comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

the values are largely a scale use bias and says this assertion is grounded both in theory
and empirically in Schwartz’ body of publications.
Schwartz’ Recommendations
Schwartz (2008, draft users’ manual) states that individual differences in use of the
response scale must be controlled when doing analyses. His control is by using the
individual’s mean rating of all value items (MRAT) as a covariate. Schwartz, et al.,
(1997) examines meanings of such scale use as an individual difference variable. Smith
(2004) discusses correlates of scale use differences at the level of cultures. As noted
above, Schwartz proposes that individual differences in the means of the 21 values
employed to determine dimension are largely a scale use bias, and that his assertion is
grounded both in theory and empirically in his body of research, as follows.
A first theoretical ground is the assumption that, across the full range of value contents,
everyone views values as approximately equally important. Some attribute more
importance to one value, others to another. But, on average, values as a whole are of
equal importance. This assumption is dependent on the further assumption that the value
instrument covers all of the major types of values to which people attribute importance.
Empirical evidence to support this assumption appears in Schwartz 1992, 2004. To the
extent that individuals’ attribute the same average importance to the full set of values,
their mean score (MRAT) should be the same. Differences in individual MRATs
therefore reflect scale use and not value substance. Of course, differences in MRAT
may reflect some substance, but the empirical analyses suggest that substance is a much
smaller component of MRAT than scale use bias is (Schwartz, et al., 1997).
A second theoretical ground is that values are of interest because they form a system of
priorities that guide, influence, and are influenced by thought, feeling and action. Values
do not function in isolation from one another but as systems. For example, a decision to
vote for one or another party is influenced by the perceived consequences of that vote
for the attainment or frustration of multiple values, promoting equality or freedom of
expression versus social power or tradition. It is the trade-off amongst the relevant
values that affects the vote. Consequently, what are really of interest are the priorities
amongst the values that form an individual’s value system. Correcting for scale use with
199