Issues in Cultural Perspective

Unit 4 General Psychological Issues in Cultural PerspectiveSubunit 4 Personality and Values Across Cultures Article 38-1-2002Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values OrientationTeoryMichael D. HillsUniversity of Wikato, New Zealand, mhills@waikato.ac.nzTis Online Readings in Psychology and Culture Article is brought to you for free and open access (provided uses are educational in nature)by IACCPand ScholarWorks@GVSU. Copyright © 2002 International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. All Rights Reserved. ISBN978-0-9845627-0-1Recommended CitationHills, M. D. (2002). Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation Teory. Online Readings inPsychology and Culture, 4(4). htps://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1040Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation TeoryAbstractPeople’s attitudes are based on the relatively few, stable values they hold. Kluckhohnand Strodtbeck’s (1961) Values Orientation Theory proposes that all human societiesmust answer a limited number of universal problems, that the value-based solutionsare limited in number and universally known, but that different cultures havedifferent preferences among them. Suggested questions include humans’ relationswith time, nature and each other, as well as basic human motives and the natureof human nature. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck suggested alternate answers to all five,developed culture-specific measures of each, and described the value orientationprofiles of five SW USA cultural groups. Their theory has since been tested in manyother cultures, and used to help negotiating ethnic groups understand one another,and to examine the inter-generational value changes caused by migration. Othertheories of universal values (Rokeach, Hofstede, Schwartz) have produced valueconcepts sufficiently similar to suggest that a truly universal set of human valuesdoes exist and that cross-cultural psychologists are close to discovering what theyare.Creative Commons LicenseTis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0License.Tis article is available in Online Readings in Psychology and Culture: htps://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/3INTRODUCTIONCross-cultural psychology has two broad aims: to understand the differences betweenhuman beings who come from different cultural backgrounds, and to understand thesimilarities between all human beings. The similarities may be sought at all levels – fromthe physiological (our eyes are able to perceive colour) through the cognitive (we are alsoable to perceive perspective, or relative distance), to the personal (we can be both happyand sad, gentle or aggressive) to the social (we all relate to our parents and siblings), tothe cultural (we all share cultural norms with others of the same cultural background).These cultural norms can take a variety of forms. They may be quite concrete andspecific, like the type of clothing we find acceptable on a given occasion, or extremelycomplex and abstract, as are our religious beliefs. An important type of norm is theconcept we have of ourselves in relation to other objects and people. These may rangefrom our belief about the nature of human nature (Wrightsman, 1992), to the opinions wehold (our political opinions, for instance) to the attitudes we have toward a variety ofconcepts which we hold. Attitudes have long been studied by psychologists – especiallysocial psychologists. For the first half of the twentieth century, it was believed that if wecould measure them accurately, they would enable us to predict human behaviour. Andpredicting behaviour is what all psychology is about.However, as we became more psychometrically sophisticated, and able to measureattitudes accurately with instruments such as the Likert summated ratings scale, welearned that attitudes are much more complex than we had realised, and that they have tobe measured very carefully, and a number of other factors such as context and strengthtaken into account before any accuracy of prediction could be claimed. Moreover we allhave so many attitudes, they change so readily, and they vary so much over time andsituation, that any one attitude can predict only a relatively small amount of behaviour.Social psychologists therefore started looking for more fundamental, slower changingconcept which might give more reliable behavioural prediction. One such concept is thevalues which a person holds. Values are seen as being relatively few in number. Perhapsthe best-known student of values is Rokeach (1979), who suggests that there are at most36 values held by human beings. Moreover they are considered to be widely, and perhapsuniversally held. Concepts such as honesty and courage, peace and wisdom, arerecognised in all human cultures. On the other hand, Hofstede (1980, 2001), in a hugeworld-wide study, has been able to find no more than five which are universally held.Nevertheless the idea that there are basic human values, and that they aremeasurable, has been exciting psychologists to investigate them for many years, fromAllport, Vernon and Lindzey in 1931 to the present day. It has been widely accepted thatuncovering those values, and devising means of measuring them, would facilitate valuableinsight into the similarities and differences between human beings from differing culturalbackgrounds.One theory of basic human values which has been very influential is that ofKluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961). Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck set out tooperationalise a theoretical approach to the values concept developed by Florence’s3Hills: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation TheoryProduced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011husband, Clyde Kluckhohn (1949, 1952). He argued that humans share biological traitsand characteristics which form the basis for the development of culture, and that peopletypically feel their own cultural beliefs and practices are normal and natural, and those ofothers are strange, or even inferior or abnormal. He defined a value as: “A conception,explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirablewhich influences the selection from available modes, means and ends of action.”(Kluckhohn, 1951, p 395).Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck (1961) developed a theory which put theseprinciples into action. They started with three basic assumptions:• “There is a limited number of common human problems for which all peoples mustat all times find some solution”.• “While there is variability in solutions of all the problems, it is neither limitless norrandom but is definitely variable within a range of possible solutions”.• “All alternatives of all solutions are present in all societies at all times but aredifferentially preferred”.They suggested that the solutions for these problems preferred by a given society reflectsthat society’s values. Consequently, measurement of the preferred solutions wouldindicate the values espoused by that society. They suggested five basic types of problemto be solved by every society:• On what aspect of time should we primarily focus – past, present or future?• What is the relationship between Humanity and its natural environment – mastery,submission or harmony?• How should individuals relate with others – hierarchically (which they called“Lineal”), as equals (“Collateral”), or according to their individual merit?• What is the prime motivation for behaviour – to express one’s self (“Being”), togrow (“Being-in-becoming”), or to achieve?• What is the nature of human nature – good, bad (“Evil”) or a mixture?Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) also suggested a sixth value dimension of Space (Here,There, or Far Away) but did not explore it further. They then speled out the possibleanswers to each of the questions, arguing that the preferred answer in any society reflectsthe basic orientation of the society to that aspect of its environment. The orientations toeach question are shown in Table 1.In proposing orientations to the Nature of Human nature question, Kluckhohn andStrodtbeck suggested that there are two dimensions involved – good, bad or mixed, andthat of mutability, or whether we are born the way we are and cannot change, or can learnto change (in either direction). Moreover they suggested that “mixed” may mean eitherboth good and bad, or neutral. Taking all these considerations into account simultaneouslygives us the possible orientations shown in Table 2.4Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 3https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/3Table 1.Four basic questions and the value orientations reflected in their answers.Question Orientation DescriptionTime Past We focus on the past (the time before now), and onpreserving and maintaining traditional teachingsand beliefs.Present We focus on the present (what is now), and onaccommodating changes in beliefs and traditions.Future We focus on the future (the time to come), planningahead, and seeking new ways to replace the old.Humanity and NaturalEnvironmentMastery We can and should exercise total control over theforces of, and in, nature and the super-naturalHarmonious We can and should exercise partial but not totalcontrol by living in a balance with the natural forcesSubmissive We cannot and should not exercise control overnatural forces but, rather, are subject to the higherpower of these forces.Relating to other people Hierarchical(“Lineal”)Emphasis on hierarchical principles and deferringto higher authority or authorities within the groupAs equals(“Collateral”)Emphasis on consensus within the extended groupof equals IndividualisticEmphasis on the individual or individual familieswithin the group who make decisions independentlyfrom othersOur motivation is internal, emphasising activityBeing valued by our self but not necessarily by others inthe groupBeing-in-becoming Motivation is to develop and grow in abilities whichare valued by us, although not necessarily byothersAchievement(“Doing”)Our motivation is external to us, emphasisingactivity that is both valued by ourselvesand is approved by others in our group.Having set out their theory, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) then proposed a means ofmeasuring the orientations it produced. They suggested intensive interviewing be used,with a series of probing questions exploring each of the value dimensions with theinterviewee. However they also recognised that many people find it difficult to think in theabstract, so suggested that real-life situations be outlined which involved the particularvalue being investigated. This led to the moral dilemma approach used by Kohlberg in his5Hills: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation TheoryProduced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011studies of morality a decade later. Moreover Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) alsostressed that the real-life situations used must be appropriate to the culture of the peoplebeing studied. This was an early attempt to provide a solution to the emic-etic dilemmaoutlined by Berry (1969) some years later, and appears similar to the solution to thedilemma proposed by Segall et al. in the 1990s.Table 2Orientations possible in answering the question on the Nature of Human Nature.Question Orientation DescriptionNature of Human Nature evil/mutable Born evil, but can learn to be good.However danger of regression alwayspresent.evil/immutable Born evil and incapable of beingchanged. Therefore requires salvationby an external force.mixture/mutable Has both good and bad traits, but canlearn to be either better or worse.mixture/immutable Has both good and bad traits, and theirprofile cannot be changedneutral/mutable Born neither good nor bad, but can learnboth good and bad traitsneutral/immutable Born neither good nor bad, and thisprofile cannot be changedgood/mutable Basically good, but subject to corruptiongood/immutable Basically good, and will always remainso.To test their theory out, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) interviewed members of fivedifferent cultural groups in the South-West USA. These included itinerant Navaho,Mexican-Americans, Texan homesteaders, Mormon villagers, and Zuni pueblo dwellers. Indoing so, however, they did not attempt to develop measures of the Nature of HumanNature orientations, finding them too complex. For the remaining four dimensions,however they were able to develop real-life situations relevant to all five cultural groups,and questions to probe the value orientations used by members of those cultures indealing with the situations involved. They were then able to draw value profiles of eachgroup, showing the ways in which they differed from each other, and the ways in whichthey were similar. All of this work was published in their 1961 book, and immediately madea strong impact on cross-cultural psychologists.Since then other theorists have also developed theories of universal values – notablyRokeach (1979), Hofstede (1980, 2001) and Schwartz (1992). However the theorydeveloped by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) remains widely used and has sparked a6Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 3https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/3good deal of research – as any good theory should. A conference of users of the theory in1998 (Russo, 2000), for instance, attracted over 400 delegates.Applications of the TheoryNevertheless the question remains: what use is such a theory? The work of Russo (1992;Russo, Hill et al., 1984) clearly demonstrates a very practical employment of a theory ofuniversal human values. Russo has worked for a Native American tribe, the Lummi ofWashington state, for more than two decades, using the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck theoryto help them bring themselves to an ever higher standard of living. The Lummi have theirown reserve territory on the Western coast near the Canadian border. There they pursuetheir traditional industry of deep sea fishing, as well as more recent trades such as liquorretailing. Their success in these and other enterprises depends on their being able torelate successfully to the predominantly white American majority population surroundingthem. The majority population forms the bulk of potential customers for their products, andat the same time is the prime source of food, clothing and manufactured goods. Moreoverits members control such vital necessities as access to power, water and timber. Membersof the cultural majority must also be negotiated with concerning issues such as taxes andtransport.The Lummi have therefore realised that it is vitally important that they understand thecultural mores of the majority if they are to interact successful with them. Issues such asthe assumed basic motives for behaviour, the importance or otherwise of tradition,relationships between older and younger generations, accepted modes of decisionmaking, etc have to be understood before harmonious and successful discussion can takeplace. Toward this end Russo has developed measures to assess the preferred valueorientations of the majority, and of the Lummi themselves. Differences and similaritieshave been clearly demarcated, and each party to potential negotiations made aware ofthem.Thus when Lummi leaders go to discuss trade, taxes, utilities or transport with localbusiness people and officials, they are aware of the world views of those with whom theyare discussing, and of the similarities and differences between themselves and theirneighbours. Such foreknowledge has resulted in a successful and harmonious relationshipbetween the two cultural groups for many years. This testifies to both the importance ofunderstanding each others’ values, and the efficacy of the Kluckhohn and Strodtbecktheory in doing so.Another way in which the theory has been used is to examine changes in culturalmores over time. An example of this were the studies undertaken by Hills (1977, 1980)and Lane (1976) of changes in the disparity in values between young people and theirparents as a result of migration. Using the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck theory, theydeveloped a fixed-alternative, 25-item questionnaire to assess respondents’ valueorientations in the five question areas (see Table 3). Having tested the questionnaire forreliability and face validity, they had it translated and back-translated into severalappropriate languages. It was then tape-recorded in each of these languages, as read by a7Hills: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation TheoryProduced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011native speaker of each language. The tape recording was then used as the primeinstrument in orally administering the questionnaire. Using this technique theyadministered it to young people, both male and female, aged between 16 and 18, and totheir parents, both mother and father. Samples were taken from some of the cultures fromwhich large numbers of people migrated from the South Pacific to New Zealand in the1960s and 70s – Samoa, Fiji and the Cook Islands. Moreover samples within each ofthose countries were taken not just from the main towns, but from selected remote backcountry villages as well. Comparison groups of both Maori and Pakeha (white) NewZealanders were also obtained. Data was analysed in terms of the inter-generationaldisparity in values demonstrated by each group.Table 3Examples of items measuring Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck value orientations_______________________________________________________________________________I will ask you 25 questions. There are three possible answers to each questions. Please listencarefully to each question and then each of the three suggested answers to that question. I can playthem again if you would like to listen to them again. We do not want your name.There are no right or wrong answers to these questions – we want to know you you feel aboutthem. Take as much time as you need to answer them.Here is the first one. When our group sends a delegate to a meeting I think it best –Relationala) to let everyone discuss it until everyone agrees on the personCollateral b) to let the important leaders decide. They have more experience than us Lineal c) for a vote to be taken and the one with the most votes goes even ifsome people disagreeIndividualistic Now please tell me the answer which comes closest to the way you feel.Now tell me the answer which is your second choice.Thanks. Here’s the next one… When I get sick I believea) doctors will be able to find a way to cure itHumanity & NatureMastery b) I should live properly so I don’t get sick Harmony c) I cannot do much about it and just have to accept itHere’s the third…Subjugation Most people when they can do something wrong and get away with it will –Human Naturea) usually do itEvil b) sometimes do it Mixture c) hardly ever do itThe fourth question is…Good When I send money for use overseas I think it should be spent to –Timea) make a better life for the futureFuture b) make a better life now Presentc) keep the old ways and customs alive Past8Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 3https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/3It had been hypothesised that intergenerational values disparity would be greatest amongthe migrant families, whose teenagers had grown up in New Zealand, and whose parentsin their homeland. On the other hand it was expected that differences between thegenerations would be least in the remote rural villages. In fact the opposite was found. Thegreatest intergenerational value disparities were found in the remote villages, significantlygreater than those found in the Pacific towns, which in turn were greater than thedisparities found in the migrant families in New Zealand. Next came the Maori NewZealanders, with the least disparity of all being between the young Pakeha NewZealanders and their parents.In discussing these findings with South Pacific academics it became clear that acontributing variable which had not been taken into account was that of modern educationand communication. Young people in the Pacific were listening to radios, readingnewspapers and magazines, and, most importantly, going to schools whose teachers,even though of their own race and culture, had been trained in modern training collegesand universities. Consequently these young people were rapidly becoming acculturated tothe Western Euro-American culture, whereas their parents remained more traditional andwere only slowly changing. This disparity in what could be called globalization of culturewas less apparent in the South Pacific towns and least in the towns and cities of the hostcountry, New Zealand.This study thus provided insights into the processes of culture change, theconsequences of migration, and some of the factors influencing relationships betweenteenagers and their parents. Using the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck theory and applying it ina practical study made these increased insights possible.Developments of the TheoryKluckhohn and Strodtbeck themselves suggested that their theory was not complete.Moreover they did not provide measures for all the orientations they did propose. Theytherefore left ample opportunity for further development of their theory. An illustration ofthis is the author’s work in New Zealand (Hills, 1998). As has been shown above, wedeveloped a clear, straightforward means of assessing orientations – for the Nature ofHuman Nature as well as for the other four value areas proposed by Kluckhohn andStrodtbeck. However, more recently we have also looked at other basic questions forwhich also all societies must provide answers. These answers are limited in number, andall alternatives are known to all societies. However they differ in the ranking they give eachalternative. Examples include the allocation of space, the nature of work, the relationshipbetween the genders, and the relationship between individual and state. Listed below aresome alternative answers to these questions, and items illustrating how the rankings givento the alternative orientations can be assessed (see Table 4).A questionnaire using these questions and others like them has been tested in asmall pilot study and the results so far are encouraging. However it has yet to be used in afull-scale study. There are no doubt other great questions for which all societies must findpreferred answers. The meaning of life and death, and the nature of the supernatural and9Hills: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation TheoryProduced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011humanity’s relationship to it, are two which come to mind. This is further illustration of thepotential richness of the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck theory.Table 4Proposed further basic values questions and alternative answers to them________________________________________________________________________SpaceShould space belong to individuals, to groups (especially the family) or to everybody?It is most important that society guaranteea) The right of each citizen to have a place they can call their own Individualsb) Each family a home of their own Families or groups c) The public areas and spaces, available to all, but owned by no oneperson or group.Everybody WorkWhat should be the basic motivation for work? To make a contribution to society, to have a senseof personal achievement, or to attain financial security?When deciding what courses to take, a university student should give top priority to courses whichteach:a) How to make a contribution to society Contributionb) Subjects which are exciting or fulfilling Achievementc) Subjects which will ensure a good salary after graduating Financial securityGenderHow should society distribute roles, power and responsibility between the genders?The right and responsibility to make decisions which affect the whole community should usually begiven toa) Men Maleb) Women Femalec) Both men and women equally BothThe state-individual relationshipShould precedent right and responsibility be accorded the nation or the individual?When deciding how an important issue like ensuring that its members have the best healthpossible, it is best if a society ensures thata) Each person takes full financial responsibility for their own health care withno subsidy from the state.Individualb) Free and full health care is provided for all citizens by the government Nationc) The individual and the government each pays a reasonable proportion ofhealth care costsBoth10Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 3https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/3It has shortcomings, of course. As it deals with values, rather than attitudes, it is generalrather than specific, and so can only be used to examine general trends in behaviour, andnot used to predict specific behaviours in any one situation. Moreover most behaviour ismultiply determined, and so the theory may be termed simplistic, in that it attempts toexplain one dimension at a time. Its use of rankings and preferences makes it difficult toanalyse statistically. Despite these faults it is a bold and elegant attempt to expresssomething common to all humanity – the values on which so much of society is based, andfrom which our attitudes, cognition, emotions and behaviours evolve.Moreover, it is not the only theory of values proposed by psychologists. Asmentioned above, Rokeach (1979) put forward a theory and an instrument reflecting it(The Rokeach Study of Values) which has been widely used and has proved useful inmany different types of study. Hofstede (1980, 2001) surveyed values in over 100 differentcountries and came up with five basic value dimensions: Power Distance, UncertaintyAvoidance, Individualism, Masculinity/Femininity and Short-term vs Long-term Orientation.His work too has sparked a great deal of further research and is the most studied valuestheory currently in use. Yet another influential values theory has been that of Schwartz(1992). From studies of values held in over 50 countries, he proposes 10 which manifestuniversally in individuals (Achievement, Benevolence, Conformity, Hedonism, Power,Security, Self-direction, Stimulation, Tradition, Universalism) and seven which appearacross cultures (Affective Autonomy, Conservatism, Egalitarian Commitment, Harmony,Hierarchy, Intellectual Autonomy and Mastery). Some similarities between the Hofstedeand Schwartz theories can be detected, and Smith and Bond (1998) suggest that as theyoverlap almost completely although they were derived using different methods, we areclose to reaching a universally applicable theory of values.It is clear from this that the interest in values measurement across cultures which wasinitiated by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck continues to accelerate. We can use values both tostudy change and variation within a culture, and differences and similarities betweencultures. Although the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck theory was derived half-way though lastcentury it has generated much further research, which has in turn generated new theories.Though their work our understanding of ourselves as human beings has been increased.ConclusionThe psychological study of values worthwhile for several reasons. Using the valuesconcept, the researcher can aim to cover the whole of life-space, not just the positive andthe negative, as with attitudes. Values are central to human thought, emotions andbehaviour. They are cross-culturally relevant and valid, and finally, values allow bothbetween-group and within-group comparisons. If we accept that values are important forthe psychologist to understand, then the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck theory of valuesorientations is a useful and valid framework within which to study them.11Hills: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation TheoryProduced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011ReferencesAllport, G. W., Vernon, P. E. & Lindzey, G. (1931, 1951 & 1960). Study of values: A scalefor measuring the dominant interests in personality. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology,4, 119-128Hills, M. D. (1977). Values in the South Pacific. Paper presented at the Annual Conferenceof the New Zealand Psychological Society in Auckland, New Zealand.Hills, M. D. & Goneyali, E. (1980). Values in Fijian families (Monograph). Hamilton, NewZealan: University of Waikato, Department of Psychology.Hills, M. D. (1998). Developing the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck Values Orientation Instrument inNew Zealand. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the InternationalAssociation for Cross-Cultural Psychology. Bellingham, WA, United States.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-relatedvalues. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutionsand organizations across nations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Kluckhohn, C. K. (1949). Mirror for man: the relation of anthropology to modern life.Berkeley, CA: Whittlesey House.Kluckhohn, C. K. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of action. In T.Parsons and E. A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.Kluckhohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL:Row, Peterson.Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckhohn, C. K. (1952) Culture: A critical review of concepts anddefinitions. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.Lane, R. H. (1976). Polynesia and Europe meet: A new heritage. Unpiublished master’sthesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, Psychology Department.Rokeach, M. (1979) Understanding human values: Individual and societal. New York: TheFree Press.Russo, K. (Ed). (1992). Our people, our land: perspectives on the ColumbusQuincentenary. Seattle, WA: The Florence R Kluckhohn Center and the LummiIndian tribe.Russo, K. W. (Ed). (2000). Finding the middle ground: Insights and applications of theValue Orientations method. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Russo, K., Hills, M. D. et al. (1984). Value orientations in the Lummi Indian community andtheir commercial associates. Report to the Lummi Indian Council. Bellingham, WA.Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoreticaladvances and empirical tests in 20 cultures. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol 25, pp 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1999). Human behavior inglobal perspective: An introduction to cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed). Boston,MA: Allyn and Bacon.12Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 3https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/3Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd ed.). London,UK: Prentice Hall.Wrightsman, L. S. (1992). Assumptions about human nature: implications for researchersand practitioners (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.About the AuthorMichael Hills is a New Zealander teaching Social, Cross-cultural and Disability Psychologyat the University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. His master’s degree examined thedevelopment of ethnic awareness and attitudes in White and Maori children, and his PhDat the Australian National University, Canberra, focussed on second-generation migrantteenagers and their parents. Since then he has researched and taught about the relationsbetween majority and minority ethnic groups, focussing particularly on the indigenousMaori and immigrant Polynesian minorities and their relations with the White majority inNew Zealand. In recent years he has broadened this interest in disadvantaged minoritygroups to research the psychology of living and coping with disabilities, especiallyepilepsy. Currently he is developing Quality of Life measures both for New Zealanders ingeneral, and those with disabilities in particular, as well as researching culturallyappropriate ways to provide education and support to Maori living and coping withepilepsy.Questions for Discussion1. Define a value. Explain how a value affects human behavior.2. What are the most important values you hold? Can you rank them?3. Where do you think your values came from?4. How do the values you hold compare with those of others? Your friends? Your family?Most other people in your community?5. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck suggested five universal questions which all humansocieties must be able to answer. They suggested a sixth, and this article suggeststhree more. Can you think of any others? What might be some of the possible answersto them?6. Most psychological research has relied on questionnaires to study people’s values.What other methods of measuring values might be feasible?7. What do you see as the relationship between values and attitudes? Beliefs? Opinions?Morality?8. This article has reported two ways in which value measurement has been practicallyuseful. Can you think of other situations in which understanding and measuringpeople’s values might be useful?13Hills: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation TheoryProduced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011Related Websiteshttp://www.valuescenter.org/home.html14Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 3https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/3

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *