Lecture 4: The Nature of Human Values

Richard M. Sorrentino

UWOTo be used in

conjunction with notes from class

demo

Rokeach’s Value Survey

I. Background A. Definition: A value is an enduring belief

that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence.

1. Terminal Values: End states of existence, e.g., a comfortable life. Note: there are 18 + or - 2 Terminal Values

2. Instrumental Values: Specific modes of conduct, e.g., honesty. Note: There are 36 or so of these, but the 18 here are the most important.

II. Overview A. Measurement: Rank Order, No ties. B. Comparisons with other samples

(performed in class). C. Research 1. Rokeach (1968), Reactions to Assassination

of Martin Luther King. a. Question: When you heard the news of the

assassination, which one of these was your strongest reaction?

1) 52% said: sadness, anger, shame 2) 48% said: fear or he brought it on himself 3) equality and salvation best predictors

Those who valued equality showed the most compassionate responses: sadness, anger, shame.

Those who valued salvation showed the least compassionate responses: fear, he brought it on himself.

2. Civil Rights: Students asked to join the NAACP and agreed were higher in equality, world of peace, and world of beauty then non-joiners.

3. Church Attendance: Salvation best discriminator. University students who attended weekly ranked it 1st, Adult population ranked it 5th. It was 18th for students never attending and 15th for Adults never attending.

4. Prison Inmates: Compared to general population, inmates rate honesty and salvation lower.

but they rate wisdom higher

5. Homosexuals: UWO Homophile Association Members: mostly identical to rest of student population, but value true friendship higher and family security lower. Mature love is about the same.

6. Michigan State Police: rate equality lower than general population (14th, or same as Wallace supporters in 1968 election). However, they rate sense of accomplishment, capable, intellectual, and logical, higher than the general population.

III. Freedom vs. Equality: What is your Political Philosophy? A. What would you be if you valued Freedom High and Equality Low ?: ************* Freedom Low and Equality High ?: ************ Freedom High and Equality High ?: ******************** Freedom Low and Equality Low ?: ********************

B. Rokeach Found that: Speeches of capitalists such as Barry

Goldwater and George Wallace had high frequencies of freedom but low equality

Writings of Karl Marx had low freedom and high equality frequencies

Norman Thomas and other socialists had high frequencies of both in their speeches

Hitler’s Mein Kampf had low frequencies of both

IV: Self Confrontation: Discovering Inconsistencies in the Self and Behaviour e.g. 1. Students who discover they are

fascists or communists and thought they weren’t

e.g. 2. Rokeach and the minister who valued a comfortable life over salvation

A. Rokeach’s Study on Civil Rights: Attitudes, Values, and Behaviour Change 1. P’s fill out value survey 2. Self confrontation manipulation takes

place: a) First P’s asked if they are sympathetic

towards civil rights demonstrators. b) Then are told MSU students value

Freedom over equality. c) Then showed Table:

Sympathetic with Civil Rights Demonstrators?

Yes Freedom Rank: 6 Equality Rank: 5 Difference: +1

No Freedom Rank: 2 Equality Rank: 17 Difference: -15

d) Then says: This raises the question whether those who are against civil rights are really saying that they care a great deal about their own freedom but are indifferent to other peoples’ freedom. Those who are for civil rights are saying they not onlywant freedom for themselves, but for other people too.

3. Control Group: Only fills out Values.

4. Results: a) attitudes and values: gradually changed

over time. First values increased in Equality and decreased in Freedom as much as 17 months later.

b) behaviour most interesting 1) Asked to join NAACP and/or make a

contribution 3 to 5 months after, and a year later. Experimental group significantly more likely than Control to do this.

2) Behaviour Change; Career Choices: *Ethnic and Intergroup Relations International Relations Justice, Morality, and Democracy Welfare Policy Problems Urban Community Problems * After 5 months no change: values still

consolidating * After 21 months, Experimental Group

Significantly more likely to sign up for Ethnic and Intergroup Relations than Control Group.

Note: Attitude change studies typically change attitudes for a couple of weeks

B. Smoking Study (Conroy, 1971)

1. P’s signed up for a Behavioural Modification Clinic to Quit Smoking. Paid $50.00 deposit they would get back if they completed the 5 day program.

2. E and C group both recorded number of cigarettes they smoked per day.

3. E group also given self confrontation: a. filled out value survey and shown table:

The Difference Between Smokers and Quitters seems to be:

Smokers ranked Quitters ranked Broad-minded 3 8 Self-Controlled 8 1

b. Then told: Apparently Quitters value their own control over smoking more than being easy-going as broad-minded suggests. Smokers value easy going more than their sense of self-control.

4. Results:

a) 5 days later, Control group was back to 15 cigarettes per day, Experimental group, less than 1.

b) 6 months later: 10% of Control Group had quit smoking, 40% of Experimental Group had quit smoking.

c) Rokeach: Skinner would role over, one trial learning better than behaviour modification

c. Teacher Study

Student Teachers: E got mature love vs. sense of accomplishment, C, no confrontation. E received significantly better teacher ratings in classroom.

Conclusions

Self confrontation works: 1. long lasting behavioural change 2. better than behaviour modification 3. one trial learning 4. but for whom? Would this work for the CO? Maybe not, but it may work for you.