Towards a comprehensive theory of values.

Full text

CHAPTER 11
Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Values
Janek Musek, University of Ljubljana
Theoretical Introduction
Historical Background
The importance of values as the beliefs or conceptions of the guiding principles in our life has
been recognized since the ancient times. In the birth of axiology, the philosophers like Plato and
Aristotle (1971, 1980; see also Vorländer, 1977) proposed the classical trinity of values, the
good, the truth and the beauty (bonum, verum, pulchrum in Latin), that has been later
supplemented by early Christian philosopher Saint Augustine with the supreme Christian values
of faith, hope and love.
In psychology, the research of values has been almost neglected till the seminal work of
Rokeach (1968, 1973). The notable exceptions are the theoretical taxonomies of values
developed by Spranger (1930) and Veber (1924), then the psychometric efforts of Allport and his
colleagues (Allport, Vernon & Lindzey, 1936) as well as a few empirical studies that only
tangentially contribute to the knowledge of values. Rokeach's investigations tremendously
stimulated the empirical research of values in psychology especially in social psychology. This
research culminated in the work of Schwartz (1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990), Hofstede
(1980, 2001), Triandis (1990, 1995), Inglehart (1977, 1990) and others. Their work revealed the
major role of values in the understanding of not only our individual life but also the life of all
cultural systems of mankind. As Smith and Bond (1998, pp. 69) say: "The best conceptual
frameworks currently available to guide cross-cultural research are those provided by studies of
value differences".
Proposed Theoretical Model of Values
Unfortunately, the empirical research of values has not been integrated into a comprehensive and
unified theoretical framework. Given the omission in the literature, the author has recently
constructed a theoretical model that includes the most important aspects of human values
(Musek, 2000, 2007b). The model subsumes five theoretical submodels that comprise the
hierarchical structure of values or the taxonomy of values (the structural or descriptive
submodel), the causal factors of values (etiological submodel), the development of values
(developmental submodel), the transcultural consistency of values (cross-cultural submodel), and
the connections of values with other psychological and demographic variables (transversal
submodel and predictive submodel). Thus, a comprehensive model of values has been built,
including the taxonomical, etiological, developmental and cross-cultural perspective of values as

well as the correlations and predictive relationships of the values with other important
psychosocial variables.
Structural (descriptive/taxonomical) Submodel: Structural Hierarchy of Values
Hierarchical structural models are quite common in psychology. They have been developed in
the fields of both cognitive and conative structure of personality. The hierarchical models of
intelligence and personality traits may serve as examples. These models typically organize the
investigated phenomena into a hierarchical structure consisting of different levels of generality or
complexity that extend from top to bottom, from the most general to the most specific
dimensions. Hierarchical models are especially useful, when they lead to the empirical
identification of a small number of most general dimensions, explaining a majority of variance in
the realm of input variables. In different domains, these models yielded a definite number of the
basic general dimensions on the top of the hierarchy, as for example the basic dimensions of
personality in PEN-model (Eysenck, 1970, 1991) or five-factor model (Costa & McCrae, 1992;
John, 1990) and even single general factors like g-factor in the research of intelligence
(Spearman, 1904; Carroll, 1993; Jensen, 1998), or, most recently, the general factor (Big One) in
the domain of personality (Musek, 2007a).
In the realm of values, the hierarchical organization has been repeatedly stressed in a
number of theoretical models. Hierarchical classifications and taxonomies of values are well
represented in theoretical axiological theories in philosophy (Scheler, 1954; Ingarden, 1975;
Heller, 1981) and psychology (Kluckhohn, 1951; Morris, 1956). On the other side, explicit
widely accepted hierarchical models of values are almost non-existent in the empirical
psychological research of values.
In further research of values, undertaken by Rokeach (1973) and later by Schwartz with
his collaborators (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990), the hierarchical nature of the universe of
human values was recognized but not very precisely examined. Rokeach (1973) factorized 18
terminal and 18 instrumental values from his famous value survey. He extracted seven factors
from the ipsativized survey data and interpreted them as immediate versus delayed gratification,
competence vs. religious morality, self-constriction vs. self-expansion, social vs. personal
orientation, societal vs. family security, respect vs. love, and inner vs. other directedness.
Schwartz, using his own value survey, convincingly established the facet structure of values in a
number of investigations (Schwartz, 1992, 1994a, 1994b; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). The facets
of values showed to be intraindividually and interindividually consistent, and, moreover, they
represented a cross-culturally stable structure (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001; Schwartz et al., 2001).
The values in Schwartz model formed a multidimensional space that could be subsumed under
two larger higher-order dimensions: openness to change versus conservation and self-
transcendence versus self-enhancement. The value facets of the Schwartz model seem to have a
circular (circumplex) structure, although this was not definitely confirmed (Hinz, Brähler,
Schmid, & Albani, 2005; Schwartz et al., 2001).
In our studies, a definite structural hierarchy of values has been explicitly hypothesized
and verified (Musek, 1993ab, 2000, 2007b). As shown in the Figure 1, I proposed a hierarchical
model of the structure of values that comprises four levels of generality. Single values (freedom,

wisdom, honesty, health, reputation and so on) are located at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Higher-order clusters of values could be hypothesized on the basis of the correlations between
single values. According to our model, there are at least three levels of composite categories of
values, namely two intermediate levels (middle range and higher range categories) and the
highest order categories at the top level of hierarchy. Highest order categories represent the most
general dimensions of values that do not cluster further except into one single cluster comprising
all values.
Figure 1
Hierarchical model of values. It extends from the level of single values (1) to the level of middle-order or middle-
range value categories (2), the level of higher-order or higher-range categories (value types) (3) and the level of
highest-order or highest-range categories (macrodimensions of values) (4). Above the macrodimensions all values
join together into one single group.
The psychological meaning of the higher-order categories of values obtained in our
studies is best evident from the correlations between values and further from the correlations
between higher-order dimensions (Musek, 2000). According to this, the most important middle-
order or middle-range value categories have been interpreted as social values (good partnership,
family happiness, love), traditional values (honesty, benevolence, diligence), societal values
(peace, justice, equality, concordance), cultural values (culture, arts, creativity), cognitive values
(truth, wisdom), actualization values (self-actualization, knowledge), aesthetic values (beauty,
nature), religious values (faith in God), sensual values (joy, entertainment, exciting life), health
values (health), security values (security), status values (power, reputation, money), patriotic
values (patriotism, national pride), legalistic values (order, obeying laws). Higher-order or

higher-range categories have been interpreted as hedonistic values (comprising sensual, health
and security values), potency values (status, patriotic and legalistic values), moral values (social,
traditional and societal values) and fulfillment or humanistic values (cultural, cognitive,
actualization, religious and aesthetic values). Finally, the higher-order categories can be
subsumed into two very broad highest-order or highest-range categories being labeled also
"superdimensions" or "macrocategories" of values. These categories have been interpreted as
“dionysian” and “apollonian” values, according to well-known Nietzschean axiological
terminology (Nietzsche, 1969). The first, Dionysian superdimension comprises hedonistic and
potency values, and the second, the Apollonian (or Apollinian) superdimention comprises
morality and personal fulfillment.
Etiological Submodel: Causal Factors of Values
Taxonomical model of values has been at least theoretically upgraded with etiological model
considering the causal factors that are important in the processes of the development, shaping
and stabilization of the individual value system. The etiological factors of values contain both
phylogenetic and ontogenetic sources and could be divided into two major categories. First, they
encompass the biological factors: genetic, evolutionary and neuropsychological. Although it is
very unlikely that genetic factors can directly influence the shaping of value systems, it is quite
probable that similar genetic equipment could stimulate the formation of similar beliefs, attitudes
and values even in different environments. Social beliefs, attitudes and values are genetically
determined to some degree (Eaves, Eysenck, & Martin, 1989; Olson, Vernon, Aitken Harris, &
Jang, 2001; Scarr & Weinberg, 1981; Tesser, 1993; Waller et al., 1990). Furthermore, the genetic
factors can influence more directly the neurophysiological processes underlying the functioning
of attitudes, beliefs and values. Genetics certainly influence the ways we conceive and interpret
the world we live in and may particularly affect our environmental experience (Olson, Vernon,
Aitken Harris, & Jang, 2001; Tesser, 1993). The genetic basis of values should be also embedded
in the evolutionary past of mankind (the phylogenetic causation of values). It is plausible to
assume that widely culturally shared dimensions of values are to the some extent the outcome of
evolutionary presses and evolutionary strategies (Musek, 2000; Penke, Dennissen, & Miller,
2007; Rushton, Bons & Hur, 2008). Values and moral systems had to be evolved in all cultures
in order to preserve better survival (Musek, 2000). In the other side, the values, value systems
and value orientations are always mediated by the existing cultural milieu and education. Finally,
the interplay of motivational, emotional and cognitive factors within the personality affects the
shaping and development of the values in each individual (the ontogenetic causation of values;
Musek, 2000, 2007b).
Developmental Submodel: Developmental Hierarchy of Values
The idea of the developmental changes in the value orientations through the adolescence and
adulthood is present in the folk wisdom of the East and the West. For instance, the content of
four value types resembles an ancient oriental classification of values (Musek, 1993a, 2000).
According to this classification, the values, emerging most early in the life of human beings,
have to do with life pleasures and satisfaction of sensual and physical needs. In the next phase of

life, the values connected with success, achievement and reputation took the leading place. In the
following phase, the individual becomes more and more occupied with the values, regulating his
duties and responsibilities. And finally, he achieves the level of progressive orientation toward
the values of inner life, of spiritual life and self-transcendence. Indeed, these four categories of
values correspond very well to our four types of values: the hedonistic values, the potency
values, the moral values and the fulfillment values (Musek, 2000).
Thus, a developmental hierarchy of values could be proposed, somewhat similar to the
well-known Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954). According to the developmental
submodel, our value orientations shift throughout our life-span (from the puberty age on)
progressively from the dionysian to the more apollonian side, or in terms of higher-order value
types, from relatively hedonistic orientation in the adolescence to the relatively potency
orientation in early adulthood, then to the moral and fulfillment orientation in maturity. The
changes in value orientations must be understood in relative, not in absolute terms (the absolute
average ratings of apollonian values are always higher than the ratings of dionysian values). The
relative changes in value orientations provide a better understanding of generational value
conflict (Musek, 1993ab, 2000). This generational conflict could be explained rather in terms of
development of value orientation than in terms of other conflicting life circumstances of both
generations. In other words, the generational conflict resembles the hypothetical conflict of a
person of age 18, which is relatively hedonistic oriented, with the same person in age 50, which
is relatively more moral and fulfillment oriented. The fact that the value conflict between
generations is perpetual is quite in concordance with this explanation (Musek, 2000).
Cross-Cultural Submodel: Cultural Stability and Universality of Values
The values are very common subject of contemporary cross-cultural research that emphasizes
both cultural differences as well as cultural universalities (Bond, 1988, 1991; Bond, Leung and
Schwartz, 1992; Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Fiske, 1991, 1992; Hofstede, 1980, 1983,
2001; Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Kagitçibasi, 1970; Leung & Bond, 1989; Leung, Bond, &
Schwartz, 1995; Sagiv & Schwartz, 1995; Schwartz, 1994a,b; Smith & Schwartz, 1997; Smith,
Trompenaars and Dugan, 1993; Triandis, 1990, 1995). It seems that the differences between
cultures increase with the decreasing level of generality of the value universe (Hofstede, 1980,
2001; Sagiv and Schwartz, 1995; Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987, 1990; Triandis, 1990).
Consequently, in the search for the universal dimensions of values we can find them in the
higher and highest levels of the hierarchical order of the value universe. Nevertheless, there are
clear cultural differences in the ratings and evaluations of the dimensions of values that are the
same in different cultures. Individualistic cultures appreciate the dionysian values higher and
apollonian values lower than collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 2001; Musek, 1993ab, 2000;
Musek, Pergar Kuščer & Bekeš, 2000). Thus, the cultures could differ in conceiving how some
single values are correlated and grouped into first higher categories of values, but they
practically converge in conceptualizing how these categories could be further associated into still
larger categories or dimensions.

Transversal Submodel: Connections Between Values and Demographic and Psychological
Variables
The results of our previous studies (Musek, 1993ab, 1998, 2000, 2007b) demonstrated a variety
of significant correlation between values and other demographic and psychological variables
including age, sex/gender, education, socioeconomic status (SES), family income, marital status,
number of children, size of locality, urban/rural settings, religiosity, well-being, self-concept,
self-esteem, intelligence, emotional intelligence and others. For example, women tend to score
higher in traditional, social, societal, religious and security values, while men tend to score
higher in sensual, status and patriotic values. Consequently, women could be described as more
apollonian and men as more dionysian in their value orientations (Musek, 2000).
Values correlate very substantially with some related beliefs and attitudes including
religious and political beliefs, attitudes toward democracy, minorities, immigrants and similar
(Musek, 2000). On the other hand, the correlations with basic personality traits as well as basic
dimensions of emotionality and cognitive abilities are much lower or even inexistent (Musek,
2000, 2004).
Prediction Submodel: Values as Predictors of Behavior
Finally, our theoretical model raises the question how important are the values in our life.
According to previous research, the values are not only essential guiding principles in long-term
decisions in our educational, professional, spiritual and political formation, but are important
predictors of otherwise important behavior in different domains of our family, professional or
leisure settings (Musek, 1993ab, 1998, 2000).
Plan of the Study
The present study was programmed to explicate a comprehensive theoretical model of values and
provide the empirical evidence for testing the crucial derivatives of the model. In order to
accomplish this goal, I collected the results of the most recent studies which could be relevant for
the proposed model of values including all its submodels. The following general hypotheses
could be derived from the model:
1. The correlated ratings of values form a hierarchical structure extending from specific
values to the higher-order value dimensions including middle-order categories of
values, value types and macrocategories of values (Structural submodel).
2. The importance of apollonian values increases while the importance of dionysian
values decreases through the life-span (Developmental submodel).
3. The overall structure of values is rather stable and consistent across different cultures
especially in regard of higher-order value dimensions (Cross-cultural submodel).
4. The values and value categories correlate essentially with prominent demographic and
psychological variables (Transversal submodel).
5. The values and value categories are essential predictors of the behavior and experience
in important domains of the life settings (Prediction submodel).
Method

In order to verify the proposed theoretical model of values, several experimental, correlational
and multivariate studies have been performed (Musek, 1993ab, 2000, 2007b; Musek, Pergar
Kuščer & Bekeš, 2000). However, for the purposes of this review, only the investigations
concerning the model and submodels most directly will be considered. The methodological
aspects of this research will be briefly outlined as follows.
Research design
The model was tested primarily using the correlational and multivariate design. The structure of
the value universe has been established on the basis of factor analyses, cluster analyses and
multidimensional scaling methods. The developmental submodel was built mainly on the basis
of (multivariate) analysis of variance approach including other relevant methods as for instance
discriminant analyses. Additionally, several multivariate, correlational and regression analyses
have been performed in order to obtain the results relevant for the etiological, cross-cultural,
transversal and predictive submodel.
Participants and procedure
Several samples and subsambles have been included in the studies mentioned above. The main
results have been obtained from the representative sample of Slovenian population (N=1000, 547
females, 458 males; mean age = 43.68, SD=16.24), which was selected in order to collect the
data for the large national public opinion poll. The participants fulfilled the value survey MVS
(see next subsection) that was included into opinion poll. The data were collected in May 1995.
The collected data were then tabulated and prepared for statistical analyses. Other samples and
subsamples have been described in details in the literature (Musek, 1993ab, 2000, 2007b; Musek,
Pergar Kuščer & Bekeš, 2000).
Measures
In all our investigations, our own value survey (Musek Value Survey or MVS) has been used
(Musek, 2000). The survey consists of 54 different values (see Appendix A). The participants
rated the personal importance of each value on 1 to 10 (one to ten) rating scale continuum (in
some studies a modification with 1 to 100 continuum was used). The individual or group results
can be calculated on four levels of the generality of value structure: the level of single values, the
level of middle-order value facets (9 categories), the level of higher-order value categories (4),
and the level of two highest-order value categories. Consequently, the scores for 15 subscales
can be computed in MVS: sensual values, security values, status values, democratic or societal
values, social values, cultural values, cognitive values, actualization values and religious values
(subscales for middle-order value categories), hedonistic or hedonic values, potency values,
moral values and fulfillment or humanistic values (subscales for higher-order value categories or
value types), apollonian and dionysian values (subscales for highest-order value categories or
value superdimensions).
The survey has good metric characteristics, which have been derived from the data of
aforementioned Slovenian representative sample. In regard of the validity, the factor structure of
the scale resembles the factor-analytically or otherwise derived dimensional structures of well-
known Rokeach and Schwartz value surveys (Musek, 2000). Further, the survey scores strongly

predicted educational preferences, religious and political affiliation, and a number of other value-
related beliefs, attitudes, and decisions (Musek, 1998a, 2000, 2004). The internal consistency of
the entire scale is 0.95, for larger subscales somewhat minor (in the range from 0.72 to 0.89),
indicating thus also the probability of considerable test-retest reliability. Very similar indices
regarding MVS metric characteristics have been obtained on other samples and subsamples used
in our studies.
Beside the MVS, the other value surveys have been occasionally used in our studies, including
Schwartz Value Survey, Rokeach Value Survey and Pogačnik Scale of Values (Musek, 2000,
2004, 2007b). In the research concerning the transversal and predictive submodel, several other
measures have been used in order to subsume the psychological variables presupposed to be
significantly connected to the values (mostly as criteria predicted on the basis of values). These
variables include different demographic and psychological domains including personality,
cognition, health and well-being. For the sake of sparing space, all these measures will not be
enumerated here and the respective studies where they can be found will be reported instead.
Results and Discussion
The results of the studies aiming to verify the proposed theoretical model of values can be
divided into five sections according to the respective submodels: structural submodel,
developmental submodel, cross-cultural submodel, transversal submodel and prediction
submodel. No specific additional results have been obtained in regard of etiological submodel.
The presented results are obtained from the aforementioned representative Slovenian sample if
not explicitly referred to otherwise.
Structural Submodel
The model was tested using different multivariate analyses (including factor-, cluster- and
multidimensional scaling analyses) in a series of empirical studies (Musek, 1990, 1993a,b,
1998a,b, 2000, 2004; Musek, Pergar Kuščer & Bekeš, 2000). Considering the statistical
advantages of factor-analytic approach, I will concentrate on the results of factor analyses
performed on the data from Slovenian representative sample. Nevertheless, the results derived
from other sources and multivariate analyses are in concordance with the results from factor
analyses (Musek, 2000).
The results of different factor analyses converged into the hierarchical structure that is
shown in the Figure 2. The first (bottom) level of the structure is occupied by single values
represented by items of MVS. The next levels of the hierarchy are represented by the higher-
order value dimensions based on the correlations between items or single values. According to
the criteria of factor extraction as well as to the theoretical expectations, three higher-order factor
solution are most acceptable. Therefore, nine-factor solution, four-factor solution and two-factor
solution could be considered. The loadings of the values on the respective extracted factors are
displayed in the Appendix B. The first-order factors have been extracted on the basis of Kaiser
criterion (Eigenvalues above 1.00; Kaiser, 1960) from the single values representing thus the
middle-range or middle-order categories of values in terms of our structural model. In the
representative sample data, the analysis yielded 9 dimensions, and in some other studies, the

number of middle-order categories ranged between 8 and 12 (Musek, 2000). According to the
fact that first-order factors still substantially correlate when using the algorithms for oblique
factor rotation, we decided for two further higher-order solutions that have been indicated by
scree test (Cattell, 1966): the four-factor solution for the higher order level of value hierarchy
(corresponding to the higher-order level categories of values in our hypothetical structural
model) and two-factor solution for the highest order level of value hierarchy.
The final hierarchical model encompasses five levels of generality extending from the single
value level to the most general level that includes all values in one group (Figure 2). Looking
from the bottom to the top, we have single values at the first level. Single values aggregate to the
second level categories of values that have been labeled middle-range or middle-order
categories. Middle-order categories still correlate and form thus the higher-order categories that
are four in our model. Finally, according to the correlations of higher-order categories, we can
discover the highest-order categories or dimensions of values (superdimensions or
macrodimensions of values). According to the content of the subsumed values, the
superdimensions can be interpreted as dionysian and apollonian category of values. On the
higher-order level, each of these two superdimensions split into two further subcategories.
Dionysian values could be subdivided into two groups, hedonistic values and potency values.
The first group (hedonistic values) contains the values, connected with sensual and material
pleasures, while the second group (potency values) includes the values, which have to do with
achievement, success and reputation, but also with patriotism. At the next level, each of the
higher-order categories could be further divided into the middle-range categories of values. Thus,
the hedonistic type could be subdivided into sensual and health category, the potency type into
the status and patriotism category, the moral type into the traditional, democratic (or societal)
and social values and the fulfilment or humanistic type into the cognitive, cultural, self-
actualizing and religious-spiritual values. Finally, at the most specific level of hierarchy, we can
find different single values, the constituting elements of the entire hierarchy.
It is worth of mention that both superdimensions still correlate if oblique rotations like
Promax have been used in factor analysis (r= 0.50). The saturations of single values on the
resulting common dimension are highly correlated with the absolute ranks of value ratings. For
the representative sample of Slovenian population (N=1005; Musek, 2000), the calculated
correlation is 0.78. Consequently, this dimension could be interpreted as the general evaluation
factor of values (differentiating more positive rated values from the less positive).

Figure 2
The structural hierarchy of values based on the results of our empirical research. It confirms the hypothetical model
shown in the Figure 1 with the addition of the most general level that corresponds to the general evaluative factor of
values subsuming all values and value categories. The details are reported in the text.
Developmental Submodel
The results of our research mainly confirmed the basic predictions derived from the
developmental submodel (Musek, 1990, 1993ab, 2000). The data that were collected from the
representative Slovenian sample, described in the Method section, may serve as an illustration.
The graph in the Figure 3 shows the value orientations compared for three generations, the
youngest (generation 1; average 21.52 years, SD 2.43 years), the middle (generation 2; mean
46.99, SD 4.80) and the oldest (generation 3; mean 70.11, SD 3,79). The rated importance of
GENERAL VALUE
EVALUATION
DIONYSIAN APOLLONIAN
HEDONIC
(HEDONISTIC) POTENCY MORAL FULFILLMENT
(HUMANISTIC)
Sensual Health Status Patrio-
tism
Tradi-
tional
Demo-
cratic Social Actua-
lization Cultural Cogni-
tive
Reli-
gious
Joy
Sociability
Exciting
life
Comfort
Sex
Good food
Free
movement
Health
Security
Rest
Power
Reputation
Celebrity
Money
Political
Success
Exceeding
others
Patriotism
National
Pride
Respect
of laws
Order
Honesty
Benevo-
Lence
Diligence
Freedom
Equity
National
Equality
Peace
Concor-
Dance
Justice
Family
Happiness
Partnership
Children
Love
Hope
Self-
actuali-
zation
Culture
Arts
Creativity
Beauty
Nature
Truth
Wisdom
Faith in
God
GENERAL VALUE
EVALUATION
DIONYSIAN APOLLONIAN
HEDONIC
(HEDONISTIC) POTENCY MORAL FULFILLMENT
(HUMANISTIC)
Sensual Health Status Patrio-
tism
Tradi-
tional
Demo-
cratic Social Actua-
lization Cultural Cogni-
tive
Reli-
gious
Joy
Sociability
Exciting
life
Comfort
Sex
Good food
Free
movement
Health
Security
Rest
Power
Reputation
Celebrity
Money
Political
Success
Exceeding
others
Patriotism
National
Pride
Respect
of laws
Order
Honesty
Benevo-
Lence
Diligence
Freedom
Equity
National
Equality
Peace
Concor-
Dance
Justice
Family
Happiness
Partnership
Children
Love
Hope
Self-
actuali-
zation
Culture
Arts
Creativity
Beauty
Nature
Truth
Wisdom
Faith in
God

apollonian values increased from the youngest to the eldest age cohort and the importance of
dionysian values decreased in the same direction. The importance of moral, religious, patriotic
and traditional values increases through the life-span, while the importance of hedonistic and
sensual values is declining. The potency and fulfillment values are most important in the middle
generation, most notably the categories of status, actualization, and cultural values. The social,
cognitive and security values remained quite stable over generations. It is possible that these
categories of values are also the easiest to be transferred between generations (Musek, 2000). We
can expect that the transfer of these categories will be accomplished with the minimal conflicts
for they are similarly conceived by different generations. We can expect more conflicts in other
areas of values, especially in the realm of moral and potency values (particularly hedonistic,
sensual, status, traditional, patriotic and religious values), where the differences between
generations are remarkable (Musek, 2000).

Figure 3
Differences in value orientations between three generations, the youngest (1), the middle (2) and the oldest (3).
There are only three categories of values with no significant differences between the generations (cognitive, social
and security values). More details see in the text.
Cross-Cultural Submodel
Further investigations are aimed to test the intergroup and intercultural stability of values. In this
respect we found some characteristic (already mentioned) age- and sex- or gender-related
differences as well as we confirmed the cross-cultural stability of major dimensions or categories
of values (Musek, Pergar Kuščer & Bekeš, 2000). The results of the study confirmed the
underlying hypothesis that the cross-cultural similarity of the value structure increases with the
level of the generality of that structure. The higher the level of generality of value categories, the
greater is the similarity over the cultures and the cross-cultural consistency. The results of this
study are, therefore, in concordance with the theory of the universality of the basic structure of
value categories (Musek, 1993a,b; 2000; Sagiv and Schwartz, 1995; Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987,
1990). However, the discovery that the basic structure of the value system is commonly shared
by a wide range of different nations and cultures is not controversial to the well-established
cross-cultural differences found in numerous investigations (Bond, 1988, 1991; Bond, Leung and
Schwartz, 1992; Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Fiske, 1991, 1992; Hofstede, 1980, 1983,
2001; Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Kagitçibasi, 1970; Leung & Bond, 1989; Leung, Bond, &
Schwartz, 1995; Sagiv & Schwartz, 1995; Schwartz, 1994a,b; Smith & Schwartz, 1997; Smith,
Trompenaars and Dugan, 1995; Triandis, 1990, 1995; Triandis et al., 1972).
Transversal Submodel

The values are connected not only to the age and culture, but also to other important
demographic variables (Musek, 2000), like gender (women are slightly more apollonian, men
slightly more Dionysian), education, socioeconomic status, family income, marital and
employment status, religiosity, size of locality, and urban-rural environment (see Table 1).
However, the correlations are low (even the most significant), with the understandable exception
of correlation between religiosity and religious values.
Table 1 Correlations between value categories and demographic variables.
Gender Age
Educa-
tion SES
Family
income
Marital
status
Employ
ed
Religio-
sity
Locality
size
Urban-
Rural
sensual
values -.057** -.273** .097** .144** .122** .120** -.046 -.109** .111** -.085**
security .131** .037 -.094** -.034 -.017 -.122** -.068 .049 .012 .007

values
status
values -.019 -.009 -.165** .018 .012 -.019 -.061 .062* -.091** .104**
patriotic
values .046 .232** -.242** -.063 -.096** -.138** -.100* .167** -.026 .060
democratic
values .167** .094** -.064* -.013 -.069 -.098** -.105* .050 .044 -.034
social
values .151** -.035 -.011 .035 .003 -.182** -.150** .129** .016 -.005
traditional
values .185** .181** -.042 -.016 -.037 -.175** -.132** .137** .075* -.074*
cultural
values .101** .033 .107** .143** .043 -.050 -.190** -.006 .145** -.109**
cognitive
values .084** -.010 .008 .054 .002 -.032 -.098* .058 .080* -.031
actualizatio
n values .072* -.061 .115** .157** .115** -.038 -.152** -.029 .091** -.084**
religious
values .117** .153** -.293** -.186** -.116** -.029 -.036 .676** -.237** .264**
hedonic
values .005 -.191** -.057 .067* .061 .068 -.018 -.021 .029 -.012
potency
values .019 .103** -.228** -.016 -.043 -.088* -.096* .129** -.089** .106**
moral
values .221** .108** -.075* -.032 -.030 -.215** -.119** .156** .029 -.020
fulfilment
values .109** .019 .089** .125** .031 -.048 -.165** .011 .138** -.097**
dionysian
values -.030 -.143** -.107** .052 .054 .036 -.024 .003 -.025 .046
apollonian
values .195** .137** -.075* -.021 -.055 -.176** -.134** .127** .050 -.036
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
More important, the values and value categories are not closely connected with the basic
psychological or personality domains such as major personality dimensions or abilities (Musek,
2000). Basic personality dimensions and basic cognitive abilities including the respective general
factors correlate low and often insignificant with the value categories. This might be interesting
from the evolutionary point of view. All important psychological domains (personality
dimensions, abilities, motives and values) contribute to the successful life. From the evolutionary
point of view it could be desirable that those domains would not be highly correlated. If they

would be correlated, then our maneuvering place for better adjustment would be more restricted.
If not correlated, the strength in one domain could compensate the adaptation deficiencies in
other domains more efficiently. For instance, the negative effects of lower intelligence could be
counterbalanced with the adaptive strengths in other domains even if they do not correlate with
intelligence.
Prediction Submodel
The results of the regression analyses showing the predictive power of values on a variety of
dependent psychosocial variables have been collected from different studies (Musek, 2007b).
The predictive role of the values is summarized in Table 2 showing different predicted variables
(dependents) with correspondent R squared (indicating the percent of explained variance of
dependents) and the number of values as significant predictors (independents) in the model. In
the majority of cases, the predictors were the ratings of the importance of values (as usual when
MVS is applied), whereas in some cases (signed with asterisk) also the rated degree of
realization of values in the life has been used as the predictive variable in the model.
The dependents predicted on the basis of values include basic demographic variables (age,
sex/gender, marital status, education, SES, income, number of children), conative, affective and
cognitive personality variables (Big Five, General factor of personality /GFP/, positive affect,
negative affect, behavioral activation system /BAS/, behavioral inhibition system /BIS/,
emotional intelligence, crystallized intelligence), psychological wellness variables (well-being,
satisfaction with life, satisfaction with partner, flow, optimism, hope, inspiration, personal
growth), self-concept and self-esteem variables (global self-concept, independent self,
interdependent self, self-esteem), stress and coping variables (personal hardiness, distress, coping
strategies) and other variables (academic choice, religiosity, tolerance, attitude toward
immigrants, political orientation, global self-efficacy, social desirability).
Table 2
Values as predictors of different psychosocial variables.
Dependent in the
model
R square Number of values, predictors
in the model
Age 0.30; 0.39 (0.39*) 16; 17 (10*)
Sex/gender 0.12; 0.19 11; 5

Academic choice 0.44a; 0.71bAll values of MVS
Religiosity 0.71 9
Spiritual intelligence 0.45 7
Well-being 0.23 (0.39*) 6 (7*)
Happiness, life
satisfaction
0.16; 0.19; 0.44 (0.34*;
0.54*)
6; 15; 6 (10*; 8*)
Marital status 0.24 (0.31*) 11 (11*)
Satisfaction with
partner
0.07 (0.52*) 3 (3*)
Number of children 0.13; 0.31 (0.32*) 10; 10 (8*)
Political orientation 0.33 5
Attitudes toward
immigrants
0.45 5
Tolerance 0.36 13
Education 0.30 15
SES 0.12 10
Income 0.10 8
Intelligence
(crystallized)
0.12 3
Big Five 0.04 – 0.34 (0.12-0,35*) 3-11 (4-12*)
General personality
factor (GFP)
0.11; 0.19 (0.18*) 7; 11 (6*)
Emotional intelligence 0,18; 0,32 3; 4
Approach/avoidance
(BAS)
0.17 (0.23*) 2 (4*)
Approach/avoidance
(BIS)
0.50 (0.41*) 5 (3*)
Inspiration 0.37 (0.33*) 7 (5*)
Flow state 0.47 5
Positive affect 0.15 (0.42*) 8 (4*)
Negative affect 0.20 (0.77*) 14 (6*)
Optimism 0,23; 0.48 4; 5
Hope 0.50 5
Self-esteem 0.36 7
Global self-concept 0.18 3
Independent self 0.40 7
Interdependent self 0.61 7
Personal hardiness 0.13 6
Distress 0.17 5
Coping strategies 0.16 5
Academic success 0.20 7

Personal growth 0.33; 0.69 13; 8
Global self-efficacy 0.16 6
Social desirability 0.35 (0,28*) 4 (2*)
* Fulfillment (realization) of values in the life.
a Regression by optimal scaling method (nominal dependent variable) using interval scaling.
b Regression by optimal scaling method using ordinal scaling.
In general, the results show that values (value orientations) significantly predict a variety of
demographic, psychological and psychosocial variables. Some variables, connected with the
stable characteristics and long-term decisions in our life are especially connected with the values
(academic choice, religiosity and spirituality). Values also substantially predict beliefs and
attitudes (attitudes toward immigrants, tolerance, political orientation), culturally based features
(interdependent and dependent self) and some well-being dimensions (optimism, hope, personal
growth). Rather low are connections of values with sex, SES, income, intelligence, self-efficacy,
personality traits, stress and coping strategies. It is interesting that the ratings of value fulfillment
by the rule predict more of the criteria as compared with usual ratings of value importance
(except in the case of social desirability).
Table 3
Correspondence between value dimensions (categories) of Musek, Schwartz and
Rokeach model.

Musek modelaSchwartz model Rokeach model
Sensual Hedonism Immediate gratification,
Security Security Immediate gratification, (Loveb)
Status Power, (Achievement) Immediate gratification, Competence
Patriotic (Security, Tradition, Conformism) National securityc
Democratic Universalism Societal orientation, Societal security
Social (Security, Conformism, Benevolence,
Tradition)
Love, (Social orientation, Family
security, Self-constriction)
Traditional (Conformism, Benevolence,
Tradition, Security)
Religious morality, Self-constriction,
Inner directedness
Cultural (Universalism, Stimulation, Self-
direction) Competence, World of beauty
Cognitive Universalism Competence, (Delayed gratification,
Wisdom)
Actualization (Achievement, Self-direction) Competence, Immediate gratification,
(Love)
Religious -Hedonism, (Tradition, Conformism) Religious morality
Hedonic Openness for experience, Self-
enhancement, Hedonism, Stimulation
Immediate gratification, (Other
directedness, Competence)
Potency Self-enhancement, Conservativism,
Power, Achievement
Immediate gratification, Competence,
Respect
Moral
Conservativism, Self-transcendence,
Universalism, Benevolence,
Tradition, Conformism
Social orientation, Love, Self-
constriction, Religious morality
Fulfillment (Universalism, Stimulation, Self-
direction) Competence, Societal security, Love
Dionysian Openness for experience, Self-
enhancement
Immediate gratification, Other
directedness, Competence, (Self-
expansion, Personal orientation,
Respect)
Apollonian Conservativism, Self-transcendence
Social orientation, Love, Societal
security, Religious morality, Self-
constriction, Inner directedness
a The value categories of Musek model are shown as referential.
b Lower but still significant associations are given in parenthesis.
c Listed single values from the Rokeach Value Survey are printed in the cursive.

General Discussion
The results of our recent research are congruent with all main propositions of the hypothesized
theoretical model of values concerning the structure of values, the development of value
orientations from adolescence through adulthood, the transcultural stability of values, the
connections of values with important demographic and psychological variables and the
predictive role of values in some representative domains of human behavior. Therefore, some
necessary conditions for the development of a comprehensive and integrated theoretical model of
values have been accomplished.
Beyond the robust findings concerning the validity and usefulness of the proposed
theoretical model, there are many open questions that need further research and clarification.
Some of them are methodological by nature. For example, we may ask what approach for the
establishment of higher order dimensions of values is more appropriate, the factor-analytical or
some other. The next problem is concerning the question whether the structure of the most
prominent values and value categories is circumplex or not. Other questions deal with the
substantial contents of the value universe. The etiological aspects of values and value
orientations remain to be much more thoroughly investigated. In this respect, a special attention
should be devoted to insufficiently explained role of causal factors that influence the formation
and development of values, value systems and value orientations of the individuals and of the
groups including the genetic and environmental (social, cultural, educational) effects. In the
future research, also a number of the remaining problems related to the structural, developmental
and cross-cultural aspects of values have to be more precisely resolved.
Low correlations between values and demographic variables do not mean that the values
are of little importance in our life. In the modern times, the role of values in our life is often
underestimated by professionals and lay-persons. The empirical research, including our
investigations, reaffirms the importance of values. In our studies the values turned out to be very
powerful predictors in many important aspects of our existence. That is true, for instance, for our
educational and vocational decisions and choices, for our religious and political affiliations, for
our hobbies and leisure activities, for our relationships with partners and family members, for our
attitudes and beliefs toward minorities and immigrants, even for the decisions such as to have or
not to have children etc. Indeed, the values deserve to be defined as »the guiding principles in
our life«.
The presented theoretical model of values is also congruent with other known models of values
in psychology. The facets and higher-order dimensions of values represented in the Schwartz
model correlate substantially with the value categories of our model (Musek, 2000). Moreover,
the correlations between the value dimensions are still higher, when comparing the factor-
analytic derived dimensions of Schwartz values. Similarly, the dimensions of values derived
from other methods using Rokeach, Schwartz and Musek value surveys have also essential
correlations. As we can see from the Table 3, a definite correspondence can be established
between the dimensions derived from all three measures of value orientations. Practically all
categories of values in our model definitely correspond to the relevant categories of values in
models of Schwartz and Rokeach. We can find clear correlates between respective categories in

all three models in all levels of generality, in superdimensions of values (apollonian and
dionysian), in value types or higher-order categories (hedonic, potency, moral and fulfillment
values) and in more specific categories of values (sensual, security, status, patriotic, democratic,
social, traditional, cultural, cognitive, actualization and religious values).
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion I can say, that on the basis of our research we can generally confirm the proposed
comprehensive theoretical model of values, which integrates descriptive-taxonomic and
etiological aspects of values, encompassing structural hierarchy of values, developmental
hierarchy, cross cultural stability of value dimensions and powerful predictive role of values in
our life. The model is based on the convergent results of all mostly used methods of multivariate
analysis of data and supported by the results of a series of correlational and experimental studies.
Also, the model is congruent with other well-established theoretical models of values (Rokeach,
Schwartz).
References
Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. G. & Lindzey, G. (1936). Study of values. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Aristotle (1971). Metafizika. Beograd: Kultura.
Aristotle (1980). Nikomahova etika. Beograd: Beogradski grafički zavod.
Bond, M. H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies
of values: The Rokeach and Chinese Value Surveys. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 6, 1009-1015.
Bond, M. H. (1991). Chinese values and health: A cross-cultural examination. Psychology and
Health, 5, 137-152.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K. and Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Explaining choices in procedural and
distributive justice across cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 5, 27, 211-225
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analysis studies. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The screen test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245−276.
Chinese Culture Connection (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of
culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.
Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J. & Martin, N. G. (1989). Genes, culture, and personality: An
empirical approach. London: Academic Press
Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd ed.). London: Methuen.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3? - Criteria for a taxonomic
paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773-790.
Fiske, A. P. (1991). The cultural relativity of selfish individualism: Anthropological evidence
that humans are inherently sociable. In M. S. Clark (ed.), Prosocial Behavior, Review of
Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 176-214.

Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of
sociality. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723.
Heller, A. (1981). Vrednosti i potrebe. Beograd: Nolit.
Hinz, A., Brähler, E., Schmidt, P., & Albani, C. (2005). Investigating the Circumplex structure of
the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ). Journal of Individual Differences, 26(4), 185–
193.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly-Hills, Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In J.
Deregowski, S. Dzuirawiec and R. Annis (eds.), Explorations in cross-cultural
psychology. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organization Dynamics, 16, 4-21.
Ingarden, R. (1975). Doživljaj, umetničko delo i vrednost. Beograd: Nolit.
Inglehart, R. (1977). The Silent Revolution. Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
language and in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (pp. 66—100). New York: Guilford Press.
Kagitçibasi, C. (1970). Social norms and authoritarianism: A Turkish-American comparison.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4, 157-174.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 141−151.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of action. In: Parsons, T. &
Shils, E. (Eds.).Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Leung, K. and Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for cross-
cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 133-151.
Leung, K., Bond, M. H. and Schwartz, S. H. (1995). How to explain cross-cultural differences:
Values, valences and expectancies? Asian Journal of Psychology, 1, 70-75.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Morris, C. (1956). Varieties of human values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Musek, J. (1990). Human values in the context of age, gender and personality. Psychologische
Beiträge (Lengerich), 32, 1/2, 36-44.
Musek, J. (1993a). Osebnost in vrednote (Personality and values). Ljubljana, Educy.
Musek, J. (1993b). The universe of human values: a structural and developmental hierarchy.
Studia Psychologica (Bratislava), 35, 4-5, 321-326.
Musek, J. (1998a). Political and religious adherence in relation to individual values. Stud.
psychol., 40, 1/2, 47-59.

Musek, J. (1998b). The universe of human values : a structural, developmental and societal
model. Quark (Ljubljana) (Engl. ed.), 31-33,
Musek, J. (2000). Nova psihološka teorija vrednot (New Psychological Theory of Values).
Ljubljana: Educy.
Musek, J. (2004). Slovenia under a psychomicroscope : recent research on personality and value
dimensions. Psychologische Beitrage (Lengerich), 46, 1, 89-102.
Musek, J. (2007a). A General Factor of Personality: Evidence for the Big One in the Five Factor
Model. Journal of Research in Personality, (in press).
Musek, J. (2007b). Psychology of values after one century of research: Toward a comprehensive
theory of values. Paper presented at Xth European Congress of Psychology, July 2007.
Musek, J., Pergar Kuščer, M. & Bekeš, A. (2000). The universality of the basic structure of value
categories. Jpn. soc. (Tsukuba), 4, 45-64.
Nietzsche, F. (1969/1871). Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik. Friedrich
Nietzsche, Werke in den Bänden, herausgegeben von Karl Schlechta, 6. München:
Hanser.
Olson, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Aitken Harris, J., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The Heritability of Attitudes:
A Study of Twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 6, 845-860.
Penke, L., Dennissen, J. J. A., & Miller, G. F. (2007). The evolutionary genetics of personality.
European Journal of Personality, 21, 549-665.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
Rushton, J. P., Bons, T. A., & Hur, Hur, Yoon-Mi (2008). The genetics and evolution of the
General factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, In Press. March 3,
2008
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for outgroup social contact.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 437-448.
Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1981). The transmission of authoritarianism in families: Genetic
resemblance in social-political attitudes? In S.Scarr (Ed.), Race, social class, and
individual differences in I. Q. (pp. 399—427). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scheler, M. (1954). Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik. Berlin.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advantages
and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental and
social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994a). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values?
Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994b). Beyond individualism-collectivism: new dimensions of values. In U.
Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitçibasi, S. C. Choi and G. Yoon (eds.), Individualism and
collectivism: Theory application and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures. Taking a similarities
perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268–290.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human
values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 3, 550-562.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of
values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 878-891.
Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture specifics in the content and structure of
values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92–116.
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001).
Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different
method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542.
Smith, P. B., & Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Values. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall & C. Kagitçibasi
(eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 2nd ed, Vol 3. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, P. B., and Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures, 2nd ed. London:
Prentice-Hall Europe.
Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, F. & Dugan, S. (1995). The Rotter locus of control scale in 43
countries. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 377-400.
Spearman, C. (1904). "General intelligence," objectively determined and measured. American
Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.
Spranger, E. (1930). Lebensformen. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Tesser, A. (1993). The importance of heritability in psychological research: The case of attitudes.
Psychological Review, 100, 129-142.
Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman
(ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989. N37, 41-133.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Triandis, H. C., Kilty, K. M., Shanmugam, A. V., Tanaka, Y. & Vassiliou, V. (1972). Cognitive
structures and the analysis of values. In H. C. Triandis (ed.), The analysis of subjective
culture. New York: Wiley.
Veber, F. (1924). Očrt psihologije. Ljubljana.
Vorländer, K. Zgodovina filozofije. (1977/1949). Prva knjiga. Ljubljana: Slovenska Matica.
Waller, N. G., Kojetin, B. A., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Lykken, D. T. & Tellegen, A. (1990). Genetic
and environmental influences on religious interests, attitudes, and values: A study of
twins reared apart and together. Psychological Science, 1, 138-142.
APPENDIX A
The list of values included in Musek Value Survey (MVS)
HONESTY

SOCIABLE LIFE
LOVE FOR CHILDREN
BEING IN HARMONY WITH NATURE
KNOWLEDGE
GENEROSITY AND UNSELFISHNESS
DILIGENCE
LONGEVITY
REPUTATION IN SOCIETY
HARMONY WITH PARTNER
FREEDOM
MORAL PRINCIPLES
CONCORDANCE AND HARMONY BETWEEN PEOPLE
SUCCESSFUL CAREER
SPORTS AND RECREATION
FAITH IN GOD
COMFORTABLE LIFE
LOVE FOR HOMELAND
RESPECT FOR LAWS
COMPANIONSHIP AND SOLIDARITY
BEAUTY (ENJOYING BEAUTY)
PEACE ON THE WORLD
CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS
FIDELITY
CULTURAL CONCERN
GOOD SEXUAL RELATIONS
POWER AND INFLUENCE
MONEY AND WEALTH
PROGRESS OF HUMANITY
SELF-FULFILLMENT
HEALTH
LEISURE TIME
NATIONAL EQUITY
PERSONAL ATTRACTIVENESS
FULL AND EXCITING LIFE
SECURITY
FAMILY HAPPINESS
REST AND PEACE
JUSTICE
GOOD FOOD AND DRINKS
FRIENDSHIP
WISDOM
EQUALITY BETWEEN PEOPLE

NATIONAL PRIDE
GLORY AND ADMIRATION
FREE MOVEMENT
JOY AND ENTERTAINMENT
HOPE IN THE FUTURE
LOVE
DISCOVERING THE TRUTH
ORDER AND DISCIPLINE
ARTISTIC ENJOYMENT
POLITICAL SUCCESS
EXCEEDING AND SURPASSING OTHER PEOPLE

Comprehensive Theory of Values
APPENDIX B
Loadings of values for three different factor solutions (two, four and nine factors).
Two-factor solution
Factors
Values 1 2
CONCORDANCE AND HARMONY BETWEEN PEOPLE .723 .177
JUSTICE .720 .080
FAMILY HAPPINESS .698 .086
GENEROSITY AND UNSELFISHNESS .647 .106
DILIGENCE .638 .116
LOVE FOR CHILDREN .633 -.021
HONESTY .632 -.083
COMPANIONSHIP AND SOLIDARITY .631 .264
FIDELITY .630 .164
SECURITY .617 .276
NATIONAL EQUITY .614 .207
RESPECT FOR LAWS .606 .223
PEACE ON THE WORLD .604 .081
HARMONY WITH PARTNER .603 .179
EQUALITY BETWEEN PEOPLE .587 .265
DISCOVERING THE TRUTH .575 .313
BEING IN HARMONY WITH NATURE .572 .195
REST AND PEACE .556 .303
ORDER AND DISCIPLINE .555 .282
MORAL PRINCIPLES .549 .242
LOVE FOR HOMELAND .541 .322
KNOWLEDGE .475 .337
LOVE .458 .287
NATIONAL PRIDE .456 .361
FREEDOM .445 .174
HEALTH .414 .086
FAITH IN GOD .238 .095
POWER AND INFLUENCE .127 .774
GLORY AND ADMIRATION .074 .718
PERSONAL ATTRACTIVENESS .165 .689
JOY AND ENTERTAINMENT .175 .676
EXCEEDING AND SURPASSING OTHER PEOPLE -.11
8.668
FULL AND EXCITING LIFE .076 .654
GOOD FOOD AND DRINKS .109 .631
COMFORTABLE LIFE .199 .625
26

Comprehensive Theory of Values
Factors
MONEY AND WEALTH .083 .618
REPUTATION IN SOCIETY .262 .599
POLITICAL SUCCESS .055 .578
GOOD SEXUAL RELATIONS .108 .566
BEAUTY (ENJOYING BEAUTY) .368 .565
CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS .455 .553
ARTISTIC ENJOYMENT .311 .530
PROGRESS OF HUMANITY .412 .529
SUCCESSFUL CAREER .397 .528
LEISURE TIME .257 .521
SPORTS AND RECREATION .153 .520
SELF-FULFILLMENT .382 .520
WISDOM .450 .509
CULTURAL CONCERN .378 .491
LONGEVITY .194 .477
FREE MOVEMENT .395 .471
HOPE IN THE FUTURE .396 .439
SOCIABLE LIFE .203 .437
FRIENDSHIP .408 .426
Four-factor solution
Factors
Values 1 2 3 4
FAMILY HAPPINESS .724 .290 .015 -.041
JUSTICE .719 .144 .088 .073
CONCORDANCE AND HARMONY BETWEEN PEOPLE .644 .027 .159 .380
HONESTY .636 -.01
7
-.01
7.069
LOVE FOR CHILDREN .626 .057 -.02
1.105
27

Comprehensive Theory of Values
Factors
PEACE ON THE WORLD .601 .141 .070 .070
GENEROSITY AND UNSELFISHNESS .597 .057 .077 .262
DILIGENCE .593 -.13
0.307 .240
FIDELITY .591 .056 .207 .203
SECURITY .589 .333 .132 .138
HARMONY WITH PARTNER .569 .251 .034 .179
REST AND PEACE .561 .356 .238 -.008
RESPECT FOR LAWS .558 -.08
5.432 .227
COMPANIONSHIP AND SOLIDARITY .554 .035 .293 .345
NATIONAL EQUITY .543 .167 .069 .327
EQUALITY BETWEEN PEOPLE .533 .210 .166 .245
ORDER AND DISCIPLINE .525 .064 .415 .139
DISCOVERING THE TRUTH .518 .293 .148 .248
BEING IN HARMONY WITH NATURE .489 .073 .111 .370
HEALTH .458 .331 -.02
2-.144
FREEDOM .395 .302 -.09
8.226
JOY AND ENTERTAINMENT .116 .682 .294 .143
FULL AND EXCITING LIFE -.01
7.638 .194 .273
PERSONAL ATTRACTIVENESS .072 .600 .309 .277
LEISURE TIME .170 .580 .069 .297
GOOD SEXUAL RELATIONS .029 .566 .160 .241
GOOD FOOD AND DRINKS .101 .537 .505 -.064
HOPE IN THE FUTURE .342 .503 .124 .192
FREE MOVEMENT .321 .501 .126 .265
LOVE .446 .500 -.00
8.054
FRIENDSHIP .368 .474 .173 .139
SOCIABLE LIFE .140 .383 .195 .206
GLORY AND ADMIRATION .009 .316 .726 .150
REPUTATION IN SOCIETY .175 .183 .629 .284
MONEY AND WEALTH .066 .395 .606 -.028
POWER AND INFLUENCE .028 .444 .596 .286
LONGEVITY .162 .155 .595 .068
EXCEEDING AND SURPASSING OTHER PEOPLE -.20
2.291 .585 .212
COMFORTABLE LIFE .164 .417 .560 .058
28

Comprehensive Theory of Values
Factors
POLITICAL SUCCESS -.05
2.136 .556 .345
NATIONAL PRIDE .420 .033 .554 .137
LOVE FOR HOMELAND .511 .020 .530 .129
FAITH IN GOD .237 -.17
5.383 .015
PROGRESS OF HUMANITY .317 .319 .363 .345
CULTURAL CONCERN .202 .212 .180 .678
ARTISTIC ENJOYMENT .143 .312 .153 .632
CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS .304 .295 .279 .576
MORAL PRINCIPLES .418 .024 .106 .557
SELF-FULFILLMENT .237 .403 .111 .550
KNOWLEDGE .341 .152 .112 .544
BEAUTY (ENJOYING BEAUTY) .225 .353 .245 .532
SPORTS AND RECREATION .013 .431 .062 .502
WISDOM .324 .346 .218 .481
SUCCESSFUL CAREER .284 .266 .366 .416
Nine-factor solution
Factors
Values 123456789
CULTURAL CONCERN .700 .127 .094 .169 .078 .129 .092 .130 .186
SELF-FULFILLMENT .659 .104 .242 .105 .253 .071 .137 .013 -.087
ARTISTIC ENJOYMENT .634 .064 -.035 .124 .221 .175 .083 .398 .083
CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS .618 .226 .354 .210 .105 .032 .166 .076 -.079
BEAUTY (ENJOYING BEAUTY) .583 .042 .197 .252 .112 .340 .151 .012 .166
KNOWLEDGE .562 .420 .223 .134 .015 .020 -.025 -.024 -.125
SPORTS AND RECREATION .515 .081 .118 -.131 .066 .288 .118 .255 -.031
29

Comprehensive Theory of Values
Factors
WISDOM .514 .157 .160 .316 .199 .259 .113 .108 -.093
MORAL PRINCIPLES .489 .347 .013 .285 -.039 .032 .250 .074 -.022
LEISURE TIME .406 -.022 .261 -.089 .252 .322 .400 -.025 .102
LOVE FOR CHILDREN .081 .746 .065 .048 .148 .060 .000 -.045 -.022
HONESTY -.016 .681 -.073 .119 .093 .123 .146 .028 .081
HARMONY WITH PARTNER .253 .604 .231 -.009 .319 .002 .034 -.066 -.006
DILIGENCE .141 .586 .136 .410 -.003 -.023 .061 .103 .056
GENEROSITY AND UNSELFISHNESS .188 .579 .012 .158 .028 .207 .257 .004 .224
FAMILY HAPPINESS .035 .544 .096 .183 .543 .047 .154 -.021 -.124
JUSTICE .077 .509 .028 .292 .351 .093 .265 -.007 .066
BEING IN HARMONY WITH NATURE .322 .507 .009 .269 .005 .314 -.027 -.031 .123
CONCORDANCE AND HARMONY BETWEEN
PEOPLE .298 .503 .044 .379 .059 .054 .349 .064 -.014
PEACE ON THE WORLD .060 .467 .140 .099 .226 -.043 .426 .003 .048
FIDELITY .211 .460 .156 .223 .250 -.080 .214 .037 .232
SECURITY .178 .399 .186 .201 .362 .130 .297 .040 -.072
MONEY AND WEALTH .023 .039 .731 .092 .134 .044 .109 .234 -.071
REPUTATION IN SOCIETY .272 .224 .658 .235 -.106 .076 .028 .131 .102
POWER AND INFLUENCE .336 .053 .650 .113 .124 .132 -.018 .330 -.045
COMFORTABLE LIFE .142 .050 .647 .115 .151 .249 .135 .041 .298
LONGEVITY .084 .115 .602 .301 -.058 .152 -.010 -.009 .152
GOOD FOOD AND DRINKS -.011 -.048 .532 .175 .203 .432 .130 .173 -.008
SUCCESSFUL CAREER .433 .319 .491 .109 .054 -.039 .150 .148 -.082
GOOD SEXUAL RELATIONS .381 .084 .464 -.125 .237 .190 -.073 .037 -.248
PERSONAL ATTRACTIVENESS .369 .065 .443 -.136 .252 .308 .125 .230 .142
PROGRESS OF HUMANITY .429 .102 .435 .367 .209 .049 .135 -.019 -.167
NATIONAL PRIDE .084 .157 .256 .678 .128 .098 .083 .194 -.047
LOVE FOR HOMELAND .117 .220 .286 .660 .156 .112 .081 .018 .147
RESPECT FOR LAWS .190 .257 .145 .641 .156 -.032 .168 .062 .171
COMPANIONSHIP AND SOLIDARITY .284 .324 .038 .566 .083 .224 .171 .046 .090
ORDER AND DISCIPLINE .128 .287 .165 .471 .356 -.086 .118 .278 .079
LOVE .245 .166 .064 .055 .731 .140 .056 .009 .088
DISCOVERING THE TRUTH .323 .264 .022 .244 .539 .058 .137 .190 .134
HOPE IN THE FUTURE .304 .067 .102 .158 .513 .276 .168 .127 .034
HEALTH -.036 .328 .129 .091 .463 .123 .007 -.094 -.209
REST AND PEACE .059 .201 .225 .262 .437 .168 .429 .005 .165
JOY AND ENTERTAINMENT .215 -.021 .335 .073 .274 .608 .133 .180 -.024
SOCIABLE LIFE .183 .292 .233 -.018 -.066 .607 -.079 .072 .085
FRIENDSHIP .157 .184 .143 .293 .204 .607 .141 .010 -.125
FREE MOVEMENT .282 .129 .078 .197 .273 .466 .250 .174 -.126
FULL AND EXCITING LIFE .322 .025 .334 -.198 .153 .437 .166 .269 -.017
NATIONAL EQUITY .286 .279 .053 .218 .122 .037 .647 .028 .045
EQUALITY BETWEEN PEOPLE .191 .231 .050 .346 .153 .192 .559 .093 .012
FREEDOM .184 .364 .091 -.023 .017 .191 .475 -.010 -.292
POLITICAL SUCCESS .233 .017 .219 .140 .022 .022 .032 .755 .130
EXCEEDING AND SURPASSING OTHER PEOPLE .115 -.086 .341 .074 -.023 .200 -.024 .737 -.029
GLORY AND ADMIRATION .102 -.039 .505 .272 .069 .222 .054 .542 .089
FAITH IN GOD -.019 .189 .127 .164 .031 -.023 -.004 .103 .714
30

Comprehensive Theory of Values
31