Values and dimensions of culture Lecture 10 Values General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals Life guidelines Criteria of evaluating

Values and dimensions of culture

Lecture 10

Values

• General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals

• Life guidelines• Criteria of evaluating goals, activities, and

events• Hierarchical structure: ultimate (autonomous)

goals instrumental goals

Basic values – do they exist?

• Abraham Maslow: – Deficit needs (food, security, self-esteem)

– Growth needs (achievement, self-actualization)

• Idea used by Ronald Inglehart in studies of nations values

Abraham Maslow – Need Hierarchy

Physiological needs

Safety needs

Belongingness and love

Esteem needs

Cognitive needs

Aesthetic

Self-actualization

Deficiency

needs

Grow

th

needs

Gordon Allport

• G. Allport: six value types:– economic

– political

– aesthetic

– social

– religious

– theoretical

Value classifications

• Milton Rokeach – 36 values– Autonomous and instrumental values– Personal and social values– Competence and morality-related values

• Shalom Schwartz – 56 values, 10 categories– Three basic categories of demands:

• Biological demands of an organism• Demands of social interactions• Demands of smooth functioning of social groups

– Two dimensions• „openness to change” – „conservatism”• „ self-transcendence” – „self-enhancement”

Shalom Schwartz

Values circumplex

Shalom Schwartz’ theory of valuesConservation

Self-enhancement

Self-transcendence

Openeness to change

Security

Achievement

Hedonism

Stimulation

Self-directionUniwersalism

Benevolence

Conformity

Tradition

Power

Self-enhancement

• Power:– Social status

– Control albo dominance over people and resources

– Values:• Social power

• Authority

• Wealth

• Preserving public image

• Social recognition

Self enhancement

• Achievements– Personal success due to own competences, in

agreement with social standards • successful• Capable• Ambitious• Influential• Intelligent• Self respect

Openness to change

• Hedonism– Pleasures and sensory gratifications

• Pleasure

• Enjoying life

• Stimulation– Excitement, novelty, life challenges

• Daring

• Varied life

• Exciting life

Openness to change

• Self-direction– Independence of though and decison, creativity,

exploration • Creativity

• Freedom

• Independence

• Curious

• Choosing own goals

Self-transcendence

• Universalism– Undestanding, tolerance, caring about welfare of all

people and nature• Open mind, • Broad-minded • Social justice• Equality• World peace• Beautiful world• Unity with nature• Inner harmony• Protect environment

Self-transcendence

• Benevolence– Caring about well-being of close ones

• Helpful• Honest• Forgiving• Loyal• Responsible• True friendship• Mature love

Conservatism

• Tradition– Respecting customs

– Belief that tradition, culture and religion serve individual

• Humble

• Accepting my role in life

• Respect for tradition

• Religiosity

• Moderate

Conservatism

• Conformity– Inhibition of actions and impulses that can hurt or are

not accepted by others and that go against social norms. • Politeness

• Obedience

• Self-discipline

• Honor elders

Conservatism

• SecuritySecurity, harmony and stability of society and own person

• Family

• Security

• National security

• Social order

• Clean

• Reciprocation of favors

• Sense of belonging

• Health

Another classification of values by Shalom Schwartz

Conservatism

EgalitarianCommitment

Security Power

Achievement

Hedonism

Stimulation

Self-directionUniversalism

Benevolence

Conformity

Tradition

Hierarchy

Mastery

Affective autonomy

Intellectualautonomy

Harmony

Studies with the Value Questionnaire

• 56 values– 52 – the 10 main types

– 4 – ”spiritual” values

• Autonomous vs. Instrumental values– 30 – autonomous (nouns)

– 26 instrumental (adjective)

• Rating on 9-point scale– -1 – against my values

– 0 – neutral for me

– 7 – highest importance

Profiles (examples)(from Very much like me to Not like me at all)

Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to her. She likes to do things in her own way (Self-Direction)

1 2 3 4 5 6

It is important for her to be rich. She wants to have a lot of money and expensive things (Power)

1 2 3 4 5 6

She thinks that it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. She belives everyone should have equal opportunities in life (Universalism)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Cross-cultural studies

• 97 samples (about 200 subjects in a sample)• 44 countries from all continents• Years 1988-1993• Samples

– Teachers from elementary and high schools– University students and pupils– Together 25, 863 subjects

Factor analysis of mean national values

Conservatism-openness to change

Self-transcendence-self-enhancement

Conservatism -0,973 ------Affective autonomy

0,867 0,150

Intellectual autonomy

0,764 -0,207

Hierarchy -0,266 0,842Mastery 0,351 0,696Harmony 0,270 -0,777Egalitarian commitment

0,683 -0,319

Main dimensions after factor analysis

Conservatism


Security Power

Achievement

Hedonism

Stimulation


Benevolence

Conformity

Tradition

Hierarchy

Mastery

Affective autonomy


Harmony

Conservation-

Self-transcendence

Self-en

hanc

emen

et

Ope

nnes

s to

cha

nge

Structure of values in postcommunist countries Teachers

0123456

Conse

rvati

sm

Hierar

chy

Harmon

y

Egalit

arian

ism

Emotion

al Auto

n.

Intel

lectua

l Auto

n.

Mas

tery

Eastern Europe

Western Europe

Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)

Structure of values in postcommunist countries

Students

0123456

Conse

rvati

sm

Hierarc

hy

Harm

ony

Egalit

arian

ism

Emotio

nal A

uton

.

Intel

lectu

al Aut

on.

Mas

tery

Eastern Europe

Western Europe

Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)

Relations between values in different countries

• Universal values (social justice, world peace, equality) opposite to security values (social order, national security)

• In Eastern Europe – no opposition

0

AustraliaUSA

Japan

Denmark

Finland

Germany

SwitzerlandFrance

Spain

New Zealand

ItalyIsrael

Portugal

Greece

Hong Kong

Slovenia

Czech Republic

Poland

Hungary

SlovakiaEstonia

Mexico

Bulgaria

MalaysiaRussia

BrasilTailand

Georgia

Turkey

China

Conservation

Openness for experience

Self-transcendence

Self- enhancement

Ordering of countries (teacher samples) after Schwartz

Schwartz’s theory od values and social orientations

Prisoner’s dilemma and social orientations

AB

cooperates defectsco

oper

ates

defe

cts

+4

+4

+10

-5

+10

-5

-3

-3

Social orientations as shown in social dilemmas games

• Individualism – maximize own gain• Altruism – maximize partner’s gain• Cooperation – maximize joint profit• Competition – maximize relative gain over partner• Equality – minimize difference between own and partner’s

gain• Agression – maximize partner’s losses• Masochism – maximize own losses• Martyrdom – maximize relative gain of the partner• Sadomasochism – mazimize joint loss

Social values according to McClintock (1988)

individualismmasochismA

gg

ress

ion

sadomasochism

alt

ruis

m

Cooperation

com

petiti

on

marty

rdom

1 2 3 4 5

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1

-5-4-3-2-1

12345

OTHER

MYSELF

Theory of values of Shalom Schwartzand social orientations

Competition

Individualism

Security Power

Achievement

Hedonism

Stimulation


Benevolence

Conformity

Tradition

Altruism

aggression

Martyrdom

Cooperation

Structure of values and social orientations (cooperation vs. competition)

After: Schwartz (1996)

Another presentation of value structure

Powerachievement

HedonismStimulationSelf-direction

TraditionSecurityConformity

Benevolenceuniversalism

com

pete

nce

mora

lity

Values beyond an individual

Values within an individual

Ronald Inglehart

Two dimensions of values– Secular-rational vs.

traditional authority– Survival (materialistic) vs.

post-materialistic values

The World Value Survey

Diagnostic questions: materialism vs. postmaterialism

• People sometimes talk about what the aims of this country should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. Would you please say which one of these you, yourself, consider the most important? And which one would be the next most importanrt? – A high level of economic growth (M)

– Making sure this country has strong defense forces (M)

– Seeing that people have more to say about how things are done at their jobs and in their communities

– Trying to make our cities and countryside more beautiful

If you had to choose, which one of the things on this card would you say is most important? And which would be the next most important? – Maintaining order in the nation (M)

– Giving people more say in important government decisions

– Protecting freedom of speech

– Fighting rising prices (M)

• Here is another list....– A stable economy (M)

– Progress toward a less impersonal and more humane society

– Progress toward soecirty in which ideas count more than money

– The fight against crime (M)

Ordering of questions on the dimension of materialism-postmaterialism (study 1974)

Traditional (religious) vs. secular values

• (1) monoteism – faith in one God

• (2) family sacred (attitudes towards abortion, betrayal, prostitution, homosexualism)

• (3) social order (attitudes towards theft, lie, agression)

Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people?

1. Most people can be trusted2. Need to be careful

Social trust

European Social Survey – level of trust in European countries

Causes of value change

• Cohort effects (generation) – Socialization factors in early childhood effect the rest

of life

• Historical period effects – Periods of economic depression increase in

materialistic values

• Age effects– As people grow older they become more materialistic

(conservative?)

Cohort effects

Cohort + historical period

Age effects

Results

Inglehart vs. Schwartz

Factor I Factor II

Traditonal- secular authority

0,822

Survival-postmaterialistic values

0,892 -0,148

Conservatism- openness to change

0,925

Self-transendence – self-enhancement

0,147 -0,725

Schwartz vs. Inglehart (?)

Conservatism


Security Power

Achievement

Hedonism

Stimulation


Benevolence

Conformity

Tradition

Hierarchy

Mastery

Affective autonomy


Harmony

Conservation-

Self-transcendence

Self-en

hanc

emen

et

Openness to change

survival

Well-being

traditional

secular

inglehart_survival

3210-1-2

Ha

pp

ine

ss_

Ing

leh

art

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

Level of happiness and Inglehart’s dimensions

Inglehart_authority

210-1-2-3

Ha

pp

ine

ss_

Ing

leh

art

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

r(59)=0,870*** r(59)=-0,205, n.i.

Level of happiness and Schwartz’ dimensions

Schwartz1_konserwatyzm - otwartosc

3210-1-2

Ha

pp

ine

ss_

Ing

leh

art

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

Schwartz2_wzmacnianie ja_przekraczanie ja

3210-1-2

Ha

pp

ine

ss_

Ing

leh

art

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

r(27)=0,646*** R(27)=0,045

Other ways of measuring values

If I had a million....

Studied regions

Spending a milion – percent mentioned

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

pro

cent

wzm

ianek

Poland Ukraine

house familybank carcharity travelinvesting pleasureslife children's educationown education black hourflat for children healthhobby debtsearth emigrationothers family's futurefarm

Three clusters

05

101520

25303540

house ca

r

inve

sting

bank

land

cluster Icluster IIcluster III

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

house

child

ren

trav

el

health

educa

tion

hobby

char

ity

ever

yday

other

s


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

family


Cluster I (materialistic) (N=695)

Cluster II (mixed) (N=217)

Cluster III (family) (N=364)

Poland

Generational changes (Poland)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

80-95 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 15-19

family materialistic

Lewicka (2003) Inglehart (1990)

Polish value shift?

• Poland - shift from postmaterialistic to materialistic values

Dimensions of cultures - Geert Hofstede

„Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations” (2002)

Investigating cultures – methodological problems

• Emic vs. Etic – Equivalent of the linguistic distinction of

(fon)emic and (fon)etic aspect of speech– „emic” – studying culture from inside, as

member of the culture– „etic” – studying culture from outside, as

external observer, comparing cultures on common dimensions

Emic vs. etic

„Emic” approach „Etic” approach

Studies behavior within a system

Studies behavior from outside of the system

Studies only one culture Compares many cultures

Researcher discovers structure of relationships

Researcher imposes structure of relationships

Criteria relative to the studied object

Criteria absolute and universal

Steps in investigating cultures (after: Berry, 1989)

Step Activity of researcher

Culture A(own)

Culture B(other)

1 Start from ownculture

EmicA

2 Trasnfer to other culture

Imposedetic

3 Discover other culture EmicB

4 Compare both cultures

EmicA

EmicB

5-1 Comparison impossible

Emic A

EmicB

5-2 Comparisonpossible A BDerived

Etic

Methodological approaches to cross-cultural comparisons

• 10 cultures x 20 Item-questionnaire x 100 Subjects per culture– Ecological level analysis: Cross-cultural approach:

means from 100 Ss for each culture (20 items x 10 cultures)

– Individual level analysis: Intra-cultural approach: separate (matrices) for each culture (10 analyses) (Emic)

– Universal level analysis: Pancultural approach: combining all 10 x 100 Ss together (20 items x 1000 Ss) (Etic)

Dimensions of culture

• G. Hofstede – years 70s and 80s– Studies of 117 000 IBM employes in 66 countries

– Attempt at finding ”etic” dimensions which would differentiate cultures

• Hierarchy

• Intolerance of ambiguity

• Individualism-collectvism

• Masculinity-feminity

• „time perspective” („emic” Chinese dimension)

Dimensions suggested by Hofstede

• Power distance – degree of pecking order in organizations

• Uncertainty avoidance – intolerance of ambiguity, need for clear rules and laws

• Individualism – collectivism – Caring for oneself vs own goup

• Masculinity-feminity – focus on ”masculine” goals (finances, achievement, assertiveness) vs. „feminine” goals (friendship, caring for others)

Power distance - Family

• Low PDI– Parents treat children as

equals

– Children should enjoy leisure

– Infertility no reason for divorce

– Children treat parents and old relatives as equal

– Children expected to be socially competent at young age

– Children play no role in old-age security of parents

– Small enterprises set up for job reasons

• High PDI– Parents teach children

obedience

– Children should work hard

– Infertility – reason for divorce

– Respect for parents and older relatives is a basic virtue

– Children not seen as competent

– Children a source of old-age security

– Small enterprises for family interests

Power distance at school

• Low PDI– Teachers treat students as

equal– Students treat teachers as

equals– Student-centered education– Students inititate some

communication in the class– Teachers are experts who

transfer impersonal truths– Educational system focuses

on middle levels

• High PDI– Students depend on teachers– Students treat teachers

with respect, even outside class

– Teacher-centered education– Teacher initiate all

communication in the class– Teachers are gurus who

transfer personal wisdom– Educational system focuses

on top level

Power distance in the work organization

• Decentralized decision structures: less concentration of authority

• Flat organization pyramids

• Subordinates expect to be consulted

• Narrow salary range between top and bottom of organization

• Manual work same status as clerical work

• Centralized decision structures; more concentration on authority

• Tall organization pyramids

• Subordinates expect to be told

• Wide salary range between top and bottom of organization

• White-collar jobs valued more than blue-collar jobs

Power distance in political systems

• Low PDI– Pluralist government based on

outcome of majority vote– Usually social democratic

governments– Strong center, relatively weak

right and left wings– Gradual changes in form of

government (evolution and stability)

– Power, status and wealth do not need to go together

– Small income differentials in society, further reduced by the tax system

– Less corruption: scandals end political career

– Citizens read more newspapers

• High PDI– Military, autocratic or oligarchic

government– Usually right-wing

government– Polarization between left and

right with weak center– Sudden changes in the form of

government (revolution and/or instability)

– Status consistency: power brings status and wealth

– Large income differentials in society, further increased by the tax system

– More corruption: scandals expected to be covered up

– Citizens watch more television

Power distance

We should give him something, after all it is our professor of music

Low PD:

Students treat teachers as equals

Individualism vs. collectvism

• Individualism – societies in which relations between individuals are loose, concern for oneself and closest family

• Collectivism – societies in which individuals from early childhood learn to integrate with strong, coherent groups which in return for absolute loyality guarantee them security and protection.

Individualism - collectivism and societal norms

• Low IDV– In society, people are born into

extended families or class, which protect them in exchange for loyality

– „we” consciousness– Gemeinschaft (community)– Value standards differ for in- and

out-group: particularism– „shame” culture– Emphasis on belonging:

membership ideal– Private life invaded by institutions

and organizations to which one belongs

– Survival

• High IDV– In society, everyone is supposed

to take care of him-herself and his or her immediate family only

– „I” consciousness– Gesellschaft (society)– Value standards should apply to

all: universalism– „guilt” cultures– Emphasis on individual

initiative and achievement: leadership ideal

– Everyone has a right to private life

– Hedonism

Individualism-collectivism and family

• Low IDV– People live with or close to

relatives or clan members– Family provides protection in

exchange for life-long loyality– Strong family ties, frequent

contacts– Fewer divorces– Care for aged relatives and

worship of ancestors– Mothers expect to live with

children in their old age– Nobody is ever alone– Financial and ritual

obligations to relatives– Living with in-laws and

shared income and religion normal

• High IDV– People live in nuclear or one-

parent families– Children are supposed to take

care of themselves as soon as possible

– Weak family ties, rare contacts– More divorces– Aged relatives should care for

themselves; ancestors unknown, irrelevant

– Mothers expected to live apart in their old age

– Privacy is normal– Financial independence of

relatives, few family rituals– Living with in-laws

undesirable; independence of income and religion

Individualism-collectivism at school

• Low IDV– Teachers deal with pupils as

a group– Pupils’ individual

initiatives discouraged– Harmony, face and shaming

in class– Students will not speak up

in class or large groups– Purpose of education is

how to do– Diplomas provide entry to

higher-status groups

• High IDV– Teachers deal with

individual pupils– Pupils’ individual

initiatives encouraged– Students’ selves to be

respected– Students expected to speak

up in class or large groups– Purpose of education is

learning how to learn– Diplomas increase economic

worth and/or self-respect

Individualism-collectivism and consumer behavior

• Low IDV– Live in apartments or

flats– Live with human

companions– Security by social

networks– Ask friends for job around

the house– Read fewer book, use fewer

home computers, enjoy TV more

– Social network main source of information

• High IDV– Live in detached houses

with private gardens

– Live with cats and/or dogs

– Security by home and life insurance

– Do-it-yourself for jobs around the home

– More books, use computer, use answering machines

– Media main source of information

Individualism-collectivism and political systems

• Low IDV– Collective interests

supposed to prevail over individual interests

– Economy based on collective interests

– State capitalism or state socialism

– Economic monopolies– Private life is invaded by

public interests– Rigid social and

occupational class system– Small share of national

budget spent on education

• High IDV– Individual interests

supposed to prevail over collective interests

– Economy based on individual interests

– Market capitalism or market socialism

– Competition stimulated– Everyone has a right to

privacy– Social and occupational

mobility– Large share of national

budget spent on education

Individualism-collectivism

It is a free country and everybody can do what one wants

High IDV:

Emphasis on individual initiative

Individualism-collectivism – comparison (after: Kim, Triandis et al. 1994)

Individualism Collectivism

Basic assumptionRationality, Reason

Basic assumptionRelatedeness

PrinciplesRegulations,

principles, law

Individuation

Self-actualization

uniqueness Assertiveness

Freedom ofchoice

Autonomy

conciliation

nurturance

interdependence

Duties, obligations

Common goodsharmony

support

help

Common fate

Bulgaria

China

CzechiaEstonia

Hungary

Poland

Romania

Russia

Slovakia

Uncertainty avoidance

• Low UAI– Lower work stress– Emotions have to be

controlled– More subjective well-being– Less hesitation to change

employer– Company loyalty is not a

virtue– If necessary, employees

may break rules– Less resistance to changes– Most people can be

trusted

• High UAI– Higher work stress– Expression of emotion

normal– Less subjective well-being– Tendency to stay with

same employer– Company loyality is a virtue– Company rules should not

be broken– More resistance to

changes– One can’t be careful

enough with other people, not even with family

High uncertainty avoidance

Nowadays even own dog cannot be trusted

BLG

China

Czechia

Estonia

Hungary

Poland Romania

Russia

Slovakia

Masculinity-feminity

• Low MAS– Cooperation at work

important

– Values of women and man hardly different

– Promotion by merit

– Work not central in a person’s life space

– Higher well-being in rich countries

• High MAS– Challenge and recognition

in jobs important

– Values of women and men very different

– Promotion by protection

– Work very central in a person’s life space

– Higher well-being in poor countries

Masculinity-feminity and societal norms

• Low MAS– Relationship orientation– Quality of life and people

are important– Sympathy for the weak– Small and slow are

beautiful– Men and women should

be modest– Minimum emotional and

social role differentiation between the genders

• High MAS– Ego orientation– Money and things are

important– Sympathy for the strong– Big and fast are beautiful– Men should be and

women may be assertive and ambitious

– Maximum emotional and social role differentiattion between genders

Masculinity - feminity

Write: I love Joan !

Low MAS

Relationship orientation

BLG

China

CzechiaEstonia

Hungary

Poland

RO

Russia

Slovakia

Hofstede vs. Schwartz

• Hofstede– Originally no post-communist countries in the

sample (added later)– Sample limited to employees of big

corporations– Studies in years 1967-1973:

• Before changes in Europe in 1989• No acknowledgement of ”postmaterialistic”

changes in structure of values in Western Europe

Schwartz vs. Hofstede

Collectivism

Low power distance

SecurityPower

Achievement

Hedonism

Stimulation


Benevolence

Conformity

Tradition

Masculinity

IndividualismFeminity

High power distance

High UA

Low UA

Factor analysis of Schwartz, Inglehart and Hofstede

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Openness to change

0,686

Self-enhancement 0,745Secular authority -0,852Postmaterialism 0,910Power distance -0,874individualism 0,753Uncertainty avoidance

-0,531

Masculinity 0,795

Cultural vs. objective dimensions: How much of our values is due to conditions

of life?

Lecture 11

Monitoring of the world

• United Nations Development Programs– Yearly reports comparing countries on

measures indicative of quality of life

• Transparency International– Reports on perceived corruption

• OECD – Program for International Student Assessment

Questions

• „Hard” vs. „soft” measures – mutual relationships?

• Standard of life or values - the best predictor of happiness?

• Comparison of Poland with other countries (world, Europe) on hard and soft measures

Measures

• HDI - Human Development Index – (values 0 – 1)

• GDP - Gross Domestic Product index – (values 0 – 1)

• CPI - Corruption Perception Index – (values 0 – 10)

• GINI – Gini Index – Index of social inequalities (values 0 – 100)

• PISA - Program for International Student Assessment) – International exam of 15 years old in reading ability, mathematical knowledge and scientific thinking (values 400 – 600; mean 500 points)

Human Development Index

• Components:– Life expectancy– Scholarization index - levels I, II & III– Living standard (PPP –how much can be

bought with average salary)

• Values: 0 – 1 and rank of the country • Description: long, wise, and affluent life of

an average inhabitant of the country

value Value for Poland

Comparison

N countries

Position of Poland (rank)

Best score Worst score

0-1 0,841 World 175 35 0,944

Norway

0,275

Sierra Leone

Europe 39 23 0,944

Norway

0,700

Moldova

13 new EU countries

13 5 0,891

Cyprus

0,734

Turkey

Human Development Index – position of Poland (2003)

Value Value for Poland

Comparison

N countries



9 450 World 175 52 53 780

Luxembourg

470

Sierra Leone

Europe 38 26 53 780

Luxembourg

2150

Moldova

13 new EU countries

13 8 21 190

Cyprus

5 830

Romania

Gross Domestic Product (GDP –US$)– position of Poland (2001)

Ranking of countries according to GDP & HDI (HDI minus GDP)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20Africa

Arab countries

Western Europe &North AmericaOceania

South America

Central-Eastern Europe

post-Soviet countries

-1

0

1

2

3

4

ha

pp

ine

ss

Western Europe + North America

South America

Asia

Arab countries

Africa

Central-Eastern Europe

post-Soviet countries

Groups of countries & level of happiness (studies by Inglehart 2003, N=82)

Index of Perceived Corruption (CPI)

• Transparency International• ‘Measure of lost chances’


Comparison

N countries



0-10 3,6 World 133 64 9,7

Finland

1,3

Bangladesh

Europe 35 28 9,7

Finland

2,3

Macedonia

Ukraine

13 new EU countries

12 10 6,1

Cyprus

2,8

Romania

Corruption Perception Index– position of Poland (2003)

Gini Index of social inequalities

• Deviation of GDP from the perfectly equal distribution

• Area below Lorenz curve and the hypothetical curve of the perfectly equal distribution

• Values 0 – 100– 0 – whole product distributed equally (everybody gets

the same share)

– 100 – The whole product in hands of one person


Comparison

N countries

Position of Poland

(rank)


0-100 31,6 World 124 24-25 24,4

Hungary

70,7

Namibia

Europe 32 16 24,4

Hungary

45,6

Russia

13 new EU countries

11 6 24,4

Hungary

40,0

Turkey

Gini Index of social inequalities (1998)

Cross-cultural comparisons of values and cultural dimensions

• Shalom Schwartz – Value circumplex with two dimensions: – conservatism – openness to experience – self-enhancement – self-transcendence

• Ronald Inglehart – two dimensions of values:– materialistic (‘survival’) vs. postmaterialistic (‘dobrostan’)– traditional vs. secular-rational authority

• Geert Hofstede – four dimensions of culture:– individualism – collectivism– power distance– tolerance of uncertainty– masculinity - feminity

Correlations of objective measures and Schwartz value dimensions (N=30)

Openness to experience-conservatism

Self-enhancement-

Self-transcendence


0,639**

Technology Advancement Index

0,362

GDP index 0,684**

GINI Index 0,440*

Corruption Perception Index

0,609**

Correlations of objective measures & Inglehart’s value dimensions (N=60)

Secular vs. traditional authority

Postmaterialistic. vs. materialistic


0,529** 0,623**

Technology Advancement Index

0,554** 0,634**

GDP index 0,311* 0,781**

GINI -0,704** -0,103

Corruption Perception Index

0,373** 0,810**

Correlations of objective measures & Hofstede’s four dimensions of culture

(N=66)

Power distance

Uncertainty avoidance

Collectivism individualism

Masculinity - feminity

CPI -0,679*** -0,300** 0,666*** -0,173

GDP -0,613*** -0,072 0,690*** -0,018

HDI -0,550*** -0,017 0,611*** -0,042

GINI 0,355*** 0,106 -0,470*** 0,005

Factor analysis of dimensions from three theories (Schwartz, Inglehart & Hofstede)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Openness to experience

0,686

Self enhancement 0,745Secular authority -0,852Postmaterialism 0,910Power distance -0,874Individualism 0,753Uncertainty avoidance

-0,531

Masculinity 0,795

Factor analysis of value factors and objective measures (CPI, HDI, GDP, GINI)

factor 1 (general

development)

factor 2 (secularity, equality)

factor 3

(achievements)

Postmat.+openess exp.+indiv.+power dist.+uncertainty tol.

0,950

Self-enhancement

+masculinity0,998

Secular authority 0,927

HDI 0,927GDP 0,936CPI 0,944GINI -0,885

AustraliaUSA

Japan

Switzerland

DenmarkFinlandFrance

Germany

Spain

New Zealand

ItalyPortugal

Slovenia

Czech Rep.Poland

Hungary

SlovakiaEstonia

Mexico

Bulgaria

Brasil

Turkey

China

Russia

General development - high

General development - low

Secularity, equality - low

Secularity, equality - high

AustraliaUSAJapan

SwitzerlandDenmark

Finland

France Germany

Spain

New Zealand

ItalyPortugal

SloveniaCzech Rep.

Poland

Hungary

SlovakiaEstonia

Mexico

Bulgaria

Russia

Brasil

Turkey China

General development - high

General development - low

Achievements- high

Achievements - low

Predictors of happiness?

Schw+Ingl+Hof _postm+otwartosc+indyw+malydyst+toleran

2,01,51,0,50,0-,5-1,0-1,5-2,0

Ha

pp

ine

ss_

Ing

leh

art

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

R(24)=0,815***

Schw+Ingl+Hof_wzmacniaja+maskulinizm

3210-1-2

Ha

pp

ine

ss_

Ing

leh

art

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

R(24)=0,011

Schw+Ingl+Hof_autorytet_swiecki+maskulinizm

1,51,0,50,0-,5-1,0-1,5-2,0-2,5

Ha

pp

ine

ss_

Ing

leh

art

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

R(24)=-0,225, n.i.

Factor I general development

Factor II achievement

Factor III secularity /equality

Happiness (Inglehart) & three factors

,81

happiness

,79

postmate-rialistic

,58

secularauthority

Gini

,80

hdi+cpi+gdp

pd+ic+openess

-,24

e1e2e4

e6

-,45

-,43

,42,89

,26 -,61

,89,64

Predictors of happiness – structural model

Chi-2=8,084, df=6, p=0,232 RMSEA=0,045

Documents

Values and dimensions of culture Lecture 10 Values General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals Life guidelines Criteria of evaluating