What is the better predictor of students’ personal values: Parents’ values or students’ personality?

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

What is the better predictor of students’ personal values: Parents’ values or students’ personality? Magdalena Bobowik a,∗ , Jan Pieter van Oudenhoven b , Nekane Basabe a , Saioa Telletxea a , Darío Páez a a University of the Basque Country, Department of Social Psychology and Methodology of Behaviour Sciences, Avenida de Tolosa 70, 20018 San Sebastián, Spain b Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Accepted 29 January 2011 Keywords: Personality Values Multicultural personality Parents Dyadic data analysis

a b s t r a c t This study examines the relationship between young adults’ values, multicultural personality traits and their parents’ values. A total of 102 students and their matched parents filled in the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire and the Portrait Value Questionnaire. The influence of one’s personality and one’s parents’ values on personal values was tested by hierarchical regression analyses and structural equation modelling. The analyses revealed a greater contribution of multicultural personality to the variance in stimulation, selfdirection, universalism, and achievement values in comparison to the impact of parents’ values, whereas an opposite pattern was found for power, benevolence, and conformity. Tradition, hedonism, and security were found to be linked to multicultural personality and parents’ values to a similar extent. Furthermore, overall trait-like parents’ values were better predictors of the offspring’s trait-like values, and the same effect held for parental societal values: they predicted better the offspring’s societal values. The authors discuss the need for differentiation between trait-like and societally oriented values and the application of content-tailored personality measures, in line with previous studies. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Up to now, on examining the link between personality and values, researchers have focused on the five-factor model (McCrae & Costa, 1997), which proposes five basic personality traits. However, general personality traits may not be sensitive enough to explain variance in values which are dependent on the cultural background. Analyzing relationships between general personality traits and values is not enough, and defining new and content-specific concepts becomes necessary. In view of the constantly advancing erosion of monocultural societies and the emergence of pluralistic ones, it is more common for people to be aware of and accept the fact that contemporary societies are made up of many cultural groups which tend to live not only next to each other but also together (Sam & Berry, 2006). In such contexts, new types of traits are becoming relevant for constructive and effective interpersonal or intergroup interaction. In this study we go beyond exploring the relationship between personality and values. The first and most significant innovative element of this study is its introduction of a new, more content-specific measure of personality traits, and the

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 943015738; fax: +34 943015670. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Bobowik), [email protected] (J.P. van Oudenhoven), [email protected] (N. Basabe), [email protected] (S. Telletxea), [email protected] (D. Páez). 0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.006

M. Bobowik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

489

linking of it with personal values. We believe that measuring multicultural personality (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000) enables us to better assess the impact of personality on culture-related phenomena such as values, since this concept was tailored to predict culturally relevant concepts such as overcoming acculturative difficulties, psychological adaptation abroad, or success in an intercultural context in general. That is, this study examines for the first time the relative influence of the multicultural personality versus that of the social environment (parents’ values) on individual’s personal values. We try to analyze whether basic human values are predicted by an individual’s personality profile or are culturally learned strategies, transmitted within each person’s family environmental context, mainly through parents’ values. If personality matters more, we might allow for an interpretation that values can be seen as – at least – partially conditioned by one’s biological constitution. If parents’ values are the component which explains more variance in individual’s preferences for pursuing some goals, then socialization should be considered as a more relevant determinant for the structure of people’s value hierarchy. Furthermore, we explore the variability in the extent to which values can be considered as societally oriented constructs, related to parents’ values, or trait-like ones, and associated with personality. We expect that whereas for traitlike values the individual’s multicultural personality traits will be more pertinent, for societally oriented values the parents’ values will be the crucial factor. 1.1. Personality and values The Big Five personality dimensions and Schwartz’s 10 basic human values are probably the most commonly used models within the concepts of personality and values. Both were empirically shown to be universal (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2001), as the structure of emerging dimensions for each of the models is consistent throughout different cultures. Whereas there is empirical evidence that countries do not strongly differ in their personality profiles (McCrae & Costa, 1996) and that traits are heritable (Jang, Livesly, & Vernon, 1996), with little contribution of shared family environment (Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998), values vary in their importance across nations or social groups (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). This suggests that socialization or environmental transmission might be essential for the development of values. Although there are differences, the way people tend to organize personal values according to their importance was also demonstrated to be pan-cultural (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001), which suggests their adaptive function for successful societal functioning. Thus, it is often emphasized that personality is largely hereditary, while values – although rooted in the universal requirements of the human condition – are cognitive individual preferences or abstract beliefs which also reflect socialization to guide people’s behavior (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz, 1992). However, there is growing evidence that personality traits and values are intercorrelated. First, various studies, mostly focused on the five-factor model and personal values, exhibited similar relationship patterns throughout different countries: Australia (Haslam, Whelan, & Bastian, 2009), China (Luk & Bond, 1993; Yik & Tang, 1996), Germany (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994), Israel (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002), and the United States (Dollinger, Leong, & Ulicni, 1996; Olver & Mooradian, 2003). If we only take into account correlations of over 0.30 in at least two studies, the previous findings could be summarized as follows: Agreeableness is associated with high benevolence and tradition, but with low power and achievement; openness to experience is related to high universalism, self-direction, and stimulation, but to low conformity; extraversion is linked with high achievement; conscientiousness is associated with conformity, while neuroticism is only weakly related to some values. Moreover, a study with samples from 33 countries by Hofstede and McCrae (2004) revealed that personality scores were substantially correlated with culture dimensions of individualism–collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity–femininity. Hence, it has become empirically evident that the differentiation between the two concepts cannot be considered an absolute distinction. Personality characteristics should not be regarded as completely unaffected by cultural factors. McCrae and John (1992) – although strongly endorsing an evolutionary approach to traits – stressed that there exists a minimal variability in levels of personality traits which reflect the fact that different cultures developed social niches establishing distinct personality requirements. On the other hand, values are supposed to be conditioned by three universal human needs: biological needs of individuals, necessity to coordinate social interaction, and the need for the survival and welfare of groups (Schwartz, 1992). The necessity to coordinate social interaction, in particular, leads to cultural variation. There is some evidence, however, that values and attitudes (which are related to more specific goals or situations than values) are also to some extent determined by a hereditary component. For example, half of the variance in altruism, empathy, and nurturance was found to be contributed by the genetic factor (Rushton, Fulkner, Neale, Nias, & Eysenck, 1986), while for social responsibility it was 42% (Rushton, 2004). Similarly, another study (Waller, Kojetin, Bouchard, Lykken, & Tellegen, 1990) demonstrated that genes account for half of the variance in religious attitudes and values. In sum, there might be a considerable amount of shared variance between an individual’s personal values and traits due to the underlying genetic factor or a biological bond between parental and child’s values — as Waller et al. (1990) concluded, parent–child correlations should no longer be interpreted as reflecting only the influence of family environment. To shed some more light on this issue we shall analyze the contribution of parental values to the variance in personal values over the impact of personality traits, so that the supposed part of biological heritability is partially taken into account. Second, we also consider the contribution of parents’ personality with the aim of excluding the possibility of stronger interference from a hereditary component within the parent–child value relationship when contrasted with the value-transmission hypothesis. If parental personality does not add a notable amount of variance to students’ values, it can be assumed that the influence of parental values on their children’s values rather occurs through a socialization-related process of the transmission of life priorities.

490

M. Bobowik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

1.2. Multicultural personality Many scholars have explored personality traits in terms of right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, ethnocentrism, or generalized attitude (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levison, & Sanford, 1950; Allport, 1954; Altemeyer, 1998), which are of relevance to intercultural relations because they imply a disposition to prejudice. Yet few scholars have sought to build measures for assessing personality traits as linked to multicultural effectiveness or dealing with intercultural situations. This led Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000) to create a specific measure for predicting successful adaptation in a multicultural context (Multicultural Personality Questionnaire, MPQ). Using such a construct can provide a balance between the focus on predispositions detrimental to the functioning of culturally heterogeneous societies and strengthen the importance of identifying and further developing new dispositions which can be crucial not only for minimizing prejudice but also for fostering mutually successful intercultural interaction. The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire consists of five dimensions, which can be crucial when dealing, for example, with acculturative stress or simply with intercultural situations. Cultural empathy (CE) refers to the ability to empathize with the feelings, behavior or emotions of people with a different cultural background. Open-mindedness (OM) is defined as an unprejudiced attitude towards individuals proceeding from different cultures, their norms and beliefs. Social initiative (SI) can be referred to as a tendency to actively approach social interaction and take initiative in interpersonal situations. Emotional stability (ES) enables people to remain calm under pressure while not reacting with strong emotions when exposed to stressors. Finally, flexibility (FX) could be described as an ability to adjust one’s behavior according to environmental demands within a cultural context. The instrument measuring these five dimensions was shown to possess construct validity and to be stable over time. The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire was originally developed to be applied in organizational contexts as a criterion for personnel selection; it subsequently proved to have predictive value not only among expatriate employees (Van Oudenhoven, Mol, & Van der Zee, 2003), but also among international students (Van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002) and immigrants (Van der Zee, Van Oudenhoven, & Bakker, 2002), as well as in different cultural settings (Leone, Van der Zee, Van Oudenhoven, Perugini, & Ercolani, 2005; Van Oudenhoven, Timmerman, & Van der Zee, 2007). For example, it was shown that individuals who score high on multicultural personality traits perceive intercultural situations as safer than individuals scoring low on these traits (Van der Zee, Van Oudenhoven, & De Grijs, 2004). More specifically, a study by Ward, Fischer, Lam, and Hall (2009) revealed that among the five multicultural personality traits it was emotional stability which predicted psychological outcomes. MPQ subscales show some conceptual overlap with the components of cultural intelligence (Ward et al., 2009), that is, one’s capability to adapt to a new cultural context. Actually, with just two exceptions, all cultural intelligence components were moderately to strongly associated with all multicultural personality traits, and especially with open-mindedness. Multicultural personality traits were also found to be related to some Big Five personality traits, among both Dutch and Italian students (Leone et al., 2005; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000). Some of the dimensions are clearly similar to the Big Five factors, while others seem to be quite distinct constructs. Social initiative corresponds strongly to extraversion, while emotional stability is strongly and negatively related to neuroticism. Flexibility was associated positively with need for change, and negatively – in contrast to ethnocentricity (Adorno et al., 1950) – with rigidity in the Dutch sample and with cognitive need for closure in the Italian one. In Leone et al.’s research (2005), cultural empathy was also moderately related to agreeableness. In sum, there is strong evidence for the construct validity of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. 1.3. A need for differentiation according to value types Similarly, the model of personal values was validated across many countries (Schwartz, 1992), and suggests the existence of 10 basic human values: universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction. Among them, we can make a distinction between societally oriented values and trait-like ones. We believe that universalism, achievement, hedonism, self-direction and stimulation can be regarded as trait-like values, whereas benevolence, tradition, conformity, security and power are more related to issues relevant for society and interpersonal relationships. Such a distinction is largely in agreement with previous authors’ proposals and findings on values related to moral versus conventional and prudential issues (Knafo & Schwartz, 2009). Universalism, benevolence, and power values refer — according to the authors to moral issues, conformity relates mostly to conventional issues (linked to social norms), tradition concerns both moral and conventional issues, while security refers to prudential issues, oriented towards safety. Similarly, we speculate that the universal human needs mentioned by Schwartz, which refer to the more organismic strivings of an individual, are more determined by personality traits. These values, also referred to as intrinsic ones, would be oriented towards satisfying self-actualization or psychological growth needs related to individualistic interests (Kasser & Ryan, 1996). We find among them universalism (self-transcendence), self-direction, stimulation, hedonism (openness to change needs), and achievement (Sagiv, Roccas, & Hazan, 2004). Knafo and Schwartz’s (2009) study confirms that parental values are accepted to a lesser degree in a personal domain compared with values in other domains. Indeed, adolescent were more reluctant to accept parental values of self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, and achievement more than other values, with exception of universalism (Knafo & Schwartz, 2009). As regards hedonism, some authors argue that this value might serve to satisfy extrinsic needs (Veenhoven, 2003). Indeed, on the one hand hedonism can be linked to over-consumption or

M. Bobowik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

491

use of stimulants — general pursuit of sensory pleasures which may be inadaptive. However, seeking enjoyable experiences can at the same time be seen as a natural, biological, and strongly adaptive need which leads to feelings of happiness if the need is satisfied. In contrast, some values are strongly related to education or socialization, and consequently to the way parents raise their children. Among such social values would be those related to handling social interaction and interpersonal communication, as well as those associated with the survival and welfare of the group. Logically, the values set out by Schwartz (1992) as serving collective interests, or satisfying needs of coordinated social interaction, are those concerning social purposes: benevolence, tradition, and conformity. On the other hand, the values of security and power might be crucial for the other universal human need of elementary survival, which is naturally determined through the gaining or maintaining of social status or the seeking of stability and harmony. Furthermore, it cannot go unnoticed that such a subset of values – tradition, conformity, security, and power (but not benevolence) – are also recognized as extrinsic values (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Sagiv et al., 2004), related to external motivation, and oriented towards obtaining others’ approval, admiration, and praise. Benevolence can be regarded as a prototypical pro-social value, since its main goal is preservation of the well-being of people with whom one frequently interacts. Finally, power seems to be a value which – if considered important by parents – becomes an essential determinant of hierarchy in the family and imposes obedience to rules. For example, a study on authoritarian parents’ value transmission (Knafo, 2003) showed that the children of authoritarians valued power more. Hence, we expect tradition, conformity, security, benevolence, and power to form a group of societally oriented values and to be more influenced by parental beliefs than by the individual’s personality. 1.4. Hypotheses To recapitulate, the objectives and hypotheses of this study will follow the continuum which extends from a more specific to the more general categorization of values: That is, from hypotheses concerning 10 motivational types to the trait-like versus societal values differentiation. First, as regards the parent–child relationship, we expect that each parental value will be related to a corresponding value of the offspring, and that parental trait-like values overall will be more strongly associated with the students’ trait-like than societal values whereas parental societal values will be more strongly associated with students’ societal than trait-like values. Second, we hypothesize that multicultural personality traits will be a better predictor than parental values of trait-like values – universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, and achievement – whereas parental values will be a better predictor than multicultural personality of societally oriented values: benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, and power. Finally, we shall test whether it is overall multicultural personality traits or parental values that contribute to the offspring’s personal values. 2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure A cross-sectional dyadic-level design was applied in this study, in which a participant was matched with his or her parent (paired samples). Respondents were 102 social work students from an introductory Social Psychology group at the University of the Basque Country, who took part in the study as a course research requirement and received credits for their participation. Eight of the student–parent dyads were deleted from the sample because either the student or the parent did not complete the questionnaires properly. This left a total of 94 dyads in the study. The missing rate for these 94 dyads was small, not exceeding 5% in either the students or parent sample (students were asked during the class to review their questionnaires carefully, as well as reviewing their parents’ responses at home). The missing values were substituted with mode values for the particular item in the corresponding sample (student or parent). Mean age was 21.8 (SD = 4.80) and 50.6 (SD = 7.23), respectively, and 86.2% and 67.4% of the participants were female, for students and parents, also respectively.1 Eighty-seven percent of the students were born in one of the three provinces of the autonomous region of the Basque Country, and 96.8% were unmarried or not living with a partner. Among the parents, 67.1% were born in the autonomous region of the Basque Country, 49.4% had completed secondary education, and 70.2% were professionally active. Only one person (a parent) reported being born in a foreign country (Chile). All the questionnaires were administered in Spanish. The students completed an in-class questionnaire and were asked to let one of their parents to fill out the same questionnaire. All responses remained anonymous. 2.2. Instruments 2.2.1. Multicultural Personality Questionnaire2 The MPQ consisted of 91 items aimed at the five traits: cultural empathy, open-mindedness, social initiative, emotional stability, and flexibility. Participants were to respond on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally inapplicable to 5 = totally applicable).

1 2

Frequencies and means are given for valid data. The proportion of missing data for socio-demographic data did not exceed 10%. For the Spanish or English version of the questionnaire, please contact the authors.

492

M. Bobowik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

Table 1 Reliability estimates: multicultural personality and values. Cronbach’s ˛

No. of items Universalism Benevolence Tradition Conformity Security Power Achievement Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction Cultural empathy Open-mindedness Social initiative Emotional stability Flexibility

6 4 5 3 5 3 4 3 3 4

0.76 0.69 0.67 0.55 0.70 0.51 0.69 0.76 0.79 0.62

16 17 16 20 17

0.84 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.81

Table 2 Correlations between students’ personal values and multicultural personality traits (total sample). CE UN BE TR CO SE PO AC HE ST SD

0.13* 0.21*** −0.18** −0.17** −0.27*** −0.11+ 0.01 0.16** 0.15** 0.23***

OM

SI

ES

FX

0.20*** 0.05 −0.42*** −0.34*** −0.43*** 0.08 0.12* 0.19*** 0.35*** 0.42***

−0.03 0.09 −0.23*** −0.35*** −0.23*** 0.17** 0.07 0.15** 0.21*** 0.34***

0.10+ 0.09 −0.02 −0.12 −0.10 0.06 −0.07 0.00 −0.04 0.14

0.15** 0.14* −0.39*** −0.48*** −0.55*** −0.08 −0.02 0.45*** 0.66*** 0.40***

Note. CE: cultural empathy, OM: open-mindedness, SI: social initiative, ES: emotional stability, FX: flexibility, UN: universalism, BE: benevolence, TR: tradition, CO: conformity, SE: security, PO: power, AC: achievement, HE: hedonism, ST: stimulation, SD: self-direction. Correlations were controlled for each respondent’s mean rating of all values to correct for scale use, as recommended by Schwartz (1992). N = 292–294; *** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05, + p ≤ 0.10.

A bilingual person with knowledge of the topic translated the English version of the questionnaire into Spanish. Subsequently, a Spanish native speaker readjusted some formulations that sounded “awkward”, and the questionnaire was then backtranslated into English. An expert compared the two English versions, and final readjustments were made to those items still causing problems. From the total pool of 91 items, five items were dropped because of poor correlations with other items of the same scale. Spanish-worded items could have some culture-specific content. Subsequently, mean scores for the five MPQ dimensions were calculated and used in the analyses. As shown in Table 1, all five dimensions showed satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.79 to 0.84). 2.2.2. Portrait Value Questionnaire The 40-item (PVQ-40) (Schwartz et al., 2001; Spanish version in Zlobina, 2004) scale consists of verbal portraits of different people, describing their goals, aspirations, and wishes. Respondents were to indicate on a 6-point Likert scale (from 1 = not at all like me to 6 = very much like me) how much like them is the person described in each item (for example, “It is important to him to be rich”). Measures include the 10 motivational types described previously. The reliabilities for the 10 personal values are also presented in Table 1. To test the discriminant validity of the two measures, we ran a series of correlation analyses between students’ multicultural personality dimensions and values. As shown in Table 2, correlations are weak or moderate and do not exceed 0.50 (except for stimulation and flexibility, which correlate with a value of 0.63), which demonstrates that multicultural personality and personal values are independent constructs. 2.3. Data analysis The hypotheses of the study were tested by performing bivariate correlations, two alternative hierarchical regression models for each of the 10 personal values, and by applying structural equation modelling (path analysis) as a means of summarizing the data and findings. To test the hypothesis that parental values will be more associated with the corresponding type of students’ values, considering both the 10 value types and the differentiation between trait-like and societal values, a series of bivariate Pearson correlations was carried out. Following the recommendations by Schwartz (2009), we centred individuals’ value

M. Bobowik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

493

Table 3 Child–parent Pearson correlations for personal values. UNP UN BE TR CO SE PO AC HE ST SD

0.25** 0.28** −0.13* −0.19** −0.21** −0.21 −0.08 0.23* 0.03 0.18+

BEP

TRP

COP

SEP

POP

ACP

HEP

STP

SDP

0.20* 0.14 −0.03 −0.14* −0.13* −0.18 −0.16 0.06 0.16 0.15

−0.04 0.03 0.29** 0.12 −0.02 −0.12 −0.12 −0.09 −0.06 −0.08

−0.01 0.03 0.17 0.33** 0.03 −0.01 −0.02 −0.06 −0.15 −0.37***

−0.08 −0.17+ 0.01 0.00 0.37*** 0.13 −0.07 0.02 −0.10 −0.20

−0.06 −0.03 −0.05 0.06 −0.10 0.30** 0.14 −0.24* −0.12 0.07

−0.03 −0.07 −0.13 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.13 −0.13 −0.17 −0.06

−0.08 −0.20* −0.07 −0.12 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.23* 0.15 0.01

−0.12 0.01 0.01 −0.03 −0.20* −0.04 0.11 −0.12 0.23* 0.17

−0.07 −0.06 −0.13 −0.05 −0.03 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.17+

Note. UN: universalism, BE: benevolence, TR: tradition, CO: conformity, SE: security, PO: power, AC: achievement, HE: hedonism, ST: stimulation, SD: self-direction; UNP − SDP = parental values. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, + p < 0.10.

responses (for both students and parents) on their own mean for all 40 items, to eliminate individual differences in use of the response scale. In the second step, to test whether the individual’s multicultural personality traits are better predictors of students’ traitlike values, while parental values are better predictors of students’ societally oriented values, we compared the amount of variance explained by multicultural personality and by parental values for each value separately in the hierarchical regression analyses. The criterion variables in the models were the 10 personal values, while parents’ personal values and students’ multicultural personality traits served as predictor variables. For each criterion variable two regression tests were performed to verify the amount of variance added either by values over personality or by personality over values. For this purpose, in each case two steps were carried out: for option A, students’ values were regressed on their MPQ dimensions in the first step, and on both MPQ and parental values scores in the second step (MPQ dimensions were controlled in the second step). In the alternative regression test (option B), the steps were identical, but in this case, in the first step only parental values were entered, and subsequently students’ MPQ scores were entered to see to what extent an individual’s personality explains the variance in one’s personal values over his or her parents’ values. Again, we followed recommendations by Schwartz (2009): We entered centred students’ value scores as criterion variables and parents’ raw 10 value scores as predictor variables, but only with the aim of interpreting the total variance accounted for by values (we did not interpret the coefficients due to the possible multicollinearity or high intercorrelations among values). Finally, to test whether the basic human values are predicted by an individual’s overall multicultural personality profile or rather by parental values, we compared the averaged additional variance (R2 change) explained by the two alternative models, as well as the number of significant R2 changes.As a means of summarizing results in a more parsimonious model, we also performed a path analysis with application of EQS 6.1 software. This type of analysis allows the testing of a structural model, as simultaneous equations may be considered, and describes the influence of a set of variables over others. The estimation procedure applied was maximum likelihood, which tests the hypothesis of equality of covariance matrices of the theoretical and empirical models. Thus, when the matrices are equal, the empirical model’s fit is perfect. To assess the fit of the empirical model we reported on the following indicators: (a) the chi-square value of statistical fitting of the empirical model, which is expected to take low values; (b) the normed fit index (NFI) and comparative fit index (CFI) as indicators of goodness of fit, with values to be achieved of over 0.90; and (c) the mean square standardized residual (SRMR) and the root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), a value of under 0.05 being recommended as a satisfactory fit index (Bentler, 1990; Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). We calculated and put into the model the mean total score for both students’ and parents’ MPQ and the mean score of the constituent items for each of the previously defined value types: trait-like and societal values. Both value types reached satisfactory reliability (0.77 and 0.79 in the student sample and 0.79 and 0.71 in the parents’ sample). MPQ scores of both students and parents and parental values (trait-like and societal) were used as independent variables, while students’ trait-like and societal values were entered as dependent variables. 3. Results 3.1. Student–parent correlations of personal values As regards the student–parent relationship between specific value types, most values correlated significantly with the corresponding parental values (Table 3). For example, children’s universalism values are associated with parental universalism, children’s power value correlates positively with parental appreciation of power, and so on. The same effect was found for tradition, conformity, security, as well as weakly for hedonism and stimulation. However, benevolence in the students was related to parental appreciation of universalism, and vice versa; moreover, conformity was dependent on parents’ rejection of the self-direction value; and stimulation was predicted by parental rejection of the security value.

494

M. Bobowik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

Table 4 Changes in the amount of variance explained by option A versus option B: hierarchical regressions for the prediction of students’ personal values. UN

BE

TR

CO

SE

R2 0.38 0.21 0.33 0.28 0.43 A. Students’ values regressed on parents’ values controlling for students’ personality 0.09 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.19 R2 F 1.20 1.35 1.18 1.43 2.58** B. Students’ values regressed on students’ personality controlling for parents’ values 0.22 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.19 R2 F 5.51*** 0.73 3.59** 1.39 5.36***

PO

AC

HE

0.24

0.19

0.30

ST 0.48

0.48

0.15 1.57

0.05 0.46

0.18 2.06*

0.06 0.95

0.14 2.12*

0.06 1.25

0.12 2.41*

0.13 2.90*

0.35 10.53***

SD

0.23 6.88***

Note. CE: cultural empathy, OM: open-mindedness, SI: social initiative, ES: emotional stability, FX: flexibility, M PVQ: each respondent’s mean rating of all values, UN: universalism, BE: benevolence, TR: tradition, CO: conformity, SE: security, PO: power, AC: achievement, HE: hedonism, ST: stimulation, SD: self-direction; UNp − SDp = parental values. R2 = R2 change. F = F-value change. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, + p < 0.10.

3.2. The societal versus trait-like values hypothesis: hierarchical regression On examining the hierarchical regression models for each of the 10 values separately (Table 4), it becomes clear that there are substantial differences between the components of Schwartz’s model. We expected that as regards benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, and power (societal-oriented values), parental value profiles would explain more variance in individuals’ personal values, while in the case of universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, and achievement (growth-oriented values), one’s personality would be a significant predictor. We found support for most of our predictions. With respect to growth-oriented or trait-like values, in four out of five cases the results confirmed our hypotheses. Personality traits were found to be a significant predictor for the values of universalism, stimulation, self-direction, and achievement, while parental values were not a significant predictor in any of the four cases. Personality exhibited the strongest predictive power in the case of stimulation, as it explained almost six times more variance when regressed over parental values than values did when entered in the regression over the traits. What is more, personality dimensions entered in the first step explained 41% of variance in the stimulation value, while the parental value profile explained only 13%. As regards self-direction, universalism and achievement, personality explained 23%, 22% and 12% of variance in these values, respectively, over parental values (which, in turn, explained 14%, 9%, and 5%, respectively, over multicultural personality traits). As regards hedonism, the results are less clear. In this case, both parental values and multicultural traits added significant amounts of variance to students’ values: 18% and 13% of variance, respectively. As societally oriented values are concerned, parental values explained more variance than did personality in three out of five hypothesized cases, but the differences were not always as clear as for trait-like values (the R2 change was not significant). For power, parental values explained two-and-a-half times as much variance (15% versus 6%). In the case of benevolence, a similar pattern was found (14% versus 4%), while for conformity the difference in the variance additionally explained by each of the predictors was the smallest (13% versus 6%). Parental values and personality explained the same, significant, amount of variance (19%) for the value of security. Finally, tradition – in contrast to what was expected – was found to be significantly more determined by personality (15%) than by the parental value profile (10%), though the difference was only 5% of variance. 3.3. Alternative regression models of students’ values on their MPQ dimensions and parents’ values Thirdly, we tested whether students’ own multicultural personality traits or parental values are better predictors of students’ personal values. As can be seen in Table 4, the additional variance explained by the parental values varies from 5% to 18% (12.3% on average) after controlling for personality, whereas traits added from 4% to 35% (15.5% on average) of variance over parents’ values. In addition, whereas personality involved a significant R2 change in 7 out of 10 regressions, the amount of variance added by parental values was statistically significant only in three cases. In sum, multicultural personality accounted for more additional variance in students’ values over parental values than parental values did over multicultural personality. As a matter of additional design control, all hierarchical regression analyses were repeated with a third set of variables added: parental multicultural personality. Parents’ multicultural personality traits did not add significant variance to any of the models. 3.4. Summarized results: a parsimonious path model Structural equation modelling was applied to reach a more parsimonious model of interrelations between students’ multicultural personality, students’ values, and parental values. Although regression analysis showed that the variance explained by multicultural personality and parental values was similar for certain students’ values, we decided to maintain the theoretical distinction between trait-like and societal values. For example, though for tradition and hedonism the variance

M. Bobowik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

495

MPQ (parents) -.14 .23 2

R = .30 -.03

MPQ (students)

.46***

Trait-like values (students)

-.21* .40 .29**

Trait-like values (parents)

-.05

.08

Societal values (parents) 2

R = .12

.27 .29**

Societal values (parents) Fig. 1. Path model, 2 (4, N = 94) = 4.282, p = 0.369; NFI = 0.946; CFI = 0.996; SRMR = 0.046; RMSEA = 0.028. Standardized regression coefficients, standardized covariances between predictor variables, and between error terms of criterion variables are shown. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

explained by parental values over personality, or vice versa, was lower than expected, the internal consistency of both traitlike and societal values estimates was most satisfactory when tradition was included in the trait-like value cluster and hedonism in the societal one. Path analysis confirmed the previous results. With regard to the first hypothesis, and as shown in Fig. 1, overall trait-like parental values were found to be better predictors of trait-like students’ values than of societal ones, and the same effect applied to societal values. Standardized regression coefficients were significant only for same-type value paths. The second prediction of our study can also be sustained: the coefficients of MPQ total score are higher for trait-like values than for societal ones. In contrast, parental societal values have greater weight in student’s societal values than in students’ trait-like ones. 4. Discussion This study demonstrates that personal values are strongly linked to an individual’s profile of multicultural personality, lending support to the claim in the literature about the association between personality and values. In line with our postulations, trait-like parental values were more pertinent for the offspring’s trait-like values and societal parental values were important predictors of the offspring’s societal values. Furthermore, the findings largely confirm that whereas growthoriented or individualistic values are more multicultural personality-based, societally oriented values are more determined by parental value profiles. Finally, multicultural personality traits were somewhat better predictors of individuals’ values (especially trait-like ones) than parental values. First, we have found a correspondence between similar values in parents and their offspring. Not only are most specific parental values related to the analogous values of their children, but there is a generational link for trait-like versus societal values on a more general level. However, we also hypothesized that trait-like or growth-oriented values of universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, and achievement, would be influenced by multicultural personality traits even more than by parental values (including parental trait-like values). Except for hedonism, the findings were congruent with our expectations. Stimulation, as well as self-direction, achievement, and universalism, can be regarded as more self-descriptive values and more related to intrinsic goals, and less dependent on socialization or value transmission. If we go back to the descriptive data on the relationship between students’ values and multicultural personality, it becomes clear that stimulation was most strongly predicted by flexibility of the personality. Such a result suggests that this value, defined by seeking excitement, variety, novelty, and challenges, is related to a cognitive style based on the aptitude for adaptation to new stimuli and, consequently, is considered to have temperamental bases (Schwartz, 1992) — related to the individual’s sensory sensitivity, for example. Self-direction, on the other hand, was also impacted by open-mindedness, another trait with cognitive bases. Understood as the appreciation of independence in action and thought, self-direction could be linked to the cognitive style of field independence. Our findings for both stimulation and self-direction were clearly congruent with previous research (Knafo & Schwartz, 2009).

496

M. Bobowik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

In the case of universalism – as we predicted – personality was again a crucial factor. Once more, open-mindedness was a relevant predictor of universalism values, as well as low social initiative. Such results shed light on the nature of the universalism value, which is commonly regarded as appreciation of equity and protection of human beings and nature. People who value universalism do not exhibit a strong tendency to take the lead among others, as they believe everybody deserves equal opportunities and equal participation in any activity. Achievement, in accordance with Knafo and Schwartz’s (2009) findings, proved to be a value more related to personal issues. It is related to low emotional stability (high neuroticism). This finding is in accordance with one of the studies on the association of values and personality (Roccas et al., 2002) and studies on the relation between neuroticism and academic achievement (e.g., Mol, Van Oudenhoven, & Van der Zee). One explanation might be that emotionally less stable, and thus more anxious, people more frequently experience fear of failure, which leads to higher appreciation of achievement and the need to demonstrate one’s own competence. Finally, hedonism was found to be predicted somewhat more by parental values. Moreover, this influence was particularly strong with respect to values we considered as societally oriented, hypothesized to be impacted more by socialization. If parents cherished hedonism values and rejected power values, their children also tended to appreciate hedonistic life more. An explanation is offered by Veenhoven (2003), who argues that hedonism is controversial, since some associate it with the art of living well and openness to pleasurable experience, whereas others equate it with moral decay, superficiality, substance abuse, and so on. It cannot be denied that within the last century hedonism has become a socially relevant value anchored in the frameworks of the cultural changes affecting a wide range of moral issues which were taboo in the past. Thus, it may be that it is not personal and innate characteristics which prompt a person to cherish life in a hedonistic way, but rather a society that approves of a pleasurable lifestyle, as reflected, for example, in the mass media. Neither can it be ignored that a culture-specific component might explain the high parent–child congruence on hedonism. The generation of parents included in our study went through a great change towards liberalism in social and moral life after the death of General Franco who ruled Spain till his death in 1975 as a dictator. They were adolescents or young adults in that period, and their attitudes as well as their systems of beliefs and values were still vulnerable to change. Today, their children live in a hedonism-promoting environment in a country that has known a tremendous economic growth over 30 years. Hence, in general the parent–child concordance could in this case be due to a shared macrosocial environment which makes the hedonism value salient. Indeed, the data demonstrates that hedonism is the fourth most important value for people living in the Basque Country (Basabe, Páez, Aierdi, Jiménez-Ariztabal, 2009). We also predicted that the values of benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, and power, as societally oriented values, would be more dependent on parental value profiles and that there would be a same-type value congruence for the parent–child relationship. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis for each value in question, except for tradition and to some extent security. First, power is clearly more socialization-dependent. Power is a typical hierarchical value related to status, control, and dominance. An individual’s high appreciation of the power value was found to be directly determined by the acknowledgement or even promotion of the same value by his or her parents, and this is also in line with previous results (Knafo, 2003; Knafo & Schwartz, 2009). Benevolence was also predicted by parental values to a greater extent than by the multicultural personality traits. However, it was not determined by parents’ appreciation of benevolence but by their approval for universalism and the rejection of self-direction values. Socialization of benevolence values could be simply understood as educating children to be good to others or help the weak. It seems reasonable that it is related to universalism, a value subjacent to benevolence. Finally, rejecting self-direction values by their parents might be necessary to make children adhere to pro-social values. As regards the offspring’s conformity, surprisingly, parental universalism values were once more relevant, together with their approval of conformity. We can assume that parents who consider universalism important treat their children as equals, and their parenting style is based on partnership (in contrast to the authoritarian style of imposing social norms and requiring obedience), so that value transmission may be more efficient. As regards security, the individual tends to appreciate it when his or her parent(s) do so. Security, as mentioned earlier, is a value stemming from a basic human need for survival, and such a striving is usually fulfilled when one feels to belong to such a stable and protective structure as the family. Hence, when parents make security a salient value in the family, children are more willing to internalize it. But the results obtained for this dimension were ambivalent: parental values and multicultural personality traits explained the same amount of variance in students’ appreciation of security. Tradition, on the other hand, showed a slightly opposite pattern to what we expected and to what was found by other researchers (Knafo & Schwartz, 2009). Tradition, considered a societally relevant value – related to moral or conventional issues – was largely negatively predicted by the trait of open-mindedness. This finding is possibly explained, however, by taking into account the content-specific measure of personality applied in this study. The MPQ concerns culturally relevant aspects of the human condition and measures traits that predispose people to become interculturally competent. Thus, a high commitment to one’s local tradition: customs, religion, beliefs, is not compatible with a multicultural personality. Open-mindedness does not match with the approval of conservative values. Clearly, further research is needed to clarify the parent–child influence in relation to values. Finally, we can also conclude that multicultural personality has a somewhat greater weight over values than parental values. However, it is also important to note that overall, multicultural personality traits and trait-like parental values together accounted for a greater amount of variance in students trait-like values, compared to parental multicultural personality

M. Bobowik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

497

and societal values, whose impact was weak. Second, the structural model explained 30% of variance in trait-like values, whereas for societal values our model managed to explain only 12% of variance, which suggests that apart from the parental transmission, there are other relevant antecedents of societal values. Future research should attempt to overcome the limitations of this study. The same relationship patterns should be examined in opposite-sex and same-sex dyads of parents and their children, as gender was found to be a considerably relevant factor in previous research (Knafo & Schwartz, 2009). Here, we could not perform such analyses due to the limited sample size. A larger sample including the participation of both parents would be desirable. It would also be advantageous to take into account that the present study focuses on young adults, and there may be additional variation as a function of generation (Miller & Glass, 1989). Furthermore, it would be interesting to carry out more refined research, preferably longitudinal and with twin samples, to examine the real contribution of genetics versus environmental impact to the variation in personal values. Our study permits us to conclude only that some values are more trait-dependent, whereas others are more strongly associated with parental values, and thus probably more socialization-based. A multilevel design including samples from several countries and different social groups (class, education, gender, age) is needed for testing the universality of these mechanisms. In future, we would like to replicate our results in the Latin-American context, as well as in other Spanish locations. Finally, there is also strong evidence that adolescent values are more similar to those of other adolescent groups than to parental values (Knafo & Schwartz, 2009), and the discrepancy between parents’ and their offspring’s values is even greater in the context of migration. Such findings highlight the importance of extrafamiliar socialization or peer networks in the emergence of the personal values hierarchy. In sum, our study contributes to the literature on antecedents of personal values, demonstrating that some values are more personality-determined, while others are related to parental values. We believe it is a significant step towards a better understanding of the content of personal values, as well as showing the relevance of applying specific and culture-sensitive personality measures. Acknowledgment This research was supported by the following University Research Grants: MCI PSI2008-02689/PSIC and 9/UPV00109.23113645/2001/2007. References Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, P. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Brothers. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Doubleday. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic Press. Basabe, N., Páez, D., Aierdi, X., & Jimenez-Aristizabal, A. (2009). Calidad de vida, Bienestar subjetivo y Salud: inmigrantes en la CAPV [Quality of life, subjective well-being and health: Immigrants in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country]. Bilbao: Ikuspegi. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and personality. European Journal of Personality, 8, 163–181. Dollinger, S. J., Leong, F. L., & Ulicni, S. K. (1996). On traits and values: With special reference to openness to experience. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 23–41. Haslam, N., Whelan, J., & Bastain, B. (2009). Big Five traits mediate associations between values and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 40–42. Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88. Jang, K. L., Livesley, J. W., & Vernon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the Big Five personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64(3), 577–591. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command. Language. NJ: Hillsdale, LEA. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287. Knafo, A. (2003). Authoritarians, the next generation: Values and bullying among adolescent children of authoritarian fathers. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), 199–204. Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2009). Accounting for parent–child value congruence: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. In U. Schönpflug (Ed.), Perspectives on cultural transmission. Oxford University Press. Leone, L., Van der Zee, K. I., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Perugini, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (2005). The cross-cultural generalizability and validity of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1449–1462. Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & John, O. P. (1998). Heritabilities of common and measure-specific components of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 431–453. Luk, C. L., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Personality variation and values endorsement in Chinese university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 429–437. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. Miller, R. B., & Glass, J. (1989). Parent-child attitude similarity across the life course. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 991–997. Olver, J. M., & Mooradian, T. A. (2003). Personality traits and personal values: A conceptual and empirical integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 109–125. Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789–801. Rushton, J. P. (2004). Genetic and environmental contributions to pro-social attitudes: A twin study of social responsibility. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2583–2585.

498

M. Bobowik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 488–498

Rushton, J. P., Fulker, D. W., Neale, M. C., Nias, D. K. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Altruism and aggression: The heritability of individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1192–1198. Sagiv, L., Roccas, S., & Hazan, O. (2004). Value pathways to well-being: Healthy values, valued goal attainment, and environmental congruence. In A. Linley, & J. Stephen (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 68–85). NY: John Wiley. Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S.H. (2009). Draft users manual: Proper use of the Schwartz value survey, version 14 January 2009. Compiled by Romie F. Littrell. Auckland, New Zealand: Centre for Cross Cultural Comparisons, http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32, 268–290. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehman, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542. Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 291–309. Van der Zee, K. I., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Bakker, W. (2002). Individual differences in adaptation and well-being. In D. Gorter, & K. I. Van der Zee (Eds.), Firisians abroad. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy Press. Van der Zee, K. I., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & De Grijs, E. (2004). Personality, threat, and cognitive and emotional reactions to stressful intercultural situations. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 1069–1096. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Mol, S., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2003). A study of the adjustment of Western expatriates in Taiwan ROC with the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ). Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6(2), 159–170. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Timmerman, M. E., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2007). Cross-cultural equivalence and validity of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire in an intercultural context. The Journal of International Communication, 13, 51–65. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2002). Predicting multicultural effectiveness in international students: The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 679–694. Veenhoven, R. (2003). Hedonism and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 437–457. Waller, N. G., Kojetin, B. A., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Genetic and environmental influences on religious interests, attitudes and values: A study of twins reared apart and together. Psychological Science, 1, 1–5. Ward, C., Fischer, R., Lam, S. F. Z., & Hall, L. (2009). The convergent, discriminant and incremental validity of scores on a self-report measure of cultural intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 85–105. Yik, M. S. M., & Tang, C. S. (1996). Linking personality and values: The importance of a culturally relevant personality scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 767–774. ˜ [National and regional stereotypes in Europe and Spain]. In D. Páez, I. Fernández, Zlobina, A. (2004). Estereotipos nacionales y regionales en Europa y Espana S. Ubillos, & E. Zubieta (Eds.), Psicología social, cultura y educación (pp. 776–789). Madrid: Prentice Hall.