We identified behavioral signatures of the values distinguished in the Schwartz et al. refined value theory (2012). We examined behavioral signatures for two types of values, value states and value ...traits. We conducted two studies using innovative approaches. Study 1 used retrospective self-reports whereas Study 2 used self-reports in real time. In Study 1 (
= 703), we sought act frequency signatures of the 19 basic value traits that the Portrait Value Questionnaire-Revised (Schwartz, 2017) measures. We examined the frequency of 209 acts from the Oregon Avocational Interest Scales (Goldberg, 2010) for which there were no expectations that values would necessarily influence them. We computed partial correlations between each behavioral act and each value. We discuss the theoretical links to each value of the 10 behavioral acts that correlated most highly with it. Study 2 analyzed 9,416 behavioral acts of 374 participants. We measured value expressions in current behavior, i.e.,
, using experience sampling methodology (ESM). We asked participants 7 times per day for 7 days what they had been doing during the past 15 min and how important 9 different values from the Schwartz's refined value theory were to them during that activity. Because the questions about activities were open-ended, the set of behavioral acts analyzed in Study 2 was theoretically unlimited. To find signatures of values in behavior, we identified the activities during which participants reported the highest level of importance for each value. Both studies revealed meaningful associations between values and daily behavior.
Background
The aim of this study was to examine the Schwartz model of values in other-report data. We specifically tested the circular structure and priorities of personal values observed in ratings ...made by well-acquainted informants.
Participants and procedure
We analysed self- and other-reports of preferences of 19 basic and four higher-order values provided by 422 participants (Mage = 30.02, SDage = 13.99) using the Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ-5x).
Results
The self-other agreement corrected for measurement bias ranged from .29 to .78 for basic values and from .51 to .67 for higher-order values. The findings indicated that basic values measured via other-reports form a circular structure consistent with the Schwartz theory. The hierarchy of values based on other-reports only slightly differed from the hierarchy based on self-reports.
Conclusions
The results suggest that both self- and other-ratings of personal values yield meaningful information that contributes to each.
Background
The HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO-PI-R), available in 200-, 100-, and 60-item versions, has become one of the most frequently applied measurement tools for the assessment of ...basic personality dimensions.
Participants and procedure
In this study we examined the Polish versions of the HEXACO-60 and the HEXACO-100 inventories in a community sample of 522 individuals (aged 16-75, M = 32.02, SD = 14.15, 56.3% female). We verified the factor validity of both inventories with exploratory structural equation modeling. Additionally, we tested a six-factor solution on the HEXACO-60 items with principal axis extraction and we compared a factor matrix of the Polish adaptation of the HEXACO-100 facets with the factor matrix of the original version of the HEXACO-100 facets in an exploratory factor comparison analysis. We analyzed correlations between HEXACO domains and various models of personality traits, including the Big Two, Big Six, Big Five, and 10 Big Five as-pects.
Results
Internal consistency reliability coefficients for scales and subscales were satisfactory. The analyses supported the six-factor structure of the inventories and the results of correlation analyses were consistent with expectations.
Conclusions
The results indicate that the Polish versions of the HEXACO-60 and the HEXACO-100 inventories are reliable and valid in-struments for measuring basic personality traits in the HEXACO model.
Experience sampling is considered one of the best methods for measuring behavior (Furr, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1002/per.724). When used for this purpose, it requires a coding system to transform ...diversified reports on what people are doing, provided as responses to an open-ended question, into interpretable data. We present a categorization of everyday behaviors that can be used to code responses from experience sampling and diary studies conducted with different groups of participants—from adolescents to elderly people. This categorization was developed and validated on a set of 19,840 responses to an open-ended question about participants’ recent activity, provided by 667 persons ranging in age from 12 to 66. As a result of the multistage work, we present a categorization system which forms a hierarchy from three broad categories to 97 narrow ones through middle levels of five, 23, and 63 categories of behaviors. The possible usage of the developed categorization is discussed.
Objective
The circular structure of values has been verified mostly at a between‐person level and on measures of general value preferences. In this manuscript, we argue that it is a simplification ...that neglected significant aspects of the value structures and distinguish four different types of structures: (a) between‐person structure of value traits, (b) within‐person structure of value traits, (c) between‐person structure of value states, and (d) within‐person structure of value states. We argue that the within‐person structure of value states addresses the circular structure of values most accurately.
Method
To compare all four structures, we collected three partially dependent samples (N1 = 449, N2 = 293, N3 = 218) of adults (age 17–57, M = 24). At three time points, separated by 5–7 weeks, respondents completed a questionnaire measure (Portrait Values Questionnaire‐Revised PVQ‐RR) of value preferences (value traits) and reported the importance of values in their everyday actions (value states) for 1 week in an experience sampling study.
Results
The four types of value structures were stable over time. All four were also consistent with Schwartz's value model to some degree, but at the same time, there were some deviations.
Conclusions
It is important to distinguish four types of value structures and be aware of their different interpretations that we outlined in this paper.
This study applied a person-centered approach to differentiate the usage of cognitive emotion regulation strategies among subgroups of individuals by employing latent profile analyses. The subgroups ...were identified according to their temperament type (informing about how people formally process emotional stimuli) and anxiety/depression types (indicating what the content of processed emotional stimuli is). Specifically, we: (a) examined the existence of latent personality profiles based on two temperament types, high/low stimulation processing capacities, on the behavioral level that manifested themselves as a strength and adequacy of processing, and anxiety (arousal, apprehension) and depression types (valence, anhedonic), representing an affective content in the identified profiles. We further (b) explored how these profiles relate to cognitive emotion regulation strategies. Participants (N = 678; 52.6% females, age of 18–65 years) completed three questionnaires assessing: temperament; anxiety and depression types; and cognitive emotion regulation strategies. Five latent affective-temperament profiles were identified with a series of latent profile analyses: Strong-Anhedonic, Weak-Apprehension, Strong-Healthy, Weak-Valence, and Very Weak-Anhedonic. The results indicated significant between-profile differences in cognitive emotion regulation strategies. This study enables applicative recommendations to be formulated concerning the effective usage of cognitive emotion regulation strategies.
We propose a model of basic self‐regulatory mechanisms that integrates descriptive‐structural and dynamic‐explanatory approaches to personality. Using a structural way of thinking and based on a ...structural model of personality (the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits), we deduced two orthogonal (distinct) but interactive mechanisms: (a) Impulse Control responsible for controlling automatically activated impulses, urges, and affective reactions and (b) Self‐Motivation responsible for regulating intentions in goal‐oriented behaviors. Their operation depends on both situational and dispositional factors and optimal functioning of both mechanisms is needed for effective regulation of behavior. People can also be characterized by relatively stable levels of Impulse Control and Self‐Motivation as dispositions, which depend on temperamental predispositions but can develop incoherently with them due to the impact of environmental factors. Combinations of Impulse Control and Self‐Motivation as dispositions result in personality types, which differ in their adaptiveness. Importantly, Impulse Control and Self‐Motivation mechanisms reveal substantial similarities to other self‐regulatory constructs described in the literature, particularly those included in Block and Block's as well as Kuhl's theories. The contribution of our paper may serve as an example of how to apply the descriptive‐structural approach to develop a dynamic‐explanatory model of personality.
The aims of this study were to compare (a) personality traits vs personal values, (b) Five-Factor Model (FFM) vs HEXACO model of personality traits, and (c) broad vs narrow personality constructs in ...terms of their relationship with the frequency of everyday behaviors. These relationships were analyzed at three organizational levels of self-reported behavior: (a) single behavioral acts, (b) behavioral components (empirically derived categories of similar behaviors), and (c) two higher-order factors. The study was conducted on a Polish sample (
N
= 532, age range 16–72). We found that (a) even the frequencies of single behavioral acts were related to various personality constructs instead of one narrow trait or value, (b) personality traits and personal values were comparable as predictors of a wide range of everyday behaviors, (c) HEXACO correlated with the frequency of behaviors slightly higher than FFM, and (d) narrow and broad personality constructs did not differ substantially as predictors of everyday behavior at the levels of acts and components, but at the level of higher-order behavioral factors, broad personality measures were better predictors than narrow ones.
•We distinguish value traits from value states.•Value states for volitional acts reproduce the circular structure of value traits.•Value states for non-volitional acts do not reproduce the circular ...structure.•The hierarchy of value states differs from the hierarchy of value traits.
This research is the first to assess directly Schwartz’s claim that the circular structure of values derives from value compatibilities or conflicts experienced in real-time behaviors. We differentiate two types of values: value traits guide perception and behavior over time and situations and value states guide real-time behavioral acts. We measured the value states of 374 participants for 13,873 behavioral acts with experience sampling, distinguishing volitional from non-volitional acts. As hypothesized, value states for volitional acts, but not for non-volitional acts reproduced the circular value structure. The importance hierarchies of value states differed substantially from the importance hierarchy of value traits, suggesting that the importance of value states depends more on situations than on the hierarchy of value traits.
PDF
