Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values.
Abstract
Using data from 88 samples from 40 countries, the authors reevaluate the propositions of a recent values theory and provide criteria for identifying what is culture-specific in value meanings and structure. They confirm the widespread presence of 10 value types, arrayed on a motivational continuum, and organized on virtually universal, orthogonal dimensions: Openness to Change versus Conservation and Self-Transcendence versus Self-Enhancement. Forty-four values demonstrate high cross-cultural consistency of meaning. In the average sample, about 16% of single values diverge from their proto-typical value types, and one pair of motivationally close value types is intermixed. Test-retest and randomly split sample analyses reveal that some two thirds of deviations represent unreliable measurement and one third represent culture-specific characteristics. Ways to identify and interpret the latter are presented.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Values are trans-situational goals that serve the interest of individuals or groups and act as principles that guide people in their lives and in their behavioral considerations.
“Values are trans-situational goals that serve the interest of individuals or groups and act as principles that guide people in their lives and in their behavioral considerations (Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995).”
From How the interplay between consumer motivations and values influences organic food identity and behavior (2018) · cites this paper as Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 1,089
- Authors
- Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- ORCID
- Schwartz, Shalom H.
- Venue
- Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 92-116
- ISSN
- 0022-0221 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5422
- OpenAlex
- W2143173380
- Cited by
- 1,089
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 68
- FWCI
- 21.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- axiology, cross-cultural comparison, value types, openness to change, conservation, self-transcendence, self-enhancement, value structure, measurement reliability, test-retest reliability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review