Extending the Cross-Cultural Validity of the Theory of Basic Human Values with a Different Method of Measurement

By Shalom H. Schwartz, Gila Melech, A. Lehmann, Steven Burgess, M. Harris, Vicki Owens. 2001

2,230 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/67eb25ddfc594b1b4f7ecdec0ead07f18d145400

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Assessing the Validity of Self Construal Scales: A Response to Levine et al. (2003, background): “…than rankings or ratings, but scenarios have the highest criterion validity (e.g., see Triandis, Chen, & Chan, 1998, for scenarios to measure individual-level horizontal and vertical individualism-collectivism; also see Schwartz et al., 2001, for a “portrait” procedure that might be useful).”
Parenting Style, Child Emotion Regulation and Behavioral Problems: The Moderating Role of Cultural Values in Australia and Indonesia (2020, methodology): “More precisely, the universal values of security, conformity, and tradition known as conservation values (Schwartz et al., 2001) were employed as an indicator of collectivist values.”
Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or “hybrid” meat (2013, methodology): “Following Schwartz et al. (2001), the answers were centered to correct for individual differences in average rating levels.”
The Structural Organization of Human Values-Evidence from Three Rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS) (2011, background): “: 0049 251 83 34198, Fax: 0049 251 83 31343 Email: bilsky@uni-muenster.de 760 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42(5) is cognitively less demanding than the SVS and can be applied to younger and less educated samples (Schwartz, 2006; Schwartz et al., 2001).”
Whence Differences in Value Priorities? (2011, methodology): “Study 2: The Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ) The PVQ method for measuring values presents short verbal portraits of different people gendermatched to the respondent (Schwartz, 2006a; Schwartz et al., 2001).”
Why young people do things for the environment: The role of parenting for adolescents’ motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviour (2017, methodology): “To make it easier to answer for young people, we used a portrait-based response format originally employed in values research (Schwartz et al., 2001).”
Organic food consumption in Europe: International segmentation based on value system differences (2011, methodology): “Following previous literature (Krystallis et al., 2008; Schwartz et al., 2001), and driven by space limitation in the questionnaire, we used an abridged version of Schwartz's Portrait Value Questionnaire consisting of 17 items to measure values.”
The role of values in collaborative consumption: insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK (2015, methodology): “Their values were quantitatively assessed through the PVQ-R3 tool (see Section 2.3.1), a 6-point scale questionnaire complemented by additional demographic questions (i.e. age, gender, level of education, household income).”
(Im)Politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging their Bases and Interrelationships (2005, background): “, Schwartz 1992, Schwartz et al. 2001) on universal values provides some insights into the types of positive social values that people may claim for themselves and hence be sensitive to. In his individual-level analyses, he has identified ten value constructs, with a structured relationship, that ar”