Values and Virtues in the Military. Nadine Eggimann Zanetti

was too constraining. Therefore, Morris and Jones (1955) extended the theory to thirteen “ways of life,” which were assessed by participants on the basis of a combined rating and ranking scale (Braithwaite & Scott, 1991). Richards (1966) factor-analyzed ratings from college freshmen in 31 institutions of higher education on 35 items pertaining to the students’ goals. The factor-analysis was performed separately for males and females. The two groups were found to share seven factors, which according to Richards (1966) assess many of the same factors of the SOV by Allport and Vernon (1931).

      2a) The system of values by Rokeach

      As another theory, Rokeach (1973b) provided with his publication “The Nature of Human Values,” an influential theory concerning the way values are understood. His assumption was that i) the number of values held by an individual person is relatively small, ii) all human beings have the same values differing in their extent, and iii) values are organized into value systems. Accordingly, he was interested in a full set of values to describe an individual view. Rokeach implemented two distinctive lists of 18 instrumental values (describing modes of conduct as forms of behavior) and 18 terminal values (describing end-states of existence as lifetime goals).

      ←59 | 60→

      The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS; Rokeach, 1973a) was widely used as a comprehensive psychological instrument to assess individual values (e.g., Braithwaite & Law, 1985; Feather, 1986; Rokeach, 1973b, 1979). The 18 terminal values, covered by nouns, and 18 instrumental values, covered by adjectives, are sorted into an individual ranking according to the degree the value is desired for one’s self and for others (referring to Tab. 2).

       Tab. 2: Values of the RVS (Rokeach, 1973a)

Terminal values (nouns)	Instrumental values (adjectives)
comfortable life	ambitious
exciting life	broadminded
a sense of accomplishment	capable
a world at peace	cheerful
equality	clean
family security	courageous
freedom	forgiving
happiness	helpful
inner harmony	honest
mature love	imaginative
national security	independent
pleasure	intellectual
salvation (belief in God)	logical
self-respect	obedient
social recognition	polite
true friendship	responsible
wisdom	self-controlled

      Table 2 identifies the two lists of terminal and instrumental values of the RVS. The instrumental values correlate well with concrete modes of conduct as norms of behavior¹⁴, while terminal values are positioned on a higher abstraction level. Terminal values can be attained by varying different modes of conduct. For example, social recognition (terminal value) can be accomplished through instrumental values such as polite, capable, cheerful, forgiving, responsible or helpful (Asendorpf, 2004). Factor-analysis based on rank-orders of the two lists of values showed six factors (Rokeach, 1974; Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989), called (1) immediate vs. delayed gratification, (2) competence vs. religious morality, (3) self-constriction vs. self-expansion, (4) social vs. personal orientation, (5) societal vs. family security, and (6) respect vs. love. Although Rokeach’s theory was aimed at differentiating between instrumental and terminal values, he assumed that instrumental and terminal values could be further specified, dependent on whether they relate to individual wellbeing or to the wellbeing of others. The instrumental values with individual focus he called “competence values” (e.g., to be ambitious, intellectual, or independent) while those instrumental values with the wellbeing-focus on others he called “moral values” (e.g., to be helpful, forgiving, or polite). Accordingly, terminal values with self-focus were called “personal values” (e.g., self-respect, comfortable life, or freedom), and those with the focus on others were addressed as “social values” (e.g., equality, national security, or a world at peace). Ultimately, Rokeach’s value system is based on the assumption that the differentiation between self-focus and other-focus is of high significance. Rokeach (1973b) concluded: “Values are the joint results of sociological as well as psychological forces acting upon the individual” (p. 29). With this perspective in mind, values represent the personal and the social preferences of individual needs and social norms. The model by Rokeach received broad acceptance within the psychology discipline, mainly justified by ←60 | 61→the RVS being an economical and widely applicable instrument. Nevertheless, it was not based on a coherent theory of values, instead being the result of a series of unconnected, predominantly plausible assumptions (Bilsky, 2005). The inadequate theoretical justification of Rokeach’s research approach led to repeated attempts to validate the inherent structure of the RVS.

      2b) The system of values by Schwartz

      In recent years, the conceptual framework of Schwartz (1992, 1994) and Schwartz and Bilsky (1990) has strongly influenced the research on values. From the outset, Schwartz was interested in developing a structural theory of human values, which can take cultural-specific and cross-cultural aspects into equal account. His approach was designed to summarize the multitude of unrelated individual values, which differ in their motivational content. By means of a facet-theoretical approach, he initially identified seven motivational domains of values and ultimately increased it to ten domains, representing a universal structure of the ten human values of universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction.