Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Introduction
The importance of values is best summarised in the following statement of theory:
Values are determinants of virtually all kinds of behavior that could
be called social behavior of social action, attitudes and ideology,
evaluations, moral judgments and justifications of self and others,
comparisons of self with others, presentations of self to others, and
attempts to influence others. Boiling all these down to a more
succinct theoretical statement, it can perhaps be stated that values
are guides and determinants of social attitudes and ideologies on
the one hand and of social behavior on the other. (Rokeach 1973:
24)
The study of values originated in social sciences in the 1930s (e.g., Allport and
Vernon 1931) but did not receive much attention in marketing until the late 1970s
(e.g., Henry 1976; Howard 1977; Vinson, Scott and Lamont 1977). Comprehensive
reviews arguing for the relevance of values to consumer behaviour can be found in
Pitts and Woodside (1984), and various special journal issues (e.g., Psychology &
Marketing 1985, Journal of Business Research 1990, 1991). Despite general
acceptance that values influence consumer behaviour, research findings indicate
that the strength of the relationship tends to be modest. One of the reasons for this
weak relationship can be attributed to the measurement problems in values research
(e.g., Reynolds and Jolly 1980; McCarty and Shrum 1997).
Apart from the lack of theoretical explanation of how values are causally related to
other constructs in influencing consumer behaviour, it is the contention of this paper
that the fundamental problem which hindered the development in values research is
the lack of a clear understanding of the construct itself.
*Alvin M. Chan, School of Business, University of Western Sydney, Australia.
Email: a.chan@uws.edu.au
2. Definition of Values
A comprehensive review of the literature on values research by Agle and Caldwell
(Agle and Caldwell, 1999) conclude that the following description from an earlier era
still applies: Confusion persists in the study of values (Fallding, 1965, p.223). One
of the reasons for the confusion in the study of values is that values are often made
synonymous with things valued (Fallding, 1965). A clear definition of value is
therefore of paramount importance if we are to advance in values research.
Najder (1975) identifies three basic senses of value which appear in philosophical
literature and in everyday speech: axiological, attributive, and quantitative senses
(see Table 1).
Table 1: The Three Senses of Values
Axiological
Value
In theoretical terms
M is an axiological value if and only
if M is a judgement, ascribing the
quality of valuableness to objects,
properties, or states of affairs, and
constituting within the given valuesystem a final justification of other
judgement of the system.
In everyday speech
Value is a certain idea, principle, or
criterion, which allows us to
evaluate particular occurrences,
objects, and properties and,
consequently, to ascribe to them
value, positive or negative, in
attributive sense.
Quantitative
Value
A quantity of substance, or a
measurable degree of a property, to
which substance or property the
quality of valuableness is attributed
within the given system of
evaluation W, on the basis of a
value-principle.
3. Characteristics of Values
Building on the definition of value by Schwartz and Bilsky (1987), Smith and
Schwartz (1997, p.80) further elaborate the characteristics and nature of values as
follows:
1. Values are beliefs. But they are not objective, cold ideas. Rather,
when values are activated, they become infused with feeling.
2. Values refer to desirable goals (e.g., equality) and to the modes of
conduct that promote these goals (e.g., fairness, helpfulness).
3. Values transcend specific actions and situations. Obedience, for
example, is relevant at work or in school, in sports or in business,
with family, friends or strangers.
References
AGLE, B. R. & CALDWELL, C. B. 1999. Understanding Research on Values in
Business: A Level of Analysis Framework. Business & Society, 38, 326-387.
ALLPORT, G.W. and VERNON, P.E. 1931. A Study of Values. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
BEATTY, S. E., KAHLE, L. R., HOMER, P. & MISRA, S. 1985. Alternative
Measurement Approaches to Consumer Values: The List of Values and the
Rokeach Value Survey. Psychology & Marketing, 2, 181-200.
BOND, M. H. 1996. Chinese Values. In: BOND, M. H. (ed.) The Handbook of
Chinese Psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
BURGESS, S. M. 1992. Personal Values and Consumer Research: An Historical
Perspective. In: SHETH, J. N. (ed.) Research in Marketing. Greenwich,
Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.
CAMPBELL, D. T. 1950. The Indirect Assessment of Social Attitudes. Psychological
Bulletin, 47, 15-38.
CONNOR, P. E. & BECKER, B. W. 1975. Values and the Organization: Suggestions
for Research. The Academy of Management Journal, 18, 550-561.
ENGEL, J. F., KOLLAT, D. T. & BLACKWELL, R. D. 1968. Consumer Behavior,
Hinsdale, IL, Dryden.
FALLDING, H. 1965. A Proposal for the Empirical Study of Values. American
Sociological Review, 30.
FISHBEIN, M. & AJZEN, I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, Massachusetts, AddisonWesley.
GEISTFELD, L. V., SPROLES, G. B. & BADENHOP, S. B. 1977. The Concept and
Measurement of a Hierarchy of Product Characteristics. In: PERREALULT,
W. D., JR., (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research. Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research.
HENRY, W.A. 1976. Cultural Values Do Correlate with Consumer Behavior. Journal
of Marketing Research, XIII (May), 121-127.
HOFSTEDE, G. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in WorkRelated Values, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage.
HOMER, P. M. & KAHLE, L. R. 1988. A Structural Equation Test of the ValueAttitude-Behavior Hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 638-646.
HOWARD, J. A. 1977. Consumer Behavior: Application of Theory, New York,
McGraw-Hill.