中国人价值观特点及其与社会主义核心价值观的契合性
|
摘要
本研究采用汉化的Schwartz《肖像价值观问卷》(2012)测量了2569人的大样本,验证了Schwartz等人价值观新理论及其工具在中国的适用性,分析了中国人价值观的结构特点及其与社会主义核心价值观的契合性。结果表明,19种价值观内部一致性系数平均为.66,范围从"支配权力"价值观的.54到"社会安全"价值观的.80,验证性因素分析各项指标均达到可接受水平;中国人个人定向类价值观之间的相关关系与原理论假设不相符合;个人定向类和社会定向类价值观之间,出现了多项位置相对、在原理论中假定为低相关的价值观呈高相关关系。表明Schwartz等人(2012)价值观理论虽从测量学角度适用中国人群,但其不能预测和解释中国人价值观的"个人"与"社会"辩证统一与交叉融合特点,当今中国民众价值观特点与社会主义核心价值观强调的价值取向高度契合。
Values, as guiding principles of human life, are influential in human's attitudinal and behavioral decisions. Schwartz's theory of values is a milestone and has been frequently cited and adopted in most values study during the past two decades. This study is to verify applicability of the Schwartz's value theory(Schwartz et al., 2012) with Chinese people. The latest version of Portrait Values Questionnaire(PVQ) was translated into Chinese version and 2569 Chinese people from diverse regions were measured with PVQ Chinese version. The results showed that the values structure of Chinese people fit well with the theoretical pattern of the Schwartz's theory. The average Cronbach's α of 19 values is.66, ranging from.54 for power-dominance to.80 for security-societal. The results of confirmatory factor analyses(CFA) well fit the Schwartz' theoretical model.Moreover, the study aimed at describing characteristics of Chinese people's system of values, especially dynamic relations among the different types of values. The results suggested that Chinese people ranked conformity-rules, benevolence-caring, benevolence-dependability, security-societal,and security-personal at the forefront, while power-resources and power-dominance were put at the end. On the second-tier value dimensions, Chinese people expressed more openness and social focus values than conservation and personal focus values, emphasized on self-transcendence and growth values than self-enhancement and self-protection values. These tendencies show that s rapid economic development has already influenced values of Chinese and characteristics of Chinese people's system of values are compatible with core socialist value. These findings are consistent with Inglehart's prediction about economic development is coherent with cultural change. It is worth noting that on the "personal focus-social focus" dimension, the positive correlations among personal focus values are not strong as prediction based on Schwartz's theory, but correlations among social focus values are pretty high, which well fit with the theory's assumption. The most impressive results are correlations among social-and personal-oriented values.There is a hypothesis in Schwartz's theory that the more any two distant values at either direction in the value circle, the more antagonistic they are.Interestingly, some values that emerge in opposite direction in the circular order which supposed the most conflict relations appeared strong positive correlations, such as self-direction-thought( belongs to personal focus values) vs. tradition/conformity-rules( belongs to social focus values), and achievement( belongs to personal focus values) vs. benevolence( belongs to social focus values).In Chinese people's rank order of values, power-dominance and power-resources are right at the bottom, and it had nothing to do with other values at the same time. It is not only against presumed value relations of the Schwartz's theory, but also different from many ideas about Chinese people's features proposed by distinguished scholars. One reasonable explanation about the contradiction is that the items to measure power values are not good for Chinese people due to subtle cultural tradition. The author suggests that values about power in China have a nature of duality, which means that there are inconsistent between value expressed and value selection in action. So there is a challenging task to find a way to measure people's real value orientation with behaviors.On the other hand, Chinese people show some integration among social-and personal-oriented values, which is a particularly typical feature announced by many well-known experts. This feature is most pronounced in the achievement value, which showed a stronger correlation with benevolence-caring and benevolence-dependability. It is reasonable to believe that it comes from Confucianism beliefs about the Doctrine of the Mean.The author proposed a new concept of "dialectical focus" to emphasize such tendencies of Chinese people with relationship of values.
Values, as guiding principles of human life, are influential in human's attitudinal and behavioral decisions. Schwartz's theory of values is a milestone and has been frequently cited and adopted in most values study during the past two decades. This study is to verify applicability of the Schwartz's value theory(Schwartz et al., 2012) with Chinese people. The latest version of Portrait Values Questionnaire(PVQ) was translated into Chinese version and 2569 Chinese people from diverse regions were measured with PVQ Chinese version. The results showed that the values structure of Chinese people fit well with the theoretical pattern of the Schwartz's theory. The average Cronbach's α of 19 values is.66, ranging from.54 for power-dominance to.80 for security-societal. The results of confirmatory factor analyses(CFA) well fit the Schwartz' theoretical model.Moreover, the study aimed at describing characteristics of Chinese people's system of values, especially dynamic relations among the different types of values. The results suggested that Chinese people ranked conformity-rules, benevolence-caring, benevolence-dependability, security-societal,and security-personal at the forefront, while power-resources and power-dominance were put at the end. On the second-tier value dimensions, Chinese people expressed more openness and social focus values than conservation and personal focus values, emphasized on self-transcendence and growth values than self-enhancement and self-protection values. These tendencies show that s rapid economic development has already influenced values of Chinese and characteristics of Chinese people's system of values are compatible with core socialist value. These findings are consistent with Inglehart's prediction about economic development is coherent with cultural change. It is worth noting that on the "personal focus-social focus" dimension, the positive correlations among personal focus values are not strong as prediction based on Schwartz's theory, but correlations among social focus values are pretty high, which well fit with the theory's assumption. The most impressive results are correlations among social-and personal-oriented values.There is a hypothesis in Schwartz's theory that the more any two distant values at either direction in the value circle, the more antagonistic they are.Interestingly, some values that emerge in opposite direction in the circular order which supposed the most conflict relations appeared strong positive correlations, such as self-direction-thought( belongs to personal focus values) vs. tradition/conformity-rules( belongs to social focus values), and achievement( belongs to personal focus values) vs. benevolence( belongs to social focus values).In Chinese people's rank order of values, power-dominance and power-resources are right at the bottom, and it had nothing to do with other values at the same time. It is not only against presumed value relations of the Schwartz's theory, but also different from many ideas about Chinese people's features proposed by distinguished scholars. One reasonable explanation about the contradiction is that the items to measure power values are not good for Chinese people due to subtle cultural tradition. The author suggests that values about power in China have a nature of duality, which means that there are inconsistent between value expressed and value selection in action. So there is a challenging task to find a way to measure people's real value orientation with behaviors.On the other hand, Chinese people show some integration among social-and personal-oriented values, which is a particularly typical feature announced by many well-known experts. This feature is most pronounced in the achievement value, which showed a stronger correlation with benevolence-caring and benevolence-dependability. It is reasonable to believe that it comes from Confucianism beliefs about the Doctrine of the Mean.The author proposed a new concept of "dialectical focus" to emphasize such tendencies of Chinese people with relationship of values.
引文
陈玲丽,金盛华,刘文,孙丽.(2013).国内学者个体主义-集体主义概念的内容分析.心理研究,6(1),36-41.
杜维明.(1988).人性与自我修养.北京:中国和平出版社.
金盛华,辛志勇.(2003).中国人价值观研究的现状及发展趋势.北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),177(3),56-64.
金盛华,郑建君,辛志勇.(2009).当代中国人价值观的结构与特点.心理学报,41(10),1000-1014.
金盛华.(2010).社会心理学.北京:高等教育出版社.
李玲,金盛华.(2016).Schwartz价值观理论的发展历程与最新进展.心理科学,39(1),191-199.
梁漱溟.(1963).中国文化要义.上海:上海人民出版社.
刘书青,彭凯平,方平,孟亦田,林卓.(2013).辩证思维与辩证情绪的因果关系探究.心理与行为研究,11(4),457-463.
钱穆.(1979).从中国历史来看中国民族性及中国文化.香港:香港中文大学出版社.
文崇一.(1993).中国人的价值观:社会科学观点.北京:中国人民大学出版社.
杨中芳.(2001).中国人的价值观:社会科学观点.北京:中国人民大学出版社.
杨国枢(2013).中国人的价值观:社会科学观点.北京:中国人民大学出版社.
Heim,E.,Steinmetz H.,Zeigenfuse M.D.,Maercker A.,&Margraf,J.(2016).The circular structure of values:The case of China.International Journal of Psychology,53(5),1-10.
Hofstede,G.(1980).Cultures consequences:International differences in workrelated values.Beverly Hills,CA:Sage.
Holmes,K.,Balnaves,M.,&Yini,W.(2015).Red bags and wechat(Wēixìn):Online collectivism during massive Chinese cultural events.Global Media Journal,9(1),65-79.
Inglehart,R.F.(1977).The silent revorution:Changing values and political styles among western publics.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Nisbett,R.,Peng,K.,Choi,I.,&Norenzanai,A.(2001).Culture and system of thought:Analytic and holistic cognition.Psychological Review,108,291-310.
Peng,K.,&Nisbett,R.E.(1999).Culture,dialectics,and reasoning about contradiction.American Psychologist,54,741-754.
Rosenthal,R.,&Rosnow,R.L.(2008).Essentials of behavioral research:Methods and data analysis.McGraw-Hill Education,Inc.
Ralston,D.A.,Egri,C.P.,Furrer,O.,F.,Kuo,M.H.,Li,Y.,Wangenheim F.,et al.(2014).Societal-level versus individual-level predictions of ethical behavior:A 48-society study of collectivism and individualism.Journal of Business Ethics 122,(2),283-306.
Schwartz,S.H.,&Bilsky,W.(1990).Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values:Extensions and cross-cultural replications.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58,878-891.
Schwartz,S.H.(1992).Universals in the content and structure of values:Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries.In M.Zanna(Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology,(pp.1-65).New York:Academic Press.
Schwartz,S.H.,Cieciuch,J.,Vecchione,M.,Davidov,E.,Fischer,R.,Beierlein,C.,et al.(2012).Refining the theory of basic individual values.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,103,663-688.
Zeng,R.,&Greenfield,P.M.(2015)Cultural evolution over the last 40 years in China:Using the Google Ngram Viewer to study implications of social and political change for cultural values.International Journal of Psychology,97,135-159.
Zhou,X.,He,L.,Yang,Q.,Lao,J.,&Baumeister,R.F.(2012).Control deprivation and styles of thinking.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,102(3),460-478.
杜维明.(1988).人性与自我修养.北京:中国和平出版社.
金盛华,辛志勇.(2003).中国人价值观研究的现状及发展趋势.北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),177(3),56-64.
金盛华,郑建君,辛志勇.(2009).当代中国人价值观的结构与特点.心理学报,41(10),1000-1014.
金盛华.(2010).社会心理学.北京:高等教育出版社.
李玲,金盛华.(2016).Schwartz价值观理论的发展历程与最新进展.心理科学,39(1),191-199.
梁漱溟.(1963).中国文化要义.上海:上海人民出版社.
刘书青,彭凯平,方平,孟亦田,林卓.(2013).辩证思维与辩证情绪的因果关系探究.心理与行为研究,11(4),457-463.
钱穆.(1979).从中国历史来看中国民族性及中国文化.香港:香港中文大学出版社.
文崇一.(1993).中国人的价值观:社会科学观点.北京:中国人民大学出版社.
杨中芳.(2001).中国人的价值观:社会科学观点.北京:中国人民大学出版社.
杨国枢(2013).中国人的价值观:社会科学观点.北京:中国人民大学出版社.
Heim,E.,Steinmetz H.,Zeigenfuse M.D.,Maercker A.,&Margraf,J.(2016).The circular structure of values:The case of China.International Journal of Psychology,53(5),1-10.
Hofstede,G.(1980).Cultures consequences:International differences in workrelated values.Beverly Hills,CA:Sage.
Holmes,K.,Balnaves,M.,&Yini,W.(2015).Red bags and wechat(Wēixìn):Online collectivism during massive Chinese cultural events.Global Media Journal,9(1),65-79.
Inglehart,R.F.(1977).The silent revorution:Changing values and political styles among western publics.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Nisbett,R.,Peng,K.,Choi,I.,&Norenzanai,A.(2001).Culture and system of thought:Analytic and holistic cognition.Psychological Review,108,291-310.
Peng,K.,&Nisbett,R.E.(1999).Culture,dialectics,and reasoning about contradiction.American Psychologist,54,741-754.
Rosenthal,R.,&Rosnow,R.L.(2008).Essentials of behavioral research:Methods and data analysis.McGraw-Hill Education,Inc.
Ralston,D.A.,Egri,C.P.,Furrer,O.,F.,Kuo,M.H.,Li,Y.,Wangenheim F.,et al.(2014).Societal-level versus individual-level predictions of ethical behavior:A 48-society study of collectivism and individualism.Journal of Business Ethics 122,(2),283-306.
Schwartz,S.H.,&Bilsky,W.(1990).Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values:Extensions and cross-cultural replications.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58,878-891.
Schwartz,S.H.(1992).Universals in the content and structure of values:Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries.In M.Zanna(Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology,(pp.1-65).New York:Academic Press.
Schwartz,S.H.,Cieciuch,J.,Vecchione,M.,Davidov,E.,Fischer,R.,Beierlein,C.,et al.(2012).Refining the theory of basic individual values.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,103,663-688.
Zeng,R.,&Greenfield,P.M.(2015)Cultural evolution over the last 40 years in China:Using the Google Ngram Viewer to study implications of social and political change for cultural values.International Journal of Psychology,97,135-159.
Zhou,X.,He,L.,Yang,Q.,Lao,J.,&Baumeister,R.F.(2012).Control deprivation and styles of thinking.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,102(3),460-478.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |