comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

A Comprehensive, Universal Set of Value Dimensions
The comprehensiveness of any set of value orientations in covering the full range of
motivational goals cannot be tested definitively; however, Schwartz presents some
evidence of the comprehensiveness of the ten basic values (1992, 1994). He (1994)
states that his conceptualisation differs from others because it considers value systems
as an interdependent coherent structure with conflicts and compatibilities amongst the
value types. For example, the pursuit of achievement values may conflict with the
pursuit of benevolence values, i.e. seeking personal success for oneself (a transactional
type personal value), is likely to obstruct actions aimed at enhancing the welfare of
others who need one’s help (a transformational type personal value). Unlike personality
measures (e.g. the Californian Personality Inventory), that ask about a person’s typical
response in different social situations, inventories such as the Schwartz Values Survey
(SVS) and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) aim to discover preferences,
or how people would like to be. Thus, they tap a person’s self-concept through desired
end state values. As a critical source of satisfaction, direction and motivation, values
guide the involvement choices we make in our working environment. Figures 2.8, 2.9,
and 2.10 depict the Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) Smallest Space Analysis (SSA)
positioning of dimensions for the 10 individual value dimensions. Figure 2.8 is the
proposed theoretical structure; Figure 2.9 identifies the items for the dimensions in the
model from the SVS56; Figure 2.10 represents a recent validation of the theoretical
structure. Schwartz believes the conflicts and congruities amongst all ten basic values to
yield a near-exhaustive structure of values.
83