2.7: The First-Generation of Value Theories

The Value of Value Theory

One of the biggest benefits of studying communication is to deepen our understanding of others and, in practical terms, reduce the friction of misunderstandings. Nowhere is this more clear than when we think we are communicating with others who understand us and agree with us only to find that a conflict has erupted, seemingly out of nowhere.

Value theory offers insights into how this can happen and, importantly, what we can do about it.

The studies below were foundational, and they still have substantial merit. But as we'll soon see, they tend to slant towards societies that come out of a Western-oriented cultural experience and may not fully address additional factors that more recent research has identified. These additional considerations are part of what makes intercultural communication fascinating, frustrating, but also incredibly rewarding.

Early Theorists

Daryl Bem was one of the lead researches in this area, and he provided us with many of the core concepts and terms that are still used today. His primary idea, which represented a break from earlier thought, is that people discover their values from their behavior and make conclusions about the values of others by observing their behaviors (Self-perception, 1967). This can cause misunderstandings because specific values may not be linked to specific behaviors. As we've seen when considering non verbal communication. a smile does not always indicate pleasure or joy, nodding may not indicate agreement it may just indicate that you've been heard.

Values are reflected in our world views and how we rank things

The basic vocabulary of values comes from three terms. Values, attitudes, and beliefs. A belief is any thought of idea that a person may have. These need not be related to a value. You may believe it is cloudy today but not have any particular like or dislike. But if you have a belief that you hold that tilts into a positive or negative feeling, that is an attitude. Attitudes can vary in intensity. Many attitudes may be loosely held, such as a preference for a particular brand of beverage of food, and can change based on new information or experiences. Values, on the other hand, represent a special category of beliefs that are more deeply held and less likely to change.

Further research was done by other value theorists such as Milton Rokeach. Rokeach further developed our understanding of values my noting that they can be ranked and that, according to Rokeach, there are 36 identifiable values. These values fall into two categories: those that are instrumental and those that are intrinsic. Money or wealth, for example, is an example of an instrumental value because can be used to obtain other values, such as security, health, safety, or education. Health, though, is seen to be an intrinsic value, one that is sought and appreciated for its own sake. One way of differentiating these values is to ask the question: "Why do you want that?" In regards to the value of wealth, a respondent might well answer with the other values noted above. But if you were to ask someone why they wanted to be healthy, you might get a strange puzzled look and a incredulous shrug. Health is something that is so foundational for other values that it is, as Rokeach notes, intrinsically valued. Other common intrinsic values can include equality and freedom.

Milton Rokeach's comparison of Intrinsic and Instrumental Values

Terminal (Intrinsic) Values (End goals)	Instrumental Values (Means to goals)
A Comfortable Life	Independence
Equality	Responsibility
Freedom	Honesty
Inner Harmony	Ambition
National Security	Politeness
Salvation	Courage
Wisdom	Helpfulness

It is possible, of course, to argue that freedom is instrumental in that it leads to other values and helpfulness is valuable in and of itself. But what's most important about Rokeach's work is that we all have values, sometimes very similar values, but we rank them differently. So, some people so desire security and safety that they are willing to give up freedom and their agency to make their own decisions. You may, for example, find that someone values freedom, but when you engage them into a more thoroughgoing conversation, you find that they 1. mean something very different by this term, and 2. value it for themselves but don't feel obliged to see that others enjoy it.

When talking about value-laden terms, it can be helpful to use strategy that comes out of the field of psychology, and this is making terms "operational" by breaking them down to a list of characteristics, conditions, or behaviors. An example of this might be having an argument with a roommate over what constitutes "a clean room." The author of this text had may discussions with family members who were told to "clean the room," and seemingly did nothing more than push trash under a bed or couch. Cleaning a room, in an operational sense, might have a criteria list of:

• Bed made
• Dirty clothes in the hamper
• Clean clothes in the dresser
• No trash on floor
• All toys or books or study-aids in the bookcase
• All drawers closed

This list is not exhaustive, but it does demonstrate the concept.

Negotiating Desired Outcomes

Often, working through a challenge or a difference can be a matter of negotiating desired behaviors or coming to an agreement on how to allocate scarce resources, such as money or time. This can happen in a formal or informall way through the give-and-take of a friendship or the contract negotiations between businesses or between a business and a client. There are strategies that can lead to mutually agreeable outcomes, and a quick look at the basics of value debate can give us insights into helpful ways of gaining agreement.

1. Argue that your value has a higher ranking in the society.

This is a sort of appeal to the conscience of your listener. It can be a reminder of "the greater good." But, that said, your opponent may still disagree.

2. Argue that choosing your value has more benefits.

An example of this could be showing that spending more money in a given year on scholarships instead of building a needed parking garage would, over time, increase the citizen's earning ability and increase tax revenues for even better civic improvements down the road.

3. Argue that elevating your opponents' value has serious disadvantages.

Freedom is important. Most people agree with this, but it is usually circumscribed and not a value above all others, in all circumstances. For instance, motorists are not allowed to drive the "wrong way" on a freeway into oncoming traffic. To counter a value can, at times, to point out circumstances where it has to be bounded.

As noted above, values tend to be be deeply held, and that is because they are learned over a lifetime, in various cultural contexts, from family, school, and faith-based organizations, to name the major sources. It's usually easier to talk about re-ranking a value than to discard it or to argue that a different value should be in play. If you can link a desired behavior to a pre-existing value you are more likely to gain agreement and win your point.

But even with all this, your best strategy in intercultural situations is to first understand the value-sets and rankings in the culture of those with whom you're interacting. This is discussed in later chapter.

Rokeach identified 18 intrinsic values and 18 instrumental values. There are listed in the chart at the end of this chapter. But he said that you can often identify a person's cultural leanings by knowing their beliefs of two values: Freedom and Equality. Rokeach studied the speeches and public statements of different organizations to argue his point and explain his ideas.

What Rokeach Said

• People and groups can be meaningfully placed along a continuum based on how they rank freedom versus equality.
• Those who prioritize freedom tend to support individualism, personal autonomy, and limited government.
• Those who prioritize equality tend to support social welfare, redistribution, and collective responsibility.
• Political polarization often reflects conflicting value hierarchies, not simply differences in opinion.
• These value priorities are learned, stable, and predictive of behavior.

Rokeach used this framework to explain ideological divides in the U.S. and other societies, arguing that much political conflict is rooted in how people balance these two values. (Rokeach, 1973).

These differences can also be seen in organizations. Many organizations are multi-national, and the complex interrelationships between values and behaviors play out in novel ways in different locations. This topic is addressed in the concluding chapters of this text.

Organizational Values Matrix

Comprehensive Comparison Of Organizational Values

Organization Type	Terminal Values Emphasized	Instrumental Values Emphasized	How These Values Shape Behavior
Corporations (For‑Profit)	A comfortable life, accomplishment, social recognition	Ambition, responsibility, efficiency	Competitive culture, performance metrics, innovation pressure
Nonprofits / NGOs	Equality, a world at peace, social justice	Helpfulness, compassion, honesty	Mission‑driven decisions, community focus, advocacy
Healthcare Organizations	Health, well‑being, security	Responsibility, competence, empathy	Patient‑centered care, safety protocols, ethical standards
Educational Institutions	Wisdom, inner harmony, personal growth	Broad‑mindedness, independence, curiosity	Learning culture, critical thinking, diversity initiatives
Government Agencies	National security, social order, equality	Obedience, responsibility, fairness	Policy consistency, regulation, public service orientation
Religious Organizations	Salvation, inner harmony, family security	Forgiveness, obedience, self‑control	Moral guidance, community cohesion, tradition preservation
Startups / Innovation Hubs	Exciting life, accomplishment, creativity	Imagination, independence, risk‑taking	Rapid experimentation, flexible roles, disruptive thinking
Military Organizations	National security, duty, loyalty	Obedience, courage, discipline	Hierarchical structure, clear roles, collective identity

Key Terms

• Value Theory – The study of how people form, prioritize, and act on their values.
• Self‑Perception Theory – Bem’s idea that people infer their own values and attitudes by observing their behaviors.
• Values – Deeply held beliefs about what is important, guiding long‑term decisions and behavior.
• Attitudes – Evaluative feelings (positive or negative) toward ideas, objects, or people.
• Beliefs – Thoughts or ideas a person accepts as true, whether or not they carry emotional weight.
• Instrumental Values – Values that serve as means to achieve other goals (e.g., wealth, ambition, responsibility).
• Intrinsic (Terminal) Values – Values pursued for their own sake, representing desired end‑states (e.g., freedom, equality, health).
• Value Ranking – The personal or cultural ordering of values by importance, which predicts behavior and conflict.
• Worldview – The lens through which individuals interpret reality, shaped by their value system.
• Operational Definition – A clear, behavior‑based description of a concept to reduce ambiguity (e.g., defining “clean room” with specific criteria).
• Negotiation – The process of reaching agreement by aligning behaviors or resources with underlying values.
• Value Conflict – Disagreement rooted in differing value priorities rather than simple differences of opinion.
• Freedom vs. Equality Continuum – Rokeach’s framework showing how people and groups can be classified based on how they prioritize these two core values.
• Cultural Value Learning – The lifelong process of acquiring values from family, education, religion, and society.
• Organizational Values – The shared value priorities within an organization that shape its culture, decisions, and behaviors.

References for Further Reading

Bem, D. J. (1967). Self‑perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024835

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self‑perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). Academic Press.

Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1135–1151.

Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value‑orientations in the theory of action. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388–433). Harvard University Press.

Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255–277.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. Jossey‑Bass.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–20.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey‑Bass.

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden‑Turner, C. (2012). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business (3rd ed.). Nicholas Brealey.