comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

SVS samples to other demographics, but none of these provide comprehensive global
coverage, and most are heavily loaded with European or what are identified as
“Western” samples. My analyses indicate the theory is a work in progress, particularly
as there is no comprehensive global set of analyses of value structures across samples
from multiple occupations. Researchers such as Low and Shi (2001), Daller & Yildiz
(2006), and Akiner and Tijhuis (2007) found considerable intra-country variation in
value dimension priorities influenced by occupations of samples.
The comparison of value structures between my samples is complicated by the different
Smallest Space Analysis structures between my sample data and Schwartz’ proposed
theoretical structures. The results warrant a more in-depth discussion. In Figure 6.2,
removing the item points gives a clearer depiction of the SSA structures for data from
the two samples and indicates similarities with one another, and consistent differences
from Schwartz’ theoretical structure. This outcome indicates a need for further
investigation of the relationships between the values of businesspeople compared to
other occupational groups, and also between kinds of businesspeople. Compared to
Schwartz’ theory, for the samples of businesspeople, Benevolence and Achievement
value dimensions occupy nearby spaces, indicating that subordinates in business tend to
associate concern for the in-group with achievement. The placement of Security near
Achievement can indicate that achievement for businesspeople is closely related with
security, which, of course, is intuitively obvious. In Figure 6.2, Stimulation is placed in
what Fontaine et al. (2008) identify in Figure 6.3 as the Social Focussed quadrant of
their interpretation of the value structure. The implication is that for businesspeople
Stimulation is a social value, associated with business activities.
280