SSOAR Logo
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • English 
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • Login
SSOAR ▼
  • Home
  • About SSOAR
  • Guidelines
  • Publishing in SSOAR
  • Cooperating with SSOAR
    • Cooperation models
    • Delivery routes and formats
    • Projects
  • Cooperation partners
    • Information about cooperation partners
  • Information
    • Possibilities of taking the Green Road
    • Grant of Licences
    • Download additional information
  • Operational concept
Browse and search Add new document OAI-PMH interface
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Download PDF
Download full text

(external source)

Citation Suggestion

Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2009.v3i2.2601

Exports for your reference manager

Bibtex export
Endnote export

Display Statistics
Share
  • Share via E-Mail E-Mail
  • Share via Facebook Facebook
  • Share via Bluesky Bluesky
  • Share via Reddit reddit
  • Share via Linkedin LinkedIn
  • Share via XING XING

Do we have to combine Values in the Schwartz' Human Values Scale? A comment on the Davidov studies

Müssen wir die Werte in Schwartz' Werteskala gruppieren? Ein Kommentar zu den Davidov-Studien
[journal article]

Knoppen, Desireé
Saris, Willem E.

Abstract

"This paper addresses the question if it is meaningful to group basic values from the values model of Schwartz, which is a vital component of the European Social Survey (ESS), and presents an alternative approach. The suggestion to group values is raised in several studies led by Eldad Davidov, whic... view more

"This paper addresses the question if it is meaningful to group basic values from the values model of Schwartz, which is a vital component of the European Social Survey (ESS), and presents an alternative approach. The suggestion to group values is raised in several studies led by Eldad Davidov, which more precisely conclude that only four of the original ten values can be studied as such (Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-direction, and Security), whereas the remaining six values have to be grouped in three pairs in order to solve the problem of a lack of discriminant validity. This paper indicates that the grouping was necessary because of the choice strategy of items for the ESS. The items chosen for the different values are chosen in such a way that the correlation within the value is relatively low and sometimes the correlations with items of other values is higher. The authors show this in three steps: the first one based on a German-study, looking for the correlation between the values in the original Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ). Secondly, the ESS selection from this wider set of items is used to show that this choice leads to much higher correlations between the values. Thirdly, an analysis with an alternative choice from the same PVQ set of items is done to show that this high correlation is not necessary. In this way we show that the high correlation between the values in the ESS is due to the selection of the items in the ESS and is not intrinsic to the values studied." (author's abstract)... view less

Keywords
survey; self-determination; comparison of methods; security; value; Federal Republic of Germany; value system; motivation; correlation; validity; hedonism; methodological research

Classification
Methods and Techniques of Data Collection and Data Analysis, Statistical Methods, Computer Methods
Research Design

Document language
English

Publication Year
2009

Page/Pages
p. 91-103

Journal
Survey Research Methods, 3 (2009) 2

ISSN
1864-3361

Status
Published Version; peer reviewed

Licence
Deposit Licence - No Redistribution, No Modifications


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.
 

 


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.