
  • Harald Schoen
  • Jo Silvester
  • Carmen Tabernero
  • Claudio Torres
  • Markku Verkasalo
  • Eva Vondráková
  • Christian Welzel
  • Zbigniew Zaleski
Original Paper

Abstract

Do the political values of the general public form a coherent system? What might be the source of coherence? We view political values as expressions, in the political domain, of more basic personal values. Basic personal values (e.g., security, achievement, benevolence, hedonism) are organized on a circular continuum that reflects their conflicting and compatible motivations. We theorize that this circular motivational structure also gives coherence to political values. We assess this theorizing with data from 15 countries, using eight core political values (e.g., free enterprise, law and order) and ten basic personal values. We specify the underlying basic values expected to promote or oppose each political value. We offer different hypotheses for the 12 non-communist and three post-communist countries studied, where the political context suggests different meanings of a basic or political value. Correlation and regression analyses support almost all hypotheses. Moreover, basic values account for substantially more variance in political values than age, gender, education, and income. Multidimensional scaling analyses demonstrate graphically how the circular motivational continuum of basic personal values structures relations among core political values. This study strengthens the assumption that individual differences in basic personal values play a critical role in political thought.

Keywords

Political values Basic personal values Value coherence Structure of political thought 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was partly supported by the HSE Basic Research Program (International Laboratory of Socio-cultural Research).

Ethics

This research complies with the laws of the countries in which it was conducted.

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ashton, M. C., Danso, H. A., Maio, G. R., Esses, V. M., Bond, M. H., & Keung, D. K. Y. (2005). Two dimensions of political attitudes and their individual difference correlates: A cross-cultural perspective. In R. M. Sorrentino, D. Cohen, J. M. Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Culture social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 10, pp. 1–29). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Relations among socio-political values in Eastern Europe: Effects of the communist experience? Political Psychology, 17, 525–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnette, J. J. (2000). Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey internal consistency: If you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoit, K., & Laver, M. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bilsky, W., Janik, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). The structural organization of human values—Evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 759–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braithwaite, V. (1997). Harmony and security value orientations in political evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buksinski, T. (2003). Liberalisation and transformation of morality in post-Communist countries: Polish philosophical studies, IV. Washington: The Council for Research in Values & Philosophy.Google Scholar
  9. Cieciuch, J., & Schwartz, S. H. (2012). The number of distinct basic values and their structure assessed by PVQ-40. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohrs, J. C., Moschner, B., Maes, J., & Kielmann, S. (2005). The motivational bases of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Relations to values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). Origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Daigle, J., Hrubes, D., & Ajzen, I. (2002). A comparative study of beliefs, attitudes, and values among hunters, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor recreationists. Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal, 7, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dollinger, S. J., Burke, P., & Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, G., Heath, A., & Lalljee, M. (1996). Measuring left-right and libertarian-authoritarian values in the British electorate. The British Journal of Sociology, 47, 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–508). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fontaine, J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures: Distinguishing sampling fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardikiotis, A., & Baltzis, A. (2012). ‘Rock music for myself and justice to the world!’: Musical identity, values, and music preferences. Psychology of Music, 40, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodwin, R., & Tinker, M. (2002). Value priorities and preferences for a relationship partner. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1339–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goren, P. (2000). Political expertise and principled political thought. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goren, P. (2005). Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 881–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunther, R., & Kuan, H. C. (2007). Value cleavages and partisan conflict. In R. Gunther, J. R. Montero, & H. J. Puhle (Eds.), Electoral intermediation, values, and political support in old and new democracies: Europe, East Asia, and the Americas in comparative perspective (pp. 255–320). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gunther, R., Montero, J. R., & Puhle, H. J. (2007). Op. cit. Google Scholar
  25. Heath, A., Jowell, R., & Curtice, J. (1985). How Britain votes. Oxford: Pergamum.Google Scholar
  26. Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howard, M. M. (2003). The weakness of civil society in post-communist Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes, C. (2008). Civil liberties in Australia: A review article. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 27, 72–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1987). How are foreign policy attitudes structured? A hierarchal model. American Political Science Review, 81, 1099–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jacoby, W. G. (1995). The structure of ideological thinking in the American public. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 314–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacoby, W. G. (2006). Value choices and American public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 706–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kerlinger, F. N. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Kinder, D. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 778–867). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. II (3rd ed., pp. 659–741). NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  37. Kirisci, K. (2003). Turkey: A transformation from emigration to immigration. Washington: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  38. Knafo, A., Daniel, E., & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2008). Values as protective factors against violent behavior in Jewish and Arab high schools in Israel. Child Development, 79, 652–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, M., Whitehead, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Hatzigeorgiadis, A. (2008). Relationships among values, achievement orientations and attitudes in youth sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 588–610.Google Scholar
  40. McCann, J. A. (1997). Electoral choices and core value change: The 1992 presidential campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 564–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McFarland, S. G., Ageyev, V. S., & Abalakina-Paap, M. A. (1992). Authoritarianism in the former Soviet Union. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 1004–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mitra, P., & Ruslan, Y. (2007). Increasing inequality in transition economies: Is there more to come? In F. Bourguignon & B. Pleskovic (Eds.), Annual world bank conference on development economics, regional: beyond transition (pp. 59–102). Washington: The International bank for reconstruction and development/the world bank.Google Scholar
  43. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  44. No shooting please, we’re German. (2012). The Economist. Retrieved July, 27, 2013 from http://www.economist.com/node/21564617.
  45. Peffley, M. A., & Hurwitz, J. (1985). A hierarchical model of attitude constraint. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 871–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pepper, M., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2009). An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviors. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poznanski, K. Z. (2001). Building capitalism with communist tools: Eastern Europe’s defective transition. East European Politics and Societies, 15, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roccas, S., Schwartz, S. H., & Amit, A. (2010). Personal value priorities and national identification. Political Psychology, 31, 393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4, 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rose, R. (1997). How patient are people in post-communist societies? World Affairs, 159, 130–144.Google Scholar
  52. Sagiv, L. (2002). Vocational interests and basic values. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, D. (2004). Values and religiosity: a meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 721–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20, 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schubot, D. B., Eliason, B. C., & Cayley, W, Jr. (1995). Personal values and primary care specialty aspirations. Academic Medicine, 70, 952–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Value orientations. European Social Survey Core Questionnaire Development, Chapter 07. Retrieved from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=83&Itemid=80..
  59. Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Les valeurs de base de la personne: Théorie, mesures et applications [Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications]. Revue Française de Sociologie, 47, 249–288.Google Scholar
  60. Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 221–241). Washington: American Psychological Association Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values, and voting: A longitudinal study. Political Psychology, 31, 421–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S. A. M., & Harris, M. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spector, P. E., Van Katwyk, P. T., Brannick, M. T., & Chen, P. Y. (1997). When two factors don’t reflect two constructs: How item characteristics can produce artifactual factors. Journal of Management, 23, 659–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Wong, N., Rindfleisch, A., & Borroughs, J. E. (2003). Do reverse-worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of the material values scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shalom H. Schwartz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gian Vittorio Caprara
    • 3
  • Michele Vecchione
    • 3
  • Paul Bain
    • 4
  • Gabriel Bianchi
    • 5
  • Maria Giovanna Caprara
    • 6
  • Jan Cieciuch
    • 7
    • 8
  • Hasan Kirmanoglu
    • 9
  • Cem Baslevent
    • 9
  • Jan-Erik Lönnqvist
    • 10
  • Catalin Mamali
    • 11
  • Jorge Manzi
    • 12
  • Vassilis Pavlopoulos
    • 13
  • Tetyana Posnova
    • 14
  • Harald Schoen
    • 15
  • Jo Silvester
    • 16
  • Carmen Tabernero
    • 17
  • Claudio Torres
    • 18
  • Markku Verkasalo
    • 19
  • Eva Vondráková
    • 20
  • Christian Welzel
    • 21
  • Zbigniew Zaleski
    • 22
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Laboratory of Socio-cultural ResearchNational Research University—Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Rome “La Sapienza”RomeItaly
  4. 4.School of PsychologyUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Social and Biological CommunicationSlovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia
  6. 6.Universidad a Distancia de MadridMadridSpain
  7. 7.Faculty of PsychologyUniversity of Finance and ManagementWarsawPoland
  8. 8.University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  9. 9.Department of EconomicsIstanbul Bilgi UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  10. 10.Swedish School of Social ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  11. 11.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Wisconsin-PlattevillePlattevilleUSA
  12. 12.Department of PsychologyPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  13. 13.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
  14. 14.Practical Psychology DepartmentChernivtsy Yuri Fedkovych National UniversityChernivtsiUkraine
  15. 15.Department of Political SociologyUniversity of BambergBambergGermany
  16. 16.Department of PsychologyCity University LondonLondonUK
  17. 17.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CordobaCordobaSpain
  18. 18.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of BrasiliaBrasiliaBrazil
  19. 19.Institute of Behavioral SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  20. 20.Faculty of Social Sciences and Health CareConstantine the Philosopher UniversityNitraSlovak Republic
  21. 21.Institute of Political Science and Center for the Study of DemocracyLeuphana University LueneburgLüneburgGermany
  22. 22.Department of PsychologyCatholic University of LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations