ABSTRACT
Power- and achievement-values are seen to be important for productivity and societal stability. But what exact factors drive the forces to adhere to power- and achievement-values? In this study, the focus is on societal development and social stratification. Research on values in general often is not very careful in the distinction between different levels of analysis although the necessity has been outlined in several contributions to theoretical thinking in sociology. That is why this article comes from the position of methodological individualism and highlights explicitly the different levels of analysis and their assumed interrelations. It is shown that Inglehart's scarcity hypothesis as an explaining mechanism has some weaknesses. As an alternative, the theory of social production functions is suggested that is capable to provide a framework of compatible societal- and individual-level mechanisms. The empirical analysis is based on data of the fourth round of the European Social Survey containing about 50,000 respondents in 31 countries. The comparability of power- and achievement-values across countries and across the societal and the individual level is tested by using two-level confirmatory factor analysis. The results show that comparability across countries and across both levels can be confirmed. Furthermore, opposing relations for societal development and social stratification are found: The higher the societal development, the lower the priority of power- and achievement-values; the higher the social stratification position, the more important the power- and achievement-values. Therefore, the scarcity hypothesis is rejected and the need for an alternative explanation is reinforced.
1. Introduction
Power- and achievement-values can be a crucial factor in motivating people striving for a higher status and also in socially legitimating status differences (Parsons 1952; Young 1994). Furthermore, power- and achievement-values can play an important role for the stability of societies. Stabilising mechanisms derive from shared beliefs and institutionalised values that are transmitted by generations (Durkheim 1933 [1893], 1974 [1898]; Parsons 1937, 1952). Instabilities arise, if many people adhere to power and achievement but the societal opportunities keep a high share of people from reaching these goals. Then many people probably try to catch social positions provided with power over resources and show socially recognised achievement by illegal means to reach their strongly adhered goals power and achievement (Merton 1938; Konty 2005; Messner and Rosenfeld 2007 [1994]). Thus, power- and achievement-values have highly social relevance. However, there is a lack of research on social factors determining the priority of the mentioned power- and achievement-values including both societal and individual determinants. The present article focuses on two main factors: societal development and social stratification. Both can be shown as important determinants influencing the priority of power- and achievement-values (Inglehart 1997; Inglehart and Welzel 2005; Köthemann 2014).
This study contributes to the mentioned research in different manners: First, research on values often is not very careful in the distinction between different levels of analysis although the necessity has been outlined in several contributions to theoretical thinking in sociology (Coleman 1990; Haller 2002: 149–52). That is why this article comes from the position of methodological individualism (Coleman 1990) – which seldom explicitly is applied in the comparative study of values – and highlights the different levels of analysis and their assumed interrelations. By taking the mentioned multilevel perspective, it becomes obvious that there is no study examining societal factors (between societies) and social structural factors (within societies) influencing power- and achievement-values simultaneously which is a gap that is filled by the present paper.
Second, by putting together the mechanisms proposed at both levels congruences and incongruences are made visible. The social production functions here are suggested as a framework that can integrate different levels of analyses and provide a congruent multilevel explanation.
Third, research has shown that values in different countries can differ in their meaning, implying that they are not comparable any more (Davidov 2010; Davidov et al.2012). Another aspect refers to the comparability of values across levels (Hofstede 2001 [1980]; Haller 2002; Fischer et al.2010). In other words, the question is, if power- and achievement-values are similar across the societal level and the individual level. To account for the mentioned comparability both across countries and across levels, this study applies the methodology of two-level confirmatory factor analysis (two-level CFA), which seldom was used before (Muthén 1989, 1994; Hox 2010).
2. Power- and achievement-values
The first issue of this paper is how power- and achievement-values are conceptualised. There are two very prominent and influential ideas in the social sciences: Inglehart's theory of differences in the importance of values in modern societies (Inglehart 1997; Inglehart and Welzel 2005) and Schwartz's Theory of Basic Humans Values (Schwartz 1994, 2005). The strength of Inglehart's theory can be seen in the elaboration of the relationship between values and external variables whereas the conception of values themselves is weak. In contrast, Schwartz has a very rich conception and measurement of values (Beckers et al.2012; Datler et al.2013). That is why in this study values are conceptualised based on Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values.1 In terms of Schwartz's concept, values basically are defined ‘as desirable trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or other social entity’ (1994: 21). More specifically, their crucial content aspects distinguish different types of values: the motivational goals they express as, for instance, power- and achievement in the present paper. In terms of Schwartz's theory, power-values refer to control over people and resources and achievement-values refer to personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. Power- and achievement-values are assumed to share a large amount of their motivational components that at a more general level can be characterised as social superiority and esteem (Schwartz 1994, 2005). Although it would be very interesting to analyse power- and achievement-values separately, Davidov (2010: 178) and Davidov et al. (2008: 431) showed that with available survey data and the limited number of indicators, power- and achievement-value priorities cannot be disentangled empirically. Given this empirical limitation, the present study analyses power- and achievement-values together in one factor justified by the fact that both share social superiority and esteem as a common motivational component.
3. Societal development and power- and achievement-values
While Inglehart's concept of values is not used here, his ideas about the social mechanisms shifting value priorities get further consideration. On this Inglehart and Welzel (2005: 19) write:
Socioeconomic development starts from technological innovations that increase labor productivity; it then brings occupational specialization, rising educational levels, and rising income levels; it diversifies human interaction, shifting the emphasis from authority relations toward bargaining relations; in the long run this brings cultural changes, such as changing gender roles, changing attitudes toward authority, changing sexual norms, declining fertility rates, broader political participation, and more critical and less easily led publics.
Societal development ‘affects people's daily lives more massively and brings changes that are more immediately felt’ than any other phenomena (Inglehart and Welzel 2005: 22). In other words: Beside other aspects, societal development brings about differences in the importance of values, while the process is seen as probabilistic and the stages are seen as reversible (Inglehart and Welzel 2005: 18–47, 2010: 552–55).
More specifically, Inglehart distinguishes the process of Modernisation from Postmodernisation.2 Industrialisation is seen to be essential for Modernisation in that ‘economic growth becomes the dominant societal goal, and achievement motivation becomes the dominant individual-goal’ (Inglehart 1997: 5). Since the 1970s, the process of Postmodernisation, which ‘deemphasizes all kinds of authority […] allowing much larger range for individual autonomy in the pursuit of individual subjective well-being’ (Inglehart 1997: 74–75), began. Furthermore, during the process of Postmodernisation, achievement motivation should have faded in salience. Authority is assumed to highly correlate with hierarchical relationships and thereby with a high priority in power-values. In short, there is a strong tie between societal development and the diminishing priority of both power- and achievement-values.
Some remarks should be made here. First, the concept of Modernisation and Postmodernisation covers a wide range of characteristics from which hypotheses about the determinants of differences in the importance of values can only be derived at a very general level (Haller 2002: 141). To be more specific, the present study uses the theory of social production functions, which is described in detail in Section 5. Second, two different terminologies were used. Modernisation and Postmodernisation can be seen as ideal-typically processes in industrial and post-industrial societies. Societal development, which will be the further used term in this paper, is the general process covering different kinds of societies. Third, although Inglehart theoretically considers power- and achievement-values there is a lack of empirical results. Power-values as they are conceptualised in the present study were not included in Inglehart's work (Dobewall and Strack 2014). Inglehart (1997: 82) measures achievement-motivation by an index of the importance of four items regarding thrift, determination, obedience and religious faith (Inglehart 1997: 390). So, Inglehart's index does not have any substantive relation to achievement in terms of Schwartz's definition referring to personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. Thus, Inglehart's empirics unfortunately cannot be interpreted meaningfully here.
As one general explaining mechanism, Inglehart and Welzel (2005: 23) propose that ‘prevailing value orientations reflect prevailing existential conditions and their chances of survival’. Inglehart (1997: 33) in his famous scarcity hypothesis further specifies: ‘An individual's priorities reflect the socioeconomic environment: one places the greatest subjective value on those things that are in relatively short supply.’
First, the hypothesis clearly refers to the individual level as can been seen in the terms ‘individual's priorities’. Theoretically, obviously a micro-level mechanism is proposed. At the macro level, Inglehart (1997: 158–324) argues with the marginal utility hypothesis saying that people do not strive for certain goals anymore, if they have already reached a sufficient amount of goods related to this goal. However, the relationship between the mechanisms at the micro and the macro level is not clear. This aspect will be given further consideration regarding power- and achievement-values in Section 5 applying the social production functions.
Second, the scarcity hypothesis claims to explain the priority of all values, which refer to things that can be at short supply and therewith makes itself also applicable to power- and achievement-values.
Third, a known weakness of Inglehart's scarcity hypothesis is the reference to Maslow's (1954) Need Hierarchy Theory with the synonymous usage of the terms values and needs (Thome 1985: 30). In contrast to Inglehart in the present study, a clear distinction between both terms is made with reference to Schwartz (1994: 21), arguing that values are conscious goals representing ‘responses to three universal requirements […]: needs of individuals as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated social interaction, and requirements for the smooth functioning and survival of groups’. Circumstances can differ within life cycles of individuals but also between different social strata or different societies. The adaptation to such life circumstances is assumed to influence the importance of values (Schwartz and Bardi 1997: 387). Thus, specific circumstances of individual's need satisfaction, and specific conditions of social interactions, under consideration of different social strata, that more concretely are specified for power- and achievement-values in Section 5, are focussed in the present study. In contrast to needs, values are not as deeply rooted within individuals so the importance of values is potentially changing. The importance of values is assumed to be influenced by circumstances during the whole life of individuals and societies. However, changes in crucial societal characteristics influencing citizen's importance of values mostly do not occur suddenly such as a change in the level of societal development that takes years. At the individual level, changing processes might behave usually similar slow as for instance ageing or mobility between social strata. Inglehart's (1997: 33–34) assumption in his socialisation hypothesis about the priority of values to be formed in pre-adult ages with only little changes in adulthood it is not followed here, as there is empirical evidence raising doubts about the primacy of early ages (Sangster and Reynolds 1996).
However, Inglehart's scarcity hypothesis with the further annotations made, is used to deduce the first hypothesis regarding differences between societies:
H1: the higher the socioeconomic development of societies, the lower the citizen's priority in power- and achievement values.
4. Social stratification and power- and achievement-values
Within societies power- and achievement-values comprise a general ‘frame of aspirational reference’ (Merton 1938: 672). As we have seen, socioeconomic development is assumed to influence the constitution of this frame. An interesting question is, to what extent is this aspirational frame, and therewith the importance of power- and achievement-values, shared within populations, as a kind of ‘collective representation’ (Durkheim 1974 [1898]) or ‘collective mental programming’ (Hofstede 2001 [1980]). Fischer and Schwartz (2011) compare the consensus in the importance of values between teacher-student-surveys and the European Social Survey (ESS) and show that consensus is higher in the former surveys. Given that teachers are a quite homogeneous group compared to the whole occupations within societies, these findings are very plausible. More specifically, the importance of power- and achievement-values shows only moderate consensus, meaning that there is a kind of variation to be explained within societies.
As one main factor influencing the importance of values within societies, the social stratification position is known and thereby the occupational conditions are especially emphasised.3 The experiences people make in their daily work are supposed to be central to the realm of life that this experience spills over to a conception of a general reality (Kohn and Schooler 1983a: 6). For the value type self-direction and conformity, Kohn and Schooler (1983b) empirically confirmed these ideas quite well. The present study assumes these mechanisms to be general, in that they can also be applied to power- and achievement-values. Higher social stratification positions are characterised by their occupational possibilities in exercising power (leading positions) and being socially recognised for achievements at work. These circumstances influence the way people tend to see their own world and capacities in ways that recognised achievements and power-provided positions are reachable and important and therewith power- and achievement-values are relatively important. The opposite can be assumed for people in lower social stratification positions.4
In sum, the following for the individual level can be deduced:
H2: the higher the social stratification position, the more important are power- and achievement-values.
5. The social production functions as incorporating framework
The mechanism explaining the relationship between societal development and the importance of power- and achievement-values needs further consideration. It must be clarified how individual needs translate into the importance of power- and achievement-values of people within different societies. For this purpose, the theory of the social production functions seems to be appropriate (Lindenberg and Frey 1993; Esser 1999: 91–110). In the following section, this theoretical framework will be applied to the comparative study of values.
5.1. The theory of the social production functions and its application
The theory of the social production functions sees relative price effects and the efficiency of goods as powerful tools in explaining regularities in the social sciences. Goods in a very general understanding of the theory can be properties, things, objects, social positions, jobs, etc. Before more can be said about how different prices and efficiency come about, referring back to Smith (1986 [1759]), social approval and physical well-being as needs are assumed. They are seen as universal goals ‘that are identical to all human beings’ (Lindenberg and Frey 1993: 195). However, it can be discussed if these two needs are exhaustive or if there are more general human needs. But proposing these two general needs has a heuristic value avoiding researchers from theorising ad hoc (Lindenberg 1996; Opp and Friedrichs 1996). The efficiency of the goods in coping with the given existential conditions depends on the social situation constitutions as the natural, material, institutional and cultural circumstances. Relative scarcities and relative prices of the goods are assumed to determine the adherence to specific goals. The preferences for specific goods can be derived from the technological conditions of their production and the material scarcities. In Marxian terms: Being constitutes consciousness (Esser 1999: 99–107).
Arguing within this framework, it is inferable that the less developed a society is, the less prosperous the people living within the society are in general.5 Because of the low prosperity, the efficiency of power and achievement to cope especially with the basic need of physical well-being is assumed to be relatively high compared to more wealthy societies. At this point, one can think of the educational- or the health-care systems which in poorer societies often cannot provide sufficient infrastructure to cope with the situations in daily life (United Nations Development Programme 2009). In this situation, money earned in gainful occupations (achievement) and a higher social position to provide social influence on important persons (power) can be very efficient in accessing good health care and a qualified education. Thus, the higher the efficiency of goods regarding power and achievement to cope with the conditions of daily life, the higher the importance of power- and achievement-values.
As the mentioned input and outcome variables are characteristics at the societal level referring to individual characteristics some words about the assumed interrelations are required. The conditions of life mentioned refer to whole societies and are a macro characteristic of the social situation people are living in. Individuals have to cope with their daily lives and the given conditions. Higher or lower societal socioeconomic development is assumed to be a fundamental condition to which people adapt their preferences and goals accordingly across societies. Thus, the fact that actors adapt their values in a similar manner (individual level) results in a different general level of the importance of values between societies (societal level).
However, there are also obvious differences in the importance between people within societies that might be focussed. Fundamental assumption is that the availability of social positions facilitating power and receiving social recognition for achievements differs across social strata within societies. For individuals in lower social stratification positions (e.g. farm workers or unskilled labours), it is difficult to obtain posts that exercise power or get high social recognition for achievements compared to people positioned in the higher social strata (Treiman 1977). In the social production functions, it is assumed if the availability of goods is low, these goods are expensive, people change their minds and strive for different goods that are cheaper (Lindenberg and Frey 1993: 192; Esser 1999: 107). Thus, as for individuals in lower social stratification positions the availability of jobs equipped with power (leading positions) and highly socially recognised achievements is quite low. Therefore, they strive for jobs that are easier to obtain and probably quite low regarding the power- and achievement-characteristics mentioned. That is why on the one hand the importance of power and achievement in lower social stratification positions is comparatively low.
Furthermore, if these people do not strive for different jobs they work under occupational conditions that are poorly equipped regarding power and achievement. Thus, coming back to Kohn and Schooler these occupational conditions highly influence the way these people tend to see their own world and capacities. That is why on the other hand the importance of power and achievement in lower social stratification position is quite low. The opposite applies to people in higher social stratification positions.
5.2. Congruences and incongruences
By putting together such different kinds of ideas, a focus on congruences and incongruences is necessary. First, the connection of the social production functions and Kohn and Schooler's idea is considered. From the perspective of different levels of generality, the theory of the social production functions clearly can be seen as a very general theory trying to explain a larger set of phenomena (Hedström and Udehn 2009: 28), while Kohn and Schooler's idea is a middle-range theory.6 The occupational conditions are a particular factor and the relative prices are very general factor. However, both ideas fit very well because both predict that the higher the social stratification position is, the more important the power- and achievement-values are.
However, incongruence in the prediction can be found by using Inglehart's scarcity hypothesis. As the scarcity hypothesis is formulated as an individual-level mechanism, it might also be applied to phenomena within societies and not only for differences between societies as already described. Arguing with the scarcity hypothesis, people in lower social stratification positions should see power- and achievement-values as more important (negative relation) because they are assumed to have scarce power resources and are far away from socially recognised achievements. If social stratification is positively related to power- and achievement-values – as suggested by Kohn and Schooler's (1983b) theory and also by the application of the social production functions – the scarcity hypothesis is empirically rejected.
Congruence can be found in the assumptions about the relationship between needs and values. Within the framework of the social production functions, the basic needs of physical well-being and social approval are assumed. To satisfy both needs different goods have to be produced. Thereby, the efficiency of different goods and relative prices of goods are of utmost importance. High efficiency and low costs of goods should correspond with high importance of values in this field because these goods are very helpful and cheap in coping with the existential conditions while striving to satisfy basic needs. Hence, the social production functions are in line with Schwartz's (1994: 21) idea of values as conscious goals representing needs. With Inglehart's ideas about the scarcity hypothesis, it was not possible to distinguish between values and needs. That is why the scarcity hypothesis gets no further consideration in the application of the social production functions.
In short: by using the social productions functions, it is possible to specify mechanisms at both the societal and the individual level that are derived from a consistent theoretical framework. This framework makes it possible to integrate individualistic and collectivistic ideas and to describe how they are related (Opp 2011).
6. Analysis strategy
6.1. Measurements
This study is based on the fourth wave of the ESS that was conducted in the years 2008 and 2009 and includes information from 61,009 respondents in 31 countries. ‘The European Social Survey (ESS) is an academically-driven multi-country survey’ (The ESS Data Team 2012: 9). Since 2002, data have been collected biannually. The fourth wave was chosen for the empirical analysis presented below, as the maximum number of countries is available and therefore a maximum range of countries can be investigated.7
The importance of power- and achievement-values is measured by a short version of the Portrait Values Questionnaire developed by Schwartz (2007) and Schwartz et al. (2001). The scale ‘includes brief verbal portraits of 21 different people, gender-matched to the respondent. Each portrait describes a person's goals, aspirations or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a single value’ (Schwartz 2007: 177). More concretely, the following four items are conceptually assigned and empirically very well confirmed to measure the importance of power- and achievement-values (Schwartz et al.2001): ‘It is important to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money and expensive things’ (imprich); ‘It is important to him to show his abilities. He wants people to admire what he does’ (ipshabt); ‘Being very successful is very important to him. He hopes people will recognize his achievements’ (ipsuces); and ‘It is important to him to get respect from others. He wants people to do what he says’ (iprspot). People should rate, how much the described person is like them. There is a six-point Likert-scale ranging from ‘very much like me’ to ‘not like me at all’. ‘Respondents’ own values are inferred from their self-reported similarity to people who are described in terms of particular values’ (Schwartz 2007: 177). To make the numbers intuitively plausible they were recoded from 1 ‘not like me at all’ to 6 ‘very much like me’ for the whole scale. As will be shown later for the societal-level analysis, the individual responses are aggregated to means for each country.
There are different possibilities to measure the social stratification positions. Kohn and Schoenbach (1983: 155–56) suggest education, income and occupational status. In this study, the Erikson–Goldthorpe–Portocarero (EGP) class schema (Erikson et al.1979) is applied; this basically uses the International Classification of Occupations with additional information on the specific work situations. The income-variable has 30% missing values and is therefore not applicable. Education could be another measure and probably is highly correlated with the EGP class schema. However, for 40 or 50 years old people, their education refers to certificates they got many years ago. Thus, the EGP class schema is a more actual and a more precise indicator.
At the societal level, the present study uses the Human Development Index to measure societal development because it defines development in a relatively broad manner. It uses life expectancy after birth, and mean years of schooling together with the GDP per capita. These three dimensions are combined within the Human Development Index ranging from zero for extremely low to one for extremely high development (United Nations Development Programme 2013). To capture the prevailing societal conditions before the measurement of the importance of values in the years 2008 and 2009, the data of the Human Development Index used refer to the year 2007.8
6.2. Methodology
Two-level CFA with four indicators and covariates.
Two-level CFA with cross-country- and cross-level-equivalence.
7. Results
One important question is if there are any differences in the importance of power- and achievement-values that can be traced back to societal factors.11 Both variances of the power- and achievement-factor at the individual level (.522) and the country level (.09) are statistically significantly different from zero. The intraclass correlation is .147 so that 14.7% of the variance of the power- and achievement factor can be traced back to societal-level determinants. As zero is not included in the 95% confidence interval (.076– .219), the intraclass correlation is statistically significantly different from zero.
The analysis starts with a basic two-level CFA including a test for cross-level invariance. In the last step, the covariates to explain the variance of the factors at both levels are introduced into the model.
Two-level CFA for power- and achievement-values.
In the next step, as shown in Figure 1, covariates to explain the variance of the factors are introduced. As a path diagram would get complicated and confusing, Table 1 is used for a detailed description. Societal development as measured by the Human Development Index is negatively related to power- and achievement-values as assumed in H1.15
| B | SE | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Societal development | Human Development Index | −2.692 | .666 | .000 |
| Social stratification | Social class (Ref. Unsk. & Farm Workers) | |||
| Service (high) | .293 | .034 | .000 | |
| Service (low) | .189 | .034 | .000 | |
| Petty bourgeoisie | .255 | .040 | .000 | |
| Routine | .075 | .025 | .002 | |
| Workers (high skilled) | .089 | .019 | .000 | |
| Farmers | .105 | .034 | .002 | |
| Control | Gender (Ref. Men) | −.153 | .014 | .000 |
| Age | −.013 | .001 | .000 | |
| B | SE | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Societal development | Human Development Index | −2.692 | .666 | .000 |
| Social stratification | Social class (Ref. Unsk. & Farm Workers) | |||
| Service (high) | .293 | .034 | .000 | |
| Service (low) | .189 | .034 | .000 | |
| Petty bourgeoisie | .255 | .040 | .000 | |
| Routine | .075 | .025 | .002 | |
| Workers (high skilled) | .089 | .019 | .000 | |
| Farmers | .105 | .034 | .002 | |
| Control | Gender (Ref. Men) | −.153 | .014 | .000 |
| Age | −.013 | .001 | .000 | |
Note: ESS 2008, Nb 31, Nw 50,806, χ2 947.183, df 34, p .000, CFI .95, RMSEA .023, SRMRb .106, SRMRw .020, MLR-estimation.
The social stratification position is introduced by EGP-class-schema dummy variables with farm workers and unskilled labours as the reference class.16 As social stratification is seen as ‘the hierarchical distribution of power, privilege, and prestige’ (Kohn and Schooler 1983a: 6), along a scale the service classes are assumed to be in relatively high positions, whereas unskilled and farm workers are in relatively low positions.
As the B coefficients can be interpreted as mean differences between the reference group and the other respective class, a significant B-score of .293 for the higher service class means that the importance of power- and achievement-values in this class is, on average, .293 points higher than among unskilled and farm workers. Routine non-manual employees differ by .075 points and therefore show the lowest mean difference. Thus, H2 can be confirmed because the higher service class stands for a high social stratification position and sees power- and achievement-values as significantly more important compared to farm workers and unskilled labours. For all the other classes analysed, H2 fits. Furthermore, this finding matches the results found by Kohn and Schooler (1983a). As important control variables, gender and age are included, which both have statistically significant negative effects for the importance of power- and achievement-values. For a better orientation theoretical assumptions and empirical results are summarised in Table 2.
| Societal development | Social stratification | |
|---|---|---|
| Inglehart | − | − |
| Kohn and Schooler | + | |
| Social production functions | − | + |
| Empirical results | − | + |
| Societal development | Social stratification | |
|---|---|---|
| Inglehart | − | − |
| Kohn and Schooler | + | |
| Social production functions | − | + |
| Empirical results | − | + |
8. Summary and discussion
Bringing together the results from the societal and the individual level, it can be said that the higher the societal development, the lower the priority in power- and achievement-values, and the higher the social stratification position, the more important the power and achievement-values. Thus, analysing H1 and H2 simultaneously leads to an empirical confirmation of both. Cross-level structural equivalence is also confirmed meaning that power- and achievement-values at the societal and the individual level have the same meaning.
Inglehart's and Welzel's idea of the importance of the existential conditions works well with the findings of this paper. Inglehart's scarcity hypothesis, saying people value those things most that are in relatively short supply, must be rejected because in contrast to its assumptions the empirical results here show: the higher the social stratification position, the higher the importance of power- and achievement-values. Kohn and Schooler's theory of the prominence of the occupational conditions fits the data.
The theory of social production functions is introduced to clarify the opposing relations of societal development and social stratification to the importance of power- and achievement-values – that at first glance could seem contradictory. Within this framework at the societal level, it is argued with the efficiency of power and achievement in coping with existential conditions. In societal situations of lower societal development, goods regarding power and achievement should be very efficient in coping with daily life requirements. High efficiency corresponds with power- and achievement-values being more important. Different social stratification positions bring about different costs to arrive in positions exercising power over people and resources and achieving social recognition. In higher positions, it could be quite easy but in lower positions it could be quite costly that people consequently are striving for different goals and the importance of power- and achievement-values should be relatively low. Therewith, we have just one framework explaining both societal- and individual-level mechanisms. As the data show, the findings are in line with these argumentations and the framework can be confirmed empirically.
Some limitations have to be mentioned here. First, the importance of occupational conditions for the importance of power- and achievement-values was derived from Kohn and Schooler's research. Although they assumed that occupational conditions are crucial for the importance of values in general, their empirical focus was on the value types self-direction and conformity. The relationship of occupational conditions and power- and achievement-values seems underexplored and requires further studies to empirically strengthen the assumption – made in this paper – of occupational conditions influencing the importance of values independent of the value type. To better disentangle cause and effect, it would be very useful to have panel data for this purpose. Second, it would be interesting to have a closer look at determinants of the importance of power- and achievement-values separately. Are there any differences between power- and achievement-values? In this study, it was not possible to assess this because of data limitations regarding the limited number of indicators for power- and achievement-values each. Third, Schwartz's Theory of Human Values implies a system of values in which the relative importance of each value type to the other value types counts. However, in CFA it is only possible to use raw scores implying the absolute and not the relative importance of the value types. Including the individuals mean score for all value types can control for this fact (Schwartz 2009). In the supplemental material, it can be seen that results do not change substantially. Fourth, theoretical assumptions and empirical analyses explain both heterogeneity between countries by societal development and heterogeneity within countries by using EGP and the other individual-level variables. However, one could further have a closer look if the micro model fits better for some countries compared to others similar to what Magun et al. (2016) did.
All in all, diametrically opposed relations of societal development and social stratification on the importance of power- and achievement-values were empirically confirmed and explained by the social production functions. Future investigation has to show if the social production functions can also be applied to other value types.
Acknowledgements
I want to express my gratitude to the German Academic Scholarship Foundation (Studienstiftung) who supported the present research with a grant. Further thanks go to Andreas Hadjar, Elmar Schlüter, and the anonymous reviewers that gave highly valuable feedback to earlier drafts of the paper. Parts of the research were conducted during the employment at the School of Social Sciences of the University of Osnabrück.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Dennis Köthemann is Assistant Professor (Akademischer Rat auf Zeit) at the Department of Sociology at the University of Wuppertal in Germany. His main research interests focus on international comparative social research, social inequalities especially regarding values, political participation and education, and quantitative research methods.
Footnotes
For the societal level, Schwartz's (2006) Theory of Cultural Value Orientations with a different terminology could be applied. However, as ‘substantial structural similarity […] across individual and country levels’ (Fischer et al. 2010: 145) is empirically confirmed, the present study uses equal terminology for power- and achievement-values at both levels. In the empirical analyses in Section 7 the assumption of ‘cross-level invariance’ (Zyphur et al. 2008: 127) is tested.
In Inglehart's and Welzel's revised theory of Modernisation, the term Postmodernisation no longer is used. As there are more rich information about power- and achievement-related differences in the importance of values in the writings of Inglehart (1997), those ideas and therewith the usage of the term Postmodernisation is maintained here.
Social stratification is conceived ‘as the hierarchical distribution of power, privilege, and prestige’ (Kohn and Schooler 1983a: 6).
Such arguments raise the question if not only people with high priority in power- and achievement-values reach higher social stratification positions. As for the present study only cross-sectional data are available, the importance of values or occupational possibilities of the respondents before the survey cannot be considered. However, Kohn and Schooler (1983b) show impressively with panel data, how occupational conditions impact the importance of values substantially while controlling for a lot of different factors such as educational level, importance of values years before, and so on.
The level of social inequality also can play a role in this context. If there is high social inequality, a countries’ prosperity can be high but not all people within the society gain from it. Köthemann (2014) shows that social inequality does not substantially impact the relation of societal development and the priority of power- and achievement-values. Thus, social inequality is not focussed here.
Middle-range theories
are theories that lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social behaviour, social organization and social change. (Merton 1968 [1949]: 39)
More details about the countries analysed are shown in the supplementary material.
The detailed descriptive distribution can be seen in the supplementary material.
Equal factor loadings across countries and therewith measurement invariance of the indicators are also confirmed by means of multigroup confirmatory factor analysis as reported in more detail in the supplemental material.
Detailed results of the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis are documented in the supplemental material.
Analyses are conducted using Mplus 7.4.
The model without cross-level-equivalence-restrictions can be found in the supplemental material.
For the χ2-difference-test the Satorra–Bentler scaling correction is taken into account because models are run with robust maximum likelihood estimations.
Suggested cut-off values: CFI closed to .95, RMSEA closed to .06, SRMR closed to .08. Although the overall fit measures are good, the SRMR for the between level is slightly above the suggested criterion. However, a large number of countries, preferably greater than 50, is needed to correctly detect issues of cross-level equality (Fischer et al. 2010). As the present analyses only can use 31 countries, the slightly higher SRMR at the between level is accepted.
By having only 31 countries the MLR lacks power (Meuleman and Billiet 2009). However, analyses with ML estimation leads to slightly higher standard errors but the coefficient for the Human Development Index still is significant. Following Hox's (2010: 33) suggestions, all slopes of the exogenous variables were fixed as there is no strong theoretical or empirical justification to estimate random slopes. The model without cross-level invariance yields a lower coefficient (−4.377) that statistically does not differ meaningfully form the coefficient in Table 1, proved by overlapping confidence intervals. Thus, the cross-level invariance restriction does not change the results meaningfully.
Just for clarification: The higher service class includes higher-grade professionals, administrators and officials, managers in large industrial establishments and large proprietors. The lower service class includes lower-grade professionals, administrators and officials, higher-grade technicians, managers in small industrial establishments and supervisors of non-manual employees. The routine class includes non-manual employees in administration and commerce, sales personnel and other rank-and-file service workers. The petty bourgeoisie includes small proprietors and artisans, etc., with and without employees (Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992: 39–40).