A minimum of 3 scholarly peered reviewed article for DQ and 3 scholarly peered reviewed article for DQ 2 must be sited using APA format 600 words for each topic 6 DQ 1 and 2 Note: Please see reading references below
Topic 6 DQ 1
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
When is frustration more likely to lead to aggression? When is it more likely to produce stronger reactions (e.g., violence)? Discuss possible solutions to this problem, including anger management programs.
Topic 6 DQ 2
How do people’s attributions regarding the causes of another person’s plight influence their willingness to help that person? Is this “typical response” justified within a Christian framework? Why or why not?
International Journal of Psychology, 2015 Vol. 50, No. 3, 186 – 192, DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12086
Values and helping behavior: A study in four cultures
Ella Daniel1, Antoine Selim Bilgin2, Ivan Brezina3, Charlotte Eva Strohmeier4, and Maris Vainre5
1Applied Psychology and Human Development, University of Toronto, Canada 2Centre for the Psychology of Learning and Experimental Psychopathology, University of Leuven, Netherlands 3Institute of Experimental Psychology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia 4Department of Psychology, University of Hamburg, Germany 5Children’s Division, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom
V alues are important factors in determining individuals’ behaviours. Previous studies have examined the rela-tions between values and helping behaviour, but usually in the context of a single culture. The current study examines the relations between personal value types and helping behaviour among university students (N = 722) in four cultures (Germany, Scotland-UK, Israel and Turkey). Across cultures, the value types of self-transcendence ver- sus self-enhancement and conservation versus openness to change were positively related to helping. Specifically, self-transcendence values were positively related, and self-enhancement and openness to change values negatively related, to helping behaviour. The correlations pattern did not differ significantly between cultures.
Keywords: Values; Behaviour; Prosocial behaviour; Cross-cultural psychology.
What values guide people’s decision to dedicate their time and energy to helping strangers? Are these values similar across cultures? While the associations between values and behaviours are shaped within the context of a specific culture (Roccas & Sagiv, 2010), it has been suggested that value-expressive behaviours may be motivated similarly in different cultures (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). To date, however, the relations between values and behaviours in general, and prosocial behaviours specifically, have typically been investigated within a single cultural con- text (Roccas & Sagiv, 2010; Sosik, Jung, & Dinger, 2009). Investigating these relations across cultures may provide information regarding the cross-cultural simi- larity of motivations underlying values and behaviours. Moreover, value-behaviour relations have typically been studied using self-report measures of behaviour (e.g., Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). In contrast, the current study investigated the associations between personal values and an observational measure of helping behaviour. Students from four cultures in Europe and the Middle East were approached with a request to re-answer a questionnaire in
Correspondence should be addressed to Ella Daniel, Applied Psychology and Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6 Canada. (E-mail: email@example.com).
order to assist the researcher. We investigated the relations between students’ values and helping behaviours.
Personal value types
Values are abstract concepts or beliefs regarding desirable end states, which serve as guiding principles in people’s lives. Hierarchically ordered values motivate behaviour, and represent a standard for the selection and evaluation of actions, people and ideas (Schwartz, 1992). Schwartz (1992) has distinguished four value types. Owing to the psychological, practical and social consequences of pur- suing each value type, individual values can conflict or correspond with other values. Thus, the four value types are categorised into two bipolar dimensions (Fontaine, Poortinga, Delbeke, & Schwartz, 2008; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004).
On the first dimension, conservation describes the motivation to preserve the current social order and the certainty it provides (values: security, conformity, tradi- tion). At the opposite pole is openness to change, which
© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science
VALUES AND HELPING BEHAVIOUR 187
describes the motivation to follow one’s intellectual and emotional interests in novel directions (values: self direc- tion, stimulation, hedonism). On the second dimension, self-transcendence emphasises care for the welfare of others, both close and distant, and disengagement from selfish concerns (values: benevolence, universalism). At the opposite pole is self-enhancement, which describes the pursuit of one’s own relative success and domi- nance, sometimes at the expense of others (values: power, achievement; Schwartz, 1992, 2010).
Value types and behaviour
Extant research provides good evidence that values are related to behaviours (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). Indi- viduals prefer to engage in behaviours that promote the attainment of their values over those that promote the attainment of conflicting values. This may be due to the automatic, positive affective responses that fol- low value-congruent actions, which enhance the likeli- hood of repeating those actions (Schwartz, 2010). The value-behaviour relations have been confirmed in studies investigating a diverse range of behaviours (for a review, see Roccas & Sagiv, 2010), including voting (Caprara, Schwartz, Capanna, Vecchione, & Barbaranelli, 2006), healthy eating and exercise habits (Bogg, Voss, Wood, & Roberts, 2008), parental monitoring (Cottrell et al., 2007) and investment in school activities (Hofer, Schmid, Fries, Zivkovic, & Dietz, 2009). There is also evidence from experimental research that values function as a causal antecedent to behaviour (Sagiv, Sverdlik, & Schwarz, 2011; Verplanken & Holland, 2002).
The relations between values and behaviour engage the dynamic system of values: behaviours related to a value type are hypothesised to negatively associate with the opposing value type, and not associate with the value type of the second dimension. Indeed, the associations with any given behaviour are likely to decrease continuously as one moves around the circle of value types from the most positively to the most negatively related value types, creating a sinusoid-shaped pattern. Thus, one value type will show positive relations, with the opposing value type showing negative relations, and the value type of the other dimension showing close to zero relations. As a result, a hypothesis regarding the relations between value types and behaviour is confirmed or refuted by the full pattern of associations: the significant and insignificant associations alike (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Schwartz, 1992, 1996).
Value types and helping behaviour
Helping behaviour is guided by the motivation to care for others. Therefore, we hypothesised that the value type of self-transcendence would be most positively related to helping behaviour. Self-transcendence may
be expressed by helping a close other (benevolence), a stranger or people in general (universalism). Conversely, we hypothesised that the value type of self-enhancement would be most negatively related to helping behaviour. Self-enhancement values of power and achievement are expressed by care for the self, and not for others. Proso- cial behaviours have personal, material and physical costs that people who value self-enhancement would likely be unwilling to take on for the benefit of others (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz, 2010).
Other value types are likely to be less strongly related to prosocial behaviour. Moreover, relations between value types may change according to characteristics of the individual, the behaviour and the situation. Therefore, across individuals, the value type-behaviour associations are likely to approach zero. For example, conservation is likely to be positively associated with helping behaviours when the norms of the culture stress helping, or when an authority figure demands help. In contrast, conservation may be negatively associated with helping when helping behaviour requires daring and taking risks (e.g., firefight- ing) or defying rules and norms. Similarly, openness to change may be positively associated with helping when it requires daring and taking risks. It may be negatively related to helping when the helping behaviour requires tedious labour (e.g., organising or putting things in order; Schwartz, 2010). Thus, across value types and situations, the relations between value types and helping behaviours are conceptualised as a sinusoid-shaped pattern.
Research investigating relations between values and prosocial behaviour in a number of settings has, for the most, supported the hypothesis that prosocial behaviour is positively related to self-transcendence and negatively related to self-enhancement. Indeed, in research using questionnaire measures of prosocial behaviour, these relations were found among Italian adults (Caprara & Steca, 2007) and undergraduate Israeli students (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). A similar pattern of relations was found between values and questionnaire measures of altruistic behaviour among American managers (Sosik et al., 2009) and Finnish army cadets (Lonnqvist, Leikas, Paunonen, Nissinen, & Verkasalo, 2006). In addition, social dilemma studies have reported a sinusoid-shaped pattern between cooperative behaviour and values. Cooperative behaviour among Israeli and American students was most positively related to the self-transcendence value of benevolence, and most negatively related to the self-enhancement value of power (Sagiv et al., 2011; Schwartz, 1996).
Value types and helping behaviour within a cultural context
Previous research has established that the motivations underlying value types are similar across multiple cultures (e.g., Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009;
© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science
188 DANIEL ET AL.
Steinmetz, Isidor, & Baeuerle, 2012). It can be assumed, then, that value types promote similar value-expressive behaviours across cultures. However, value-behaviour relations are rarely studied cross-culturally (Roccas & Sagiv, 2010). The role of culture as a moderator of the relations between value types and behaviours has not been empirically established.
Cross-cultural similarity in value-behaviour relations would provide strong evidence for cross-cultural simi- larity in the motivations underlying values. In contrast, substantial differences among cultures in value-behaviour relations would undermine the theoretical claim for universality in the motivations underlying values. Alter- natively, it may suggest that helping behaviour is not equivalent in meaning in different cultures.
The current study attempts to somewhat fill the gap in the literature, by examining the relations between value types and helping behaviour in four cultures: Germany, Scotland-UK, Israel and Turkey. Although these cultures represent only a subset of the variability between cultures, they do differ in their cultural orientations (Gelfand et al., 2011; Schwartz, 2008). Thus, investigating the relations between value types and helping behaviours in these cul- tures may offer an initial understanding of the variability and invariance in relations among cultures.
Many previous studies examining the relations between values and behaviour have utilised self-report or other-report measures of helping behaviour (Caprara & Steca, 2007; Lonnqvist et al., 2006; Sosik et al., 2009). The current study extended previous studies by investi- gating the relations between value types and observed helping behaviours. The hypotheses explored in the current study were:
I. Across cultures, value types will be related to helping behaviour in a sinusoid-shaped pattern. Helping behaviour will be positively related to the self-transcendence value type, negatively related to the self-enhancement value type, and unrelated to the conservation and openness to change value types.
II. The pattern of relations will be similar in Germany, Scotland-UK, Israel and Turkey.
The sample included 722 university students from four cultures (see Table 1 for sample demographics by cul- ture). Most participants were undergraduate students, with the majority studying psychology. More females than males participated, in line with the typical character- istics of psychology undergraduate student populations.
The participants were rewarded by a lottery with small prizes. The lottery took place before the request for help,
TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics of the sample
Culture N Mean SD % of
females % of
Germany 376 25.41 6.64 80.9 74.06 Scotland-UK 126 24.61 7.90 79.4 76.86 Israel 132 24.50 3.92 67.4 94.82 Turkey 88 20.65 1.38 89.5 98.85
and was not conditional upon the helping behaviour. No reward was offered for the helping behaviour. The answers were anonymous, participation was voluntary and the study was approved by the ethics review board in each country.
To ensure the representativeness of the samples, we correlated the value priorities of the study participants in each culture with mean value priorities of students in pre- vious samples from the respective cultures. The spearman correlations were all high and significant: Germany (nine samples): ρ = .96, p < .01; Scotland-UK (one sample): ρ = .84, p < .01; Israel (three samples): ρ = .88, p < .01; Turkey (one sample): ρ = .94, p < .01.
Participants were recruited either in classes, in the hall- ways, or on student websites, and asked to participate in a values survey by answering an online questionnaire. Two weeks following the questionnaire completion, the respondents were contacted again via e-mail. In the e-mail we explained that their responses had been lost due to technical difficulties, apologised, and asked them to help the experimenter complete the study by answering parts of the questionnaire again. For participants who did not respond, the request was sent again one week later.
The individuals who agreed to help were instructed to answer the value questionnaire online again. The value priorities used in the current study were only those reported before the helping request. This ensured that value scores could be compared between participants who answered the questionnaire once or twice. A week after sending the second request e-mail, a debriefing e-mail was sent to all participants, thanking them for their participa- tion and explaining the deception.
The Schwartz Values Survey (Schwartz, 1992) was used to measure value priorities in all cultures. Each of the 57 value items was presented alongside a short explanatory phrase in parentheses; for example “equal- ity (equal opportunity for all),” “self-indulgent (doing
© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science
VALUES AND HELPING BEHAVIOUR 189
pleasant things),” The questionnaire was translated into German, Hebrew and Turkish using translation and back-translation procedures. The translated versions were previously used in cross-cultural studies of values.
The importance of each value item as a guiding prin- ciple in a person’s life was rated on a nine-point scale ranging from opposed to my principles (−1), through not important (0), to of supreme importance (7). The scale was asymmetric, to reflect the natural tendency for pos- itivity in value importance, typically ranging between somewhat to very important. Value items were cen- tralised to control for scale use (Schwartz, 1992). To create the four value types, items measuring each type were averaged. Cronbach’s alpha for the value types were αself-enhancement = .53, αself-transcendence = .60, αopenness = .53 and αconservation = .58.
The participants were presented with two e-mails ask- ing them to re-answer a part of the questionnaire. The letters were translated using a back-translation procedure by individuals fluent in both languages. The measure for helping behaviour was the binary variable: “did not help by answering the questionnaire” (0), “helped by answer- ing the questionnaire” (1).
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics of the study vari- ables. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests revealed that all values differed significantly among cultures. The percentage of participants re-answering the questionnaire varied among cultures, χ2(1, 3) = 35.63, p < .01. Specifically, in Germany, Scotland UK and Turkey, similar percentages ranging between 28.6% and 33.0% of the participants re-answered the questionnaire. In Israel, a higher percentage (47.7%) of participants re-answered the questionnaire.
Values of helpers across cultures
We started by investigating the overall pattern of relations between value types and helping behaviour, controlling for sex and age. Because the dependent variable of helping behaviour was dichotomous, we analysed the data using logistic regression. As sample sizes were not equal, the participants were weighted by culture.
The value types are conceptually and empirically inter- related. Therefore, if they are all used as predictors in the same regression equation, the equation will suffer from multicollinearity. The literature suggests two solutions for this problem. In the solution taken here, we computed an index for each value dimension by subtracting the average of one value type from the opposing value type (subtract- ing self-enhancement value type from self-transcendence value type, and openness to change value type from con- servation value type; for example Sagiv et al., 2011). The second solution suggested was to use one value type from each dimension in the regression equation, excluding the opposing value (e.g., Roccas, 2003). In preliminary analy- ses, regressions that included self-transcendence and con- servation value types (and excluded self-enhancement and openness to change value types) produced similar results to the results described hereinafter.
The logistic regression predicting helping behaviour indicated that the index for self-transcendence versus self-enhancement value types had a significant effect on the likelihood of helping. Specifically, the odds of respon- dents’ re-answering the questionnaire increased signifi- cantly by a factor of 1.23 for every unit increase in their support for self-transcendence over self-enhancement (Wald = 23.38, p < .01). Additionally, the index for con- servation versus openness to change value types had a significant effect on the likelihood of helping. The odds of answering the questionnaire again increased significantly by a factor of 1.16 for every unit increase in their support for conservation over openness to change (Wald = 4.91, p = .03).
Partial correlations were used to examine the rela- tions between helping behaviour and each value type, controlling for sex and age. As hypothesised, the help- ing behaviour correlated positively with emphasising
TABLE 2 Means and standard deviations of the study variables
Germany Scotland-UK Israel Turkey
Study variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Difference statistics
Conservation 2.99a .54 3.32b .66 3.80c .67 3.45b .56 F(3, 663) = 62.33** Self-transcendence 4.64a .58 4.49ab .56 4.21c .63 4.35bc .52 F(3, 663) = 18.63** Openness to change 4.27a .76 4.26ab .73 4.07bc .68 3.97c .68 F(3, 663) = 5.01** Self-enhancement 3.30a .63 3.53b .66 3.41ab .74 3.55b .71 F(3, 663) = 5.20**
Note: Means sharing the same subscript are not significantly different at p < .01 level, in Tukey honesty significant difference comparison. **p < .01.
© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science
190 DANIEL ET AL.
Figure 1. Partial correlations between value types and helping behaviour in each culture, controlling for sex and age of the participants.
the value type of self-transcendence (r = .12, p < .01), and negatively with emphasising the value type of self-enhancement (r = −.10, p < .01). Additionally, help- ing behaviour correlated negatively with emphasising the value type of openness to change (r = −.07, p = .01), but did not correlate with emphasising the value type of conservation (r = .01, p = .69).
Values of helpers: Within culture effects
To investigate the relations between value types and helping behaviour in the different cultures, we conducted the same logistic regression as before in each culture. The relations between the self-transcendence versus self-enhancement index and helping were positive and in line with the hypothesis in all cultures, but reached signif- icance (one tail) only in Turkey. Odds ratioGermany = 1.14, Wald = 2.21, p = .07; Odds ratioScotland-UK = 1.24, Wald = 1.27, p = .20; Odds ratioIsrael = 1.27, Wald = 2.25, p = .06; Odds ratioTurkey = 1.42, Wald = 3.35, p = .03. The relations between conservation versus openness to change types and helping were not significant (as hypothesised) in any culture. Odds ratioGermany = .99, Wald = .00, p = .95; Odds ratioScotland-UK = 1.16, Wald = .71, p = .40; Odds ratioIsrael = .97, Wald = .03, p = .89; Odds ratioTurkey = .97, Wald = .02, p = .88.
To compare the cultures, we again calculated partial correlations between helping behaviour and each value type (see Figure 1). In three of the four cultures, the correlations followed the hypothesised sinusoid-shaped pattern: positive correlations between helping and self-transcendence value type, negative correlations between helping and self-enhancement value type, and in-between, close to zero, correlations between helping and conservation and openness to change value types. The pattern was somewhat different in Scotland-UK. Z tests for correlation differences indicated that none of the correlations differed significantly among the cultures, Z ranged between −1.40 and 1.08, p ranged between .16 and .87.
This study extends on previous research by investigated the associations between value types and observed proso- cial behaviour across and within cultures.
Values and helping behaviour across cultures
In the full sample, the findings support our hypothe- ses. Higher importance of self-transcendence over the importance of self-enhancement predicted the respon- dents’ helping behaviour. Positive relations were found between helping behaviour and the self-transcendence value type. Thus, care for the welfare of others, over and above care for the welfare of the self, promoted helping. Negative relations were found between helping behaviour and the self-enhancement value type. Care for personal interests and advancement inhibited prosocial behaviour. These results are in line with previous studies (Caprara & Steca, 2007; Lonnqvist et al., 2006; Sosik et al., 2009), as well as Schwartz’s (2010) theory.
Higher importance of conservation over the impor- tance of openness to change predicted the respondents’ helping behaviour. Specifically, and in accord with pre- vious studies (Sagiv et al., 2011) negative relations were found between openness to change value type and helping behaviour. In the current study, the help requested was a repetitive, non-stimulating behaviour that was especially unappealing to individuals who value change. A stimu- lating helping, such as helping to solve interesting puz- zles, may be positively related to the openness to change value type. Thus, future studies that investigate a variety of prosocial tasks may find an overall null association, as hypothesised.
At the same time, helping was not significantly related to conservation value type significantly. It may be that the conservation value type does not play a role in helping an unfamiliar researcher within a non-formal setting at a uni- versity. In more specific circumstances, such as helping an authority figure, helping may be related to conservation values (Schwartz, 2010).
Values and helping behaviours within cultures
Separate logistic regressions within cultures showed similar sinusoid-shaped patterns, in line with our hypoth- esis (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). The value types most strongly associated with helping behaviour belonged to the opposing value types of self-transcendence and self-enhancement. The value types of conservation and openness to change were less associated with help- ing behaviour. In line with the hypothesis, but not the effects across cultures, there were no relations between openness to change value types and helping behaviour. This result conforms to the hypothesis that openness to
© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science
VALUES AND HELPING BEHAVIOUR 191
change values are relate differently to prosocial behaviour depending on the circumstance.
It is important to note that the magnitude of the effects was modest, and did not reach significance in any culture but Turkey. Previous studies relating value types and helping behaviour found similar effect sizes (Lonnqvist et al., 2006; Sosik et al., 2009). Studies reporting stronger effect sizes have used self-report measures of values and prosocial behaviours (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Caprara & Steca, 2007), and may have suffered from a shared method bias. The modest magnitude of the effects in the present study may result from the use of an observed behaviour measure. Moreover, only one, dichotomous behaviour was observed, further reducing the likelihood of strong effects.
Studying factors that moderate the relations between value types and helping behaviour may provide further understanding of these modest effects. Previous studies have suggested moderators such as conformity values (Lonnqvist et al., 2006) and self monitoring (Sosik et al., 2009). Similarly, the strength of a situation, meaning the number of socially acceptable behaviours in this situa- tion, may influence the effect. When multiple behaviours are acceptable, values may influence the choice of behaviour. When only a few behaviours are acceptable, values may be unrelated to the choice of behaviour (Knafo, Daniel, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2008; Roccas & Sagiv, 2010).
Correlation comparisons indicated that the rela- tions were similar in magnitude in all of the cultures studied. In accord with the few previous studies of value-behaviour relations across cultures (Knafo et al., 2008; Sagiv et al., 2011; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995), the results clearly support the cross-cultural stability of these relations.
Strengths and limitations
The current study reports findings from a research programme run in parallel in four cultures, enabling comparison among cultures of value type-behaviour relations. However, including a greater number of cul- tures would have allowed for the use of multilevel analysis to partition the variance in value-behaviour relations between the individual and culture levels. Moreover, the cultures studied are from four cultural zones. Thus, the current sample of cultures shows a partial coverage of cultural value orientations (Schwartz, 2008) and can challenge the consistency of the relations between value types and helping behaviour. Future stud- ies could expand the results by sampling from additional cultural zones.
This study included mostly university students. As a result, the samples were comparable across cultures in characteristics that may influence values, but are not
relevant to the research question, such as age and edu- cation (Bilsky et al., 2013; Myyry, Juujärvi, & Pesso, 2013). However, future studies should examine the rela- tions between values and helping behaviour in represen- tative population samples.
A strength of the study is that the measurement of the helping behaviour occurred 2 – 3 weeks after the report of the values. This established temporal ordering of the events, which strengthens the claim for causal relations between the constructs. These causal relations were previously established in one experimental study (Sagiv et al., 2011).
The measures used in the study offer strengths and lim- itations. The values measure shows low internal consis- tencies. However, these consistencies are within the range found across studies. The value measure was constructed to fully cover all components of the broad value type def- inition, rather than to measure a narrowly defined con- struct, resulting in low internal consistencies (Schwartz et al., 2001).
In contrast to past studies, we observed an actual, and not reported, helping behaviour. Thus, this study overcomes biases common in questionnaire studies (e.g., common method variance, acquiescence bias). However, we measured helping as a specific behaviour. This behaviour was solicited, and not self-initiated. It was also repetitive and not novel, and requested by an unfamiliar individual. These characteristics might have shaped the pattern of relations with values. A measure that covers a wider range of prosocial behaviours, may be more reliable, and less prone to time and context related fluctuations (Fleeson, 2004).
Moreover, in contrast with the values measures that is equivalent in meaning across cultures (Fontaine et al., 2008), the meaning of helping behaviour was not exam- ined cross-culturally. The current study supports the claim for meaning equivalence of helping across cultures, by establishing similar relations of values and behaviours cross-culturally (Roccas & Sagiv, 2010).
Previous studies have examined the important relations between values and prosocial behaviour, in the con- text of a single culture, and using self-report measures of behaviour. The current study extended past research by establishing a sinusoid-shaped pattern of relations between helping behaviour and value types that is sim- ilar across cultures. The results provide evidence for the invariance of the motivational basis of the value structure, and the cross-cultural equivalence of helping behaviour.
Manuscript received October 2013 Revised manuscript accepted June 2014
First published online July 2014
© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science
192 DANIEL ET AL.
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behav- ior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207 – 1220. doi:10.1177/0146167203254602.
Bilsky, W., Döring, A. K., van Beeck, F., Rose, I., Schmitz, J., Aryus, K., … Sindermann, J. (2013). Assessment of children’s value structures and value preferences: Testing and expanding the limits. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72(3), 123 – 136. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000106.
Bogg, T., Voss, M. W., Wood, D., & Roberts, B. W. (2008). A hierarchical investigation of personality and behavior: Examining neo-socioanalytic models of health-related out- comes. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 183 – 207. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.003.
Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S. H., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: Val- ues, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27(1), 1 – 28. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00447.x.
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2007). Prosocial agency: The contri- bution of values and self-efficacy beliefs to prosocial behav- ior across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(2), 218 – 239
Cottrell, L., Yu, S., Liu, H., Deveaux, L., Lunn, S., Bain, R. M., & Stanton, B. (2007). Gender-based model comparisons of maternal values, monitoring, communication, and early ado- lescent risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(4), 371 – 379. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.05.006.
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate. Current Directions in Psychologi- cal Science, 13(2), 83 – 87. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004. 00280.x.
Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures – distinguishing sampling fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(4), 345 – 365. doi:10.1177/0022022108318112.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. A., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science (New York, N.Y.), 332(6033), 1100 – 1104. doi:10.1126/science.1197754.
Hofer, M., Schmid, S., Fries, S., Zivkovic, I., & Dietz, F. (2009). Value orientations and studying in school – leisure conflict: A study with samples from five countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 101 – 112. doi:10.1016/ j.lindif.2008.09.007.
Knafo, A., Daniel, E., & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2008). Values as protective factors against violent behavior in Jewish and Arab high schools in Israel. Child Development, 79(3), 652 – 667. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01149.x.
Lonnqvist, J., Leikas, S., Paunonen, S., Nissinen, V., & Verkasalo, M. (2006). Conformism moderates the relations between values, anticipated regret, and behavior. Person- ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(11), 1469 – 1481. doi:10.1177/0146167206291672.
Myyry, L., Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. (2013). Change in values and moral reasoning during higher education.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(2), 269 – 284. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.757217.
Roccas, S. (2003). Identification and status revisited: The moderating role of self-enhancement and self-transcendence values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 726 – 736. doi:10.1177/0146167203251525.
Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2010). Personal values and behav- ior: Taking the cultural context into account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(1), 31 – 41. doi:10.1111/ j.1751-9004.2009.00234.x.
Sagiv, L., Sverdlik, N., & Schwarz, N. (2011). To compete or to cooperate? values’ impact on perception and action in social dilemma games. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 64 – 77. doi:10.1002/ejsp.729.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 coun- tries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1 – 65. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, M. P. Zanna, & Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology (Eds.), The psychology of values (pp. 120 – 144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national differences. Moscow, Russia: State University Higher School of Economics Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In P. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 221 – 241). Washington, DC: Amer- ican Psychological Association Press.
Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230 – 255. doi:10.1016/ S0092-6566(03)00069-2.
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Har- ris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol- ogy, 32, 519 – 542. doi:10.1177/0022022101032005001.
Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel-Lifschitz, T. (2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in values: Effects of gender equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 97(1), 171 – 185. doi:10.1037/a0015546.
Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Jour- nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 92 – 116. doi:10. 1177/0022022195261007.
Sosik, J., Jung, D., & Dinger, S. (2009). Values in authen- tic action. Group & Organization Management, 34(4), 395 – 431. doi:10.1177/1059601108329212.
Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R., & Baeuerle, N. (2012). Testing the circular structure of human values: A meta-analytical struc- tural equation modelling approach. Survey Research Meth- ods, 6(1), 71 – 75.
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434 – 447. doi:10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1994.
© 2014 International Union of Psychological Science
Copyright of International Journal of Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.