#📓 #📄 #🟠 # Testing the circular structure and importance hierarchy of value states in real-time behaviors ![[calendar-plus.svg]] <small>Nov 14, 2021</small> | ![[calendar-clock.svg]] <small>Jan 03, 2023</small> 🏷️ [[ethics]] **Authors:** Ewa Skimina, Jan Cieciuch, [[Shalom H. Schwartz]], Eldad Davidov, René Algesheimer **Citation:** Skimina, E., Cieciuch, J., Schwartz, S. H., Davidov, E., & Algesheimer, R. (2018). Testing the circular structure and importance hierarchy of value states in real-time behaviors. _Journal of Research in Personality_, _74_, 42–49. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.001) --- # Summary This research is the first to assess directly Schwartz’s claim that the circular structure of values derives from value compatibilities or conflicts experienced in real-time behaviors. We differentiate two types of values: value traits guide perception and behavior over time and situations and value states guide real-time behavioral acts. We measured the value states of 374 participants for 13,873 behavioral acts with experience sampling, distinguishing volitional from non-volitional acts. As hypothesized, value states for volitional acts, but not for non-volitional acts reproduced the circular value structure. The importance hierarchies of value states differed substantially from the importance hierarchy of value traits, suggesting that the importance of value states depends more on situations than on the hierarchy of value traits. # Notes #### p. 45 - Relations between values and actions are a major source of the circular structure of the [[motivational continuum]] in the [[Schwartz theory of basic values]]. Assumes that real-time acts that express or promote each value simultaneously undermine other values. ([note on p.45](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=4)) #### p. 46 - People cannot choose to promote competing values simultaneously in any single act. People are more likely to choose to behave in ways that promote their more important values, but they may occasionally act in ways that promote less important or competing values. ([note on p.46](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=5)) #### p. 46 - Many studies have measured the importance of the ten values as [[value traits]], but none have measured how important different values are to people in their current, real-time behavior as [[value states]]. ([note on p.46](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=5)) #### p. 48 - In studying real-time behavior, the authors disgtinguished between [[volitional acts]] and [[non-volitional acts]]. #### p. 49 - The less autonomy a person has in choosing the less likely a person's behavior is to be influenced by their personal [[value priorities]]. In cases where circumstances coerce actions, those actions and the reasons given for them won't provide much information about the individual's actual values. ([note on p.49](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=8)) #### p. 50 - Values and actions have a reciprocal relationship, which is more relevant when concerning volitional acts. After acting in a particular way, people are likely to modify their value priorities to make the importance they ascribe more consistent with their actions. ([note on p.50](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=9)) #### p. 50 - Study conducted in Poland to determine if the importance of [[value states]] in real-time behaviors reproduced the same circular [[motivation continuum]] observed with [[value traits]]. Also sought to determine if hierarchy of values expressed in real-time behaviors is similar to that expressed in PVQ assessment. ([note on p.50](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=9)) #### p. 55 - The structure of values important in real-time, volitional actions was consistent with Schwartz' theory of the circular [[motivational continuum]], but for non-volitional behavior values for were located in different quadrants than expected for Conservation, Openness to chane and Self-transcendence. ([note on p.55](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=14)) #### p. 56 - Hierarchy of the importance of value states is different, in fact almost opposite, than the hierarchy of value traits. [[power (value)|Power]] and [[hedonism]] are most important and [[benevolence]] and [[universalism]] are unimportant when it comes to real-time behaviors. [[hedonism|Hedonism]] and [[stimulation]] values are very important motivators for real-time volitional acts, but not non-volitional behavior, while [[conformity]] is a more important motivator for non-volitional than volitional behavior. ([note on p.56](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=15)) > During everyday activities, people pursue different values than they report as important in a value questionnaire ([Skimina et al 2018:58](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=17)) Just like personality traits, a person's values fluctuate from occasion to occasion. ([note on p.59](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=18)) #### p. 59 - As suspected, values that when one value was important as a motivator of a volitional behavior, the opposing values were unimportant. However, with non-volitional behaviors, since the values driving the behavior were in response to external pressure, conflicts or compatibilities among the values may have little relevance. ([note on p.59](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=18)) #### p. 61 - The frequency with which a value is expressed in real-time behaviors depends not only on its general importance to the individual, but also on whether the value is relevant to the behaviors the individual has the opportunity to enact in every day life. ([note on p.61](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/9PPAHE4R?page=20)) ## My Questions & Thoughts --- # Other References [[Overview Schwartz Theory - Schwartz 2012]]