JOURNAL OF

Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY
www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

Evaluating the structure of human values with conrmatory factor analysis

Shalom H. Schwartza,* and Klaus Boehnkeb
a

Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel b International University Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Abstract This is the rst statistical test of a theory of the structure of human values (Schwartz, 1992). The theory postulates that 10 basic values are discriminated in all societies and that these values form a quasi-circumplex structure based on the inherent conict or compatibility between their motivational goals. Past support for the theory came from subjective judgments of visual plots of the relations among value items in samples from over 60 countries. We formally test the postulated structure and several potential renements. We employ a specially designed conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach with new data from two sets of 23 samples from 27 countries (N 10,857). In both data sets, CFAs conrm the 10 basic values, a modied quasi-circumplex rather than a simple circumplex structure, and the claim that values form a motivational continuum. 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Values; Conrmatory factor analysis; Value structure; Cross-cultural analyses

1. Introduction The past 45 years have seen a steady stream of papers that propose that the best way to represent personality and aect is a circumplex structure (Fabrigar, Visser, & Browne, 1997; Tracey, 2000). That is, they postulate that personality or aect variables lie on the circumference of a circle, and the strength of association between variables decreases as the distance between variables on the circle increases. A recent book on models of personality and emotions (Plutchik & Conte, 1997a) has given
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: msshasch@mscc.huji.ac.il (S.H. Schwartz).

0092-6566/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00069-2

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

231

this approach even greater impetus. The current paper concerns the domain of individual values in which the most widely recognized current model also proposes a circumplex structure (Rohan, 2000; Schwartz, 1992). Factor/principal components analysis and multidimensional scaling (MDS) are the methods commonly used to test circumplex structures, but they are usually inadequate to provide statistical tests. Neither oers a simple, quantiable method to formally assess the extent to which the observed data possess a circumplex structure (for detailed critiques of these methods, see Fabrigar et al., 1997 or Tracey, 2000). Instead, researchers typically reach conclusions by making two subjective judgments of the observed plot of relations among variables. First, they assess how well this plot appears to conform to a circular pattern. Then they assess the extent to which the order of the variables around the circle appears to correspond to the order in the theory. All past assessments of the structure of basic human values have relied on such subjective judgments of plots produced by an MDS approach. This paper is the rst direct, quantitative evaluation of the postulated circumplex structure of values.

2. Value theory and past assessments The theory of basic human values (Schwartz, 1992) identies 10 motivationally distinct types of values that are likely to be recognized within and across cultures: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security. Table 1, below, denes the 10 values. The most important feature of the theory is the structure of dynamic relations among the 10 values that it explicates. It postulates that actions expressive of any value have practical, psychological, and social consequences that may conict or be compatible with the pursuit of other values. For example, actions that express hedonism values are likely to conict with those that express tradition values and vice versa, and acting on self-direction values is likely to conict with maintaining conformity values and vice versa. On the other hand, hedonism values are compatible with self-direction values, and tradition values are compatible with conformity values. Studies in 19 countries reveal systematic associations of many behavior, attitude, and personality variables with priorities for these values (see citations in Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). The structure of value relations explains the patterns of these associations. When the constructs in a set vary in the degree of their similarity and dissimilarity or conict, as the values do, they are likely to yield a circumplex structure (Plutchik & Conte, 1997b). The circular structure in Fig. 1 portrays the total pattern of relations among values postulated by the theory. The circular arrangement of the values represents a motivational continuum. The closer any two values in either direction around the circle, the more similar their underlying motivations; and the more distant any two values, the more antagonistic their underlying motivations. The motivational signicance of items that operationalize adjacent values overlaps in part but diers sharply from that of items that operationalize distant values. This structure is a circumplex, except for the placement of tradition outside conformity. The claim of a

232

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

Table 1 Samples included in the analyses Set I N Belgium Denmark East Germany East Germany France (Nancy) Ghana Hong Kong Hungary Israel Japan Macedonia Netherlands Peru Philippines Poland Russia Russia in Israel Slovakia Turkey USA USA (Seattle) West Germany West Germany University Students School Teachers Adults University Students University Students School Teachers University Students University Students School Teachers School Teachers University Students University Students University Students University Students University Students School Teachers Adult Immigrants School Teachers University Students School Teachers University Students University Students School Teachers 249 682 233 441 214 214 222 160 188 173 245 217 145 289 141 194 202 186 242 108 270 388 148 5551 Australia Austria Brazil Bulgaria England France (Paris) Ghana Hong Kong Hungary Israel Israel Japan Macedonia Mexico Philippines Russia Russia in Berlin Slovakia Switzerland Uganda USA (Illinois) USA West Germany University Students School Teachers University Students University Students School Teachers University Students University Students School Teachers School Teachers Adults University Students University Students School Teachers School Teachers School Teachers Adults Adult Immigrants University University University University Nurses University Students Students Students Students Students Set II N 111 196 151 241 209 390 210 126 130 181 427 327 206 361 157 189 181 233 264 188 374 259 195 5306

motivational continuum is especially important for relating value priorities to other variables. It implies that these relations take the shape of a sinusoidal curve that follows the order of the values around the circle (Schwartz, 1992). Note that the theory postulates a circular arrangement of the 10 values, not of the items. For items, it postulates that each item correlates more highly with the set of items that measure the same value than with the set of items that measure a dierent value. Thus, in technical terms, the theory assumes that the items in the value survey form 10 latent factors and only the factors relate to one another in a circular manner. Extensive research has assessed the theory in over 200 samples in more than 60 countries from every inhabited continent (representative national samples, school teachers, university students, adolescents, samples of workers in specic occupations). Researchers examined two-dimensional projections of the relations among value items, using MDS or Similarity Structure Analysis (SSA; Borg & Shye, 1993; Guttman, 1968). They concluded that the data largely support (a) the distinctiveness of the 10 values, (b) the idea that these values are comprehensive of the major, motivationally distinctive types of values, and (c) the ordering of values postulated by the circumplex structure (Fontaine, 1999; Schwartz, 1992, 1994; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995; Schwartz, in press).

These conclusions were based on visual inspection of the spatial plots, guided by a priori criteria (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). They revealed that, in the vast majority of samples, the items that operationalize each value occupied a distinct region in the space, with no substantial empty spaces between regions. Moreover, the order of these distinct regions around the circle generally approximated the theorized order shown in Fig. 1. As noted, however, visual inspections cannot formally test whether the observed data possess a circumplex structure. Data that appear to t a circumplex structure may or may not be found to t such a structure when tested directly, as Fabrigar et al. (1997) demonstrated. Therefore, a rst objective of this paper is directly to test the circumplex structure of the theory of human values using an application of structural equation modeling designed for this purpose. We ask: Does conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) corroborate the theoretical structure of value relations that was supported by interpretations of past SSA and MDS analyses? Equally important is our second objectiveto test possible renements to the value theory. These renements were suggested in the published literature but never tested. Each renement was inspired by examining the separate plots of relations among value items in large numbers of samples. The renements t the majority of samples. The theory formally incorporated one renement: It modied the strict circumplex structure of 10 values into the structure shown in Fig. 1. This structure places tradition and conformity values at the same polar angle around the circle, but tradition is outside conformity. It provided a better visual t than the strict circumplex to the average plot of the rst 40 samples studied and to the separate plots in 29 of these samples, and no worse a t in the remaining 11 samples (Schwartz, 1992, p. 35). Although this presumed renement has been justied conceptually, it has never been tested formally.

234

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

3. Models tested Below, we spell out each renement proposed to the theory, note the conceptual arguments for it, and then test it. One could perform these tests with the data from past research. However, the renements drew upon post hoc examination of those data. Hence, this would not test the power of the theory to account for new data. Therefore, for totally independent, stringent tests of the theory and tentative renements, we analyze data that have not gured in any previous assessments of the structure of values. We wish to assess which theoretical model best ts the basic pattern of value relations common to cultures, rather than to identify unique variants in particular cultures. We therefore combine the individual data from many cultures. In order to assess the robustness of the ndings, we replicate the analyses in two independent sets of samples. 3.1. Model 1: 10 orthogonal factors The theory of basic human values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994) derived the 10 motivationally distinct types of values from three universal requirements of the human condition: needs of individuals as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated social interaction, and survival and welfare needs of groups. The theory holds that groups and individuals represent these requirements cognitively, as specic values about which they communicate in order to coordinate with others in pursuing the goals that are important to them. The 10 values are the content aspect of the theory. The structural aspect of the theory species relations of similarity and dissimilarity among these values. Perhaps, however, each value is independent. This would be in line with Rokeachs (1973) view of values, on which Schwartz built, and with traditional exploratory factor analysis. We therefore rst test how well a model of 10 orthogonal factors ts the data. 3.2. Model 2: A quasi-circumplex model of 10 factors1 At the beginning of the chapter that rst presented the value theory, Schwartz (1992, pp. 1315) speculated that the 10 values might form a perfect circular structure. That is, the 10 values would form a circle as in Fig. 1, but with tradition located between benevolence and conformity. The theory made no assumption as to whether
1 A comment on the terminology used with circumplex models is necessary to clarify the usage that follows. Guttman (1954) rst used the term circumplex to include any model that postulates a circular arrangement of relations among variables. He subdivided such models into those that assume the variables are equally spaced on the circumference of the circle (circulant) and those that do not assume equal spacing (quasi-circumplex). We use these terms as he did. Guttman provided no label for models that assume a circular arrangement of variables but do not locate all the variables on the circumference of the circle. Hence, there is no term for the denitive model proposed by the value theory. It postulates that conformity values are more central and tradition values more peripheral (see Fig. 1). The remaining values are arrayed in order around the circle, though not necessarily equidistant. We label this model modied quasi-circumplex.

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

235

values are spaced equally around the circle (a circulant model) or unequally (a quasicircumplex model). The chapter rejected this circumplex, but provided no direct, quantitative test of the appropriate circumplex model to justify this rejection. We therefore next test the t of a circumplex model to the data. Because the theory does not assume that the values are distributed at equal intervals around the circle (circulant model), we test a quasi-circumplex model. We compare the t of this model to the t of the model of ten orthogonal factors. 3.3. Model 3: The 1992 theoryA modied quasi-circumplex model The denitive version of the theory of basic values postulates the modied quasi-circumplex structure presented in Fig. 1. As noted, this change derived from nding that a theory that locates tradition outside of conformity at the same polar angle in the circle was a better visual t to the plots of data in the available samples. Scrutinizing plots from many later samples rearmed this model (Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). The theoretical explanation for locating conformity and tradition at the same polar angle in the circle is that they share the same broad motivational goalsubordinating self in favor of socially imposed expectations. What distinguishes them is that conformity values entail subordination to persons with whom one is in frequent interactionparents, teachers, and bosses. Tradition values entail subordination to more abstract objectsreligious and cultural customs and ideas (Schwartz, 1992, p. 40). Conformity values emphasize restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses that might upset or harm others and violate their expectations. Tradition values emphasize respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas of ones culture or religion. Central versus peripheral locations in a circle typically reect dierences between constructs in the degree of their abstractness, closeness to the self, or prevalence in everyday interaction (Levy, 1985). On all three counts, tradition values are more likely to be located peripherally than conformity values. The more peripheral the location of a value, the less positive its correlations with the values on the opposite side of the circle. Hence, the peripheral location of tradition would signify that it is less compatible than conformity with hedonism and stimulation values. We test the t of the denitive, modied quasi-circumplex model of values to the data and compare its t to that of the quasi-circumplex model. We label this model modied quasi-circumplex because it orders the values around the circle but includes central vs. peripheral positioning. 3.4. Model 4: Combining tradition and conformity to yield nine values If tradition and conformity values share the same broad motivational goal, perhaps a simpler, more parsimonious model would t the data better. Tradition and conformity may constitute a single value. This would be a quasi-circumplex model of nine values, with the combined tradition/conformity value located between benevolence and security. We formally test this quasi-circumplex model and compare it with the modied quasi-circumplex model.

236

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

3.5. Model 5: Power values peripheral to achievement values In discussing the plots of the rst 40 samples studied, Schwartz (1992, p. 40) noted that, in 26 samples, a distinct region of power values could be drawn toward the periphery of the circle behind achievement values. In most samples, however, it was also possible to connect the region of power values to the center of the circle. Hence, the denitive version of the theory located power values between achievement and security. Was this decision correct? Might a model locating achievement and power values at the same polar angle in the circle, with power peripheral to achievement, t the data better? Theoretical arguments for this alternative model appear in Schwartz (1992, pp. 4041):
[Both values] focus on social esteem. However, achievement values refer more to striving to demonstrate competence in everyday interaction. . . whereas power values refer more to the abstract outcomes of action in the form of status in the social structure. . . .achievement values refer to the striving of the individual. . . whereas power values also refer to the hierarchical organization of relations in society.

Thus, like tradition and conformity, power and achievement dier on characteristics that might lead to a central versus peripheral order: degree of abstractness, closeness to the self, and prevalence in everyday interaction. We therefore test whether this model ts the data better than the previous models. We also test whether a more parsimonious model that treats power and achievement as a single value (model 6) is an even better t. 3.6. Model 7: Higher-order types of value Based on the SSA analyses in the rst 40 samples, Schwartz (1992, p. 43) suggested a simpler way to view value structures. Relationships among the values can be summarized in terms of a two-dimensional structure composed of four higher-order value types. One higher-order type, called openness to change, combines stimulation and self-direction values. It forms a bipolar dimension with the higher-order type called conservation that combines security, conformity, and tradition values. This dimension arrays values in terms of the extent to which they motivate people to follow their own emotional and intellectual interests in unpredictable and uncertain directions (openness) versus to preserve the status quo and the certainty it provides (conservation). A third higher-order type, called self-enhancement, combines power and achievement values. It forms a bipolar dimension with the higher-order type called self-transcendence that combines universalism and benevolence values. This dimension arrays values in terms of the extent to which they motivate people to enhance their own personal interests even at the expense of others (self-enhancement) versus to transcend selsh concerns and promote the welfare of others, close and distant, and of nature (self-transcendence). Hedonism values share some elements of both openness and self-enhancement. Consequently, hedonism is located between these two higher-order types.

Schwartz treats the higher-order types merely as a way to describe the value structure more simply. Nevertheless, he and others sometimes use these four types, rather than the 10 values, to predict behavior and attitudes (e.g., Bilsky, 1998; Hrubes, Ajzen, & Daigle, 2001; Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999; Schwartz, 1994). If one wants to simplify the value structure, is this particular set of higher-order types more meaningful than other possible groupings of values? Or do the values form a continuum, so any combination of adjacent values (e.g., power with security) would be equally legitimate? We address these questions by evaluating their implications for associations among the values. Let us assume that this particular set of four higher-order types is more meaningful conceptually than alternative combinations. We would then expect adjacent values within these higher-order types to be more strongly associated with one another substantively and empirically than they are with the adjacent values from other higher-order types. For example, the two self-transcendence values, universalism and benevolence, should be more highly intercorrelated than universalism is with self-direction (also adjacent, but in the openness higher-order type) or than benevolence is with conformity (adjacent, but a conservation value). We put this idea to a formal test by specifying a model in which correlations between values within higher-order types are higher than the correlations of these values with adjacent values from other higher-order types. 3.7. Model 8: Freely estimating hegher,

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255 Table 2 Denitions of the motivational types of values and items used as markers

239

Power: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources (authority, social power, wealth, preserving my public image) Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards (ambitious, successful, capable, inuential) Hedonism: Pleasure or sensuous gratication for oneself (pleasure, enjoying life, self-indulgent) Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life (daring, a varied life, an exciting life) Self-direction: Independent thought and actionchoosing, creating, exploring (creativity, freedom, independent, choosing own goals, curious) Universalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature (equality, social justice, wisdom, broadminded, protecting the environment, unity with nature, a world of beauty) Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact (helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal, responsible) Tradition: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide (devout, respect for tradition, humble, moderate) Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms (self-discipline, politeness, honoring parents and elders, obedience) Security: Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self (family security, national security, social order, clean, reciprocation of favors)

scale from opposed to my principles ()1), through not important (0), to of supreme importance (7). As markers for each of the 10 values, we used the items recommended as standard indexes for cross-cultural research, based on the consistency of their meanings across cultures (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). Table 2 presents brief definitions of each value followed by its marker items. We included self-indulgence, from the expanded SVS, to provide a third item to measure hedonism. 4.3. Analyses We designed an approach for the CFA analyses suited for testing all of the dierent structural models. This approach must test quasi-circumplex models as well as modied quasi-circumplex models. It must also test a model that species dierent distances among particular values, to represent relations within and between higher-order value types. Additionally, it must test the existence of subtypes within values (universalism and security). Finally, the approach must treat the values as latent variables and the items as observed variables, allowing a test of the appropriateness of the marker items for measuring the 10 values in a unied analysis. Tracey (2000) described computer programs specically designed to test circumplex conceptual models. Both of the most available programs, CIRCUM (Browne, 1992) and RANDALL (Tracey, 1997), do not t the requirements of testing all aspects of the current theory and its proposed renements. Neither program permits specifying two-level models as required here. We cannot test the circumplex assumption for the latent variables (the values) together with a simple factorial structure for the manifest variables. This limitation, that precludes simultaneously modeling relationships of items to factors and relations among factors, is the primary reason we do not use these programs. In addition, neither program provides an appropriate

240

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

way to handle more central as opposed to peripheral locations of factors in a circle. Hence, they are not suited to testing the denitive model of the value theory, a modied quasi-circumplex. We therefore developed a strategy tailored to the requirements of testing all aspects of the models of interest, using a structural equation modeling program (LISREL 8.14; Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). o o We tested the model of 10 orthogonal factors with an ordinary CFA on 10 latent variables. To test the theory-driven models of the value structure, we specied a reference matrix of expected correlations among the values for each model. This matrix represents exactly a pattern of expected correlations among the values that reproduces the model. We then tested the t of the reference matrix to the observed data. In order to create a reference matrix for a model, it is necessary to specify actual correlation coecients that t the expected pattern of associations of the model to be tested. Any set of arbitrarily chosen coecients that ts the pattern of expected associations might be used, because the model must reproduce the pattern. Once reference values are chosen for any two correlation coecients, all the remaining coecients follow from the pattern needed to reproduce the model. We adopted a data-driven approach to determine reasonable reference coecients. In a preliminary analysis, we estimated a model of 10 freely intercorrelated latent factors in both samples, with LISREL. We then calculated the average intercorrelation between all of the pairs of factors that the theory postulates to be adjacent in the circle (e.g., self-direction/universalism; see Fig. 1). This yielded a reference correlation of .68 for adjacent values. We applied the same procedure to all pairs of values that the theory postulates to have opposing substantive contents (e.g., self-direction/security) and obtained a reference correlation of .08 for values on opposite sides of the circle. Based on these analyses, we xed the correlation coecient between all pairs of adjacent values at .68 for the circumplex model of 10 equally spaced values. Thus, we xed the correlations for power/achievement, power/security, security/conformity, and so on around the circle, at .68 in the reference matrix. Similarly, we xed the correlation between all pairs of values on opposite sides of the circle (universalism/ power, benevolence/achievement, etc.) at .08. Distances between pairs of values around a circle of 10 values can range from adjacent to four steps away (opposite). We therefore computed the amount to reduce the correlation for each step by dividing the dierence between the maximum correlation (.68) and the minimum (.08) by four. This yielded a reduction of .15 for each step. Table 3, below the diagonal, presents the resulting reference matrix. Table 3 arranges the values according to their postulated order around the circle from universalism to self-direction. The greater the distance between any pair of values, the less positive the correlation between them. The coecients that reproduce the ve expected distances among 10 values around the circle are .68, .53, .38, .23, and .08.2
A reviewer of an earlier version of this paper remarked that a constant dierence between correlation coecients does not produce equidistance of items along a circle. This is not a problem for the current approach because the theory does not posit equidistance among the 10 values. Rather, it posits relations of q1 > q2 > q3 > q4 > q5 < q6 < q7 < q8 < q9 , where q1 to q9 stand for the correlations of one value with the other nine values in the order presented in Fig. 1. The reference matrix represents this set of relations.
2

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

241

Table 3 Reference matrixes of expected factor intercorrelations for conrmatory factor analyses: 10 factor quasicircumplex (model 2) below the diagonal and basic theory modied quasi-circumplex (model 3) above the diagonal Values Universalism (UN) Benevolence (BE) Tradition (TR) Conformity (CO) Security (SE) Power (PO) Achievement (AC) Hedonism (HE) Stimulation (ST) Self-Direction (SD) UN 1.00 .68 .53 .38 .23 .08 .23 .38 .53 .68 BE .68 1.00 .68 .53 .38 .23 .08 .23 .38 .53 TR .43 .68 1.00 .68 .53 .38 .23 .08 .23 .38 CO .48 .68 .88 1.00 .68 .53 .38 .23 .08 .23 SE .28 .48 .68 .68 1.00 .68 .53 .38 .23 .08 PO .08 .28 .43 .48 .68 1.00 .68 .53 .38 .23 AC .08 .08 .18 .28 .48 .68 1.00 .68 .53 .38 HE .28 .08 ).07 .08 .28 .48 .68 1.00 .68 .53 ST .48 .28 ).07 .08 .08 .28 .48 .68 1.00 .68 SD .68 .48 .18 .28 .08 .08 .28 .48 .68 1.00

For each subsequent model (38), we modied the reference matrix of expected correlations to represent the relations among the values expected according to that model. In the results, we explain how we constructed the reference matrix of expected correlations for each of these models. The models that postulate the existence of subtypes (9 and 10) imply that each subtype consists of items that correlate more highly with one another than expected from their relation to the same latent value. That is, the correlations with the latent value of the items expected to constitute each subtype do not account fully for the intercorrelations among the items themselves. To model this pattern, we permitted correlated errors between the items in each subtype. We then tested whether models with these correlated errors t the data better than models with no correlated errors. Our criterion for the goodness of t of the models is a combination of two indexes, RMSEA and SRMR, recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999; cf. MacCallum & Austin, 2000). RMSEA is especially sensitive to models with misspecied factor covariances or latent structures, SRMR to models with misspecied factor loadings. Hu and Bentler suggest that, for samples of 5000, the approximate size of our samples, the probabilities of rejecting a valid model or of accepting an invalid model are extremely small when RMSEA is close to .06 and SRMR to .11. We report v2 statistics to test dierences in t between nested models. Many of the models are not nested, however. To test dierences between non-nested models, we report the Akaike information criterion, AIC (Akaike, 1973; Sakamoto, Ishiguro, & Kitagawa, 1986). Among a set of hypothesized, non-nested models, the best model is the one that minimizes the value of AIC. In all cases, our aim is to select the best model for describing the data among the theory-based alternatives.3
3 The decision whether one model ts the data better than another is sometimes dicult in this study. With the large samples, trivial dierences in v2 are statistically signicant. We therefore set a conservative probability level of p < :001 for considering Dv2 between nested models to be signicant. Moreover, dierences in the t coecients of the models are often small. When this is so, we use the dierences in the RMSEA, SRMR, and AIC as aids to choice, picking the model that is most convincing conceptually and that is also best according to the set of statistics.

242

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

As noted, we conducted all analyses on two independent sets of data. For both data sets, we rst calculated ordinary covariance matrixes.4 All analyses used maximum-likelihood estimation.

5. Results 5.1. Model 1: 10 orthogonal factors We rst tested a model that treats each value as independent. Table 4 reports results for this model of 10 orthogonal factors. An RMSEA index greater than .06 and an SRMR index greater than .11 indicate that this model t the empirical data poorly. 5.2. Model 2: A quasi-circumplex of 10 factors The preliminary model of the value theory, suggested but then rejected by Schwartz (1992), was a perfect circumplex structure of 10 factors. We tested this model by using the reference correlation matrix below the diagonal in Table 3. The pattern of correlations among all the values in this matrix represents exactly the pattern of expected correlations for a circumplex structure. The second row in Table 4 presents the t statistics for this model. The RMSEA index is slightly higher than the recommended cuto criterion in set I and just at that level in set II. The SRMR criterion is met in both sets of samples. Thus, the 10-factor quasi-circumplex model shows a moderate t to the data. It clearly ts the data better than the model of 10 orthogonal factors. Both the v2 value and the AIC value decreased substantially in both sets of samples. In this and all subsequent theory-driven models, all items loaded significantly (p < :0001) on the appropriate latent value. 5.3. Model 3: The 1992 theoryA modied quasi-circumplex model The denitive representation of the value theory is the quasi-circumplex structure presented in Fig. 1 (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). It locates tradition outside of conformity, but at the same polar angle in the circle. This reduces the number of locations around the circle from 10 to 9. The pattern of expected correlations above the diagonal in Table 3 represents this structure. We generated this pattern by modifying the correlations for the quasi-circumplex model (below the diagonal in Table 3) as follows. With only nine locations of values, the number of steps from any value to the opposite location in either direction around the circle is three. We therefore deThe samples that make up the data sets vary substantially in size. Hence, we also did the analyses on a correlation matrix for each set that weighted each sample equally. We constructed the average matrixes as follows. We transformed the correlations in each sample-specic correlation matrix into a Fisher-Z score, averaged these Z-scores across the samples of the data set, and transformed the mean Z-scores back into correlation coecients. Analyses of these average correlation matrixes yielded results very similar to those reported below. Because the mathematical properties of a matrix of averaged correlation coecients are uncertain, the text reports analyses on the unweighted covariance matrix.
4

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

Table 4 Conrmatory analyses of models of the structure of values in two sets of samples Model df Sample set I, N 5551 v 1. Ten orthogonal factors 2. Quasi-circumplex of 10 factors 3. The 1992 theorya modied quasi-circumplex 4. Combining tradition and conformity to yield nine values 5. Power values peripheral to achievement values 6. Combining power and achievement to yield nine values 7. Higher-order types of value 8. Free estimation of hedonism 9. Subtypes within universalism: nature and social concern 10. Subtypes within security: personal and group 989 989 989 989 989 989 989 987 981 977
2

Sample set II, N 5306 SRMR .160 .088 .081 .082 .083 .083 .080 .080 .079 .078 AIC 39310.8 24232.0 23540.1 23716.6 24220.5 24595.2 23710.3 22918.9 21353.9 21048.0 v2 33538.2 19611.1 19031.8 18964.7 19334.3 19699.2 19170.2 18635.5 17343.1 17044.1 RMSEA .079 .060 .059 .059 .059 .060 .059 .058 .056 .056 SRMR .150 .079 .073 .072 .074 .074 .074 .072 .072 .072 AIC 33722.2 19795.1 19215.8 19148.7 19518.9 19883.2 19354.2 18823.5 17543.1 17252.1

RMSEA .083 .065 .064 .064 .065 .066 .064 .063 .061 .061

39126.8 24048.0 23356.1 23532.6 24036.5 24711.2 23526.3 22730.9 21153.9 20840.0

243

244

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

termined the size of a step by subtracting the minimum correlation between pairs of values (.08) from the maximum (.68) and dividing by three, yielding steps of .20. Thus, in the reference matrix, adjacent values are expected to correlate .68, values separated by one other value around the circle (e.g., universalism and stimulation) .48, those separated by two other values (e.g., universalism and hedonism) .28, and those separated by three other values (e.g., universalism and achievement) .08. In order to represent the fact that tradition and conformity are located at the same polar angle, we increased the expected correlation between them by one step to .88. To represent the location of tradition toward the periphery of the circle, we reduced the expected correlations of tradition with the values that were one, two, and three steps away from it around the circle. The reduction had to increase with each step without reaching the equivalent of a full step, .20. We therefore reduced the expected correlations of tradition by .05 for each step. The expected correlations of tradition with its adjacent values (benevolence and security) were unchanged at .68. Its expected correlations with the values one step away (universalism and power) were reduced by .05, compared with the expected correlations of conformity, and xed at .43. The expected correlations of tradition with the values two steps away (self-direction and achievement) were reduced by .10 and xed at .18. Finally, its expected correlations with the values three steps away, on the opposite side of the circle (hedonism and stimulation), were reduced by .15 and xed at ).07. Row three in Table 4 presents the t statistics for this model. The RMSEA index is slightly higher than the recommended cuto criterion in set I and the criterion is met in set II. The SRMR criterion is met in both sets of samples. As compared with the quasi-circumplex model (2), the modied quasi-circumplex model ts the empirical data somewhat better. The goodness of t indexes improved slightly in both sets of samples, and both the AIC value and the v2 value decreased substantially both in set I and in set II. 5.4. Model 4: Combining tradition and conformity to yield nine values The modied quasi-circumplex model locates tradition and conformity values at the same polar angle on the circle because they share the same broad motivational goal. Model 4 asks whether tradition and conformity might better be treated as a single value rather than as separate values. This model is a quasi-circumplex with nine rather than 10 values. It combines the tradition and conformity items to form a single value located between benevolence and security. The reference matrix of expected correlations to reproduce this model is similar to that for model 3. However, tradition values are dropped from the matrix. The joint tradition/conformity value has the same expected correlations as conformity did in model 3. Row four in Table 4 presents the t statistics for this model. RMSEA shows no improvement in either set of samples compared with model 3. SRMR increases slightly in set I and decreases slightly in set II. Both models t the data reasonably well. The increase in the AIC value in set I (176.5) suggests that model 3 is better, but the decrease in the AIC value in set II (67.1) favors model 4. Thus, treating tradition

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

245

and conformity as a single value reduces the goodness of t a little in set I and improves it even less in set II. On empirical grounds, it is dicult to choose between the two models. To remain consistent with the value theory and with the research evidence that conformity and tradition have meaningfully dierent associations with other variables, we retain model 3. We treat conformity and tradition as distinct values, as the basis for further analyses. 5.5. Model 5: Power values peripheral to achievement values Schwartz (1992) raised the possibility that power and achievement values might be located at the same polar angle in the circle, with power peripheral to achievement. The proposed relationship between these two values parallels the relationship of tradition and conformity. We therefore followed the same procedures used to generate the matrix of expected correlations for model 3 in order to generate the matrix for model 5. That is, we xed the correlation between power and achievement at .88 and reduced the expected correlations of power with the values that are one, two, and three steps away from it around the circle by .05, .10, and .15, respectively, as compared with achievement. The expected correlations of power with its adjacent values are xed at .68 for security and hedonism. Its expected correlations with the values one step away are xed at .43 (stimulation and conformity) and .38 (tradition). Its expected correlations with the values two steps away are xed at .18 (benevolence and self-direction). Finally, its expected correlation with universalism, the only value three steps away, is xed at ).07. Row ve in Table 4 presents the t statistics for this model. Compared to model 3, the RMSEA and the SRMR indexes show a poorer t in both sets of samples. The substantially higher AIC values in both sets indicate that model 5 describes the data less well than model 3. We therefore reject this model and continue to use model 3, the modied quasi-circumplex, as the basis for comparing subsequent models. 5.6. Model 6: Combining power and achievement to yield nine values Model 6 asks whether power and achievement might better be treated as a single value rather than as separate values. The reference matrix of expected correlations to reproduce this model is similar to that for model 3 in Table 3, with necessary changes to reect reducing the number of distinct values by one.5 Row ve in Table 4 indicates that this model ts the observed data less well than model 3 in both sets of samples, judged by all indexes. We therefore reject this model as an improvement on the modied quasi-circumplex model.

The combined power/achievement value has the same expected correlations with security, tradition, and conformity that power did in model 3, and the same expected correlations with hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction that achievement did in model 3. In addition, the expected correlations of hedonism are .2 higher with conformity and security and .1 higher with tradition, and the expected correlation of stimulation with security is .2 higher.

5.7. Model 7: Higher-order types of value Schwartz (1992, 1994) proposed that four sets of values form higher-order value types: openness to changejoining stimulation and self-direction values; conservationjoining security, conformity, and tradition values; self-enhancementjoining power and achievement values; and self-transcendencejoining universalism and be-

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

247

evaluated this assumption. This and the subsequent models are nested, so we use Dv2 to estimate the signicance of changes. The t statistics in row eight of Table 4 all show some improvement over model 3. Dv2 values decreased signicantly in both sample sets (Dv2 625:2 and 396.3, 2df, p < :001). The freely estimated correlations of hedonism in sets I and II, respectively, were .39 and .42 with achievement and .63 and .64 with stimulation. This indicates that hedonism is closer to openness, though it also relates to self-enhancement. Given the signicant improvement in t, we compare the remaining models with model 8. 5.9. Model 9: Nature and social concern subtypes within universalism This model tests the existence of two potential subtypes of universalism proposed in the literature: social concernincluding the items equality, world at peace, and social justice; and natureincluding the items unity with nature, protecting the environment, and world of beauty. The existence of these subtypes implies that each consists of items that correlate more highly with one another than expected from their relation to the latent universalism factor. To model this pattern, we permitted correlated errors between the items in each subtype. We then tested whether this model ts the data better than the model with no correlated errors. Row nine in Table 4 presents the t statistics for this model. Compared to model 8, RMSEA improves in both sets of samples and SRMR improves in set I. Moreover, v2 values are signicantly lower in both sample sets (Dv2 1577 and 1292.4, 7df, p < :001). This test supports the existence of social concern and nature subtypes within universalism values. 5.10. Model 10: Personal and group subtypes within security This model tests the existence of two potential subtypes of security: personal securityincluding the items family security, reciprocation of favors, and clean; and group security or security of the wider collectivityincluding the items social order and national security. Following the same procedure as in model 9, we modeled this pattern by permitting correlated errors between the items in each subtype. Row 10 in Table 4 presents the t statistics for this model. Compared to model 9, RMSEA is unchanged in both sets of samples, while SRMR improves slightly only in set I. However, v2 values are signicantly lower in both sample sets (Dv2 313:7 and 298.9, 4df, p < :001), indicating improved t. These ndings support, albeit weakly, discriminating the personal and group subtypes within security values. 5.11. Loadings of items on factors in the nal model Table 5 provides the loading patterns of items on the latent factors in the nal model (10) for both data sets. Not only are all loadings signicant (p < :001), but all are substantial (>.40), with only one exception. Accepting ones portion in life loads .26 on the tradition value factor in set I, though it too is signicant

248 S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

Table 5 Loading pattern of items on latent factors for nal model (10) Item Universalism SI Equality World at peace Unity with nature Wisdom World of beauty Social justice Broadminded Protecting the environment Loyal Honest Helpful Responsible Forgiving Respectful Moderate Humble Accepting ones portion in life Devout Politeness Self-discipline Honoring parents and elders .43 .49 .40 .45 .48 .58 .59 .54 SII .46 .51 .47 .41 .54 .59 .43 .54 .57 .66 .62 .59 .55 .49 .58 .63 .52 .49 .49 .51 .61 .26 .53 .53 .44 .50 .30 .48 .66 .57 .73 .64 .57 .66 Benevolence SI S II Tradition SI SII Conformity SI SII Security SI SII Power SI SII Achievement SI SII Hedonism SI SII Stimulation SI SII Selfdirection SI SII

Obedient Social order National security Reciprocation of favors Family security Clean Social power Wealth Authority Preserving public image Ambitious Inuential Capable Successful Pleasure Enjoying life Self-indulgent Exciting life Varied life Daring Freedom Creativity Independent Choosing own goals Curious Note. SI is sample set I; SII is sample set II.

.61

.57 .53 .62 .53 .48 .67 .52 .59 S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255 .45 .45 .64 .54 .59 .62 .54 .54 .58 .65 .57 .62 .57 .55 .69 .56 .57 .50 .63 .69 .71 .60 .66 .66 .57 .66 .62 .52 .69 .69 .53 .54 .47 .52 .57 .46 .53 .53 .34 .45 .50

249

250

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

p < :001. Furthermore, loadings are quite similar in the two data sets, diering by .08 or less for 43 items. Only in three cases, broadminded, independent, and humble, is there a dierence in loadings of more than .10 between the two data sets.

6. Discussion The current analyses are the rst formal, quantitative assessment of the theory of the structure of basic human values (Schwartz, 1992). Analyses in two independent sets of 23 samples from 27 countries yielded very similar results. We can therefore have considerable condence in the conclusions these results suggest. The analyses support the denitive, modied quasi-circumplex version of the theory and some proposed renements, but reject others. 6.1. The basic value structure The discrimination of items into 10 distinct values, each dened by its motivational content, is conrmed. Each of the 46 items correlates signicantly (p < :001) with its a priori latent value factor. The SRMR statistic, which is especially sensitive to misspecied factor loadings, shows an excellent t. Moreover, had correlations with multiple factors been permitted, no item would have correlated as highly with any other factor.7 The poor t of the model of 10 orthogonal factors conrms that the 10 values are not independent. The quasi-circumplex structure of relations among the 10 values (model 2), proposed as a preliminary theory (Schwartz, 1992), provides a reasonable t to the data. Subjective judgments of the SSA plots of relations among values in 40 samples had led Schwartz (1992) to reject the simple quasi-circumplex structure. Instead, he proposed a modied quasi-circumplex, with tradition values peripheral to conformity values (model 3). The current analyses support this change. Substantial improvements in AIC and in the RMSEA and SRMR indexes in both sets of samples provide a statistical justication for adopting the modied quasi-circumplex as the denitive model for the theory of value structure. 6.2. Proposed model renements 6.2.1. Tradition and conformity Because tradition and conformity values share the same broad motivational goal, we evaluated a simpler model that combined them into one (model 4). Compared with the modied quasi-circumplex, the t indexes are virtually the same for this model. The AIC values indicate a better t for model 3 in sample set I but a better t for model 4 in sample set II. Thus, the CFA results give no denitive answer whether to retain the distinction between tradition and conformity values. A decision therefore depends on the fruitfulness of this distinction. Because tradition
7

The relevant modication indexes are available from the authors.

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

251

and conformity values are adjacent in the value structure, their associations with other variables should be quite similar. This is indeed the most common nding. However, numerous dierences in the associations of these two values indicate that it is fruitful to treat them as distinct. We cite a subset of the varied ndings that support the distinction. Tradition and conformity values have signicantly dierent correlations with three of the Big 5 traitsagreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002), with views of how much the government is doing about human rights (Spini & Doise, 1998), and with indicators of religiosity, across religions and nations (e.g., Schwartz & Huismans, 1995). Tradition values discriminate strongly among voters for dierent political parties in many nations, whereas conformity values do not (Barnea, 2003; Barnea & Schwartz, 1998). Parentchild value similarity is high for tradition values, among both adolescents and young adults, but low for conformity values (Boehnke, 2001; Knafo & Schwartz, 2002). Finally, in samples from 61 nations, conformity values tend to be moderately important (typically 5th or 6th in the hierarchy of 10 values), whereas tradition values are signicantly less important (typically 8th or 9th; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). 6.3. Power and achievement Like tradition and conformity, power and achievement dier on characteristics that might lead to a central versus peripheral order. The peripheral location of power (model 5) is rejected by the analyses. It yields poorer t indexes than the modied quasi-circumplex in both sets of samples. The simpler model that combines power and achievement into a single value (model 6) is also rejected. 6.4. Higher-order value types The most signicant, applied modication of the value structure has been to use only the four higher-order value typesopenness to change, conservation, self-enhancement, and self-transcendence typesas predictors. Are these particular higher-order types more justied than other possible groupings of the 10 values? Use of these particular types implies that the values that constitute each are substantively closer to one another than to the other values to which they are adjacent in the value circle (model 7). Schwartz (1992, 1994) attributed no substantive signicance to the particular higher-order types. He grouped the 10 values only to describe the value structure more simply. He maintained that the values form a motivational continuum. If the 10 values do form a continuum, other groupings of adjacent values (e.g., universalism with self-direction) would be equally legitimate for purposes of simplifying. The CFA analyses reveal that increasing intercorrelations among values within higher-order types provides no improvement in t. This supports the assumption that the values do indeed form a motivational continuum. The continuum idea implies that the array of value items can be partitioned into as many or as few

252

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

categories as is optimal for a researchers purposes. Higher-order types can be formed, but alternative combinations of adjacent values into higher-order types are as legitimate as the previously designated higher-order types. Universalism and self-direction, for example, can form a higher order intellectual openness type, and power and security an uncertainty control type. These higher-order types predict a classic liberal vs. conservative orientation in politics, whereas the previously specied higher-order types do not (Barnea, 2003). Benevolence, tradition, and conformity, for example, can form a conventional prosocial type that predicts the agreeableness trait of the Five Factor Model more strongly than either the previously specied self-transcendence or conservation higher-order types (data from Roccas et al., 2002). In sum, the support for a motivational continuum of values gives researchers the freedom and exibility to choose higher-order combinations of adjacent values particularly suited to the topics they study. 6.5. Hedonism Hedonism values share with power and achievement values their emphasis on the interests of self. They share with stimulation and self-direction their emphasis on openness to change. The value theory does not specify which emphasis is stronger. Freeing the correlations of hedonism with its adjacent values (model 8) addressed this issue. A signicant improvement in t indexes in both sets of samples indicates that hedonism is not equally close to self-enhancement and openness. Although it correlates signicantly with both, it is clearly closer to openness. This suggests that, for most people, hedonism values focus more on freely experiencing pleasure and less on pursuing pleasure competitively. 6.6. Universalism and security subtypes The motivational goal of universalism values is to understand, appreciate, and protect the welfare of all people and nature. The literature suggested that this broad value includes two separable subtypes, social concern and nature. Allowing correlated errors among the items in each subtype (model 9) signicantly improves t indexes in both sample sets. This supports the division of universalism into subtypes. The motivational goal of security values is safety, harmony, and stability of society, relationships, and self. Schwartz (1992) ed that this value too might include separable subtypes, one focused more on self and the other on groups and society. Allowing correlated errors among the items in these subtypes (model 10) also improves the t indexes in both sample sets. We did not test the possibility of treating the subtypes of universalism and of security as distinct values, because such a model has not been proposed in the literature. For studying particularly relevant issues, however, separate indexes for the subtypes might be useful. For example, a nature index might be used for environmental issues and a personal security index for personal safety issues (e.g., installing burglar alarms and other home protection devices).

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

253

6.7. Reections on the theory of value structure One crucial assumption underlies the theory of value structure: Actions that express any value have consequences that conict or are compatible with the pursuit of other values. The motivational goals of some values (e.g., power and benevolence) are postulated to be inherently antagonistic, the goals of others (e.g., power and achievement) to be inherently congruent. The total set of antagonistic and congruent relations among the 10 values gives rise to the modied quasi-circumplex value structure (Fig. 1). Conict or antagonism implies negative correlations between values on opposite sides of the structure. Yet, the correlations between opposing values in the reference matrixes for the various models ranged only from +.08 to ).07. Does this contradict the assumption of opposition between conicting values? As noted above, some people tend to rate all values relatively high or low, regardless of content. This biases observed intercorrelations among values upward. Standardizing each participants responses eliminates this bias, though it introduces other problems.8 Freely estimated correlations among the latent factors for the 10 values, based on the standardized data, provide a rough assessment of the true degree of opposition. The correlations between pairs of values that the theory describes as antagonistic ranged from ).49 to ).81, averaging ).72. Thus, these data support the assumption of opposition between conicting values that is central to the value theory. Future theorizing about the value structure might consider and test two issues that our analyses indirectly raised. First, do the 10 values dier in the breadth of their content? Schwartz (1992) suggested that universalism and security are conceptually broad, including subtypes that were conrmed here. Are other values especially narrow conceptually (e.g., hedonism and stimulation)? The method employed here could be used to model and test theory-based specications of dierences in the conceptual breadth of the values. For that purpose, however, it would be desirable to index each value with an equal number of items. The second issue concerns the central-peripheral distinction found with conformity and tradition values. Do values vary on this general dimension in addition to the dimension of motivational content? This dimension was interpreted as indicating variation in the closeness of a value to the self, its involvement in everyday interaction, and its specicity vs. abstractness. Centrality may also signify greater normative importance (Melech, 2001). The centrality of value items in the space correlates positively with their importance ratings. Systematic theorizing that considers the locations of value items on this potential dimension might enrich the value theory and point to hypotheses testable with the methods used here. In conclusion, it is worth noting the overlap between the inferences supported by dierent methods. The theory of the structure of values was rened by examining
8 We did not standardize in the main analyses for two reasons. First, this would impose the same variance on everyones responses. But people dier greatly in the degree to which they discriminate among their values. Hence standardizing would distort responses. Second, standardizing exacerbates problems with missing data.

254

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

subjective judgments of SSA plots in many samples. Such judgments can be misleading. In this case, however, the key judgments were supported by the statistical tests. This was so even though the theoretical model makes ne distinctions and the tests were performed on new data. Studies using multidimensional scaling methods led to the conclusion that the value structure is robust to respondents gender, age, or level of education (Schwartz, 1992, 1994; Struch, Schwartz, & van der Kloot, 2002). The fact that the CFAs conrm the value structure inferred from earlier visual inspections increases our condence in this conclusion. The success of these subjective judgments demonstrates that visual inspection of spatial representations can reveal reliable, theoretically meaningful relations among variables. It is most successful when guided by a clear theory and when replicated in many samples.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by Grant No. 94-00063 from the United StatesIsrael Binational Science Foundation (BSF) and by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Israel Academy of Sciences) to the rst author, and by Grant I-242-065.04/92 from the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientic Research and Development to both authors, and was facilitated by the Leon and Clara Sznajderman Chair of Psychology.

References
Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov, & N. Csaki (Eds.), Second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267281). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. Barnea, M. (2003). Relations of personal values to political orientations across cultures. Doctoral Dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Barnea, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (1998). Values and voting. Political Psychology, 19, 1740. Bilsky, W. (1998). Values and motives. Paper presented at the International Research Workshop Values: Psychological Structure, Behavioral Outcomes, and Inter-Generational Transmission. MaaleHachamisha, Israel. Boehnke, K. (2001). Parent-ospring value transmission in a societal context: Suggestions for a utopian research design with empirical underpinnings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 241255. Borg, I., & Shye, S. (1993). Facet theory: The method and its application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Browne, M. W. (1992). Circumplex models for correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 57, 469497. Fabrigar, L. R., Visser, P. S., & Browne, M. W. (1997). Conceptual and methodological issues in testing the circumplex structure of data in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 184203. Fontaine, J. R. J. (1999). Cultural bias in Schwartz value instrument: An exemplary study on cultural bias in social psychological and personality questionnaires. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258348). New York: Columbia University Press. Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for nding the smallest coordinate space for a conguration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469506. Hrubes, D., Ajzen, I., & Daigle, J. (2001). Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences, 23, 165178.

S.H. Schwartz, K. Boehnke / Journal of Research in Personality 38 (2004) 230255

255

Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cuto criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS. o o Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Accounting for parentchild value congruence: perception, acceptance, and beyond. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, submitted manuscript. Levy, S. (1985). Lawful roles of facets in social theories. In D. Canter (Ed.), The facet approach to social research (pp. 5996). New York: Springer-Verlag. MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201226. Melech, G. (2001). Value development in adolescence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Plutchik, R., & Conte, H. R. (Eds.). (1997a). Circumplex models of personality and emotions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Plutchik, R., & Conte, H. R. (1997b). Epilogue: The future of the circumplex. In R. Plutchik, & H. R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models of personality and emotions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789801. Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 255277. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic Individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 4971. Sagiv, L. (1994, July). Cross-cultural dierences in the components and meaning of universalism values. Paper presented at the XII International Conference of the International Association for CrossCultural Psychology, Pamplona, Spain. Sakamoto, Y., Ishiguro, M., & Kitagawa, G. (1986). Akaike information criterion statistics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 165). New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 1945. Schwartz, S. H. (1997). When are universalism values particularistic? Paper presented at the International Colloquium: Universalism vs. Particularism Toward the 21st Century, Prague, Czech Republic. Schwartz, S. H. (in press). Basic human values: Their content and structure across countries. In A. Tamayo & J. Porto (Eds.), Valores e trabalho [Values and work]. Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia. Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology., 32, 268290. Schwartz, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four Western religions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88107. Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture specics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92116. Schwartz, S. H., Sagiv, L., & Boehnke, K. (2000). Worries and values. Journal of Personality, 68, 309346. Spini, D., & Doise, W. (1998). Organizing principles of involvement in human rights and their social anchoring in value priorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 603622. Struch, N., Schwartz, S. H., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2002). Meanings of basic values for women and men: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1628. Tracey, T. J. G. (1997). RANDALL: A Microsoft FORTRAN program for the randomization test of hypothesized order relations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 164168. Tracey, T. J. G. (2000). Analysis of circumplex models. In H. E. A. Tinsley, & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 641664). New York: Academic Press.