Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112033

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The five factors of personality and personal values: An update with the
refined theory
Michele Vecchione *
Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A large body of research focused on the relationship between the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality traits
Five-factor model of personality and Schwartz's basic values. Existing studies, however, have considered Schwartz's theory in its classical form,
Refined theory which identifies 10 broad values. This is the first study to examine this relationship by using the recent
Traits
refinement of the value theory, which adopts a finer partitioning of the motivational continuum. It examined the
Personal values
associations between the FFM, as measured by the NEO PI-R, and the 19 values in the refined theory (n = 296,
49 % male, 51 % female). Results appear to suggest that a more precise insight into how the five factors relate to
the whole system of values can be attained by considering a narrower conceptualization of values. For example,
Conscientiousness exhibited the strongest association with Conformity-Rules (i.e., compliance with rules and
formal obligations) but was unrelated with Conformity-Interpersonal (i.e., avoidance of upsetting others). This
latter correlated highly with Agreeableness. Failing to differentiate between the two Conformity subtypes may
have weakened the correlation with traits in earlier studies. Findings were discussed regarding subtypes of the
original 10 and newly defined values in the refined theory that showed distinct patterns of correlation with
personality traits.

1. Introduction negatively with Hedonism and Stimulation; Openness to experience

A long tradition of studies has focused on the relationship between
traits (i.e., what people are like) and values (i.e., what they consider
important). In examining how these different aspects of personality are
related, most studies (e.g., Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994; Olver & Mooradian,
2003; Roccas et al., 2002; Vecchione et al., 2011) have focused on the
Five-Factor Model (McCrae & Costa, 1987) and Schwartz's (1992) the­
ory, the most influential and established frameworks in the respective
fields of research.
Findings from these studies have been summarized by two meta-
analysis (Fischer & Boer, 2015; Parks-Leduc et al., 2015), which have
found that the five factors of personality have meaningful and consistent
relationships with Schwartz's values. Extraversion correlated most posi­
tively with Stimulation, Hedonism, Achievement and Power, and most
negatively with Tradition; Agreeableness correlated most positively with
Benevolence, Universalism, Conformity and Tradition, and most nega­
tively with Power and Achievement; Conscientiousness correlated most
positively with Security, Conformity and Achievement, and most
correlated most positively with Self-direction, Stimulation and Univer­
salism, and most negatively with Tradition, Conformity and Security.
The observed pattern reflects the integrated structure of motivations
theorized in Schwartz's model, with correlations decreasing mono­
tonically in both directions around the circle from the most positively to
the most negatively correlated value.1 Neuroticism exhibited no sub­
stantial relationships with values. Behavior genetic studies have added
to our knowledge of the relation between traits and values, by showing
that their development appears, at least to some extent, the expression of
shared genetic pathways (Schermer et al., 2011). Yet, longitudinal
research has shown that traits may exert prospective effects on values,
while no effects were found in the opposite direction (Vecchione et al.,
2019).
In sum, this is a well-developed area of research and much is known
about the relationship between traits and values. However, all existing
studies (e.g., Olver & Mooradian, 2003; Roccas et al., 2002) have
considered Schwartz's (1992) value theory in its classical form, which
identifies 10 broad values. Recently, Schwartz et al. (2012) have

* Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, Via dei Marsi 78, Rome, Italy.
E-mail address: michele.vecchione@uniroma1.it.
1
An exception is Conscientiousness, which correlated most positively with conformity and achievement, two values that are located in different sides of the circle
(e.g., Parks-Leduc et al., 2015).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.112033
Received 10 August 2022; Received in revised form 10 October 2022; Accepted 28 November 2022
Available online 6 December 2022
0191-8869/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Vecchione
proposed an alternative partitioning of the motivational continuum into
a larger set of 19 values. Of these, 14 are subtypes of the original values.
Specifically, Self-direction was split into independence of thought
(Thought) and action (Action). Power was split into dominance over
people (Dominance) and control through material resources (Resource),
Security was split into safety in one's environment (Personal) and in the
wider society (Societal), Conformity was split into compliance with rules
and formal obligations (Rules) and avoidance of upsetting others
(Interpersonal), Benevolence was split into devotion to the welfare of in-
group members (Caring) and being a reliable and trustworthy member
of the in-group (Dependability), Universalism was split into concern for
all people (Societal concern), tolerance of those who are different from
oneself (Tolerance), and preservation the natural environment (Nature).
Tradition retained the same conceptual definition (i.e., preserving
religious and cultural traditions). However, some of the items (e.g.,
being humble, don't draw attention to yourself) included in the in­
struments used to assess the broad tradition value, namely the Schwartz
Value Survey (SVS) and the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ-40), did
not appear to cover this content appropriately. This led to identify a
distinct value, Humility, which expresses concerns for recognizing and
accepting one's insignificance in the larger scheme of things (Schwartz
et al., 2012). Face is another newly defined value, not included in the
original theory, which captures the goals of maintaining one's public
image and avoiding humiliation. The 19 values can be organized in a
circular continuum based on their conflicts and compatibilities, as rep­
resented in Fig. 1. Values that are adjacent within this structure express
compatible motivations and exhibit similar correlations with external
variables (e.g., traits). Values that are in opposite positions express
conflicting motivations and showed opposite patterns of correlations
with external variables (Schwartz, 2017). Based on this integrated
pattern, the 19 values can be grouped into four broader dimensions
(Self-Transcendence, Conservation, Self-Enhancement, and Openness to
change). Definitions of the 19 values in the refined theory and example
of items are provided in the online supplementary material, Table S1
(interested readers are referred to Schwartz et al., 2012, and Schwartz,
2017, for a throughout description of the theory). Findings from several
studies illustrated the utility of discriminating between narrower values
in the prediction and explanation of relevant outcomes (e.g., Schwartz
Fig. 1. The circular motivational continuum of the 19 values in the refined
theory (adapted from Schwartz et al., 2012).
2
Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112033
et al., 2012; Vecchione & Schwartz, 2022).
1.1. The current research
The present study aims at contributing to the current understanding
of the relationship between the FFM of personality and Schwartz's
values. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine
this relationship by using the refined theory of basic values (Schwartz,
2017). To this aim, we used the Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI-R), one of the most widely used instrument for assessing the
FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1992). We generated hypotheses regarding newly
defined values and subtypes of the original ten for which we expected a
differential relationship with the five factors of personality. We expected
to replicate what found in meta-analytic studies (Fischer & Boer, 2015;
Parks-Leduc et al., 2015) for values whose conceptual definition
remained unchanged in the refined theory (i.e., Achievement, Hedo­
nism, Stimulation).
Based on earlier findings, Extraversion is expected to correlate most
positively with Stimulation and, to a lesser degree, with Hedonism,
Achievement, and Power. Regarding this latter, the correlation should
be higher for Power-Dominance than for Power-Resource, as extraverted
behavior has often been associated with social dominance and asser­
tiveness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Past studies have found that Extra­
version correlated most negatively with the broad Tradition value
(Fischer & Boer, 2015; Roccas et al., 2002). We expected this correlation
to emerge for the Humility facet but not for the narrower Tradition
value. Valuing modesty and self-abnegation may indeed conflict with
the agentic nature of extraverted individuals (Roccas et al., 2002), while
respect for tradition appears to be irrelevant.
Previous studies based on the original theory have shown that
Agreeableness correlated most positively with the broadly defined
Benevolence value. We expected this association to be explained by
Benevolence-Caring, more than by Benevolence-Dependability. This
latter is a self-assertive value (Schwartz, 2017) which appears to be less
relevant to Agreeableness. As Schwartz (2017) wrote, “caring for close
others is a more communal, feminine role whereas being the one on
whom others depend is a more agentic, masculine role” (p. 62). We also
expected a positive correlation with Universalism-Concern and
Universalism-Tolerance. The relationship was expected to be weaker for
the Nature facet, given its focus on care for the natural environment
rather than on other people. Finally, we expected positive a correlation
with Humility and the Interpersonal subtype of Conformity, which
concerns avoiding upsetting or harming people with whom one feels
close to (Schwartz, 2017). As suggested by Schwartz (2017), both values
may be motivated by concern for the welfare of others. A null relation
was expected with Conformity-Rules as it did not focus on interpersonal
relations but on relations with authorities.
Since compliance with rules and expectations represent core char­
acteristics of high conscientious individuals (John et al., 2008), we ex­
pected Conformity-Rules to have the strongest link with
Conscientiousness. The correlation between Conscientiousness and
Achievement was expected to be small or non-significant. Although
these two yielded significant associations in previous studies (e.g.,
Roccas et al., 2002), meta-analytic findings have shown that this asso­
ciation holds only for SVS data (Fischer & Boer, 2015). In accordance
with earlier studies (Fischer & Boer, 2015), negative correlations were
expected with Openness to change values, particularly with Hedonism
and Stimulation.
Building on results from previous studies (Parks-Leduc et al., 2015),
Openness to experience should correlate most positively with Self-
direction values. However, the association is expected to be higher for
the Thought facet, which expresses the motivation to cultivate one's own
ideas and abilities (Schwartz et al., 2012). Self-direction-Action, which
express the goal of choosing own actions (Schwartz, 2017), appears to be
less relevant. A high positive correlation is expected also for Univer­
salism values, particularly for the Tolerance facet. This value underlies
M. Vecchione
the motivation of accepting and understanding those who are different
from oneself, which is highly compatible with Openness, a trait that past
studies have shown to be positively related to tolerance for diversity and
negatively related to prejudice (e.g., John & Srivastava, 1999). As
illustrated in Schwartz et al. (2012), Self-direction-Thought and
Universalism-Tolerance are two neighbour values which share an
emphasis on intellectual openness. The highest negative correlation was
expected with Tradition. Based on previous findings (e.g., Parks-Leduc
et al., 2015), Neuroticism was expected to be uncorrelated with the 19
values.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Participants
The sample was composed of 296 participants. Of these, 51 %
identified as cisgender women, and 49 % as cisgender men. The mean
age was 37.61 years (SD = 11.93). Most participants (75 %) were
employed, 10 % were university students, and 15 % were unemployed,
retired, or homemaker. Compulsory years of schooling ranged from 5 to
26 (M = 15.20, SD = 3.96). Annual net household income ranged from
“less than 9.000 Euro” (4.7 %) to “more than 56.000” (4.1 %); the modal
category was “17.501 to 21.000” (31.4 %). Participants were recruited
by undergraduate students as part of a course assignment at the Uni­
versity of Rome. Each student was briefed on the aim of the research and
asked to administer an online questionnaire to two adult participants
selected from the general population. All respondents were informed
about the aim of the study and signed an informed consent form.
Participation was voluntary, with no compensation.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Basic values
We measured values with the Italian adaptation (Vecchione &
Alessandri, 2017) of the revised Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ-RR,
Schwartz, 2017; Schwartz et al., 2012). The PVQ-RR comprises 57 items
that measure the 19 values described in Schwartz et al.'s (2012) refined
theory. For each item, respondents are asked to indicate how similar the
described person is to themselves on a six-point scale ranging from ‘not
like me at all’ to ‘very much like me’. Cronbach's alpha reliability co­
efficients of 14 out of the 19 scales exceeded 0.70, 3 were in the range
Tra
Sep
Ses Fac
Por
Cor
Coi
Bec Bed Ach
Hum
Unc
Hed
Sti
Sdt Sda
Unn
Unt
3
Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112033
0.60–0.70, and 2 were lower than 0.60: Humility (0.44) and Self-
direction-Though (0.59). These are among the scales that in earlier
studies appeared as the most problematic in terms of internal consis­
tency (Schwartz & Cieciuch, 2022).
A multidimensional scaling (MDS) was performed on the 19 values,
using the PROXSCAL routine in SPSS (Borg & Groenen, 2005). The MDS
solution is shown in Fig. 2. The location of the 19 values was largely
consistent with the theoretical structure, with some exceptions. Hedo­
nism and Stimulation emerged in a reversed order. The Universalism
and Benevolence subtypes were also reversed – Universalism was nearer
Self-direction and Benevolence nearer Conformity. However, the rela­
tive locations of these values in MDS analyses are not always consistent,
as discussed in Schwartz (2017). Consistently with the prototypical
structure, Tradition was more peripherical with respect to Conformity
(Schwartz, 2012).
2.2.2. Personality traits
We measured traits with an Italian validation (Terracciano, 2003) of
the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The instrument contains 240
items that form 5 domains and 30 facet scales, with 8 items each. Par­
ticipants were asked to read each statement (e.g., “I rarely feel lonely or
sad”) and to indicate the extent to which they agree, using a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
Cronbach's reliability coefficients were 0.88 for Extraversion, 0.88 for
Agreeableness, 0.89 for Conscientiousness, 0.90 for Neuroticism, and
0.86 for Openness to experience.
An Exploratory principal Factor Analysis (EFA) with oblique (Pro­
max) rotation was performed on the 30 facet scales. The EFA yielded the
typical five-factor structure, although several scales loaded highly on
more than one factor (details are reported in the online supplementary
material, Table S1). The solution was subjected to a Procrustes rotation,
using the data from the Italian validation of the NEO-PI-R (Terracciano,
2003) as the target matrix. The resulting Tucker's phi (φ) congruency
coefficients ranged from 0.97 to 0.99. Similar results were obtained by
using data from other countries as the target matrix, such as the U.S.
normative sample (McCrae et al., 1996, Table 4), and the Basque
adaptation of the NEO-PI-R (Gorostiaga et al., 2011, Table 1), with φ's in
the range 0.93 to 0.98. This suggests that the structure observed in the
present sample was consistent with that found in earlier studies.
Fig. 2. Multidimensional Scaling of the 19 values of
Schwartz's refined theory.
Note. Sep = Security–Personal; Ses = Secur­
ity–Societal; Tra = Tradition; Cor = Con­
formity–Rules; Coi = Conformity–Interpersonal;
Hum = Humility; Bec = Benevolence–Caring; Bed =
Benevolence–Dependability; Unc = Universal­
ism–Concern; Unn = Universalism–Nature; Unt =
Universalism–Tolerance; Sdt = Self-Direction–­
Thought; Sda = Self-Direction–Action; Sti = Stimu­
lation; Hed = Hedonism; Ach = Achievement; Pod =
Pod Power–Dominance; Por = Power–Resources; Fac =
Face.
M. Vecchione Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112033

3. Results Stimulation (− 0.28), and Hedonism (− 0.25). The correlation with

Achievement was near zero.
Table 1 reports zero-order Pearson's correlations of the 19 values Openness to experience correlated most positively with
with the five factors of personality. In keeping with standard procedures Universalism-Tolerance (0.43), and Self-direction-Thought (0.37). Pos­
(Schwartz, 2006), we centered values on the individual's own mean itive correlations were found also with Universalism-Nature (0.35),
rating (i.e., the mean score across all PVQ-RR items) to correct for in­ Stimulation (0.33), Universalism-Concern (0.25), and Hedonism (0.21).
dividual differences in scale use. “This converts absolute value scores Negative correlations were found with the Conservation values of Face
into scores that indicate the relative importance of each value in the (− 0.33), Security-Personal (− 0.32), Tradition (− 0.29) and Security-
value system” (Schwartz, 2016, p 0.3). The significance level of the Societal (− 0.25), and with Power-Resources (− 0.30). Finally,
correlations was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the although we expected no relationship with Neuroticism, we observed a
Bonferroni-correction. To assess the strength of the relationship between positive correlation with Face (0.27) and a negative correlation with
traits and values, we reported the percentage of variance that the 19 Universalism-Nature (− 0.21) and Universalism-Tolerance (− 0.20). The
values explained for each trait (Table 1, last row). percentage of explained variance ranged from 18 (Neuroticism) to 62 %
As shown in Table 1, Extraversion correlated most positively with (Agreeableness).
Stimulation (0.45), and, to a lesser extent, with Hedonism (0.35) and In order to provide a visual representation of the full pattern of re­
Achievement (0.23). This replicates earlier meta-analytical evidence (e. lationships between the 19 values and the 5 traits, a MDS was performed
g., Parks-Leduc et al., 2015). Moreover, it correlated negatively with using the PROXSCAL routine in SPSS, with a Torgerson initial configu­
Security-Personal (− 0.36), Humility (− 0.31), Face (− 0.24), and ration (Borg & Groenen, 2005). The resulting two-dimensional plot is
Conformity-Rules (− 0.21). Contrary to our expectations, the correlation reported in Fig. 3. Both Openness to experience and Extraversion
with Power-Dominance was not significant. appeared in the upper part of the figure. The Openness trait is close to
In keeping with our expectations, Agreeableness correlated posi­ Self-Direction-Thought, on the boundary between Openness to Change
tively with Benevolence-Caring (0.22), but not with Benevolence- and Self-Transcendence values. Its location suggests that this trait is
Dependability. The strongest positive associations, however, were compatible with both readiness for new experience and concern for the
found with Conformity-Interpersonal (0.54), Universalism-Concern welfare of others. Extraversion is located further to the right, close to
(0.54), Universalism-Tolerance (0.52), and Humility (0.39). Positive Stimulation and Hedonism. Conscientiousness lies on the opposite side,
associations were observed also with Conformity-Rules (0.36) and in the Conservation region, near Conformity-Rules. Agreeableness is in
Universalism-Nature (0.35), although correlations were significantly the left part of the plot, near Humility, on the border between Self-
weaker (p's < 0.01) than those observed for the Interpersonal aspect of Transcendence and Conservation values. This location reflects the
Conformity and the Tolerance and Concern facets of Universalism, interpersonal nature of the Agreeableness trait (John & Srivastava,
respectively. The highest negative correlations were observed for the 1999). Both Self-Transcendence and Conservation are indeed social-
Self-Enhancement values of Power-Resources (− 0.57), Achievement focused values, namely values concerned with outcomes for others or
(− 0.56) and Power-Dominance (− 0.54). Smaller negative correlations for established institutions (Schwartz et al., 2012). Neuroticism emerged
were found with the Openness to change values of Stimulation (− 0.32), in the right lower corner of the MDS plot, on the boundary between Self-
Hedonism (− 0.30) and Self-Direction-Action (− 0.32), but not for Self- Enhancement and Conservation values. This is likely to reflect its posi­
Direction-Thought. tive, though small correlation with values that are anxiety-based,
As expected, Conscientiousness correlated most positively with particularly with Face.
Conformity-Rules (0.38). Correlation with Conformity-Interpersonal
was not statistically significant. There was also a positive, though 4. Conclusions
weaker correlation with Tradition (0.22). Negative correlations were
found for Power-Dominance (− 0.29), Power-Resource (− 0.28), The present study aimed to extend earlier research findings on the
relationship between the FMM and Schwartz's values by investigating
this relationship within the recent refinement of the value theory
Table 1 (Schwartz, 2017). We discuss the findings predominantly with respect to
Correlations of the 19 values in the refined theory with the five factors of the narrower values derived from the original ten and to the newly
personality. defined Face and Humility values.
E A C N O Extraversion correlated most positively with Stimulation, replicating
Security-personal − 0.36* 0.01 0.14 0.14 − 0.32* earlier findings (Fischer & Boer, 2015; Parks-Leduc et al., 2015). The
Security-societal − 0.16 0.04 0.13 0.18 − 0.25* most negative relation was observed with Security-Personal, a value that
Tradition − 0.06 0.18 0.22* − 0.04 − 0.29* strongly opposes Stimulation. Thus, being active, assertive, enthusiastic
Conformity-rules − 0.21* 0.36* 0.38* − 0.11 − 0.19 and excitement-seeking is likely to conflict with the goal of avoiding
Conformity-interpersonal 0.18 0.54* 0.17 0.14 0.07
threat to oneself. Extraverted behavior, by contrast, appears to be
− − −
Humility − 0.31* 0.39* − 0.03 − 0.03 − 0.11
Benevolence-caring − 0.06 0.22* 0.12 − 0.01 − 0.04 irrelevant to valuing stability and order in society. This might explain
Benevolence-dependability 0.06 0.17 0.18 0.00 − 0.01 why the broad original Security value showed null (e.g., Vecchione
Universalism-concern − 0.03 0.54* 0.06 − 0.09 0.25* et al., 2019) or weak (e.g., Olver & Mooradian, 2003; Roccas et al.,
Universalism-nature 0.05 0.35* 0.04 0.21* 0.35*
−
2002) relations with Extraversion in earlier studies. Negative correla­
Universalism-tolerance 0.15 0.52* 0.03 − 0.20* 0.43*
Self-direction-thought 0.04 − 0.05 0.01 − 0.13 0.37* tions were found also with Face, a value that is adjacent to Security-
Self-direction-action 0.01 − 0.32* − 0.05 − 0.07 0.17 Personal and, similarly to it, is concerned with avoiding threat to one­
Stimulation 0.45* − 0.32* − 0.28* − 0.05 0.33* self (Schwartz, 2017).
Hedonism 0.35* − 0.30* − 0.25* − 0.02 0.21* As expected, Extraversion correlated negatively with Humility but
Achievement 0.23* 0.56* 0.02 0.15 0.02
was uncorrelated with Tradition, which in earlier studies adopting the
− −
Power-dominance 0.07 − 0.54* − 0.29* 0.10 − 0.08
Power-resources − 0.02 − 0.57* − 0.28* 0.19 − 0.30* original theory showed the strongest negative correlation (e.g., Fischer
Face − 0.24* − 0.18 0.03 0.27* − 0.33* & Boer, 2015). Our results appear to suggest that this relation is
R-squared 0.43 0.62 0.30 0.18 0.53 accounted for by the humility aspects (i.e., being modest and satisfied
Note. Significant correlations are marked with an asterisk (*). The critical level with what one has), whose components has been kept separate from the
of significance (α = 0.05) was adjusted using Bonferroni correction and set to narrower tradition value in the refined theory (Schwartz et al., 2012).
0.0026. Differently from what expected, the correlation with Power-Dominance

4
M. Vecchione
Openness
Self-
transcendence
UNN
UNT
SDT
UNC
Agreeableness
HUM
COI BEC
BED
COR
Conscientiousness SES
SEP
TRA
Conservation
Fig. 3. Multidimensional Scaling of the 19 values and the FFM of personality traits
Note. The five factors of personality are in boldface.
was not significant. If we look at the NEO-PI-R facet scales we found this
value to be positively correlated with Assertiveness (0.25) and Excite­
ment Seeking (0.30). The correlation did not emerge at the broad
domain level as Power-Dominance correlated negatively with Warmth
(− 0.22) and was unrelated with the other facet scales.
As hypothesized, Agreeableness correlated positively with
Benevolence-Caring, but not with Benevolence-Dependability. In
contrast with our expectations, however, correlations were stronger
with Universalism than with Benevolence subtypes. This differs also
from results of earlier studies using the ten original values. A potential
explanation is that the Benevolence items in the PVQ-RR are more
explicitly directed towards in-group members compared to those of the
PVQ-40 and the SVS. This might have weakened the correlation with the
Agreeableness items of the NEO-PI-R, which are not phrased in terms of
in-group. The highest negative correlations were observed for the two
Power subtypes.
Of interest, the opposition between Self-Transcendence and Self-
Enhancement values do not represents the only motivational bases for
Agreeableness. This trait correlated highly also with several Conserva­
tion values and particularly with Conformity-Interpersonal. This value is
located near Self-Transcendence, suggesting that “concern for the other
can also motivate interpersonal conformity (Schwartz, 2017, p. 56)”.
This is in line with the nature of the Agreeableness trait, which has also
been referred to as Conformity (Fiske, 1949) or Friendly compliance vs.
Hostile non-compliance (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981). Compliance
is also one of the facets that form the Agreeableness domain of the NEO-
PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Conscientiousness correlated most positively with Con­
formity–Rules. This differs from previous investigations, where the most
positive correlations was found for Security (Fischer & Boer, 2015;
Parks-Leduc et al., 2015). Thus, compliance with rules, laws, and obli­
gations appears to provide the main motivational basis for Conscien­
tiousness. This association is likely to involve mostly the inhibitory or
dependability aspects of the trait (Jackson & Roberts, 2017). The cor­
relation with Conformity-Interpersonal was not significant. This further
reinforces the idea that the two Conformity subtypes tap conceptually
distinct aspects of the broad domain. Failing to differentiate between
5
Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112033
Extraversion Openness to
change
STI
HED
SDA
POD
ACH
POR
FAC
Self-
enhancement
Neuroticism
them may have weakened the correlation with the five factors in earlier
studies. Further, Conscientiousness correlated positively with Tradition
but was unrelated with Humility and, as expected, with Achievement.
Openness to experience correlated most positively with Universal­
ism, with strong positive correlations also with the adjacent values of
Self-Direction. This replicates earlier findings (e.g., Parks-Leduc et al.,
2015; Roccas et al., 2002). It adds to the literature by showing that the
correlation was higher for Universalism-Tolerance than for the Concern
subtype and that the association with Self-direction was accounted for
entirely by the Thought facet. The differential associations of Openness
with the Thought and Action subtypes of Self-Direction were already
pointed out by Schwartz et al. (2012), who have reanalysed data from
Caprara et al. (2006), splitting the four items of the PVQ-40 into two
facets. We replicated this finding with the PVQ-RR.
All in all, these results indicate that the Openness trait is most
compatible with the values that emphasize intellectual autonomy and
tolerance for diversity. Self-Direction-Action, which express the goal of
being independent and assert one's freedom (Schwartz et al., 2012), did
not appear to have implications for open-minded behavior. Of interest,
this value was found to be negatively related to Agreeableness. This is
consistent with the circular structure of Schwartz's model, because
deciding what to do on one's own conflict with the goal of Conformity-
Interpersonal (avoiding upsetting others), one of the main motivation
underlying the Agreeableness trait. Overall, the traits with the stronger
relationship with values were Agreeableness and Openness, followed by
Extraversion and Conscientiousness. This substantially replicates what
has been found in previous investigations using the 10 values of the
original theory (Fischer & Boer, 2015; Parks-Leduc et al., 2015).
To conclude, the present study examines the relationship between
the FFM of personality traits and the 19 values of the refined theory
(Schwartz, 2017). A limitation of the study is that it is based on a specific
measure of the five factors of personality (i.e., the NEO-PI-R). Earlier
studies have indeed shown that the strength of the relationships between
traits and values may change based on the instrument used to assess the
FFM (Parks-Leduc et al., 2015). The use of a convenience sample from a
single country (Italy) represents a further limitation. It is therefore
advisable to replicate the study findings using different trait measures,
M. Vecchione
in larger and representative samples from diverse cultures. Another
limitation is that both traits and values were assessed through self-
report. This may open the door to various sources of bias, such as so­
cial desirability response style and common method variance. Moreover,
some of the PVQ-RR scale scores, particularly those referring to the
Humility index, had a low internal consistency. This calls for caution in
interpreting the results obtained for this value. Notwithstanding these
limitations, findings appears to suggest that a more precise insight into
how personality traits relate to value priorities can be attained by
considering the recent refinement of the value theory (Schwartz, 2017).
Also, this might help researchers to reach a more articulated under­
standing of results from earlier studies based on trait and value theories.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Michele Vecchione: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing-Original draft, Reviewing and
Editing.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
This work was partially supported by Ateneo Sapienza, Sapienza
University of Rome, Italy.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.112033.
References
Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and personality. European Journal of
Personality, 8, 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080303
Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling. Springer.
Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S. H., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2006).
Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27
(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00447.x.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of
personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327906mbr1602_2
Fischer, R., & Boer, D. (2015). Motivational basis of personality traits: A meta-analysis of
value-personality correlations. Journal of Personality, 83, 491–510. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jopy.12125
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from
different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329–344.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057198
Gorostiaga, A., Balluerka, N., Alonso-Arbiol, I., & Haranburu, M. (2011). Validation of
the Basque Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). European Journal of
Personality and Individual Differences 203 (2023) 112033
Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/
a000067
Jackson, J. J., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Conscientiousness. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 133–147). Oxford University Press.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big
Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John,
R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp.
114–158). The Guilford Press.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,
and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality
across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1),
81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Jr., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996).
Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory:
Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70(3), 552–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.552
Olver, J. M., & Mooradian, T. A. (2003). Personality traits and personal values: A
conceptual and empirical integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(1),
109–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00145-9
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A
meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1088868314538548
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors
and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6). https://doi.org/
10.1177/0146167202289008, 789-201.
Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Maio, G. R., & Jang, K. L. (2011). A behavior genetic study
of the connection between social values and personality. Twin Research and Human
Genetics, 14(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.14.3.233
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications.
Revue Francaise de Sociologie, 42, 249–288.
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Schwartz, S. H. (2016). Coding and analyzing PVQ-RR data (instructions for the revised
Portrait Values Questionnaire). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35393.56165.
Unpublished.
Schwartz, S. H. (2017). The refined theory of basic values. In S. Roccas, & L. Sagiv (Eds.),
Values and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 51–72). Springer
International Publishing.
Schwartz, S. H., & Cieciuch, J. (2022). Measuring the refined theory of individual values
in 49 cultural groups: Psychometrics of the revised Portrait Value Questionnaire.
Assessment, 29(5), 1005–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191121998760
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C.,
Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J. E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., &
Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0029393
Terracciano, A. (2003). The Italian version of the NEO PI-R: Conceptual and empirical
support for the use of targeted rotation. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(8),
1859–1872. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00035-7
Vecchione, M., & Alessandri, G. (2017). Validation of the Italian version of the Portrait
Values Questionnaire-Revised (PVQ-R). Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 44(1),
159–178. https://doi.org/10.1421/86906
Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (2011). Higher-order
factors of the big five and basic values: Empirical and theoretical relations. British
Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 478–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8295.2010.02006.x
Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Roccas, S., & Caprara, G. V. (2019). A look into the
relationship between personality traits and basic values: A longitudinal
investigation. Journal of Personality, 87, 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jopy.12399
Vecchione, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2022). Personal values and academic achievement.
British Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 630–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12555