Schwartz recently proposed a new theory concerning the universal content and structure of values, a new value survey for measuring them and reported empirical support from 35 countries for many elements of the theory. In this article the validity of the theory is examined in two studies of diverse groups not previously tested using multiple value measurement instruments. In Study 1, 1364 subjects from the four major racial groupings completed the Rokeach Value Survey, a widely used values scale applicable to the theory, as part of a doctoral research project not previously analysed in this way. Study 2 subjects completed the new Schwartz Value Survey as part of a study of consumption patterns, media use, and leisure preferences of skilled labour, administrative and managerial staff commissioned by the Midrand Town Council. The results of both studies are consistent with the new theory and suggest important implications regarding value meaning in South Africa. The authors close by suggesting directions for future southern African values research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerglundA. (1976). Zulu thought patterns and symbolism. Cape Town: David Phillip.
2.
BerryJ.W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119–128.
3.
BondM.H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multi-cultural studies of values: the Rokeach and Chinese Value Surveys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 1009–1015.
4.
BraithwaiteV.A.LawH.G. (1985). Structure of human values: testing the adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 250–263.
5.
BrislinR.W.LonnerW.J.ThorndikeR.M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley.
6.
CanterD. (Ed.) (1985). Facet theory: approaches to social research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
7.
Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164.
8.
DavisonM. (1983). Multidimensional scaling. New York: Wiley.
9.
FeatherN.T. (1975). Values in education and society. New York: Free Press.
10.
FeatherN.T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, psychological androgyny, and the structure of values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 604–620.
11.
FeatherN.T. (1986). Cross-cultural studies with the Rokeach Value Survey: the Flinders program of research on values. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 269–283.
12.
FeatherN.T.PeayE.R. (1975). The structure of terminal and instrumental values: dimensions and clusters. Australian Journal of Psychology, 27, 151–164.
13.
GorsuchR.L. (1970). Rokeach's approach to value systems and social comparisons. Review of Religious Research, 11, 139–143.
14.
GuttmanL. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469–506.
15.
Hammond-TookeD. (1989). Rituals and medicines. Johannesburg: Donker.
16.
HeathR.L.FogelD.S. (1978). Terminal and instrumental? An inquiry into Rokeach's value survey. Psychological Reports, 42, 1147–1154.
17.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
18.
HofstedeG. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In DeregowskiJ.B.DaiurawiecS.AnnisR.C. (Eds), Expiscations in cross-cultural psychology. (pp. 335–355). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
19.
HofstedeG.BondM.H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: an independent validation using Rokeach's Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417–430.
20.
InglehartR. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. The American Political Science Review, 75, 880–900.
21.
InglehartR. (1985). Aggregate stability and individual-level flux in mass belief systems: the level of analysis paradox. The American Political Science Review, 79, 97–116.
22.
JonesR.A.SensenigJ.AshmoreR.D. (1978). Systems of values and their multidimensional representations. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 13, 255–270.
23.
KagitcibasiC.BerryJ.W. (1989). Cross-cultural psychology: current research trends. Annual review of psychology (pp. 493–531). Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews.
24.
LangschmidtE. (1991). Paneldata: the marketing encyclopedia. Johannesburg: Integrated Marketing Research.
25.
LevyS.GuttmanL. (1985). A faceted cross-cultural analysis of some core social values. In CanterD. (Ed.), Facet theory: approaches to social research. (pp. 205–221). New York: Springer-Verlag.
26.
NgS.H. (1982). Choosing between the ranking and rating procedures for comparison of values across cultures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 169–172.
27.
NgS.H.Aktar-HossainA.S.M.BallP.BondM.H.HayashiK.LimS.P.O'DriscollM.P.SinhaD.YangK.S. (1982). Values in nine countries. In RathR.AsthanaH.S.SinhaJ.B.H. (Eds), Diversity and unity in cross-cultural psychology. (pp. 196–205). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
28.
PoortingaY.H.MalpassR.S. (1986). Making inferences from cross-cultural data. In LonnerW.BerryJ.W. (Eds), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 17–46), Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
29.
RokeachM. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
30.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
31.
RokeachM.Ball-RokeachS.J. (1989). Stability and change in American value priorities 1968–1981. American Psychologist, 44, 775–784.
32.
RosenbergM.J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal effect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 367–372.
33.
SchwartzS.H. (1990). Individualism — collectivism: critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139–157.
34.
SchwartzS.H. (in press a). Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values. In KimU.TriandisH.C.YoonG. (Eds), Individualism and collectivism: theoretical and methodological issues. Newbury Park. California: Sage.
35.
SchwartzS.H. (in press b). Are there univeral aspects of value content and structure?. Journal of Social Issues.
36.
SchwartzS.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, in press.
37.
SchwartzS.H.BilskyW. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.
38.
SchwartzS.H.BilskyW. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal structure and content of values: extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891.
39.
SchwartzS.H.SagivL. (in press). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23.
40.
South African Advertising Research Foundation. (1992). The all media and products survey. Sandton: South African Advertising Research Foundation.
41.
TriandisH.C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies in individualism and collectivism. In BermanJ. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1989 (pp. 41–133). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
42.
TriandisH.C.BontempoR.BetacourtH.BondM.LeungK.BrenesA.GeorgasJ.HuiC.H.MarinG.SetiadiB.SinhaJ.B.P.VermaJ.SpangenbergJ.TouzardH.de MontmollinG. (1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257–267.
43.
TriandisH.C.BontempoR.VillarealM.J.AsaiM.LuccaN. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on selfingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.
44.
The Urban Foundation (1991). Urban debate 2010. Income distribution model. Johannesburg: The Urban Foundation.
