Cargando…
An Empirical Comparison of Human Value Models
Over the past century, various value models have been proposed. To determine which value model best predicts prosocial behavior, mental health, and pro-environmental behavior, we subjected seven value models to a hierarchical regression analysis. A sample of University students (N = 271) completed t...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6167453/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30319476 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01643 |
_version_ | 1783360201222520832 |
---|---|
author | Hanel, Paul H. P. Litzellachner, Lukas F. Maio, Gregory R. |
author_facet | Hanel, Paul H. P. Litzellachner, Lukas F. Maio, Gregory R. |
author_sort | Hanel, Paul H. P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Over the past century, various value models have been proposed. To determine which value model best predicts prosocial behavior, mental health, and pro-environmental behavior, we subjected seven value models to a hierarchical regression analysis. A sample of University students (N = 271) completed the Portrait Value Questionnaire (Schwartz et al., 2012), the Basic Value Survey (Gouveia et al., 2008), and the Social Value Orientation scale (Van Lange et al., 1997). Additionally, they completed the Values Survey Module (Hofstede and Minkov, 2013), Inglehart’s (1977) materialism–postmaterialism items, the Study of Values, fourth edition (Allport et al., 1960; Kopelman et al., 2003), and the Rokeach (1973) Value Survey. However, because the reliability of the latter measures was low, only the PVQ-RR, the BVS, and the SVO where entered into our analysis. Our results provide empirical evidence that the PVQ-RR is the strongest predictor of all three outcome variables, explaining variance above and beyond the other two instruments in almost all cases. The BVS significantly predicted prosocial and pro-environmental behavior, while the SVO only explained variance in pro-environmental behavior. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6167453 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61674532018-10-12 An Empirical Comparison of Human Value Models Hanel, Paul H. P. Litzellachner, Lukas F. Maio, Gregory R. Front Psychol Psychology Over the past century, various value models have been proposed. To determine which value model best predicts prosocial behavior, mental health, and pro-environmental behavior, we subjected seven value models to a hierarchical regression analysis. A sample of University students (N = 271) completed the Portrait Value Questionnaire (Schwartz et al., 2012), the Basic Value Survey (Gouveia et al., 2008), and the Social Value Orientation scale (Van Lange et al., 1997). Additionally, they completed the Values Survey Module (Hofstede and Minkov, 2013), Inglehart’s (1977) materialism–postmaterialism items, the Study of Values, fourth edition (Allport et al., 1960; Kopelman et al., 2003), and the Rokeach (1973) Value Survey. However, because the reliability of the latter measures was low, only the PVQ-RR, the BVS, and the SVO where entered into our analysis. Our results provide empirical evidence that the PVQ-RR is the strongest predictor of all three outcome variables, explaining variance above and beyond the other two instruments in almost all cases. The BVS significantly predicted prosocial and pro-environmental behavior, while the SVO only explained variance in pro-environmental behavior. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6167453/ /pubmed/30319476 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01643 Text en Copyright © 2018 Hanel, Litzellachner and Maio. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Hanel, Paul H. P. Litzellachner, Lukas F. Maio, Gregory R. An Empirical Comparison of Human Value Models |
title | An Empirical Comparison of Human Value Models |
title_full | An Empirical Comparison of Human Value Models |
title_fullStr | An Empirical Comparison of Human Value Models |
title_full_unstemmed | An Empirical Comparison of Human Value Models |
title_short | An Empirical Comparison of Human Value Models |
title_sort | empirical comparison of human value models |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6167453/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30319476 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01643 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hanelpaulhp anempiricalcomparisonofhumanvaluemodels AT litzellachnerlukasf anempiricalcomparisonofhumanvaluemodels AT maiogregoryr anempiricalcomparisonofhumanvaluemodels AT hanelpaulhp empiricalcomparisonofhumanvaluemodels AT litzellachnerlukasf empiricalcomparisonofhumanvaluemodels AT maiogregoryr empiricalcomparisonofhumanvaluemodels |