Values - PowerPoint

Document Sample
Values - PowerPoint Powered By Docstoc
					Values and dimensions of culture

            Lecture 10
                   Values

• General goals that define more specific
  (instrumental) goals
• Life guidelines
• Criteria of evaluating goals, activities, and
  events
• Hierarchical structure: ultimate (autonomous)
  goals  instrumental goals
        Basic values – do they exist?

• Abraham Maslow:
   – Deficit needs (food, security, self-esteem)
   – Growth needs (achievement, self-actualization)
• Idea used by Ronald Inglehart in studies of
  nations values
Abraham Maslow – Need Hierarchy
                Self-
                actuali
                zation

               Aesthetic
           Cognitive needs

            Esteem needs
        Belongingness and love

            Safety needs

          Physiological needs
                     Gordon Allport

• G. Allport: six value types:
   –   economic
   –   political
   –   aesthetic
   –   social
   –   religious
   –   theoretical
                 Value classifications

• Milton Rokeach – 36 values
   – Autonomous and instrumental values
   – Personal and social values
   – Competence and morality-related values
• Shalom Schwartz – 56 values, 10 categories
   – Three basic categories of demands:
       • Biological demands of an organism
       • Demands of social interactions
       • Demands of smooth functioning of social groups
   – Two dimensions
       • „openness to change” – „conservatism”
       • „ self-transcendence” – „self-enhancement”
Shalom Schwartz

Values circumplex
         Shalom Schwartz’ theory of values
                                 Conservation

                     Security             Power

     Tradition                                         Achievement

                 Conformity
                                                                Self-enhancement
Self-transcendence
                                                        Hedonism
            Benevolence
                                                  Stimulation
                                    Self-direction
                        Uniwersalism
                                Openeness to change
                  Self-enhancement

• Power:
  – Social status
  – Control albo dominance over people and resources
  – Values:
     •   Social power
     •   Authority
     •   Wealth
     •   Preserving public image
     •   Social recognition
                 Self enhancement

• Achievements
  – Personal success due to own competences, in
    agreement with social standards
     •   successful
     •   Capable
     •   Ambitious
     •   Influential
     •   Intelligent
     •   Self respect
               Openness to change

• Hedonism
  – Pleasures and sensory gratifications
     • Pleasure
     • Enjoying life
• Stimulation
  – Excitement, novelty, life challenges
     • Daring
     • Varied life
     • Exciting life
                 Openness to change

• Self-direction
   – Independence of though and decison, creativity,
     exploration
      •   Creativity
      •   Freedom
      •   Independence
      •   Curious
      •   Choosing own goals
                 Self-transcendence

• Universalism
  – Undestanding, tolerance, caring about welfare of all
    people and nature
     •   Open mind,
     •   Broad-minded
     •   Social justice
     •   Equality
     •   World peace
     •   Beautiful world
     •   Unity with nature
     •   Inner harmony
     •   Protect environment
                Self-transcendence

• Benevolence
  – Caring about well-being of close ones
     •   Helpful
     •   Honest
     •   Forgiving
     •   Loyal
     •   Responsible
     •   True friendship
     •   Mature love
                       Conservatism

• Tradition
   – Respecting customs
   – Belief that tradition, culture and religion serve
     individual
      •   Humble
      •   Accepting my role in life
      •   Respect for tradition
      •   Religiosity
      •   Moderate
                       Conservatism

• Conformity
  – Inhibition of actions and impulses that can hurt or are
    not accepted by others and that go against social norms.
     •   Politeness
     •   Obedience
     •   Self-discipline
     •   Honor elders
                      Conservatism

• Security
  Security, harmony and stability of society and own person
     •   Family
     •   Security
     •   National security
     •   Social order
     •   Clean
     •   Reciprocation of favors
     •   Sense of belonging
     •   Health
          Another classification of values by
                  Shalom Schwartz
      Conservatism                     Hierarchy
                  Security            Power                   Mastery

    Tradition                                         Achievement

                Conformity                             Affective
                                                       autonomy
Harmony
                                                       Hedonism
           Benevolence
                                                Stimulation
                                    Self-direction
  Egalitarian        Universalism
                                              Intellectual
  Commitment
                                              autonomy
  Studies with the Value Questionnaire

• 56 values
   – 52 – the 10 main types
   – 4 – ”spiritual” values
• Autonomous vs. Instrumental values
   – 30 – autonomous (nouns)
   – 26 instrumental (adjective)
• Rating on 9-point scale
   – -1 – against my values
   – 0 – neutral for me
   – 7 – highest importance
                         Profiles (examples)
                   (from Very much like me to Not like me at all)




Thinking up new ideas and being creative       1    2   3      4    5   6
is important to her. She likes to do things in
her own way (Self-Direction)
It is important for her to be rich. She wants   1   2   3      4    5   6
to have a lot of money and expensive
things (Power)
She thinks that it is important that every      1   2   3      4    5   6
person in the world be treated equally. She
belives everyone should have equal
opportunities in life (Universalism)
             Cross-cultural studies

•   97 samples (about 200 subjects in a sample)
•   44 countries from all continents
•   Years 1988-1993
•   Samples
    – Teachers from elementary and high schools
    – University students and pupils
    – Together 25, 863 subjects
 Factor analysis of mean national values
               Conservatism-        Self-transcendence-
               openness to change   self-enhancement
Conservatism   -0,973               ------
Affective      0,867                0,150
autonomy
Intellectual   0,764                -0,207
autonomy
Hierarchy      -0,266               0,842
Mastery        0,351                0,696
Harmony        0,270                -0,777
Egalitarian    0,683                -0,319
commitment
      Main dimensions after factor analysis
      Conservatism                Hierarchy
                  Security       Power                   Mastery

    Tradition                                    Achievement

                Conformity                        Affective
                                                  autonomy
Harmony
           Benevolence                            Hedonism

                                           Stimulation

                                Self-direction
  Egalitarian    Universalism
                                         Intellectual
  Commitment
                                         autonomy
     Structure of values in postcommunist
                   countries
                  Teachers

     6
     5
     4
                                     Eastern Europe
     3
     2                               Western Europe
     1
     0
                        hy




                        ry
  Em lita ony




                M .
                        m




 In ona ism

               lA .
                       on
             ua ton



                      te
                     tis

                     rc




                    ut
      ot rian
      Eg arm




                   as
      lle l Au
                  ra
                  va
                ie
               er



              H
              H
            ns




          ct
           a
Co




                             Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)
         i
   te
     Structure of values in postcommunist
                   countries
                 Students

     6
     5
     4                             Eastern Europe
     3
     2                             Western Europe
     1
     0
     lle al A ism
             l A n.
      ot tari ny




             M on.
           H tism

            H rchy




                      ry
           ua uto


                   te
  Em ali mo




                 ut
 In ion an




                as
                va
                ra
      Eg ar
             ie
             er
          ns




        ct
Co




                            Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)
   te
  Relations between values in different
                countries
• Universal values (social justice, world peace,
  equality) opposite to security values (social order,
  national security)
• In Eastern Europe – no opposition
                        Conservation             Ordering of countries (teacher
                                                 samples) after Schwartz
                                                Georgia
           Estonia
                         Slovakia
                                  Poland
                                                                        Malaysia
                             Russia                  Turkey
                                 Bulgaria                                  Hong Kong
               Czech Republic                                 Tailand
                                                     Brasil               Self- enhancement
                                     Portugal
                          Hungary
             Italy
                                     Mexico                               Israel
                     Finland                                  USA
Slovenia                                 Australia                                     China
                                                     Japan
           Spain
                               Denmark
Self-transcendence                                        New Zealand
                                                Greece
                                                      Germany


                                                Openness for experience
                                    France Switzerland
                                             0
Schwartz’s theory od values and social
             orientations
Prisoner’s dilemma and social
         orientations
              A   cooperates         defects
B

                  +4           +10

                        +4               -5
    defects




                  -5           -3
                         +10              -3
    Social orientations as shown in social
               dilemmas games
•   Individualism – maximize own gain
•   Altruism – maximize partner’s gain
•   Cooperation – maximize joint profit
•   Competition – maximize relative gain over partner
•   Equality – minimize difference between own and partner’s
    gain
•    Agression – maximize partner’s losses
•    Masochism – maximize own losses
•   Martyrdom – maximize relative gain of the partner
•   Sadomasochism – mazimize joint loss
       Social values according to McClintock (1988)


             OTHER
                           -5
                           -4
                           -3
                           -2
                           -1
masochism                               individualism
                                                          MYSELF
-5   -4 -3   -2    -1           1   2   3     4       5
                          1
                          2
                          3
                          4
                          5
     Theory of values of Shalom Schwartz
            and social orientations
                                       aggression              Competition
Martyrdom
                   Security            Power

   Tradition                                          Achievement

                 Conformity

 Altruism                                              Hedonism
            Benevolence
                                                 Stimulation
                                     Self-direction
                      Universalism
  Cooperation                                            Individualism
Structure of values and social orientations
      (cooperation vs. competition)




                          After: Schwartz (1996)
   Another presentation of value structure

                Values beyond an individual
Tradition                                     Power
Security                                      achievement
Conformity




                                              Hedonism
Benevolence                                   Stimulation
universalism                                  Self-direction
               Values within an individual
   Ronald Inglehart
  The World Value Survey


Two dimensions of values
– Secular-rational vs.
  traditional authority
– Survival (materialistic) vs.
  post-materialistic values
           Diagnostic questions:
       materialism vs. postmaterialism
• People sometimes talk about what the aims of this country
  should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed
  some of the goals which different people would give top
  priority. Would you please say which one of these you,
  yourself, consider the most important? And which one
  would be the next most importanrt?
   – A high level of economic growth (M)
   – Making sure this country has strong defense forces (M)
   – Seeing that people have more to say about how things are done at
     their jobs and in their communities
   – Trying to make our cities and countryside more beautiful
If you had to choose, which one of the things on this card
   would you say is most important? And which would be
   the next most important?
   –   Maintaining order in the nation (M)
   –   Giving people more say in important government decisions
   –   Protecting freedom of speech
   –   Fighting rising prices (M)
• Here is another list....
   –   A stable economy (M)
   –   Progress toward a less impersonal and more humane society
   –   Progress toward soecirty in which ideas count more than money
   –   The fight against crime (M)
Ordering of questions on
the dimension of
materialism-
postmaterialism (study
1974)
Traditional (religious) vs. secular values

• (1) monoteism – faith in one God
• (2) family sacred (attitudes towards
  abortion, betrayal, prostitution,
  homosexualism)
• (3) social order (attitudes towards theft, lie,
  agression)
                           Social trust
Generally speaking, would you say that most people can
be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing
with people?


1. Most people can be trusted
2. Need to be careful
European Social Survey – level of trust in European countries
             Causes of value change

• Cohort effects (generation)
   – Socialization factors in early childhood effect the rest of
     life
• Historical period effects
   – Periods of economic depression  increase in
     materialistic values
• Age effects
   – As people grow older they become more materialistic
     (conservative?)
     Cohort effects          Age effects




Cohort + historical period    Results
              Inglehart vs. Schwartz

                         Factor I      Factor II

Traditonal- secular                 0,822
authority
Survival-             0,892         -0,148
postmaterialistic
values
Conservatism-         0,925
openness to change
Self-transendence –   0,147         -0,725
self-enhancement
                 Schwartz vs. Inglehart (?)
                            survival                             traditional
          Conservatism                    Hierarchy
                     Security            Power                   Mastery

    Tradition                                            Achievement

                   Conformity                             Affective
                                                          autonomy
Harmony
             Benevolence                                  Hedonism

secular
                                                   Stimulation

                                        Self-direction               Well-being
  Egalitarian            Universalism
                                                 Intellectual
  Commitment
                                                 autonomy
          Level of happiness and Inglehart’s
                     dimensions
5                                                               5


4                                                               4


3                                                               3


2                                                               2


1                                                               1
                                      Happiness_Inglehart

0                                                               0


-1                                                              -1


-2                                                              -2
     -2      -1           0   1   2                         3        -3      -2        -1   0   1   2


     inglehart_survival                                              Inglehart_authority




 r(59)=0,870***                                                  r(59)=-0,205, n.i.
           Level of happiness and Schwartz’
                      dimensions
5                                                                   5


4                                                                   4


3                                                                   3


2                                                                   2


1                                                                   1
                                          Happiness_Inglehart

0                                                                   0


-1                                                                  -1


-2                                                                  -2
     -2      -1      0        1             2                   3        -2      -1       0        1       2         3


     Schwartz1_konserwatyzm - otwartosc                                  Schwartz2_wzmacnianie ja_przekraczanie ja




          r(27)=0,646***                                             R(27)=0,045
Other ways of measuring values

      If I had a million....
Studied regions
                        Spending a milion – percent mentioned
                        house                 family
                        bank                  car
                        charity               trav e l
                        inv e sting           ple asure s
                        life                  childre n's e ducation
                        own e ducation        black hour
                        flat for childre n    he alth
                        hobby                 de bts
                        e arth                e migration
                        othe rs               family's future
                        farm


                   80
                   70
procent wzmianek




                   60
                   50
                   40
                   30
                   20
                   10
                    0
                                     Poland               Ukraine
                                                 Three clusters
     Cluster I (materialistic)                                        Cluster II (mixed) (N=217)
     (N=695)
40                                                                     30
35
                                                                       25
30
25                                               cluster I             20                               cluster I
20                                               cluster II            15                               cluster II
15                                               cluster III           10                               cluster III
10
 5
                                                                        5
 0                                                                      0
                            nk
     se




                                   nd
                      g




                                                                         uc th




                                                                                 rs
            r




                                                                         ch by
                                                                           tr n




                                                                          ho n




                                                                          ot y
                                                                          he el




                                                                         er y
          ca


                    in




                                                                                 a
                                                                               re




                                                                               io


                                                                       ev rit
    u




                                                                              av




                                                                              he
                                                                      e d al
                          ba


                                 la




                                                                             yd
                                                                               b
                  st
 ho




                                                                            at
                                                                           ild




                                                                             a
                  ve




                                                                        ch
                in




                                                                 se
                 80


                                                                  u
                                                               ho
                 70
                 60
                 50                                              cluster I       Cluster III (family)
                 40                                              cluster II
                 30                                              cluster III     (N=364)
                 20
                 10
                  0
                                                                               Poland
                                        family
                 Generational changes (Poland)
     Lewicka (2003)                                    Inglehart (1990)
                   family   materialistic

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

 0
     80-95 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 15-19
             Polish value shift?

• Poland - shift from postmaterialistic to
  materialistic values
Dimensions of cultures - Geert Hofstede

                 „Culture’s Consequences:
                 Comparing Values, Behaviors,
                 Institutions and Organizations
                 Across Nations” (2002)
 Investigating cultures – methodological
                problems
• Emic vs. Etic
  – Equivalent of the linguistic distinction of
    (fon)emic and (fon)etic aspect of speech
  – „emic” – studying culture from inside, as
    member of the culture
  – „etic” – studying culture from outside, as
    external observer, comparing cultures on
    common dimensions
                  Emic vs. etic
„Emic” approach                 „Etic” approach

Studies behavior within a       Studies behavior from outside
system                          of the system

Studies only one culture        Compares many cultures

Researcher discovers            Researcher imposes structure
structure of relationships      of relationships
Criteria relative to the studied Criteria absolute and
object                           universal
       Steps in investigating cultures (after:
                   Berry, 1989)
               Activity of              Culture A       Culture B
Step
               researcher               (own)           (other)
               Start from own                Emic
  1
               culture                        A
                                                               Imposed
  2            Trasnfer to other                                 etic
               culture
               Discover other culture                          Emic
  3
                                                                B
  4            Compare both                  Emic             Emic
               cultures                       A                B

  5-1          Comparison                    Emic             Emic
               impossible                     A                B
  5-2          Comparison
               possible   Derived                   A     B
                                Etic
  Methodological approaches to cross-
        cultural comparisons
• 10 cultures x 20 Item-questionnaire x 100 Subjects
  per culture
   – Ecological level analysis: Cross-cultural approach:
     means from 100 Ss for each culture (20 items x 10
     cultures)
   – Individual level analysis: Intra-cultural approach:
     separate (matrices) for each culture (10 analyses)
     (Emic)
   – Universal level analysis: Pancultural approach:
     combining all 10 x 100 Ss together (20 items x 1000
     Ss) (Etic)
               Dimensions of culture

• G. Hofstede – years 70s and 80s
   – Studies of 117 000 IBM employes in 66 countries
   – Attempt at finding ”etic” dimensions which would
     differentiate cultures
      •   Hierarchy
      •   Intolerance of ambiguity
      •   Individualism-collectvism
      •   Masculinity-feminity
      •   „time perspective” („emic” Chinese dimension)
   Dimensions suggested by Hofstede

• Power distance – degree of pecking order in
  organizations
• Uncertainty avoidance – intolerance of ambiguity,
  need for clear rules and laws
• Individualism – collectivism – Caring for oneself
  vs own goup
• Masculinity-feminity – focus on ”masculine”
  goals (finances, achievement, assertiveness) vs.
  „feminine” goals (friendship, caring for others)
              Power distance - Family
• Low PDI                                • High PDI
   – Parents treat children as              – Parents teach children
     equals                                   obedience
   – Children should enjoy leisure          – Children should work hard
   – Infertility no reason for divorce      – Infertility – reason for divorce
   – Children treat parents and             – Respect for parents and
     old relatives as equal                   older relatives is a basic
   – Children expected to be                  virtue
     socially competent at young            – Children not seen as competent
     age
   – Children play no role in old-          – Children a source of old-age
     age security of parents                  security
   – Small enterprises set up for job       – Small enterprises for family
     reasons                                  interests
            Power distance at school

• Low PDI                        • High PDI
  – Teachers treat students as      – Students depend on teachers
    equal                           – Students treat teachers
  – Students treat teachers as        with respect, even outside
    equals                            class
  – Student-centered education      – Teacher-centered education
  – Students inititate some         – Teacher initiate all
    communication in the              communication in the
    class                             class
  – Teachers are experts who        – Teachers are gurus who
    transfer impersonal truths        transfer personal wisdom
  – Educational system              – Educational system
    focuses on middle levels          focuses on top level
Power distance in the work organization

• Decentralized decision           • Centralized decision
  structures: less concentration     structures; more
  of authority                       concentration on authority
• Flat organization pyramids       • Tall organization pyramids
• Subordinates expect to be        • Subordinates expect to be told
  consulted
• Narrow salary range between      • Wide salary range between
  top and bottom of                  top and bottom of
  organization                       organization
• Manual work same status as       • White-collar jobs valued
  clerical work                      more than blue-collar jobs
            Power distance in political systems

• Low PDI                            • High PDI
   – Pluralist government based on      – Military, autocratic or
     outcome of majority vote             oligarchic government
   – Usually social democratic          – Usually right-wing
     governments                          government
   – Strong center, relatively          – Polarization between left and
     weak right and left wings            right with weak center
   – Gradual changes in form of         – Sudden changes in the form of
     government (evolution and            government (revolution and/or
     stability)                           instability)
   – Power, status and wealth do        – Status consistency: power
     not need to go together              brings status and wealth
   – Small income differentials in      – Large income differentials in
     society, further reduced by          society, further increased by
     the tax system                       the tax system
   – Less corruption: scandals          – More corruption: scandals
     end political career                 expected to be covered up
   – Citizens read more                 – Citizens watch more
     newspapers                           television
                            Power distance
                                             Low PD:
We should give him something,                Students treat
after all it is our professor of             teachers as equals
music
      Individualism vs. collectvism

• Individualism – societies in which relations
  between individuals are loose, concern for
  oneself and closest family
• Collectivism – societies in which
  individuals from early childhood learn to
  integrate with strong, coherent groups
  which in return for absolute loyality
  guarantee them security and protection.
  Individualism - collectivism and societal norms

• Low IDV                             • High IDV
   – In society, people are born         – In society, everyone is
     into extended families or             supposed to take care of him-
     class, which protect them in          herself and his or her
     exchange for loyality                 immediate family only
   – „we” consciousness                  – „I” consciousness
   – Gemeinschaft (community)            – Gesellschaft (society)
   – Value standards differ for in-      – Value standards should apply
     and out-group: particularism          to all: universalism
   – „shame” culture                     – „guilt” cultures
   – Emphasis on belonging:              – Emphasis on individual
     membership ideal                      initiative and achievement:
   – Private life invaded by               leadership ideal
     institutions and organizations      – Everyone has a right to private
     to which one belongs                  life
   – Survival                            – Hedonism
         Individualism-collectivism and family
• Low IDV                           • High IDV
   – People live with or close to      – People live in nuclear or one-
     relatives or clan members           parent families
   – Family provides protection        – Children are supposed to
     in exchange for life-long           take care of themselves as
     loyality                            soon as possible
   – Strong family ties, frequent      – Weak family ties, rare
     contacts                            contacts
   – Fewer divorces                    – More divorces
   – Care for aged relatives and       – Aged relatives should care
     worship of ancestors                for themselves; ancestors
                                         unknown, irrelevant
   – Mothers expect to live with
     children in their old age         – Mothers expected to live
                                         apart in their old age
   – Nobody is ever alone
                                       – Privacy is normal
   – Financial and ritual
     obligations to relatives          – Financial independence of
                                         relatives, few family rituals
   – Living with in-laws and
     shared income and religion        – Living with in-laws
     normal                              undesirable; independence of
                                         income and religion
         Individualism-collectivism at school

• Low IDV                          • High IDV
  – Teachers deal with pupils as      – Teachers deal with
    a group                             individual pupils
  – Pupils’ individual                – Pupils’ individual
    initiatives discouraged             initiatives encouraged
  – Harmony, face and shaming         – Students’ selves to be
    in class                            respected
  – Students will not speak up        – Students expected to
    in class or large groups            speak up in class or large
  – Purpose of education is how         groups
    to do                             – Purpose of education is
  – Diplomas provide entry to           learning how to learn
    higher-status groups              – Diplomas increase
                                        economic worth and/or self-
                                        respect
  Individualism-collectivism and consumer
                 behavior
• Low IDV                        • High IDV
  – Live in apartments or          – Live in detached houses
    flats                            with private gardens
  – Live with human
                                   – Live with cats and/or dogs
    companions
  – Security by social             – Security by home and life
    networks                         insurance
  – Ask friends for job around     – Do-it-yourself for jobs
    the house                        around the home
  – Read fewer book, use fewer     – More books, use computer,
    home computers, enjoy TV         use answering machines
    more
                                   – Media main source of
  – Social network main              information
    source of information
  Individualism-collectivism and political systems
• Low IDV                        • High IDV
  – Collective interests           – Individual interests
    supposed to prevail over         supposed to prevail over
    individual interests             collective interests
  – Economy based on               – Economy based on
    collective interests             individual interests
  – State capitalism or state      – Market capitalism or
    socialism                        market socialism
  – Economic monopolies            – Competition stimulated
  – Private life is invaded by     – Everyone has a right to
    public interests                 privacy
  – Rigid social and               – Social and occupational
    occupational class system        mobility
  – Small share of national        – Large share of national
    budget spent on education        budget spent on education
Individualism-collectivism
                           High IDV:
                           Emphasis on individual
It is a free country and
everybody can do what      initiative
one wants
     Individualism-collectivism – comparison
         (after: Kim, Triandis et al. 1994)
                Individualism                         Collectivism

            Basic assumption                     Basic assumption
           Rationality, Reason                     Relatedeness

                         Regulations,      Common goods          Duties,
   Principles
                         principles, law     harmony            obligations


  Individuation            Autonomy           support        interdependence


                          Freedom of
Self-actualization                             help             nurturance
                            choice


  uniqueness             Assertiveness     Common fate          conciliation
                         China           Romania


                                            Russia




Estonia      Czechia Poland                   Slovakia




          Hungary             Bulgaria
                 Uncertainty avoidance

• Low UAI                        • High UAI
  – Lower work stress               – Higher work stress
  – Emotions have to be             – Expression of emotion
    controlled                        normal
  – More subjective well-being      – Less subjective well-being
  – Less hesitation to change       – Tendency to stay with
    employer                          same employer
  – Company loyalty is not a        – Company loyality is a
    virtue                            virtue
  – If necessary, employees         – Company rules should not
    may break rules                   be broken
  – Less resistance to changes      – More resistance to
  – Most people can be                changes
    trusted                         – One can’t be careful
                                      enough with other people,
                                      not even with family
High uncertainty avoidance


          Nowadays even own
          dog cannot be trusted
                            China




    Estonia


                Czechia
      Hungary
                          BLG

                      Poland        Romania
                                      Russia
Slovakia
             Masculinity-feminity
• Low MAS                       • High MAS
  – Cooperation at work           – Challenge and recognition
    important                       in jobs important
  – Values of women and man       – Values of women and men
    hardly different                very different
  – Promotion by merit            – Promotion by protection
  – Work not central in a         – Work very central in a
    person’s life space             person’s life space
  – Higher well-being in rich     – Higher well-being in poor
    countries                       countries
Masculinity-feminity and societal norms

• Low MAS                         • High MAS
  – Relationship orientation        – Ego orientation
  – Quality of life and people      – Money and things are
    are important                     important
  – Sympathy for the weak           – Sympathy for the strong
  – Small and slow are              – Big and fast are beautiful
    beautiful                       – Men should be and
  – Men and women should              women may be assertive
    be modest                         and ambitious
  – Minimum emotional and           – Maximum emotional and
    social role differentiation       social role differentiattion
    between the genders               between genders
Masculinity - feminity
                       Low MAS
                       Relationship orientation
Write: I love Joan !
                        China
            RO
          BLG
 Russia


Estonia          Czechia
                      Poland              Slovakia



                                Hungary
           Hofstede vs. Schwartz

• Hofstede
  – Originally no post-communist countries in the
    sample (added later)
  – Sample limited to employees of big
    corporations
  – Studies in years 1967-1973:
     • Before changes in Europe in 1989
     • No acknowledgement of ”postmaterialistic”
       changes in structure of values in Western Europe
                 Schwartz vs. Hofstede
                          High power distance
    Collectivism
                     High UA
                                      Power            Masculinity
                   Security
 Tradition                                            Achievement

                Conformity

                                                       Hedonism
           Benevolence
                                                Stimulation
                      Universalism Self-direction    Individualism
Feminity
                         Low power distance         Low UA
 Factor analysis of Schwartz, Inglehart and Hofstede

                    Factor 1   Factor 2   Factor 3
Openness to
change
                    0,686
Self-enhancement
                               0,745
Secular authority
                                          -0,852
Postmaterialism
                    0,910
Power distance
                    -0,874
individualism
                    0,753
Uncertainty
avoidance
                    -0,531
Masculinity
                               0,795
Cultural vs. objective dimensions: How
much of our values is due to conditions
                 of life?


               Lecture 11
         Monitoring of the world

• United Nations Development Programs
  – Yearly reports comparing countries on
    measures indicative of quality of life
• Transparency International
  – Reports on perceived corruption
• OECD – Program for International Student
  Assessment
                    Questions

• „Hard” vs. „soft” measures – mutual
  relationships?
• Standard of life or values - the best predictor of
  happiness?
• Comparison of Poland with other countries
  (world, Europe) on hard and soft measures
                       Measures

• HDI - Human Development Index – (values 0 – 1)
• GDP - Gross Domestic Product index – (values 0 – 1)
• CPI - Corruption Perception Index – (values 0 – 10)
• GINI – Gini Index – Index of social inequalities (values 0
  – 100)
• PISA - Program for International Student Assessment) –
  International exam of 15 years old in reading ability,
  mathematical knowledge and scientific thinking (values
  400 – 600; mean 500 points)
        Human Development Index

• Components:
  – Life expectancy
  – Scholarization index - levels I, II & III
  – Living standard (PPP –how much can be
    bought with average salary)
• Values: 0 – 1 and rank of the country
• Description: long, wise, and affluent life of
  an average inhabitant of the country
      Human Development Index – position of Poland
                      (2003)

value    Value    Compar N        Position Best score   Worst score
         for      ison   countrie of
         Poland          s        Poland
                                  (rank)
0-1      0,841    World    175     35       0,944       0,275
                                            Norway      Sierra Leone


                  Europe   39      23       0,944       0,700
                                            Norway      Moldova


                  13 new 13        5        0,891       0,734
                  EU                        Cyprus      Turkey
                  countrie
                  s
        Gross Domestic Product (GDP –US$)– position
                      of Poland (2001)

Value     Value    Compar N        Position Best score   Worst score
          for      ison   countrie of
          Poland          s        Poland
                                   (rank)
          9 450    World    175     52       53 780   470
                                             Luxembou Sierra Leone
                                             rg

                   Europe   38      26       53 780   2150
                                             Luxembou Moldova
                                             rg

                   13 new 13        8        21 190      5 830
                   EU                        Cyprus      Romania
                   countrie
                   s
Ranking of countries according to GDP
      & HDI (HDI minus GDP)
20
                         Africa
15
                         Arab countries
10
                         Western Europe &
                         North America
 5
                         Oceania
 0                       South America
 -5                      Central-Eastern Europe
-10                      post-Soviet countries

-15
Groups of countries & level of happiness
   (studies by Inglehart 2003, N=82)
                       Western Europe + North America
                       South America
                       Asia
                       Arab countries
                       Africa
                       Central-Eastern Europe
                       post-Soviet countries

                  4

                  3
      happiness




                  2

                  1

                  0

                  -1
  Index of Perceived Corruption (CPI)

• Transparency International
• ‘Measure of lost chances’
  Corruption Perception Index– position of Poland
                      (2003)
Value   Value    Compar N        Position Best score   Worst score
        for      ison   countrie of
        Poland          s        Poland
                                 (rank)
0-10    3,6      World    133     64       9,7         1,3
                                           Finland     Bangladesh


                 Europe   35      28       9,7         2,3
                                           Finland     Macedonia
                                                       Ukraine
                 13 new 12        10       6,1         2,8
                 EU                        Cyprus      Romania
                 countrie
                 s
      Gini Index of social inequalities

• Deviation of GDP from the perfectly equal
  distribution
• Area below Lorenz curve and the hypothetical
  curve of the perfectly equal distribution
• Values 0 – 100
   – 0 – whole product distributed equally (everybody gets
     the same share)
   – 100 – The whole product in hands of one person
        Gini Index of social inequalities (1998)


Value   Value    Compar N        Position Best score   Worst score
        for      ison   countrie of
        Poland          s        Poland
                                 (rank)
0-100   31,6     World    124     24-25    24,4        70,7
                                           Hungary     Namibia


                 Europe   32      16       24,4        45,6
                                           Hungary     Russia


                 13 new 11        6        24,4        40,0
                 EU                        Hungary     Turkey
                 countrie
                 s
Cross-cultural comparisons of values and
          cultural dimensions
• Shalom Schwartz – Value circumplex with two
  dimensions:
   – conservatism – openness to experience
   – self-enhancement – self-transcendence
• Ronald Inglehart – two dimensions of values:
   – materialistic (‘survival’) vs. postmaterialistic (‘dobrostan’)
   – traditional vs. secular-rational authority
• Geert Hofstede – four dimensions of culture:
   –   individualism – collectivism
   –   power distance
   –   tolerance of uncertainty
   –   masculinity - feminity
  Correlations of objective measures and
   Schwartz value dimensions (N=30)
                        Openness to    Self-enhancement-
                        experience-    Self-transcendence
                        conservatism
Human Development       0,639**
Index
Technology              0,362
Advancement Index
GDP index               0,684**
GINI Index                             0,440*
Corruption Perception   0,609**
Index
   Correlations of objective measures &
   Inglehart’s value dimensions (N=60)
                        Secular vs.   Postmaterialistic.
                        traditional   vs. materialistic
                        authority
Human Development       0,529**       0,623**
Index
Technology              0,554**       0,634**
Advancement Index
GDP index               0,311*        0,781**
GINI                    -0,704**      -0,103
Corruption Perception   0,373**       0,810**
Index
 Correlations of objective measures &
 Hofstede’s four dimensions of culture
                (N=66)
       Power       Uncertainty   Collectivism    Masculinity
       distance    avoidance     individualism   - feminity

CPI    -0,679***   -0,300**      0,666***        -0,173

GDP    -0,613***   -0,072        0,690***        -0,018

HDI    -0,550***   -0,017        0,611***        -0,042

GINI   0,355***    0,106         -0,470***       0,005
   Factor analysis of dimensions from three theories
           (Schwartz, Inglehart & Hofstede)
                    Factor 1   Factor 2   Factor 3

Openness to
experience
                    0,686
Self enhancement
                               0,745
Secular authority
                                          -0,852
Postmaterialism
                    0,910
Power distance
                    -0,874
Individualism
                    0,753
Uncertainty
avoidance
                    -0,531
Masculinity
                               0,795
    Factor analysis of value factors and objective measures (CPI,
                          HDI, GDP, GINI)
                         factor 1       factor 2       factor 3
                         (general       (secularity,   (achievements)
                         development)   equality)

Postmat.+openess         0,950
exp.+indiv.+power
dist.+uncertainty tol.
Self-enhancement                                       0,998
+masculinity
Secular authority                       0,927
HDI                      0,927
GDP                      0,936
CPI                      0,944
GINI                                    -0,885
                                 General development - high



                                 New Zealand      Switzerland
                         USA
                                     Australia Germany        Denmark
                                          France        Finland
                                    Spain                          Japan
Secularity, equality -                                                        Secularity,
                                                   Italy
low                            Portugal                                       equality -
                                                                              high
                                                         Slovenia
                                                         Hungary    Czech Rep.
  Brasil        Mexico
                                               Poland
                          Turkey                   Estonia                 Slovakia

                                       China            Bulgaria
                                      Russia



                                 General development - low
                          General development - high


                                                                   Japan
                          Denmark             Switzerland          USA
                                                       Australia
               Finland
                                               New Zealand
                                 France                      Germany
Achievements
- low                        Spain                                     Achievements-
                Portugal
                                      Italy                            high

               Slovenia
                                Czech Rep.               Hungary
                                                Mexico
                                      Brasil                               Slovakia
                Estonia                            Poland
                                 Bulgaria
                                               Turkey                                 China
                             Russia




                            General development - low
Predictors of happiness?
5


4
                                                                             Factor I              Happiness (Inglehart) &
                                                                             general               three factors
3
                                                                             development
2


1


0                                                                   R(24)=0,815***                 Factor III
-1
                                                                                                   secularity
-2
 -2,0          -1,5   -1,0   -,5       0,0   ,5       1,0   1,5    2,0                             /equality                            R(24)=-0,225, n.i.
     Schw+Ingl+Hof _postm+otwartosc+indyw+malydyst+toleran


                                                                                                   5
     5
                                                                    Factor II
                                                                                                   4
     4                                                              achievement
                                                                                                   3
     3


                                                                                                   2
     2

                                                                                                   1
                                                                             Happiness_Inglehart




     1

                                                                                                   0
     0

                                                                                                   -1
     -1                                                           R(24)=0,011
                                                                                                   -2
     -2
                                                                                                    -2,5    -2,0   -1,5   -1,0   -,5   0,0   ,5   1,0   1,5
          -2           -1          0              1         2            3

                                                                                                        Schw+Ingl+Hof_autorytet_swiecki+maskulinizm
          Schw+Ingl+Hof_wzmacniaja+maskulinizm
                  Predictors of happiness – structural model


                e4                                  e2
                                                                                          e1

                      ,80                                ,79                                   ,81
                               ,64                                ,89
            hdi+cpi+gdp                       postmate-                         happiness
                                               rialistic
                                                                        e6
                                                               -,43          -,24

                                                                                    ,58
                     ,89             ,42
                                                                        secular
                                                                        authority
                                                  ,26
                                                               -,61


                      pd+ic+
                     openess                               Gini



Chi-2=8,084, df=6, p=0,232
                                           -,45
RMSEA=0,045

				
DOCUMENT INFO