A Theory of Ten Universal Values

Matching ten universal values with the unified approach.

I have been reading up a lot on values and theories of values lately. One particularly interesting
and prominent theory is from Shalom Schwartz who proposes that there are ten broad value
domains that are universal and fairly comprehensive. The values he advocates for are as
follows.

POWER: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources
ACHIEVEMENT: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social
standards
HEDONISM: Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself
STIMULATION: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life
SELF-DIRECTION: Independent thought and action - choosing, creating, exploring
UNIVERSALISM: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all
people and for nature
BENEVOLENCE: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in
frequent personal contact
TRADITION: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional
culture or religion provide
CONFORMITY: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others
and violate social expectations or norms
SECURITY: Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self

Schwartz argues that these values can be arranged in the following visual way (this is called a
circumplex, and identifies even larger themes).

One of my arguments is that, via the unified approach, we can work to assimilate and integrate
various perspectives into a more coherent whole. Although I had heard of Schwartz’s value
theory, I had never spent much time with it. But I think that some benefit can be looking at
Schwartz’s value theory through the lens of the unified approach.

Let’s first consider the values theory from the vantage point of Behavioral Investment Theory.
BIT considers the nervous system an “investment value system”, shaped by evolution and
individual experience. The experience of pleasure and pain are considered to be building blocks
of conscious experience that orient animals toward “the good” and away from the “bad”.

In this light, HEDONISM, along with STIMULATION and (basic/self) SECURITY are “values”
built into the very foundation of the nervous system. “Values” are in quotes here because there
are two meanings of the term. One, which is the way Schwartz means it, has to do with human’s
developing explicit beliefs that justify the pursuit of certain goal states. The other has to do with
the basic experience, shared with other animals, of things feeling good or bad, and how those
feelings orient approach and avoidance behavior. Here I am referring to the second meaning.
However, obviously people will justify explicit values based on experiential feeling.

Now let’s consider the Influence Matrix, which is another key piece of the unified approach. The
Matrix maps how humans intuitively represent self-in-relation-to-other in their experiential
system (i.e., via perceptual and emotional processes). It argues that there is a central variable,
called relational value, which organizes human relational process. Here is a picture of the
Matrix.

More to the point here, it posits that there are three relational process dimensions that folks
need to navigate.

The first process dimension, the blue line, is called competitive influence. It is sometimes called
“power’ for short, but it is important to note that there are two forms of competitive influence,
direct (which is POWER in Schwartz’s model) and indirect (which is ACHIEVEMENT in
Schwartz’s model).

The second process dimension, the red line is called cooperative influence or “Love’ for short.
The positive valence corresponds to BENEVOLENCE in Schwartz’s model.

The third dimension is freedom from influence or “Freedom” for short. This corresponds to
SELF-DIRECTION in Schwartz’s theory.

The third piece of the unified framework to consider is technically called “The Justification
Hypothesis”. It refers to the unique elements of the human primate, which is that we are unique
in the extent to which we attempt to build (and are defined by) explicit knowledge-justification
systems.
This point about justification systems is relevant first because it highlights how explicitly beliefs
and values are both unique and central to human existence. Thus, there is a point of contact
here with Schwartz, which is agreement that such values guide and coordinate human behavior.

Second, we can then move to some of the remaining values in his theory. CONFORMITY is
easily understood as the intersection of the basic social motivation for influence and relational
value pointed out by the Matrix (i.e., the black line) and the need for groups to have shared
beliefs to coordinate action. The classic social psych experiments from Solomon Asch on
conformity show this process in action.

Likewise, TRADITION provides the identity-culture link. It explains what is justifiable for the
individual in their social context. That is, TRADITION is the process by which individuals identify
(or not) with the version of reality offered by the macro culture and their place in it. It is not
surprising then, that TRADITION and CONFORMITY are also deeply linked with SECURITY, as
these are all states associated with the desire to conserve risk and reduce threat and
uncertainty.

Finally, human justification processes have now evolved for a search for moral systems that can
guide our actions writ large. This searching for transcendence is called UNIVERSALISM, and it
refers to the quest for moral systems of justification that can guide our human value systems
across context.

I have found much to like about Schwartz’s theory of universal values. I also believe there is
much value in building bridges between this work and the unified approach.