Rokeach The Nature Of Human Values.pdf
Josephina Blincoe
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Currently the most widely used framework of human values is by Schwartz3. He conceptualizes values into 10 different value-types that together form a value-circumplex, with two main dimensions underlying the differences between values. The first dimension opposes the value domain Openness-to-change (self-direction, stimulation) with the value domain Conservation (conformity, tradition, security). The other value dimension is the opposition between Self-enhancement value-types (power, achievement) versus Self-transcendence value-types (universalism, benevolence). The value-type hedonism is situated in between the Self-enhancement and Openness-to-change poles. Value-types can either be more in accordance with each other (the closer they are on the circumplex, the stronger they correlate) or more in conflict with each other (being on opposing sides of the value-circumplex). This means that a higher priority of a certain value-type is expected to be associated with a lower priority of a value-type on the opposing side of the circumplex.
There are large cross-sectional studies using representative samples that include the relation between age and value priorities. Schwartz28 concluded from a review that age is positively correlated with conservation and self-transcendence, and negatively with openness-to-change and self-enhancement. The capability of recognizing, and distinguishing between values, was already found in children as young as 529. Research using European Social Survey data found older cohorts leaning more to conservation values and lower self-enhancement values, and younger cohorts showing the opposite11,12,30. However, if measured cross-sectionally, differences between generations cannot be attributed to either age or cohort: an older generation would have experienced other societal events than a younger generation, but an older generation would have also experienced many more individual events and increased physical decline. Thus, it is impossible to attribute changes to just one of these sources using cross sectional data or specific age groups.
To summarize, these findings suggest that ageing in adults positively relates to conservation and self-transcendence values and negatively to openness-to-change and self-enhancement values. However, with existing research the question whether this is a change over time within individuals, or whether value change is a generational shift, cannot be answered. Researchers either investigated individual value change over brief time periods or only within limited age groups (e.g., children, adolescents, young adults), or used cross-sectional designs. Hence, the question of whether individual value change is also possible over the entire lifespan has been theoretically addressed but lacks empirical evidence with a representative sample including the same people over a longer period of time.
Our longitudinal approach, in a large Dutch sample, provides insight into values people have at the start of the study as well as in the consecutive development of their values over a 12-year period, investigating change in people from late adolescence to the elderly. We distinguish 4 generations, the first born before WW2, the second growing up in the post-war reconstruction years, the third in an era of increasing economic growth, and the last experiencing a period of high prosperity35,36.
Corroborating existing cross-sectional research, we show the differences between younger and older people in value importance. For this we classify them into known generations (i.e., Silent-generation, Baby-boomers, Generation-X, Millennials) and show that there are meaningful differences. We address several aspects of value stability and change. First, we investigate value-profile stability: the stability (within individuals) of the relative order of importance of values. We compare the average value-profile stability between four different generations. Next, we analyze the stability of each value-type: we compare the rank-order stability of each value-type over a 12-year period, again for each generation. And finally, we analyze the development of the relative (i.e., mean-level) importance of each value-type over time, for each generation.
Mean value change for different generations over a period of 12 years. Lines shows change over time (7 measurements over a period of 12 years) in the relative importance of nine human value-types for four different generations (Millennials, Generation-X, Baby-boomers and Silent-generation. Scores are ipsatized means of the nine value-types, calculated per generation. Distances per time period (i.e., varying between 1 and 3 years) are equally spaced. Mean age of each generation is indicated for T0 (2008).
A second aspect of value change is the stability of value priorities: how stable are people within a group regarding the priority of a certain value. If most people in a group have a similar score of the priority of a value across two time periods, correlations between these two time periods will be high, i.e., the stability of the value will be high. And vice versa: the more people within a group change in their appreciation of a particular value over time, the lower the correlation between two time periods and thus the lower the stability of this particular value in the population. To estimate how value priorities change over time for each value-type between all consecutive time points, we calculated rank-order correlations. To capture the ordinal character of the values measurement, we used Spearman correlations37. Results are shown in Table 2.
As can be seen in this table, average value stability was clearly lower for the Millennial-generation and the highest average value stability was found within the Baby-boomer generation. Millennials were most stable in stimulation, conformity, and universalism values, and least stable in self-direction, achievement, and benevolence. Within the Baby-boom generation, the highest stability was found for self-direction.
To summarize, we found variation in stability of value-types. The highest stability in the total sample was found for the value-type self-direction, and lowest for power. Focusing on generations, overall lowest stability was found in the Millennial-generation, and the highest stability in the Baby-boomer generation. Within the youngest generation, values that were least stable were self-direction, achievement, and benevolence, while stimulation, conformity and universalism were most stable. Interesting to note is the instability of self-direction in the youngest generation, as self-direction is overall the most stable value.
For each value we estimated a latent growth curve model using maximum likelihood and 1000 bootstrap draws. In the analyses, we coded the times as 0, 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 12 indicating the difference in years between the time points. We tested several nested models (see web appendix for code), starting with intercept only, and intercept and slope only, followed by models adding the time-invariant covariates. As the variable measuring generations is categorical, we used the Silent-generation as the reference category.
The results for all values are shown in Table 4 (see SI 11 Tables 6.1 to 6.3) for p-values and confidence intervals). Each column first shows the intercept across all respondents, indicating the overall relative importance of the value across all respondents, followed by the coefficients for the time-invariant covariates. For example, a positive coefficient for gender indicates that males score above average (i.e., the intercept) on the value. Next, the overall slope (indicating change over time) is reported, again followed by the coefficients for the covariates. As the Silent-generation is treated as the reference category in the model, coefficients for this generation are not shown (i.e., being 0.0). The coefficients for the other cohort are to be interpreted in comparison to the reference category. We now report the results for each of the values, starting with benevolence.
Benevolence, the most important value overall, was a less important value for men than for women, and slightly more important for the higher educated, no effects were found for within generation age differences. We only found significant differences for the Millennials: benevolence had a significantly lower priority compared to the Silent-generation and increased slightly in the 12-year period. Men showed a minor increase over time in benevolence.
Universalism was less important for men and more important to the higher educated, and older people were higher on universalism (within each cohort). As for the differences between the generations, Baby-boomers, Generation-X and Millennials, scored lower on universalism compared to the Silent generation, with Millennials scoring lowest. If we look at value change, we see that generations increased in universalism over time with the largest increase in the Millennial-generation.
Self-direction was more important for females and higher educated. Relative to the Silent-generation, self-direction was significantly less important for Generation-X and Millennials. Regarding change in value importance over time, the importance of self-direction increased over the 12-year period for the Baby-boomers, Generation-X and most for Millennials.
Stimulation was more important to males and less to the higher educated. In each generation, older people scored lower on stimulation. Relative to the Silent-generation, stimulation was more important to all other generations, with the Millennials having a significantly higher score than all other generations. Regarding value change over time, for Baby-boomers, Generation-X, and Millennials stimulation decreased in importance, with Millennials decreasing most.
b37509886e