123

W. Bilsky et al.: Children’s Value Structures and PreferencesSwissJ. Psychol. 72 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

Original Communication

Assessment of Children’s ValueStructures and Value Preferences

Testing and Expanding the Limits

Wolfgang Bilsky1, Anna K. Döring2, Franka van Beeck1, Isabel Rose1,Johanna Schmitz1, Katrin Aryus1, Lisa Drögekamp1, and Jeannette Sindermann1

1Department of Psychology, University of Münster, Germany2Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK

Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72 (3), 2013, 123–136

DOI 10.1024/1421-0185/a000106

Abstract. Contrary to those of adults and adolescents, children’s value structures and value preferences have rarely been investigated.This paper bridges this gap by building on Schwartz’s (1992) value theory. We present two studies: one in which children from Germany,Portugal, and Chile, aged 10 to 12 years, completed the Portrait Values Questionnaire (Schwartz et al., 2001); and one in which childrenfrom Germany and France, aged 7 to 12 years, completed the Picture-Based Value Survey for Children (Döring, Blauensteiner, Aryus,Drögekamp, & Bilsky, 2010). Theory-based multidimensional scaling analyses revealed differentiated value structures in both studies.Findings on children’s value preferences converged with evidence from adult samples (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). The results are discussedin light of the present state of knowledge and consequences for future research.

Keywords: value structures, value preferences, children, assessment

Empirical research on human values has grown rapidlyover the past few decades (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Inglehart,1977; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). One of the mostfruitful theories on the content and structure of human val-ues – one that has also proved to be a conceptually andempirically appropriate and sound approach for cross-cul-tural investigations – was developed by Schwartz (1992).Schwartz conceives values as transsituational concepts orbeliefs about desirable goals that vary in importance andserve as guiding principles in people’s lives. With respectto their content, values can be distinguished on the basis ofthe motivational goals they express. Schwartz derives tenmotivationally distinct basic values (see Table 1, secondcolumn).

These basic values are dynamically related and show acircular structure, which results because the behavioral im-plications of individual values are either compatible or in-compatible with each other. This suggests that the closerany two basic values are located around the circle, the morecompatible they are. The ten basic values can be aggregatedso as to form four higher-order values (HOV). These HOVsrepresent opposing poles of two roughly orthogonal dimen-sions: self-enhancement versus self-transcendence andopenness to change versus conservation. The assignmentof basic to HOVs is shown in Table 1 (see Schwartz, 2005).

The universality of this structure was confirmed in hun-dreds of studies with samples from all over the world (e.g.,Bilsky, Janik, & Schwartz, 2011; Schwartz, 1994, 2006,2007; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). In addition, research re-vealed universal patterns for value preferences. For exam-ple, a pancultural value hierarchy appears to lie hidden be-hind the obvious differences between cultures: All over theworld, people consider values of benevolence and univer-salism important, but values of power unimportant(Schwartz, 2006, 2007; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Further-more, women tend to find values of self-transcendence andconservation more important than men, whereas men tendto find values of self-enhancement and openness to changemore important than women (Schwartz & Rubel, 2005). Itseems reasonable to assume that the ground for these andother cross-cultural patterns is laid in early childhood.

Surprisingly, however, only a few studies have addressedvalues in adolescence (e.g., Barni & Knafo, 2012; Daniel etal., 2012; Knafo & Schwartz, 2003), only a handful of studieshave reported findings on values in late childhood (i.e., ca. 10to 12 years; Boehnke & Welzel, 2006; Bubeck & Bilsky,2004; Döring, 2010; Knafo & Spinath, 2011), and there ishardly any research at all on values of children under 10 yearsof age (Cieciuch, Harasimczuk, & Döring, 2010; Döring,Blauensteiner, Aryus, Drögekamp, & Bilsky, 2010). Al-

Swiss J. Psychol. 72 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

though evidence on the content and structure of human valuesat this early age is scarce so far, the existing findings encour-age researchers to further follow this path: Bubeck and Bilsky(2004), Cieciuch et al. (2010), Döring (2010), and Döring etal. (2010) found highly differentiated value structures inchildhood, which indicate that children basically structurevalues the same way adults do.

Even though this finding is intriguing in view of tradi-tional values research, it can be embedded in recent devel-opmental theories (e.g., Eder & Mangelsdorf, 1997;Thompson, Meyer, & McGinley, 2006). Thompson et al.(2006), for instance, point to a reconceptualization of thechild’s role in the process of value transmission: While tra-ditional approaches portrayed the child in line with Piagetand Kohlberg as a preconventional and egocentric thinkerwho reacts to the incentives and sanctions provided byadults, recent approaches portray the child as an “intuitivemoralist” (Thompson et al., 2006, p. 290) who is sensitiveto standards and who develops a differentiated conceptionof desires, intentions, and rules. Thus, the child’s own con-scious representation of values gradually moved to the fo-cus of interest. Likewise, it is often stated that children’sability to provide meaningful information by themselveshas been historically underestimated (e.g., Morris, Robin-son, & Eisenberg, 2006). Numerous recent studies revealedsurprisingly differentiated structures within children’s self-concepts after researchers succeeded in developing suitableprocedures for obtaining information directly from thechild. While studying various aspects of children’s self-concept, researchers discovered clear structures in early

childhood which progressively differentiate as childrengrow older (see Eder, 1990, for pioneering work in thisrespect; for an overview, see Measelle, John, Ablow, Co-wan, & Cowan, 2005). However, empirical evidence ofhow children conceive values is still widely missing.

This contrasts with the fact that children’s values are ahighly prominent issue in politics and education world-wide1. A better understanding of how children structurevalues (i.e., how they understand and attach meaning toindividual values in relation to one another) and of whichvalues children find important (i.e., children’s value pref-erences) will help us to build a solid basis for both scientistsand practitioners in this area. We believe that the child’sown report is of particular importance for understandinghis/her value preferences and value structures. It revealsinformation not otherwise accessible that cannot be re-placed by any other source such as the primary caregiver(see Morris et al., 2006).

In this article, we assess children’s values through self-report. We replicate and validate the findings from previousstudies and expand their cultural scope. The most criticalissue so far concerned the question about how researcherscan successfully obtain data from children. Findings by Bu-beck and Bilsky (2004) as well as by Döring (2010) indi-cate that the most widely used questionnaire based onSchwartz’s framework, the Portrait Values Questionnaire(PVQ 21; Schwartz et al., 2001), can be successfully com-pleted by children over the age of 10 if an adult instructorprovides continuous assistance. By the age of 10 years,however, a critical threshold seems to have been reached

Table 1Human values (Schwartz, 1992) and design matrix (Bilsky & Janik, 2010a)

Higher-order values(HOV)

Basic values ID Core motivational goal Design matrixdimension

Angle 1 2

Self-transcendence UN Universalism 1 Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection of the welfare forall people and for nature.

72 0.31 0.95

BE Benevolence 2 Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom oneis in frequent personal contact.

36 0.81 0.59

Conservation TR Tradition 3 Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas thatone’s culture or religion impose on the individual.

0 1.0 0.0

CO Conformity 4 Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harmothers and violate social expectations or norms.

324 0.81 –0.59

SE Security 5 Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. 288 0.31 –0.95

Self-Enhancement PO Power 6 Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and re-sources.

252 –0.31 –0.95

AC Achievement 7 Personal success through demonstrating competence according to so-cial standards.

216 –0.81 –0.59

Openness to Change HEa Hedonism 8 Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. 180 –1.0 0.0

ST Stimulation 9 Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. 144 –0.81 0.59

SD Self-Direction 0 Independent thought and action choosing, creating, exploring. 108 –0.31 0.95

Note. aHedonism shares elements of both self-enhancement and openness to change, but is closer to openness in most cases (Schwartz, 2005).

124 W. Bilsky et al.: Children’s Value Structures and Preferences


1 See, for example: Eurydice European Unit (2005). Citizenship education at school in Europe. Brussels: European Union, Directorate Generalfor Education and Culture. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/ressources/eurydice/pdf/0_integral/055EN.pdf

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

(see Döring, 2010). In order to follow the development andshaping of values through childhood, Döring et al. (2010)introduced a new questionnaire for elementary-school-aged children that was specifically suited to children’s lit-erary and life context: the Picture-Based Value Survey forChildren (PBVS-C).

Focusing in particular on the critical age of 10 years, wepresent findings on value structures and value preferencesfrom different cultures. In Study 1, 10- to 12-year-old chil-dren from Germany, Portugal, and Chile completedSchwartz et al.’s PVQ. Germany, Portugal, and Chile rep-resent culturally diverse life contexts, which, however, donot differ enormously with respect to the cultural valuestransmitted from one generation to the next (Schwartz,2006). In Study 2, 7- to 12-year-old children from Germanyand France completed Döring et al.’s PBVS-C. The culturallife contexts in Germany and France differ somewhat (e.g.,France is more oriented toward intellectual autonomy,whereas Germany is more oriented toward egalitarianism;Schwartz, 2006). However, by and large, they are not verydifferent in their underlying cultural value orientations.

Study 1: Assessment of Children’sValues with the PVQ

Our first study was to serve as a comprehensive replicationof the study conducted by Bubeck and Bilsky (2004), whowere among the first to explore value structures in adoles-cence. They analyzed data obtained with an earlier version ofSchwartz’s PVQ, the PVQ 29 (Schwartz), from 1,555 Ger-man subjects aged 10 to 17 years. They found that valuestructures in the youngest subsample (10–12 years) were al-most as differentiated as those in the oldest subsample (15–17years). In order to substantiate this finding, we collected fur-ther data from 10- to 12-year-old German children using thePVQ 21, the most recent and most widely employed version(e.g., see http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org), and com-plemented this data with data from Portugal and Chile.2 Weexpected to obtain similar findings on value structures andvalue preferences in these three countries due to shared Eu-ropean (Germany and Portugal) and Christian roots.

Method

Samples

All samples cover a wide range of children’s socioeconom-ic and educational backgrounds, although they are not

strictly representative. The data were collected in schools;the survey was administered in class, with a trained re-searcher giving the children the instructions.

German Sample

The data were collected in both rural and urban areas oftwo federal states of Germany, North Rhine-Westphaliaand Baden-Wuerttemberg. There were 1,096 participants,schoolchildren from the four different types of secondaryschool in Germany (comprehensive school, grammarschool, and two types of secondary school). The partici-pants were aged 10 to 12 (M = 11.1; SD = 0.72); the samplewas almost evenly split between males (n = 561) and fe-males (n = 535).

Portuguese Sample

The data were collected at one school in Lisbon, twoschools near Lisbon, and at another school in Lamego, asmall city about 300 km to the north of Lisbon. One of theschools near Lisbon was private (attended by 281 of theparticipants); all the others were public schools. Altogether,456 Portuguese students, 247 boys and 209 girls, aged 10to 12 (M = 11.0; SD = 0.74) participated in this study.

Chilean Sample

The data were collected in two large Chilean cities: LosAngeles (n = 226) with about 100,000 inhabitants and Puer-to Montt (n = 424) with about 150,000 inhabitants. A groupof 650 Chilean schoolchildren, 312 boys and 338 girls,aged 10 to 12 (M = 11.0; SD = 0.78) participated in ourstudy. About half of the participants attended publicschools (n = 335) and the other half private schools (n =315).

Value Survey

A short form of Schwartz’s Portrait Values Questionnaire(Schwartz et al., 2001) was used in Study 1. This form com-prises vignettes with verbal portraits of 21 different people(PVQ-21). Each of them describes a person’s goals as spec-ified by Schwartz’s theory (see Table 1). The following ex-ample is indicative of self-direction: “Thinking up newideas and being creative is important to her/him. S/he likesto do things in her/his own original way.” Answers to the

W. Bilsky et al.: Children’s Value Structures and Preferences 125


2 Our first tentative analysis of this data set (Bilsky, Niemann, Schmitz, & Rose, 2005) initially led us to suspect that children’s value structurediffers from that of adults. However, methodological and developmental considerations (Bilsky, 2006; Döring, 2008), refinements in apply-ing multidimensional scaling (Bilsky, Gollan, & Döring, 2008), and recent extensive studies of representative data from the European SocialSurvey (Bilsky, Janik, & Schwartz, 2011) encouraged us to reanalyze our data and extend our original analyses. The resulting findings arepresented in this article.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

question “How much is this person like you?” are to begiven for each vignette on a 6-point scale (1 = very muchlike me and 6 = not at all like me).

Data Analysis

Structural Analyses

Pearson correlation coefficient matrices from the responsesto the 21 PVQ items provided the basis for our structuralanalyses of values, which were conducted using ordinalmultidimensional scaling (MDS). MDS has been a centraltool of psychological research on value structure in thepast, and it is usually used in an exploratory way. Contraryto this practice, our MDS approach uses a starting config-uration derived from theoretical considerations. This re-duces the danger of local minima and facilitates a theoret-ically grounded interpretation of results (Borg & Groenen,2005; Borg & Staufenbiel, 2007).Recent analyses of value data from the European SocialSurvey showed that Schwartz’s original and his revisedmodel of value structures (Schwartz, 1992, pp. 14 and 45,respectively) can be considered theoretically equivalentalternatives supported by empirical research (Bilsky &Janik, 2010b; Bilsky et al., 2011)3. Therefore, we chosethe more parsimonious original model with ten adjacentvalue sectors as the starting configuration for the follow-ing analyses, as was done for previous analyses of valuestructures at an early age (see Döring, 2010; Döring etal., 2010). This was accomplished by specifying trigono-metrically the prototypical location of each basic valueby corresponding coordinates in two-dimensional space(Table 1, Columns 4–6; see Bilsky et al., 2008; Bilsky &Janik, 2010a). The starting configuration for each of thevalue items of Schwartz’s Portrait Values Questionnaireresults from these coordinates: Items that are indicatorsof the same basic value are represented by identical co-ordinates. Ordinal multidimensional scaling was per-formed using SPSS PROXSCAL and SYSTAT 12.

Indices of Value Preferences

After cleaning the data according to Schwartz’s (2005) rec-ommendations, we computed indices for children’s valuepreferences: The scores for the ten basic values are themean ratings given to the PVQ items that measure the re-spective value. Similarly, the scores for the four HOVs arethe mean ratings given to the items that measure the respec-tive underlying basic values (see Table 1, Columns 1 and

2). This type of score is convenient and is often used fordescriptive purposes.

Results

Value Structure

The results of the ordinal multidimensional scaling of theGerman, Portuguese, and Chilean value data are reportedseparately by country as scatterplots in two-dimensionalspace. As can be seen from Figures 1a–1c, all analyses re-sulted in clear splits of the 21 value items. Only one tradi-tion item (marked by a circle) in the Chilean sample wasdisplaced. The partitions found are in accordance with theregional hypotheses derived from Schwartz’s original mod-el. The stress-1 values reported are measures of the good-ness of fit of MDS solutions. They too attest to a sound fitof the present solutions (Borg & Groenen, 2005; Spence &Ogilvie, 1973).

As in many other studies on Schwartz’s model, some ofthe boundary lines in our MDS plots are not straight, butbent (see Figures 1a–1c). As Borg and Shye (1995) ex-plained, such boundary lines do not pose a problem to in-terpretation, nor do they invalidate the hypothesized struc-ture, as long as the hypothesized regions are not disturbedby displaced (value) items. To illustrate this fact, we showthe extent to which regional adjustments of poorly locateditems might affect the overall fit (stress-1) of the respectiveMDS solution. To this end, we adjusted the location of threeitems in the Chilean sample as indicated by arrows in Fig-ure 1c.4 The subsequent MDS of this new configurationwith zero iterations resulted in a split with straight partitionlines and no displacements (Figure 1d). Despite the adjust-ment, the increase in stress-1 is negligible (0.19 instead of0.16), indicating that the adjusted solution with straightlines represents the empirical pattern of intercorrelationsequally well.

To further evaluate the structural equivalence of thethree culture-specific MDS solutions, we used generalizedProcrustes analysis (GPA; Borg & Groenen, 2005; Com-mandeur, 1991). In each of the three culture-specific solu-tions, the MDS plot represents the intercorrelations be-tween value items as distances between points in a two-di-mensional space. Rotation, translation, reflection, anddilatation of the coordinate system had no effect on therelative distances between these points. GPA applies thesetransformations to the three MDS solutions, so that theybecome maximally similar to one another. In addition, theGPA program (Commandeur, 1991) calculates an averageconfiguration: the centroid. Figure 2 shows the joint MDSconfigurations after Procrustes rotation.



3 In Schwartz’s revised model, tradition and conformity are not located side by side but nested in the same sector, one behind the other (seeSchwartz, 1992, p. 45).

4 We are grateful to Ingwer Borg for his suggestions on adjusting displaced items by hand and concerning how to control the impact of thisadjustment on the loss function in MDS.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

Obviously, the three solutions closely resemble eachother. To evaluate the similarity numerically, we correlatedthe coordinates of the solutions on each of the two dimen-sions with one another and with the centroid configuration(Fischer & Fontaine, 2011; see Fontaine et al., 2006 for an

application of this procedure). On both dimensions, the cor-relations between (1) any two solutions and (2) betweeneach solution and the centroid were above .9, indicatinghigh structural congruence (see Table 2 for all pairwise cor-relations).

Figure 1. Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ 21): ordinal multidimensional scaling (MDS) of value items in two dimen-sions; children aged 10–12; theory-based starting configuration (Bilsky & Janik, 2010a; Bilsky, Janik & Schwartz, 2011);SPSS PROXSCAL and SYSTAT-MDS. 1 = universalism, 2 = benevolence, 3 = tradition, 4 = conformity, 5 = security, 6= power, 7 = achievement, 8 = hedonism, 9 = stimulation, 0 = self-direction.



This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

Value Preferences

Table 3 gives an overview of the indices of value prefer-ences (means of the raw ratings), both for basic values and

for HOVs. The data are broken down by country and sex.This overview is complemented by data from Bubeck andBilsky (2004) for comparative purposes.

Two clear patterns stand out when considering valuepreferences: (1) Self-transcendence ranked first in three outof four samples, followed by openness to change. OnlyChile deviated from this pattern, the first two ranks beingreversed. In all four samples, conservation was ranked thirdand self-enhancement fourth. Thus, the overall patterns ofvalue preferences looked quite similar across the threecountries. (2) A comparison of value preferences of girlsand boys revealed sex-specific patterns across countries:Boys considered self-enhancement and openness to changemore important than girls, whereas girls considered self-transcendence and conservation more important than boys.We only found a slight deviation from this pattern in theChilean sample, where girls considered openness to changea bit more important than boys.

Discussion

The results of this first study are revealing with respectto structure and preferences of children’s values. Basical-ly, our findings from Study 1 replicate the structural pat-tern found by Bubeck and Bilsky (2004) and show that,in German children aged 10–12 years, values are struc-tured according to Schwartz’s postulates about motiva-tional compatibilities and incompatibilities among them.Moreover, the same structural pattern was found in thesamples from Portugal and Chile. Regarding value struc-ture (Figure 1), one finding stands out: Contrary to thefinding predicted by the theoretical model, the children’sdata do not allow us to separate stimulation from self-di-rection items, and universalism from benevolence items,by wedge-like lines emanating from a common origin.5

However, this lack of split is not uncommon; overlappingvalue regions can be found in adult samples as well (Bil-sky & Janik, 2010b). Apart from that, the data from allthree countries clearly support Schwartz’s structural hy-potheses. Obviously, children aged 10 to 12 already havedifferentiated value structures that closely resemble thepatterns typically found among adults (Bilsky et al.,2011). Furthermore, value structures seem to be highlysimilar across cultures.

Interestingly, our findings on children’s value preferencesagree with findings from adult samples across cultures(Schwartz & Bardi, 2001; Schwartz & Rubel, 2005): Even atthis early age, self-transcendence was rated as most impor-tant, self-enhancement was rated as least important, andopenness to change and conservation fell in the middle. Also,

Figure 2. Generalized Procrustes analysis of the multidi-mensional scaling (MDS) solutions for Portrait ValuesQuestionnaire (PVQ) data from three countries: Germany,Portugal, Chile. Black fill: Self-Transcendence. Light grayfill: Conservation. Dark gray fill: Self-Enhancement.White fill: Openness to Change. One item for tradition ismisplaced and appears in the region for self-transcendencefor Chile, Portugal, and the centroid configuration. Toachieve a clear display of the generalized Procrustes anal-ysis (GPA) plot, we show the partitioning only on the high-er-order value type level.

Table 2Intercorrelations between the coordinates of the MDS so-lutions for the PVQ 21 after Procrustes analysis

Configuration Configuration

Centroid Germany Portugal Chile

Centroid .988** .989** .974**

Germany .972** .979** .935**

Portugal .969** .912** .940**

Chile .970** .915** .908**

Notes. MDS = multidimensional scaling; PVQ = Portrait Values Ques-tionnaire. Above the diagonal: intercorrelations of the coordinates onDimension 1; below the diagonal: intercorrelations of the coordinateson Dimension 2. **p < .01.



5 In fact, several additional modular partition lines (Borg & Staufenbiel, 2007) were able to be drawn: in the German sample betweenuniversalism and benevolence, and between tradition and conformity; in the Portuguese sample between stimulation and self-direction; inthe Chilean sample between universalism and benevolence. Similar splits were identified in the adult samples, too (Bilsky et al., 2010b), sothat they cannot be considered typical for children. In this article, we only concentrate on the polar (wedge-like) partitions as hypothesizedby Schwartz’s (1992) original model.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

girls found self-transcendence and conservation to be moreimportant than boys did, whereas boys found self-enhance-ment and openness to change to be more important than girlsdid. Thus, consistent patterns of shared value hierarchies andsex-differences seem to occur very early in life.

Given that we were able to tap value structures and valuepreferences at this early age, we intended to continue thisline of research and collect data in younger samples. How-ever, in accordance with Döring (2010), we found that thePVQ cannot be used to test children under the age of ap-proximately 10 years because it is not suited to elementa-ry-school-aged children’s vocabulary, life context, and ev-eryday experience. Thus, we needed a self-report instru-ment that avoids these problems and is less cognitivelydemanding. In Study 2, such an instrument was used to testchildren under 12 years of age: the Picture-Based ValueSurvey for Children (PBVS-C; Döring et al., 2010).

Study 2: Assessment of Children’sValues with the PBVS-C

Study 2 also focused on children’s value structures and valuepreferences. However, it extended the age range by investi-gating children younger than 10. This was possible by apply-ing the PBVS-C (Döring et al., 2010), a newly developedinstrument for elementary-school-aged children. Döring et al.(2010) empirically underscored the PBVS-C’s suitability for

assessing Schwartz’s values in children under the age of 10(further evidence on the PBVS-C’s validity is presented byCieciuch, Döring, & Harasimczuk, in press). Building on thecultural scope of Study 1, we collected data in Germany aswell as in France. Understanding and interpreting pictures isclosely associated with children’s daily life and social envi-ronment. Therefore, we selected our second sample from acountry that is likely to offer children a comparable horizonof experience. We chose an age range for our samples thatpartly overlapped so that we could compare the results ofStudy 2 with those of Study 1. Study 2 covered the age rangeof 7 to 12 years, so that the upper range (10 to 12) was iden-tical to that in Study 1.

Method

Samples

As in Study 1, the two samples of children cover a widerange of socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, al-though they are not strictly representative. The data werecollected in schools; the survey was administered in class,and a trained researcher gave the children the instructions.

German Sample

Children (n = 515) from six different municipalities inNorth Rhine-Westphalia formed the German sample. They

Table 3PVQ 29/21: value preferences of children aged 10 to 12 (ranks/mean Ratings), by sex

Valuesc Germany 1a Germany 2b Portugalb Chileb

F M T F M T F M T F M T

PO 10/2.47 10/3.17 10/2.80 10/2.22 10/2.86 10/2.55 10/2.40 10/2.80 10/2.61 10/2.24 10/2.63 10/2.43

AC 9/3.74 7/4.22 8/3.96 9/3.26 7/3.76 8/3.52 9/3.66 9/3.93 9/3.81 9/3.73 8/3.82 8/3.77

HE 1/5.23 1/5.33 1/5.27 4/4.65 1/4.75 3/4.70 2/5.16 1/5.14 1/5.14 1/4.88 1/4.78 1/4.83

ST 6/4.59 2/4.89 5/4.73 5/4.43 5/4.53 5/4.48 5/4.79 5/4.87 5/4.83 4/4.59 2/4.66 3/4.62

SD 4/4.82 3/4.85 4/4.84 3/4.70 2/4.72 2/4.71 4/4.87 4/4.93 4/4.90 5/4.46 4/4.35 5/4.40

UN 2/5.12 5/4.78 3/4.96 2/4.84 4/4.54 4/4.69 2/5.16 3/5.06 3/5.10 3/4.70 5/4.21 4/4.46

BE 3/5.09 4/4.82 2/4.97 1/5.00 3/4.63 1/4.81 2/5.16 2/5.07 2/5.11 2/4.82 3/4.46 2/4.65

TR 8/3.90 9/3.74 9/3.83 7/3.72 8/3.59 7/3.66 7/4.48 8/4.27 7/4.36 7/4.04 7/3.92 7/3.98

CO 7/3.93 8/4.03 7/3.97 8/3.53 9/3.44 9/3.48 8/4.32 7/4.29 8/4.30 8/3.81 9/3.59 9/3.70

SE 5/4.59 6/4.62 6/4.60 6/3.89 6/3.98 6/3.94 6/4.66 6/4.86 6/4.76 6/4.41 6/4.08 6/4.25

n 292 235 527 535 560 1095 209 247 456 338 310 648

Self-E 4/3.11 4/3.70 4/3.38 4/2.74 4/3.31 4/3.03 4/3.03 4/3.37 4/3.21 4/2.99 4/3.23 4/3.10

OTC 2/4.88 1/5.03 2/4.95 2/4.59 1/4.67 2/4.63 2/4.94 2/4.98 2/4.96 2/4.64 1/4.59 1/4.62

Self-T 1/5.10 2/4.81 1/4.97 1/4.90 2/4.58 1/4.74 1/5.16 1/5.06 1/5.11 1/4.75 2/4.31 2/4.54

CON 3/4.14 3/4.12 3/4.13 3/3.72 3/3.67 3/3.69 3/4.48 3/4.47 3/4.48 3/4.08 3/3.87 3/3.98

Notes. aPortrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) 29; age < 12 (Bubeck & Bilsky, 2004); these data were added for purposes of comparison. F =females, M = males, T = total. bPVQ 21(Bilsky, Niemann, Schmitz & Rose, 2005). cBasic values: PO = power, AC = achievement, HE =hedonism, ST = stimulation, SD = self-direction, UN = universalism, BE = benevolence, TR = tradition, CO = conformity, SE = security. n =number of cases. Higher-order values: Self-E = self-enhancement, OTC = openness to change (including hedonism), Self-T = self-transcendence,CON = conservation.



This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

were in the fourth to fifth grade. In sum, children from tenschools, seven primary schools, one intermediate second-ary, and two grammar schools, participated in our study.The participants were 8 to 12 years old (M = 9.7; SD = 0.71)and the sample was nearly evenly split between males (n =258) and females (n = 257).

French Sample

Children (n = 306) from Seine-Maritime in northernFrance formed our French sample. They were in the thirdto fifth grade and were from three primary schools withvarying social and neighborhood backgrounds. The sam-ple was nearly evenly split between males (n = 154) andfemales (n = 152). The majority of the participants (n =302) were 8 to 11 years old (range = 7 to 12; M = 9.1;SD = 0.95).

Value Survey

We employed the Picture-Based Value Survey for Chil-dren (PBVS-C), which was closely attuned to the chil-dren’s cognitive-developmental background and to theirlife experience (see Harter, 2003; La Greca, 1990). ThePBVS-C comprises 20 picture-based items, all with thesame protagonist. Each of them depicts one value-relatedsituation and is complemented by a short caption. Thecaptions were proposed by children. The situations cor-respond to young children’s field of experience, and eachrelates to one of the ten basic values distinguished bySchwartz (1992). There are two items per basic value.

The 20 pictures are printed on removable stickers andpresented simultaneously. The children’s task is to pastethese pictures on a standard answer sheet in a Q-sort-likeranking and rating procedure. They are instructed to sortthe pictures according to the subjective importance theyattribute to the given situation. Figure 3a shows somesample items and Figure 3b the corresponding answersheet. The captions and instructions were adapted for usein France (see Brislin, 1970).

Data Analysis

Structural Analyses

The structural analyses corresponded to those of Study 1:Pearson correlation coefficients provided the basis for or-dinal MDS of items from the PBVS-C. Here, too, we usedtheory-based starting configurations derived from the co-ordinates shown in Table 1. For value preferences as-sessed with the PBVS-C, structural analyses were con-ducted separately for children aged 7 to 9 and those aged10 to 12. In this way, we aimed to identify potential struc-tural differences between age groups.

Indices of Value Preferences

Indices for value preferences based on the PBVS-C werecomputed by averaging the ratings of those items thatcorrespond to the same basic value and HOV, respective-ly.

Figure 3. The Picture-Based Value Survey for Children (PBVS-C): a = sample items, b = the response sheet.



This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

Results

Value Structure

The MDS results of the German and French value data arereported separately for age groups as scatterplots in two-dimensional space (Figure 4). As can be seen from all ofthe plots, partitions are in line with our theoretical expec-tations. Furthermore, the number of misplaced items is low,even for children younger than 10. The stress-1 values aresomewhat higher than for the PVQ data. Nevertheless, theyare still low compared to the expected stress values for ran-dom rankings in nonmetric multidimensional scaling (Borg

& Groenen, 2005; Spence & Ogilvie, 1973). Interestingly,and contrary to our previous analyses, stimulation and self-direction are clearly split in all four analyses. Altogether,our findings show that the values structures in both agegroups are equally differentiated and thus do not indicate aprogressive structural differentiation with age.

Here, too, we checked the structural equivalence of theMDS solutions with generalized Procrustes analysis. AfterProcrustes analysis, the configurations from Germany andFrance were highly similar to each other in both age groups(see Figure 5a and Figure 5b). Also, the correlation (1) be-tween the coordinates of the German and the French con-figuration and (2) between the coordinates of each culture-specific configuration with the centroid were above .9 onboth dimensions. This was the case for the 7–9-year-oldsas well as for the 10–12-year-olds (Table 4). Only the in-tercorrelation between the German and French configura-tions in the older sample on the second dimension (r = .888)was slightly smaller in magnitude.

Value Preferences

Table 5 gives an overview of children’s value preferencesas assessed with the PBVS-C, broken down by country,age, and sex. These patterns of value preferences of Study2 largely coincide with those of Study 1. Thus, self-tran-scendence (universalism and benevolence) was consideredmost important, followed by openness to change, conser-vation, and self-enhancement. Also, boys found self-en-

Table 4Intercorrelations between the coordinates of the MDS so-lutions for the PBVS-C after Procrustes analysis

Subsample Configuration Configuration

Centroid Germany France

7–9-year-olds Centroid .984** .981**

Germany .972** .931**

France .979** .903**

10–12-year-olds Centroid .986** .984**

Germany .967** .940**

France .976** .888**

Notes. MDS = multidimensional scaling; PBVS-C = Picture-BasedValues Survey for Children. Above the diagonal: intercorrelations ofthe coordinates on Dimension 1; below the diagonal: intercorrelationsof the coordinates on Dimension 2. **p < .01.

Table 5PBVS-C: Value preferences of children aged 7 to 12 (ranks/mean ratings), by age group and sex

Valuesa Germany France

age < 10 age ≥ 10 age < 10 age ≥ 10

F M T F M T F M T F M T

PO 10/1.47 10/2.01 10/1.76 10/1.60 10/2.17 10/1.87 10/1.70 10/2.13 10/1.93 10/1.77 9/2.43 10/2.08

AC 9/2.42 8/2.67 9/2.55 9/2.36 7/2.80 8/2.57 9/2.42 9/2.70 9/2.56 9/2.52 7/2.81 7/2.65

HE 5/3.09 6/3.06 6/3.08 4/3.35 2/3.34 3/3.35 4/3.06 5/3.07 5/3.06 3/3.44 3/3.40 3/3.42

ST 7/3.03 4/3.25 5/3.15 5/3.14 4/3.31 5/3.22 6/3.04 3/3.30 4/3.18 4/3.27 4/3.36 4/3.32

SD 6/3.06 7/2.83 7/2.94 7/2.92 8/2.79 7/2.86 5/3.05 6/3.02 6/3.04 6/3.02 5/3.07 6/3.05

UN 2/3.49 3/3.32 2/3.40 2/3.55 3/3.32 2/3.45 2/3.68 2/3.34 2/3.50 2/3.59 2/3.43 2/3.52

BE 1/4.06 1/3.69 1/3.86 1/3.96 1/3.69 1/3.83 1/4.11 1/3.65 1/3.87 1/4.02 1/3.51 1/3.78

TR 3/3.38 5/3.17 4/3.27 6/3.08 5/3.10 6/3.09 8/2.72 8/2.73 8/2.72 8/2.56 10/2.40 9/2.48

CO 8/2.64 9/2.64 8/2.64 8/2.53 9/2.40 9/2.47 7/2.90 7/2.80 7/2.85 7/2.58 8/2.56 8/2.57

SE 4/3.35 2/3.34 3/3.34 3/3.51 6/3.08 4/3.30 3/3.31 4/3.24 3/3.28 5/3.22 6/3.03 5/3.13

n 93 110 203 164 148 312 92 100 192 60 54 114

Self-E 4/1.94 4/2.34 4/2.16 4/1.98 4/2.48 4/2.22 4/2.06 4/2.42 4/2.25 4/2.14 4/2.62 4/2.37

OTC 3/3.06 2.5/3.05 3/3.05 2/3.14 2/3.15 2/3.14 2/3.05 2/3.13 2/3.09 2/3.25 2/3.28 2/3.26

Self-T 1/3.77 1/3.50 1/3.63 1/3.76 1/3.51 1/3.64 1/3.90 1/3.49 1/3.69 1/3.80 1/3.47 1/3.65

CON 2/3.13 2.5/3.05 2/3.08 3/3.04 3/2.86 3/2.95 3/2.98 3/2.92 3/2.95 3/2.79 3/2.66 3/2.73

Notes. PBVS-C = Picture-Based Values Survey for Children. F = females, M = males, T = total. aBasic values: PO = power, AC = achievement,HE = hedonism, ST = stimulation, SD = self-direction, UN = universalism, BE = benevolence, TR = tradition, CO = conformity, SE = security.n = number of cases. Higher-order values: Self-E = self-enhancement, OTC = openness to change (including hedonism), Self-T = self-transcen-dence, CON = conservation.



This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

hancement and openness to change more important thangirls did, whereas girls found self-transcendence and con-servation more important than boys did. This holds acrosscountries and age groups, with one slight deviation amongthe young children in the German sample: The young boysin the German sample considered openness to change andconservation to be equally important. As the young girlspreferred conservation over openness to change, the ranks

of these HOVs are reversed in the overall sample of Ger-man children younger than 10 years.

Discussion

Study 2 confirms our results from Study 1 and furthershows that they hold for children below the age of 10. Our

Figure 4. Picture-Based Values Survey for Children (PBVS-C): ordinal multidimensional scaling (MDS) in two di-mensions; theory-based starting configuration (Bilsky & Janik, 2010a); SPSS PROXSCAL.1 = universalism, 2 = benev-olence, 3 = tradition, 4 = conformity, 5 = security, 6 = power, 7 = achievement, 8 = hedonism, 9 = stimulation, 0 =self-direction.



This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

structural analyses of the PBVS-C data resulted in a veryclear partitioning of value items in all of our (sub)samples.Only a few items were displaced. Whether these deviationsshould be interpreted as incidental or substantial has to betested in further studies. Seven to eight motivational re-gions6 were able to be identified in our French and Germansamples – independent of age. To that extent, differentia-tion is almost as clear as in adult samples. Our analyses ofvalue preferences again indicate the existence of sharedvalue hierarchies and sex differences across countries.

General Discussion

Value Structure

Investigating children’s value structures means breakingnew ground. While there are a number of studies with ad-olescents, investigations with children younger than 12 arealmost nonexistent. This is the case because standard ques-tionnaires like Schwartz’s PVQ (Schwartz et al., 2001) canbe used only with children who are about 10 to 11 yearsold at the youngest and are intrinsically tied to literacy (Dö-ring, 2010). At this age, value structures are already well-

developed as shown in Study 1 with children from Germa-ny, Portugal, and Chile. Thus, in order to study youngerchildren, alternative measures are needed.

The PBVS-C is virtually free of the above restrictionsand appears appropriate for investigating the value struc-tures of children who are between 7 and 12 years old (Dö-ring et al., 2010). This assumption was validated in Study2 with children from Germany and France. Even childrenaged 7 to 9 showed clear structures closely matchingSchwartz’s structural model. These findings are furthersupported by a study recently conducted in Poland (Cie-ciuch et al., 2010).

Value Preferences

The results of our studies are also revealing with respectto value preferences in childhood. For instance, the con-sistently high ratings of self-transcendence and the lowratings of self-enhancement stand out. They suggest theexistence of a pancultural hierarchy of values similar tothat found in adult samples (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001).However, the age split shown in Table 5 indicates that theimportance rating for all conservation values may declineas children get older, approaching patterns found in adult-

Figure 5. Generalized procrustes analysis (GPA) of themultidimensional scaling (MDS) solutions for the Picture-Based Values Survey for Children (PBVS-C) data fromGermany and France. To achieve a clear display of the GPAplot, partitioning is shown only on the higher order valuetype level. Notes. Black fill: Self-Transcendence. Lightgray fill: Conservation. Dark gray fill: Self-Enhancement.White fill: Openness to Change.

Figure 5a. 7–9-year-old children. One Item for traditionand one item for achievement are misplaced.Figure 5b. 10–12-year-old children. One item for achieve-ment is misplaced and appears in the region for conserva-tion.



6 When admitting a modular split between universalism and benevolence in the German sample of children aged 10 or over, eight separateregions would result in this particular sample, too.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

hood. This may indicate a cognitive-developmental ef-fect. Finally, girls consistently rated self-transcendenceand conservation values as being more important thanboys did; the reverse was true for self-enhancement andopenness to change values. This finding agrees with ex-isting evidence of sex differences in value hierarchies(Schwartz & Rubel, 2005) and probably mirrors differ-ences between the life contexts of boys and girls(Schwartz, 2005).

Values Research in Children Around Age 10– Testing and Expanding the Limits

Research on the values of children who are about 10 yearsold is a challenging endeavor in terms of assessment. This isbecause age 10 seems to mark an age threshold for children’sability to successfully complete Schwartz et al.’s (2001)PVQ. Overcoming this limitation thus calls for the use ofalternative measures. The PBVS-C (Döring et al., 2010) isone such measure. When using the PBVS-C to test 7–12-year-old children, we found that this age range is rather ho-mogeneous in terms of value structures and value preferenc-es: Our findings largely converged across age groups andcultures. Therefore, we believe that we have covered a ratherhomogeneous stage of values development. Indeed, develop-mental psychologists have conceptualized this age range as ahomogeneous stage of children’s understanding of them-selves and others, and labeled it “late middle childhood” (e.g.,Harter, 2003). It seems that this homogeneous conceptualiza-tion is an appropriate framework for children’s value struc-tures and value preferences as well.

Limitations and Perspectives

The present studies represent only the first step toward across-cultural understanding of children’s value structuresand value preferences, but they are important given the over-all paucity of research on this topic. We presented findingsobtained with a new instrument, the PBVS-C, which supple-ments existing value questionnaires and expands the limits ofresearch with children. The results of our past investigationsof value structures and preferences agree with theoretical ex-pectations and empirical findings from adulthood and thusspeak in favor of its validity. Moreover, still unpublished re-sults of studies with German and Polish children aged 10 to13 who completed both the PVQ and the PBVS-C corrobo-rate this assumption (Cieciuch et al., in press; Döring, Cie-ciuch, Harasimczuk, & Janik, 2011). Furthermore, employ-ing it in cross-cultural studies seems possible in principal,provided the equivalence of items is warranted. For example,cross-border studies in France and Poland yielded promisingresults. Ongoing studies in different cultural contexts, whichrequired the adaptation of individual items (e.g., Brazil andIsrael), should provide additional information about its suit-

ability for cross-cultural research. Altogether, previous find-ings suggest that children’s value structures and preferencesshow communalities that are in line with Schwartz’s (1992)theory of values. Finding common value structures in chil-dren from different cultures, however, is only one side of thecoin. Given that such findings are supported by further re-search, deviations from this structure will become the focusof interest. Besides methodological considerations related tosampling fluctuations and meaningful variations (Fontaine,Poortinga, Delbeke, & Schwartz, 2008), variables influenc-ing the transmission of values have to be considered. Thedynamic relationship between parenting styles and children’svalues and psychosocial behavior (Franiek & Reichle, 2007),the impact of parental goals and acculturation contexts onvalue transmission (Phalet & Schönpflug, 2001), conditionsfavorable for value transmission in a particular socioeconom-ic and cultural context (Boehnke, 2001; Schönpflug, 2001),dynamic aspects of the parent-child relationship (Grusec,Goodnow, & Kuczynski, 2000), perception and acceptanceof parental values, parent-child value congruence, and thechoice of school environments (Knafo, 2003) are only a fewof the variables mentioned in the literature. Clarifying therelationship between these variables and the developmentand differentiation of value preferences is a challenging taskfor future research.

Finally, according to the widespread consent that valuesserve as guiding principles in life, relative stability in the longrun is a central and distinctive feature of human values. Whilethis feature seems straightforward for adults as well as foradolescents, it might be problematic for young children. Weknow from everyday experience that the perception of timediffers between children and adults (e.g., see Friedman, 2007;La Greca, 1990). Such differences are likely to affect thestability of long-term goals. Therefore, in future studies, itwill be important to confirm that children’s value preferencesare stable by using a repeated measurement design. This latterproblem goes hand in hand with another one related to thecross-situational stability of children’s value preferences: Thesituational salience of different value-related topics may in-fluence the children’s prevailing goals and objectives andhave a considerable effect on subsequent value ratings.Whether this is true or not can be controlled within an appro-priate experimental design that systematically varies situa-tional cues. Once again, research with adults on “changing,priming, and acting on values” (Maio, Pakizeh, Cheung, &Rees, 2009, p. 699) could stimulate such a project.

References

Barni, D., & Knafo, A. (2012). Value systems of fathers, mothersand adolescents: Do parents and their children construe basicvalues in the same way? Survey Research Methods, 6, 3–11.

Bilsky, W. (2006, July). Value structure at an early age: Basicfindings and open questions. Paper presented at the 18th Inter-



This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

national Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Isle of Spetses, Greece.

Bilsky, W., Gollan, T., & Döring, A. (2008). Análise confir-matória de escalonamento multidimensional (EMD) de valoresbaseada em uma matriz de desenho [Confirmatory multidi-mensional scaling (MDS) of values based on a matrix design.In M. L. Mendes Teixeira (Ed.), Valores humanos e gestão(pp. 213–221). São Paulo, Brazil: Senac.

Bilsky, W., & Janik, M. (2010a). Investigating value structure:Using theory-based starting configurations in multidimension-al scaling. Revista de Psicología Social, 25, 341–349.

Bilsky, W., & Janik, M. (2010b). The structural organization ofhuman values: Evidence from the European Social Survey(ESS) – Updated. Berichte aus der Arbeitseinheit DifferentiellePsychologie und Persönlichkeitspsychologie, Institut für Psy-chologie. Münster, Germany: Westfälische Wilhelms-Univer-sität.

Bilsky, W., Janik, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). The structuralorganization of human values: Evidence from three rounds ofthe European Social Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-chology, 42, 759–776.

Bilsky, W., Niemann, F., Schmitz, J., & Rose, I. (2005). Valuestructure at an early age: Cross-cultural replications. In W. Bil-sky & D. Elizur (Eds.), Facet theory: Design, analysis andapplications. Proceedings of the 10th International Facet The-ory Conference in Rome (pp. 241–248). Prague, Czech Repub-lic: Agentura Action M.

Boehnke, K. (2001). Parent-offspring value transmission in a so-cietal context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32,241–255.

Boehnke, K., & Welzel, C. (2006). Wertetransmission und Wer-tewandel: Eine explorative Drei-Generationen-Studie [Trans-mission of values and value change: An exploratory study ofthree generations]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehungund Sozialisation, 26, 341–360.

Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling.Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Borg, I., & Shye, S. (1995). Facet theory: Form and content.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Borg, I., & Staufenbiel, T. (2007). Theorien und Methoden derSkalierung [Theories and methods of scaling]. Bern, Switzer-land: Huber.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.

Bubeck, M., & Bilsky, W. (2004). Value structures at an early age.Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63, 31–41.

Cieciuch, J., Döring, A. K., & Harasimczuk, J. (in press). Meas-uring Schwartz’s values in childhood: Multidimensional scal-ing across instruments and cultures. European Journal of De-velopmental Psychology.

Cieciuch, J., Harasimczuk, J., & Döring, A. K. (2010). Strukturawartosci w póUnym dzieciAstwie [Children’s value structures].Psychologia Rozwojowa, 15(2), 33–45.

Commandeur, J. J. F. (1991). Matching configurations. Leiden,The Netherlands: DSWO.

Daniel, E., Schiefer, D., Möllering, A., Benish-Weisman, M.,Boehnke, K., & Knafo, A. (2012). Value differentiation in ad-olescence: The role of age and cultural complexity. Child De-velopment, 83, 322–336.

Döring, A. K. (2008). Assessment of children’s values: The devel-

opment of a picture-based instrument (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Münster, Germany.

Döring, A. K. (2010). Assessing children’s values: An exploratorystudy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 564–577.

Döring, A. K., Blauensteiner, A., Aryus, K., Drögekamp, L., &Bilsky, W. (2010). Assessing values at an early age: The pic-ture-based value survey for children. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 92, 439–448.

Döring, A. K., Cieciuch, J., Harasimczuk, J., & Janik, M. (2011,July). Children’s values in cross-cultural perspective. Paperpresented at the Fourth Conference of the European SurveyResearch Association (ESRA), Lausanne, Switzerland.

Eder, R. A. (1990). Uncovering young children’s psychologicalselves: Individual and developmental differences. Child De-velopment, 61, 849–863.

Eder, R. A., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (1997). The emotional basis ofearly personality development: Implications for the emergentself-concept. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.),Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 209–240). San Die-go, CA: Academic Press.

Fischer, R., & Fontaine, R. J. (2011). Methods for investigatingstructural equivalence. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vij-ver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology(pp. 179–215). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fontaine, J. R. J., Luyten, P., De Boeck, P., Corveleyn, J., Fernan-dez, M., Herrera, D., . . . Tomcsányi, T. (2006). Untying theGordian knot of guilt and shame: The structure of guilt andshame reactions based on situation and person variation in Bel-gium, Hungary, and Peru. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy, 37, 273–292.

Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H.(2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cul-tures: Distinguishing sampling fluctuations from meaningfulvariation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 345–365.

Franiek, S., & Reichle, B. (2007). Elterliches Erziehungsverhal-ten und Sozialverhalten im Grundschulalter [Parenting behav-ior and psychosocial development in elementary school chil-dren]. Kindheit und Entwicklung, 16, 240–249.

Friedman, W. J. (2007). The development of temporal metamem-ory. Child Development, 78, 1472–1491.

Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., & Kuczynski, L. (2000). New direc-tions in analyses of parenting contributions to children’s ac-quisition of values. Child Development, 71, 205–211.

Harter, S. (2003). The development of self-representations duringchildhood and adolescence. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 610–642). NewYork: Guilford.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International dif-ferences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values andpolitical styles in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Knafo, A. (2003). Contexts, relationship quality, and family valuesocialization: The case of parent-school ideological fit in Isra-el. Personal Relationships, 10, 371–388.

Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Parenting and adolescents’accuracy in perceiving parental values. Child Development,73, 595–611.

Knafo, A., & Spinath, F. (2011). Genetic and environmental in-fluences on girls’ and boys’ gender-typed and gender-neutralvalues. Developmental Psychology, 47, 726–731.



This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

La Greca, A. M. (1990). Through the eyes of the child: Obtainingself-reports from children and adolescents. Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon.

Maio, G. R., Pakizeh, A., Cheung, W.-Y., & Rees, K. J. (2009).Changing, priming, and acting on values: Effects via motiva-tional relations in a circular model. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 97, 699–715.

Measelle, J. R., John, O. P., Ablow, J. C., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan,C. P. (2005). Can children provide coherent, stable, and validself-reports on the Big Five dimensions? A longitudinal studyfrom ages 5 to 7. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 89, 90–106.

Morris, A. S., Robinson, L. R., & Eisenberg, N. (2006). Applyinga multimethod perspective to the study of developmental psy-chology. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Multimethod measure-ment in psychology (pp. 371–384). Washington, DC: Ameri-can Psychological Association.

Phalet, K., & Schönpflug, U. (2001). Intergenerational transmis-sion of collectivism and achievement values in two accultura-tion contexts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32,186–201.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: FreePress.

Schönpflug, U. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of values:The role of transmission belts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-chology, 32, 174–185.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure ofvalues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 coun-tries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-chology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.

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

Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Human values. European social surveyeducation net. Retrieved from http://essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/topics/1/5/

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Les valeurs de base de la personne: Théo-rie, mesures et applications [Basic human values: Theory,measurement, and applications]. Revue Française de Sociolo-gie, 42, 249–288.

Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Value orientations: Measurement, ante-cedents and consequences across nations. In R. Jowell, C. Rob-erts, R. Fitzgerald, & E. Gillian (Eds.), Measuring attitudescross-nationally (pp. 169–203). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cul-tures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cul-tural Psychology, 32, 268–290.

Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris,M., & Owen, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validityof the theory of basic human values with a different method ofmeasurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32,519–542.

Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value pri-orities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 89, 1010–1028.

Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specificsin the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cul-tural Psychology, 26, 92–116.

Spence, I., & Ogilvie, J. C. (1973). A table of expected stress val-ues for random rankings in nonmetric multidimensional scal-ing. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 8, 511–517.

Thompson, R. A., Meyer, S., & McGinley, M. (2006). Under-standing values in relationships: The development of con-science. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook ofmoral development (pp. 267–287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bilsky

University of MuensterDepartment of PsychologyFliednerstr. 2148149 [email protected]

Dr. Anna K. Döring

Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonDepartment of PsychologyEgham HillEgham, TW20 0EXUnited [email protected]



This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

Documents

123