We identified behavioral signatures of the values distinguished in the Schwartz et al. refined value theory (2012). We examined behavioral signatures for two types of values, value states and value traits. We conducted two studies using innovative approaches. Study 1 used retrospective self-reports whereas Study 2 used self-reports in real time. In Study 1 ( N = 703), we sought act frequency signatures of the 19 basic value traits that the Portrait Value Questionnaire-Revised (Schwartz, 2017 ) measures. We examined the frequency of 209 acts from the Oregon Avocational Interest Scales (Goldberg, 2010 ) for which there were no expectations that values would necessarily influence them. We computed partial correlations between each behavioral act and each value. We discuss the theoretical links to each value of the 10 behavioral acts that correlated most highly with it. Study 2 analyzed 9,416 behavioral acts of 374 participants. We measured value expressions in current behavior, i.e., value states , using experience sampling methodology (ESM). We asked participants 7 times per day for 7 days what they had been doing during the past 15 min and how important 9 different values from the Schwartz's refined value theory were to them during that activity. Because the questions about activities were open-ended, the set of behavioral acts analyzed in Study 2 was theoretically unlimited. To find signatures of values in behavior, we identified the activities during which participants reported the highest level of importance for each value. Both studies revealed meaningful associations between values and daily behavior.

No abstract

The aims of this study were to compare (a) personality traits vs personal values, (b) Five-Factor Model (FFM) vs HEXACO model of personality traits, and (c) broad vs narrow personality constructs in terms of their relationship with the frequency of everyday behaviors. These relationships were analyzed at three organizational levels of self-reported behavior: (a) single behavioral acts, (b) behavioral components (empirically derived categories of similar behaviors), and (c) two higher-order factors. The study was conducted on a Polish sample (N = 532, age range 16-72). We found that (a) even the frequencies of single behavioral acts were related to various personality constructs instead of one narrow trait or value, (b) personality traits and personal values were comparable as predictors of a wide range of everyday behaviors, (c) HEXACO correlated with the frequency of behaviors slightly higher than FFM, and (d) narrow and broad personality constructs did not differ substantially as predictors of everyday behavior at the levels of acts and components, but at the level of higher-order behavioral factors, broad personality measures were better predictors than narrow ones.

Objective The circular structure of values has been verified mostly at a between‐person level and on measures of general value preferences. In this manuscript, we argue that it is a simplification that neglected significant aspects of the value structures and distinguish four different types of structures: (a) between‐person structure of value traits, (b) within‐person structure of value traits, (c) between‐person structure of value states, and (d) within‐person structure of value states. We argue that the within‐person structure of value states addresses the circular structure of values most accurately. Method To compare all four structures, we collected three partially dependent samples (N1 = 449, N2 = 293, N3 = 218) of adults (age 17–57, M = 24). At three time points, separated by 5–7 weeks, respondents completed a questionnaire measure (Portrait Values Questionnaire‐Revised [PVQ‐RR]) of value preferences (value traits) and reported the importance of values in their everyday actions (value states) for 1 week in an experience sampling study. Results The four types of value structures were stable over time. All four were also consistent with Schwartz's value model to some degree, but at the same time, there were some deviations. Conclusions It is important to distinguish four types of value structures and be aware of their different interpretations that we outlined in this paper.

The aim of this study was to examine the Schwartz model of values in other-report data. We specifically tested the circular structure and priorities of personal values observed in ratings made by well-acquainted informants. participants and procedure We analysed self-and other-reports of preferences of 19 basic and four higher-order values provided by 422 participants (M age = 30.02, SD age = 13.99) using the Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ-5x). results The self-other agreement corrected for measurement bias ranged from .29 to .78 for basic values and from .51 to .67 for higher-order values. The findings indicated that basic values measured via other-reports form a circular structure consistent with the Schwartz theory. The hierarchy of values based on other-reports only slightly differed from the hierarchy based on self-reports. conclusions The results suggest that both self-and other-ratings of personal values yield meaningful information that contributes to each.

In the current study, we looked for the relations between broad personality dimensions (metatraits of personality and higher-order values) and everyday behaviours. We asked participants (N = 374; aged 17 to 53, M age = 23.72) about their current behaviour, followed by questions on situational context (company and perceived autonomy) seven times per day for seven consecutive days, using an experience sampling mobile app. This method allowed us to capture a wide range of descriptions of behavioural acts (n = 13 873), which were then empirically categorized. Personality metatraits distinguished within the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits (i.e. Stability vs. Disinhibition, Plasticity vs. Passiveness, Integration vs. Disharmony, and Self-Restraint vs. Sensation-Seeking) and values from the refined model of Schwartz et al. (Openness to Change vs. Conservation and Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement) were measured by self-descriptive questionnaires. Multilevel logistic regressions with multiple predictors, including traits and values simultaneously, revealed significant effects or tendencies for 20 of the 35 categories of activities, five kinds of company, and perceived autonomy. The best predictors of activities and situational context were the higher-order values Openness to Change vs. Conservation. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

BackgroundThe HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO-PI-R), available in 200-, 100-, and 60-item versions, has become one of the most frequently applied measurement tools for the assessment of basic personality dimensions.Participants and procedureIn this study we examined the Polish versions of the HEXACO-60 and the HEXACO-100 inventories in a community sample of 522 individuals (aged 16-75, M = 32.02, SD = 14.15, 56.3% female). We verified the factor validity of both inventories with exploratory structural equation modeling. Additionally, we tested a six-factor solution on the HEXACO-60 items with principal axis extraction and we compared a factor matrix of the Polish adaptation of the HEXACO-100 facets with the factor matrix of the original version of the HEXACO-100 facets in an exploratory factor comparison analysis. We analyzed correlations between HEXACO domains and various models of personality traits, including the Big Two, Big Six, Big Five, and 10 Big Five as-pects.ResultsInternal consistency reliability coefficients for scales and subscales were satisfactory. The analyses supported the six-factor structure of the inventories and the results of correlation analyses were consistent with expectations.ConclusionsThe results indicate that the Polish versions of the HEXACO-60 and the HEXACO-100 inventories are reliable and valid in-struments for measuring basic personality traits in the HEXACO model.

No abstract