APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 1999, 48 (1), 49–71

Basic Individual Values, Work Values, and the

Meaning of Work

Maria Ros
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

Shalom H. Schwartz and Shoshana Surkiss

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

On présente ici une théorie des valeurs individuelles de base qui est appliquée
au monde de l’enseignement. Les objectifs ou les valeurs du travail seraient des
expressions de valeurs de base dans la situation de travail. Les valeurs de base
recouvrent quatre types de valeurs professionnelles: intrinsèques,
extrinsèques, sociales, et de prestige. Ces quatre catégories proviennent du
réexamen de recherches antérieures et d’une première étude portant sur un
échantillon représentatif israélien (N 5 999). Les intercorrélations trouvées
entre ces quatre types vont dans le sens des hypothèses concernant la structure
des valeurs professionnelles. La deuxième étude explore la signiŽcation du
travail en tant que locomotion vers un but. Des enseignants espagnols (N 5
193) et des élèves-professeurs (N 5 179) ont évalué l’importance du travail et
d’une série détaillée de valeurs de base comme principes directeurs. Pour les
enseignants, le travail permet apparemment d’obtenir la stabilité sociale et des
relations sociales étroites. Pour les étudiants, le travail est lié à ces objectifs,
mais aussi à la promotion personnelle, à ’autonomie et à la recherche de
sensations. Nous insistons, dans la conclusion, sur l’utilité de l’application de la
théorie des valeurs de base à d’autres investigations portant sur le travail.

A theory of basic individual values is presented and applied in studying work.

Work goals or values are seen as expressions of basic values in the work setting.
Basic values imply four types of work values—intrinsic, extrinsic, social, and
prestige. These four types emerge in re-examinations of past research and in
Study 1 of a representative Israeli sample (N 5 999). Intercorrelations among

Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Maria Ros, Dept. Psicología Social, F. de C.C.
Pol. Y Sociología, Campus de Somosaguas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28223
Madrid, Spain.
The work of the second author was supported by grant 94–00063 from the United
States–Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), Jerusalem, Israel, by grant No. 187/92 from
the Basic Research Foundation (Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities), and by the Leon
and Clara Sznajderman Chair of Psychology.

q 1999 International Association of Applied Psychology

50 ROS, SCHWARTZ, SURKISS

these value types support theorising about the structure of work values. Study
2 explores the meaning of work as a vehicle for goal attainment. Spanish
teachers (N 5 193) and education students (N 5 179) rated the importance of
work and of a comprehensive set of basic values as guiding principles. For the
teachers, work apparently serves to attain social stability and close social
relations. For the students, work is associated with these goals and with
promoting personal interests, independence, and excitement. In conclusion,
we identify advantages of applying the theory of basic values to further studies
of work.

INTRODUCTION
A major goal of research on values has been to explore the ways in which
individuals’ value priorities relate to their attitudes, behaviour, and social
experiences and roles. One branch of this research has focused primarily on
work (e.g. Elizur, 1984; Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Super, 1980). No attempt has
been made, however, to clarify how work values and other aspects of work
relate to basic individual values. For this purpose, we adopt a recent theory
of the structure and content of the basic values distinguished by individuals
(Schwartz, 1992, 1994). This theory has been used to predict and explain how
whole value systems relate to various attitudes and behaviours (e.g.
cooperation–competition, voting, contact with outgroups, religiosity; Ros,
1994; Ros, Grad, & Martinez, 1996; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995; Schwartz, 1996;
Schwartz & Huismans, 1995). This is the Žrst attempt to integrate this
general theory of the basic values of individuals with research on work.1
As background for the studies to be reported, the current article briey
presents the theory of basic individual values and notes some results of
validation studies. Then, in Study 1, we employ this theory as an approach
for clarifying the nature of work values, specifying the types of work values
people are likely to distinguish, and postulating the structure of relationships
expected among these work values. We also use the theory to organise some
of the prominent theorising about work values found in the literature.
Finally, we report an empirical study of a national sample in Israel that
tested hypotheses regarding the relations of basic values to work values.
In Study 2, we employ the theory of basic values to explore the
signiŽcance of work as a vehicle for reaching cherished goals. That is, we
seek to infer the types of goals that people believe their work may enable
them to attain. We do this by investigating the associations of work, treated
as a value, with the different basic human values. We examine this question
in two Spanish samples, secondary school teachers and education students.
1
The current article uses a theory of 10 types of basic individual values to explain individual
differences in work values. Schwartz (this issue) presents a theory of seven types of values
appropriate for comparing cultures but not individuals. For discussions of the differences
between the individual and cultural levels of value theory and analysis, see Schwartz (this issue)
and Smith and Schwartz (1997).
 BASIC VALUES AND WORK VALUES 51

Both samples focus on the same type of work—teaching. One sample had
direct experience with teaching while the other did not. By comparing the
associations of work with basic values in the two samples, we sought to
deduce the effects of occupational experience as a teacher on the meaning of
work. This study exempliŽes the use of basic values to uncover group
differences in, and inuences of experience on, the meaning of work.

A THEORY OF BASIC INDIVIDUAL VALUES

The theory of basic human values has two core components (see Schwartz,
1992, 1994, for a fuller elaboration). First, it speciŽes 10 motivationally
distinct types of values that are postulated to be recognised by members of
most societies and to encompass the different types of values that guide them.
Second, the theory speciŽes how these 10 types of values relate dynamically
to one another. That is, it speciŽes which values are compatible and mutually
supportive, and which are opposed and likely to conict with one another.
The theory deŽnes values as desirable, trans-situational goals that vary in
importance as guiding principles in people’s lives (cf. Kluckhohn, 1951;
Rokeach, 1973). The crucial content aspect that distinguishes among values
is the type of motivational goals they express. A typology of the different
contents of values was derived using the following reasoning: in order to
cope with the challenges inherent in human existence, groups and
individuals translate the needs and demands they experience into concepts
about which they can communicate, expressing them in the language of
values. Values represent, in the form of conscious goals, responses to three
universal requirements with which all individuals and societies must cope:
needs of individuals as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated social
interaction, and requirements for the smooth functioning and survival of
groups.
Ten motivationally distinct types of values were derived from these three
universal requirements (Schwartz, 1992). Table 1 lists these value types,
deŽning each in terms of its central goal and noting, in parentheses, speciŽc
single values that primarily represent it.
The key to identifying the structure of value relations is the assumption
that actions taken in the pursuit of each type of values have psychological,
practical, and social consequences that may conict or may be compatible
with the pursuit of other value types. Analyses of the conicts and
compatibilities likely to arise when people pursue these types of values
simultaneously suggest a potentially universal set of relations among values.
For example, the pursuit of achievement values often conicts with the
pursuit of benevolence values; seeking personal success for oneself is likely
to obstruct actions aimed at enhancing the welfare of close others who need
one’s help. In like manner, the pursuit of tradition values conicts with the
52 ROS, SCHWARTZ, SURKISS

TABLE 1
De® nitions

POWER: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources (Social
Power, Authority, Wealth).
ACHIEVEMENT: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social
standards (Successful, Capable, Ambitious, Inuential).
HEDONISM: Pleasure and sensuous gratiŽcation for oneself (Pleasure, Enjoying Life).
STIMULATION: Excitement, novelty and challenge in life (Daring, a Varied Life, an Exciting
life).
SELF-DIRECTION: Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring
(Creativity, Freedom, Independent, Curious, Choosing own Goals).
UNIVERSALISM: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of
all people and for nature (Broadminded, Wisdom, Social Justice, Equalty, A World at Peace, a
World of Beauty, Unity with Nature, Protecting the Environment).
BENEVOLENCE: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is
in frequent personal contact (Helpful, Honest, Forgiving, Loyal, Responsible).
TRADITION: Respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional
culture or religion provides (Humble, Accepting my Portion in Life, Devout, Respect for
Tradition, Moderate).
CONFORMITY: Restraint of actions, inclinations and impulses likely to upset or harm others
and violate social expectations or norms (Politeness, Obedient, Self-discipline, Honouring
Parents and Elders).
SECURITY: Safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self (Family
Security, National Security, Social Order, Clean, Reciprocation of Favours).

DeŽnitions of motivational types of values in terms of their goals and the single values that
represent them.

pursuit of stimulation values; accepting cultural and religious customs and

ideas handed down from the past is likely to inhibit seeking novelty,
challenge, and excitement. On the other hand, the pursuit of benevolence
and of conformity values is compatible; both entail behaving in a manner
approved by one’s close group. And the pursuit of security and power is also
compatible; both stress avoiding uncertainty by controlling relationships
and resources.
The total pattern of relations of conict and compatibility among value
priorities that is postulated to structure value systems is represented in Fig. 1.
Competing value types emanate in opposing directions from the centre;
compatible types are in close proximity going around the circle. The location
of tradition outside of conformity implies that these two value types share a
single motivational goal—subordination on self in favour of socially
imposed expectations.
As shown in Fig. 1, the total value structure is organised into two sets of
opposing higher-order value types, arrayed on two bipolar dimensions.
These higher-order types will be used to link basic values to work values.
The Žrst dimension—openness to change versus conservation—opposes
 BASIC VALUES AND WORK VALUES 53

FIG. 1. The structure of relations among the value types according to the theory.

values that emphasise own independent thought and action and favour
change (self-direction and stimulation) to values that emphasise submissive
self-restriction, preservation of traditional practices, and protection of
stability (security, conformity, and tradition). The second dimension—
self-transcendence versus self-enhancement—opposes values that
emphasise acceptance of others as equals and concern for their welfare
(universalism and benevolence) to values that emphasise the pursuit of one’s
relative success and dominance over others (power and achievement).
Hedonism includes elements of both openness to change and self-
enhancement.
Analyses of responses to a questionnaire developed to measure the 10
value types, in 155 samples from 55 countries, provide substantial support
54 ROS, SCHWARTZ, SURKISS

for the postulates of the values theory (Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz & Sagiv,
1995; plus unpublished data). Results of separate analyses of the match
between the observed and theorised content and structure of values in each
sample suggest that all 10 of the postulated value types are indeed
discriminated in the vast majority of cultures. Moreover, the value types are
usually related to one another in the pattern of oppositions and
compatibilities described in Fig. 1. In addition, the four higher-order value
types, arrayed on two bipolar dimensions, organise values in virtually all
societies studied. That is, values that emphasise self-enhancement oppose
those that emphasise self-transcendence, and values that emphasise open-
ness to change oppose those that emphasise preservation of the status quo.
The analyses also permitted an assessment of the conceptual meaning of
each single value in each sample. The results suggest that 45 of the values
have cross-culturally consistent meanings. These values can be used to form
indexes of the importance of each of the 10 value types for individuals, for
use in group comparisons. This addresses the common problem of
comparing values whose meanings are not the same across groups, a
problem not tackled directly by other values research.

STUDY 1 BASIC INDIVIDUAL VALUES AND WORK

VALUES
From the viewpoint of the theory of basic human values, work goals or
values are speciŽc expressions of general values in the work setting. This
study employs the theory of basic individual values to generate and test
hypotheses regarding the different types of work values that people are
likely to distinguish, and regarding the structure of relationships among
these work values. We also directly relate basic values and work values.
Like basic values, work values are beliefs pertaining to desirable
end-states (e.g. high pay) or behaviour (e.g. working with people). The
different work goals are ordered by their importance as guiding principles
for evaluating work outcomes and settings, and for choosing among
different work alternatives. Because work values refer only to goals in the
work setting, they are more speciŽc than basic individual values. But the
work values usually studied are still quite broad; they refer to what a person
wants out of work in general, rather than to the narrowly deŽned outcomes
of particular jobs. Finally, work values, like basic values, are verbal
representations of individual, group, and interaction requirements.
Work value researchers have assumed that a limited number of broad
orientations towards work underlie people’s ideas of what is important to
them when making occupational choices. Researchers have therefore
sought to identify a set of general types of work values. Viewing work values
as speciŽc expressions of basic values in the work setting implies that there
 BASIC VALUES AND WORK VALUES 55

should be four general types of work values, each parallel to one of the four
higher-order basic types of individual values. Moreover, these four types of
work values should form two dimensions that parallel the self-enhancement
versus self-transcendence and the openness to change versus conservation
dimensions of basic individual values.
Despite a plethora of different labels, most work researchers appear to
identify the same two or three types of work values: (1) intrinsic or
self-actualisation values, (2) extrinsic or security or material values, (3)
social or relational values (e.g. Alderfer, 1972; Borg, 1990; Crites, 1961;
Mottaz, 1985; Pryor, 1987; Rosenberg, 1957). Elizur (1984) arrived at a
related trichotomous classiŽcation of work values by considering the
modality of their outcomes: instrumental outcomes such as work conditions
and beneŽts; cognitive outcomes such as interest and achievement; affective
outcomes such as relations with associates. This classiŽcation largely
overlaps extrinsic, intrinsic, and social, respectively.2
These three types of work values can be viewed as conceptually parallel to
three of the higher-order basic human values: intrinsic work values directly
express openness to change values—the pursuit of autonomy, interest,
growth, and creativity in work. Extrinsic work values express conservation
values; job security and income provide workers with the requirements
needed for general security and maintenance of order in their lives. Social or
interpersonal work values express the pursuit of self-transcendence values;
work is seen as a vehicle for positive social relations and contribution to
society.
The theory of basic individual values suggests that there should be a
fourth distinctive type of work values, one that parallels the basic self-
enhancement higher-order value type. This type of work values, like
self-enhancement, should be concerned with prestige or power. Items that
refer to prestige, authority, inuence, power, and achievement in work are
common in empirical research on work. These values have usually been
classiŽed as extrinsic (Ginzberg, Ginsburg, Axelrod, & Herma, 1951;
Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959; Rosenberg, 1957) or intrinsic
(Borg, 1990; Crites, 1961; Elizur, 1984). Few theorists have recognised a
distinctive prestige or power type (O’Connor & Kinnane, 1961; Pryor, 1987).
Re-examination of many past studies reveals that there is empirical
evidence for a fourth, prestige type even in data that the researchers
interpreted as revealing three types. To illustrate the results of our
re-examination, we consider data from Elizur (1984). Elizur (1984) asked a

2
Elizur, Borg, Hunt, and Beck (1991) also distinguish work values on a second facet—as
resources that workers obtain merely by being located in the system (e.g. work conditions) or as
rewards that are contingent on workers’ performance (e.g. job status). This facet does not relate
to the motivational aspect of values of concern here.
56 ROS, SCHWARTZ, SURKISS

representative Israeli sample how important each of 21 work outcomes

(values) is to them. He analysed the intercorrelations among these items
with the same multidimensional technique used to validate the theory of
basic individual values. Elizur partitioned the empirical space formed by the
21 work values into three regions that matched his conceptual distinctions
between instrumental, effective, and cognitive outcomes of work.
Several anomalies in Elizur’s results can be resolved by distinguishing a
fourth, prestige value type. SpeciŽcally, the region of values that Elizur
labelled cognitive outcomes can be divided into intrinsic and prestige
regions that make better sense of the data. The work values in the intrinsic
region (meaningfulness, responsibility, use of one’s abilities) are values that
contribute to a sense of personal growth and whose attainment derives
directly from the nature of the work experience. The work values in the
prestige region (achievement, advancement, status, recognition,
independence, company that you are proud to work for, inuence in work,
inuence in the organisation) are values whose attainment entails a
comparison of self with others that implies personal superiority.
In a cross-cultural study, Elizur et al. (1991) partitioned a different set of
work values into three regions following Elizur’s instrumental, affective, and
cognitive distinctions. Examination of the results in the samples from each of
the eight countries (USA, Taiwan, China, Korea, Hungary, the Netherlands,
Israel) revealed that the region designated as cognitive by the authors could
be split into two separate regions of intrinsic and of prestige values in every
single sample. Among the distinctive intrinsic work values were interesting
work, meaningful work, opportunity for growth, and use of ability and
knowledge. Among the prestige values were company that you are proud to
work for, advancement, inuence in the organisation, and inuence in work.
In this case, the implications of the theory of basic values regarding the
number and content of work values that should be found pointed to a clear
distinction in the data that had been overlooked. The assumption that a
separate type of work values should parallel each higher-order type of basic
values enabled us to identify distinctive sets of intrinsic (parallel to openness
to change) and prestige (parallel to self-enhancement) work values. The
distinction between these two types of work values is probably of substantial
practical importance. Their associations with other variables are most likely
very different, as is the case for the higher-order basic value types on which
they are based (Schwartz, 1994, 1996).
Evidence from some factor analytic studies also suggests that there are
four types of work values, with one including largely prestige items (Pryor,
1980; Robey, 1974). In sum, secondary analyses of data from earlier research
support the existence of four types of work values that correspond to the
four higher-order types of basic values. The current study directly examined
associations between work values and basic individual values.
 BASIC VALUES AND WORK VALUES 57

Method
Samples and Procedures
A representative national sample of the adult, urban Jewish population in
Israel (N 5 999) completed a questionnaire as part of a survey conducted in
1992. Respondents Žrst completed the measure of basic values and then
answered a work values questionnaire. Background and opinion data were
also gathered.

Analyses
Hypotheses regarding the content and structure of values were tested
with smallest space analysis (SSA; Guttman, 1968), a nonmetric
multidimensional scaling technique used widely in the literature on work
values (e.g. Elizur et al., 1991) and basic values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). SSA
represents items (here, single values) as points in a multidimensional space
such that the distances between the points reect the intercorrelations
among the items. To test whether the hypothesised distinctive types of
values were discriminated, we examined whether the items intended to
measure each value type formed separate regions in the space. To test the
structure of relations among the value types—their conicts and
compatibilities—we examined whether the regions were located in the space
relative to one another in a way that Žts the hypothesised structure of
relations.

Instruments
Basic Value Survey An abbreviated version of the Schwartz Value
Survey that included 37 single values, chosen to cover the comprehensive set
of ten value types (Schwartz, 1992), was used. Respondents rated the
importance of each value as a guiding principle in their life on a 9-point scale
from “opposed to my values” (2 1), “not important” (0), to “important” (3),
to “of supreme importance” (7).3 The values were presented in three sets of
12, 12, and 13, listed on cards. Before rating each set, respondents chose the
most and least important value in the set, in order to anchor their use of the
response scale.
To index the importance of each basic value type for each individual, the
ratings given to the single values that represent the value type were summed
3
In principle, responses lie on a bipolar scale from values that respondents rate most
important to revere and pursue to those most important to condemn and avoid. Testing in
multiple cultures revealed that respondents view most values as worthy of pursuit and very few
as worthy of avoidance. The current scale provides more positive and fewer negative
discriminations, thereby eliciting a distribution of responses that optimally captures the actual
distribution of respondents’ value assessments.
58 ROS, SCHWARTZ, SURKISS

and divided by the number of values included. The values included in each
index are listed in Table 1. They were selected on the basis of a priori theory,
corrected for the results of a smallest space analysis of the intercorrelations
among the values in this study.

Work Value Survey Ten items, selected to represent the four types of
work values we postulated, were included. These items were based on items
widely used in the work values literature. Respondents rated each item on a
scale from 1 (very important) to 4 (not at all important) in response to the
question: How important is each of the following to you in choosing an
occupation? Table 2 lists the 10 items, categorising them according to the a
priori value type they were intended to represent. Both multidimensional
scaling analysis (SSA) and principal components factor analysis with oblique
rotation were performed on the matrix of intercorrelations among the 10
items. Table 2 provides the result of the factor analysis.
Both types of analysis supported the a priori assignment of work values to
value types. As shown in Table 2, for example, four factors (with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0) emerged, equivalent to the four postulated types of work
values. In the SSA, four regions emerged, with item 10 in the centre of the
space. Both types of analyses were also performed in subsamples formed of
Žve occupational groups (unskilled blue collar, skilled blue collar, clerical,
managerial, professional). The analyses yielded similar results for all but
items 6 (being your own boss) and 10 (advancement in work).4 To index the
importance of each of the four types of work values for each individual, the
ratings given to the single values that represent the value type were summed.
Items 6 and 10 were excluded because they had multiple and inconsistent
loadings in the factor analyses, and central or inconsistent locations in the
SSAs in the different subsamples.

Results and Discussion

First we examined whether the structure of relations among the four types of
work values took the form implied by the view of these values as expressions,
in the work setting, of basic individual values. Intrinsic work values were
hypothesised to oppose extrinsic work values because these types
presumably express the opposing higher-order openness to change versus
4
Item 6 emerged with the prestige values in all occupational groups but professionals. This
suggests that being your own boss meant being free of others’ control and having control over
resources. For professionals, it emerged with the intrinsic values, apparently signifying freedom
to pursue independent goals. Item 10 emerged with different value types in different
occupational groups, suggesting considerable variation in the meaning of advancement: greater
independence (intrinsic) for professionals; greater independence and power over others
(intrinsic and prestige) for managers; greater income and security (extrinsic) for skilled blue
collar workers.
 BASIC VALUES AND WORK VALUES 59
TABLE 2
Factor Loadings for the Work Value Survey Items
Factor Loadings
I II III IV
Work Value Type and Item Social Extrinsic Prestige Intrinsic
Social
7. Contributing to people and
society 0.79 2 0.09 2 0.06 0.15
4. Work with people 0.77 2 0.01 2 0.04 0.24
9. Social contact with co-workers 0.67 0.08 0.12 0.18
Extrinsic
1. Good salary and work conditions 2 0.13 0.90 2 0.04 2 0.10
2. Job security (permanent job,
pension) 0.09 0.79 2 0.07 2 0.07
Prestige
8. Authority to make decisions over
people 0.18 2 0.08 0.69 0.14
5. Prestigious, highly valued work 0.15 0.05 0.63 0.03
Intrinsic
3. Interesting and varied work 0.30 0.17 0.10 0.80
6. Work in which you are your own
boss 2 0.21 0.17 0.61 0.50
Mixed
10. Opportunities for occupational
advancement 0.20 0.43 0.32 0.34
Percent of Variance Explained 31% 14% 11% 8%

N5 999.

conservation basic value types, respectively. Prestige work values were

expected to oppose social work values because these types presumably
express the opposing higher-order self-enhancement versus self-
transcendence basic value types, respectively. The SSA conŽrmed these
hypotheses. The regions representing the four types of work values were
ordered in a two dimensional space in precisely this manner.
Second, we directly tested the conceptual relationship between the four
types of work values and the four higher-order basic individual values by
correlating their indexes (see Table 3). As expected, extrinsic work values
correlated positively with conservation values (0.24) and negatively with
openness to change values (2 0.28), whereas intrinsic work values correlated
negatively with conservation values (2 0.23) and positively with openness to
change values (0.23; all P , 0.001). Neither of these types of work values was
signiŽcantly related to the other bipolar dimension of basic values. Also as
expected, social work values correlated positively with self-transcendence
60 ROS, SCHWARTZ, SURKISS

TABLE 3
Israeli National Sample
Higher-order Basic Types of Work Values
Human Value Types Extrinsic Intrinsic Social Prestige

Conservation 0.24* 2 0.23* 0.17* 2 0.19*

Openness to Change 2 0.28* 0.23* 2 0.16* 0.22*
Self-transcendence 2 0.01 0.04 0.25* 2 0.23*
Self-enhancement 0.06 2 0.05 2 0.32* 0.29*

Correlations between four types of work values and four higher-order basic value types in
representative Israeli national sample.
P , 0.001.
N 5 999.

values (0.25) and negatively with self-enhancement values (2 0.32), whereas

prestige work values correlated negatively with self-transcendence values
(2 0.23) and positively with self-enhancement values (0.29; all P , 0.001).
However, this full support for the hypothesised relations between basic
individual values and work values must be qualiŽed. The social and prestige
work values were also signiŽcantly related to the other bipolar dimension of
basic values, although more weakly (correlations between /0.16/ and /0.22/).
Social values correlated positively with conservatism and negatively with
openness to change basic values, whereas prestige work values showed the
opposite pattern of correlations. This Žnding suggests that social and
prestige work values are also expressions of additional basic values in the
work setting. The self-constraint aspect of conservation values and the
rejection of the social independence aspect of openness to change values
may also Žnd expression in the work setting in social work values. And the
self-assertive aspect of openness to change values and the rejection of the
self-abnegation aspect of conservatism values may also Žnd expression in
the work setting in prestige values. This merits further investigation.

STUDY 2 THE MEANING OF WORK AS A VEHICLE

FOR GOAL ATTAINMENT
We next apply the theory of basic values and the methods developed to
validate it in order to explore the signiŽcance of work for people as a vehicle
for reaching important goals. That is, we seek to infer the types of goals that
people believe their work may enable them to attain. In one sense, this is an
investigation of the meaning of work for individuals. Before presenting our
own views, we consider a few of the prevailing approaches to studying the
meaning of work.
 BASIC VALUES AND WORK VALUES 61

As noted in the introduction to Study 1, one widely recognised and

inuential perspective distinguishes between work activities as means to
attain goals extrinsic to the work itself (e.g. pay) and work activities as
sources of intrinsic satisfaction (e.g. interest; Herzberg, 1996; Hertzberg et
al., 1959). The presumed importance of intrinsic and extrinsic work goals has
been measured directly in self-report questionnaires. In Study 2 we employ a
less direct approach to identifying the goals associated with work and
provide a wider selection of possible goals.
A second perspective considers the social and psychological functions of
work (Jahoda, 1981, 1982; Warr, 1987). Jahoda, for example, distinguished
Žve latent functions: to structure time, provide shared experiences and social
contact, promote social goals, grant status and identity, and provide regular
activities. People may or may not be aware of the importance of these latent
functions in their own work. The indirect approach in Study 2 can identify
latent functions that respondents associate with their work.
Two international projects have also studied the meaning of work as an
arena in which valued goals are pursued, expressed, and attained. Harding,
Phillips, and Fogarty (1986) identiŽed three main dimensions of work values
or goals: personal development, pleasant climate, and security and material
rewards. The approach employed in Study 2 permits us to relate work to this
set of goals and to others overlooked by these authors (cf. goals identiŽed in
Study 1).
The MOW (1987) project team conceptualised the meaning of work on
multiple dimensions—centrality in people’s lives, importance both in itself
and relative to other life areas, the goals it promotes, and the societal norms
that deŽne it. In a reanalysis of the MOW work goal data, England and Ruiz
Quintanilla (1994) identiŽed three categories of goals: social, expressive,
and instrumental. These categories recall those found by other researchers,
and they parallel the social, intrinsic, and extrinsic types, respectively, that
we derived from the theory of basic values and validated in Study 1. The
prestige type is notably missing from this classiŽcation. Study 2 relates work
to these goals and examines two other aspects of work meaning
conceptualised by the MOW team—its centrality and its importance.
One way to elucidate the meaning of work for individuals is to identify the
basic values that people associate with work. They might view work
primarily as a way to attain public acclaim, for instance, or as an opportunity
to exercise power, to gain security, or to express their independence.
Rewarding work can itself be an important goal in life, one that serves as a
guiding principle that inuences decisions and evaluations. Hence “work”
can be included in the list of values to which people respond.
The motivational meaning of “work” for people can be revealed by its
empirical associations with the whole integrated system of basic values. Say,
for example, that the primary meaning of work to the members of a sample is
62 ROS, SCHWARTZ, SURKISS

to provide a secure living, enabling them to support their families and to

acquire basic necessities. Then, the more importance these people attribute
to security values as guiding principles in their lives, the more importance
they will attribute to work.
The structural postulates of the theory of basic values enable us to predict
that the importance of work will correlate not only with security values but
also with the other value types that form the higher-order conservation
dimension together with security—conformity and tradition. Moreover, in
such a sample, the importance of work would correlate negatively with the
importance of the higher-order openness to change value types—self-
direction, stimulation, and hedonism. That is, people who see work
primarily as a vehicle for actualising values of conservation are unlikely
to see it as a vehicle for actualising openness to change values, and vice
versa.
Study 2 uses the basic values theory and the methods for examining the
structure of value systems to explore the meaning and importance of work
among educators (Ros & Grad, 1991, provide a fuller report). It also
investigates the effect of the occupational experience of teaching on the
meaning of work among educators. The value priorities of members of an
occupational group reect both selection into the occupation and
socialisation through occupational experience (Kohn & Schooler, 1983;
Mortimer & Lorence, 1979). We postulate that occupational experience also
inuences the meaning of the work of teaching. Education students, lacking
concrete experience, are likely to have an idealised conception of the work
of teaching. Teachers, who have faced the realities of teaching, are likely to
have adapted their understanding of their work to the structural demands of
the job experienced in the school setting.
SpeciŽcally, we hypothesise that, for education students, the importance
of work is positively associated with the importance of all four higher-order
value types. Having an idealised view of their planned occupation, they
anticipate that work can provide opportunities to pursue and express many
of their valued goals. In contrast, we hypothesise that work has a narrower
meaning for teachers. This meaning should reect the structural constraints
on secondary school teachers built into the school setting—low autonomy,
moderate income, and a high level of interpersonal contact (Ros, Munoz-
Repiso, Mendez, & Romero, 1989). In light of these constraints, work is not
likely to be associated with the self-enhancing power, achievement, and
hedonism value types among experienced teachers. The goals of these value
types cannot readily be attained through their job. In contrast, work should
be associated with the self-transcending benevolence and universalism value
types, and with the conservative tradition and conformity value types. These
types of values are compatible with and often demanded by the structure of
teaching in the school system.
 BASIC VALUES AND WORK VALUES 63

Method
Samples and Procedure
For the teacher sample, 179 currently employed Spanish secondary
school teachers, averaging approximately Žve years of occupational
experience, were randomly sampled from a pool of teachers attending
summer school courses at a university in Madrid. These courses, needed for
career advancement, are standardly attended by a large number of teachers
in the Madrid district. For the sample of students with no teaching
experience, 193 education students at the Complutense University in
Madrid, who were training to become secondary school teachers, were
recruited in classroom sessions. In both samples 75% of respondents were
women, and the distribution of political orientations (mostly leftist) and
years of formal education were similar. Mean age was 30 for teachers and 25
for education students. The only socio-demographic characteristic on which
the two samples differed substantially was years of teaching experience, the
crucial variable used to interpret differences between the samples in the
importance or meaning of values.
Respondents completed the Schwartz (1992) value survey that was used
in the studies that validated the theory of basic individual values. This survey
includes 56 single values, each followed by a parenthetical explanation that
clariŽes its meaning, and selected to represent the 10 value types speciŽed by
the theory. As described in Study 1, respondents rated each value on a
9-point scale of importance as a guiding principle in their life. Most of the
values in this survey were listed in Table 1. One item was added to the survey
as value number 57. This value was WORK (to earn a living with dignity).
The phrase in parentheses narrowed the conception of work to the activity of
earning a living rather than simply exerting effort on a short-term task. The
words “with dignity” helped to deŽne the work as a value—a desirable
end-state.

Analyses
An SSA was performed to reveal the structure of relations of similarity
and distance among the 57 values (including work).5 The two-dimensional
spatial protection of the values yielded a set of regions for the value types
similar to the theorised structure of regions in Fig. 1. The coefŽcient of
alienation was 0.27 in both the teacher and student samples. Although this is
above the conventional level for good representation of the correlation
matrix, it is a reasonable stress value when 57 items are represented in only
two dimensions (Schwartz, 1994). The fact that the theorised motivational
5
The correlation matrixes on which the SSAs in Figs. 2 and 3 are based, and the coordinates
of each value in the two dimensional space, are available from the Žrst author.
64 ROS, SCHWARTZ, SURKISS

structure of relations among values emerged even in this representation

indicates that this motivational structure is the most important organising
principle accounting for correlations among values. It was therefore possible
to assess the associations (meaning) of work by examining the location of
this item relative to the regions of each of the 10 value types.
To index the importance of each basic value type for each individual, the
ratings given to the single values that represent the value type were summed
and divided by the number of values included. Indexes of the importance of
the four higher-order value types were computed by averaging the ratings
given to the two value types that constitute that higher-order type (three,
including hedonism, for the self-enhancement higher-order type). To
simplify presentation here, we use only the higher-order types. Data are
reported as standardised scores.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There were no differences between the teacher and education student
samples in the importance they attributed to the higher-order value types or
to work (see Table 4). Both groups rated self-transcendence values most
important, openness to change values second, self-enhancement values
third, and conservation values last. Moreover, both groups rated work as a
very important value, on a par with the self-transcendence values. Both
groups attributed signiŽcantly greater importance to self-transcendence
values and to work than to the three other higher-order types (all
comparisons, t . 7.5, P , 0.001, 137df for teachers and 167df for students).
There is thus no evidence that the experience of teaching inuenced the
importance of basic value or even the importance of work. This suggests that
selection into the occupation, which had already occurred for most students,
was more important than job socialisation in determining value importance.
As noted, both samples were quite similar in their background
characteristics.
However, the similarity between education students and teachers in the
importance they attributed to work as a value, obscured differences in its
motivational meaning. For students, the importance of work was associated
with the importance of all four of the higher-order value types. Work
correlated positively and signiŽcantly (P , 0.05) with self-transcendence
values (0.39), openness to change values (0.28), self-enhancement values
(0.28), and conservation values (0.21). Apparently, as hypothesised, the
students felt that work is compatible with the pursuit of all types of values.
This pattern of associations is also reected in the location of work in the
SSA projection for students (Fig. 2). Note Žrst that eight of the ten basic
value types are fully distinguished in this analysis, and the other two,
conformity and tradition, are intermixed. Moreover, the regions of the value
 BASIC VALUES AND WORK VALUES 65
TABLE 4
Teachers and Students
Teachers Students
(N 5 138) (N 5 168)

Work 0.88 0.91

(0.58) (0.59)
Self-transcendence 0.59 0.55
(0.25) (0.24)
Self-enhancement 2 0.23 2 0.22
(0.37) (0.32)
Openness to Change 0.18 0.24
(0.43) (0.45)
Conservation 2 0.30 2 0.35
(0.33) (0.33)

Means and standard deviations for the importance of

work and of the higher-order value types among teachers
and students.
Importance ratings have been standardised.

types form the expected structure of compatible types around the circle and
conicting types emanating in opposite directions from the centre (cf. Fig.
1). “Work” is located virtually at the centre of the multidimensional value
space. This is because it correlates positively with all the different value
types. Thus students viewed work as a potential vehicle for attaining all types
of values.
For teachers, the importance of work was associated only with the
importance of two higher-order value types. As hypothesised, work
correlated positively and signiŽcantly (P , 0.001) with self-transcendence
(0.49) and conservation values (0.52). Apparently, the teachers saw work as
demanding and providing an opportunity to express concern for others in
social relations and to maintain the status quo. Work was correlated neither
with self-enhancement (0.11) nor with oppenness to change values (0.01).
Teachers did not see work as a vehicle for promoting their own interests or
for pursuing independence and excitement.6
The location of work in the SSA for teachers (Fig. 3) reects these
meanings. In this analysis, all 10 value types form separate regions, and the
structure of relation among them is exactly as postulated by the theory (cf.
Fig. 1). “Work” is located on the border of the regions of the benevolence
and tradition value types. It is closest to the values “responsible” (52),
6
The correlation of work with openness values was stronger among students than teachers
(P , 0.01), whereas the correlation of work with conservation values was stronger among
teachers (P , 0.001). The correlations for self-transcendence and self-enhancement did not
differ.
66
FIG. 2. Smallest Space Analysis of relations among values in the student sample.
67
FIG. 3. Smallest Space Analysis of relations among values in the teacher sample.
68 ROS, SCHWARTZ, SURKISS

“meaning in life” (10), “forgiving” (54), “accepting my portion of life” (44),

and “spiritual life” (6). “Work” is especially distant from the regions of the
hedonism and stimulation value types. Apparently, work has taken on a
meaning for teachers that entails accepting external requirements and
Žnding signiŽcance in life through fulŽlling one’s duties to others while
forgoing pleasure and excitement for self.
Study 2 demonstrates how the theory of basic human values can be
exploited to identify the particular meanings of work in any occupational
group or other sample. The location of work in the SSA also provides
information about the centrality of work in respondents’ lives. The more
central an item is in an SSA projection, the more it serves as an organising
principle for the whole set of other items. Thus, our Žndings suggest that, in
its idealised form, work as teachers is very central to the student sample.
Work appears less central for teachers. With the experience of teaching in a
constraining school setting, they have apparently learned that work cannot
organise and contribute much to pleasure and excitement in life. Nor,
judging by its location, is work a vehicle for achieving much recognition or
exercising much power.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Much of the literature on work values has developed without attention to the
broader research on general values. The types of work values proposed until
now have derived from empirical analyses, from attempts to operationalise
isolated theoretical hunches, or from applications of classical distinctions
(cognitive, affective, instrumental) that have no relevance to the
motivational content of values—the essence of values as goals. We have
presented an overview of a theory of basic individual values, of the methods
developed to operationalise it, and of its cross-cultural validation. This
theory has the promise of providing some of the missing infrastructure for
theorising about the content and structure of work values. Grounding the
theory of work values in the broader theory of values is one key strength of
our approach. Because the theory holds across cultures, it may be useful for
integrating cross-cultural research on work values, another strength of the
approach presented here.
We have demonstrated that drawing on the basic types of individual
values can organise the Žndings of past research on work values (goals). The
basic values approach has several advantages:

1. It suggests how many general types of work values it is worthwhile to

distinguish.
2. It gives a reasonable basis for postulating that these types of work
values, like the basic human values of which they are speciŽc
expressions, are likely to be found in most cultures.
 BASIC VALUES AND WORK VALUES 69

3. It suggests that there is a structure of dynamic relations of compati-

bility and opposition among the different types of work values, not
merely a typology, and it speciŽes what this structure is likely to be.

Application of the theory and methods of research on basic individual

values has the potential for other types of contributions to the study of work
as well. We have demonstrated a method for determining the meaning that
people attribute to work as a vehicle for reaching goals. The associations of
work with the full range of basic values reveal its motivational signiŽcance.
Differences in the meaning of work can be independent of differences in its
importance, as shown by the teacher/student comparison. Moreover,
differences in the meaning of work apparently reect differences in the
experiences that respondents have had in the world of work.
The method employed here of determining the meaning of work through
its location in the SSA is applicable to assessing the meaning of any concept
within its network of associations. Caution must be exercised in adopting
this method, however. The location of a single concept in the multi-
dimensional space may vary somewhat as a function of chance. Therefore,
replications of the analyses with subsamples from the population of interest
are crucial (Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995).
Finally, application of the theory can help work researches to generate
hypotheses about the correlates of work values. There is a growing literature
that relates basic individual values, as integrated systems, to their social
structural antecedents (e.g. age, income, occupation), correlates and
consequences (attitudes and behaviours: see Schwartz, 1996, for references).
In so far as work values are speciŽcations of basic values, the same types of
reasoning can be used to generate hypotheses about their relations to
attitudes, behaviour, background, and social experience variables.

REFERENCES
Alderfer, C.P. (1972). Existence, relatedness and growth: Human needs in organizational
settings. New York: Free Press.
Borg, I. (1990). Multiple facetisations of work values. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 39, 401–412.
Crites, J.O. (1961). Factor analytical deŽnitions of vocational motivation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 43, 330–337.
Elizur, D. (1984). Facets of work values: A structural analysis of work outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 379–389.
Elizur, D., Borg, I., Hunt, R., & Beck, I.M. (1991). The structure of work values: A
cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 21–38.
England, G.W. & Ruiz Quintanilla, S.A. (1994). Work meanings: Their structure and stability.
WORC Paper 94.11.046/6, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
Ginzberg, E., Ginsburg, S.W., Axelrod, S., & Herma, J.L. (1951). Occupational choice. New
York: Columbia University Press.
70 ROS, SCHWARTZ, SURKISS

Guttman, L. (1968). A general non-metric technique for Žnding the smallest coordinate
space for a conŽguration of points. Psychometrica, 33, 469–506.
Harding, S., Phillips, D., & Fogarty, M. (1986). Contrasting values in Western Europe.
London: Macmillan.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Chicago: World.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York:
Wiley.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw
Hill.
Jahoda, M. (1981). Work, employment and unemployment: Values, theories and approaches
in social research. American Psychologist, 36, 184–191.
Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Value and value orientations in the theory of action. In T. Parsons &
E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Kohn, M., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mortimer, T., & Lorence, J. (1979). Work experience and occupational value socialization: A
longitudinal study. American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), 361–385.
Mottaz, C.J. (1985). The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as
determinants of work satisfaction. Sociological Quarterly, 26, 365–385.
MOW International Research Team. (1987). The meaning of working. London: Academic
Press.
O’Connor, J.P., & Kinnane, J.F. (1961). A factor analysis of work values. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 8, 263–267.
Pryor, R.G.L. (1980). Some types of stability in the study of students’ work values. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 16, 146–157.
Pryor, R.G.L. (1987). Differences among differences—in search of general work preference
dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 426–433.
Robey, D. (1974). Task design, work values and worker response: An experimental test.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 44, 264–273.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Ros, M. (1994). The structure and meaning of values and political orientations. Paper
presented at the 23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology, 17–22 July. Madrid,
Spain.
Ros, M., & Grad, H. (1991). El signiŽcado del valor trabajo como relacionado a la
experiencia ocupacional: Una comparacion de profesores de EGB y estudiantes de CAP.
Revista de Psicologia Social, 6, 181–208.
Ros, M., Grad, H., & Martinez, E. (1996). El cambio de valores para la mejora de las
estrategias de aprendizaje y rendimiento académico. Madrid: Informe Cide. Mec.
Ros, M., Munoz-Repiso, M., Mendez, A.M., & Romero, B. (1989). Interaccion Didactica en
la Educacion Secundaria. Madrid: Centro De Publicaciones, MEC.
Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and values. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology, Vol. 25 (pp.1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human
values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Schwartz, S.H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value
systems. In C. Seligman, J.M. Olson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Values: The Ontario symposium,
Vol. 8 (pp.1–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
 BASIC VALUES AND WORK VALUES 71
Schwartz, S.H. (this issue). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48.
Schwartz, S.H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human
values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.
Schwartz, S.H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four Western
religions. Social Psychology Quarterly , 58, 88–107.
Schwartz, S.H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-speciŽcs in the content and structure
of values. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 26, 92–116.
Smith, P.B., & Schwartz, S.H. (1997). Values. In J.W. Berry, M.H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 3, 2nd Edn. (pp.77–118). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Super, D.E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 52, 129–148.
Warr, P. (1987). Job characteristics and mental health. In P. Warr (Ed), Psychology at work
(3rd Edn.). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.