Bringing Values Back In:A Multiple Group Comparison with 20 Countries Using the European Social

Survey 2003 Measurement, causes and consequences

To be Presented in Lugano, QMSS, 24.08.06

Eldad DavidovTogether with Peter Schmidt and Shalom Schwartz (1st study), and with Jaak Billiet

and Peter Schmidt (2nd study)

• Why bringing values? • Weber; • Socio demographic variables may affect

values, and values may affect attitudes and behavior. So values may be the black box in between.

• This mediation can be different in different societies.

Outline

• 1) Theory and research questions.• 2) Data from European Social Survey –ESS

and items.• 3) Results and conclusions

– Invariance issues– Possibilities to compare value means– Causes– Consequences

Questions We Want To Answer:

• 1) How many values from the theory do we find in Europe?

• 2) Can we compare the values across the countries?

• 3) How are values that we find influenced by social demographic variables: gender, education and age?

• 4) Do values affect attitudes towards foreigners, in particular allowing foreigners into the country and granting them rights?

1) Theory

• Schwartz‘s measurement theory of values was first introduced in 1992. The theory describes universals in the content and the structure of individual values. It was measured previously by 10 distinct values and 40 items. The values are:

The values:

• Achievement (AC) Hedonism (HE)

• Power (PO) Stimulation (ST)

• Security (SEC) Self-Direction (SD)

• Conformity (CO) Universalism (UN)

• Tradition (TR) Benevolence (BE)

• Some values are closer to other values, and some values may oppose one another. For example, tradition may oppose hedonism.

• Close values are expected to correlate positively and opposing values are expected to correlate negatively or not at all.

• The 10 values create a continuum, which can be expressed graphically.

                        

Universalism

Benevolence

Conformity Tradition

SecurityPower

Achievement

Hedonism

Stimulation

Self-direction

Self-transcendenceOpenness to Change

ConservationSelf-enhancement

Figure 1: Structural relations among the 10 values and the four higher values (see Devos, Spini, & Schwartz, 2002).

• In empirical studies values from adjacent types may intermix rather than emerge in clearly distinct regions. So in empirical studies it may happen that we will not find always ten distinct values.

2) The Data

• The data we use is the first round of the European Social Survey on values, collected in 2003. It provides for the first time the opportunity to test Schwartz‘s value theory with representative and comparable across countries population surveys. Previously the theory had been tested by student surveys, or by representative data which was not comparable across countries.

20 Countries (2 Missing)

• 20 countries: 1-AT (Austria), 2-BE (Belgium), 3-CH (Switzerland), 4-CZ (Czech Republic), 5-DE (Germany), 6-DK (Denmark), 7-ES (Spain), 8-FI (Finland), 9-FR (France), 10-GB (Great Britain), 11-GR (Greece), 12-HU (Hungary), 13-IE (Ireland), 14-IL (Israel), 15-IT(Italy, missing), 16-LU (Luxemburg, missing), 17-NL (Netherlands), 18-NO (Norway), 19-PL (Poland), 20-PT (Portugal), 21-SE (Sweden), 22-SL (Slovenia).

The 21 ESS Items for Each Value

• 1)      Power (PO):• Imprich/po1:Important to be rich, have money and

expensive things.• Iprspot/po2: Important to get respect from others • 2)      Achievement (AC): • Ipshabt/ac1: Important to show abilities and be

admired.• Ipsuces/ac2: Important to be successful and that

people recognize achievements

• 3)      Hedonism (HE): • Ipgdtim/he1: Important to have a good time • Impfun/he2: Important to seek fun and things that

give pleasure • 4)      Stimulation (ST): • Impdiff/st1: Important to try new and different

things in life • Ipadvnt/st2: Important to seek adventures and

have an exciting life

• 5)      Self-Direction (SD): • Ipcrtiv/sd1: Important to think new ideas and being

creative • Impfree/sd2: Important to make own decisions and be

free • 6)      Universalism (UN): • Ipeqopt/un1: Important that people are treated equally

and have equal opportunities • Ipudrst/un2: Important to understand different people • Impenv/un3: Important to care for nature and

environment

• 7)      Benevolence (BE): • Iphlppl/be1: Important to help people and care for

others well-being • Iplylfr/be2: Important to be loyal to friends and

devote to close people• 8)      Tradition (TR): • Ipmodst/tr1: Important to be humble and modest,

not draw attention • Imptrad/tr2: Important to follow traditions and

customs

• 9)      Conformity (CO): • Ipfrule/co1: Important to do what is told and

follow rules • Ipbhprp/co2: Important to behave properly • 10) Security (SEC): • Impsafe/sec1: Important to live in secure and safe

surroundings • Ipstrgv/sec2: Important that government is strong

and ensures safety

The range of the itemsNow I will briefly describe some people. Please

listen to each description and tell me how much each person is or is not like you.

• 1  Very much like me• 2  Like me• 3  Somewhat like me• 4  A little like me• 5  Not like me• 6  Not like me at all• 7  Refusal• 8  Don't know• 9  No answer

3) Descriptive Results of Items• The range of items across countries is not

very large, but there are nevertheless differences.

• In practice, social scientists often compare on the item level. Therefore, let’s look at some countries.

Israel and Germany

00,5

11,5

22,5

33,5

44,5

5

impd

iff

Impe

nv

Impf

ree

Impf

un

Impr

ich

Imps

afe

Impt

rad

Ipad

vnt

Ipbh

prp

Ipcr

tiv

Ipeq

opt

Ipfru

le

Ipgd

tim

Iphl

ppl

Iplyl

fr

Ipm

odst

Iprs

pot

Ipsh

abt

Ipstr

gv

Ipsu

ces

Ipud

rst

Value Items

Germany

Israel

• Greece for example gives a clear picture: it has the highest scores for the values achievement, security, tradition, stimulation, universalism, power.

• How do other Mediterranean countries do?• Israel for example scores most highly in

Europe only for two values- power and stimulation.

• Spain for example scores most highly in Europe in three values- universalism, benevolence and tradition. So geography does not tell us the whole story.

• How is Germany doing?• In the middle golden way. Values tend to

score around the average and there are no extreme items.

• And Switzerland?• Switzerland is strongest in self-direction,

hedonism and universalism, and weakest in conformity.

• However, Scandinavia tells us a different story. • Sweden for example has the lowest scores for

universalism, benevolence, security and conformity. Maybe people know that the state takes care of the people so they do not feel the need to do it themselves.

• Norway has the lowest scores for universalism, security and also self-direction.

• So at least for some Scandinavian countries geography and social system have a similar story to tell.

• We would like to compare countries also on the value level, and not only on the item level as we are doing here. In such a way we can control for measurement error.

• In order to be able to compare the means of the values (which are the constructs here), we first have to make sure the values mean the same thing all over Europe.

• Ensuring that values mean the same can be done by showing measurement invariance, that the indicators are related to the values equally in all the countries.

3) Data Analysis

1) Twenty separate analyses for each country.

2) A multiple sample analysis of all 20 countries together.

1• At first we computed 20 correlation matrices for

each country separately using pairwise deletion for missing values (see Browne 1994 and Schafer and Graham 2002, which demonstrate why pairwise is better than listwise and adequate if there is no more than 5% missing values).

• The correlations ranged from negative values for indicators belonging to constructs, which are theoretically apart in the map of indicators, to highly positive values for adjacent value constructs and for indicators belonging to the same construct.

1

• Then we tested the theory for each country separately. In all countries some constructs correlated too highly. In order to solve the problem of non positive definite matrices caused, we had to unify such constructs.

• As a result we identified 5-8 values in the 20 countries

Country Number of Values Unified Values

1. AT 8 MALE, KOTR

2. BE 6 MALE, KOTR, WOUN, STSE

3. CH 7 KOTR, MALE, WOUN

4. CZ 7 MALE, WOUN, KOTR

5. DE 7 MALE, WOUN, KOTR

6. DK 8 KOTR, MALE

7. ES 8 KOTR, MALE

8. FI 8 KOTR, MALE

9. FR 7 KOTR, MALE, WOUN

10. GB 8 KOTR, MALE

11. GR 5 MALE, KOTR, WOUN, HEST, STSE

12. HU 5 WOUN, KOTR, MALE, SIUN, HESE

13. IE 6 MALE, KOTR, WOUN, HEST

14. IL 7 WOUN, MALE, STSE

15. NL 8 KOTR, MALE

16. NO 8 MALE, KOTR

17. PL 6 WOUN, KOTR, HEST, MALE

18. PT 7 KOTR, WOUN, HEST

19. SE 8 KOTR, MALE

20. SL 5 KOTR, WOUN, HEST, MALE, STSE

2

• Then we ran the simultanuous analysis for 20 countries

AC HE

ST

SD

UN

BETR

CO

SEC

PO

ac1

d3

1

1

ac2

d4

1

he1

d5

1

1

he2

d6

1

st1 d71 1

st2 d81po1d1

11po2d2

1

sec1d20

11sec2d21

1

co1d18

11co2d19

1

tr1

d16

1

1tr2

d17

1be1

d14

1

1be2

d15

1

un1 d1111

un2 d121

sd1 d91

sd2 d101

un3 d131

1

• Again we had to unify constructs correlating too highly causing non positive definite matrices. We ended up with identifying 7 values

• The constructs unified were Power and Achievement, Conformity and Tradition, and Universalism and Benevolence

HE

ST

SD

UNBECOTR

SEC

POAC

ac1

d3

1

ac2

d4

1

he1

d5

1

1

he2

d6

1

st1 d71 1

st2 d81po1d1

11po2d2

1

sec1d20

11sec2d21

1

co1d18

11co2d19

1

tr1

d16

1tr2

d17

1be1

d14

1be2

d15

1

un1 d1111

un2 d121

sd1 d91

sd2 d101

un3 d131

1

• Finally, according to modification indices, in order to improve the model five items intended to measure particular value constructs also had significant, negative, secondary loadings on motivationally opposed value constructs

HE

ST

SD

UNBECOTR

SEC

POAC

ac1

d3

1

ac2

d4

1

he1

d5

1

1

he2

d6

1

st1 d71 1

st2 d81po1d1

11po2d2

1

sec1d20

11sec2d21

1

co1d18

11co2d19

1

tr1

d16

1tr2

d17

1be1

d14

1be2

d15

1

un1 d1111

un2 d121

sd1 d91

sd2 d101

un3 d131

1

Answer to first Question

• In simple words- we found a model which works for all the 20 European countries (configural invariance).

• But- we have a model which has only 7 values and not 10.

• In order to answer the second question on differences in values between countries, we have to test for metric (measurement) invariance. Metric invariance will guarantee that the values mean the same over the 20 European countries

2

=1

=1

1

Item a

Item b

Item c

Item d

Item e

Item f

Measurement Invariance:

Equal factor loadings across groups

2

=1

=1

1

Item a

Item b

Item c

Item d

Item e

Item f

Group A Group B

• Configural Invariance

• Metric Invariance

• Scalar Invariance

• Invariance of Factor Variances

• Invariance of Factor Covariances

• Invariance of latent Means

• Invariance of Unique Variances

Steps in testing for Measurement Invariance

• Configural Invariance

• Metric Invariance

• Equal factor loadings

• Same scale units in both groups

• Presumption for the comparison of latent means

• Scalar Invariance

• Invariance of Factor Variances

• Invariance of Factor Covariances

• Invariance of latent Means

• Invariance of Unique Variances

Steps in testing for Measurement Invariance

• Concept of ‘partial invariance’ introduced by Byrne, Shavelson & Muthén (1989)

• Procedure

• Constrain complete matrix

• Use modification indices to find non-invariant parameters and then relax the constraint

• Compare with the unrestricted model

• Steenkamp & Baumgartner (1998): Two indicators with invariant loadings and intercepts are sufficient for mean comparisons

• One of them can be the marker + one further invariant item

Full vs. Partial Invariance

• We constrained the loadings of all items on the seven factors to be the same in each of the 20 countries

• Fit indices suggest a reasonable fit for this model too, a fit sufficient not to reject the model (RMR=0.08, NFI=0.89, CFI=0.91, RMSEA=0.01 and PCLOSE=1.0)

• To conclude: we found also metric invariance: items are related to values equally in the different countries.

• Therefore at least statistically comparing the means of the values across countries is substantially meaningful (to be sure we should do cognitive pretests in different countries, but we do not have them)

• According to results of the invariance test, factor covariances vary considerably across countries

• The next test is scalar invariance. To guarantee scalar invariance, we have to set the intercepts to be equal across groups.

• The global fit measures suggest we should reject this model.

• Implication: Means of values cannot be compared meaningfully across groups.

• Prospects for future possibilities to compare latent means (Little et al. 2006).

In a new study (work in progress) we test effects of Gender, education and age on values

According to Kohn/Schoenbach (1993) :• people with higher education more self directed• people with higher education less conformist

According to Steinmetz, Schmidt, Tina-Booh and Wieczorek (in progress)

• men less universalist, and score higher on power in Germany

According to Heyder, 2003 and dissertation (in progress)• Higher age more conformist

Gender

Education

Age

7 Values:

Power and achievement

Security

Conformity and tradition

Universalism and benevolence

Self-Direction

Stimulation

Hedonism

HE

ST

SE

UNWOKOTR

SI

MALE

ipshabt

d3

1

ipsuces

d4

1

ipgdtim

d5

1

1

impfun

d6

1

impdiff d71 1

ipadvnt d81imprichd1

11iprspotd2

1

impsafed20

11ipstrgvd21

1

ipfruled18

11ipbhprpd19

1

ipmodst

d16

1imptrad

d17

1iphlppl

d14

1iplylfr

d15

1

ipeqopt d1111

ipudrst d121

ipcrtiv d91

impfree d101

impenv d131

1

Gndr educ

birthyear

islam

dml

dhe

dst

dse

duw

dkt

dsi

1

1

1

1

11

1

Men Power andAchievement

Security Conformity and Tradition

Universalism and Benevolence

Self-Direction

Stimulation Hedonism

Higher Education

Power andAchievement

Security Conformity and Tradition

Universalism and Benevolence

Self-Direction

Stimulation Hedonism

Older Age Power andAchievement

Security Conformity and Tradition

Universalism and Benevolence

Self-Direction

Stimulation Hedonism

Muslim Power andAchievement

Security Conformity and Tradition

Universalism and Benevolence

Self-Direction

Stimulation Hedonism

Dark blue: for all countries higher, light blue:for most countries higher

Dark gray: for all countries lower, light italic gray: for most lower

Green: effects in different directions in differernt countries.

Results

In a new study…(work in progress)

• We argue that values are more stable than attitudes (Ajzen/Fishbein, Eagly/Chaiken 1993)

• This justifies using values to explain attitudes and opinions

• Our intention is to explain two latent variables from the ESS 2003: Allowing immigrants into the country and Conditions to allow immigrants into the country

Indicators

• Allow into country is measured by 4 indicators:– D5: Allow many/few immigrants of different

race/ethnic group from majority

– D7: Allow many/few immigrants from poorer countries in Europe

– D8: Allow many/few immigrants from richer countries outside Europe

– D9: Allow many/few immigrants from poorer countries outside Europe

– Scale: 1=allow many, 4=allow none

Indicators 2

• Conditions to allow was measured by two indicators:– D10: Qualification for immigration: good

educational qualifications – D16: Qualification for immigration: work skills

needed in country – Scale: 0=extremely unimportant, 10=extremely

important

The problem

• There is not much theory about these relations. • Ajzen Fishbein postulated for example a causal

relation between conformism and attitudes towards immigrants.

• Billiet postulated this relation too, and also the effect of security needs on attitudes to immigrants.

• Theory is needed to further explain such relations.

• We expect:

• People scoring high on Tradition, conformity and security to allow less immigrants in.

• People scoring high on universalism and benevolence to allow more immigrants in.

Results

• We guarnteed invariance across 21 countries to allow comparison of the effect of values on opinions

• people scoring high on Hedonism, Universalism and benevolence, power and achievement want to allow more immigrants into the country.

• People scoring high on stimulation and self direction, conformity and tradition, and on security want to allow less immigrants into country, and set more conditions for allowing them.

Conclusions

• What did we learn? • The model works well in Europe but for 7 values. • Maybe more items will solve this problem, and we may

find out we can identify 10 values, but we cannot be sure.• We find meaningful relations between socio-demographic

characteristics , opinions on immigration and values. Effects of gender and education postulated in previous studies were confirmed in many countries. Effects of confomity on attitudes towards immigrants as operationalized here was confirmed.

What next?• In the next steps we would like to:• 1) Conducting a full model simultanuously with socio dem. Variables, values

and opinions to find direct and indirect relations.

• 2) Doing it for several countries simultanuously to compare the structural effects• 3) Compare the means with the new method which does not require scalar

invariance, and try to give meaningful explanations for differences, such as geographical, political and historical differences between countries

• What we conducted here was a preliminary test for such comparisons

Soc.dem.Charact.

Values

Attitudesopinions

Behavior

• Thank you very much for your attention!!!!