TOWARD A UNIVERSAL PSYCHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF HUMAN-VALUES
TOWARD A UNIVERSAL PSYCHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF HUMAN-VALUES
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550
复制
发表时间：
1987-09-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
BILSKY, W
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
SCHWARTZ, SH;BILSKY, W
我们通过将价值观视为三个普遍需求的认知表征，构建了一个以价值观的普遍类型为标准的理论：（a）生物需求，（B）人际协调的干预需求，以及（c）群体福利和生存的社会需求。从这些要求中，我们得出并提出了八个价值观激励领域的概念和操作定义：享受，安全，社会权力，成就，自我导向，亲社会，限制性一致性和成熟度。此外，我们还根据价值观所服务的利益（个人主义与集体主义）以及它们所指的目标类型（终端与工具）绘制了价值观。我们假设，价值体系的结构性组织反映了同时给予不同价值高度优先的程度在动机上和实践上是可行的或矛盾的。为了检验我们的理论，我们进行了最小空间分析的评级由以色列（N= 455）和德国（N= 331）的重要性，36罗基奇价值观作为指导原则，在他们的生活。将所获得的多维空间划分为区域后发现，人们确实会根据我们对两个社会中的目标类型、利益服务和动机领域的先验规范来区分价值观。此外，在两个社会中，价值观的动机领域是动态组织的，相互关联，正如相容或矛盾的动机和实际后果的模式所预测的那样。我们已经注意到，一个普遍的方案可能需要额外的价值观和领域，以及这种方法在比较不同文化中价值观的意义、结构和重要性，分析社会结构和价值观之间的关系，以及预测和解释价值观与态度和行为之间的关系方面的潜在应用。
We constructed a theory of the universal types of values as criteria by viewing values as cognitive representations of three universal requirements:(a) biological needs,(b) interactional requirements for interpersonal coordination, and (c) societal demands for group welfare and survival. From these requirements, we have derived and presented conceptual and operational definitions for eight motivational domains of values: enjoyment, security, social power, achievement, self-direction, prosocial, restrictive conformity, and maturity. In addition, we have mapped values according to the interests they serve (individualistic vs. collectivist) and the type of goal to which they refer (terminal vs. instrumental). We postulated that the structural organization of value systems reflects the degree to which giving high priority simultaneously to different values is motivationally and practically feasible or contradictory. To test our theory, we performed smallest space analyses on ratings given by subjects from Israel (N= 455) and Germany (N= 331) of the importance of 36 Rokeach values as guiding principles in their lives. Partitioning of the obtained multidimensional space into regions revealed that people do indeed discriminate among values according to our a priori specifications of goal types, interests served, and motivational domains in both societies. Moreover, the motivational domains of values are organized dynamically in relation to one another in both societies, as predicted by the patterns of compatible or contradictory motivation and practical consequences. We have noted additional values and domains possibly needed for a universal scheme as well as potential applications of this approach for comparing the meanings, structure, and importance of values across cultures, for analyzing relations between social structure and values, and for predicting and interpreting relations of values to attitudes and behavior.