Content uploaded by Uwe Wolfradt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Uwe Wolfradt on Mar 29, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
The ‘dark side’of personal values: Relations to clinical constructs and
their implications☆
Paul H.P. Hanel
a,
⁎,UweWolfradt
b
a
School of Psychology, Cardiff University, CF10 3AT Cardiff, United Kingdom
b
Department of Psychology, Martin-Luther-University of Halle, 06099 Halle (Saale), Germany
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 2 September 2015
Received in revised form 15 March 2016
Accepted 17 March 2016
Available online xxxx
Personal values are considered as guiding principles in one's life. Much of previous research on values has
consequently focused on its relations with variables that are considered positive, including subjective
well-being, personality traits, or behavior (e.g. health-related). However, in this study (N= 366) the negative
‘dark’side of values is examined. Specifically, the study investigated the relations between Schwartz' (1992)
ten value types and four different clinical variables —anxiety, depression, stress, and schizotypy with its
subdimensions, unusual experience, cognitive disorganization,introverted anhedonia, and impulsive nonconfor-
mity. Positive relations between achievement and depression and stress, and negative relations between anxiety
and hedonism and stimulation were predictedand found. Multiple regressions revealed that the ten value types
explained the most variance in impulsive nonconformity and the least variance in unusual experience. Overall,
values werebetter in predictingmore cognitive clinicalvariables (e.g.,cognitive disorganization)whereas clinical
constructs were better in predicted more affective values (e.g., hedonism). Implications of the findings for value
research are discussed.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords:
Personal values
Schizotypy
Depression
Anxiety
Stress
1. Introduction
Personal values are usually considered as cognitive concepts or
beliefs that transcend specific situations and guide behavior and its
evaluation (Maio, 2010; Schwartz, 1992). There have been different
attempts to conceptualize personal values on an individual level.
Based on the value approach by Rokeach (1973), Schwartz and Bilsky
(Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987) have developed a motiva-
tional circumplex model with 56personal values which can be grouped
into ten value types (Fig. 1): universalism (e.g. equality, protection for
the welfare of all people and for nature), benevolence (e.g. helpfulness,
preservation of the welfare of people), tradition (e.g. respect, humility),
conformity (e.g. obedience, honoring parents), security (e.g. safety and
social order), power (e.g. authority, dominance), achievement (e.g. per-
sonal success, ambition), hedonism (e.g. pleasure, enjoying life), stimu-
lation (e.g. exciting life, varied life), and self-direction (e.g. independent
thought, creativity).
One important feature of Schwartz' circumplex model is its motiva-
tional continuum. Two adjacent value types are motivationally similar,
that is positively correlated, orthogonal value types are unrelated ac-
cording to the assumptions of Schwartz (1992), and opposing value
types are negatively correlated. Crucially, this prediction holds true for
relations between values and variables such as personality traits
(e.g., Parks-Leduc, Feldman, & Bardi, 2014). Thus, when the value
types are plotted according to their proposed order along the x-axis
and the correlation coefficients on the y-axis, the correlational pattern
resembles a sine wave.
Numerous studies have focused on the relations between values and
constructs of positive affectivity such as subjective well-being and
satisfaction with life. For example, Haslam, Whelan, and Bastian
(2009) found that many value types were closely connected to positive
affect, but not with negative affect. This is in line with other research
that found no relations between personal values and neuroticism
(Parks-Leduc, Feldman, & Bardi, 2014; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, &
Knafo, 2002). However, other studies have found relations between
values and negative affectivity, although the results were inconsistent.
Jarden (2010) for instance found negative relations of self-direction,
stimulation, and hedonism value types with depressed mood. In a
Chinese sample, the burnout dimension exhaustion was found to be
related to conformity, but another dimension, losing interest, was not
(Jia, Rowlinson, Kvan, Lingard, & Yip, 2009). A study among native
American adolescents revealed negative relations between depression
and tradition/benevolence. However, power/materialism and security/
hedonism values did not display any associations with depression
Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 140–145
☆All authors contributed equally to this work
⁎Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, Cardiff University, CF10 3AT Cardiff,
United Kingdom.
E-mail addresses: hanelph@cardiff.ac.uk (P.H.P. Hanel),
uwe.wolfradt@psych.uni-halle.de (U. Wolfradt).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.045
0191-8869/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
(Mousseau, Scott, & Estes, 2013). In a Brazilian sample, relations be-
tween values and psychopathy were observed (Monteiro, 2014): plea-
sure, success, and power were found to be positively related to
the psychopathological subdimensions boldness and disinhibition.
Kajonius, Persson, and Jonason (2015) found positive relations between
hedonism, achievement, and power with the dark triad, which consists
of machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. Silfver et al. (2008)
found positive correlations of universalism and benevolence with guilt
proneness.
The present study aims to extend the small empirical support that
personal values are also related to clinical constructs, in our case anxi-
ety, depression, and schizotypy. Because of the little empirical research
on this topic, we first turn to a set of constructs that has a similar
theoretical and empirical base as personal values: personality traits.
Numerous studies have investigated the relations between many
clinical variables and personality traits.
1.1. Personal values and personality traits
Both personal values and personality traits have their common roots
in the language, which are encoded as linguistic descriptors for individ-
ual traits and behavior (lexical hypothesis). Therefore, several studies
considered values and traits as different components of personality
(e.g., Saroglou & Muñoz-García, 2008). Another approach emphasizes
the biological–motivational basis of values and traits (McCrae & Costa,
2008). This is because both constructs motivate individual behavior.
Indeed, a behavioral genetics study showed that personal values as
well as personality traits share common genetic factors (Schermer,
Vernon, Maio, & Jang, 2011). Further support for a close link between
personal values and personality traits of the five-factor model is provid-
ed by a meta-analysis that has found consistent correlational patterns
(Parks-Leduc et al., 2014). For example, stimulation, self-direction, and
universalism correlated positively with openness to experience,
whereas security, conformity, and tradition correlated negatively.
Agreeableness was highly correlated with benevolence and negatively
with power. However, the relations between values and other personal-
ity traits are not as consistent as they are for openness and
agreeableness. Neuroticism or emotional stability, for instance, showed
no substantial correlation to any of the ten value types.
1.2. Personality traits and clinical constructs
Numerous studies have investigated the relations between the
Big-Five and clinical variables, including anxiety and schizotypy. For
example, neuroticism correlated positively and extraversion and
conscientiousness correlated negatively with anxiety. Agreeableness
and openness were mainly unrelated to anxiety disorders, as a meta-
analysis revealed (Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010).
Schizotypal traits can be considered as both mild personality
features and as a predisposition toward schizophrenia. Schizotypal
traits reflected aspects of positive symptoms (unusual experiences),
negative symptoms (introverted anhedonia), and impulsive nonconfor-
mity and cognitive disorganization (Lenzenweger, 2015). Mason,
Claridge, and Jackson (1995) have proposed a multidimensional
model of schizotypy with aspects of positive- schizotypy (reflecting
the positive symptomatology of schizophrenia), asocial-schizotypy
(reflecting antisocial, impulsive and tough-minded behavior),
disorganized-schizotypy (reflecting a difficulty with attention and
social anxiety), and negative-schizotypy (reflecting the negative symp-
tomatology of schizophrenia). Meta-analyses on the relations between
personality traits (Big-Five) and schizotypal traits showed that positive
symptoms are positively related to openness to new experience
(Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Saulsman & Page, 2004).
1.3. The present study
The aim of the present study is to examine the relations between
value priorities and the four clinical constructs anxiety, depression,
stress, and schizotypy with its 4 facets. Based on previous findings
described above and the common base of values and personality traits,
the following hypotheses were derived.
Valuing achievement is defined by Schwartz (1992) as demonstrat-
ing competence. This can include (time) pressure and a lot of demand-
ing work, which in turn can lead to stress and even depressive
symptoms. Therefore, it was hypothesized that stress and depressive
symptoms are positively related to achievement. On the other hand,
given that volunteer work and well-being are positively associated
(Thoits & Hewitt, 2001), benevolence and universalism should be nega-
tively associated with stress and depressive symptoms. This is also in
line with the motivational continuum of the quasi-circumplex model
(Schwartz, 1992), which predicts opposing pattern of results for oppos-
ing value types (cf. Fig. 1).
Anxiety was expected to be negatively related to hedonism and
stimulation, as for both of these value types, Schwartz stated that
courage and outgoingness are needed to at least some degree.
Furthermore, a negative relation to self-direction was not expected
because those values are more cognitive than stimulation and hedo-
nism. Previous studies have found relations between conservatism
and different types of anxiety (e.g., death anxiety and fear of threat
and loss (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Therefore, a posi-
tive relation between anxiety and security, tradition, and conformity
was expected.
Positive relations between the schizotypal subdimension impulsive
nonconformity with stimulation and hedonism, as well as negative
ones with security, tradition, and conformity were expected, because
impulsive nonconformity can be considered as an extreme form of
openness. This prediction is in line with the above discussed finding
that the personality trait openness is linked to impulsive nonconformity
(Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Saulsman & Page, 2004). Introverted anhedo-
nia is predicted to be negatively related to stimulation and hedonism.
However, we do not expect positive relations between introverted an-
hedonia with tradition and conformity because we consider them as
conceptually different constructs. As valuing security implies harmony
Fig. 1. The value model of Schwartz (1992).
141P.H.P. Hanel, U. Wolfradt / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 140–145
and stability (Schwartz, 1992), a negative relation with the cognitive
disorganizationsubdimension of schizotypy was hypothesized. Unusual
experience was expected to be unrelated to all value types.
Furthermore, in an exploratory step, we investigated in a series of
multiple regressions, which clinical construct can be best predicted by
all value types and, reversing the dependent and independent variables,
which value type can be best predicted by all clinical constructs. This can
give us greater insight into the nature of personal values as it can help to
reveal which psychological states (i.e., clinical variables) are completely
unrelated and provide evidence of the discriminant validity of values.
We only expected, based on the rational given above that rather affec-
tive value types such as hedonism and stimulation will more strongly
predict the clinical variables than more cognitive value types such as
self-direction and universalism (cf. Schwartz, 1992), because the clinical
variables used are mainly affective.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 366 students of various disciplines from an East
German university (M
age
= 21.72, SD = 3.38, range =18–39, 236
females). Participants volunteered to participate and were not
compensated.
2.2. Measures
The full Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ-40) was used (Schwartz
et al., 2001) in its German translation (Schmidt, Bamberg, Davidov,
Herrmann, & Schwartz, 2007) to assess the 10 value types of
Schwartz' (1992) value model. Participants were given a short descrip-
tion of a person (i.e., ‘portrait’) and were asked to rate how similar they
are to this person on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 very similar to
6 very dissimilar. To facilitate interpretation, all value items have been
recoded prior to the analyses reported below. The reliabilities
(Table 1) are similar to the ones reported in the original validation
paper of the PVQ (Schwartz et al., 2001). Following the suggestions of
Schwartz (1992) and Schwartz et al. (2001), the 40 items of the PVQ
were centered in order to control for individual scale use tendencies.
The short form of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-
21; Henry & Crawford, 2005) was used to measure depression, anxiety,
and stress. Example items are “I couldn't seem to experience any posi-
tive feeling at all”for depression, “I felt scared without any good reason”
for anxiety, and “Ifounditdifficult to relax”for stress. Each of the three
clinical personality constructs was measured with seven items on a
4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 never to 3 almost always.
Finally schizotypy was measured with the Oxford–Liverpool
Inventory of Feelings and Experiences (O-Life; Mason, Linney, &
Claridge, 2005), a short scale consisting of 43 items consisting of the
four factors: unusual experience, cognitive disorganization, introverted
anhedonia, and impulsive nonconformity. Answers were given on a
yes–no response scale (0 and 1).
The scales described were part of a larger survey, unrelated to the
present study.
2.3. Procedure
The questionnaire was completed within one large group session.
3. Results
The data file is available at osf.io/32ja6.
Table 1
Zero-order-correlations between personal values and clinical measures.
MSD1234567891011121314151617
1) Universalism .28 .62 .77
2) Self-direction .63 .56 .06 .51
3) Stimulation −.20 .86 .02 .28⁎⁎⁎ .68
4) Hedonism .50 .81 −.19⁎⁎⁎ .04 .41⁎⁎ .79
5) Achievement −.06 .78 −.46⁎⁎⁎
−.07 −.14⁎⁎ .01 .77
6) Power −.98 .92 −.48⁎⁎⁎
−.07 −.13⁎.04 .39⁎⁎⁎ .70
7) Security −.11 .62 −.23⁎⁎⁎
−.29⁎⁎⁎
−.44⁎⁎⁎
−.33⁎⁎⁎ .10 .04 .57
8) Tradition −.29 .71 −.18⁎⁎⁎
−.45⁎⁎⁎
−.44⁎⁎⁎
−.29⁎⁎⁎
−.11⁎
−.14⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎⁎ .35
9) Conformity −.94 .74 .07 −.25⁎⁎
−.28⁎⁎⁎
−.36⁎⁎⁎
−.37⁎⁎⁎
−.26⁎⁎⁎
−.01 .27⁎⁎⁎ .64
10) Benevolence .88 .57 .14⁎⁎ .02 −.02 −.05 −.36⁎⁎⁎
−.34⁎⁎⁎
−.27⁎⁎⁎ .02 .05 .63
11) Anxiety .38 .36 .10⁎
−.03 −.14⁎⁎
−.18⁎⁎ .07 −.06 .05 .04 .06 −.01 .61
12) Depression .64 .53 −.01 −.05 −.09 −.20⁎⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎ .02 .00 .10 −.00 .04 .51⁎⁎⁎ .82
13) Stress .94 .58 −.02 −.11⁎
−.11⁎
−.20⁎⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎⁎
−.02 .06 .09 .02 .04 .54⁎⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎⁎ .83
14) S: unusual experiences .29 .21 .13⁎
−.07 −.06 −.02 −.00 .00 −.09 .01 .01 .04 .44⁎⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎⁎ .71
15) S: cognitive disorganization .41 .24 .14⁎⁎
−.14⁎⁎ .07 .14⁎⁎
−.06 −.12⁎
−.20⁎⁎⁎ .08 .09 −.04 .30⁎⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎⁎ .72
16) S: introverted anhedonia .15 .14 −.01 −.08 −.26⁎⁎⁎
−.18⁎⁎ .08 .15⁎⁎ .12⁎.13⁎.10 −.18⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎⁎ .47
17) S: impulsive nonconformity .38 .18 .02 .10 .21⁎⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎⁎
−.15⁎⁎
−.22⁎⁎⁎
−.32⁎⁎⁎
−.11⁎.27⁎⁎⁎ .28*⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎⁎ .12⁎.49
Note. Numbers in main diagonal are Cronbach's α. S: schizotypy.
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
142 P.H.P. Hanel, U. Wolfradt / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 140–145
3.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations
First, the overall zero-order-correlations were calculated. As can be
seen in Table 2 most hypotheses were supported. As predicted, stress
and depression were positively related to achievement values, but also
negatively with hedonism. Anxiety was negatively related to stimula-
tion and hedonism values. Contrary to our expectation, we did not
find significant relations between anxiety and security, tradition, and
conformity, although all three correlation coefficients were in the pre-
dicted direction. Combining all the conservation values (security, tradi-
tion, conformity) into one variable did not result in a significant
correlation either r(364) = .08, p=.07.
Impulsive nonconformity correlated positively with stimulation and
hedonism values, but also, somewhat surprisingly, with achievement
and power values. As predicted, we found negative correlations
between introverted anhedonia and stimulation and hedonism, but
also, unexpectedly, positive correlations with power,security, and tradi-
tion. The correlation between cognitive disorganization and security
was negative, as predicted. Unusual experience did not correlate with
any value type, except for universalism. The pattern of correlations
remained the same after controlling for gender and age.
3.2. Multiple regressions
In the next step, we explored which clinical variables are best pre-
dicted by personal values. Impulsive nonconformity was best predicted
by all ten value types combined while unusual experience was the least
predicted clinical variable. None of the 10 value types reached statistical
significance in any of the seven multiple regressions after controlling for
the other nine value types.
Finally, a series of regression was conducted to test which value
types were better predicted by all seven clinical variables. As can be
seen in Table 3, hedonism and tradition were best predicted by the
seven clinical variables, whereas universalism was very weakly predict-
ed. The subdimensions of schizotypy explained in a hierarchical regres-
sion additional variance, if entered in a second step (columns 5 and 6 in
Table 3). For most value types, schizotypy explained substantial more
variance than anxiety, depression, and stress. For example, the four
schizotypy dimensions explained 14% out of the total 16% variance of
stimulation. Overall, no multicollinearity was observed (all VIFs b2.1).
4. Discussion
The aim of the present study was to investigate the relations
between personal values and clinical aspects of personality. It focused
on anxiety, depression, stress, and four subdimensions of schizotypy.
First, all variables with the exception of the schizotypal
subdimension, unusual experience, were related in a theoretical
meaningful way with personal values. Stimulation and hedonism were
negatively related to anxiety. The findings are in line with the results
of Monteiro (2014), who has found positive relations between boldness
and openness values such as stimulation and hedonism. Because open-
ness to experience as a personality trait was unrelated to anxiety and
depression (Kotov et al., 2010), this indicates that openness values
and traits, despite being related (Parks-Leduc et al., 2014), differ in
predicting clinical constructs.
Second, stimulation and hedonism correlated positively with the
schizotypal subdimension impulsive nonconformity. This is interesting,
because impulsive nonconformity may be considered as an undesirable
construct, as it refers to impulsive, aggressive, and asocial aspects of
psychosis based on the Eysenck dimension psychoticism (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1975) and the hypomania construct (elevation of mood,
feeling of grandiosity, risk taking etc.). In other words, stimulation and
hedonism are both positively and negatively related to undesirable
constructs (impulsive nonconformity and the DAS-scales, respectively).
On the other hand, it was argued that impulsive nonconformity can also
be considered as a beneficial trait, because of its relations to creativity
(Acar & Sen, 2013; Cohen, Mohr, Ettinger, Chan, & Park, 2015). Further,
we assume that benevolence is negatively related to impulsive noncon-
formity, because altruistic values such as loyalty and honesty require
some reliability on the person, which may be incompatible with
impulsivity.
Introverted anhedonia was aspredicted negatively related to stimu-
lation and hedonism, likely because anhedonia is a key symptom of
major depression (Pizzagalli, 2014) and those two value types are neg-
atively related to depression (see above). However, somewhat surpris-
ingly, introverted anhedonia was positively related to power, security
and tradition, and negatively to benevolence. The latter is consistent
with previous research reporting a negative relation between negative
schizotypy and interest in social contact (Kwapil, Brown, Silvia, Myin-
Germeys, & Barrantes-Vidal, 2012). The finding that introverted anhe-
donia is positively related to power contradicts previous studies that
suggest that power correlates with extraversion (Parks-Leduc et al.,
2014). Further research is needed to resolve this contradiction.
Disentangling both constructs, introverted anhedonia and extraversion,
may very well be a promising approach.
As assumed, cognitive disorganization was negatively related to
security, but also with power and self-direction. This can indicate that
at least some structure is required for power and self-direction. Overall,
the correlational pattern of openness values such as hedonism and
stimulation with schizotypy was similar to the one found between the
personality trait openness and schizotypy (Samuel & Widiger, 2008;
Saulsman & Page, 2004).
It is of theoretical interest that our findings, although predicted and
meaningful, did in general not follow the expected sinusoidal pattern
(Schwartz, 1992). That is, if a clinical variable is positively related to
one value type, it should also be positively related to adjacent value
types, unrelated to orthogonal value types, and negatively related to
Table 2
Amount of explained variance by all ten value types.
R
2
Adj. R
2
F
Anxiety .06 .04 2.56⁎⁎
Depression .08 .06 3.37⁎⁎⁎
Stress .10 .08 3.95⁎⁎⁎
Schizotypy: unusual experiences .05 .02 1.90⁎
Schizotypy: cognitive disorganization .13 .11 5.43⁎⁎⁎
Schizotypy: introverted anhedonia .12 .09 4.76⁎⁎⁎
Schizotypy: impulsive nonconformity .18 .15 7.55⁎⁎⁎
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
Table 3
Amount of explained variance by all clinical variables and for schizotypy above anxiety,
depression, and stress.
R
2
Adj. R
2
FΔR
2
ΔF
Universalism .05 .03 2.82⁎⁎ .03 3.13⁎
Self-direction .06 .04 3.15⁎⁎ .05 4.34⁎⁎
Stimulation .16 .14 9.79⁎⁎⁎ .14 14.81⁎⁎⁎
Hedonism .19 .17 11.86⁎⁎⁎ .14 15.03⁎⁎⁎
Achievement .09 .07 4.74⁎⁎⁎ .05 4.85⁎⁎⁎
Power .12 .10 6.63⁎⁎⁎ .11 10.84⁎⁎⁎
Security .10 .08 5.39⁎⁎⁎ .09 8.77⁎⁎⁎
Tradition .17 .15 10.46⁎⁎⁎ .17 17.76⁎⁎⁎
Conformity .11 .09 6.21⁎⁎⁎ .10 9.80⁎⁎⁎
Benevolence .06 .05 3.48⁎⁎ .06 5.73⁎⁎⁎
Note.ΔR
2
: Amount of explained variance of schizotypy above anxiety, depression, and
stress (hierarchical regression).
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
143P.H.P. Hanel, U. Wolfradt / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 140–145
opposing value types. For example, albeit stress was negatively related
to self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism, it was positively related
to achievement and again (non-significant) negativeto power, violating
the assumption of a motivational continuum. A similar violation can be
found for the other clinical variables, with the exception of impulsive
nonconformity, which follows the proposed sinusoidal pattern well.
This indicates that variables can be related to Schwartz' values without
following the proposed sinusoidal pattern (cf. Schwartz, 1992).
Finally, a series of multiple regression analyses revealed that the
subdimensions of schizotypy with the exception of unusual experience
were better predicted by all of Schwartz' (1992) ten value types than
anxiety, depression, and stress. This finding is interesting from a theo-
retical point of view because it indicates that personal values are more
strongly associated with cognitive variables than affective ones, which
is in line with predominant definitions of values as cognitive constructs
(e.g., Maio, 2010). The schizotypy subdimensions (Mason et al., 2005)
represent the cognitive aspects of experiences in comparison to the di-
mension of the DASS, which reflect more negative affect (Henry &
Crawford, 2005). This assumption is further supported by the fact that
anxiety, depression, and stress are stronger related to affective value
types such as hedonism and stimulation compared to cognitive value
types such as self-direction or universalism.
Our findings show that personal values can be positively related to
negativeconstructs. In other words, essential principles that are person-
ally important can be both negatively as well as positively related to be-
havior, feelings, and affect that are generally considered as negative and
unwanted. Given that achievement, hedonism, and stimulation can be
considered as value types with a strong personal focus (Schwartz
et al., 2012), which are promoted in individualistic countries such as
Germany (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010), the findings also reveal
a potential ‘dark side’of individualism. Individualistic culture empha-
sizes the individual autonomy more and a low power distance with
the consequences of more norm transgressions. On the other hand,
more conservative/collectivistic values such as tradition and conformity
are mostly unrelated to the clinical variables used in the present study.
This is somewhat contradictory to previous findings, stating that indi-
vidualism is in general positively associated with well-being and nega-
tively with social anxiety (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995). Therefore it
would be interesting to investigate whether the same pattern of rela-
tions can be found in collectivistic societies.
Our study has also some limitations. Just as previous studies
investigating the relations between personal values and clinical
variables (e.g., Jarden, 2010; Jia et al., 2009; Mousseau et al., 2013), a
non-clinical sample was used in the present study. Clinical samples
would reveal further interesting insights about the structure and prior-
ities of personal values with regard to the claimed universality of both
(Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Moreover, future studies
could investigate whether the relations between personal values and
clinical variables are mediated by the Big-Five traits, as are the relations
between values and well-being (Haslam, Whelan, & Bastian, 2009).
In conclusion, the present study shows interesting relations between
personal values and clinical variables. Values were better in predicting
cognitive clinical variables (e.g., cognitive disorganization) and more af-
fective values (e.g., hedonism) were better predicted by them. In a
broader framework, personality traits, personal values, goals, and
needs should be integrated in a general theory of the structure of moti-
vation to understand the underlying processes among the similar con-
structs (Schwartz, 2011). McAdams (1995) has already shown that
traits and values can be hierarchically ordered on different personality
levels. In a recent study by McGabe and Fleeson (2016) the role of traits
for motivational processes, goal attaining, was examined. They found
that person differed from each other in traits because they pursued
different goals. We would like to add, this finding may have occurred
because they have different personal values.
Acknowledgment
We thank Katia C. Vione and Kenisha Nelson for comments on an
earlier version of this article. The authors acknowledge financial support
from the School of Psychology, Cardiff University (http://psych.cf.ac.uk/),
and Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC; http://www.esrc.ac.uk/)
to the first author (ES/J500197/1). The funders had no role in the study
design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation
of the manuscript.
References
Acar, S.,& Sen, S. (2013). A multilevel meta-analysisof the relationshipbetween creativity
and schizotypy. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,and the Arts,7,214–228. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/a0031975.
Cohen, A. S., Mohr, C., Ettinger, U., Chan, R. C. K., & Park, S. (2015). Schizotypy as an orga-
nizing framewor k for social and affe ctive sciences. Schizophrenia Bulletin,41,
S427–S435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbu195.
Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of
nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,69(5), 851–864.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
London: Hodder and Staughton.
Haslam, N., Whelan, J., & Bastian, B. (2009). Big Five traits mediate associations between
values and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences,46(1), 40–42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.001.
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety
Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity an d normative data in a large non-
clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,44, 227–239. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1348/014466505X29657.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of
the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jarden, A. J. (2010). Relationships between personal values, and depressed mood and subjec-
tive wellbeing. (Disser tation) University of Canterbury (Retrieved from http://ir.
canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/5205).
Jia, Y. A., Rowlinson, S., Kvan, T., Lingard, H. C., & Yip, B. (2009). Burnout among Hong
Kong Chinese architecture students: The paradoxical effect of Confucian conformity
values. Construction Management and Economics,27(3), 287–298. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/01446190902736296.
Jost, J. T.,Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003). Politicalconservatism as mo-
tivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin,129(3), 339–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.
Kajonius, P. J., Persson, B. N., & Jonason, P. K. (2015). Hedonism, achievement, andpower:
Universal values t hat characterize t he dark triad. Personality and Individual
Differences,77,173–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.055.
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big”personality traits to
anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta -analysis. Psychological
Bulletin,136(5), 768–821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020327.
Kwapil, T. R., Brown, L. H., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Barrantes-Vidal, N. (2012). The
expression of positive and negative schizotypy in daily life: An experience sampling
study. Psychological Medicine,42,2555–2566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0033291712000827.
Lenzenweger, M. F. (2015). Thinking clearly about schizotypy: Hewing to the schizophre-
nia liability core, considering interesting tangents, and avoiding conceptual quick-
sand. Schizophrenia Bulletin,41,S483–S491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbu184.
Maio, G. R. (2010). Mental representations of social values. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology, vol. 42. Vol. 42.(pp.1–43). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Mason, O.,Claridge, G., & Jackson, M. (1995). Newscales for the assessment of schizotypy.
Personality and Individual Differences,18(1), 7–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-
8869(94)00132-C.
Mason, O., Linney, Y. , & Claridge, G. (2005). Short scales for measuring schizotypy.
Schizophrenia Research,78(2–3), 293–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2005.
06.020.
McAdams, D. P. (19 95). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of
Personality,63(3), 365–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x.
McCabe, K. O., & Fleeson, W. (2016). Are traits useful? Explaining trait manifestations as
tools in the pursuit of goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,110(2),
287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039490.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor
model of personality traits. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske(Eds.), Hand-
book of personality theory and assessment. Vol. 1.(pp.273–294). London: Sage.
Monteiro, R. P. (2014). Entendendo a Psicopatia: Contribuição dos traços de
personalidade e valores humanos [Understanding psychopathy: Contribution of
personality traits and human values]. (Master dissertation) João Pessoa, Brazil:
Univer sidade Fede ral da Paraíb a (Retrieved from http://vvgouveia.net/index.php?
option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download =204:monteiro-r-p-
2014-entendendo-a-psicopatia-contribuicao-dos-tracos-de-personalidade-e-valores-
humanos-dissertacao-de-mestrado-departamento-de-psicologia-universidade-federal-
da-paraiba-joao-pessoa&id =18:dissertacoes&Itemid =175&lang =pt-br.).
Mousseau, A. C., Scott, W. D., & Estes, D. (2013). Values and depressive symptoms in
American Indian youth of the northern plains: Examining the potential moderating
roles of outcome expectancies and perceived community values. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence,43(3), 426–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9982-9.
144 P.H.P. Hanel, U. Wolfradt / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 140–145
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2014). Personality traits and personal values: A
meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review,19,3–29.
Pizzagalli, D. A. (2014). Depression, stress, and anhedonia: Toward a synthesis and inte-
grated model. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,10, 393–423. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185606.
Roccas, S.,Sagiv, L., Schwartz,S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002).The Big Five personality factorsand
personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,28(6), 789–801. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289008.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships
between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level
analysis. Clinical Psychology Review,28(8), 1326–1342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cpr.2008.07.002.
Saroglou,V., & Muñoz-García,A. (2008). Individual differences in religion and spirituality:
An issue of personality traits and/or values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
47(1), 83–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00393.x.
Saulsman, L.M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder em-
pirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review,23(8),
1055–1085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2002.09.001.
Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Maio, G. R., & Jang, K. L. (2011). A behaviour geneticstudy of
the connection between soc ial values and personality. Twin Research and Human
Genetics,14(03), 233–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/twin.14.3.233.
Schmidt, P., Bamberg, S., Davidov, E., Herrmann, J., & Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Die Messung
von Werten mit dem “Portraits Value Questionnaire”[The measurement of values
with the “Portraits Value Questionnaire”]. Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie. Journal
of Social Psychology,38(4), 261–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.38.4.261.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical ad-
vances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
25,1–65.
Schwartz,S.H.(2011).Studyingvalues:Personaladventure,futuredirections.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,42(2), 307–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0022022110396925.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures taking a similarities
perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,32(3), 268–290. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0022022101032003002.
Schwartz,S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human
values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,53(3), 550–562. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550.
Schwartz,S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione,M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C.,... Konty, M.
(2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personalityand Social
Psychology,103(4), 663–688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029393.
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Ex-
tending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a differ-
ent method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,32(5), 519–542.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032005001.
Silfver, M., Helkama, K., Lönnqvist, J. -E., & Verkasalo, M. (2008). The relation between
value priorities a nd proneness to guilt, shame, and empathy. Motivation and
Emotion,32(2), 69–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-008-9084-2.
Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior,42(2), 115–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3090173.
145P.H.P. Hanel, U. Wolfradt / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 140–145