The relationship between basic personality and value dimensions: Towards a comprehensive personality paradigm

Full text

The relationship between personality and value dimensions: Towards
a comprehensive personality paradigm
Musek, J. and Avsec, A.
University of Ljubljana
Abstract
The dimensional approach has been adopted as a paradigmatic one in almost all areas
of personality. The objective of the present study was the investigation of the
relationship between basic dimensions of personality and basic dimensions of values.
The results of the multivariate analyses confirmed predicted connection between both
sets of variables.
Consequently, we can assume that both personality traits and values share common
basic structural components. Considering the extracted "superdimensions", which
explain a very comprehensive range of personal and behavioural variability, we
proposed and explicated new, more integrative dimensional model of personality.

Introduction
The hierarchical dimensional approach has been adopted as a paradigmatic
one in almost all areas of personality. Increasing research in past decades showed that
an essential amount of individual differences could be attributed to the relatively
small number of general personality dimensions. The theoretical models developed by
outstanding personality theorists achieved remarkable convergence if not even
consensus. We may put on the list the model of Cattell (secondary factors of
personality: Cattell, 1957a, 1957b, 1975; Cattell, Eber & Tatsuoka, 1970), Eysenck's
PEN model (Eysenck, 1954, 1967, 1990a, 1990b, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c, 1992a,
1992b, 1992c, 1997; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Revelle, 1995; Revelle, Anderson &
Humphreys, 1987; Revelle, Humphreys, Simon & Gilliland, 1980), five-factor or B5
model (Costa & McCrae, 1992a, 1992b; McCrae & Costa, 1989; Musek, 1993b,
1999; Revelle, 1995, 1997), and some others, including circumplex model of
personality structure (Acton & Revelle, 1995, 1998; Hofstee, de Raad & Goldberg,
1992; McCrae & Costa, 1989; Revelle, 1995, 1997; Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., &
Phillips, N., 1988), and Brand's model of six comprehensive personality factors
(Brand, 1998).
On the other hand, the interindividual differences in the value orientations could
also be contributed to a definite number of general value dimensions. According to our
model of hierarchical taxonomy of values, the universe of values can be classified into a
number of categories occupying different levels in the hierarchical structure (Musek,
1993a, b; Musek, 2000). Numerous categories of values at different levels of hierarchy
have been identified in the theoretical and empirical investigations. In our own research, a
clear hierarchy of the categories of values emerged as a result of performed factor-,
cluster- and other multivariate analyses (Musek, 1993a; Musek, 1993b; Musek, 1994;
Musek, 2000). The categories or dimensions of values in our model resemble well the
dimensions or facets of values reported elsewhere (Bond, 1988, 1991; Bond, Leung &
Schwartz, 1992; Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Fiske, 1991, 1992; Hofstede, 1980,
1983; Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Kagitçibasi, 1970; Leung & Bond, 1989; Leung, Bond &
Schwartz, 1995; Sagiv & Schwartz, 1995; Schwartz, 1991, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky,
1987, 1990 Smith & Schwartz, 1997; Smith, Trompenaars & Dugan, 1993; Triandis,
1990, 1995; Triandis et al., 1972).
As we can see from the Figure 1, the entire structure of the value universe could be
well established through all four levels of hierarchical model, from the most general at the
top to the most specific in the bottom. This structure extends form single, specific values,
to the more and more complex categories of values. Higher range categories are based of
course on the correlations between the values on the lower degree of generality.
----- Insert Figure 1 about here
Figure 1. Hierarchical structure of value universe. The categories of values drawn from our
empirical studies occupy all four levels of the hierarchical model. The details see in the text.

The question might be raised therefore, whether and how are the basic
dimensions of personality structure related to the basic dimensions of values. The
accumulated research evidence is suggesting that at least some of the basic
dimensions from both areas of investigation (personality structure and the structure of
the values) could be significantly interrelated.
A definite clarification of the possible connection between basic dimensions of
personality structure and basic dimensions of the universe of values would
significantly improve our existing scientific knowledge of personality. In the case of
confirming such connection it would lead to the new, more comprehensive and
integrated model of personality. The objective of this study was to examine the
relationship between top-level dimensions of both domains, the personality domain
and the domain of values. Thus, a correlational and multivariate investigation has
been carried out in order to accomplish this aim.
Method
Participants
388 subjects of both sexes and different ages participated in the study. The mean
age of the participants was about 21 years (year of study 3 & 4).
Materials
Musek Survey of Values (MSV) has been used in the study as the instrument
for measuring the importance of different values. The survey contains a list of 54
different values. The complete list of values is shown in English (see Appendix A).
The data from the MSV could be arranged to represent the scores for the
following four levels of value structure:
1. Single values.
2. Middle-range categories of values
3. Value types
4. Macro categories of values
Consequently, the scores from the MSV could be interpreted on respective level of
categorisation.
Personality dimensions have been measured by three different personality
questionnaires: Cattell's 16PF (16 primary factors of personality, so called stylistic
traits of personality, according to the Cattell's model of personality), EPQ (three basic
personality dimensions according to Eysenck's PEN model: extroversion, neuroticism
and psychoticism) and BFQ (measure of "big five" dimensions of personaliy,
according to B5 model of personality).
For the moment, only the data, obtained by Cattell's 16PF are available.
Consequently, the results reported here are limited to these data.
Procedure
The investigation was designed as a correlational and multivariate study of
values and personality traits. Each subject rated first the MLV containing 54 values,
one value after another on a 1 to 100 graded importance-rating scale. Subjects
received the lists of values with detailed instructions how to complete them. The

values were listed in the same order. The subjects rated them one after another using a
rating scale continuum from the minimum importance (grade 1) to the maximum
importance (grade 100). They were asked to rate the importance of the values
presented in the list as they personally felt.
After that, the participants answered the three before mentioned personality
questionnaires (16PF, EPQ, and BFQ).
All data of participants were collected, correlated and entered into the
correlation matrix disposed for further statistical analysis. Various multivariate
analyses, especially cluster and factor analyses were then performed in order to reveal
the structure of relationships between different values.
Results and discussion
We will focus now briefly on the results dealing with corresponding top levels of
taxonomic hierarchies in both domains of personality, in trait domain and in the value
domain. More precisely, we can examine the relationship between basic personality
dimensions, obtained by factor analysis of Cattell's primary factors, and four higher-order
categories of values or value types.
Factor analysis of 16 primary factors (including intelligence) yielded six latent
dimensions. They can be viewed as an approximation of Cattell's second-order factors, and
they also resemble very well three basic dimensions of Eysenck PEN model (extroversion,
neuroticism, and psychoticism) and five robust dimensions of personality in B5 model.
The extracted dimensions (Table 1) could be interpreted in sequential order as stability
(neuroticism), extroversion, open-mindedness, dominance, projection, and intelligence.
Table 1.
Basic latent dimensions of personality extracted from 16 primary personality factors.
Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6
O -.758 .106 -.117
Q4 -.754 .250
C .706 .157 -.211
Q3 .456 -.343 -.425
F .121 .733 .147 .151
A -.173 .679 .383 -.191
Q2 -.672 .167 .197
H .477 .545 .430 -.111
I -.187 .684 -.145 -.220
Q1 .120 .122 .676 -.141 .259 .105
M -.174 .668 -.119 -.141
G -.753
E .176 .285 -.164 .690 .167
L -.190 .178 .741
N -.200 -.193 -.220 -.231 .672
B .955
As we can see from Table 2, factor analysis of six basic personality dimensions
and four value types yielded common factors that accounted essentially for the variance in
both domains of personality structure, in trait as well as in the value domain. The first

common dimension connects hedonic and potency (that means dionysian) values with
extroversion. The second common factor loads most heavily on fulfilment type, open-
mindedness and introversion. The third factor is high on stability and low on projection,
and is also somewhat connected with moral and fulfilment (apollonian) values. Finally, the
fourth factor could be interpreted as bipolar dimension between dominance and moral
value type.
Table 2.
Common factor loadings of basic personality and value dimensions (value types are printed in
cursive).
Factors
1 2 3 4
HEDONIC TYPE .836 .123
POTENCY TYPE .613 .305 -.213 -.207
EXTROVERSION .517 -.376 .308 .137
OPENMINDEDNESS -.453 .416 .361
FULFILMENT TYPE .172 .782 .296 -.250
INTELLIGENCE -.566 .230
PROJECTION .118 -.653 .160
STABILITY .635 .119
DOMINANCE .356 .108 .156 .734
MORAL TYPE .368 .203 .213 -.726
The results of other multivariate analyses (cluster analyses and multidimensional
scaling) of the same data have been quite concordant to the results of factor analysis. The
results of canonical analyses are of particular interest for the reason that they stress the
common variance of both domains of personality. Table 3 presents the results of canonical
analysis of both sets of variables, basic personality dimensions and higher-range categories
of values. The canonical correlation between both sets is 0.64, indicating thus an essential
part of shared variance. The redundancy between both sets of variables was not high but
nevertheless very significant. Personality dimensions explained 13.21 percent of variance
in the value set, and values explained 10.62 percent of variance in the personality traits.
Canonical variates obtained in our analysis still resemble somehow the well-known basic
dimensions of personality from the Eysenck’s PEN model or E5 (big five) model of
personality. This is especially valid for the extroversion, which is clearly connected with
dionysian, particularly hedonistic values (in positive manner) and with fulfilment values
(in negative direction). The second clear connection is between dominance and hedonistic
values on the one hand and the moral values on the other. The corresponding canonical
dimension (the second variate) could be interpreted as close to the Eysenck's dimension of
psychoticism or to the agreeableness and conscientiousness factors in the big-five model.
Table 3.
Loadings of canonical variates (roots) on basic personality dimensions (first set) and value types
(second set).
Variables Canonical variates (roots)
1 2 3 4
First set

stability -.229 .295 .138 -.229
extroversion .633 -.069 -.131 -.428
open-mindedness -.711 .078 -.219 -.092
dominance .288 .821 -.485 .049
projection .216 .258 .630 .584
intelligence .097 -.303 -.467 .673
Second set
hedonistic .729 .515 -.134 -.430
potency .293 .173 .851 -.401
moral .082 -.508 -.098 -.852
fulfilment -.511 .439 -.012 -.739
The results of other analyses at the level of middle-range categories of values and
the single values only confirmed the above mentioned findings. We can conclude therefore
that the values and personality traits although representing rather independent segments of
our personality are also sharing some common dimensions. The shared dimensions could
be interpreted as close to both basic personality dimensions and basic categories of values
(see Table 4). Therefore, it is possible that the common dimensions of personality and
value universe emerged in our studies as overall personality dimensions (“the biggest”
factors of entire personality domain outside the intellect).
Table 4.
Assumed overall personality dimensions with corresponding dimensions of (narrower) personality
domain and domain of values.
OVERALL PERSONALITY DOMAIN VALUE DOMAIN
Cattell Eysenck B5
I. exvia
(F1)
extroversion extroversion hedonic
potency
dionysian
II. anxiety
(F2)
neuroticism neuroticism moral (-)
fulfilment (-)
apollonian
III. dominance
(+E, -G)
psychoticism agreeableness (-)
conscientiousness
moral (-)
IV. I, M, Q1 openness fulfilment

References
Anderson, K. J., & Revelle, W. (1994). Impulsivity and time of day: Is rate of change in
arousal a function of impulsivity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 334-344.
Blake, M. S. F. (1967). Relationship between circadian rhythm of body temperature and
introversion-extraversion. Nature, 215, 896-897.
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
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and
affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.
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.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Reply to Eysenck. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13, 861-865.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Reply to Eysenck. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13, 861-865.
Davidson, R. J., & Tomarken, A. J. (1989). Laterality and emotion: An electrophysiological
approach. In F. Boller and J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (pp. 419-441).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Eysenck, H. J. (1957). The dynamics of anxiety and hysteria: An experimental application of
modern learning theory to psychiatry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook
of personality: Theory and research (pp. 244-276). New York: Guilford.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3?--Criteria for a taxonomic
paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773-790.
Eysenck, H. J. (1992a). The definition and measurement of psychoticism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 757-785.
Eysenck, H. J. (1992b). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13, 667-673.
Eysenck, H. J. (1992c). A reply to Costa and McCrae. P or A and C--The role of theory.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 867-868.
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of
psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 1224-1237.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural
science approach. New York: Plenum.
Eysenck, HJ. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16: 5 or 3? criteria for a taxonomic
paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773-90.
Fowles, D. C. (1987). Application of a behavioral theory of motivation to the concepts of
anxiety and impulsivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 417-435.
Geen, R. G. (1984). Preferred stimulation levels in introverts and extraverts: Effects on
arousal and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1303-1312.

Goldberg, LR (1993a). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am. Psychol., 48, 26-
34.
Goldberg, LR. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychol.
Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Goldberg, LR. (1993b). The structure of personality traits: vertical and horizontal aspects. In
DC Funder, RD Parke, C Tomlinson-Keasey, & K Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through
time: personality and development (pp. 169-88). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck's theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A
model for personality (pp. 246-277). Berlin: Springer.
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.), Expiscations in cross-cultural psychology.
Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M. H. (1988) The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organization Dynamics, 16, 4-21..
Hui, C.H., & Triandis, H. (1986) Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural
researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 222-248.
John, OP. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
language and in questionnaires. In LA Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research . New York: Guilford.
Kagitçibasi, C. (1970). Social norms and authoritarianism: A Turkish-American comparison.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4, 157-174.
Kagitçibasi, C. (1996). The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis. European
Psychologst, 1, 180-186
Kashima, Y., and Callan, V. (1994) The Japanese work group. In H. C. Triandis (ed.)
Handbook of industrial/organizational psychology, 2nd ed, Vol 4, pp. 609-646. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
Kim, M. S., Hunter, J. E, Miyahara, A., Horvath, A. M., Bresnahan, M. and Yoon, H. J.
(1996) Individual versus culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects
on preferred conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63, 29-49.
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.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implication for cognition, emotion
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for
selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568-579.
Musek, J. (1993a) Personality and values. Ljubljana, Educy, (in Slovene).
Musek, J. (1995) The changes in mentality and value orientation of Slovenian people during
the transition period. In V. Rus (Ed.) Slovenia after 1995 (pp 87-106). Ljubljana, Faculty of
Social Sciences, (in Slovene).
Musek, J. (1997a) The impact of transitional change on value-system in Post-communist
Europe. Foreign Psychology/Innostrannaya Psykhologia (Moscow), 1997, 8, 17-22.
Musek, J. (1997b) The impact of transitional changes on value systems in Post-communist
Europe: The implications for the higher education reform processes. Perspectives in Higher
Education Reform, , Vol. 6, 15-22.
Musek, J. Political and religious adherence in relation to individual values. Studia
Psychologica (Bratislava), 1998, 40, 1-2, 47-59.
Musek, J. The universe of human values: a structural and developmental hierarchy. Studia
Psychologica (Bratislava), 1993b, 35, 4-5, 321-326.
Nakagawa, M., Lamb, M. E. and Miyaki, K. (1992) Antecedents and correlates of the strange
situation behavior of Japanese infants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 132-178.

Ormel, J., & Wohlfarth, T. (1991). How neuroticism, long-term difficulties, and life situation
change influence psychological distress: A longitudinal model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 744-755.
Pergar Kuščer, M. (1999) Cross-cultural differences in value orientations of students.
Doctoral Dissertation. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.
Revelle, W. (1995). Personality Processes, Annual Review of Psychology.
Revelle, W. (1997). Extraversion and impulsivity: The lost dimension? In H. Nyborg (Ed.),
The scientific study of human nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at eighty (pp. 189-212).
New York: Elsevier.
Revelle, W., Humphreys, M. S., Simon, L., & Gilliland, K. (1980). The interactive effect of
personality, time of day, and caffeine: A test of the arousal model. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 109, 1-31.
Sagiv, L. and Schwartz, S. H. (1995) Value priorities and readiness for outgroup social
contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 437-448.
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. (1991) The universal content and structure of values: Theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994) 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.
Smith, P. B. and Bond, M. H. (1998) Social psychology across cultures, 2nd edn. London:
Prentice-Hall Europe.
Smith, P. B. and Schwartz, S. H. (1997) Values. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall and C.
Kagitçibasi (eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 2nd edn, Vol 3. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1996) National cultures and managerial values:
A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231-
264.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1997) Locus of control and affectivity by
gender nad occupational status: A 14 nation study. Sex Roles, 36-51-77.
Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, F. and Dugan, S. (1995) The Rotter locus of control scale in 43
countries. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 377-400.
Stelmack, R. M. (1990). Biological bases of extraversion: Psychophysiological evidence.
Journal of Personality, 58, 293-311.
Stelmack, R. M. (1997). Toward a paradigm in personality: Comment on Eysenck's (1997)
view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1238-1241.
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. and Vassiliou, V. (1972)
Cognitive structures and the analysis of values. In H. C. Triandis (ed.), The analysis of
subjective culture. New York: Wiley.
Zinbarg, R., & Revelle, W. (1989). Personality and conditioning: A test of four models.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 301-314.
Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Impulsive unsocialized sensation seeking: The biological foundations
of a basic dimension of personality. In JE Bates & TD Wachs (Eds.), Temperament:
Individual differences at the interface of biology and behavior (pp. 219-55). Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association.

DIONYSIAN
VALUESAPOLLONIAN
VALUEShighest range categories
(macrodimensions)HEDONIC
TYPE POTENCY
TYPE MORAL
TYPE FULFILLMENT
TYPEhigher range categories
(value types)
sensual
health
securitystatus
patriotic
legalismtraditional
family
societalcultural
aesthetic
actualization
cognitive
religious
middle range categoriesjoy, entertainment, sociability, exciting life, comfortable life, sexual satisfaction, good foof, free movement,
frreedom
health
security, restpower, reputation, famousness, money, political success, overridig others, longevity
patriotism, national pride
order, laws
honesty, benevolence, diligence
family happiness, good partnership, love for childre, love, hope
equity, national equality, peace, concordance, justice, (freedom)
culture, arts, crativity
beauty, nature
selfactualization, knowledge, progress
truth, wisdom
faith in Godspecific (single) values

Figure 1. Hierarchical structure of value universe. The categories of values drawn from our
empirical studies occupy all four levels of the hierarchical model. The details see in the text.
DIONYSIAN
VALUESAPOLLONIAN
VALUEShighest range categories
(macrodimensions)HEDONIC
TYPE POTENCY
TYPE MORAL
TYPE FULFILLMENT
TYPEhigher range categories
(value types)
sensual
health
securitystatus
patriotic
legalismtraditional
family
societalcultural
aesthetic
actualization
cognitive
religious
middle range categoriesjoy, entertainment, sociability, exciting life, comfortable life, sexual satisfaction, good foof, free movement,
frreedom
health
security, restpower, reputation, famousness, money, political success, overridig others, longevity
patriotism, national pride
order, laws
honesty, benevolence, diligence
family happiness, good partnership, love for childre, love, hope
equity, national equality, peace, concordance, justice, (freedom)
culture, arts, crativity
beauty, nature
selfactualization, knowledge, progress
truth, wisdom
faith in Godspecific (single) values

APPENDIX
Connections between primary personality factors and middle-range categories of values
The correlations between values and personality traits, obtained in our analyses,
are low to moderate. The values and personality traits represent rather independent
domains of entire human personality (leaving the intellect as third great domain
temporarily aside). Nevertheless, there is a significant common variance between both sets
of variables (canonical R = 0,64). The canonical analyses of shared space of values and
personality traits yielded a number of common latent dimensions (canonical variates or
roots, showed on the table 1).
Table 1.
Canonical analysis of 16 primary personality traits (first set) and 11 middle-range categories of
values (second set): loadings for 4 significant canonical variates or roots.
Variables Variate 1 Variate 2 Variate 3 Variate 4
Personality factors set
A .573949 -.054390 .118323 .288644
B .049936 .309743 -.200881 -.045642
C -.149944 -.323726 -.000302 -.052496
E .321229 -.607591 -.109763 .229159
F .417022 -.278533 -.132229 .001423
G -.150332 .518281 .582746 -.031272
H .210319 -.367326 -.009695 .164039
I -.498505 .176468 -.169008 .312708
L .237928 -.274642 .377629 .155366
M -.493813 -.343435 .337407 .231903
N .212586 -.024768 .164362 -.532523
O .015241 .270541 -.145843 .269816
Q1 -.317985 -.162119 -.149991 .323974
Q2 -.453745 -.164592 -.019044 -.485577
Q3 -.163160 .145107 .371145 .175201
Q4 .409148 .218729 -.022171 .143002
Variables Variata 1 Variata 2 Variata 3 Variata 4
Value categories set
sensual .515416 -.363341 -.441979 .029092
security .303713 .102748 -.180262 .077143
status .573753 -.546427 .271674 .026020
patriotic .314834 -.082850 .492214 .361932
societal -.067766 .357699 -.191406 .487370
social .359059 .191577 -.189283 .404662
traditional -.050703 .264448 .129636 .082622
cultural -.271812 -.444709 -.286830 .256330
cognitive -.334457 -.271040 -.101246 .083096
actualisat. .027433 -.456014 .181458 .362510
religious -.361178 .169114 .182562 -.353567