Values and dimensions of culture

Lecture 10

Values
General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals Life guidelines Criteria of evaluating goals, activities, and events Hierarchical structure: ultimate (autonomous) goals instrumental goals

Basic values do they exist?

Abraham Maslow:
Deficit needs (food, security, self-esteem) Growth needs (achievement, self-actualization)

Idea used by Ronald Inglehart in studies of nations values

Abraham Maslow Need Hierarchy

Selfactuali zation

Aesthetic Cognitive needs Esteem needs Belongingness and love Safety needs Physiological needs

Gordon Allport
G. Allport: six value types:
economic political aesthetic social religious theoretical

Value classifications
Milton Rokeach 36 values
Autonomous and instrumental values Personal and social values Competence and morality-related values

Shalom Schwartz 56 values, 10 categories

Three basic categories of demands:
Biological demands of an organism Demands of social interactions Demands of smooth functioning of social groups

Two dimensions
openness to change conservatism self-transcendence self-enhancement

Shalom Schwartz
Values circumplex

Shalom Schwartz theory of values

Conservation
Security
Tradition

Power
Achievement

Conformity

Self-transcendence
Benevolence Self-direction Uniwersalism

Self-enhancement
Hedonism Stimulation

Openeness to change

Self-enhancement
Power:
Social status Control albo dominance over people and resources Values:
Social power Authority Wealth Preserving public image Social recognition

Self enhancement
Achievements
Personal success due to own competences, in agreement with social standards
successful Capable Ambitious Influential Intelligent Self respect

Openness to change
Hedonism
Pleasures and sensory gratifications
Pleasure Enjoying life

Stimulation
Excitement, novelty, life challenges
Daring Varied life Exciting life

Openness to change
Self-direction
Independence of though and decison, creativity, exploration
Creativity Freedom Independence Curious Choosing own goals

Self-transcendence
Universalism
Undestanding, tolerance, caring about welfare of all people and nature
Open mind, Broad-minded Social justice Equality World peace Beautiful world Unity with nature Inner harmony Protect environment

Self-transcendence
Benevolence
Caring about well-being of close ones
Helpful Honest Forgiving Loyal Responsible True friendship Mature love

Conservatism
Tradition
Respecting customs Belief that tradition, culture and religion serve individual
Humble Accepting my role in life Respect for tradition Religiosity Moderate

Conservatism
Conformity
Inhibition of actions and impulses that can hurt or are not accepted by others and that go against social norms.
Politeness Obedience Self-discipline Honor elders

Conservatism
Security
Security, harmony and stability of society and own person
Family Security National security Social order Clean Reciprocation of favors Sense of belonging Health

Another classification of values by Shalom Schwartz

Conservatism
Security
Tradition

Hierarchy
Power

Mastery
Achievement

Conformity

Harmony
Benevolence Self-direction

Affective autonomy
Hedonism Stimulation

Egalitarian Commitment

Universalism

Intellectual autonomy

Studies with the Value Questionnaire

56 values
52 the 10 main types 4 spiritual values

Autonomous vs. Instrumental values

30 autonomous (nouns) 26 instrumental (adjective)

Rating on 9-point scale

-1 against my values 0 neutral for me 7 highest importance

Profiles (examples)
(from Very much like me to Not like me at all)

Thinking up new ideas and being creative 1 is important to her. She likes to do things in her own way (Self-Direction) It is important for her to be rich. She wants to have a lot of money and expensive things (Power) She thinks that it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. She belives everyone should have equal opportunities in life (Universalism) 1

Cross-cultural studies
97 samples (about 200 subjects in a sample) 44 countries from all continents Years 1988-1993 Samples
Teachers from elementary and high schools University students and pupils Together 25, 863 subjects

Factor analysis of mean national values

Conservatismopenness to change Conservatism Self-transcendenceself-enhancement

Affective autonomy
Intellectual autonomy

-0,973 0,867 0,764

-----0,150 -0,207

Hierarchy Mastery Harmony

Egalitarian commitment

-0,266 0,351 0,270 0,683

0,842 0,696 -0,777 -0,319

Main dimensions after factor analysis

Conservatism
Security
Tradition

Hierarchy
Power

Mastery
Achievement

Conformity

Harmony

Affective autonomy
Hedonism Stimulation

Benevolence

Egalitarian Commitment

Universalism

Self-direction

Intellectual autonomy

Structure of values in postcommunist countries

Teachers
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
ns er va tis m H ie ra rc hy H Eg arm a Em lita ony ot rian i In ona ism te lle l Au ct ua ton lA . ut on M . as te ry

Eastern Europe Western Europe

Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)

Co

Structure of values in postcommunist countries

Students
6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Eastern Europe Western Europe

ns er va H tism ie ra rc H E g a r hy Em ali mo ot tari ny In ion an te lle al A ism ct ua uto l A n. ut M on. as te ry

Co

Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)

Relations between values in different countries

Universal values (social justice, world peace, equality) opposite to security values (social order, national security) In Eastern Europe no opposition

Conservation

Ordering of countries (teacher samples) after Schwartz

Georgia

Estonia Slovakia Poland Russia Bulgaria Czech Republic Hungary Finland Slovenia Spain Portugal

Turkey
Tailand Brasil

Malaysia Hong Kong

Self- enhancement
USA

Italy

Mexico
Australia Denmark Greece Germany Japan New Zealand

Israel
China

Self-transcendence

Openness for experience

France Switzerland 0

Schwartzs theory od values and social orientations

Prisoners dilemma and social orientations

A B cooperates defects

+4 +4
defects

+10 -5

-5

-3
+10 -3

Social orientations as shown in social dilemmas games

Individualism maximize own gain Altruism maximize partners gain Cooperation maximize joint profit Competition maximize relative gain over partner Equality minimize difference between own and partners gain Agression maximize partners losses Masochism maximize own losses Martyrdom maximize relative gain of the partner Sadomasochism mazimize joint loss

Social values according to McClintock (1988) OTHER

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
individualism 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 MYSELF

masochism -5 -4 -3 -2 -1

Theory of values of Shalom Schwartz and social orientations

Martyrdom
Security
Tradition

aggression
Power

Competition

Achievement

Conformity

Altruism

Benevolence Self-direction

Hedonism Stimulation

Cooperation

Universalism

Individualism

Structure of values and social orientations (cooperation vs. competition)

After: Schwartz (1996)

Another presentation of value structure

Tradition Security Conformity

Values beyond an individual

Power achievement

Benevolence universalism

Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction

Values within an individual

Ronald Inglehart
The World Value Survey

Two dimensions of values

Secular-rational vs. traditional authority Survival (materialistic) vs. post-materialistic values

Diagnostic questions: materialism vs. postmaterialism

People sometimes talk about what the aims of this country should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. Would you please say which one of these you, yourself, consider the most important? And which one would be the next most importanrt?
A high level of economic growth (M) Making sure this country has strong defense forces (M) Seeing that people have more to say about how things are done at their jobs and in their communities Trying to make our cities and countryside more beautiful

If you had to choose, which one of the things on this card would you say is most important? And which would be the next most important?
Maintaining order in the nation (M) Giving people more say in important government decisions Protecting freedom of speech Fighting rising prices (M) A stable economy (M) Progress toward a less impersonal and more humane society Progress toward soecirty in which ideas count more than money The fight against crime (M)

Here is another list....

Ordering of questions on the dimension of materialismpostmaterialism (study 1974)

Traditional (religious) vs. secular values

(1) monoteism faith in one God (2) family sacred (attitudes towards abortion, betrayal, prostitution, homosexualism) (3) social order (attitudes towards theft, lie, agression)

Social trust
Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people?
1. Most people can be trusted 2. Need to be careful

European Social Survey level of trust in European countries

Causes of value change

Cohort effects (generation)
Socialization factors in early childhood effect the rest of life

Historical period effects

Periods of economic depression increase in materialistic values

Age effects
As people grow older they become more materialistic (conservative?)

Cohort effects

Age effects

Cohort + historical period

Results

Inglehart vs. Schwartz

Factor I
Traditonal- secular authority Survivalpostmaterialistic values

Factor II
0,822

0,892

-0,148

Conservatismopenness to change
Self-transendence self-enhancement

0,925
0,147 -0,725

Schwartz vs. Inglehart (?)

survival

Conservatism
Security
Tradition

Hierarchy
Power

traditional

Mastery
Achievement

Conformity

Harmony
secular

Affective autonomy
Hedonism Stimulation

Benevolence

Egalitarian Commitment

Universalism

Self-direction

Well-being

Intellectual autonomy

Level of happiness and Ingleharts dimensions

5 5 4 4 3 3

Happiness_Inglehart

-1 -2 -2 -1 0 1 2

-1 -2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

inglehart_survival

Inglehart_authority

r(59)=0,870***

r(59)=-0,205, n.i.

Level of happiness and Schwartz dimensions

5 5 4 4 3 3

Happiness_Inglehart

-1 -2 -2 -1 0 1

-1 -2 3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Schwartz1_konserwatyzm - otwartosc

Schwartz2_wzmacnianie ja_przekraczanie ja

r(27)=0,646***

R(27)=0,045

Other ways of measuring values

If I had a million....

Studied regions

Spending a milion percent mentioned

house bank charity inv e sting life own e ducation flat for childre n hobby e arth othe rs farm family car trav e l ple asure s childre n's e ducation black hour he alth de bts e migration family's future

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

procent wzmianek

Poland

Ukraine

Three clusters
Cluster I (materialistic) (N=695)
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Cluster II (mixed) (N=217)

30 25
cluster I cluster II cluster III

20 15 10 5 0

cluster I cluster II cluster III

ho us e

st in g

nd

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 family cluster I cluster II cluster III

ho u

80

se

ch ild re tr n av he el ed al uc th at io ho n b ch by a ev rit er y yd a ot y he rs

ca

ba n

in ve

la

Cluster III (family) (N=364)

Poland

Generational changes (Poland)

Lewicka (2003)
family 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 80-95 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 15-19 materialistic

Inglehart (1990)

Polish value shift?

Poland - shift from postmaterialistic to materialistic values

Dimensions of cultures - Geert Hofstede

Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (2002)

Investigating cultures methodological problems

Emic vs. Etic
Equivalent of the linguistic distinction of (fon)emic and (fon)etic aspect of speech emic studying culture from inside, as member of the culture etic studying culture from outside, as external observer, comparing cultures on common dimensions

Emic vs. etic

Emic approach
Studies behavior within a system Studies only one culture Researcher discovers structure of relationships

Etic approach
Studies behavior from outside of the system Compares many cultures Researcher imposes structure of relationships

Criteria relative to the studied Criteria absolute and object universal

Steps in investigating cultures (after: Berry, 1989)

Step 1 Activity of researcher
Start from own culture Trasnfer to other culture Discover other culture Compare both cultures Comparison impossible Comparison possible Derived

Culture A (own) Emic A

Culture B (other)
Imposed

2
3 4

etic

Emic B
Emic A Emic A A B Emic B Emic B

5-1
5-2

Etic

Methodological approaches to crosscultural comparisons

10 cultures x 20 Item-questionnaire x 100 Subjects per culture
Ecological level analysis: Cross-cultural approach: means from 100 Ss for each culture (20 items x 10 cultures) Individual level analysis: Intra-cultural approach: separate (matrices) for each culture (10 analyses) (Emic) Universal level analysis: Pancultural approach: combining all 10 x 100 Ss together (20 items x 1000 Ss) (Etic)

Dimensions of culture
G. Hofstede years 70s and 80s
Studies of 117 000 IBM employes in 66 countries Attempt at finding etic dimensions which would differentiate cultures
Hierarchy Intolerance of ambiguity Individualism-collectvism Masculinity-feminity time perspective (emic Chinese dimension)

Dimensions suggested by Hofstede

Power distance degree of pecking order in organizations Uncertainty avoidance intolerance of ambiguity, need for clear rules and laws Individualism collectivism Caring for oneself vs own goup Masculinity-feminity focus on masculine goals (finances, achievement, assertiveness) vs. feminine goals (friendship, caring for others)

Power distance - Family

Low PDI
Parents treat children as equals Children should enjoy leisure Infertility no reason for divorce Children treat parents and old relatives as equal Children expected to be socially competent at young age Children play no role in oldage security of parents Small enterprises set up for job reasons

High PDI
Parents teach children obedience Children should work hard Infertility reason for divorce Respect for parents and older relatives is a basic virtue Children not seen as competent Children a source of old-age security Small enterprises for family interests

Power distance at school

Low PDI
Teachers treat students as equal Students treat teachers as equals Student-centered education Students inititate some communication in the class Teachers are experts who transfer impersonal truths Educational system focuses on middle levels

High PDI
Students depend on teachers Students treat teachers with respect, even outside class Teacher-centered education Teacher initiate all communication in the class Teachers are gurus who transfer personal wisdom Educational system focuses on top level

Power distance in the work organization

Decentralized decision structures: less concentration of authority Flat organization pyramids Subordinates expect to be consulted Narrow salary range between top and bottom of organization Manual work same status as clerical work Centralized decision structures; more concentration on authority Tall organization pyramids Subordinates expect to be told
Wide salary range between top and bottom of organization White-collar jobs valued more than blue-collar jobs

Power distance in political systems

Low PDI
Pluralist government based on outcome of majority vote Usually social democratic governments Strong center, relatively weak right and left wings Gradual changes in form of government (evolution and stability) Power, status and wealth do not need to go together Small income differentials in society, further reduced by the tax system Less corruption: scandals end political career Citizens read more newspapers

High PDI
Military, autocratic or oligarchic government Usually right-wing government Polarization between left and right with weak center Sudden changes in the form of government (revolution and/or instability) Status consistency: power brings status and wealth Large income differentials in society, further increased by the tax system More corruption: scandals expected to be covered up Citizens watch more television

Power distance
Low PD:
We should give him something, after all it is our professor of music

Students treat teachers as equals

Individualism vs. collectvism

Individualism societies in which relations between individuals are loose, concern for oneself and closest family Collectivism societies in which individuals from early childhood learn to integrate with strong, coherent groups which in return for absolute loyality guarantee them security and protection.

Individualism - collectivism and societal norms

Low IDV
In society, people are born into extended families or class, which protect them in exchange for loyality we consciousness Gemeinschaft (community) Value standards differ for inand out-group: particularism shame culture Emphasis on belonging: membership ideal Private life invaded by institutions and organizations to which one belongs Survival

High IDV
In society, everyone is supposed to take care of himherself and his or her immediate family only I consciousness Gesellschaft (society) Value standards should apply to all: universalism guilt cultures Emphasis on individual initiative and achievement: leadership ideal Everyone has a right to private life Hedonism

Individualism-collectivism and family

Low IDV
People live with or close to relatives or clan members Family provides protection in exchange for life-long loyality Strong family ties, frequent contacts Fewer divorces Care for aged relatives and worship of ancestors Mothers expect to live with children in their old age Nobody is ever alone Financial and ritual obligations to relatives Living with in-laws and shared income and religion normal

High IDV
People live in nuclear or oneparent families Children are supposed to take care of themselves as soon as possible Weak family ties, rare contacts More divorces Aged relatives should care for themselves; ancestors unknown, irrelevant Mothers expected to live apart in their old age Privacy is normal Financial independence of relatives, few family rituals Living with in-laws undesirable; independence of income and religion

Individualism-collectivism at school
Low IDV
Teachers deal with pupils as a group Pupils individual initiatives discouraged Harmony, face and shaming in class Students will not speak up in class or large groups Purpose of education is how to do Diplomas provide entry to higher-status groups

High IDV Teachers deal with individual pupils Pupils individual initiatives encouraged Students selves to be respected Students expected to speak up in class or large groups Purpose of education is learning how to learn Diplomas increase economic worth and/or selfrespect

Individualism-collectivism and consumer behavior

Low IDV
Live in apartments or flats Live with human companions Security by social networks Ask friends for job around the house Read fewer book, use fewer home computers, enjoy TV more Social network main source of information

High IDV
Live in detached houses with private gardens Live with cats and/or dogs Security by home and life insurance Do-it-yourself for jobs around the home More books, use computer, use answering machines Media main source of information

Individualism-collectivism and political systems

Low IDV
Collective interests supposed to prevail over individual interests Economy based on collective interests State capitalism or state socialism Economic monopolies Private life is invaded by public interests Rigid social and occupational class system Small share of national budget spent on education

High IDV
Individual interests supposed to prevail over collective interests Economy based on individual interests Market capitalism or market socialism Competition stimulated Everyone has a right to privacy Social and occupational mobility Large share of national budget spent on education

Individualism-collectivism
High IDV:
It is a free country and everybody can do what one wants

Emphasis on individual initiative

Individualism-collectivism comparison (after: Kim, Triandis et al. 1994)

Individualism
Basic assumption Rationality, Reason
Principles Individuation Self-actualization uniqueness

Collectivism
Basic assumption Relatedeness
Common goods harmony
support help Common fate

Regulations, principles, law

Autonomy Freedom of choice Assertiveness

Duties, obligations
interdependence nurturance conciliation

China

Romania Russia

Estonia

Czechia Poland

Slovakia

Hungary

Bulgaria

Uncertainty avoidance
Low UAI
Lower work stress Emotions have to be controlled More subjective well-being Less hesitation to change employer Company loyalty is not a virtue If necessary, employees may break rules Less resistance to changes Most people can be trusted High UAI Higher work stress Expression of emotion normal Less subjective well-being Tendency to stay with same employer Company loyality is a virtue Company rules should not be broken More resistance to changes One cant be careful enough with other people, not even with family

High uncertainty avoidance

Nowadays even own dog cannot be trusted

China

Estonia

Hungary

Czechia BLG

Poland
Slovakia

Romania Russia

Masculinity-feminity
Low MAS
Cooperation at work important Values of women and man hardly different Promotion by merit Work not central in a persons life space Higher well-being in rich countries

High MAS
Challenge and recognition in jobs important Values of women and men very different Promotion by protection Work very central in a persons life space Higher well-being in poor countries

Masculinity-feminity and societal norms

Low MAS
Relationship orientation Quality of life and people are important Sympathy for the weak Small and slow are beautiful Men and women should be modest Minimum emotional and social role differentiation between the genders

High MAS
Ego orientation Money and things are important Sympathy for the strong Big and fast are beautiful Men should be and women may be assertive and ambitious Maximum emotional and social role differentiattion between genders

Masculinity - feminity
Low MAS
Relationship orientation
Write: I love Joan !

China

RO BLG
Russia Czechia Poland

Estonia

Slovakia

Hungary

Hofstede vs. Schwartz

Hofstede
Originally no post-communist countries in the sample (added later) Sample limited to employees of big corporations Studies in years 1967-1973:
Before changes in Europe in 1989 No acknowledgement of postmaterialistic changes in structure of values in Western Europe

Schwartz vs. Hofstede

Collectivism High power distance

High UA
Security

Power

Masculinity
Achievement

Tradition

Conformity
Hedonism Stimulation Universalism Self-direction

Benevolence

Feminity

Individualism Low UA

Low power distance

Factor analysis of Schwartz, Inglehart and Hofstede

Factor 1
Openness to change Self-enhancement Secular authority Postmaterialism Power distance individualism Uncertainty avoidance Masculinity

Factor 2

Factor 3

0,686 0,745 -0,852 0,910 -0,874 0,753 -0,531 0,795

Cultural vs. objective dimensions: How much of our values is due to conditions of life?
Lecture 11

Monitoring of the world

United Nations Development Programs
Yearly reports comparing countries on measures indicative of quality of life

Transparency International
Reports on perceived corruption

OECD Program for International Student Assessment

Questions
Hard vs. soft measures mutual relationships? Standard of life or values - the best predictor of happiness? Comparison of Poland with other countries (world, Europe) on hard and soft measures

Measures
HDI - Human Development Index (values 0 1) GDP - Gross Domestic Product index (values 0 1) CPI - Corruption Perception Index (values 0 10) GINI Gini Index Index of social inequalities (values 0 100) PISA - Program for International Student Assessment) International exam of 15 years old in reading ability, mathematical knowledge and scientific thinking (values 400 600; mean 500 points)

Human Development Index

Components:
Life expectancy Scholarization index - levels I, II & III Living standard (PPP how much can be bought with average salary)

Values: 0 1 and rank of the country Description: long, wise, and affluent life of an average inhabitant of the country

Human Development Index position of Poland (2003)

value Value for Poland 0,841 Compar N Position Best score ison countrie of s Poland (rank) World 175 35 0,944 Norway 0,944 Norway 0,891 Cyprus Worst score

0-1

0,275 Sierra Leone 0,700 Moldova 0,734 Turkey

Europe

39

23

13 new 13 EU countrie s

Gross Domestic Product (GDP US$) position of Poland (2001)

Value Value for Poland 9 450 Compar N Position Best score ison countrie of s Poland (rank) World 175 52 Worst score

53 780 470 Luxembou Sierra Leone rg 53 780 2150 Luxembou Moldova rg 21 190 Cyprus 5 830 Romania

Europe

38

26

13 new 13 EU countrie s

Ranking of countries according to GDP & HDI (HDI minus GDP)

20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15
Africa Arab countries Western Europe & North America Oceania South America Central-Eastern Europe post-Soviet countries

Groups of countries & level of happiness (studies by Inglehart 2003, N=82)

Western Europe + North America South America Asia Arab countries Africa Central-Eastern Europe post-Soviet countries

4 3
happiness

2 1 0 -1

Index of Perceived Corruption (CPI)

Transparency International Measure of lost chances

Corruption Perception Index position of Poland (2003)

Value Value for Poland 3,6 Compar N Position Best score ison countrie of s Poland (rank) World 133 64 9,7 Finland 9,7 Finland 6,1 Cyprus Worst score

0-10

1,3 Bangladesh 2,3 Macedonia Ukraine 2,8 Romania

Europe

35

28

13 new 12 EU countrie s

10

Gini Index of social inequalities

Deviation of GDP from the perfectly equal distribution Area below Lorenz curve and the hypothetical curve of the perfectly equal distribution Values 0 100
0 whole product distributed equally (everybody gets the same share) 100 The whole product in hands of one person

Gini Index of social inequalities (1998)

Value Value for Poland 31,6 Compar N Position Best score ison countrie of s Poland (rank) World 124 24-25 24,4 Hungary 24,4 Hungary 24,4 Hungary Worst score

0-100

70,7 Namibia 45,6 Russia 40,0 Turkey

Europe

32

16

13 new 11 EU countrie s

Cross-cultural comparisons of values and cultural dimensions

Shalom Schwartz Value circumplex with two dimensions:
conservatism openness to experience self-enhancement self-transcendence

Ronald Inglehart two dimensions of values:

materialistic (survival) vs. postmaterialistic (dobrostan) traditional vs. secular-rational authority

Geert Hofstede four dimensions of culture:

individualism collectivism power distance tolerance of uncertainty masculinity - feminity

Correlations of objective measures and Schwartz value dimensions (N=30)

Openness to experienceconservatism
Human Development Index Technology Advancement Index GDP index GINI Index Corruption Perception Index

Self-enhancementSelf-transcendence

0,639** 0,362 0,684** 0,440* 0,609**

Correlations of objective measures & Ingleharts value dimensions (N=60)

Secular vs. traditional authority
Human Development Index Technology Advancement Index GDP index GINI Corruption Perception Index

Postmaterialistic. vs. materialistic

0,529** 0,554** 0,311* -0,704** 0,373**

0,623** 0,634** 0,781** -0,103 0,810**

Correlations of objective measures & Hofstedes four dimensions of culture (N=66)

Power distance Uncertainty avoidance Collectivism individualism Masculinity - feminity

CPI GDP HDI GINI

-0,679*** -0,613*** -0,550*** 0,355***

-0,300** -0,072 -0,017 0,106

0,666*** 0,690*** 0,611*** -0,470***

-0,173 -0,018 -0,042 0,005

Factor analysis of dimensions from three theories (Schwartz, Inglehart & Hofstede)
Factor 1
Openness to experience
Self enhancement Secular authority Postmaterialism Power distance Individualism Uncertainty avoidance Masculinity

Factor 2

Factor 3

0,686
0,745 -0,852

0,910
-0,874 0,753 -0,531 0,795

Factor analysis of value factors and objective measures (CPI, HDI, GDP, GINI)
factor 1 (general development) factor 2 (secularity, equality) factor 3 (achievements)

Postmat.+openess exp.+indiv.+power dist.+uncertainty tol. Self-enhancement +masculinity

Secular authority

0,950 0,998
0,927 0,927 0,936 0,944 -0,885

HDI GDP CPI GINI

General development - high

USA

New Zealand

Switzerland

Secularity, equality low

Australia Germany Denmark France Finland Spain Japan Italy Portugal Slovenia Hungary Poland Turkey Estonia

Secularity, equality high

Brasil

Mexico

Czech Rep. Slovakia

China
Russia

Bulgaria

General development - low

General development - high

Japan USA

Denmark Finland

Switzerland Australia New Zealand

Achievements - low

France
Portugal Spain Italy

Germany

Achievementshigh
Hungary Slovakia Poland Turkey China

Slovenia

Czech Rep. Brasil

Mexico

Estonia Bulgaria Russia

General development - low

Predictors of happiness?

Factor I general development

Happiness (Inglehart) & three factors

R(24)=0,815***

-1 -2 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -,5 0,0 ,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

Factor III secularity /equality

5

R(24)=-0,225, n.i.

Schw+Ingl+Hof _postm+otwartosc+indyw+malydyst+toleran

Factor II
achievement

Happiness_Inglehart

-1 -2 -2 -1 0 1 2

R(24)=0,011
3

-1 -2 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -,5 0,0 ,5 1,0 1,5

Schw+Ingl+Hof_wzmacniaja+maskulinizm

Schw+Ingl+Hof_autorytet_swiecki+maskulinizm

Predictors of happiness structural model

e4

e2

e1
,79 ,81 ,89

,80 ,64

hdi+cpi+gdp

postmaterialistic

happiness e6
-,24 ,58

-,43

,89

,42

secular authority
,26 -,61

pd+ic+ openess

Gini

Chi-2=8,084, df=6, p=0,232 RMSEA=0,045

-,45