Theoretical Foundations
Shalom Schwartz's 1992 theory of basic human values emerged from the recognition that all human societies must address recurring problems: individual-society relations, how to respond to the natural and social world, and meeting biological needs. From comparative analysis of value rankings across cultures and theoretical deduction, Schwartz identified 10 universal values representing motivational goals that transcend cultural boundaries.
These values form a circular structure in which adjacent values share motivational similarity (e g , achievement and power both prioritize self-interest) while opposite values pursue contradictory goals (achievement opposes benevolence; self-direction opposes conformity).
Schwartz's work synthesized earlier frameworks (Rokeach 1973 Value Survey, 36 terminal and instrumental values) while introducing theoretical coherence through motivational antagonism.
The 10 Universal Values
Schwartz (1992, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology) defined the values as: (1) Self-Direction—independent thought and action (choosing own goals); (2) Stimulation—excitement, novelty, challenge in life; (3) Hedonism—pleasure and gratification; (4) Achievement—personal success, competence, ambition; (5) Power—social status, prestige, control over people and resources; (6) Security—safety, stability, social order; (7) Conformity—restraint of actions that might harm group harmony; (8) Tradition—respect for customs, modesty, acceptance of one's role; (9) Benevolence—welfare of close others, loyalty, honesty; and (10) Universalism—understanding, tolerance, protection of all people and nature. The motivational circle structure constrains value combinations: openness-to-change values (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism) oppose conservation values (security, conformity, tradition); self-enhancement values (power, achievement) oppose self-transcendence values (benevolence, universalism).
Measurement Instruments and Validation
The Personal Values Questionnaire (PVQ-40), developed by Schwartz and colleagues (1992), presents 40 person-descriptions, with respondents rating how similar each description is to themselves. Each item targets one value with specific cross-cultural linguistic equivalents ensuring conceptual equivalence across languages.
The refined PVQ-RR version (Schwartz et al. 2012, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology) reduces measurement error and improves structural validity. Cross-cultural validation in 88 countries (Schwartz et al.
2014, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology) confirms the circular structure and value universality using confirmatory factor analysis and alignment optimization methods. Average Cronbach alphas range from
56– 74, with value distinctiveness demonstrated through distinct correlate patterns.
Cross-Cultural Evidence
Schwartz's research program includes 300+ studies documenting systematic cultural differences in value priorities while maintaining structural universality. Individualist nations (Western Europe, North America, Australia) prioritize self-direction and universalism; collectivist cultures (East Asia, Latin America) emphasize conformity, tradition, and security (Hofstede's individualism correlation r =
58– 74). National wealth significantly predicts shift toward openness-to-change and self-transcendence values, while power values decline (Schwartz & Sagiv 2014, Current Anthropology).
The theory's cross-cultural validation across >100 languages represents extraordinary scope in personality/values science, generating 2,000+ citations by 2020.
Value-Behavior Relationships
Schwartz and colleagues demonstrate values predict moral judgment (Knafo et al. 2008, Personality and Individual Differences), political ideology (Piurko et al. 2011, Political Psychology), occupational choice (Ros et al.
2000, Journal of Vocational Behavior), environmental behavior (de Groot & Steg 2010, Environment and Behavior), and interpersonal relationships (Parks & Guay 2012, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships). The value-attitude-behavior model shows values influence behavior indirectly through attitudes and norms, with moderating effects from situational salience and social pressure (Schultz & Zelezny 2003 on environmentalism).
Studies using experience sampling and daily diaries document that daily value activation predicts momentary affect and behavioral choices (Emmons 1989, Journal of Personality Assessment).
Integration with Other Frameworks
Schwartz's values circle correlates with Big Five personality (Costa & McCrae 1992): openness correlates with openness-to-change values (r = 48), agreeableness with benevolence (r =
62), conscientiousness with conservation values (r = 52). Moral Foundations Theory values (Moral Foundations Questionnaire) correlate with Schwartz values: care foundation correlates with benevolence (r =
70), fairness with universalism (r = 60), authority with security/conformity (r = 65). The Rokeach Value Survey (1973), measuring 18 terminal values (life goals) and 18 instrumental values (preferred behaviors), provides historical precedent but less theoretical integration than Schwartz's motivational circumplex.
Applications and Limitations
Schwartz values assessment informs organizational culture diagnostics (Barrett 2006), educational curriculum design (Halstead & Pike 2006), cross-cultural negotiation (Cohen 1997, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management), and psychotherapy (Cloninger 2004). Critics note the motivational circle structure, while theoretically coherent, sometimes shows empirical deviation in ESEM confirmatory factor analysis (Steinmetz et al.
2014, Frontiers in Psychology), particularly in collectivist samples. The PVQ's ipsative format (ratings relative to person-description alternatives) limits certain statistical analyses and introduces acquiescence bias (Schwartz & Sagiv 2015).
Despite these limitations, Schwartz's framework remains the most extensively validated cross-cultural values model in psychological science.