Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Values are considered to be core concepts that define ‘culture’ by many researchers (Kluckhohn, 1951; Kluckhohn & Strodbeck, 1961; Hofstede, 1980; 2001; Schwartz, 2006). Various researchers provided the universal frameworks to compare values across cultures (Condon & Yousef, 1975; Hofstede, 1980; 2001; Inglehart, 1997; 2006; Kluckhohn & Strodbeck, 1961; Schwartz, 1994; 1999; Trompenaars & Databank, 1998). The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, the link between culture and values are revisited. Second, three major approaches to universal value orientation frameworks, Hofstede, Inglehart, & Schwartz, were revisited (Hofstede, 1980; 1983; 2001; Ingleharts, 1997; 2006; and Schwartz, 1994; 1999). Then, three universal value frameworks are compared and contrasted on various issues. Drawing upon the reviews of studies on culture, values, and cultural variabilities, the implications are discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: It has been noted that Inglehart and Schwartz identified parallel cultural regions around the world as well as the comparable theoretical dimensions of cultural variation despite the different methods of measurement employed and the different types of samples. However, the empirical literature on how their analyses differ on cultural changes has been sparse._x000d_The analysis attempts to answer two central questions: First, what are the differences and similarities between Inglehart and Schwartz in their theories of cultural variation? Second, are their theoretically derived implications of cultural variation for the individual’s psychology borne out by empirical evidence? In answering these questions, the research aims to integrate psychological research with political and sociological research, or micro-level analysis with macro-level analysis, which has been much desired in comparative politics. _x000d_The statistical analysis primarily utilizes Inglehart’s five waves of World Values Survey (1981-2007) and Schwartz’s Value Survey data (1998-1995). It also uses the ten Schwartz’s value items included in the fifth wave of World Values Survey and his 21 items included the first wave of European Social Survey.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper aims to put the classic debate on ranking and rating methods in survey research into retest by re-examining the famous Inglehart batteries of post-materialist value orientation. To this end, we applied an experimental design of split-sampling for both ranking and rating items. The ‘ranking vs. rating’ debate revisits, on one hand, the oft-neglected danger with ranking measurement that factor analysis becomes biased due to its ipsative property, and, on the other hand, the danger of ‘response set’ bias in rating measurement. By applying the recent techniques to control for the negativity bias of ranked items and for the positivity bias of rated items, the paper compares the results of value dimensions of Inglehart’s twelve batteries. The results suggest that the post-materialist dimension and the materialist dimension are positively correlated for both ranking and rating data after controlling for the biases. These findings are contradictory to Inglehart’s value dimension in which post-materialists and materialists are polarised at opposite poles. Based on these empirical findings, we argue that Inglehart’s theorisation of one-dimensional value cleavage is an artifact undergirded by his ranking batteries coupled with the biased factor analysis.