Printer Friendly

Assessing Schwartz's refined value theory in the Chinese context.

Introduction

In the indigenous, cross/inter-cultural studies of human communication, studies of values have always been a central issue. Eic and emic frameworks of values are complementarily informing each other in understanding human communication.

In recent years, indigenous studies of human values have emerged. The 4th issue of China Media Research in 2011 elaborated on the specific indigenous values in the Chinese societies (e.g., harmony, guanxi, hierarchy, renqing). Kulich and Zhang (2010, p. 247) summarized the major studies of specific values in the Chinese societies from the perspective of two disciplines: communication and psychological studies. This in-depth analysis of indigenous values can of course provide bountiful academic resources for understanding communication behaviors within specific cultures or societies. More importantly, they can be applied to examine or supplement etic frameworks from the insiders' view.

Major cross-cultural values frameworks have been updated recently (e.g., Hills, 2002; Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2012). Among those well established, Schwartz's value theory has been prominent. According to the citation statistics from Google Scholar, Schwartz's early papers (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990; Schwartz, 1992) on the content and structure of basic human values have been cited 4018, 4028, and 8418 times respectively in the academic circle. He is often credited with developing the most carefully constructed a prior study of values (Kulich, 2009). His individual-level values theory was mainly summarized as ten motivationally distinct value types and the latest more narrowly refined 19 value types, two higher-order dimensions, four guiding principles, and several instruments (i.e., Schwartz Value Survey (SVS)-56/57, Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ)-21, PVQ-40, PVQ-R). The theory proposed in 1992 has been validated in many empirical studies using SVS and PVQ. The revised theory has also been examined in major European and American cultures (e.g., Schwartz, et al., 2012; Schwartz & Butenko, 2014).The evident advantage of etic frameworks is that they provide culture-general frameworks that enable comparison of cultural similarities and differences. However, the imposed etic framework is sometimes considered to be too generic, which may ignore, miss or misrepresent the core culture-specific values of specific societies. The so-called universal framework expects to be assessed in the other culturally distinct groups (Schwartz et al., 2012).

Up to now, there is no empirical study sourced to have examined the refined theory in a Confucian-influenced Chinese mainland society. The refined theory may not apply well in a culture in multi-dimensional transition "from religious awareness orientation to science awareness, from an ethical to a legal society, to a culturally plural, politically democratic, economically market-oriented and socially contracted society" (Zhai, 1999, p. 125). As Hofstede argued, researchers' ethnocentric bias may be present in both etic frameworks and instrument items used (Hofstede, 2007). In addition, though the theory is quite popular among the scholars of cross-cultural studies, it is less cited by inter/communication scholars. This paper aimed to examine the refined theory based on data from the Chinese mainland society.

Schwartz Values Theory and the Revised Version

Schwartz values theory was organized in a three-level hierarchy, encompassing four first-level value dimensions, ten second-level value types, and 56/7 third-level basic human values. By viewing values as cognitive representations of three universal requirements: biological needs, interactional requirements for interpersonal coordination and societal demands of group welfare and survival, Shalom H. Schwartz and colleagues (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990; Schwartz, 1992) proposed an a priori theory of ten motivationally distinct basic values: Universalism, Benevolence, Conformity, Tradition, Security, Power, Hedonism, Achievement, Stimulation, and Self-direction (See Table 1 for definitions). Schwartz (1992) argues that value types can serve individualistic, collectivistic, or mixed interests. Stimulation, Hedonism, Power, Achievement, and Self-direction serve individual interests. Tradition, Conformity, and Benevolence serve collective interests. Security and Universalism serve mixed interested.

The theory also specified a set of dynamic relations among the motivational types of values, which form a circle of motivational continuum. Adjacent values are postulated to be compatible and values types that emerge in opposing directions from the origin are postulated to be in conflict. What's more, there are two orthogonal dimensions underlying the dynamic relations of values: Self-enhancement vs. Self-transcendence and Openness to Change vs. Conservation. The first dimension Self-enhancement vs. Self-transcendence juxtaposes values emphasizing pursuit of one's own relative success and dominance over others (Power, Achievement, and Hedonism) with those emphasizing acceptance of others as equals and concern for their welfare (Universalism and Benevolence). The second dimension Openness to Change vs. Conservation juxtaposes values emphasizing independent thought and action and favoring change (Self-direction, Stimulation, and Hedonism) with those emphasizing submissive self-restriction, preservation of traditional practices, and protection of stability (Security, Conformity, and Tradition). Hedonism shares elements of both openness and self-enhancement.

Schwartz and his research associates (Schwartz, 1992, 1994; Schwartz, Burgess, Harris, & Owens, 2001) developed two instruments: the more abstract 56 or 57-item SVS and the less abstract 40-item PVQ (Portrait Values Questionnaire) to validate the theory in a series of empirical cross-cultural studies. Methodologically, Schwartz's proposed theory has been validated first with two-dimensional MDS (Multidimensional Scaling) configurational verification, later confirmatory factor analysis and the combination of the two.

Evidence for the theoretical structure has been found in samples from 67 nations (Schwartz, 1992, 2005; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995), as well as in data from 38 countries (Fontaine, Poortinga, Delbeke, & Schwartz, 2008). These two sets of findings, showing that 10 motivationally distinct value types are recognized across cultures, provide substantial support for both the content and structure postulates of the theory. In Asian context, Liem et al. (2011) validated Schwartz's theory of the content and structure of human values among middle adolescents in Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Australia by administering the 40-item version of the PVQ to 230 adolescents in each country and performing the smallest space analysis (SSA). By using emic value data from the Dictionary of Modern Chinese (5th edition), Li (2016) found support for the proposed theory to be applied to the Chinese society, especially in terms of two higher-order dimensions though there were problems for social focus values (e.g., UN, BE, CON, TR, and SE) but not for personal focus values. The previous findings indicate that Schwartz's theory of basic individual values is neither restricted to adults nor solely based on a particular instrument and is generablizable across diverse national or cultural contexts.

In recent years, the theory was refined based on the central postulation that values form a circular motivational continuum. This assumption has been neglected by past research. Drawing on the conceptual definitions of the original 10 values and past empirical findings, Schwartz et al. (2012) refined the theory by building on the idea of the motivational continuum. Table 1 presents the definitions of 19 narrowly defined values. Besides distinguishing among three types of Universalism values, two types of Benevolence, two of Self-direction, two of Conformity, two of Power, and two of Security, the theory also introduced two new basic values: Humility and Face. Only 7 values in the revised theory remain the same as those in the original theory. Figure 1 maps the 19 values types and the two bi-polar dimensions along with other two guiding principles (e.g., Social focus and Personal focus values).

Recent Validation of the Revised Theory in Major Cultures

Schwartz's ten basic values form a structure of interrelations of conflict and compatibility that was found to be cross-culturally near universal in past research. It constitutes a motivational continuum. Based on this belief, Schwartz and his associates (Schwartz et al., 2012) revised the theory by proposing 19 narrower value types as above mentioned, designed a new PVQ-like instrument PVQ-5X, and related the values types to other psychological constructs (e.g., attitudes) and daily behavior. Several recent studies (e.g., Cieciuch & Schwartz, 2012; Schwartz et al., 2012; Schwartz & Butenko, 2014) have examined the validity of the refined theory.

Schwartz et al. (2012) identified the distinctiveness of at least 17 a priori values in 15 samples from 10 countries (Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey, the U.S.) using the PVQ-5X. The explanatory and predictive power of the refined 19 values in point of attitudes was also confirmed. Similarly, in a Russian context, 19 distinct values was confirmed based on the PVQ-R data with Benevolence located in the center of the circle and the predicative power for daily behaviors was supported (Schwartz & Butenko, 2014).

In addition, the validity of the revised theory was also examined by using previous PVQ data sets. Cieciuch and Schwartz (2012) tested the refined theory through MDS and CFA analyses of the PVQ-40 data (n = 10,439) collected in Poland. The research confirmed the circular motivational continuum of 10 values, with Benevolence and Universalism reversing and discriminated 15 hypothesized values, which were also distinguishable in the MDS projection (Cieciuch & Schwartz, 2012). Cieciuch, Schwartz and Vecchione (2013) applied the theory to the PVQ-40 data collected in 13 countries. Theory-based multidimensional scaling and confirmatory factor analyses revealed several more narrowly defined values from the previous PVQ-40 data. Cieciuch, Davidov, Vecchione, and Schwartz (2014) used a third-order categorical CFA to test the further revised model (placing Universalism between Humility and Benevolence) by re-analyzing the data from Schwartz et al.'s (2012) study. 48 out of 57 items from PVQ-5X which Schwartz suggested to be retained for further analysis were used. Though CFI for the whole model was a little lower than the cut-off criterion (CFI>=.9), the RMSEA (.055, 90% CI [.054, .056]) showed an acceptable fit to the data.

Previous MDS and CFA Studies based on PVQ-5X and PVQ-40 data basically support the finer distinction of values and the dynamic relations. Based on past CFA analysis, Schwartz revised the PVQ-5X Value Survey and developed the PVQ-R (the revised edition) by changing or updating some items in the PVQ-5X and one anchor point. Three marker items were designed to measure each value type.

Emic and Etic Studies on Chinese Cultural Values

Major cultural-level values frameworks (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; Huntington, 1993; Inglehart, 1997; Schwartz, 2006) all acknowledge the distinctiveness of Confucian-influenced cultural region, which was also supported by regional cross-cultural studies (e.g., Monkhouse, Barnes, & Pham, 2013). According to Schwartz's (2006) cultural level analysis of values, Confucian-influenced culture like Chinese mainland has a heavy emphasis on "embeddedness more than all the European and American cultures" (p.159), hierarchy and mastery with a less emphasis on egalitarianism, harmony and autonomy. People emphasize finding meaning in life "largely through social relationships, through identifying with the group, participating in its shared way of life, and striving toward its shared goals" (p. 140). In other words, Chinese people are more social focused. But for Chinese culture in transition, to what degree do these cross-cultural values frameworks capture the core aspects of Chinese culture? They may represent only certain aspects of Chinese cultural reality or they may miss or misrepresent certain aspects of Chinese culture. For example, Chinese mainland culture is close to the Secular-Relational pole on Inglehart's Traditional vs. Secular-Relational dimension but low on Schwartz's Autonomy vs. Embeddedness dimension (Schwartz, 2006) though the two dimensions are considered to overlap conceptually. Another example is that the often claimed Chinese harmony (e.g., Chen, 2011) is not present according to Schwartz's (2006) Harmony vs. Mastery dimension, but mastery prevails. His Harmony was represented by such values as world at peace, unity with nature, and protecting the environment. This result surely contradicts with what Chinese scholars often assumed in the literature.

Since the early 1990s there is a trend of indigenizing Chinese communication studies, i.e., the emic analysis of Chinese societies and culture. Sociologist Fei Hsiao-Tung's concept chaxugeju (a network of ranked social relations or a differential mode of association) likened the structure of Chinese society to ripples spreading across a body of water (Fei, 1948). Yang Kuo-shu' (1995) proposed four emic aspects of Chinese social orientation: familistic, relationship, authoritarian and other orientation, part of which conceptually overlap with Hofstede's Collectivism and Power Distance and Schwartz's Embeddedness and Hierarchy in labeling Chinese culture. Fan (2000) added 31 values to the list of Michael Bond's 40-item Chinese Values Survey (CVS) and produced a list of 71 values of Chinese culture. These values fall into 8 categories: national traits, interpersonal relations, family/social orientation, work attitude, business philosophy, personal traits, time orientation, and relationship with nature. In the special issue of China Media Research led by Chen (2011), such indigenous concepts as harmony, face (mientz), social relations (guanxi), favor (renqing), reciprocity (bao), politeness (keqi), rites (li), hierarchy (dengji), and others were analyzed in details. This echoed Kulich and Zhang's (2010, p. 247) review of the specific, core Chinese values studied in the disciplines of communication and psychological studies. These researchers all attempted to locate the core aspects of Chinese values. Are these cultural cores represented in the cross-cultural value frameworks? If not, then such frameworks are biased toward Chinese culture. Based on the indigenous lexical analysis of Chinese values sedimented in the Dictionary of Modern Chinese, Li (2016) found some Chinese core values failed to fit in with Schwartz's 10 or 19 value types (e.g., yin-yang transformation, dialectic thinking).

There is currently no research sourced having examined the refined theory in the Confucian-influenced cultural context. The present study aimed to test the theory by using a weak confirmatory MDS and four separate CFA analyses in the Chinese mainland society.

The Present Study

Research Questions

The main goals of this study were to assess the presence of distinctive value types and structure of value types specified in the refined theory in the Chinese context. It aimed to test the following hypotheses:

(1) The theorized motivational circle of values is present in the data from a Chinese mainland sample.

(2) It is possible to discriminate the more narrowly defined 19 values specified in the theory.

(3) The values can be collapsible to ten broad values.

Participants

250 university undergraduates in a Jiangsu-based comprehensive university responded to the Chinese version of PVQ-R survey in October, 2013. Those respondents were from English, Electronic Engineering and Human Resources Management majors. After the data entry and cleaning, 94% of the responses (235 cases) to the survey were found to be valid. The male students accounted for 46.8% while the female ones 53.2%. Their average age is 22.1 years old (SD=0.6).

Instrument

19 values were measured with the PVQ-R, which consists of 57 items, 3 for each value. PVQ-R was sourced from Professor Shalom H. Schwartz through personal e-mail communication in 2013. Schwartz provided the annotated version of PVQ-R and its Chinese version. After careful reading his annotation and the items for each value type, the research further polished the wording in the Chinese version by closely linking the linguistic meaning to the conceptual definition of that value type.

Data Collection and Analysis

Separate gender-matched versions of 57-item PVQ-R, differing only in pronouns, was administered in written form in a class in December, 2013. The time for the response was 25 minutes. After entry into Excel 2007, MDS Proxscal in the SPSS 18.0 program and confirmatory factor analysis through LISREL 8.8 were applied to the PVQ-R survey data respectively. Schwartz suggested that "for multidimensional scaling, both centered and uncentered item responses work equally well" (Schwartz, 2013). The raw data was applied to MDS analysis. For the MDS analysis, a weak confirmatory CFA was used as recent studies (e.g., Bilsky & Janik, 2010; Bilksy, Janik & Schwartz, 2011, Schwartz, et al., 2012; Schwartz & Butenko, 2014) did. Bilsky, Janik, and Schwartz (2011) suggested structural analyses of data using a theory-based approach to multidimensional scaling that can be applied to optimally assess the fit of data to diverse theories. For the analysis, a starting configuration derived from the theorized circle was used to avoid a suboptimal solution (Borg & Groenen, 2005).

Recently CFA has been used to examine the structure of Schwartz's theory (e.g., Butenko & Schwartz, 2013; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004; Schwartz & Butenko, 2014; Schwartz, et al., 2012). Schwartz suggested that for confirmatory factor analysis, "use raw value scores for the items or 19 value means. However, if only some of the 57 items are included, centered scores can be used" (Schwartz, 2013). Therefore, raw data was applied to the CFA analysis. The missing values were handled with the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm in the LISREL 8.8. The proportion of missing data was only 0.21%.

Results

Assessing the theory with confirmatory MDS

MDS was conducted to assess the structure of relations among the 19 values and their locations around the circular motivational continuum with respect to the theorized model. According to the theorized model, results should cluster together within their theorized positioning regardless of the comparative importance of the differing values. Figure 2 presents the MDS result based on the starting configuration. The Stree-1 measure was used to assess the goodness of fit between the empirical correlation matrix and the two-dimensional MDS display. Stress I .28 is substantially and significantly less than we would expect with 57 items in 2 dimensions. The MDS analysis is acceptable as representations of the covariance matrix, as indicated by the fit statistics. Each labeled point in this two-dimensional graphic plot represents a value indicator. The higher the correlation between two values and the more similar the correlations with all the other items, the closer they are in the space. The researcher then examined whether it was possible to partition the items in the two-dimensional space according to the prototypical circular model.

The space was split into regions that represent the a priori value types. Bent lines pose no problem with respect to interpretation as long as a particular value region does not include items of a different value (Schwartz et al., 2012). This figure serves as a visual aid in describing results of the MDS plots.

Figure 2 indicates that the theorized motivational circle of values and the four dimensions were largely supported in the data from Chinese sample except the following deviations: (1) Security is placed near the center; (2) Security-Social and Security-Personal is separated by Tradition; (3) Benevolence-Dependability is not a distinct value. Three indexing items (bed1, bed2, bed3) are scattered. The other value types encompass all or most of the value items. This may suggest that for the Chinese cultural context, these three items need to be revised to represent Benevolence-Dependability; (4) Power-dominance and Power-Resources are reversed; (5) Seven items underlined in Figure 2 are placed out of the expected regions: hum3 (Conformity-Rules), sep3 (Conformity-Rules), he1(Self-direction-Action), pod3(Face), bed1(Self-direction-Thought), bed2 (Benevolence-caring) and bed3(Face). In the previous analysis, it was found that "the order of the universalism and benevolence value regions around the motivational circle reversed in about half of the PVQ samples: Universalism was adjacent to tradition and conformity, and benevolence was adjacent to self-direction" (Schwartz et al., 2012, p. 668). This study also supports the reverse of Benevolence and Universalism in the originally proposed theory by Schwartz. The result was based on a weak confirmatory analysis with some restrictions on the space. If analyzed without the starting configuration, the matching of the data with the theory would become less satisfactory.

Assessing the distinctiveness of 19 values with CFA of the four dimensions

To examine the distinctiveness of the 19 narrowly defined values, confirmatory factor analysis was performed. With 19 latent variables and 57 indicators, a single model could not be estimated reliably with only 235 cases (Harrington, 2008). Therefore, four separate CFAs were performed on each of the four higher-order dimensions as other researchers (e.g., Cieciuch& Schwartz, 2012; Knoppen & Saris, 2009; Schwartz &Butenko, 2014) have used of running CFAs on separate parts of the circle: Openness to Change (SDT, SDA, ST, HE), Self-enhancement (ACH, POD, POR, FA), Conservation (SEP, SES, TR, COR, COI, HU), and Self-transcendence (BEC, BED, UNN, UNC, and UNT).

Multiple fit indexes were used to evaluate the fit to data: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals (SRMR). CFI values=>.90 (Bentler, 1990), RMSEA values <=.08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), and SRMR values <=.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) were considered as indicating a reasonable model fit. All analyses were performed by LISREL 8.8. Parameters were estimated by using the Maximum Likelihood estimator. Table 2 reports goodness of fit statistics for the initial and revised models of four higher-order dimensions. According to the fit indexes, the revised models met the requirements for a reasonable fit after model modifications based on modification indexes: BED3 (Self-transcendence), CR3, CI3 (Conservation), FA3, PD3 (Self-enhancement), and SDT3 (Openness to Change) were dropped. At least two items were retained to index each value.

Appendix 1 displays the standardized regression weights (loadings) of the remaining 51 items on the value types and correlations between latent values. The models include no correlated errors and no cross-loadings, and only two correlations between the latent factors reached 0.8. All loadings of items on their latent values are substantial, and all but three are greater than the 0.4 criterion suggested by Brown (2006). Overall, each of the 19 latent values is relatively distinctive, showing a good discriminate validity.

Table 3 displays the reliabilities, means and standard deviations of the 19 value types. The reliabilities of value types range from 0.45 to 0.84. Most of values have reliabilities higher than 0.6. In computing the means, three items (sep3, hum3, and bed3) which lowered the reliability of value types were dropped. Means and standard deviations were computed based on centered scores. Namely, first center each person's responses around his or her own mean for all 57 items, then compute the centered scale means, and finally add the overall mean for all responses (M=4.18) to PVQ-R to restore the six-point scale range. Thus, the means reflect value priorities.

Discussion

This paper aimed to evaluate Schwartz's refined value theory in the Chinese cultural context, a Confucian-influenced cultural region. Overall, the refined theory wins empirical support from data in a Chinese sample.

The theorized motivational circle of values is present in the MDS plot, indicating that the Chinese people are also guided by the same motivational continuum. Judged from the MDS plot, 18 distinct value types can be discriminated and the values can be collapsible to ten broad values, the order of which is consistent with the original theory proposed in Schwartz (1992), only with the exception that Security tends to lie in the center. This adds support to the universality of refined value types in European, American and Russian cultures. The higher-order dimensions (Self-enhancement vs. Self-transcendence; Openness to Change vs. Conservation) are present in a MDS plot. Generally, the refined theory wins empirical support in a Confucian-influenced cultural context. This shows the robustness of the theory in capturing the commonality of values in all cultures.

The refined theory applies better than the original theory to the Chinese context. When Schwartz (1992) developed the theory using the Schwartz Value Survey based on data from four Chinese samples, he noted,

   The power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation,
   and self-direction value types emerged clearly in all
   four [Chinese] samples, and their order relative to
   each other and in opposition to the remaining
   values conformed with our theory. However, the
   values that constitute the other five types could not
   be partitioned into regions representing each type.
   Instead, we were able to partition them into three
   interpretable regions that were clear in the three
   Shanghai samples and somewhat less clear in Hebei.
   (p.48)


Given the difficulty in partitioning the social focus values, Schwartz (1992) tentatively proposed three broad regions: Societal Harmony, Virtuous Interpersonal Behavior Personal and Interpersonal Harmony and argued that "these regions represent three unique Chinese value types" (p.48). Li's (2016) study based on the SVS 57 data collected in 2012 also found that the social focus values applied to Chinese context had deviations from the a priori theory and proposed to label the social focus values into two broad regions: Societal Harmony and (Inter)Personal Harmony. However, in the current MDS plot, the discrimination among the social focus values improved. The value types can be partitioned into 18 distinct value types. In the Chinese context, the PVQ-R data follows the theorized model better than the original SVS data though the deviations still exist.

The refined theory is the extension and expansion of the original values theory in terms of the content and structure of values. For the Chinese context, it is clearly seen that the 19 narrowly defined values can fall into ten broad values. But the refined theory applies better than the original theory for the Chinese context. The two-dimensional bi-polar dimensions are clearly indicated by the plot. These higher-order dimensions were also revealed by the SVS data (Li, 2016). Fischer (2014) argued that "the two-dimensional value structure may indicate a prototypical (Maio, 2010, cited in Fischer) or ideal motivational space that can be recovered if items are used that are locally meaningful and relevant" (p. 232).

Even though there is obvious improvement in applying to Chinese population, deviations from the ideal spatial map are obvious. Those deviations may arise from selection of PVQ-R items, translation issues or some cultural uniqueness. For example, Chinese people value Security-Personal and Security-Social most at the current stage. They concern about security of self and one's immediate environment and also security in the wider society. This is based on ranking the means of broad ten scores by averaging the sub-types in each broad value. Results indicate that Security (M=5.08) and Benevolence (M=5.06) have the highest ratings and Tradition (M=3.09) and Power (M=3.08) the lowest ratings. This cultural uniqueness may be the reason why two sub-types of Security lie in the center in the plot.

For the PVQ-R, seven items need to be revised or replaced to make each value type gain a higher reliability in the Chinese context. For example, BD3 (It is important to him that all his friends and family can rely on him completely) was placed in the value type Face.

Though the theory is generally supported by the current empirical data, questions exist about to what degree the theory can encompass the core values operating in current transforming Chinese society. Many theoretical findings from the insiders concerning Chinese cultural values seem to be not covered by Schwartz theory. For example, Yang's (1995) social orientation interpretation for Chinese societies, and Fei's (1948) cha xugeju. What's more, some local concepts such as guanxi, renqing, and seeking truth from facts either fail to be represented by Schwartz's value types or fall on several value types for Chinese society. For example, guanxi may be a Security, or Power, or Face value for Chinese. To sum up, Schwartz's refined theory is applicable to Chinese context; compared with the original theory, it can better represent the social focus values. Yet, the theory needs further refinement either in the choice of indicators or in the theoretical framework itself, especially in terms of social focus values in the Chinese context by absorbing emic research findings.

Conclusion

The research contributes to literature by examining Schwartz's refined value theory in an unexamined culture context, China. Through confirmatory MDS and CFA analysis of the empirical data, the theory was found to be applicable to Chinese context though deviations from the ideal map exist. Both the content and structure of the narrowly defined value types were present in the Chinese sample data, indicating the feasibility of applying the theory to Chinese cultural context. Yet social focus values are not well discriminated while personal focus values are in the Chinese context. This calls for further improvement in terms of social focus values by borrowing findings from emic studies of Chinese values.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Professor Shalom H. Schwartz for helping me conduct the confirmatory MDS data analysis.

Correspondence to:

Jiajun Li, Ph. D.

School of Foreign Languages

Jiangsu University

301 Xuefu Road

Zhenjiang 212013, P. R. China

E-mail: ifoster@ujs.edu.cn

References

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bilsky, W. & Janik, M. (2010). Investigating value structure: Using theory-based starting configuration in Multidimensional Scaling. Revista de Psicologia Social, 25, 341-349.

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.

Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. F. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling (2nd edition). New York: Springer.

Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, K. A. & J. S. Long (Eds.).Testing structural equation models (pp.136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: NY: Guilford Press.

Chen, G M. (2011). An introduction to key concepts in understanding the Chinese: Harmony as the foundation of Chinese communication. China Media Research, 7(4), 1-12.

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, 764-776.

Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Vecchione, M., & Schwartz, S. (2014). A hierarchical structure of basic human values in a third-order confirmatory factor analysis. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 73, 177-182.

Cieciuch, J. &Schwartz, S. H. (2012).The number of distinct basic values and their structure assessed by PVQ-40. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 321-328.

Cieciuch, J., Schwartz, S. H. &Vecchione, M. (2013). Applying the refined values theory to past data: What can researchers gain? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 1215-1234.

Doring, A. K., Blauensteiner, A., Aryus, K., Drogekamp, L., &Bilsky, W. (2010). Assessing values at an early age: The Picture-Based Value Survey for children (PBVS-C). Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 439-448.

Fan, Y (2000). A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management-An International Journal, 7, 3-10.

Fei, H. T. (1948/1992). Xiangtu Zhongguo (Folk China). Shanghai: Guancha Press. (English translation From the soil: The foundations of Chinese society. Trans. Gary G Hamilton and Wang Zheng. Berkeley: University of California Press.)

Fischer, R. (2014). What values can (and cannot) tell us about individuals, society and culture. In M. Gelfand, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in Culture and Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 345-365.

Hills, M. D. (2002). Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's values orientation theory. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online readings in psychology and culture (Unit 6, Chapter 3), (http: //www.ac.wwu.edu/-culture/readings.htm), Bellingham WA: Centre for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Revised 3rded.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Harrington, D. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hofstede, G (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nded.). Beverly Hills CA: Sage.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations. Foreign Affairs, 72, 22-49.

Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19-51.

Knoppen, D., & Saris, W. (2009). Do we have to combine values in the Schwartz' Human Values Scale? A comment on the Davidov studies. Survey Research Methods, 2, 91-103.

Kulich, S. J. (2009). Values theory: Sociocultural dimensions and frameworks. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kulich, S. J., & Zhang, R. (2010). The multiple frames of "Chinese values": From tradition to modernity and beyond. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 241-278). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Li, J. J. (2016). The structure of Chinese values: Indigenous and cross-cultural perspectives. Reading, London: Paths International Ltd. & Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Nair, E., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Prasetya, P. H. (2011). Content and structure of values in middle adolescence: Evidence from Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 146-154.

Monkhouse, L. L., Barnes, B. R. & Pham, T. S. H. (2013). Measuring Confucian values among East Asian consumers: A four country study. Asia Pacific Business Review, 19 (3), 320-336.

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: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.

Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Basic human values: Their content and structure across countries. In A. Tamayo & J. B. Porto (Eds.), Valores e comportamentonas organizagdes [Values and behavior in organizations] (pp. 21-55). Petropolis, Brazil: Vozes.

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5 (2-3), 137-182.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.

Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230-255.

Schwartz, S. H., 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.

Schwartz, S. H., & Butenko, T. (2014). Values and behavior: Validating the refined value theory in Russia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 799-813.

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lonnqvist, J.-E., Demirutku, K., Drilen-Gumus, O., & Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663-688.

Schwartz, S. H., &Sagiv, L. (1995).Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 92-116.

Yang, K.S. (1995) Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In W. S. Tseng, T.Y. Lin, & E. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health (pp. 19-39). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Zhai, X. W. (1999). The value orientations of Chinese: Types, shifts and other issues. Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences), 4, 118-126.

Appendix 1

Standardized regression weights for four dimension PVQ-R (n=235)

Standardized regression weights (BD3 dropped) for Self-transcendence

Note. BC = Benevolence-caring; BD = Benevolence-dependability; UN = Universalism-nature; UT = Universalism-tolerance; UC = Universalism-concern

Standardized regression weights (PD3 and FA3 dropped) for Self-enhancement

Note. AC = Achievement; PD = Power-dependability; PR = Power-resources; FA = Face

Standardized regression weights for Openness to Change (SDT3 dropped)

Note. SDA = Self-direction-Action; SDT = Self-direction-Thought; ST = Stimulation; HE = Hedonism

Standardized regression weights for Conservation (CR3 and CI3 dropped)

Note. SP = Security-Personal; SS = Security-Social; TR = Tradition; CR = Conformity-Rules; CI = Conformity-Interpersonal; HU = Humility

Jiajun Li

Jiangsu University, P. R. China

Table 1: Definitions of Schwartz's Values Types and
Underlying Two Dimensions

Higher-order         Ten values (Schwartz,
values(Schwartz,     1992)
1992; Schwartz et
al., 2012)

Self-Transcendence   Benevolence
                     (BE)--Preservation and
                     enhancement of the
                     welfare of people with
                     whom one is in frequent
                     personal contact

                     Universalism(UN)--
                     Understanding,
                     appreciation, tolerance,
                     and protection for the
                     welfare of all people and
                     of nature

Conservation         Conformity (CON)--The
                     restraint of actions,
                     inclinations, and
                     impulses that are likely
                     to upset or harm others
                     and violate social
                     expectations or norms

                     Tradition(TR)--Respect,
                     commitment, and
                     acceptance of the customs
                     and ideas that
                     traditional culture or
                     religion provides

                     Security(SE)--Safety,
                     harmony, and stability of
                     society, relationships,
                     and self

Self-Enhancement     Power(PO)--Social status
                     and prestige, control, or
                     dominance over people and
                     resources

                     Achievement(ACH)--
                     Personal success through
                     demonstrating competence
                     according to social
                     standards

Openness to change   Stimulation (ST)--
                     Excitement, novelty, and
                     challenge in life Self-

                     Direction (SD)--
                     Independent thought and
                     action, choosing,
                     creating, and exploring

Higher-order         19 more narrowly defined
values(Schwartz,     values (Schwartz et al.,
1992; Schwartz et    2012)
al., 2012)

Self-Transcendence   Benevolence-Dependability
                     (BED)--Being a reliable
                     and trustworthy member of
                     the ingroup

                     Benevolence-Caring
                     (BEC)--Devotion to the
                     welfare of ingroup
                     members

                     Universalism-Tolerance
                     (UNT)--Acceptance and
                     understanding of those
                     who are different from
                     oneself

                     Universalism-Concern
                     (UNC)--Commitment to
                     equality, justice, and
                     protection for all people

                     Universalism-Nature
                     (UNN)--Preservation of
                     the natural environment

                     Humility
                     (HUM)--Recognizing one's
                     insignificance in the
                     larger scheme of things

Conservation         Conformity-Interpersonal
                     (COI)--Avoidance of
                     upsetting or harming
                     other people

                     Conformity-Rules
                     (COR)--Compliance with
                     rules, laws, and formal
                     obligations

                     Tradition
                     (TR)--Maintaining and
                     preserving cultural,
                     family, or religious
                     traditions

                     Security-Societal
                     (SES)--Safety and
                     stability in the wider
                     society Security-Personal
                     (SEP)--Safety in one's
                     immediate environment

                     Face (FAC)--Security and
                     power through maintaining
                     one's public image and
                     avoiding humiliation

Self-Enhancement     Power-Resources
                     (POR)--Power through
                     control of material and
                     social resources

                     Power-Dominance
                     (POD)--Power through
                     exercising control over
                     people

                     Achievement
                     (AC)--Definition
                     unchanged

Openness to change   Stimulation
                     (ST)--Definition
                     unchanged

                     Self-Direction-Action
                     (SDA)--The freedom to
                     determine one's own
                     actions

                     Self-Direction-Thought
                     (SDT)--The freedom to
                     cultivate one's own ideas
                     and abilities

Table 2: Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Model fit statistics
for Four Dimensions

Dimension           Goodness of     [chi     df    CFI
                     Fit Index     square]

Self-                 Initial      188.35    80    0.95
  transcendence    Revised (BD3    142.63    67    0.97
                     dropped)
Openness              Initial      107.80    48    0.93
  to Change        Revised (SDT3    80.67    38    0.94
                     dropped)
Conservation          Initial      269.23    120   0.90
                   Revised (CR3,   156.05    89    0.94
                   CI3) dropped
Self-enhancement      Initial      138.74    48    0.91
                   Revised (PD3,    71.68    29    0.95
                   FA3) dropped

Dimension           Goodness of    SRMR      RMSEA (90% CI)
                     Fit Index

Self-                 Initial      0.06    0.08 (0.06; 0.085)
  transcendence    Revised (BD3    0.05    0.07 (0.05; 0.085)
                     dropped)
Openness              Initial      0.06    0.08 (0.06; 0.09)
  to Change        Revised (SDT3   0.057   0.07 (0.05; 0.09)
                     dropped)
Conservation          Initial      0.78    0.07 (0.06; 0.08)
                   Revised (CR3,   0.06    0.06 (0.04; 0.07)
                   CI3) dropped
Self-enhancement      Initial      0.067   0.09 (0.07; 0.11)
                   Revised (PD3,   0.056   0.079 (0.06; 0.10)
                   FA3) dropped

Note. For all [chi square] values, p<0.001; df = Degrees of
Freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; SRMR = Standardized Root
Mean Square Residual; RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error of
Approximation; CI = Confidence Interval.

Table 3: Reliabilities, means and standard deviations of 19
value types

Values   Reliability   Value priority   Centered means    SD

BED         0.45            5.10             0.92        0.72
SEP         0.53            5.08             0.90        0.74
BEC         0.59            5.02             0.84        0.63
ACH         0.62            5.02             0.84        0.63
HE          0.57            4.95             0.77        0.74
SDA         0.55            4.72             0.54        0.72
SDT         0.64            4.53             0.35        0.69
HU          0.60            4.34             0.16        0.92
UNT         0.62            4.33             0.15        0.76
FA          0.59            4.32             0.14        0.84
SES         0.76            4.25             0.07        0.94
COR         0.64            4.20             0.02        0.87
COI         0.57            4.16            -0.02        0.88
ST          0.75            4.13            -0.05        1.03
UNN         0.84            4.06            -0.12        0.91
UNC         0.70            4.01            -0.17        0.86
POD         0.68            3.12            -1.06        1.02
TR          0.63            3.09            -1.09        0.87
POR         0.72            3.04            -1.14        1.04
COPYRIGHT 2016 Edmondson Intercultural Enterprises
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Shalom H. Schwartz
Author:Li, Jiajun
Publication:China Media Research
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9CHIN
Date:Jan 1, 2016
Words:6602
Previous Article:Comparing the construction of Muslim and non-Muslims in national press: a discourse analysis of English leading newspapers.
Next Article:Chinese journalistic expertise of weak media: stereotype of Thailand as an example.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters