The field of exploration of the values embraced by people and societies seems to be vast, as there are many different parameters of examination. The importance of values in the formation of human character and, by extension, in the formation of better societies is a key thematic area that to date, has attracted a lot of research interest across various scientific domains. However, one wonders whether values differ at an individual and societal level; and if they transform and to what extent this transformation impacts (and/or is impacted) differently at the individual and societal level. Although existing literature explores value diversities, and identifies the factors that influence the transformation of personal and cultural values, to our knowledge there appears to be a gap in the study of values at a personal and societal level, adopting a spatio-temporal perspective. This research aims to fill this gap by exploring values from a multi-perspective approach and framework that includes diverse value perspectives, for the individual (micro level) and the society (macro level), through a spatio-temporal prism, exploring time and spatial transformation of values and their implications. The findings of this study indicate that values are dynamic and tend to change, and it seems that the spatio-temporal axis has a dynamic effect on the individual and societal level.
Values have played a major role in many sciences including sociology and psychology. They are used to detect characteristics in individuals, cultural groups and societies, to trace the bases of what motivates attitudes and to examine behavior changes over time. The importance of values in the formation of human character and, by extension, in the formation of better societies is being proved by the fact that modern studies have not stopped examining them and formulating definitions and theories. Undoubtedly, the concept of values cannot be easily defined. Early social scientists based the definition of values on the Latin root of the word value, “valere”, which means “to be worth” (Spates, 1983: p. 28) .
The research question posed by this research article is whether values differ at an individual and societal level, whether they are transformed and which factors lead to this transformation. Although existing literature identifies the factors that influence the transformation of personal and cultural values, to our knowledge there appears to be a gap in the study of values at a personal and societal level and from such a spatio-temporal perspective. Aiming to fill this gap, this work explores values from a multi-perspective approach, and introduces a value framework that examines diverse value perspectives, examining micro (individual level) and macro-level (societal level) perspectives, as well as spatio-temporal perspectives, exploring time and spatial transformation of values and their implications at a personal and societal level.
Research in the area indicates that cultural values differ from individual values (Hofstede, 1980, 2001) stressing the importance of such a distinction, which depends on what one considers cultural values and where they are located (Schwartz, 2011b) . Inglehart and Baker (2000) and Hofstede (2001) argue that cultural values are in the minds of people, who are in turn impacted by society at large distinctively. For this reason, Hofstede (2001) states that a value study must be conducted distinctly on both levels, individual-societal, as personal values can vary, and each individual is valued in a unique way in society. Aligned with Hofstede, Schwartz believes that individual values and beliefs are manifestations of the subject’s culture and not the culture, thus it is beneficial for the extraction of better results that values are studied separately at each level of analysis (Schwartz, 2011a) .
In relation to value transformation, empirical evidence suggests that individual values can change more substantially (e.g., Kohn & Schooler, 1982; Rokeach, 1973; Sheldon, 2005 ). Then again, some cultures and individuals are more open to the possibility of change. These include cultures that are high on the cultural dimensions of uncertainty avoidance (e.g., Hofstede, 2001 ), mastery, and intellectual and affective autonomy (Schwartz, 2004) . At the same time, existing research in the area indicates that the same values can be understood in a different way in private and social life, tightly associated with this consciousness and conditions of the external environment. Therefore, value transformation across time and space can make a value be realized fully, partially or even be rejected (Dyczewski & Sławik, 2016) . As such one wonders whether this transformation of values impacts (and/or is impacted) differently at the individual and societal level.
The structure of this work is as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of values and their definitions exploring the diversity of value across the different perspectives. Section 3 presents the methodological approach that has been utilized in order to examine the issue. Section 4 presents an overview of the different value theories and their implications for the micro and macro analytical level. Section 5 examines the spatio-temporal transformation of individual and societal/cultural values exploring the factors that trigger these changes and finally, section 6 presents the main findings of this study.
There are different paradigms for defining values that were developed in the works of distinguished authors in the area, like Parsons (1951) , Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz (1992) . In the following section an overview of the various definitions in the literature is presented, taking into account the individual and the societal level perspectives. These two levels differ but are also inextricably linked, as the values that individuals bring into their lives and motivate their actions shape the values of society as a whole.
The conceptualization of values, from an economic view, can be traced back to Adam Smith, in the “Wealth of Nations” and to Karl Marx in the “Wage labor and capital” who described labor as the ultimate standard by which “value” can be assessed. Adam Smith (2002) accurately states that “the value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labor which it enables him to purchase or command. Labor, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities” (p.47). It becomes obvious from the above that Smith focused on the value of commodities and Karl Marx shared more or less the same view with Smith. The two economists were the most well-known advocates of the Labor Theory of Value, a theory that states that the value of goods is proportional to the labor required to produce them. However, over the years, the concept of values begins to change and to move away from the sphere of economics. Their examination is now intertwined with the analysis of human behavior and social phenomena.
Greater focus and work on values rose by Parsons after 1950 (Spates, 1983) , who defined values, at an individual level, as the moral beliefs that people invoke as the final rationale for their actions and which act as elements of moral suasion (Parsons, 1951) . It seems though that the definition that had greater impact on the study of values was preceded by Kluckhohn (1951) , who contended that “a value is a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable, which influences the selection from available modes, means, and ends of action” (p. 395).
A few years later, another influential definition of personal values was formulated by Rokeach (1973: p. 5) , who argued that “values are enduring beliefs that a specific mode of conduct is personally or socially preferable to an opposite converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence”. Rokeach sees values as giving meaning, whereas Kluckhohn focuses on action (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004) . Schwartz (1992) , a theorist who has spent the last three decades deeply involved in values, defined them as cognitive representations of three universal human requirements: 1) biologically based organism needs, 2) social interactional requirements for interpersonal coordination, 3) social institutional demands for group welfare and survival. Schwartz’s viewpoint on the nature of values moves on both an individual and a societal level, and as he points out their role is crucial in interpersonal relationships. Moreover, in accordance with the view of Morris (2013) people, in their everyday life, rationalize their behavior following values which appear to be a form of mental representation.
Studying how values can be defined at a societal level, existing research (Spates, 1983) indicates that Parsons (1951) was the one that shifted the interpretation of values to the cultural sphere and made value analysis more explicit. Based on his analysis “values play a significant role in social affairs and their study can contribute to a unified theory of human behavior” (Spates, 1983: p. 30) . In addition, Parsons (1961: p. 43) theoretical interventions isolated the concept of values from norms, as he argued that the values were so general, thus being neither “situation-specific nor function-specific”. On the other hand norms’ specific function is to provide the “do’s and don’ts” of situations (Spates, 1983: p. 32) . Their power determines that social life and their fundamental role are intrinsically linked to generational transmission through socialization (Spates, 1983: p. 28) . Parsons’ examination of values also makes reference to their institutionalization. More specifically, Parsons and Shils (1951: p. 194) suggested that institutionalization of values in a social group could create a “perfect” effect: the “rules, if followed in such a situation of full institutionalization, will lead to perfectly articulated, conflictless action on the part of the several actors”. These rules, if followed, provide harmony to the social group, and by extension to the wider society, because of their common value orientations. They emerge more from a collective process of deliberation rather than a conscious one. In addition to Parsons, Williams (1970) referred to cultural values by defining them as the implicitly or explicitly shared abstract ideas about what is good, right and desirable in a society.
Many years later, close to Parsons’ viewpoint came that of Morris (2013) who also states that a society’s culture is composed of ideas represented in the minds of its people and inscribed in its artifacts. In line with this view, Dyczewski and Sławik (2016) emphasized that values form the basis for the development of each culture, and they are the core of culture. They further added that not all values are equally vital for society. Instead, they form a hierarchy in which some values are so crucial that, if they are absent, a society would disintegrate or face a substantial change. Dyczewski and Sławik also claimed that a cultural value is a socially sanctioned value that is typical of a given culture, as it assists members of a society in making choices, directs them to their goals and constitutes a means for achieving them.
In addition, examining how values function at a societal/cultural level, Muers (2018) noted that “value systems are very closely linked to culture and are the set of fundamental beliefs held by an individual or group about what is valuable, what is fair, what constitutes right or wrong and similar ethical matters” (p. 5). Foret and Calligaro (2018) , adopting Parsons’ view about cultural values, aligned to the theory that values are deeply connected to culture in a double sense, as mental representations of what is worth being appreciated and as collective representations that cannot be reduced to individual viewpoints. According to the authors, values illustrate both the consensual and conflictual dimension of our social life. As they specified values aren’t universal or objective, and it seems that they vary constantly across space and time. Thurstone in 1954 , had already referred to the subjectivity of values and considering their importance to human life and society, he claimed that their intensities or magnitudes cannot be measured by physical measurement (1954: p. 47). Therefore, based on the scientific opinions of the above-mentioned scholars, we understand that the study of values at the societal level requires scientific exploration, as they seem to present differentiations and fluctuations.
From a European societal level, values are at the core of the Union and are linked to the concept of European citizenship; thus, European societies must be founded on these (Calligaro et al., 2016; European Commission, 2020) . Values are constitutive of the European Cultural Heritage and citizenship is perceived as a political construct founded on values, aiming to foster a common sense of belonging and to act as a catalyst of cohesion so as to deal with increasing diversity. Within this context values must be understood as social bounds that strengthen membership and solidarity (Calligaro et al., 2016) . Ivic (2019) , illustrates two approaches of European values, the substantive approach, which defines European values as founded on European heritage and the legal/political approach, which considers values as presented in declarations/political documents and within treaties. The Lisbon treaty (Article 2) explicitly states that “the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.” Foret and Calligaro (2018) , as they mention, understand European values as these enshrined in the treaties and asserted by all European institutions.
Particularly comprehensive, as to what constitutes values and how strongly bound are individual and societal/cultural values, is the definition of the World Economic Forum (2022) curated by Bocconi University. This definition includes the personal and societal dimensions of values and as it is stated “values are the fundamental beliefs that guide or motivate people, organizations, and communities, provide a basis for social justice and belief in necessary institutions. They also express personal and collective judgments about what is important, influenced by culture, religion, and laws. Values can potentially spur purposeful action aimed at increasing equality, decreasing harm to the environment, and improving global health”. According to the above, values seem to be a decisive factor in the cohesion and coherence of a society and therefore their study and further dissemination is considered indispensable.
| Level | Values Definitions |
|---|---|
| Individual level- Personal Values | Values-those moral beliefs-to which people appeal for the ultimate rationale of their action, which act as elements of moral suasion (Parsons, 1951) |
| “A value is a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable, which influences the selection from available modes, means, and ends of action” (Kluckhohn, 1951: p. 395) | |
| “Values are enduring beliefs that a specific mode of conduct is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence” (Rokeach, 1973: p. 5) . | |
| Values: cognitive representations of 3 universal human requirements: 1) biologically based organism needs, 2) social interactional requirements for interpersonal coordination, 3) social institutional demands for group welfare and survival (Schwartz, 1992) | |
| Societal level-Cultural Values | Cultural values represent the implicitly or explicitly shared abstract ideas about what is good, right, and desirable in a society (Williams, 1970) |
| A society’s culture is composed of ideas represented in the minds of its people and inscribed in its artifacts (Morris, 2013) | |
| “Values are what defines culture, its character and quality. A cultural value is a socially sanctioned value that is typical of a given culture, that assists members of a society in making choices, directs them to their goals and constitutes a means for achieving them” (Dyczewski & Sławik, 2016: p. 147) | |
| Values must be understood as social bounds that strengthen membership and solidarity (Calligaro et al., 2016) | |
| Values are very closely linked to culture and are “the set of fundamental beliefs held by an individual or group about what is valuable, what is fair, what constitutes right or wrong and similar ethical matters” (Muers, 2018: p. 5) | |
| Values are deeply cultural and contain a double meaning, as they are mental representations of what is worth valuing but also collective representations that cannot be reduced to individual opinions (Foret & Calligaro, 2018) | |
| European values (two approaches): European values as founded on European heritage and the legal or political approach which considers values as presented in declarations/political documents and within treaties (Ivic, 2019) | |
| “Values are the fundamental beliefs that guide or motivate people, organizations, and communities, provide a basis for social justice and belief in necessary institutions. They also express personal and collective judgments about what is important – influenced by culture, religion, and laws. Values can potentially spur purposeful action aimed at increasing equality, decreasing harm to the environment, and improving global health” (WEF, 2022) |
In order to achieve the research objectives of this study, an exploratory methodological approach (Stebbins, 2001) was adopted so as to examine values from a multi-prismatic perspective. Specifically, secondary qualitative research was conducted through a critical appraisal of the literature review of academic articles by important theorists such as Kluckhohn (1951) , Parsons (1951) , Rokeach (1973) , Schwartz (1992, 2004) , Gouveia et al. (2014) and Inglehart (1971, 1997) , who formulated definitions and theoretical models to explain the function of values and their transformation in space and time.
The analysis is carried out throughout the article at two distinct levels, the individual and the societal. First, the most important definitions of individual and social/cultural values are presented and then, having set the foundations by defining what values are, the theoretical models covering the two levels (individual/societal) are analyzed, which study the values of each individual and how they determine his/her interaction with the wider social group.
We then unfold a key aspect of our analysis by studying the factors that lead to changes in values over time and space, distinctly at the two levels of analysis (individual/societal). Finally, having identified the factors that influence, shape and transform the values of each individual and of society more broadly, our approach concludes by presenting these influencing factors at an integrated level.
Over the years, theories concerning the values have been formed, and their study has been inextricably linked to the analysis of human behavior. Some theorists have attempted to categorize values such as Scheler (1913) , Allport and Vernon (1931) , while others have gone a step further by proposing a complete theoretical framework within which values interact such as Schwartz (1992) , Inglehart (1971) and Gouveia et al. (2014) , among others. However, examining value theories across the individual/personal and societal prism is important, as they will enable us to understand not only how personal values work, as thus their impact on social behaviors and attitudes (Boer & Fischer, 2013) but also to better examine the effects of culture of societies on the values of their members.
Max Scheler (1913) proposed a values’ classification that is very common among social scientists that corresponds to human needs. Scheler talked about hedonistic values which are related to pleasure, vital values that are linked to physical attractiveness and physical fitness, material values meaning anything that increases the number of things one owns, sociocentric values that express collective will, aesthetic values that makes life more beautiful, happy and creative, ethical or altruistic values that shape various forms of good, cognitive values that are associated to the truth, and, finally religious values that are related to God and eternal life (Dyczewski & Sławik, 2016) .
In 1961, Allport studying personal values, stressed out that personal philosophy of life related to values is a key personality characteristic explaining motivations and has an impact on choices and future goals (Oles & Hermans, 2010) . Anchored in this perspective, the Allport-Vernon Study of Values (1931) , one of the first questionnaires measuring personal values based on stated behavioral preferences, was designed to measure and record personal preferences for six types of values: theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious. The specific method followed was founded on Spranger’s (1928) value philosophy, which distinguished six types of people according to their attitudes, general beliefs and ways of thinking. These attitudes can be viewed as lenses through which people perceive the world, each one with a deeply distinctive value conception. All personality types derive from six basic values: 1) Theoretical: truth; 2) Economic: usefulness; 3) Aesthetic: harmony and beauty; 4) Social: love for people; 5) Political: power and leadership; 6) Religious: unity or moral excellence (Oles & Hermans, 2010) . Thurstone, a few years later, in 1954, studying the nature of values, made his own contribution, trying to put them into general categories and came up with three types of values: social, moral and aesthetic values.
An integrated value theory was presented by Schwartz (1992, 2006, 2012) , which detects six main value features that constitute a consensus. As formulated in this theory, values refer to desirable goals that activate people’s motivation and transcend specific actions and situations. Schwartz indicates that values are beliefs connected inextricably to affect and they serve as standards or criteria that are ordered by importance relative to one another. Schwartz also stresses that the relative importance of multiple values functions as a guide for our actions (Schwartz, 2012) . Schwartz (1992) also developed a schematic representation of the structure of human values. According to his theoretical framework, the values of citizens can be divided into 4 categories depending on the motivation that drives them and these are: self-transcendence, openness to change, conservation and self-enhancement. The system Schwartz formulated has two higher-order dimensions of values: openness to change versus conservation, and self-enhancement versus self-transcendence. According to his viewpoint, some values come into conflict, whereas others are compatible, and values’ structure is based on these relations of conflict and compatibility. As he highlights, values have a similar structure across groups with cultural diversions, and although the nature of values and their structure may be universal, individuals and groups differ considerably in the relative importance they attach to values. In other words, they demonstrate different “value hierarchies” (Schwartz, 2012) . Furthermore, Schwartz identified ten distinct types of values based on the motive underlying each of them (Schwartz, 2012) , namely: self-direction: defining goal: independent thought, creating and exploring; stimulation: defining goal: challenge in life and excitement; hedonism: defining goal: personal pleasure; achievement: defining goal: personal success through competence; power: defining goal: control and dominance that increase social status; security: defining goal: is related to stability, harmony and safety at all levels, individual and societal; conformity: defining goal: limitation of actions and inclinations that are possible to harm other people; tradition: defining goal: respect and acceptance of ideas, customs and traditions, habits of a culture or a religion; benevolence: defining goal: prosperity of people of our social environment; universalism: defining goals: tolerance and protection for the well-being of all people.
It should be noted that although the theory discriminates between ten values, it contends that values formulate a continuum structured by related motivations: 1) power and achievement: social superiority and esteem; 2) achievement and hedonism: self-centered satisfaction; 3) hedonism and stimulation: a desire for affectively pleasant arousal; 4) stimulation and self-direction: intrinsic interest in novelty and mastery; 5) self-direction and universalism: reliance upon one’s own judgment and comfort with the diversity of existence; 6) universalism and benevolence: enhancement of others and transcendence of selfish interests; g) benevolence and tradition: devotion to one’s in-group; 7) benevolence and conformity: normative behavior that promotes close relationships; and 8) conformity and tradition: subordination of self in favor of socially imposed expectations. The closer two values are in any direction around the circle the more similar their underlying motives are. The farther apart, the more competitive their incentives.
Self-protective values, on the left of the figure, empower people to cope with anxiety and uncertainty caused by external environmental conditions and is related to loss prevention targets. People, in daily life, make efforts to maintain security and seek to avoid and control exogenous threats causing losses and lack of stability. On the other hand, all values on the right side of the figure indicate motivations with a lack of anxiety and uncertainty. These are self-expansive values and have a positive impact on promotion of gain goals.
In addition to Schwartz’s theory, of particular scientific interest is also Gouveia’s functional theory on values which focuses on the essential relations between human values and the functions they fulfill. Gouveia’s theoretical model is based on two primary value functions, related to the fact that values drive actions and expresses our needs and, on that basis, proposes a three-by-two framework as illustrated in
These two major values functions can be traced back in earlier scholars. Rokeach (1973) had pointed to the fact that values guide actions and Maslow (1954) had considered that the values express needs. The vertical dimension outlines “a circle of goals”, personal, central and social that individuals are called upon to fulfill guided by values. Personal values have an internal focus, social values are other-centered and central values are in the middle, because they are compatible with both personal and social goals. The horizontal dimension indicates the level of needs (survival, thriving needs) that values express.
Seewann and Verwiebe (2020) contributed significantly to the study of values as they examined the underlying dimensions of value conceptualization. They carried out a survey on values, including seven focus group interviews, where they were able to distinguish six underlying dimensions of value conceptualization, namely: value normativity, value relevance, value validity, value stability, value consistency and value awareness. In particular, Seewann and Verwiebe focused on how values are seen as applying only to oneself or to all people (value normativity) because individuals seem to differ in the general meaning of their values, and on how often values are referred to in daily life situations (value relevance). Moreover, value validity is related to the degree of acceptance for dictating values to others and value stability is about occurred changes of values. The consistency of values is linked to the contradiction or coherence of one’s values and value awareness is perceived as the ability to express and think about values.
The findings of the Seewann and Verwiebe’s survey, indicate that people can be classified into two categories: those that face their values as explicit and constant across time functioning as guidelines to their actions, and those that view them as contradictory and subjective at a rate of change. In short, Seewann and Verwiebe’s findings refute the notion that values are a homogenous perceived phenomenon and they conclude that values seem to differ in stability, consistency, normativity, validity and the relevance that people experience in their lifespan.
Schwartz’s (1992) theory, mentioned earlier, focuses on the basic human values in which individuals differ. At the societal level, we identify through the literature review the second theory introduced by Schwartz (1999) which concerns the value orientations in which cultures/societies differ. These cultural value orientations characterize cultures, not individuals, and reflect the cultural distances between societies. They are external to individuals and are located in the primary choices of members of a cultural group. Schwartz (2011a) makes it clear that the conceptual bases of the two theories of values diverge. The distinction between cultural orientations and core individual values is useful to better examine the effects of the culture of societies on the values of their members, since value-based cultural orientations concern societies, while core values concern the personality of individuals. Thus, it is important to use both of them, in order to acquire a more complete understanding of the behavior of individuals in all societies.
As Schwartz (1999) observes, a key issue facing all societies is the definition of the relationship between the individual and the group. In the context of this relationship, the question that arises is whether the interests of the individual or the group prevail and to what extent individuals are autonomous. In the literature this relationship is formulated as individualism-collectivism (Hofstede, 1980) and sometimes as the contrast between individualism-communalism, independence-interdependence, autonomy-relatedness, and separateness-interdependence (Bellah et al., 1985; Doi, 1986) .
Schwartz’s (1999) theory, referring to the societal level, distinguishes seven types of values which can be used to compare cultures around the world. In some cultures, the individual is seen as an entity embedded in the collective and finds the meaning of life mainly through social relations and identification with the group. In this case the values are linked to “Conservatism”, where the emphasis is on maintaining the status quo, and avoiding disruption of the traditional order. On the other hand, there are cultures in which the individual is seen as an autonomous entity that can express its own internal characteristics and is not prevented from doing so. This type of value is called “Autonomy” and it can be divided into “Intellectual” and “Affective Autonomy” (Schwartz, 1999) . An equally important issue facing all societies is to ensure responsible behavior on the part of citizens in order to preserve social cohesion. People should consider their own well-being and the well-being of others. One way of ensuring accountability by citizens is done through “Hierarchy” and assigned roles. In addition, responsible social behavior is possible when individuals recognize each other as moral equals. In this case, people socialize in such a way that they are interested in the welfare of all and the value type that expresses this is “Egalitarianism”. A third major issue of concern to all societies is the relationship between human beings and the natural and social world. A life stance towards it is to change the world and exploit it to further our personal or group interests. It’s about a type of value called “Mastery”. In contrast to the above perspective, we can accept the world as it is, trying to adapt to it. In this case the value of “Harmony” is pursued (Schwartz, 1999) .
The theory formulated by Schwartz holds that the seven types of values form three bipolar dimensions (
When a culture emphasizes one type of values, its opposite is undermined. Certain types of values share roughly similar assumptions and so it is possible to emphasize them simultaneously within the same culture. The above relationships of contradiction and compatibility between the seven cultural value types lead to a complete structure of cultural value systems. This theoretical model introduced by Schwartz could be a useful tool for the interpretation of ethnic differences in different areas of everyday life that affect human relations.
To summarize, examining the theories of values distinctly at the two levels of analysis (subsections 4.1 and 4.2), we observe that at the individual level, Schwartz (1992, 2006, 2012) and Gouveia et al. (2014) tried to determine what is the relationship between personal values, which are closely related to the desired goals (Schwartz, 1992) and needs (Gouveia et al., 2014) of individuals, and their final actions, which determine their personality. At the societal level, Schwartz’s (1999) theory, in short, traces cultural value orientations that characterize the cultures by which cultures around the world can be compared and the relationship between the individual and society can be determined. Of particular scientific interest in contemporary research is also the contribution of Seewann and Verwiebe (2020) presented above, as the six underlying dimensions of value conceptualization they proposed extend to both individual and societal level.
| Values Theories | Level of analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual level | Societal level | Individual and Societal level | |
| Allport-Vernon Study of Values (1931) based on Spranger’s (1928) value philosophy, 6 personality types: Theoretical, Economic, Aesthetic, Social, Political, Religious (Oles & Hermans, 2010) | Ö | ||
| Inglehart’s Value Change Theory (Inglehart, 1971) : a transition from traditional values and culture which are “materialist” to “post-materialist” | Ö | ||
| Schwartz’s Value Theory: 2 higher-order dimensions of values: openness to change vs conservation, self-enhancement vs self-transcendence (Schwartz, 1992) | Ö | ||
| Schwartz (1999) distinguished 7 types of values (to compare cultures around the world): Autonomy (Intellectual/Affective) vs Conservatism, Hierarchy vs Egalitarianism, Mastery vs Harmony | Ö | ||
| Gouveia’s Functional Theory on Values: based on 2 primary value functions (drive actions and express needs) proposes a three-by-two framework, 6 basic key values are identified: excitement, suprapersonal, interactive, promotion, existence, and normative (Gouveia et al., 2014) | Ö | ||
| Seewann and Verwiebe (2020) recommend 6 dimensions of value conceptualisation: value normativity, value relevance, value validity, value stability, value consistency, value awareness | Ö | ||
Having examined value definitions (section 2) and the different value-centric theoretical stands across distinct levels of analysis (section 4), it is important to consider the following research questions: do values transform and if so how. Do value transformations vary across time and across space and if so, how do they differ for the individual and society at large.
Even though value change has been extensively examined by scholars, there has been little systematic analysis, to our knowledge, of how values might change across the proposed “two-dimensional value framework”, encompassing the value transformation dimension (i.e., transformations across time and space) and the analytical value level (i.e., individual level, societal/cultural level and hybrid level that combines individual and societal perspectives), as well as the factors that are likely to trigger such change (Bardi & Goodwin, 2011) for the individual and society. The theories of values developed at the two distinct levels (individual-societal) formed the basis for the development of our “two-dimensional value framework” and the examination of the transformation of values at the individual and societal level in the light of time and space.
Inglehart (1971) , studying the issue of value change, formulated a theory that examines the dimensions of space and time and indicates that value priorities in prosperous industrial societies will shift from a concern with economic and physical security to a greater emphasis on freedom, quality of life and self-expression. He expressed the view that younger generations tend to give relatively high priority to freedom and self-expression (Inglehart & Abramson, 1994) and he founded his theory on two hypotheses: a scarcity hypothesis, according to which a person’s priorities reflect his/her economic and social environment/level and a socialization hypothesis that argues that a person’s core values reflect the conditions that prevailed during his/her pre-adolescent years (Inglehart, 1985: p. 103) . The first hypothesis is linked to short-term value changes and the latter hypothesis implies long-term effects. In addition, Inglehart claims that intergenerational change of population will result in a transformation of materialist to post-materialist values (Inglehart & Abramson, 1994) . In particular, a transition from traditional values and culture which are “materialist” to “post-materialist” values and culture will occur. People who prioritize materialist values are concerned with material well-being and security and post-materialists emphasize on the quality-of-life issues (Inglehart, 1990: p. 5) .
Intergenerational replacement, however, is not the only factor influencing the change and shift in values. The results from the World Values Survey (that started in 1981 by its founder R. Inglehart) that has been conducted between the years 1981-1983 and 1990-1991 led to the conclusion that economic security is a
| Level of Analysis | Values Transformation | |
|---|---|---|
| Time Transformation | Space Transformation | |
| Individual Level | ||
| Societal Level | ||
| Individual and Societal Level | ||
key factor for the shift to post-materialist values and that seems to be a process that is occurring worldwide (Inglehart & Abramson, 1994) . The World Values Survey focuses on two dimensions of cultural variation all over the world. The first one refers to traditional versus secular-rational values and the second to survival values versus self-expression values. The transformation of society from industrial to postindustrial results to a greater emphasis on self-expression, and the growth of societal wealth leads to a shift of values from an overwhelming emphasis on economic and physical security toward an increasing emphasis on subjective well-being and quality-of-life (Inglehart & Baker, 2000: p. 22) . Modernization theory holds that the process of economic development and the rise of the industrial sector are conducive to a secular-rational worldview.
In the sections that follow, we provide a high-level overview of the different theoretical perspectives.
Past research on values (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992) has indicated that they show relative stability over time, however, more recent studies lead to the conclusion that slight but substantial changes in the value hierarchy can occur (Gouveia et al., 2015) .
The study of values over time needs to become more systematic and intensive because it is believed that it can yield important findings in research, as this factor seems to be decisive in their transformation. The conditions shaped by the multi-level evolution of societies over the years, at the economic and technological level in particular, have an impact on the values that people embrace and, consequently, on cultural/societal values. The time factor, however, has also an effect at another level. Individual values are transformed not only because of the progress of societies over time but also because individuals themselves pass through different age stages.
The transformation of values, at an individual and societal level, is also linked to the concept of space. Hermans and Kempen (1998) expressed the view that during “glocalization” there is an interaction between global and local cultures that leads to a cultural transformation founded on the interconnection of cultures. Many global cultural elements become compatible with those of the local culture through a transformation process and, as Flanagan (2017) points out, when we look around the world, we notice that there is axiological diversity due to different cultures and societies that prioritize different values.
It has been pointed out in the literature that the same values can be understood in a different way in private and social life and two factors are tightly associated with this, consciousness and conditions of the external environment, thus value transformation across time and space can make a value be realized fully, partially or even be rejected (Dyczewski & Sławik, 2016) . There are several factors that influence the transformation of personal and cultural values and are explored in the following section through the examination of the relevant literature.
Schwartz’s (1992) cross-cultural theoretical value model can be a helpful tool for predicting the change of individual values. Values located at opposite ends of the circle tend to change in the opposite direction and this results in the maintenance of the value-structure (Bardi et al., 2009) . The circular structure that Schwartz gave to values remains stable even when people change the importance they attach to different values (Foad, Maio, & Hanel, 2021) .
Empirical data indicate that individuals may experience more substantial value changes (Kohn & Schooler, 1982; Rokeach, 1973) and these are intrinsically linked to the fact that some individuals are more open to adopting them. This finding also includes cultures that display high levels of mastery and intellectual and affective autonomy (Schwartz, 2004) . Individuals and cultures appreciating openness to change, and new experiences demonstrate a higher tendency for value change, and it is believed that independent thought also triggers the values’ transformation. Cultures and individuals that show an emphasis on tradition and on embeddedness are likely to resist due to their rigid societal hierarchical structure that stands as an obstacle to social change (Schwartz, 2004) .
Schwartz (2005) underlined that age-changes and social circumstances, including social roles are determining factors for value change. This means that value change may occur as a function that is being affected by different developmental priorities. The study conducted by Milfont et al. (2016) focuses on the theoretical model developed by Schwartz (1992) for human values and his further research. According to Schwartz (2004) value changes are linked to the life stage of each person and natural aging. Maturity and inevitable aging can influence the adoption of different values or bring about value changes. Thus, it seems that the values of stimulation are more important at a younger age, while, as a person grows older, the values of conformity and tradition become more important in his or her life. At the same time, influencing the change in values may be the demands that are different at each stage of life or the life opportunities that occur (Milfont et al., 2016) . The research by Milfont et al. (2016) concludes that age influences the value system of individuals and also their findings confirm earlier studies suggesting that gender also plays a role in the adoption of values (Gouveia et al., 2015) . That is, women tend to prioritize other-centered and traditional values while men tend to prioritize self-centered and pleasure-related values (Milfont et al., 2016) .
Bardi and Goodwin (2011) claimed that there is evidence of predictable value change and they proposed two routes to value change, an automatic and an effortful one. They also identified some facilitators of the change including “priming processes, adaptation, identification, consistency maintenance, and direct persuasion”. As they underlined, age and culture have an impact on the process of changing values. Another important perspective in the consideration of value change is that it is highly relevant to every aspect of an individual’s welfare and that is due to the fact that values interact with the experiences that contribute to people’s happiness. At this point, it is worth noting that value change may lead to behavior change (Bardi & Goodwin, 2011) and this observation is of particular interest from a social point of view.
Gouveia et al. (2015) also argue that the age stage at which an individual stands affects values. Adolescence, for example, is a life period during which individuals try to shape their own personality and experiment with new stimuli, so values play a major role in this effort. Additionally, they point out that values increase in importance during the transition to adolescence, apart from normative values (Gouveia’s Functional Theory on Values). More specifically there is an increase in central and social values for young adults accompanied by a decrease in personal values. All types of values seem to be stable during midlife, but they show an increase, except for excitement values, when people cross old age. They summarize that, according to the findings after carrying out their survey, physical aging and life events are factors that have the dynamic to reshape people’s values and, despite the fact that the age effect is relatively small, small effect sizes are also a key variable in values’ examination.
Foad, Maio and Hanel (2021) have also made a significant contribution with their research to the examination of values transformation and, after conducting four studies, they argued that people observe their values as changing over time following the growth of their age and the evolution of society at a broader level. They emphasized that new pathways must be opened, questioning the perception of value change during the lifespan. They also underlined that a temporal measure of values may have a significant impact on predicting well-being and on encouraging openness to change. As they support, further research will enable people to use their values in a more fulfilling manner, in order to build better societies.
Considering the societal level, some researchers believe and suggest that values should follow modernizing political and economic systems and become more modern, while others claim that traditional values are independent from political and economic development (Li & Bond, 2010) . The perception of value change is mainly based on the fact that the structure of any society is dynamic and not static, and as societies transform and become complex, leaving behind their traditional character, it is natural that the people and the values they embrace also change.
Several researchers supported the idea that economic development and values are highly linked and underlined the casual relationship between value and development at economic level. As Marx noted (1935) , economic development makes cultural values change, based on the theory of economic determinism, whereas, cultural determinism supports that the cultural values trigger economic development. According to Gouveia et al. (2015) , the belief that value change can result from social changes such as economic development, democratization and political stability is found in several studies (Fischer et al, 2011) . Inglehart (1997) states that the transformation of values from traditional to modern is in line with the transition from the traditional to the industrial and post-industrial era (Gouveia et al., 2015) .
Danaher (2021) , based on the fact that by looking back in time we notice that the values of our ancestors are different from ours, advocates that the values are transformed. Μoral beliefs of the past can be seen today as prejudices and correspondingly today’s beliefs and values could be treated as immoral, if they appeared in earlier times. He also refers to axiological futurism, noting that it is the research that examines how values should change in the future (normative inquiry) and how they are likely to change (descriptive/predictive inquiry). Research on the case of AI risk, for example, is either implicitly or explicitly value-oriented. It is motivated by the worry that social and technical changes will threaten certain human values. Such inquiries also focus on the fact that technological changes may bring about changes in values. Moreover, according to his opinion, although it seems to be an unchanging set of moral and universal values, we have to acknowledge that people have changed their awareness and their view towards them. They develop new conceptualizations or sub-conceptualizations of those values across time and changes in society play a key role. It is therefore concluded that either our values or our attitudes towards our values change over time and this must be taken into account when considering the future (Danaher, 2021) .
The contribution of the two distinguished political scientists, Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, to the most recent study of value transformation across space and time is highly significant. They analyzed data of the 7th Wave (2017-2022) of the World Value Survey and based on these they created a cultural map that illustrates cultural changes and the preservation of distinct cultural traditions. According to their findings socio-economic development is largely associated with distinctive value orientations.
The two scholars argued that there are two dimensions of cultural variation around the world. The first one refers to traditional versus secular-rational values and the second to survival values versus self-expression values. More specifically, traditional values are linked to religion and family ties and emphasize family values. Societies that prioritize traditional values display high levels of national pride and nationalists profiles and reject acts related to ethical dilemmas such as divorces, suicides and abortions. On the other end of the spectrum, secular-rational values indicate opposite preferences to traditional values. Societies founded on these values place less emphasis on religion and traditional family values and show a relative acceptance of moral decisions. Survival values are linked to economic and physical security and stability, and societies that prioritize such values show a relatively ethnocentric outlook with low levels of trust and tolerance. In contrast, self-expression values give priority to tolerance and equality and foster respect for the protection of the environment. They also enhance citizens’ participation in economic and political life.
The World Cultural Map(
The analysis indicates that as a society shows an increase in living standards and becomes a post-industrial knowledge society, it tends to move diagonally following the direction from the lower left corner to the upper right. The classification of societies into cohesive clusters is based on the societies’ religious tradition and their colonial histories. The bottom left corner depicts poorer societies and the upper right societies with more advanced economic levels. It should be noted that the attitudes of the population and their adherence to certain values are correlated to their religious, political and philosophical background. The secular/rational values formulated by ancient philosophers and the French Revolution can be identified in countries and societies with a long history of democracy, where the population has the opportunity to encounter philosophical ideas and sciences. In post-industrial economies, self-expression is highly valued
because freedom of thought is a given and it is observed that the value systems of the richest countries differ greatly from those of the poorest countries. The “high-income” societies (according to the World Bank definition) cover the upper right zone of the cultural map and the “low-income” societies the bottom left zone. Additionally, all middle-income societies cover an intermediate zone. It seems, therefore, observing this map carefully that socio-economic development tends to push societies in a common direction, regardless of their cultural heritage.
In conclusion the data analysis from the World Values Survey indicates that advanced societies seem to follow the same direction at about the same speeds, while economically stable societies demonstrate little value change. Τhis leads to an increasing divergence between the values found in low-income countries and those found in high-income countries. Economic growth is linked to shifts from absolute rules and values to values that are increasingly rational, tolerant and participatory (Inglehart & Baker, 2000) .
The issue of value transformation was also addressed by Hitlin and Piliavin (2004) , who, in an attempt to summarize the influential factors, concluded that gender, social class, nation of origin and a set of socio-demographic variables play a significant role in shaping and changing values. On this issue, the JRC study “Values and Identities-a policy maker’s guide” (Scharfbillig et al., 2021) supports the idea that values are mostly shaped and transformed by conditions during human lifespan and permeate all phases, childhood, adolescence and adulthood with a great influence of family and school. They are a mixture of biological and evolutionary factors along with individual and societal histories. In general, as noted by Qu, Fu and Sun (2019) , conceptual and empirical literature examines value changes by focusing on family factors (Kasser, Koestner, & Lekes, 2002; Lechner, Sortheix, Göllner, & Salmela-Aro, 2017) , demographic characteristics (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004) , individual efforts (Lechner et al., 2017) , macro-level environment (Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999) and factors related to situations (Dose, 1997) .
Through an overall consideration, it emerges that on an individual level and in relation to the time dimension, different age stages have an impact on values, while in relation to the dimension of the space in which the individual is nurtured and lives, religion and family ties have an important effect. Similarly, at the societal level, it seems that the evolution of societies over time and the transition from the industrial to the post-industrial era bring changes in values. Social developments in combination with the progress of technological civilization
| Level of Analysis | Values Transformation | |
|---|---|---|
| Time Transformation | Space Transformation | |
| Individual Level | Age-life stages, adolescence, maturity (Schwartz, 2004; Bardi & Goodwin, 2011; Milfont et al., 2016; Gouveia et al., 2015; Foad, Maio, & Hanel, 2021) | Religion (personal matter) Family ties (micro-level) (World Values Survey, 2022) |
| Societal Level | Economic development (Marx, 1935; Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Gouveia et al., 2015) Transition from the traditional to the industrial and post-industrial era (Inglehart, 1997) Social and technical changes, technology evolution (Danaher, 2021; WEF, 2022) | Democratization, political stability (Gouveia et al., 2015) Economic, physical security/stability, religion (geographical region), family ties (macro-level) (World Values Survey, 2022) |
| Individual and Societal Level | Different periods of time-a value can be realized differently, partially, or fully rejected | Individual’s welfare-developed societies, religion (personal matter, depending on geographical region); family ties (micro/macro-level) |
leads to a subsequent transformation of values. In terms of the dimension of space, where a society is located, what kind of state it has, whether there is stability and security, and in many cases the prevailing religion and traditional family ties are factors that influence values.
Our times are characterized by rapid developments and constant changes that undoubtedly affect all sectors and all levels of society. In this context, transformation of values seems to be inevitable. The fact that values are the ones that define the moral codes of the wider society makes it imperative that they are studied in depth, especially in the era of transformative technologies. Towards this aim, the current work explored values from a multi-perspective approach that includes diverse value perspectives, both from a micro (individual) and macroscopic (societal) level, and through a spatio-temporal dimension, exploring time and spatial transformation of values and their implications.
The review of the existing literature, in the area, denoted that the values indeed change over time and space. The theories of Schwartz and Inglehart proved to be appropriate for examining these two levels of analysis, as they provided the suitable theoretical background for detecting these changes, since this transformation of values impacts and is impacted differently at an individual and societal level.
More specifically, studying first the individual level, it appears that the time factor is decisive for the change of values. Different age phases and natural aging affect values, which may become more conservative/traditional as the individual grows older. On parallel, the country/society in which an individual lives and works also has an impact on the transformation of his/her values, as the prevailing religion, the looseness or closeness of family ties and the prosperity of the country were found to be related to the values held by individuals.
Furthermore, at a broader, societal, level, it seems that time has a dynamic effect there as well. The socio-economic evolution of modern society combined with the rapid development of technology influences the value system that a society embraces. At the same time, the economic stability and prosperity that a region offers to its citizens in combination with the political stability and religion of that place have an impact on societal values, which indicates that values are also transformed depending on the spatial axis.
The limitations of this research lie in its non-exhaustive nature. The examination of the topic focused on literature review, without empirical testing of the proposed framework. However, the theoretical models presented are the result of an analysis of empirical data from a large sample.
It is also worth noting that the study of the transformation of values, from a multi-perspective approach, and through a spatio-temporal dimension is still at an early stage and for this reason there is a need for more systematic research of the field, since values are intertwined with the morality of each person and, by extension, form the moral codes (moral compass) of society. Technology can play a key role in addressing this transformation over time and space, but the question arises is whether its rapid evolution creates the need for new values suitable for defending people’s rights against the threats posed by technological progress. This question may form the basis for further scientific research. In addition, the exploration of changing values and the potential need for new ones to emerge is of particular interest also in the field of policy making, as policy makers need to consider the values of individuals in every policy recommendation to be accepted. Thus, further research on this area is needed.
This paper is supported by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101004949, project VAST (Values across Space and Time).
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Giouvanopoulou, K., Ziouvelou, X., Petasis, G., & Karkaletsis, V. (2023). Exploring Values and Value Transformation: A Multi-Perspective Approach. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 11, 313-338. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2023.113023