SHORT REPORT
Value structure and priorities:
Other-report account
Submission date: 2017-09-12
Final revision date: 2017-10-03
Acceptance date: 2017-10-04
Online publication date: 2017-12-21
Publication date: 2018-09-01
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2018;6(3):252-259
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background
The aim of this study was to examine the Schwartz model of values in other-report data. We specifically tested the circular structure and priorities of personal values observed in ratings made by well-acquainted informants.
Participants and procedure
We analysed self- and other-reports of preferences of 19 basic and four higher-order values provided by 422 participants (Mage = 30.02, SDage = 13.99) using the Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ-5x).
Results
The self-other agreement corrected for measurement bias ranged from .29 to .78 for basic values and from .51 to .67 for higher-order values. The findings indicated that basic values measured via other-reports form a circular structure consistent with the Schwartz theory. The hierarchy of values based on other-reports only slightly differed from the hierarchy based on self-reports.
Conclusions
The results suggest that both self- and other-ratings of personal values yield meaningful information that contributes to each.
The aim of this study was to examine the Schwartz model of values in other-report data. We specifically tested the circular structure and priorities of personal values observed in ratings made by well-acquainted informants.
Participants and procedure
We analysed self- and other-reports of preferences of 19 basic and four higher-order values provided by 422 participants (Mage = 30.02, SDage = 13.99) using the Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ-5x).
Results
The self-other agreement corrected for measurement bias ranged from .29 to .78 for basic values and from .51 to .67 for higher-order values. The findings indicated that basic values measured via other-reports form a circular structure consistent with the Schwartz theory. The hierarchy of values based on other-reports only slightly differed from the hierarchy based on self-reports.
Conclusions
The results suggest that both self- and other-ratings of personal values yield meaningful information that contributes to each.
REFERENCES (23)
1.
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A Dual Perspective Model. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 195–255). doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7.
2.
Bilsky, W., Janik, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). The structural organization of human values – Evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 759–776. doi: 10.1177/0022022110362757.
3.
Borg, I., Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2015). Does the value circle exist within persons or only across persons? Journal of Personality, 85, 151–162. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12228.
4.
Borg, I., Dobewall, H., & Aavik, T. (2016). Personal values and their structure under universal and lexical approaches. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 70–77. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.071.
5.
Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Algesheimer, R., & Schmidt, P. (in press). Testing for approximate measurement invariance of human values in the European Social Survey. Sociological Methods & Research. doi: 10.1177/0049124117701478.
6.
Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Vecchione, M., Beierlein, C., & Schwartz, S. H. (2014). The cross-national invariance properties of a new scale to measure 19 basic human values. A test across eight countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 764–779. doi: 10.1177/0022022114527348.
7.
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. doi: 10.1037/a0021212.
8.
Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 110–117. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00371.x.
9.
Dobewall, H., Aavik, T., Konstabel, K., Schwartz, S. H., & Realo, A. (2014). A comparison of self-other agreement in personal values versus the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.01.004.
10.
Dobewall, H., & Aavik, T. (2016). Rank-order consistency and profile stability of self-and informant-reports of personal values in comparison to personality traits. Journal of Individual Differences, 37, 40–48. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000186.
11.
Döring, A. K., Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Groenen, P. J. F., Glatzel, J., Harasimczuk, J., …Bilsky, W. (2015). Cross-cultural evidence of value structures and priorities in childhood. British Journal of Psychology, 106, 675–699. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12116.
12.
Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110640.
13.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Pozzebon, J. A., Bourdage, J. S., & Ogunfowora, B. (2009). Similarity and assumed similarity in personality reports of well-acquainted persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 460–472. doi: 10.1037/a0014059.
14.
Leising, D., Erbs, J., & Fritz, U. (2010). The letter of recommendation effect in informant ratings of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 668–682. doi: 10.1037/a0018771.
15.
McDonald, J. S., & Letzring, T. D. (2016). Judging personal values and personality traits: Accuracy and its relation to visibility. Journal of Research in Personality, 65, 140–151. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.009.
16.
Paunonen, S. V., & Hong, R. Y. (2013). The many faces of assumed similarity in perceptions of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 800–815. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.007.
17.
Rauthmann, J. F. (2017). What are other-rated scales composed of? Sources of measurement error and true trait variance in other-ratings of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 45–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.05.002.
18.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996). Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1, 199–223.
19.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York, NY: Academic Press.
20.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268–290. doi: 10.1177/0022022101032003002.
21.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., …Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663–688. doi: 10.1037/a0029393.
22.
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, 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 Psychology, 32, 519–542. doi: 10.1177/0022022101032005001.
23.
Schwartz, S. H., Verkasalo, M., Antonovsky, A., & Sagiv, L. (1997). Value priorities and social desirability: Much substance, some style. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 3–18. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01115.x.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2353-561X |
| ISSN: | 2353-4192 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
