Values and Relationships

Values and Value Systems at the Individual and Cultural Levels

Values have been studied by psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and sociologists, which has led to various definitions and classification of values. The general tendency is to define values as (a) guiding principles in individuals' and groups' lives, and (b) trans-situational goals that serve the interest of individuals or groups. A parallel to these two general definitions can be seen in the distinction that Milton Rokeach made between instrumental values (i.e., modes of conduct; e.g., broad-minded) and terminal values (i.e., goals; e.g., self-esteem). Some social scientists such as Kurt Lewin claimed that values-as-principles is a more appropriate definition than values-as-goals because individuals do not try to “reach” a value; rather a value “guides” behaviors, judgment, and goals. However, contemporary researchers do not make such distinctions and tend to use both definitions of values, which can lead to some confusion between the concepts of values and goals.

For several decades, social scientists focused on individual and cultural differences in value priorities. Guided by the assumption that a finite number of value types exist, philosophers and social scientists have proposed various organizations and classifications for the relative importance that people and cultures place on various values. Perhaps the most influential framework for conceptualizing personal values is Shalom Schwartz's Circumplex Model, in which 10 universally relevant value types are organized along two motivational dimensions. A first dimension contrasts the valuation of self-determination and change to the importance of stability and conservation. In other words, one may orient one's life toward independence of thought and action (Self-Direction) and seeking pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself (Hedonism), excitement, novelty, and challenge in life (Stimulation) and exploring. Alternatively, one may choose the certainty that is provided by respect and commitment to traditional customs and ideas (Tradition), the endeavor for safety and stability of relationships and society (Security), and the avoidance of intentions and actions that could upset or harm others and violate social norms (Conformity). A second dimension contrasts self-enhancement and self-transcendence motivations. On one side (self-enhancement), life is guided by concern for the individual's outcomes and how to maximize them. This concern may be translated into the enhancement of social status and the control of people and resources (Power), or the endeavor for personal success and demonstration of competence (Achievement). On the other side (self-transcendence), life is guided by concern for social outcomes, which means understanding, protection, and enhancement of the well-being of significant and less significant others (Benevolence), as well as the welfare of all people and nature (Universalism).

...