The Structure of Human Values

This study investigates the structure of human values by means of a principal components analysis of the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS). Despite sample, cultural and procedural differences, the results of this investigation show substantial agreement with those from Feather’s study (1991), which was replicated by the present investigation. Results indicate that one can go beyond the single items of the RVS to a multi-item assessment of the value concept. The scientific study of human values has a long tradition in the fields of psychology and sociology. Originally, values were conceived of as philosophi cal concepts which were insolubly tied to virtuous living and morality (cf. Perry, 1926). Allport, Vernon and Lindzey (1951) were among the first social scientists who gave the value concept a more concrete, terrestrial meaning by linking values to ordinary activities such as reading newspapers, watching mov ies or voting. These authors designed a typology of values in which persons’ sta ble preferences for all kinds of private and societal behaviours were categorized. However, the idea of a typology with fixed values as separate and stable ele ments, has gradually been abandoned in favour of the notion that each individ ual creates a very personal and flexible hierarchy out of the values available in culture. Currently, values are conceived of as guiding principles in life which transcend specific situations, may change over time, guide selection of behav 47 1 This chapter has been submitted for publication as: Debats, D.L. & Bartelds, B.F.: The struct ure of human values: a principal components analysis of the Roheach Value Survey (RVS). iour and events and which are part of a dynamic system with inherent contra dictions. This shift in the thinking about the nature of human values has been largely influenced by the work of Milton Rokeach (1973; 1979). Rokeach defined the value concept as “ an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence”. The publication of Rokeach’s book The Nature of Human Values caused a surge of empirical studies which investigated the role of human values in many branches of psychology and sociology. In the last decades, human values have been investigated in divergent scientific do mains such as political ideology, e.g. (Rokeach, 1973), personality assessment e.g. (Heaven, 1993), moral reasoning e.g. (Weber, 1993), or process and out come of psychotherapy, e.g. (Kelly, 1990). In these and many other studies the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), an instrument which was designed by Rokeach to operationalize the value concept, has been used as an instrument for measuring personal and social values. The popularity of the RVS results from the fact that Rokeach’s (1973) definition and instrumentation of the value construct is more coherent and psychometrically sound than other instruments currently available (Kelly, 1990). The RVS distinguishes two kinds of values: instrumental, referring to modes of conduct and reflecting behavioral characteristics that are seen as socially desirable and terminal, referring to end states of existence or ulti mate modes of living which have been idealized. The RVS has been extensively evaluated in empirical investigations, e.g. (Braithwaite & Law, 1985; Feather, 1991). Most studies which employed the RVS used either: (a) The totals of the RVS terminal and instrumental sub-scales, e.g. (Kelly & Strupp, 1992); or (b) The sub-scales which were discriminated by Rokeach as operationalizing personal/ social/ competency/ moral values do mains, e. g. (Weber, 1993); or (c) The single RVS items, e.g. (Arizmendi, Beut ler, Shanfield, Crago & Hagaman, 1985). However, in our opinion, these meth ods have major weaknesses. First, findings established with the broad and generally defined instrumental and terminal RVS sub-scales lack the specificity which is necessary to draw meaningful conclusions from results (Kelly & Strupp, 1992). Secondly, the theoretical distinction between personal/ social/ moral/ competence values domains have received scarce empirical confirma tion (Weber, 1993). Thirdly, the measurement of values by means of single items is questionable since individual differences may reflect variations in lin guistic usage rather than variations in underlying constructs (Braithwaite & Chapter 5