JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 85(2), 170–178
Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
SHORT
LINDEMAN
SCHWARTZ’S
AND VERKASALO
VALUE SURVEY
Measuring Values With the Short Schwartz’s
Value Survey
Marjaana Lindeman and Markku Verkasalo
Department of Psychology
University of Helsinki
The reliability and validity of the Short Schwartz’s Value Survey (SSVS) was examined in 4
studies. In Study 1 (N = 670), we examined whether value scores obtained with the SSVS correlate with those obtained with Schwartz’s Value Survey (SVS; Schwartz, 1992, 1996) and the
Portrait Values Questionnaire (Schwartz et al., 2001) and whether the quasi-circular structure
of values can be found with the SSVS. In Study 2 (N = 3,261), we replicated the quasi-circular
structure in a more heterogeneous sample and assessed whether the SSVS can differentiate appropriately between gender, religiosity, students from different fields, and supporters of leftand right-wing political parties. In Study 3 (N = 112), we examined the test–retest reliability of
the SSVS and in Study 4 (N = 38), time saving gained by the SSVS compared to the SVS. The
results show that the new scale had good reliability and validity and that the values measured by
the SSVS were arrayed on a circle identical to the theoretical structure of values. We also provided equations that can be used in future studies to measure individuals’ scores on the 2 main
value dimensions, Self-Transcendence and Conservation.
Many researchers have suggested that values function as
standards that guide thought and action (Feather, 2002;
Rohan, 2000; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990). As Rokeach
(1973) put it:
Values are multifaceted standards that guide conduct in a variety of ways. They lead us to take particular positions on social issues and they predispose us to favor one ideology over
another. They are standards employed to evaluate and judge
others and ourselves.
Considering their central role in social life, values deserve
more research attention than they have received thus far. For
example, Rohan observed that no discussion of value theory
appears in a sample of 10 introductory social psychology and
personality textbooks published between 1990 and 2000.
The most commonly used method in recent value research
is Schwartz’s Value Survey (SVS; Schwartz, 1992), which is
based on Schwartz’s value theory. According to the theory,
the 57 value items of the SVS represent 10 motivationally
distinct values that are theoretically derived from universal
requirements of human life, namely, Power, Achievement,
Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-Direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Tradition, Conformity, and Security. Thus, the
focus of the SVS is highly similar to that of a new branch of
psychology, namely, positive psychology: The SVS measures individual and cultural differences in certain abstract
ideals, and research on positive psychology addresses how
very similar types of ideals turn into courses of action and
virtues such as wisdom, humanity, courage, and justice (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,
2000; “Values in Action,” n.d.).
Schwartz’s (1992, 1994; Struch, Schwartz, & van der
Kloot, 2002) value theory suggests that the 10 values, each
named after its central goal, have a quasi-circular structure
of relations (Figure 1). The structure is quasi-circular in
that the values are spaced on a circle, but they are not
equally spaced (for details, see Schwartz & Boehnke,
2004). The quasi-circular structure indicates, first, which
values are compatible, incompatible, or unrelated. For example, Self-Direction is in opposition to Conformity in that
preferring reliance on one’s own capacities contradicts dependence on social expectations. In turn, the location of
Self-Direction on the boundary of Stimulation indicates
that both of these values serve similar individual interests
and are therefore compatible. Tradition is located outside of
Conformity because the two are empirically distinct (Conformity values entail subordination to persons, and Tradition values entail subordination to abstract objects) while
sharing the same motivational goal (subordination of self in
favor of socially imposed expectations).
In addition, the quasi-circular structure of the 10 values indicates that together they form a two-dimensional space
171
SHORT SCHWARTZ’S VALUE SURVEY
FIGURE 1 Schwartz’s model of the relations between values.
Note. From “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” by S.
Schwartz, 1992, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25, p.
45. Copyright 1992 by Elsevier. Adapted with permission.
(Schwartz, 1992). The dimensions can be understood in
terms of two fundamental human problems that need to be
solved (Rohan, 2000; Schwartz, 1992). The first dimension
is called Conservation versus Openness to Change. It relates
to the conflict between the motivation to preserve the status
quo and the certainty that conformity to norms provides
(high Conservation), on one hand, and the motivation to follow one’s own intellectual and emotional interests (low Conservation) on the other hand. The second dimension is called
Self-Transcendence versus Self-Enhancement and it relates
to the conflict between concern for the welfare of other people (high Self-Transcendence) and concern for individual
outcomes and personal interests (low Self-Transcendence).
Hedonism is related to both higher order value dimensions as
indicated by the dashed line around Hedonism.
On the SVS, the respondents first rate 57 value items for
importance. Scores on each of the 10 value scales are then
calculated by averaging the scores on items that belong to
each value. Studies in some 70 countries have supported
the validity of the SVS. These studies have shown that the
10 values measured by the SVS encompass all basic values
within and across cultures and that they have a quasicircular structure in that conflicts and congruity of values
are universally found as postulated by the theory
(Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990). In addition, values measured with the SVS have shown predictable
and systematic relations with, among others, political and
environmental attitudes (Duriez, Luyten, Snauwaert, &
Hutsebaut, 2002; Grunert & Juhl, 1995; Helkama, Uutela,
& Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz, 1996), religiosity (Roccas,
Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002; Schwartz & Huismans,
1995), interpersonal cooperation (Schwartz, 1996), behavior aimed at value attainment (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003),
gender (Feather, 1984; Kasser, Koestner, & Lekes, 2002;
Struch et al., 2002; Verkasalo, Daun, & Niit, 1994), field of
study (Verkasalo et al., 1994), and the Big Five personality
traits (Roccas et al., 2002).
However, in many studies, a scale with 57 items may be
too time-consuming to fill in, and it may take up too much
space in questionnaires. Empirical value research could benefit greatly from the development of a more compact measure that does not have these shortcomings. Therefore, we
conducted a set of studies to develop a short version of the
SVS. The first aim of this study was to analyze whether the
10 values can be reliably and validly examined with only 10
items, that is, by asking the respondents to rate the importance of the 10 values directly.
In addition, we argue that examination of individuals’ values on the two dimensions would yield important information especially in studies in which only rough information
about people’s values is needed. Therefore, the second aim
of this work was to analyze whether Conservation and SelfTranscendence can be reliably and validly examined with a
shortened version of the SVS.
We designed a set of studies in which we examined the
reliability and validity of the Short Schwartz’s Value Survey (SSVS). In Study 1, we examined whether value scores
obtained with the SSVS correlate with those obtained with
the original SVS and whether the quasi-circular structure of
values can be found with the SSVS. To examine the concurrent validity further, we analyzed correlations between
the SSVS and a related scale, The Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ; Schwartz et al., 2001). Schwartz et al. developed the PVQ to enable individuals with less abstract
thinking ability—such as young individuals, those with
minimal schooling, the elderly, and people from rural areas
of less developed nations—to participate in value surveys.
In Study 2, we analyzed the validity of the SSVS with a
more heterogeneous sample than the student population
tested in Study 1. In Study 3, we examined the test–retest
reliability of the SSVS and in Study 4, the time savings
when using the SSVS.
STUDY 1
Method
Participants
A total of 670 individuals from Finland (72.3% women)
whose ages ranged from 15 to 58 years (M = 19.76 years, SD
= 5.23 years) participated in this study. Of those, 392 were in
senior high school and 278 were university students studying
psychology either as their major or a minor. Of the 690 individuals who originally took part, 20 were excluded because
of missing data.
172
LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO
Procedure
The participants were recruited from the University of
Helsinki and from four senior high schools, three in Helsinki
and one in Central Finland. All participants were administered the questionnaires in group settings. The participants
were told that the study concerned values, that participation
would be voluntary, and that all information would be treated
confidentially.
Measures
SVS. The original SVS (Schwartz, 1992, 1996) includes 57 items and 10 value scales. Schwartz (1992) suggested that to enable cross-cultural comparisons, only those
45 items that show intercultural stability are to be included
in the 10 scales. Accordingly, the scales, with the value
items in parentheses, are Power (social power, authority,
wealth), Achievement (success, capability, ambition, influence on people and events), Hedonism (gratification of desires, enjoyment in life, self-indulgence), Stimulation (daring, a varied and challenging life, an exciting life), SelfDirection (creativity, freedom, curiosity, independence,
choosing one’s own goals), Universalism (broadmindedness, beauty of nature and arts, social justice, a
world at peace, equality, wisdom, unity with nature, environmental protection), Benevolence (helpfulness, honesty,
forgiveness, loyalty, responsibility), Tradition (respect for
tradition, humbleness, accepting one’s portion in life, devotion, modesty), Conformity (obedience, honoring parents
and elders, self-discipline, politeness), and Security (national security, family security, social order, cleanliness, reciprocation of favors). Scores on these 10 value scales have
been shown to load on two dimensions: Conservation versus Openness to Change and Self-Transcendence versus
Self-Enhancement (Schwartz, 1992). We used the Finnish
version of the SVS, which was back translated by a native
speaker of English. Schwartz accepted the back translation
as equivalent (S. Schwartz, personal communication, September, 1988).
The participants were asked to rate the importance they
would give to the 57 value items as life-guiding principles on
a 9-point rating scale ranging from –1 (opposed to my principles), 0 (not important), 3 (important), to 7 (of supreme importance). To control rating bias, we used proportional sum
variables. This was done in the following way. A personal
mean of all 57 items was counted for each participant separately. The reason for selecting all 57 items was that the mean
of the 45 items would have caused the problem of linear dependency in some analyses. Scores for each of the 10 scales
were obtained by dividing the sum of the appropriate items
by the personal mean of all items multiplied by the number of
items on the scale. For example, the score of value Power
was counted as follows: Power = (social power + wealth +
authority)/(3 × personal mean of all items).
SSVS. In the short version of Schwartz’s scale, participants were presented with the name of each value together
with its value items. For instance, the participants were asked
to rate the importance as a life-guiding principle of “Power,
that is, social power, authority, wealth” and “Achievement,
that is, success, capability, ambition, and influence on people
and events.” A similar phrasing was used for all 10 values.
Hence, the SSVS included 10 items, each of which indicated
one original value and the related original value items as
descriptors. The 10 value items were rated on a 9-point scale
ranging from 0 (opposed to my principles), 1 (not important),
4 (important), to 8 (of supreme importance).
PVQ. The 10 basic values were also measured by the
PVQ, which includes short verbal portraits of 40 different
people (Schwartz et al., 2001). Each portrait describes a person’s goals, aspirations, or wishes that point implicitly to the
importance of a value. For example, the item “Thinking up
new ideas and being creative is important to him. He likes to
do things in his own original way” describes a person for
whom self-direction values are important, and “It is important to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money and expensive things” describes a person who cherishes Power values. For each portrait, the participants were asked to indicate
“How much like you is this person?” ranging from 6 (very
much like me) to 1 (not like me at all). Again, proportional
sum variables were used. For computation of the personal
mean, 30 of the 40 items were selected. These 30 items were
selected to be as representative of the 10 values as possible.
The reason for selecting only 30 items of the total number of
40 items was that the mean of all 40 items would have caused
the problem of linear dependency in some analyses. We obtained scores for each of the 10 scales by dividing the sum of
the appropriate items by the personal mean of all 30 items
multiplied by the number of items on the scale.
Analysis and Results
To examine whether a two-dimensional structure of values can
be found with the SSVS, we conducted multidimensional scaling. First, the two-dimensional spatial representations of the
correlations among the 10 values of the SSVS were produced
by Kruskal, Young, Shepard, and Torgerson (KYST; Kruskal,
Young, & Seery, 1973). KYST is a tool for multidimensional
scaling with which all values can be represented simultaneously in a multidimensional space. The distances between
the points reflect the empirical relations among the values. The
more similar two values are conceptually, the higher the
intercorrelation between their importance ratings, the more
similar their pattern of correlations with all other values, and
the closer they lie in the multidimensional space. Dissimilar
values have opposing patterns of correlations and will thus be
located at a substantial distance from one another.
The two-dimensional spatial representation also includes
scores for each variable, in this case, for each of the items.
SHORT SCHWARTZ’S VALUE SURVEY
These scores were rotated toward a configuration in which
the Self-Direction item was kept as a marker variable. In
other words, the Self-Direction value item was allocated on
the left side of the x-axis representing the Openness to
Change end of the Openness to Change versus Conservation
dimension. In addition, the Power item was situated low on
the y-axis representing the Self-Enhancement end of the
Self-enhancement versus Self-Transcendence dimension.
These spatial relations display a similar structure as has been
obtained in earlier studies (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). This
structure forms the theoretical basis of the two-dimensional
model of values (Figure 1). The results (Figure 2) indicate
high similarity with the structure obtained by the SVS (Figure 1). The Security value item situates a little higher than in
the original model, but the structure does not essentially differ from that found in other studies (Schwartz et al., 2001).
To enable assessment of the value dimensions Conservation and Self-Transcendence and to examine the stability of
the two-dimensional structure across samples, we constructed Conservation and Self-Transcendence variables.
We rotated the loadings obtained from KYST so that the
means for the newly constructed variables were forced to be
0 and the standard deviations 1. Based on the constant (first
in the equation) and the weights obtained, individuals’ scores
on the two value dimension variables were calculated as a
linear combination of each participants’ responses on the
items in the following way:
Conservation = .82 + (.05 × Power) + (.06 × Achievement)
– (.04 × Hedonism) – (.09 × Stimulation) –
(.18 × Self-Direction) – (.16 × Universalism) +
(.03 × Benevolence) + (.16 × Tradition) +
(1)
(.18 × Conformity) + (.11 × Security).
FIGURE 2
The two-dimensional structure of values in Study 1.
Self-Transcendence = –.60 – (.19 × Power) –
(.14 × Achievement) – (.09 × Hedonism) –
(.11 × Stimulation) + (.01 × Self-Direction) +
(.10 × Universalism) + (.13 × Benevolence) +
(.07 × Tradition) + (.06 × Conformity) +
(.02 × Security).
173
(2)
Note that the constant must be added to the equation to obtain
a distribution with a mean of 0 and that these weights apply
only to 9-point scales.
We evaluated internal consistency of the two scales with the
general reliability coefficient (GRC; Tarkkonen &
Vehkalahti, in press). Like Cronbach’s alpha (α), this is a statistical technique for assessing reliability of composite scales.
The advantages of the GRC are that it reports the exact internal
consistency, not only the lower bound, and it does not have the
same rigid assumptions of equal variances and correlations of
the items as Cronbach’s alpha. The GRC for Conservation was
.78, and for Self-Transcendence, it was .72, whereas their respective alpha coefficients, .60 and .58, were lower. Both reliability measures are expressed on the same scale on which the
GRC scores can be considered adequate.
We used the following procedures to examine the congruence validity of the SSVS and the SVS, that is, to evaluate to
what extent the two scales measure the same constructs. For
the first evaluation, we conducted two-dimensional multidimensional scaling on the 10 sum variables of the SVS. We
rotated the variables thus obtained using the same procedure
as described previously for the SSVS variables. We assessed
the similarity of the SVS and SSVS matrices with the coefficient of congruence (Harman, 1976), which amounted to .96.
This value indicates very high similarity of the matrices.
For our second evaluation of the congruence validity of
the SSVS with the SVS and the PVQ, we formed Conservation and Self-Transcendence variables for the SVS and the
PVQ. We did this by giving weights as described in Equations 1 and 2 to the 10 sum variables of the SVS and PVQ.
The Conservation variable of the SSVS correlated .75 and
.76 with the Conservation variables of the SVS and PVQ, respectively. The corresponding correlations for the SelfTranscendence scales were .78 and .76. Notice that these correlations are of the same order of magnitude as the GRCs of
the SSVS and remarkably higher than the Cronbach alpha
reliabilities. This result implies two things. First, the congruence validity of the two-dimensional measures of the SVS is
very high, and second, the Cronbach alphas probably underestimate the true reliability of the SVS. The reader is referred
to Tarkkonen and Vehkalahti (in press) for reasons for this
underestimation.
Next, the correlations between values assessed with the
SSVS, the SVS, and the PVQ were obtained (Table 1).
They ranged from .45 to .70, the average correlation being
.61, and the correlations between SSVS and SVS were of a
similar order of magnitude as the correlations between SVS
and PVQ.
174
LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO
TABLE 1
Correlations of Value Scores Measured With
the SSVS, the SVS and the PVQ
Value
Power
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-direction
Universalism
Benevolence
Tradition
Conformism
Security
SSVS and
SVS
SSVS and
PVQ
SVS and
PVQ
.68
.61
.70
.70
.65
.68
.56
.54
.61
.45
.66
.63
.71
.72
.64
.62
.52
.45
.59
.46
.59
.63
.66
.72
.67
.78
.55
.64
.52
.57
Note. All ps < .001. SSVS = Short Schwartz’ Value Survey; SVS =
Schwartz’s Value Survey; PVQ = Portrait Questionnaire.
STUDY 2
A methodological consideration that limits the conclusiveness of the findings of Study 1 is the low number of male participants and the homogenous nature of the sample (high
school and psychology students). Therefore, in Study 2, we
examined whether the quasi-circular structure of the 10 value
items could be replicated in a more heterogenous sample.
We also examined the criterion validity of the SSVS. Previous studies have shown that women attach less importance
to power and more to universalism and benevolence than
men (Feather, 1984; Kasser et al., 2002; Verkasalo et al.,
1994). In addition, voting for right-wing parties has been
shown to correlate positively with power, security, and
achievement and negatively with universalism and benevolence (Schwartz, 1996). As regards values and interests in
different academic disciplines, earlier work has shown that
business and technology students value power more and universalism less than students of the humanities and social sciences (Verkasalo et al., 1994). Furthermore, there is
preliminary evidence that religiosity is positively associated
with tradition and negatively with hedonism and stimulation
values (Roccas et al., 2002). We expected that these relationships would be found with the SSVS.
Method
Participants
A total of 3,087 individuals took part in the study. Originally, 3,261 participated, but 174 were excluded because of
missing data. Participants’ mean age was 24 years (SD =
4.70) with a range from 15 to 60. Of the participants, 74%
were women (14 participants did not report their gender). Of
all participants, 85% reported being full-time students, 9 %
were full-time employed, and the remainder 6 % were otherwise occupied. Of those studying, 77% were university stu-
dents and 23% attended a vocational school. Among the university students, there were 77 business students (69%
women), 193 technology students (44% women), 408 humanities students (88% women), 181 theology students
(62% women), and 107 social science students (77%
women). Other disciplines represented among the university
students were medical sciences, psychology, philosophy,
natural sciences, law, forestry, architecture, and education,
whereas the vocational school students represented the fields
of arts and crafts, technology, business, and service.
Procedure
The participants were recruited through six universities and
10 vocational schools in Finland. Where applicable, a recruitment message was sent to an electronic student mailing list. If
no such list was in use, an employee of the educational institute
posted information on the study on an electronic or a real bulletin board, depending on which was available. A minority of the
participants (N = 279) was informed about the study by a researcher at the beginning of a lecture at their school.
The 54 email lists that we targeted had an estimated total of
16,000 subscribed members, and the educational institutes
that posted messages on their communication boards had a total of approximately 4,000 students. Because no data is available on how many people were reached by the recruitment
message, the response rate cannot be reliably calculated.
The participants were told that the study concerned beliefs, personality, cognition, and values (data for other studies were also gathered with the questionnaire). Our names
and contact information were available in the recruitment
message. Students were referred to the questionnaire, which
was posted on the Internet. In the messages sent out to the
mailing lists, a hyperlink to the questionnaire was included.
Confidentiality and voluntariness of participation were
stressed, and the respondents were given between 1 and 3
weeks time to participate in the study.
The respondents were informed that by taking part, they
had a chance of winning a 50E boat trip for two to the city of
Tallinn. All the participants were also promised feedback on
their responses approximately 2 months after their participation in the study, which would require them to reveal their
pseudonym but not their identity. Such feedback, given on
request, consisted of a general description of the phenomena
studied, absolute scale ranges and means, and the participant’s own score on each of the scales.
Measures
SVSS. The SSVS was used as described in Study 1 except that the values were measured on a 7-point scale ranging
from –1 (against my principles) to 5 (of supreme importance). A narrower scale range was used because researchers
have suggested that a scale with five to seven response
choices is optimal (Betz, 1996).
SHORT SCHWARTZ’S VALUE SURVEY
Political orientation and religiosity. The participants
were given the name of the eight political parties in the Finnish Parliament, and they were asked to indicate which party
they would vote for if the general elections were now. Participants who said they would vote for the National Coalition
Party or the True Finns were categorized as supporters of
right-wing orientation (N = 522). Participants who said they
would vote for the Social Democratic Party or Left Alliance
were categorized as supporters of left-wing orientation (N =
561). Religiosity was operationalized in two separate ways.
Those who either voted for The Finnish Christian League (N
= 109) or studied theology (N = 181) were placed in the category “clearly religious”; other participants were categorized
as “religiosity unclear.”
Results
First, the relationships between endorsement of single values, gender, political orientation, religiosity, and study discipline were analyzed by analyses of variance (ANOVAs). To
avoid Type I error, the alpha level was adjusted downward (p
< .001). The results show that in comparison to men, women
attached more importance to Universalism, F(1, 3071) =
66.92, p < .001, d = .32; and to Benevolence, F(1, 3071) =
144.95, p < .001, d = .49; and less to Power, F(1, 3072) =
8.61, p < .003, d = .12.
When compared to the supporters of left-wing political parties, supporters of right-wing political parties put more value
on Power, F(1, 1081) = 91.92, p < .001, d = .56; Security, F(1,
1081) = 44.04, p < .001, d = .40; and Achievement, F(1, 1081)
= 47.83, p < .001, d = .41 and less on Universalism, F(1, 1081)
= 52.33, p < .001, d = .43. The hypothesis that supporters of
right-wing political parties would value Benevolence less
than left-wingers was not supported, F(1, 1081) = 2.41, ns, d =
.09. As regards participants who voted for the Finnish Christian League, it turned out that they valued Tradition more, F(1,
2912) = 50.70, p < .001, d = .54; and both Hedonism, F(1,
2912) = 54.42, p < .001, d = .56 and Stimulation less than other
participants, F(1, 2912) = 16.14, p < .001, d = .31. In addition,
175
the results showed that in comparison with the students from
the humanities and social sciences, business and technology
students valued Power more, F(1, 1217) = 27.32, p < .001, d =
.30 and Universalism less, F(1, 1217) = 91.04, p < .001, d = .53.
In comparison to other students, theology students valued Tradition more, F(1, 2912) = 50.70, p < .001, d = .54, and both Hedonism, F(1, 2912) = 54.42, p < .001, d = .56; and Stimulation
less, F(1, 2912) = 16.14, p < .001, d = .31. All means can be
seen in Table 2.
Next, to replicate the finding that the quasi-circular structure of value items can be detected with the SSVS, we conducted multidimensional scaling in a similar way as in Study
1. Figure 3 shows that the structure of the value items was
again highly similar to that obtained with the original SVS
(Figure 1) and with the SSVS in Study 1 (Figure 2).
Using multidimensional scaling in a similar way as in
Study 1, individuals’ scores on the higher order dimensions
Conservation and Self-Transcendence were calculated.
Based on the constants and weights obtained, scores on the
two dimensions were obtained with the following equations:
Conservation = .92 + (.15 × Power) +
(.03 × Achievement) – (.17 × Hedonism) –
(.25 × Stimulation) – (.31 × Self-Direction) –
(.26 × Universalism) + (.04 × Benevolence) +
(.30 × Tradition) + (.30 × Conformity) +
(.20 × Security)
(3)
Self-Transcendence = –.56 – (.30 × Power) –
(.33 × Achievement) – (.16 × Hedonism) –
(.14 × Stimulation) + (.04 × Self-Direction) +
(.22 × Universalism) + (.24 × Benevolence) +
(.12 × Tradition) + (.03 × Conformity) +
(.03 × Security).
(4)
These weights apply only to 7-point scales. It should be
noted that the constant must be added to the equation to obtain a distribution with a mean of 0. The general reliability
TABLE 2
Means of Value Scores (Ranging From –1 to 5) Measured With the Short Schwartz’s Value Survey
Gender
Value
Power
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-Direction
Universalism
Benevolence
Tradition
Conformism
Security
Political Orientation
Study Field
Women
Men
Right
Left
Christian
Humanities and
Social Sciences
Business and
Technology
Theology
2.24
3.43
4.05
3.43
4.35
4.06
4.65
2.82
3.19
4.10
2.39
3.48
3.94
3.51
4.21
3.74
4.32
2.59
3.07
3.71
2.85
3.81
4.16
3.57
4.25
3.49
4.42
3.00
3.50
4.27
2.15
3.39
3.96
3.39
4.30
3.97
4.49
2.63
3.00
3.87
1.84
2.74
3.46
3.22
3.97
3.63
4.84
3.65
3.81
4.14
2.11
3.29
3.97
3.41
4.44
4.23
4.62
2.58
2.87
3.76
2.48
3.57
4.13
3.59
4.26
3.72
4.39
2.72
3.25
4.02
2.00
3.03
3.57
3.15
4.27
4.09
4.78
3.38
3.21
4.02
176
FIGURE 3
LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO
The two-dimensional structure of values in Study 2.
coefficient (Heise & Bohrnstedt, 1970; Tarkkonen &
Vehkalahti, in press) for Conservation was .75, and for SelfTranscendence, it was .69.
To confirm that the weights for Conservation and SelfTranscendence obtained in Study 1 and Study 2 were similar to
each other and thus applicable to future studies as well, we analyzed whether the results would remain the same if the weights
obtained from data in Study 1 were used in Study 2. Note that
the weights and scores were different because in Study 1, a 9point scale was used, whereas in Study 2, a 7-point scale was
used. We thus expected the scores to be similar in their relative
size, not in their absolute size. Consequently, besides the original Conservation and Self-Transcendence variables obtained
in Study 2, we obtained two new variables: Conservation2 and
Self-Transcendence2. The results showed that the correlation
between Conservation and Conservation2 was .98, p < .001,
and between Self-Transcendence and Self-Transcendence2, it
was .99, p < .001. As a second test, we correlated the weights
themselves and found very similar results: for the Conservation variables, .97 and for the Self-Transcendence variables,
.98. The results indicate high stability of the weights between
different samples and show that these weights can be used in
future studies to calculate individuals’ scores on the two value
dimensions.
To examine whether the two value dimensions differentiate between gender, religiosity, study discipline, and political orientation in a similar way as the individual values did,
ANOVAs were conducted to compare the scores on the two
value dimensions among the groups. The results showed,
first, that women scored higher on the Self-Transcendence
dimension (M = .09) than men (M = –.28), F(1, 3071) =
80.05, p < .001, d = .36. No gender differences were found on
Conservatism, F(1, 3071) = 1.64, ns, d = .08. The results also
indicated that the supporters of right-wing political parties
put more weight on Conservatism values (M = .50) than the
supporters of left-wing parties (M = –.10), F(1, 1081) =
99.26, p < .001, d = .60 and that they endorsed less SelfTranscendence values (M = –.40) than the supporters of leftwing parties (M = –.01), F(1, 1081) = 43.08, p < .001, d = .39.
In addition, participants who voted for the Finnish Christian League endorsed Conservatism values more (M = .58)
than participants who voted for other parties (M = .00), F(1,
2718) = 35.47, p < .001, d = .58 and endorsed SelfTranscendence values more (M = .80) than participants who
voted for other parties (M = –.04), F(1, 2718) = 75.62, p <
.001, d = .84. Furthermore, the students from the humanities
and the social sciences attached less importance to Conservatism (M = –.34) than business and technology students (M =
.15), F(1, 1217) = 75.34, p < .001, d = .39 and more importance to Self-Transcendence values (M = .10) than business
and technology students (M = –.29), F(1, 1217) = 48.40, p <
.001, d = .39. Theology students, in turn, valued Conservatism (M = .16) more than other students (M = –.01), F(1,
2912) = 5.20, p < .001, d = .17 and also placed more importance on Self-Transcendence (M = .63) than other students
(M = –.06), F(1, 2912) = 82.95, p < .001, d = .69. Thus, the results concerning the validity of the two value dimensions
were equally good as those concerning the value items.
STUDY 3
The test–retest reliability of the SSVS was analyzed with a
sample of 112 participants (81% women) who were included
in Study 1. Of those, 35 were students of senior high school and
77 studied psychology either as a major or as a minor. Their age
varied from 15 to 41 years (M = 20.77, SD = 4.77). The participants filled in the SSVS twice with a 2-week interval.
The intraclass correlations between the test and retest are
shown in Table 3. Except Self-Direction, the results indicate
sufficient reliability for the measure. It should be noted that
the standard deviation of the Self-Direction item was the
TABLE 3
2-Week Test–Retest ICC of the Value Scores
Obtained With the SSVS
Values
ICC
Power
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-Direction
Universalism
Benevolence
Tradition
Conformism
Security
Spirituality
Value dimensions
Conservation
Self-transcendence
.77
.60
.74
.61
.34
.67
.50
.58
.60
.54
.53
.71
.78
Note. All correlations are significant at p < .001. ICC was computed using
the SPSS model ICC(3,1) agreement. ICC = interclass correlation; SPSS =
Short Schwartz’s Value Survey.
SHORT SCHWARTZ’S VALUE SURVEY
lowest, and its mean was among the highest in the whole
scale. It is thus possible that its correlation was deflated.
STUDY 4
To compare the cognitive load of the SSVS, the SVS, and the
PVQ, 38 psychology students filled in the three questionnaires as a course requirement. The participants were asked
to write down the exact time when they started and finished
filling in each scale. The results show that it took on average
12 min to fill in the 57-item SVS, 6 min and 40 sec to fill in
the 40-item PVQ, and 2 min to fill in the 10-item SSVS.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
These four studies showed that the 10-item SSVS provides a
practicable alternative to the original 57-item SVS. The new
scale had good internal consistency and temporal stability,
the scores obtained with the SSVS were highly correlated
with those obtained with the original SVS and with the PVQ,
and the value scores were arrayed on a circle in a way that is
identical both to the structure obtained in a variety of cultures
and to the theoretical structure of values (Schwartz, 1992,
1994). Values measured by the SSVS were also associated
with various validity criteria as expected on the basis of previous studies (Feather, 1984; Roccas et al., 2002; Schwartz,
1996; Verkasalo et al., 1994). Accordingly, women valued
universalism and benevolence more than men, and voting for
right-wing parties was positively associated with endorsement of power, security, and achievement and negatively
with endorsement of universalism values. Moreover, business and technology students valued power more and universalism less than students of the humanities and social sciences, and theology students valued tradition more and
hedonism and stimulation less than others.
The short value scale gives insight in broad values, not in
the 57 specific values measured with the SVS. Thus, if detailed and comprehensive information is needed, the original
SVS remains the best available scale for a more thorough assessment of values. In addition, the SSVS measures the 10
values with only one item each, whereas the original SVS
measures them with three to nine items. Single-item measures are typically discouraged in psychological research because they are presumed to be unreliable and because
internal consistency coefficients cannot be calculated for
them. Although evidence of good reliability and validity of
the SSVS was obtained here, researchers who are reluctant to
use single-item measures may use the SSVS as an instrument
for rapid assessment of the two broad value dimensions, that
is, Self-Transcendence versus Self-Enhancement and Conservation versus Openness to Change. The former reflects
whether people are motivated to transcend selfish concerns
and promote the welfare of others or whether they are more
motivated to enhance their own personal interests even at the
177
expense of others. The latter dimension shows whether people resist change and emphasize self-restriction and order or
whether they are ready for new experiences and emphasize
independent action and thought.
These two dimensions reflect the different motivational
goals of the 10 basic values and the two major conflicts that
organize the whole value system. As Schwartz (1996) and his
associates (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003) have noted, attitudes
and behaviors are guided by these goals and conflicts, not by
the priority given to a single value such as universalism or
hedonism. Moreover, Rohan (2000) suggested that these two
dimensions may reflect people’s ideologies and beliefs about
human nature, personality traits, temperament, self-theories
and self-regulatory focus. In this study, we offered equations
that can be applied in future studies to assess individuals’
scores on the two value dimensions. We provided two types
of equations, one to be used with 9-point rating scales and
one for 7-point scales. We ended up producing two equations
because the original SVS has nine response alternatives, but
most experts of psychological measurement agree that between five and seven is an optimal number of response
choices (Betz, 1996).
Besides assessing the two value dimensions, SSVS is a
convenient measure for conducting value comparisons. For
example, if respondents are asked to fill in the SSVS several
times in a row—for example, to compare their own values
with what they believe are those of others—important information about potential value conflicts or concurrences in the
respondent’s life space can be obtained. Such comparisons
are much more laborious to conduct with the 57-item SVS or
with the 40-item PVQ.
On the whole, the SSVS and the SVS are more appropriate
value questionnaires for adults than the PVQ, which contains
verbal reports of people and does not identify values as the
topic of investigation. Thus, unlike the SSVS or the SVS, the
PVQ does not ask self-conscious values, and the respondents
are unaware that they are answering a value questionnaire
(Schwartz, in press; Schwartz et al., 2001). In addition, as
Schwartz noted, the language level of PVQ is that of around
11-year-olds, and therefore, PVQ is not the best value questionnaire for educated, Western adults.
Of the 13 hypothesized relationships between SSVS value
scores and their validity criteria, 12 received support, and as
a whole, the criteria for abbreviating an existing scale were
met (Smith, McCarthy, & Anderson, 2000). However, this
study did not provide information on how its validity coefficients compare to those of the SVS. Because of the different
operationalizations of theoretical constructs such as religiosity or political orientation, different types of measurements
(continuous vs. discrete vs. dichotomous variables), different
statistical methods, and the omission of effect sizes from previous studies, we do not know whether the concurrent validity of SSVS is of sufficient magnitude to support its validity
across all domains. In addition, some of the correlations between the values measured with the SSVS and the SVS were
178
LINDEMAN AND VERKASALO
rather low. Therefore, the validity of SSVS should be analyzed in more detail in future studies.
Values are psychological constructs that are inherently
linked with personality, motivation, and behavior, but they
have a unique contribution for understanding any psychological phenomenon that somehow ties in with evaluation, justification, or selection of actions. However, researchers’
experience with the original SVS has indicated that considerable abbreviation of the scale is needed to make the instrument more suitable for use with a wider range of respondents
and for a possible combination with other instruments of interest (Grunert & Juhl, 1995). We hope that the SSVS scale
proves useful for researchers who are interested in a brief
screening of what people regard important in their lives.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was supported by Grant 200828 from the Academy of Finland.
REFERENCES
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and
structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
1207–1220.
Betz, N. E. (1996). Test construction. In F. T. L. Leong & J. T. Austin (Eds.),
The psychology research handbook (pp. 239–250). Thousands Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Duriez, B., Luyten, P., Snauwaert, B., & Hutsebaut, D. (2020). The importance of religiosity and values in predicting political attitudes: Evidence
for the continuing importance of religiosity in Flanders (Belgium). Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 5, 35–54.
Feather, N. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, psychological androgyny,
and the structure of values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47, 604–620.
Feather, N. T. (2002). Values and value dilemmas in relation to judgments
concerning outcomes of an industrial conflict. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 446–459.
Grunert, S., & Juhl, H. J. (1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 39–62.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Helkama, K., Uutela, A., & Schwartz, S. (1992). Value systems and political
cognition. In G. M. Breakwell (Ed.), Social psychology of political and
economic cognition (pp. 7–31). London: Surrey University.
Kasser, T., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2002). Early family experiences and
adult values: A 26 year prospective study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 826–835.
Kruskal, J. B., Young, F. W., & Seery, J. B. (1973). How to use KYST, a very
flexible program to do multidimensional scaling and unfolding. Murray
Hills, NJ: Bell Laboratories.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A
handbook of classification. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents
of human values. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Schwartz, S. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, and M. P. Zanna
(Eds.), The psychology of values (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schwartz, S. (in press). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals
in individual human values. In A. T. J. Porto (Ed.), Valores e trabalho
[Values and work]. Brasilia, Brazil: Editora Vozes.
Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
550–562.
Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content
and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891.
Schwartz, S., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality,
38, 230–255.
Schwartz, S., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four
western religions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88–107.
Schwartz, S., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens,
V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 32, 519–542.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. An
introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of
short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111.
Struch, N., Schwartz, N., & van der Kloot, W. (2002). Meanings of basic values for women and men: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16–28.
Tarkkonen, L., & Vehkalahti, K. (in press). Errors in multivariate measurement scales. Journal of Multivariate Analysis.
Values in action (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2004 from:
http://www.viastrengths.org/
Verkasalo, M., Daun, Å., & Niit, T. (1994). Universal values in Estonia, Finland and Sweden. Ethnologia Europaea, 24, 101–117.
Markku Verkasalo
P.O. Box 9
00014 University of Helsinki
Helsinki, Finland
Email: [email protected]
Received May 12, 2004
Revised January 26, 2005