Table 2 identifies the two lists of terminal and instrumental values of the RVS. The instrumental values correlate well with concrete modes of conduct as norms of behavior14, while terminal values are positioned on a higher abstraction level. Terminal values can be attained by varying different modes of conduct. For example, social recognition (terminal value) can be accomplished through instrumental values such as polite, capable, cheerful, forgiving, responsible or helpful (Asendorpf, 2004). Factor-analysis based on rank-orders of the two lists of values showed six factors (Rokeach, 1974; Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989), called (1) immediate vs. delayed gratification, (2) competence vs. religious morality, (3) self-constriction vs. self-expansion, (4) social vs. personal orientation, (5) societal vs. family security, and (6) respect vs. love. Although Rokeach’s theory was aimed at differentiating between instrumental and terminal values, he assumed that instrumental and terminal values could be further specified, dependent on whether they relate to individual wellbeing or to the wellbeing of others. The instrumental values with individual focus he called “competence values” (e.g., to be ambitious, intellectual, or independent) while those instrumental values with the wellbeing-focus on others he called “moral values” (e.g., to be helpful, forgiving, or polite). Accordingly, terminal values with self-focus were called “personal values” (e.g., self-respect, comfortable life, or freedom), and those with the focus on others were addressed as “social values” (e.g., equality, national security, or a world at peace). Ultimately, Rokeach’s value system is based on the assumption that the differentiation between self-focus and other-focus is of high significance. Rokeach (1973b) concluded: “Values are the joint results of sociological as well as psychological forces acting upon the individual” (p. 29). With this perspective in mind, values represent the personal and the social preferences of individual needs and social norms. The model by Rokeach received broad acceptance within the psychology discipline, mainly justified by ←60 | 61→the RVS being an economical and widely applicable instrument. Nevertheless, it was not based on a coherent theory of values, instead being the result of a series of unconnected, predominantly plausible assumptions (Bilsky, 2005). The inadequate theoretical justification of Rokeach’s research approach led to repeated attempts to validate the inherent structure of the RVS.
2b) The system of values by Schwartz
In recent years, the conceptual framework of Schwartz (1992, 1994) and Schwartz and Bilsky (1990) has strongly influenced the research on values. From the outset, Schwartz was interested in developing a structural theory of human values, which can take cultural-specific and cross-cultural aspects into equal account. His approach was designed to summarize the multitude of unrelated individual values, which differ in their motivational content. By means of a facet-theoretical approach, he initially identified seven motivational domains of values and ultimately increased it to ten domains, representing a universal structure of the ten human values of universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
