Value Orientations Theory
The Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck Value Orientations theory represents one of the earliest efforts to develop a cross-cultural theory of values. According to Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), every culture faces the same basic survival needs and must answer the same universal questions. It is out of this need that cultural values arise. The basic questions faced by people everywhere fall into five categories and reflect concerns about: 1) human nature, 2) the relationship between human beings and the natural world, 3) time, 4) human activity, and 5) social relations. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck hypothesized three possible responses or orientations to each of the concerns.
Table 6.1 – Summary of Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck Values Orientation Theory
| Basic Concerns |
Orientations |
| Human nature |
Evil |
Mixed |
Good |
| Relationship to natural world |
Mastery |
Harmony |
Submission |
| Time |
Past |
Present |
Future |
| Activity |
Being |
Becoming |
Doing |
| Social relations |
Hierarchical |
Collateral |
Individual |
What is the inherent nature of human beings?
This is a question, say Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, that all societies ask, and there are generally three different responses. The people in some societies are inclined to believe that people are inherently evil and that the society must exercise strong measures to keep the evil impulses of people in check. On the other hand, other societies are more likely to see human beings as born basically good and possessing an inherent tendency towards goodness. Between these two poles are societies that see human beings as possessing the potential to be either good or evil depending upon the influences that surround them. Societies also differ on whether human nature is immutable (unchangeable) or mutable (changeable).
What is the relationship between human beings and the natural world?
Some societies believe nature is a powerful force in the face of which human beings are essentially helpless. We could describe this as “nature over humans.” Other societies are more likely to believe that through intelligence and the application of knowledge, humans can control nature. In other words, they embrace a “humans over nature” position. Between these two extremes are the societies who believe humans are wise to strive to live in “harmony with nature.”
What is the best way to think about time?
Some societies are rooted in the past, believing that people should learn from history and strive to preserve the traditions of the past. Other societies place more value on the here and now, believing people should live fully in the present. Then there are societies that place the greatest value on the future, believing people should always delay immediate satisfactions while they plan and work hard to make a better future.
What is the proper mode of human activity?
In some societies, “being” is the most valued orientation. Striving for great things is not necessary or important. In other societies, “becoming” is what is most valued. Life is regarded as a process of continual unfolding. Our purpose on earth, the people might say, is to become fully human. Finally, there are societies that are primarily oriented to “doing.” In such societies, people are likely to think of the inactive life as a wasted life. People are more likely to express the view that we are here to work hard and that human worth is measured by the sum of accomplishments.
What is the ideal relationship between the individual and society?
Expressed another way, we can say the concern is about how a society is best organized. People in some societies think it most natural that a society be organized hierarchically. They hold to the view that some people are born to lead and others to follow. Leaders, they feel, should make all the important decisions. Other societies are best described as valuing collateral relationships. In such societies, everyone has an important role to play in society; therefore, important decisions should be made by consensus. In still other societies, the individual is the primary unit of society. In societies that place great value on individualism, people are likely to believe that each person should have control over his/her own destiny. When groups convene to make decisions, they should follow the principle of “one person, one vote.”
In an early application of the theory, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck interviewed members of five cultural groups in the American Southwest: 1) Navajo people traveling around the Southwest seeking work, 2) white homesteaders in Texas, 3) Mexican-Americans, 4) Mormon villagers, and 5) Zuni pueblo dwellers. Researchers have found the framework useful in making sense of diverse cultures around the world.
As Hill (2002) has observed, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck did not consider the theory to be complete. In fact, they originally proposed a sixth value orientation—Space: here, there, or far away, which they could not quite figure out how to investigate at the time. And Hill has proposed a number of additional questions that one might expect cultural groups to grapple with:
- Space – Should space belong to individuals, to groups (especially the family) or to everybody?
- Work – What should be the basic motivation for work? To make a contribution to society, to have a sense of personal achievement, or to attain financial security?
- Gender – How should society distribute roles, power and responsibility between the sexes? Should decision-making be done primarily by men, by women, or by both?
- The Relationship between State and Individual – Should rights and responsibilities be granted to the nation or the individual?
Today, the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck framework is just one among many attempts to study universal human values. Others include those of Hofstede (1997), Rokeach (1979), and Schwartz (2006).
