research articles values

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The relation between human values and perceived situation characteristics in everyday life.

• Department of Social Psychology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany

Values refer to abstract beliefs which serve as guidelines in peoples’ life and affect the way people and events are evaluated. Simultaneously, unlike attitudes, values transcend specific actions, and situations. While recent research showed that values are related to the attention and interpretation of situational information in standardized laboratory settings, up to date hardly any empirical work investigated how values relate to situation perception in daily life. In our study, we assessed the relation between the endorsement of human values and situation characteristics (i.e., the 8 DIAMONDS). Using the Day Reconstruction Method in two samples (German and US-American), we found that especially variance in the experience of negatively connoted situation characteristics were due to individual differences. Power was related to experiencing more deceptive situations, while the reversed pattern emerged for universalism and benevolence. Tradition was related to experiencing more aversive situations while self-direction was related to experiencing less situations high in adversity. Although, our results might provide some initial evidence for a relation between personal values and subjective situations experiences in everyday life, no clear pattern emerged and further investigation of the relation is necessary.

Introduction

In his famous formula B = f (P, E), Lewin (1939 ) proposed that behavior (B) is a function of the person (P) and the environment (E). More precisely, behavior is a function of a person’s characteristics and his or her subjective experiences of the environment, but not necessarily determined by objective aspects of the environment. While there has been abundant research on how personality traits or differences in physical environment relate to behavior, up to date, subjective situation experience has mostly been overlooked ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ). One major reason could be that while there are numerus and widely accepted taxonomies (e.g., the Big Five) to capture individual differences in personality traits; a generalized and accepted taxonomy to capture individual differences in situation experiences has been missing. However, in recent years the investigation of differences in the subjective situation experiences has become more and more popular, and thus various instruments to measure so-called situation characteristics have been published (see the overview by Horstmann et al., 2017 ). This new development enables us to obtain a more precise and comprehensive picture of human behavior as a function of individual differences, like personality traits or motivational orientations, and subjective situation experiences. The current work attempts to provide evidence on how basic motivational orientations (i.e., the Schwartz model of basic human values) relate to subjective situation experiences (i.e., the situational 8 DIAMONDS), and to behavior in everyday life. Using the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM; Kahneman et al., 2004 ) allows us to obtain information about peoples’ activities and contacts in everyday life, and how they subjectively experienced these situations. Our study advances previous research on how values relate to situational factors by using a novel approach to measure psychological relevant aspects of situations. In the following section we will introduce the concepts and discuss theoretical assumptions about the relation between values and subjective situation experience.

Values are abstract and context-independent beliefs about what people want to achieve in life, e.g., power. Values are motivational goals which refer to desirable end-states ( Schwartz, 1992 ). There are numerous values and each person holds a variety of values at the same time which differ in their importance ( Schwartz, 1992 ; Bardi and Schwartz, 2003 ). Over the decades, many different constructs and theories evolved around values (e.g., the equality-freedom model of ideology proposed by Rokeach, 1973 ). Up to date the most prominent one is the model of Basic Values proposed by Schwartz (1992) . The model assumptions have been extensively studied within different samples and in over 70 countries ( Schwartz and Rubel, 2005 ). Schwartz proposed 10 basic human values which differ in their underlying motivational base: benevolence, universalism, conformity, security, tradition, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction.

One key feature of the model are the detailed assumptions about the interrelation between values, i.e., compatibility and conflict between values. These conflicts and compatibilities between values can be modeled in a circular structure representing a motivational continuum. In this circumplex model, values which are adjunctive represent compatible motivational orientations while those on the other end of the circle represent opposing motivational orientations. The further away two values are located within the circle, the more dissimilar are their underlying motivations ( Schwartz, 1992 ). Within this motivational continuum, the 10 originally proposed values can further be divided into 19 more narrowly defined values ( Schwartz et al., 2012 ) or grouped into four higher order constructs based on two major dimensions.

The first dimension is the self-enhancement self-transcendence dimension (SET). Self-enhancement mainly consists of the values achievement and power as well as some part of hedonism. People valuing self-enhancement believe that for example success as well as showing competence is important in life. On the other side of that pol are self-transcendence values, namely benevolence and universalism. People who value self-transcendence believe that, e.g., equality and caring for others is important.

The second dimension is the openness-to-change conservation dimension (OC). The values self-direction and stimulation form the openness-to-change dimension; therefore, people valuing openness-to-change attribute high importance to creativity, freedom, and self-determination. On the other side of this pol is the conservation dimension consisting of conformity, security, and tradition. People valuing conservation believe it is important to, e.g., maintain the status quo and live in a safe surrounding. While the two pols of each dimension refer to opposing values, the dimension themselves are conceptualized as independent, e.g., a person valuing self-transcendence does not necessarily value openness-to-change.

Furthermore, there are some central assumptions about values. Among other things, they are supposed to transcend specific actions and situations, and at the same time they are standards which are used to evaluate people and events ( Schwartz, 1992 ). The first assumption implies that values represent motivational goals which are of importance independent from the specific task or situational factors. For example, a person who is concerned with protecting nature (part of universalism value) should try to act environment-friendly (at least to some extent) at home, but also in public or at the workplace. The second assumption implies that values are used to judge situations and their opportunities as well as consequences based on individual values. In combination, these assumptions suggest that situations people encounter in everyday life are overall judged based on individual values, and independently of specific factors, all encountered situations should be judged using the same value. Previous research has investigated how values relate to situational aspects (e.g., in a cooperative framed decision task valuing self-transcendence was related to cooperative behavior, Sagiv et al., 2011 ). However, none of those studies has measured perceived subjective situational differences using a valid and standardized instrument. Fortunately, recently a taxonomy has been developed which enables us to measure subjective differences and to capture psychologically relevant aspects of a situation, as outlined in what follows.

Research investigating situational factors has often focused on the situation as a whole, e.g., framing of situations ( Tversky and Kahneman, 1981 ), saliency of stimuli (e.g., Wit and Kerr, 2002 ), interpersonal communication (e.g., Tazelaar et al., 2004 ) and group size (e.g., Brewer and Kramer, 1986 ; De Cremer and Leonardelli, 2003 ). For example, studies investigating the bystander effect manipulated objective differences (i.e., number of people present) to examine differences in behavior. While the results show differences in behavior depending on the manipulation, i.e., depending on objective differences in the situation, the results do not allow drawing conclusions about differences in the subjective experience of the situation. Depending on the research question, examining subjective situation experience might sometimes not be relevant. However, to fully assess and understand how people act and feel, measurement of the situations they subjectively experience is needed ( Benet-Martínez et al., 2015 ).

In the last decades, many situation taxonomies were developed to measure situations. Up to date, however, none has found widespread acceptance (e.g., Moos, 1973 ; Van Heck et al., 1994 ; Kelly, 2003 ). Therefore, contrary to the assessment of personality traits, there still is no consensus on how to define and assess situations (e.g., Hogan, 2009 ; Rauthmann et al., 2015a ). Most approaches build on the theoretical background that any given situation can be described using three aspects, namely cues , characteristics, and classes . Cues refer to physical stimuli which can be objectively quantified in a situation, e.g., how many people are present or which objects are present. Generally, people should agree about situation cues, e.g., either there is a table in the room or there is no table in the room. Cues are the most frequently inquired aspects of situations in psychological studies (e.g., there are other people present or not). Characteristics are used to describe psychological relevant aspects of situations (e.g., a fearsome situation). Situation characteristic should not be mistaken for the overall affective ratings of situation by the person in the situation. For example, people may agree that a situation is negative, but the specific affective reaction could be anxiety, anger or sadness. Classes refer to groups of situations which are clustered together based on similar cues or characteristics, which are used to describe these situations. For example, “meeting friends” and “teaching a class” could both be grouped into the class “social situation,” although there are differences in cues and characteristics.

From a psychological perspective, situation characteristics might be the most interesting aspects of situations as they measure the psychological (subjective) meaning of perceived situational cues ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ). Hence, they may be better predictors for behavior than objective situational cues. Sherman et al. (2013) showed that situations with similar characteristics evoke similar behavior independent of the situation cues. Recently, Rauthmann et al. (2014) proposed that situation characteristics can be captured in a parsimonious taxonomy, which can be used to classify and compare situations. Based on one frequently used measure for situational characteristics (i.e., Riverside Situational Q-Sort; Wagerman and Funder, 2009 ), they identified eight major situation characteristics: The situational 8 DIAMONDS. Those dimensions are: Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, pOsitivity, Negativity, Deception, and Sociality. Duty captures to what extent a situation is perceived as containing work, attending to tasks, making decisions and fulfilling duties. Intellect captures to what extent a situation is perceived as containing intellectual and cognitive demands as well as possibilities to show intellectual prowess. Adversity captures to what extent a situation is perceived as containing problems, threats, conflicts, and criticism. Mating captures to what extent a situation is perceived as containing opportunities for sex, love and romance, that is finding or maintaining potential mates. Positivity captures to what extent a situation is perceived as pleasant, easy, clear, and enjoyable. Negativity captures to what extent a situation is perceived as containing the possibilities for any kind of negative feelings (e.g., frustration, anger, etc.) to emerge. Deception captures to what extent a situation is perceived as containing opportunities for betrayal, deception and hostility. Sociality captures to what extent a situation is perceived as containing possibilities for socializing, relationship formation, and interpersonal warmth. The Situational Eight emerged as dimensions on which different raters ( in situ and ex situ ) substantially agreed showing that even if people themselves did not actually experienced a situation they agreed on how to characterize the situation along the dimensions ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ).

The 8 DIAMONDS are also related to situational cues, e.g., working was characterized by high duty and negativity as well as low positivity ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ). In addition, the 8 DIAMONDS are associated with a wide range of self-rated behavior, e.g., behaving competitive was positively related to the experience of deception and negatively to sociality ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ). Despite their short history, the 8 DIAMONDS have been widely used. For example, Brown and Rauthmann (2016) investigated the relation between age and situation characteristics showing that mean-level patterns are related to opportunities and constraints at various ages (e.g., duty peaked among those people in their 40s which can be considered a phase in which working and caring for a family is common). Serfass and Sherman (2015) collected and rated situation information given in Twitter tweets over a period of 2 weeks. They found that during typical working hours (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) tweet information described situations high in duty, while sociality peaked in the late afternoon and early evening. Overall, the tweets describing deceptive or aversive situations were low. In line with their finding, Guillaume et al. (2016) compared situation experiences across cultures finding that on average people around the world experience similar and largely pleasant situations in the evening. The usefulness of considering situation characteristics to investigate human experiences was also shown in a study by Kocjan and Avsec (2017) . Their results indicate that situations high in positivity and intellect promote flow experiences. Using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM), Sherman et al. (2015) found that the 8 DIAMONDS predicted behavior independent of personality. Their results showed that for example people who on average reported experiencing more deception showed less honest behavior.

Recent research has shown that people mostly agree on the characteristics of situations ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ), and that on average 70% of the variance in situation experiences is due to differences between situations. However, that implies that 30% of the variance is due to individual differences ( Sherman et al., 2015 ), and it has been shown that situations experienced over time by one individual tend to be more similar to each other compared to situations experienced by others ( Sherman et al., 2015 ). For example, people who scored high on extraversion, reported to experience more situations high in sociality ( Sherman et al., 2015 ). Another study found that distinctiveness of situation stimuli construction is associated with personality ( Todd and Funder, 2012 ). Taken together these studies show that people, at least partly, shape their experienced situations and therefore their behavior may be based on a subjective experience of situations.

In order to understand individual differences in situation perception, recent research has mainly focused on personality traits ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ). However, situation characteristics often capture perceived opportunities and requirements for the emergence of different emotional, cognitive and behavioral outcomes in situations. Studies have shown that values lead to giving more attention to information cues that are consistent with one’s personal values or risk the attainment of those values ( Crick and Dodge, 1994 ; Verplanken and Holland, 2002 ). Based on those findings, it seems plausible that values are also related not just to cues, but also to perceived situation characteristics, especially considering that Schwartz (1992) proposed that values are used to evaluate actions, policies, and people.

There are two main ways how values could refer to situation experience: (1) by situation selection and (2) by situation construal ( Rauthmann et al., 2015b ). Situation selection means that people consciously or unconsciously seek out situations which fit for example to their values. Situation construal refers to the distinct subjective interpretations of situational cues due to individual differences. Up to date, there has been no empirical investigation of the relation between values and situation selection or situation construal. The present contribution addresses this gap in research by examining how values relate to situation characteristics in everyday life.

The relation between Schwartz values and the Big Five ( Roccas et al., 2002 ; Fischer and Boer, 2015 ; Parks-Leduc et al., 2015 ) as well as the relation between the Big Five and situation characteristics ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 , 2015b ) have been examined. Extraversion was positively related to experiencing sociality and adversity as well as positively to self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement and power. The conservation values – security, conformity and tradition – were negatively related to extraversion. Openness was positively related to intellect and universalism, self-direction and stimulation; while it was negatively related to conservation values and power. Agreeableness was positively related to sociality and to self-transcendence values, conformity and tradition. Agreeableness was negatively related to adversity and deception, as well as openness-to-change values and self-enhancement values. Conscientiousness was positively related to duty and sociality, and achievement as well as security and conformity. It was negatively related to adversity, negativity and deception, as well as to universalism and stimulation. Neuroticism was positively related to negativity and tradition, and negatively to positivity and achievement.

Based on those and other findings as well as theoretical considerations (i.e., the circumplex structure of the value model), we make several specific assumptions about the relation between values and situation characteristics.

We assume that conformity, tradition, security as well as achievement are positively related to Duty. On a conceptual level, it seems plausible that especially conformity has a strong relation with duty. Conformity entails the tendency to comply with rules and the avoidance of harming social norms. Therefore, we assume that people valuing conformity are more likely to experience situations high in Duty. Additionally, achievement, but not power should be positively related to duty. Experiencing duty refers to, e.g., task-orientated thinking and focusing on minor details, which on a conceptual level seems closer to valuing achievement (i.e., showing competence, being ambitious) compared to power (i.e., authority, social prestige). There are different ways to fulfill achievement values, and paying attention to details or working carefully, may be one way to show competence. Moreover, studies have shown that people valuing achievement are willing to study late at night although they are already well-prepared for an exam. This behavior might also be a part of experiencing a sense of duty to study.

Like the personality trait openness, we assume that universalism as well as stimulation and self-direction are positively related to intellect. On a conceptual level, stimulation and self-direction seem more fitting to the intellect dimension, i.e., people might actively seek out situations which are stimulating and call for creative and independent thinking (i.e., search for intellectual stimulation). Behaviors that have been associated with self-direction and stimulation are among others breaking out of the routine to engage in some stimulating task or actively seeking out information to form an opinion about current news-topics. Both behaviors can on a conceptual level be related to situations high in intellect.

A study by Sagiv and Schwartz (2004) found that conservation values were associated with pursuing conventional career paths, while openness-to-change values were associated with pursuing artistic and investigative professions. Additionally, conservation values were negatively associated employees’ beliefs and tendency to act creative at work, while the opposing pattern emerged for openness-to-change values ( Dollinger et al., 2007 ; Kasof et al., 2007 ).

A sub-facet of the universalism value is broad-mindedness, which contains the belief that others should be free to express their ideas and views ( Hunt and Miller, 1968 ). This idea is also contained in the intellect item “Situation affords an opportunity to express unusual ideas or points of view” ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ). In addition, the three values are adjunctive values, and as such they should relate to similar outer constructs.

Adversity and Deception

We assume that power, achievement and stimulation are positively related to the experience of adversity and deception. People who attribute high importance to showing competence, having control over others or seeking stimulation should be more likely to seek out competitive or risky situations, i.e., situations high in adversity. In line with the proposed assumptions of the circumplex value model and the findings mentioned above, conservation as well as self-transcendence should be negatively related to adversity and deception.

Mating seems to be more of a basic evolutionary motif and therefore we do not assume that it relates to any specific value.

Positivity and Negativity

We do not assume that any specific value is related to positivity and negativity. These situation characteristics focus more affective aspects of situations than for example duty. Considering these affective perception, we assume that there are more based on a fit between personal values and opportunities in a situation. That means if a situation fits with an individual’s values than the situation should be perceived as having the potential for a pleasant experience. Contrary, if there is a misfit between personal values and opportunities in a situation than people should perceive the situation as containing more potential for negative feelings ( Biber et al., 2008 ). Additionally, negativity was primarily correlated with neuroticism ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ) which in turn was only marginally related to any values ( Roccas et al., 2002 ).

Stimulation and self-direction should be positively related to sociality. Regarding the content, sociality is particularly tied to the trait extraversion ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ), which in turn is consistently associated with openness-to-change values ( Roccas et al., 2002 ; Fischer and Boer, 2015 ; Parks-Leduc et al., 2015 ).

In addition, we assume to find roughly the same variability in situation experiences as found in previous studies (i.e., 70%; Sherman et al., 2015 ). To test our assumptions, we conducted a study using the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM) to examine relations between values and situation characteristics in everyday life.

Materials and Methods

Participants and procedure.

The study consists of two samples. The first sample consisted of 154 US-American participants (87 women, M age = 36.1 years) who were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants received $3 for their participation. The second sample consisted of 84 German undergraduate students (52 women, M age = 22.9 years) who were recruited at Ulm University and received 2€ (approximately $2.50) as compensation. Overall, we analyzed the data of 238 participants (139 women, M age = 29.5 years) to investigate the relation between basic human values and situation characteristics in everyday life. Data was collected online using the survey software Unipark. Participants first answered several questionnaires including basic human values and subjective well-being and were then asked to recall their activities and contacts on their last working day. In a last step they answered structured questions about the activities on their last working day. The American sample received English versions of the questionnaires, and the German sample German versions. Data collection was part of a bigger project; therefore, we only report the measures relevant for this article.

Instruments

Basic human values.

The importance participants attributed to each of the 10 values as guiding principles in their life was measured using the Portrait Values questionnaire (PVQ; Schwartz et al., 2001 ). In Sample 1 a short version with 21 items ( Schwartz et al., 2001 ) and in Sample 2 a long version with 57 items was used ( Schwartz et al., 2012 ). Each item consists of a description of a person (“portrait”) and respondents rate how similar they see themselves to the portrayed target person on a scale ranging from ( 1) very dissimilar to (7) very similar (in Sample 2 the scale ranged from ( 1) very dissimilar to (6) very similar ). A self-direction sample item reads “Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. He likes to do things in his own original way.” In Sample 1, alpha reliabilities of the PVQ indexes ranged from Cronbach’s alpha = 0.43 (tradition) to 0.77 (stimulation). Considering that the PVQ-21 scale only consisted of two items per scale (3 items for universalism), the internal consistencies are satisfying. In Sample 2, alpha reliabilities of the PVQ indexes ranged from Cronbach’s alpha = 0.57 (hedonism) to 0.87 (benevolence). For the reported statistical analyses, we computed ipsative value scores as recommended by Schwartz (1992) . Ipsative scores represent the relative importance of one value compared to the other values instead of the absolute importance.

The Day Reconstruction Method

The original DRM-material ( Kahneman et al., 2004 ) consists of three sub-sets; we used the original Set 2 and a revised form of Set 1 and Set 3 in our study. First, participants were presented with the PVQ (i.e., Set 1 ). Then, in Set 2 , participants were instructed to complete a diary referring to their last working day. Usually the last working day was also the previous day, however, some MTurk workers participated on a Monday, therefore we especially instructed them to think about their last working day. Participants were asked to write down their day by structuring it in chronological episodes. Like in the original DRM instructions, we instructed people to think about their day as if they were watching a movie and so each “movie scene” could be an episode. Participants were told that there is no predefined frame of what constitutes an episode, rather the beginning and end of an episode could be connoted by a change in location, a change in interaction partners or change in activities. After reading the instructions, participants were presented with a maximum of 30 open text items (10 for the morning, 10 for midday, 10 for the evening). It was not possible to enter the notes for the evening episodes before the notes of the morning episode to ensure that participants reported in a chronological order. For each episode, participants indicate the duration and made personal notes. They were informed that the notes were completely private and that the researchers would not read or analyze their personal notes. The notes were only presented to them in Set 3 to support their recall process. Finally, in Set 3 , participants answered structured questions about each episode. For each episode they selected what they were doing (14 categories, e.g., commuting) and who they had contact with (7 categories, e.g., spouse), multiple responses were possible. In addition, participants reported their affect during each episode and the situation characteristics of each episode. Finally, participants rated their day as a whole on a scale from (1) terrible to (9) wonderful . In total, the 238 participants reported 2936 episodes (Sample 1: 1899, Sample 2: 1037). That is on average 12 reports per participant.

The 8 DIAMONDS

In Sample 1, situation characteristics were measured using the S-8 ( Rauthmann and Sherman, 2016 ). The S-8 captures the 8 DIAMONDS with one item per dimension. A Duty sample item reads “Does work need to been done?” Participants were asked to rate how characteristic the items were for the situation they had just reported on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) extremely uncharacteristic to (7) extremely characteristic of this situation . In Sample 2, we used the RSQ-32 inventory ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ), which includes four items per dimension. Responses were given on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from (1) extremely uncharacteristic to (9) extremely characteristic of this situation .

In both samples and in line with previous findings ( Schwartz and Bardi, 2001 ), benevolence and self-direction were the values attributed with the most importance; tradition and power were the values attributed with the least importance. Additionally, in both samples, mean situation experience was also remarkably similar. Throughout the day, situations high in positivity were most common, followed by situations high in duty and sociality, while experiencing situations high in adversity and deception was relatively rare. These results are in line with previous findings about the 8 DIAMONDS using the ESM ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ; Sherman et al., 2015 ), and indicate that people were on average able to reconstruct their memories successfully. Descriptive data is displayed in Table 1 .

TABLE 1. Mean, standard deviation and variance observed in the 8 DIAMONDS.

Preliminary Analysis

To obtain a first understanding of the relation between values and situation characteristics in daily life, we conducted Pearson’s correlations between values and situation characteristics. All correlations are displayed in Tables 2 , 3 .

TABLE 2. Correlations of the 10 types of values.

TABLE 3. Correlations of the 8 DIAMONDS with the 10 types of values.

Relations Between Values

Overall, in both samples the relations are in line with the model’s assumptions, that is adjunctive values are positively related while opposing values are negatively correlated with each other. However, there were some unusual relations. In Sample 1, tradition was not significantly related to security. Also self-direction was negatively related to hedonism and not significantly related to stimulation in Sample 1. In Sample 2, conformity was negatively related to opposing values (i.e., self-direction and stimulation), however, it was not significantly related to adjunctive values (i.e., tradition and security).

Relations Between Values and Situation Characteristics

In Sample 1, universalism as well as benevolence were significantly negatively related to adversity, negativity and deception. Universalism was also marginally significant negatively related to mating, while benevolence was negatively related to intellect and marginally significant positively to sociality. Conformity and tradition were positively related to adversity and negativity. Conformity was also positively related to deception, while tradition was negatively related to intellect and marginally significant positively with mating. Security showed the opposite pattern, that is, it was negatively related to all situation characteristics, expect for positivity and sociality (none significant relations). Power was positively related to adversity, negativity and deception. Achievement was only positively related to deception. No significant relation between hedonism and any of the 8 DIAMONDS emerged. Stimulation was only positively related to adversity. Self-direction was negatively related to all DIAMONDS, except for duty and positivity (none significant relations). In Sample 2, only a few significant associations emerged. Benevolence was negatively related to deception. Conformity was negatively related adversity and mating. Tradition was positively related to all DIAMONDS, except for intellect and positivity (none significant relations). Power was significantly positively related to deception. Hedonism was significantly negatively related to intellect. No significant relations emerged for universalism, security, achievement, stimulation and self-direction. In sum, the pattern differs immensely between the samples. Possible explanations and implications are discussed in the general discussion.

Main Analysis

In both samples episodes were nested within participants, therefore all following analyses used multilevel modeling with participants as nested factors. First, we estimated unconditional cell mean models for each situation characteristic to analyze how much variability in the experience of situation characteristics was between versus within participants. The variance components, intraclass correlations (ICC), intercepts and number of observation for each analysis are displayed in Table 4 . All situation characteristics displayed sizeable between person variance (Sample 1: τ 00 , M = 1.24, SD = 0.26; Sample 2: τ 00 , M = 1.04, SD = 0.18), but even larger within person variance (Sample 1: σ, M = 2.58, SD = 1.9, Sample 2 σ, M = 2.83, SD = 1.46). The ICCs ranged from 0.14 to 0.85 ( M = 0.42) in Sample 1 and from 0.14 to 0.51 in Sample 2 ( M = 0.31). Compared to studies using the ESM ( Sherman et al., 2015 ), the resulting ICCs for adversity, negativity and deception differed greatly indicating that for those situation characteristics differences in experience were mainly explained by individual differences instead of differences between the reported episode. For all other situation characteristics most variance was due to differences between episodes.

TABLE 4. Variance components, intraclass correlations (ICC), intercepts and number of observation.

Next, we used values as predictors of situation experience by estimating “means-as-outcomes” regression models ( Cohen et al., 2003 ). That means, we predicted each DIAMONDS score with the value hypothesized to be associated with. Our analytic approach is based on the analyses by Sherman et al. (2015) . The results for each model are displayed in Table 5 (Sample 1) and Table 6 (Sample 2). The indices of fit for the models are also reported in the Tables 5 , 6 . The marginal R (R m ) can be interpreted as the model fit for only the fixed effects, while the conditional R (R c ) can be interpreted as the overall fit of the model ( Nakagawa and Schielzeth, 2013 ). We give one detailed example, i.e., predicting the experience of intellect from the value benevolence in Sample 1. The fixed average experienced intercept for intellect was 2.65 with a standard deviation of 1.08, indicating that although the experienced intellect was on average rather low, there were large individual differences in the amount of intellect experienced with a slope of -0.20, which was statistically significant ( p ≤ 0.05). This means for every one-point increase in the importance attributed to benevolence, we would expect a 0.20 decrease in the average level of experienced intellect.

TABLE 5. Means-as-outcomes regression models in Sample 1.

TABLE 6. Means-as-outcomes regression models in Sample 2.

Benevolence and self-direction predicted a significant decrease in experienced intellect, while conformity and tradition predicted a significant increase in experienced intellect. Power, conformity, tradition and stimulation predicted a significant increase in experienced adversity, while benevolence, universalism, security and self-direction predicted a significant decrease in experienced adversity. Achievement and conformity predicted a significant increase in experienced deception, while self-transcendence, security, and self-direction predicted a significant decrease in experienced deception. Benevolence predicted a significant increase in experienced sociality, while self-direction predicted a significant decrease in experienced sociality. Controlling for age and gender, we found that gender was a significant predictor of duty, i.e., women experienced more duty. Age predicted a significant decrease in adversity and deception.

Power and tradition predicted a significant increase in experienced adversity. Self-direction predicted a significant increase in experienced positivity. Tradition predicted a significant increase in experienced deception. There was no influence of age or gender.

The results concerning relation between values and intellect reveal a reversed pattern than hypothesized. The results for adversity and deception are at least partly in line with our assumptions. While the relation between the self-enhancement-self-transcendence dimension was clear and mostly as expected, the relation between the openness-to-change-conservation dimension was more inconclusive. Namely, not all values belonging to same higher dimension showed the same relation, which is contrary to the assumed compatibilities in the circumplex model. Overall the pattern of results suggests that in both samples individual differences in values are at least to some extent associated with differences in situation experiences in everyday life. However, unfortunately the results did not replicate and therefore, no clear pattern emerged. Possible reasons and implications for these findings are further discussed in the general discussion section.

The investigation of human values and their relation to behavior has been an on-going topic in psychology ( Roccas and Sagiv, 2010 ). Values are supposed to serve as guidelines in peoples’ life ( Schwartz, 1992 ), and thus it seems naturally that they should strongly relate to peoples’ behavior. However, up to date, the link between values and actual behavior, i.e., not self-reported behavior, is weak or even non-existed ( Fischer, 2017 ). There have been several attempts to explain this missing link. For example, some researchers assumed that in order for values to influence behavior they need to be activated ( Maio, 2010 ; Sagiv et al., 2011 ). Others researchers have argued that values are too abstract to actually determine one single behavior or even that behavior cannot actually be assigned to a specific value because there might be different understandings of which behavior actually represents a value depending on social or cultural backgrounds (i.e., value instantiations; Hanel et al., 2017 ). Goal of the present work was to contribute to the value-behavior link discussion by providing a novel approach, i.e., measuring subjective situation experiences, i.e., the situational 8 DIAMONDS, to better understand situational factors that may influence the value-behavior link. Even so, we did not investigate any kind of behavior, we will first discuss the present results, the limitation of the studies and then there potential meaning for the value-behavior link.

First, we reported the relations between values and subjective situation experiences. Overall, the pattern of correlations between samples was quite different. We found many relations in Sample 1, unfortunately there were only few relations in Sample 2. While self-transcendence values were negatively related to all negative situation characteristics (i.e., deception, adversity and negativity) in Sample 1, in Sample 2 only benevolence was negatively related to deception. Power was in both samples related to adversity and deception, but there emerged no clear pattern for achievement. In Sample 1, security was strongly negatively related to almost all situation characteristics, while tradition and conformity only showed moderate relations and in the opposite direction. Interestingly, the conflicting value self-direction also was negatively related to almost all situation characteristics. Due to the circumplex model, we assumed that opposing values would show opposite relations with the same characteristic resulting in a sinusoid curve ( Schwartz, 1992 ). However, the results might indicate that maybe conflicting values shift or shape peoples’ perception in the same way. As a consequence, this similar perception might result in different pattern of emotional and behavioral outcomes. For example, both valuing security and self-direction was associated with lower experience of situations high in intellect. Experiencing that a situation is low in intellect might active an individual high in self-direction to leave the situation or evoke negative feelings and emotions. Contrary, experiencing that a situation is low in intellect might active an individual high in security to stay in the situation or evoke positive feelings. However, the conflicting values benevolence and power did show opposing relations with the same situation characteristics. Therefore, the results provide neither strong evidence for the typical sinusoid curve nor for the idea that opposing values might shift perception in a similar way.

Interestingly, duty, positivity and sociality did not show any strong relations with values. One possible explanation could be that situation characteristics captured with the 8 DIAMONDS differ in their objectivity. The results by Rauthmann et al. (2014) showed that adversity and deception had the lowest interrater reliability. This could indicate that some DIAMONDS leave more room for interpretation that is subjective experience due to individual differences than others. In an ambiguous situation individual differences might influence the perception of potential threats more than the perception of having a task to attend to. However, in that case it would be surprising that positivity is not related to values as it also relates to more subjective experience. Other measurements have been developed and future research should examine if using the other instruments, which capture situation characteristics with only adjective might be better suited (overview: Horstmann et al., 2017 ). Overall, the correlations pattern differed immensely and should be treated with caution.

Considering the results concerning the ICCs, they show that individual differences especially influence the experience of negatively connoted situation experiences, i.e., most variance in the experienced adversity, deception and negativity was due to individual factors and not due to specific situational aspects. This could indicate that values do indeed transcend specific situation in daily life and are a lens through which people see and interpret their surroundings. In Sample 1, our results show that benevolence predicts less aversive and deceptive situation experience in daily life, while the opposing pattern emerged for power as a predictor. Unfortunately, this pattern could not be replicated in Sample 2.

From a psychological perspective, the relation between subjective situation experiences and values might be more interesting than the relation to actual activities or contacts. The findings suggest that values are not necessarily used to evaluate a specific action or situation; rather they may refer to a proneness to see situations in certain way. If this is the case our findings could be used to predict how people with different values will experience identical situations, i.e., situations which are standardized. For example, to investigate cooperative behavior researchers often rely on decision-making in economic games like the prisoner’s dilemma or the trust game (e.g., Camerer, 2011 ). The games do have objective differences (e.g., number of players, information certainty), however, if values do shape the perception of situations, including those standardized scenarios, we would expect that subjective experiences of different games are more similar for one individual compared to the experiences of another. For example, an individual valuing power might be prone to experience most economic games as deceptive situations compared to people valuing benevolence. The differences in situation experience may also serve as a mediator between values and behavior.

Although, considering prior research ( Sherman et al., 2015 ) the variance due to individual differences in our samples was much higher. One possible explanation could be methodical differences between DRM and ESM. While ESM uses momentary assessment to capture brief events, the DRM uses a memory technique to recall all the events on a typical day. Even so, due to the specific technique recall biases and memory distortions are reduced, they cannot be completely excluded. Some studies show that in general negative events are easier to recall ( Porter et al., 2010 ), and that the recall is also associated with personality traits ( Martin et al., 1983 ). Moreover, using ESM can lead to overestimated brief events and distortions due to sample bias ( Kahneman et al., 2004 ). Think about the situation teaching a class, using ESM participants might never report this episode as they will probably not stop teaching in order to fill out a questionnaire. Using DRM participants will probably report this episode as part of the day. These methodical differences provide some explanation for the differences between our findings and previous findings ( Sherman et al., 2015 ). Both methods have their strengths and depending on the research question one or the other might be more useful.

Another point worth of discussing, is that, values belonging to the same higher dimension did not always relate to situation experience in similar manner. Although, that might seem surprising, one should keep in mind that even if values are compatible and belong to the same higher dimension, they do represent distinct motivational goals. Power and achievement are both self-enhancement values, but only power is related to experiencing adversity, i.e., threats and conflict. In general, people assume that others have a similar motivation than themselves ( Ockenfels and Raub, 2010 ). Thus, one explanation could be that people who value power often (unconsciously) assume that others want to challenge their dominate role, which in turn leads to a perceived threat.

Furthermore, some values which are supposed to be compatible (i.e., security, tradition, and conformity) showed relations to the 8 DIAMONDS in the opposite direction. The findings contradict the assumption of the circumplex value model. Situation selection in everyday life could be an explanation for the contradictive results. Especially, security often showed a different pattern than conformity and tradition. Security refers to valuing the status quo and a safe surrounding; therefore, it seems plausible that people valuing security experienced less negative and aversive situations. It is opposed to their underlying motivational goal to put themselves in situations which might entail threats. On the other hand, valuing conformity and tradition implies being obedient to socially imposed expectations. Thus, people may find themselves in situations which are unpleasant, however, due to social expectations they stay in the situation. Past studies have already shown that individual differences (i.e., personality traits and personal values) are linked to the exposure of objective life events ( Magnus et al., 1993 ; Paunonen, 2003 ; Sortheix et al., 2013 ). Therefore, it seems to be more likely that individual differences might also represent a proneness to experience certain situations characteristics but not determining them.

Contrary to our hypothesis, no value was correlated or predicted the experience of duty. Moreover, additional analyses revealed that in Sample 1 gender, but not age, predicted experienced duty, that is women reported more situations high in duty than men. Considering the sample, it could be that with certain life events (e.g., full-time working, having children) more situations high in duty become part of a daily routine. Another explanation could be that all of our participants reported a week day, which might be determined by situations or tasks which cannot be actively chosen. Maybe value relations to duty, but also to the other situation characteristics may be enhanced or even be opposed to our findings during the weekend, i.e., during times in which people can actively shape their day. Opposed to our assumptions, we further found that self-direction was negatively and tradition positively related to experienced intellect. Again, we believe that the pattern might change during the weekend. People valuing self-direction may not experience intellect during daily routine, while people valuing tradition may even experience daily routine as stimulating and intellectual challenging. Our assumptions were mainly based on the theoretical idea that people are consciously or unconsciously seeking out situations which fit their values. Research in the work context supports this idea, showing that values influence amongst others career choices ( Sagiv and Schwartz, 2004 ). However, we did not find that for example people valuing stimulation also experience more stimulating situations. It seems worthwhile to investigate the relation between values and situation selection over a couple of days in future research.

Limitations

As mentioned above, participants may consciously or unconsciously seek out different situations, e.g., situations which enable them to fulfill their goals or act in accordance with their goals. Situation selection ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ) implies that people actually experience different situations. Unfortunately, our data does not allow drawing any conclusions about active situation selection. Participants only reported which situations they encounter, but we do not know if they actually put themselves into the situation. Furthermore, our data does not allow drawing any conclusion about how people actually perceive the identical situation, i.e., a standardized situation in which the same cues are present. One major limitation is that we cannot draw any conclusions about situation selection and situation construal in daily life.

Furthermore, we have no behavioral data in daily life. However, we believe that our data provides some initial evidence and can inspire future research. For example, one could easily extend the DRM to capture self-reported behavior but also it would be possible to add some items to ask about active situation selection. In addition, comparing in situ and ex situ ratings of the situation descriptions given in the DRM could provide some clue about the relation between values and situation construal.

However, considering the recent problems concerning the replicability of psychological findings the major limitation is that we could not replicate our findings in the second sample. We chose our samples for theoretical and practical reasons (i.e., availability of a student sample). On a theoretical level to investigate how values relate to situation experiences in daily life, it seemed useful to have samples which differed in several aspects (e.g., nationality, profession, and age) to potentially obtain more generalizable findings. One reason could be that not only did the samples differ in their demographics, but also we used different instruments to measure values and situation characteristics in both samples. Maybe, the results would have been more similar if the studies had not differed on all three aspects. We chose our samples for theoretical and practical reasons (i.e., availability of a student sample). On a theoretical level to investigate how values relate to situation experiences in daily life, it seemed useful to have samples which differed in several aspects (e.g., nationality, profession, and age). Even so, if a real effect exists and the instruments are valid, the differences in results between the samples should not have been so pronounced. Furthermore, both samples are quite small, which probably entails a low power, and thus in order to find an effect it would need to be large effect. Given the very broad conceptualization of both values and situation characteristics, it seems more realistic to assume a small effect. Additionally, we conducted multiple testing which – without corrections – might lead to an inflation of the alpha error. Thus, the present results should be taken with caution and be seen as some initial evidence that points in the direction of values being related to subjective situation experience. A lot of further research is needed to make any strong or reliable statements.

Implications for the Value-Behavior Link

Previous research has shown that individual differences in situation perception also transfer to differences in behavior ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ). However, as we have no real behavioral data in our study, we cannot affirm this assumption for our data. In the future to better understand and maybe to bridge the value-behavior gap, it might be worth to examine the relation between value consistent behavior and situation selection. Situation selection could have similar effects as value activation on value consistent behavior. People who consciously or unconsciously put themselves in competitive situations might activate self-enhancement values. At the same time self-enhancement values might become more important because people want to appear consistent and therefore infer from their behavior to their values ( Fischer, 2017 ).

Moreover, the novel taxonomies to measure situation perception can also be used to examine the relations between values and behavior in a standardized given situation, that is in an objective identical situation. There are several possibilities through which in an identical situation experienced situation characteristic might mediate the relation between values and behavior. For example, differences in behavior might emerge due to differences in the experience of the same characteristics. In a social dilemma situation, the subjective experience of deception might influence the willingness to behave on a prosocial manner. However, it is also possible that people behave in the same way due to different situation experiences. In a social dilemma, some people might act prosocial because they experience low adversity and are therefore not afraid to be exploited. Others might act prosocial because they experience high duty, and thus they feel it is their task to contribute. Motivation, which includes values, relates to decisions (conscious or unconscious) that involve how, when, and why people engage in behavior ( Pinder, 1998 ). Overall, we believe that focusing more on subjective situation experiences due to values, could provide novel understandings of when and why allocate effort to a task or activity.

Since 2014, five different instruments to capture situation characteristics have been published ( Horstmann et al., 2017 ). This development shows, that currently subjective situation experiences is a continuously developing field and provides novel insight to understand peoples’ behavior. We believe that it is worth to examine and understand the precise aspects in situations which may activate or prevent value-consistent behavior.

In conclusion, we believe that situation characteristics are a useful tool to understand and measure external factors that influence the value-behavior link. Our work provides some initial evidence that behavior is a function of situation and person, and thus that in order to close the gap between values and behavior, a better understanding of this interaction is necessary. Therefore, to understand why people act or do not act in accordance with their values, we first need to obtain a better understanding of the situation they experience.

Ethics Statement

The study was conducted in full accordance with the Ethical Guidelines of the German Association of Psychologists (DGPs) and the American Psychological Association (APA). No personal information was assessed; participants remained completely and were not identified in any regard during the study process. Moreover, by the time the data were acquired in July 2016, it was also not customary at Ulm University, nor at most other German universities, to seek ethics approval for simple, non-invasive field studies.

Author Contributions

RK and JK conceived of the presented idea, and carried out the experiment. RK performed the computations. JK verified the analytical methods. RK wrote the manuscript with support from JK.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank Stefan Pfattheicher for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Bardi, A., and Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: strength and structure of relations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 1207–1220. doi: 10.1177/0146167203254602

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Benet-Martínez, V., Donnellan, M. B., Fleeson, W., Fraley, R. C., Gosling, D., Ling, L. A., et al. (2015). “Six visions for the future of personality psychology,” in Handbook of Personality Processes and Individual Differences , eds M. L. Cooper and R. J. Larsen (Washington, DC: APA Press).

Google Scholar

Biber, P., Hupfeld, J., and Meier, L. L. (2008). Personal values and relational models. Eur. J. Pers. 22, 609–628. doi: 10.1002/per.693

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brewer, M. B., and Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 543–549. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543

Brown, N. A., and Rauthmann, J. F. (2016). Situation characteristics are age graded: mean-level patterns of the situational eight diamonds across the life span. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 7, 667–679. doi: 10.1177/1948550616652207

Camerer, C. F. (2011). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., and Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 3rd Edn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crick, N. R., and Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychol. Bull. 115, 74–101. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74

De Cremer, D., and Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Cooperation in social dilemmas and the need to belong: the moderating effect of group size. Group Dyn. 7, 168–174. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.168

Dollinger, S. J., Burke, P. A., and Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creat. Res. J. 19, 91–103. doi: 10.1080/10400410701395028

Fischer, R. (2017). “From values to behavior and from behavior to values,” in Values and Behavior , eds S. Roccas and L. Sagiv (Berlin: Springer),175–190.

Fischer, R., and Boer, D. (2015). Motivational basis of personality traits: a meta-analysis of value-personality correlations. J. Pers. 83, 491–510. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12125

Guillaume, E., Baranski, E., Todd, E., Bastian, B., Bronin, I., Ivanova, C., et al. (2016). The world at 7:00: comparing the experience of situations across 20 countries. J. Pers. 84, 493–509. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12176

Hanel, P. H., Vione, K. C., Hahn, U., and Maio, G. R. (2017). “Value instantiations: the missing link between values and behavior?,” in Values and Behavior , eds S. Roccas and L. Sagiv (Berlin: Springer), 175–190.

Hogan, R. (2009). Much ado about nothing: the person–situation debate. J. Res. Pers. 43, 249. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.022

Horstmann, K. T., Rauthmann, J. F., and Sherman, R. A. (2017). “The measurement of situational influences,” in The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences , eds V. Ziegler-Hill and T. K. Shackelford (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Hunt, M. F. Jr., and Miller, G. R. (1968). Open- and closed-mindedness, belief-discrepant communication behavior, and tolerance for cognitive inconsistency. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 8, 35–37. doi: 10.1037/h0021238

Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., and Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science 306, 1776–1780. doi: 10.1126/science.1103572

Kasof, J., Chen, C., Himsel, A., and Greenberger, E. (2007). Values and creativity. Creat. Res. J. 19, 105–122. doi: 10.1080/10400410701397164

Kelly, G. (2003). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Volume Two: Clinical Diagnosis and Psychotherapy. London: Routledge.

Kocjan, G. Z., and Avsec, A. (2017). Bringing the psychology of situations into flow research: personality and situation characteristics as predictors of flow. Psychol. Top. 26, 195–210.

Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: concepts and methods. Am. J. Sociol. 44, 868–896. doi: 10.1086/218177

Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., and Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: a longitudinal analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65, 1046. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1046

Maio, G. R. (2010). Mental representations of social values. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42, 1–43. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42001-8

Martin, M., Ward, J. C., and Clark, D. M. (1983). Neuroticism and the recall of positive and negative personality information. Behav. Res. Ther. 21, 495–503. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(83)90041-4

Moos, R. H. (1973). Conceptualizations of human environments. Am. Psychol. 28, 652–665. doi: 10.1037/h0035722

Nakagawa, S., and Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x

Ockenfels, A., and Raub, W. (2010). Rational und fair. Kölner Zeitschrift Soziologie Sozialpsychologie 50, 119–136.

Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., and Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: a meta-analysis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 19, 3–29. doi: 10.1177/1088868314538548

Paunonen, S. V. (2003). Big five factors of personality and replicated predictions of behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 411–424. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.411

Pinder, C. C. (1998). Motivation in Work Organizations. Washingnton, DC: Brooks.

Porter, S., Bellhouse, S., McDougall, A., ten Brinke, L., and Wilson, K. (2010). A prospective investigation of the vulnerability of memory for positive and negative emotional scenes to the misinformation effect. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 42, 55–61. doi: 10.1037/a0016652

Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., et al. (2014). The situational eight diamonds: a taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 677–718. doi: 10.1037/a0037250

Rauthmann, J. F., and Sherman, R. A. (2016). Ultra-brief measures for the situational eight diamonds domains. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 32, 165–174. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000245

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., and Funder, D. C. (2015a). Principles of situation research: towards a better understanding of psychological situations. Eur. J. Pers. 29, 363–381.

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., and Funder, D. C. (2015b). Personality-driven situation experience, contact, and construal: how people’s personality traits predict characteristics of their situations in daily life. J. Res. Pers. 55, 98–111.

Roccas, S., and Sagiv, L. (2010). Personal values and behavior: taking the cultural context into account. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4, 30–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00234.x

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., and Knafo, A. (2002). The big five personality factors and personal values. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, 789–801. doi: 10.1177/0146167202289008

Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY: Free press.

Sagiv, L., and Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Values, intelligence and client behavior in career counseling: a field study. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 19, 237–254. doi: 10.1007/BF03173222

Sagiv, L., Sverdlik, N., and Schwarz, N. (2011). To compete or to cooperate? Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41, 64–77.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25, 1–65. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

Schwartz, S. H., and Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: taking a similarities perspective. J. Cross Cultur. Psychol. 32, 268–290. doi: 10.1177/0022022101032003002

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 663. doi: 10.1037/a0029393

Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., and Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. J. Cross Cultur. Psychol. 32, 519–542. doi: 10.1177/0022022101032005001

Schwartz, S. H., and Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 1010–1028. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010

Serfass, D. G., and Sherman, R. A. (2015). Situations in 140 characters: assessing real-world situations on Twitter. PLoS One 10:e0143051. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143051

Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., and Funder, D. C. (2013). Situational construal is related to personality and gender. J. Res. Pers. 47, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.008

Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J. F., Brown, N. A., Serfass, D. G., and Jones, A. B. (2015). The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 872–888. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000036

Sortheix, F. M., Olakivi, A., and Helkama, K. (2013). Values, life events, and health: a study in a finnish rural community. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23, 331–346. doi: 10.1002/casp.2125

Tazelaar, M. J., Van Lange, P. A., and Ouwerkerk, J. W. (2004). How to cope with “noise” in social dilemmas: the benefits of communication. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87, 845–859. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.845

Todd, E., and Funder, D. C. (2012). Personality correlates of unique perceptions of brief film situations. in Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology , San Diego, CA.

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683

Van Heck, G. L., Perugini, M., Caprara, G. V., and Fröger, J. (1994). The big five as tendencies in situations. Pers. Individ. Differ. 16, 715–731. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(94)90213-5

Verplanken, B., and Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. J. pers. soc. psychol. 82, 434–447. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.434

Wagerman, S. A., and Funder, D. C. (2009). “Personality psychology of situations,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology , eds P. J. Corr and G. Matthews (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 27–42.

Wit, A. P., and Kerr, N. L. (2002). ”Me versus just us versus us all” categorization and cooperation in nested social dilemmas. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 616–637. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.616

Keywords : human values, situation perception, 8 DIAMONDS, day reconstruction method, daily life

Citation: Kesberg R and Keller J (2018) The Relation Between Human Values and Perceived Situation Characteristics in Everyday Life. Front. Psychol. 9:1676. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01676

Received: 21 February 2018; Accepted: 20 August 2018; Published: 13 September 2018.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2018 Kesberg and Keller. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Rebekka Kesberg, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The keys to happiness: Associations between personal values regarding core life domains and happiness in South Korea

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Sociology, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

• Min-Ah Lee, 
• Ichiro Kawachi

• Published: January 9, 2019
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209821
• Reader Comments

Personal values refer to the beliefs, principles or ideas that are important to people’s lives. We investigated the associations between personal values and happiness. We inquired about the importance of four different categories of personal values: prioritizing social relationships, extrinsic achievements, physical health, and spirituality. Data were drawn from the Korean General Social Survey (KGSS), a nationally representative cross-sectional sample collected over three years (i.e., 2007, 2008, and 2009). The findings showed that respondents prioritizing religion (i.e., spirituality) were the most likely to be happy, followed by those prioritizing social relationships, including family, friends, and neighbors. Those who prioritized extrinsic achievements (money, power, educational attainment, work, and leisure) as well as health were least likely to be happy. The findings suggest that pursuing goals focused on self-enhancement or self-centered value are less likely to result in happiness compared to pursuing alter-centered collective goals or self-transcendence/selflessness.

Citation: Lee M-A, Kawachi I (2019) The keys to happiness: Associations between personal values regarding core life domains and happiness in South Korea. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0209821. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209821

Editor: Shang E. Ha, Sogang University (South Korea), REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Received: August 21, 2018; Accepted: December 12, 2018; Published: January 9, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Lee, Kawachi. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data are third party and are available from the Korean Social Science Data Archive (KOSSDA) database ( http://www.kossda.or.kr/ ).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

A growing literature has addressed the science of happiness, or subjective well-being (SWB). Although material well-being is a critical ingredient of human well-being, it has also been recognized that an increase in material well-being beyond a certain threshold (i.e. once basic wants have been satisfied) does not guarantee further increases in happiness [ 1 – 2 ] (although this point has also been debated [ 3 ]). This has influenced many scholars to seek other factors that determine subjective well-being [ 4 – 5 ].

In this context, a considerable number of studies have examined personal values, goals, or aspirations as important factors associated with subjective well-being [ 5 – 7 ]. Personal values may affect individuals’ daily lives as well as major decisions regarding their lives and futures, shaping their life trajectories, social relationships, and subjective well-being in the long run. For example, it is well known that holding intrinsic values, such as personal growth and affiliation, is positively associated with happiness, in contrast to holding extrinsic values, such as economic success and popularity [ 5 , 8 ]. These studies clearly suggest that happiness is influenced by the personal values people hold in various life domains.

However, with the limitations of previous studies, questions remain regarding the association of personal values with subjective well-being. Although it is meaningful that previous studies have captured the relative propensity of individuals by using composite measures of personal values and goals [ 5 , 8 ], less is known about whether and how personal values attached to specific life domains are associated with happiness. For example, are people who prioritize family happier than those who prioritize money? Is valuing religion more strongly associated with happiness than family? These questions motivated the current study to directly investigate how prioritizing specific life domains relates to happiness.

Recent studies have shown that prioritizing time more highly than money is positively associated with happiness [ 9 – 10 ]. Individuals may choose to allocate more of their time to making money, but often do so at the expense of neglecting social relationships (spending time with family, friends, and the community). The millionaire rapper and songwriter Sean “Diddy” Combs recently said in an interview that “I can always make more money, but I can’t make time”, which expresses the ideas that (a) investing in relationships does not cost money, but (b) making more money is often traded off against other uses of time. It has been discussed that prioritizing time over money is beneficial for happiness because it can improve the quality of social relationships [ 9 – 10 ]. Although a recent study has shown that prioritizing family over work and leisure results in higher life satisfaction [ 11 ], most studies have compared a limited number of contrasting domains (i.e., time vs money, family vs. work), but not included diverse life domains together. Valuing specific life domains, such as family, power, money, or religion, not only indicates personal values and attitudes toward life, but also affects individual behaviors and decision making.

Furthermore, most studies regarding personal values and happiness have been conducted in Western societies, with a few exceptions [ 8 , 12 ], and have analyzed non-representative samples, such as convenience samples or samples of specific groups, such as college students [ 4 , 8 , 13 ]. It is therefore worth investigating these relationships using a representative sample in a non-Western societal setting such as South Korea. Korean society is traditionally founded on strong family-oriented values derived from Confucianism, although this has been weakening over the last several decades. In addition, religious influence on individual life might be stronger than other East Asian countries, although relatively weaker compared to other Western countries. As of 2015, it is reported that about 43.9% of Koreans have a religion. Among those who have a religion, 35.4% are Buddhists and 62.9% are Christians [ 14 ]. Among the total population, 15.5% are Buddhists while 27.7% are Christians [ 14 ]. This suggests that South Korea has a unique socio-cultural context in relation to Christianity and traditional values, which distinguishes it from other East Asian countries. For example, it is reported that only 1.5% of Japanese population are Christians as of 2012 [ 15 ]. South Korean society is therefore somewhat unique in the East Asian region for simultaneously maintaining Confucian family-oriented values together with Christianity.

In the current study we sought to investigate the effects of one’s personal values regarding core life domains on happiness. We used the Korean General Social Survey (KGSS) of a nationally representative sample, collected over three years (i.e., 2007, 2008, and 2009), which asked respondents to indicate their most valued life domain among the 10 presented, such as family and money, and to rate their happiness. We classified the personal values into four categories: prioritizing social relationships, extrinsic achievements, physical self, and spirituality. We begin with a literature review on the human value system and associations between personal values and subjective well-being.

Literature review

The structure and content of human values.

Exploring the human value system can increase understanding of the content of personal values embedded in the system, which can be used to classify diverse life domains into common categories based on the nature of those human values. Schwartz [ 16 – 17 ] provided a two-dimensional circumplex model explaining the structure and content of human values. According to Schwartz [ 16 – 17 ], 10 types of values differentiated by motivational goals can be classified into four value dimensions: self-transcendence; self-enhancement; openness to change; conservation. Each type of value may conflict with other values if it is located in the opposite direction of the value dimension [ 16 – 17 ]. For example, self-transcendence, including universalism and benevolence, is opposite to self-enhancement, including achievement and power, while openness to change is opposite to conservation [ 17 ].

The contrast between self-enhancement and self-transcendence can be likened to the contrast between extrinsic and intrinsic values, although they are not synonymous. Intrinsic and extrinsic values are well-known descriptions of the content of human values and have been used to examine their associations with subjective well-being [ 12 , 18 ]. Intrinsic values include personal growth, affiliation, community feeling, and physical health, whereas extrinsic values include financial success, image, and popularity, directed mainly toward external rewards [ 5 ]. In contrast to extrinsic values, intrinsic values are more related to psychological needs and fulfillment.

A few studies have explored and provided modified classifications of personal values based on early studies [ 4 – 5 , 16 – 17 ]. Burroughs and Rindfleisch [ 19 ] conceptualized materialism as a self-centered value that is opposed to collective-oriented values like family, community ties, and religious fulfillment. Based on the studies of Schwartz [ 16 – 17 ], materialism, achievement, hedonism, and power can be categorized into the dimension of self-enhancement, whereas religiosity can be categorized as self-transcendence [ 19 ]. Grouzet et al. [ 20 ] provided a modified two-dimensional value structure considering that some specific values can be neither intrinsic nor extrinsic. For example, spirituality is not classified as intrinsic or extrinsic value. Spirituality is included in self-transcendence, in the opposite direction of physical self (i.e., hedonism) [ 20 ].

Associations between personal values and happiness

Numerous studies have contrasted intrinsic and extrinsic values in terms of their associations with happiness. It has been widely observed that extrinsic values are negatively associated with happiness in Western as well as non-Western societies [ 8 , 18 ]. In contrast with intrinsic goals like self-acceptance, extrinsic values of economic success, popularity, and image are adversely associated with happiness in Peru [ 8 ], China [ 12 ], South Korea [ 13 ], and Japan [ 21 ], as well as in Western societies, such as Germany and the United States [ 18 ]. A specific indicator of extrinsic values, viz. materialism, is also adversely associated with overall subjective well-being [ 6 – 7 ], satisfaction with life in family [ 22 ], and work [ 23 ] and positively correlated with depression and anxiety [ 19 ].

A few studies have investigated more diverse or specific personal values. Compared with materialism, which is a self-centered value and similar to the dimension of self-enhancement, collective-oriented values, such as family, community and religious values, appear to be beneficial for well-being [ 19 ]. Spirituality measured by religious values or practice is positively associated with subjective well-being [ 7 , 19 ]. A longitudinal study has reported that prioritizing family over work and leisure results in higher life satisfaction [ 11 ]. Recent studies have also shown that prioritizing money more than time is adversely associated with happiness [ 9 – 10 ]. Although there are variations in terms of categorization of personal values, previous studies have provided quite consistent results showing that prioritizing extrinsic achievements, such as money, is adversely associated with subjective well-being in general.

Why are extrinsic or self-centered values adversely associated with happiness? On the one hand, it can be explained in that extrinsic values facilitate social comparison of oneself with others, which is harmful for subjective well-being. Extrinsic achievements are more easily compared with others than are intrinsic achievements, such as self-fulfillment or attachment. For example, people with high levels of materialism are more likely to compare themselves with others [ 24 ]. With greater social comparison, there is higher likelihood of frustration and dissatisfaction with individual achievements. People who prioritize extrinsic aspirations, such as power, money, or status, tend to have more difficulty of achieving and being satisfied with their goals.

On the other hand, extrinsic values can be harmful for interpersonal and social relationships. Pursuing material gains is negatively associated with quality of interpersonal relationships [ 25 – 26 ] and increases difficulty of achieving a family–work balance [ 27 ], which then decreases subjective well-being. People often need to decide whether they will spend time on social relationships or on extrinsic goals. People prioritizing extrinsic values are less likely to invest in social relationships, such as family and friends, which can decrease the quality of social relationships that is important for happiness. Recent studies have similarly argued that valuing money more than time may have deleterious impacts on social relationships [ 9 – 10 ]. These studies suggest that self-centered values or valuing self-enhancement is harmful for happiness, whereas collective-centered values or valuing social relationships is beneficial.

In this context, specific life domains might be differentially associated with happiness according to the attribute and nature of life domains. It is probable that prioritizing a specific life domain is negatively associated with happiness as the life domain is more based on self-centered value or self-interest. In contrast, we expect that life domains related to social relationships (alter-centered rather than self-centered) or self-transcendence are positively associated with happiness. In addition, life domains which have been classified as a same value category may have different effects on happiness depending on the degree to which they are self-centered value. For example, although health is conceptualized as intrinsic value [ 5 , 20 ], it may have different meaning and effect for individuals compared with other intrinsic values or goals such as prioritizing family and friend. Prioritizing health can be self-centered propensity more than other intrinsic values such as prioritizing family. We classified the personal values regarding diverse life domains into four categories: prioritizing social relationships, extrinsic achievements, physical self, and spirituality, which reflects the different levels of self-centered propensity.

Data were drawn from the Korean General Social Survey (KGSS) collected in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The KGSS is a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey conducted in South Korea [ 28 ]. The sampling method (i.e., multistage area proportional probability sampling), interview protocols, and data-processing procedures used for the KGSS conform to those used for the General Social Survey (GSS) conducted in the United States. Similar to the GSS, the KGSS includes special sets of questions every year in addition to core items, such as questions about socio-demographic factors. The KGSS in 2007–2009 included questions about personal values regarding life domains, happiness, and socio-demographic factors. Although the three years of data are not panel data, analyzing them as a pooled sample increases the statistical power for our analyses. The data were analyzed anonymously. The data for this study were made available by the Korean Social Science Data Archive (KOSSDA), Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.

Our dependent variable was subjective well-being (SWB), or happiness. Respondents were asked to rate their happiness via the following question: “When considering your life, how happy or unhappy are you overall?” The response categories of the 2007 and 2008 KGSS ranged from 1 (very happy) to 4 (not happy at all), whereas the happiness of 2009 was measured by a 5-point scale with a neutral category in the middle of the response categories. Due to this difference in response categories, we coded happiness as a binary variable in which two positive responses (i.e., very happy and happy) were assigned value 1 and the other responses were assigned value 0.

Personal values.

To measure personal values regarding life domains, respondents were asked to choose two items as the first and second most important domain in life among the following 10 items: (1) leisure; (2) friends; (3) power; (4) neighbors; (5) health; (6) money; (7) educational attainment; (8) religion; (9) family; (10) work. We used a response for the first most important domain in life only for our analysis. We classified the responses into four categories: (1) social relationships; (2) extrinsic achievements; (3) physical self; and (4) spirituality. Social relationships included family, friends, and neighbors, and extrinsic achievements included leisure, power, money, educational attainment, and work. We included leisure in the category of extrinsic achievements because leisure can be considered an external reward related to self-interest. Physical self and spirituality were each represented by a single item (i.e., health and religion, respectively). Prioritizing physical self refers to placing importance on maintaining physical health and survival in the present study. In the analyses, the reference group of the variable was the respondents prioritizing social relationships. All categories of personal values were mutually exclusive.

Other covariates.

Socio-demographic factors including gender, age, educational attainment, and marital status were measured. Gender was a binary variable with reference category of male (female = 1). Age was measured in years, and education attainment was classified into three categories: less than high school; high school graduates; college or more. The reference group for educational attainment in the analytic models was high school graduates. Marital status was measured by asking the respondents whether they were currently married, widowed, separated/divorced, or never married. The reference group for marital status in the analytical models was married.

We controlled for monthly household income and perceived social status as potential confounders of the association between personal values and happiness. Monthly household income was measured as a continuous variable in Korean 10,000 Won increments. We adjusted household income for the inflation rate across the three years of data, using the 2010 consumer price index [ 29 ]. After adjusting for the inflation rate, household income was log-transformed for the analyses because it was skewed. Perceived social status was measured with the question: “In our society, there are groups that tend to be positioned toward the top and those positioned toward the bottom. From the bottom (1) to the top (10), where would you put yourself on the scale?” Self-rated health was measured on a 5-point scale, and it was included in additional models examining the 2007 and 2009 data only because the 2008 KGSS did not include a self-rated health question.

Analytical strategy

We used Poisson regression models with robust error variances for a binary outcome [ 30 ] given that our dependent variable (happiness) had high prevalence. Logistic regression results in misleading and overestimated odds ratios when it examines common outcomes whose incidence is higher than 10% [ 31 ]. Thus, relative risks of Poisson regression with a robust error variance would be appropriate for our dependent variable.

We conducted two sets of Poisson regression analyses to examine how personal values regarding the core life domains are associated with happiness. The first set comprised four models. Model 1 included personal values in life domains with year dummies only; Model 2 added the socio-demographic factors of gender, educational attainment, and marital status to Model 1. Model 3 added household income and perceived social status to examine whether personal values are associated with happiness even after controlling for these two variables. We analyzed Model 4, as a supplementary model, excluding the year 2009 (which had different response categories compared to other years) to check whether personal values remained associated with happiness.

We used the second set of Poisson regression models to examine the associations between personal values and happiness with age restriction and/or self-rated health as a covariate. We conducted supplementary analyses excluding respondents aged 60 years or older and controlling for self-rated health, measured in the 2007 and 2009 data.

Sample characteristics

Table 1 presents the descriptive characteristics of the sample for the pooled data and for each survey year. For the total sample of pooled data, about 66% of respondents reported that they were happy overall; by year, 76.6%, 73.5%, and 49.7% reported being happy overall in 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. It is notable that the percentage of those who were happy in 2009 was lower than in the other two years. This is most likely because the 2009 survey used a 5-point scale to measure happiness, rather than the 4-point scale of the other years, leading to a substantial number of respondents (37.9%, 606 of 1,599) choosing the neutral category (which we coded as 0 = not happy).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209821.t001

In terms of personal values regarding life domains, 50.7% of respondents considered health to be the most important domain in life; 31.8% chose family, friends, or neighbors; 13.7% chose extrinsic achievements including money, power, educational attainment, work, and leisure; and 3.8% chose religion. Across years, a higher percentage of respondents in 2009 prioritized social relationships than in 2007 and 2008 (i.e., 28.6% in 2007, 27.3% in 2008, and 38% in 2009). However, the percentages of those prioritizing extrinsic achievements were consistent across years (i.e., 14.3% in 2007, 13.3% in 2008, and 13.5% in 2009).

Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics across personal values and provides the results of the Chi-squared or analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests comparing proportions or means of variables across the categories of personal values. For happiness, 81.2% of those who prioritized religion the highest answered that they were happy overall, which was the highest percentage observed. In contrast, about 54.7% of respondents prioritizing extrinsic achievements answered that they were happy, which was the lowest observed value. Among respondents prioritizing social relationships and health, 70.7% and 65% answered that they were happy, respectively. Bivariate statistics comparing distributions or means of the variables depending on personal values showed that all variables had significant differences depending on personal values regarding life domains.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209821.t002

Fig 1 shows the percentages of those who were happy across personal values and survey years. Reported happiness varied across the survey years, but we also observed consistent patterns linking personal values with happiness ( Fig 1 ). Respondents prioritizing spirituality and social relationships showed higher percentages of happiness than the others. Respondents who valued extrinsic achievements showed the lowest percentages of happiness across all years. Note that percentages of reported happiness were lower across all personal values in 2009 than in 2007 and 2008 due to the different response categories used in 2009. It would be also possible that the percentage of reported happiness in 2009 was dropped because the data were collected after the global economic crisis in 2008.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209821.g001

Poisson regression models

Table 3 summaries the results of Poisson regression models with robust error variances examining associations between personal values and happiness. Models 1, 2, and 3 showed that all categories of personal values had significant relationships with happiness. Compared with those prioritizing social relationships, respondents valuing extrinsic achievements and health had lower likelihoods of being happy, whereas those prioritizing religion were happier than the reference group. The categories of personal values were significant, even after controlling for household income and perceived social status, as well as socio-demographic factors in Model 3. Relationships between personal values and happiness are also shown in Model 4, excluding the 2009 data. Prioritizing extrinsic achievements was again adversely associated with happiness. Respondents prioritizing health were also less likely to report happiness than those prioritizing social relationships. One notable difference between the results of Model 4 and the other models was that prioritizing religion was not significant in Model 4 from which the 2009 data were excluded.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209821.t003

Gender, age, and marital status were significantly associated with happiness in Models 3 and 4. Females tended to be happier than males. Married respondents tended to be happier than unmarried respondents. The likelihood of being happy decreased as age increased. In terms of socio-economic status, both household income and perceived social status were significantly associated with happiness. The likelihood of being happy increased as household income and perceived social status increased.

Table 4 presents the results of the additional models showing the associations between personal values regarding life domains and happiness with age restriction and/or controlling for self-rated health. Model 1 excluded respondents aged 60 or older from the total sample, and Model 2 included self-rated health as a control variable in the 2007 and 2009 data. In Model 3, the age restriction was also applied with self-rated health, so Models 2 and 3 included only 2007 and 2009 data because information on self-rated health was not collected in 2008. As listed in Table 4 , all categories of personal value were significantly associated with happiness, regardless of whether age and/or data restrictions were imposed. Compared with prioritizing social relationships, prioritizing extrinsic achievements was adversely associated with happiness even after controlling for self-rated health and excluding those aged 60 years or older in Model 3. Prioritizing physical self was, however, marginally significant in Model 3 with self-rated health and the age restriction. Respondents who prioritized religion were most likely to be happy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209821.t004

In addition, we conducted two supplementary sets of Poisson and multiple linear regression analyses as sensitivity analyses. The supplementary sets of Poisson regression models included personal values in life domains with leisure as a single category. It would be worth examining leisure separately because it can be closer to hedonism compared with the other extrinsic achievements. The supplementary sets of multiple linear regression models included the dependent variable as a continuous variable by multiplying the 4-point scale by 5 and multiplying the 5-point scale by 4 so that we could examine the continuous dependent variable with a 20-point scale and test if it had consistent results with Poisson regression analyses examining the dichotomized dependent variable.

S1 Table presents the results of Poisson regression models corresponding to the analytical models of Table 3 . Prioritizing leisure was negatively associated with happiness ( S1 Table ). Other personal value variables had consistent results with the findings in Table 3 . S2 Table presents the results of selected four multiple regression models due to word limitation. However, we had consistent results with our findings across all corresponding models in terms of effects and significances of personal value variables. Only one difference from the results of the Poisson regression analyses was that spirituality was still significant when the 2009 data were excluded as presented in Models 3 and 4 ( S2 Table ).

Our findings showed that there were significant associations between personal values regarding life domains and happiness. Prioritizing social relationships, including family, friends, and neighbors, was associated with a greater likelihood of happiness, whereas prioritizing extrinsic achievements, such as money and power, or physical self (i.e., health) was adversely associated with happiness. Although prioritizing spirituality (i.e., religion) was not significant when excluding the 2009 data, it was significantly and positively associated with happiness in the models when the age restriction was employed, or with self-rated health, as well as for the total sample. Respondents prioritizing religion were most likely to report happiness, whereas respondents prioritizing extrinsic achievements were the least likely. A significant difference between prioritizing extrinsic achievements and prioritizing health persisted in our supplementary models ( S3 Table ), in which extrinsic achievements was set as the referent category. Thus, we found that the rank order of happiness across personal values regarding life domains, from the highest to lowest likelihood, was spirituality, social relationships, physical self, and extrinsic achievements. Although previous studies have consistently shown that religious affiliation is positively associated with happiness [ 32 – 33 ], our findings have newly shown that respondents prioritizing religion are most likely to be happy than others.

The current findings support previous studies showing adverse associations between extrinsic, self-enhancement, or self-centered values and happiness [ 6 – 7 , 18 ]. Adverse associations between prioritizing extrinsic achievements and happiness can be explained in that extrinsic values facilitate social comparisons [ 24 ] and decrease quality of interpersonal relationships [ 25 – 26 ]. Prioritizing family over work and leisure enhances life satisfaction by increasing family satisfaction [ 11 ]. Recent studies [ 9 – 10 ] have similarly suggested that prioritizing time over money is beneficial for happiness via increasing the quality of social relationships. It is likely that people who consider extrinsic achievements as the most important thing in life are less likely to be satisfied with their current achievements and less likely to invest in social relationships, such as family and friends.

We also found that prioritizing social relationships is important for happiness and more beneficial than valuing extrinsic achievements or even physical self. This finding is consistent with a previous study showing that collective-centered values are more beneficial for well-being than are self-centered values [ 19 ]. Respondents prioritizing social relationships may tend to have higher quality of social relationships than those who value extrinsic rewards or egos (i.e., physical self). Additionally, spirituality, which can be classified into the dimension of self-transcendence or selflessness, is even more beneficial for happiness than is prioritizing social relationships. Psychological fulfillment through religion can be beneficial for happiness. Spirituality also may increase happiness in that it promotes a non-materialistic attitude toward life and decreases social comparison [ 7 ].

In sum, our findings showed how level of happiness is ranked according to the priority assigned to different personal values, with the highest level of happiness associated with spirituality, followed by social relationships, physical self, and (lastly) extrinsic achievements. This suggests that a greater propensity toward being self-centered is inversely associated with happiness. Among the four personal values, prioritizing extrinsic achievements can be considered as the strongest self-centered propensity whereas spirituality is the least self-centered propensity in that it could be categorized as self-transcendence [ 19 ]. Physical self might be intermediate between prioritizing extrinsic achievements and prioritizing social relationships. Although health is often conceptualized as an intrinsic value [ 5 , 20 ], prioritizing health might be more self-centered than prioritizing social relationships.

Some limitations of this study merit consideration. First, the data are cross-sectional and therefore we are limited in our ability to draw causal inferences. For example, it is possible that people who are unhappy with their social relationships are more likely to direct their attention toward earning the respect of others by seeking status, wealth, and power (reverse causality). In this scenario, individuals who are currently focused on prioritizing extrinsic achievements might not achieve happiness by being counseled to redirect their attention to their social relationships. Second, we used only three-year data of the KGSS (2007, 2008, and 2009) although the KGSS has been collected annually from 2003 to 2014, and biannually from 2014. The KGSS included both the personal value and happiness questions analyzed in the study for the three-year period only.

Third, we should be cautious about generalizing the findings about spirituality. Prioritizing religion was not significant in Model 4, shown in Table 3 , from which the 2009 data were excluded, although it was significant in the other models overall even with age restriction or with controlling for self-rated health, as shown in Table 4 . The lack of significance of spirituality when excluding the 2009 data might be due to the resulting decrease in statistical power. Compared with the 2007 and 2008 surveys, a slightly higher percentage of respondents chose religion as the most important domain in 2009 (i.e., 3.8% in 2007, 2.9% in 2008, and 4.5% in 2009). Only 3.38% of respondents (i.e., 99 of 2,933) chose religion as the most important domain after excluding the 2009 data, which might decrease statistical power. Further studies on associations between spirituality and happiness are needed to clarify these relationships. Finally, although it is reasonable to classify the 10 investigated life domains into four categories, more diverse classifications are needed in further studies. For example, we could not categorize neighbors as a separate category from social relationships because of the limited number of respondents who chose neighbors (i.e., 0.95% of respondents).

In spite of the limitations, this study extends previous knowledge about personal values and happiness by examining individual priorities for specific life domains and their impacts on happiness. Happiness may increase as individuals prioritize alters over egos, and egos over extrinsic rewards, which provides an ironic, but important implications about happiness in the individualistic and materialistic world.

Supporting information

S1 table. poisson regression analyses with robust error variances including prioritizing leisure as a single category (relative risks)..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209821.s001

S2 Table. Multiple regression analyses examining associations between personal values on life domains and happiness.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209821.s002

S3 Table. Poisson regression analyses with robust error variances including extrinsic achievements as a referent category (relative risks).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209821.s003

• 1. Easterlin RA. Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In: David PA, Reder MW, editors. Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz. New York: Academic Press;1974. p.89–125.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 14. Statistics Korea. Population and household census, 2015. [cited 2018 Oct. 24] available from: http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsListIndex.do?menuId=M_01_01&vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&parmTabId=M_01_01 .
• 15. Central Intelligence Agency. The world factbook. [cites 2018 Oct. 24] available from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html
• 16. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries, In: Zanna M, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Orlando: Academic Press, Vol. 25;1992. p. 1–65.
• 24. Kasser T, Ryan RM, Couchman CE, Sheldon KM. Materialistic values: Their causes and consequences. In: Kasser T, Kannder AD, editors. Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;2004. p.11–28.
• 26. Kasser T, Ryan RM. Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In: Schmuck P, Sheldon KM, editors. Life Goals and Well-being: Towards a Positive Psychology of Human Striving. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber; 2001. p. 116–141.
• 28. Kim S, Kim J, Moon Y, Shin S. Korean General Social Survey, 2012. Seoul: Sungkyunkwan University Press;2013. Korean.
• 29. Statistics Korea. Consumer Price Index. 2016- [cited 2018 Jan. 12]. Available from: http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1J0A001&conn_path=l2# .

Fostering Integrity in Research (2017)

Chapter: 2 foundations of integrity in research: core values and guiding norms, 2 foundations of integrity in research: core values and guiding norms.

Problems of scientific freedom and responsibility are not new; one need only consider, as examples, the passionate controversies that were stirred by the work of Galileo and Darwin. In our time, however, such problems have changed in character, and have become far more numerous, more urgent and more complex. Science and its applications have become entwined with the whole fabric of our lives and thoughts. . . . Scientific freedom, like academic freedom, is an acquired right, generally accepted by society as necessary for the advancement of knowledge from which society may benefit. Scientists possess no rights beyond those of other citizens except those necessary to fulfill the responsibility arising from their special knowledge, and from the insight arising from that knowledge.

— John Edsall (1975)

Synopsis: The integrity of research is based on adherence to core values—objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. These core values help to ensure that the research enterprise advances knowledge. Integrity in science means planning, proposing, performing, reporting, and reviewing research in accordance with these values. Participants in the research enterprise stray from the norms and appropriate practices of science when they commit research misconduct or other misconduct or engage in detrimental research practices.

TRANSMITTING VALUES AND NORMS IN RESEARCH

The core values and guiding norms of science have been studied and written about extensively, with the work of Robert Merton providing a foundation for subsequent work on the sociology of science ( Merton, 1973 ). Merton posited a set of norms that govern good science: (1) Communalism (common ownership of scientific knowledge), (2) Universalism (all scientists can contribute to the advance of knowledge), (3) Disinterestedness (scientists should work for the good of the scientific enterprise as opposed to personal gain), and (4) Organized Skepticism (results should be examined critically before they are accepted). Research on scientists and scientific organizations has also led to a better understanding of

counternorms that appear to conflict with the dominant Mertonian norms but that are recognized as playing an inherent part in the actual practice of science, such as the personal commitment that a scientist may have to a particular hypothesis or theory ( Mitroff, 1974 ).

More recent work on the effectiveness of responsible conduct of research education, covered in more detail in Chapter 9 , explores evidence that at least some scientists may not understand and reflect upon the ethical dimensions of their work ( McCormick et al., 2012 ). Several causes are identified, including a lack of awareness on the part of researchers of the ethical issues that can arise, confidence that they can identify and address these issues without any special training or help, or apprehension that a focus on ethical issues might hinder their progress. An additional challenge arises from the apparent gap “between the normative ideals of science and science’s institutional reward system” ( Devereaux, 2014 ). Chapter 6 covers this issue in more detail. Here, it is important to note that identifying and understanding the values and norms of science do not automatically mean that they will be followed in practice. The context in which values and norms are communicated and transmitted in the professional development of scientists is critically important.

Scientists are privileged to have careers in which they explore the frontiers of knowledge. They have greater autonomy than do many other professionals and are usually respected by other members of society. They often are able to choose the questions they want to pursue and the methods used to derive answers. They have rich networks of social relationships that, for the most part, reinforce and further their work. Whether actively involved in research or employed in some other capacity within the research enterprise, scientists are able to engage in an activity about which they are passionate: learning more about the world and how it functions.

In the United States, scientific research in academia emerged during the late 19th century as an “informal, intimate, and paternalistic endeavor” ( NAS-NAE-IOM, 1992 ). Multipurpose universities emphasized teaching, and research was more of an avocation than a profession. Even today, being a scientist and engaging in research does not necessarily entail a career with characteristics traditionally associated with professions such as law, medicine, architecture, some subfields of engineering, and accounting. For example, working as a researcher does not involve state certification of the practitioner’s expertise as a requirement to practice, nor does it generally involve direct relationships with fee-paying clients. Many professions also maintain an explicit expectation that practitioners will adhere to a distinctive ethical code ( Wickenden, 1949 ). In contrast, scientists do not have a formal, overarching code of ethics and professional conduct.

However, the nature of professional practice even in the traditional professions continues to evolve ( Evetts, 2013 ). Some scholars assert that the concept of professional work should include all occupations characterized by “expert knowledge, autonomy, a normative orientation grounded in community, and

high status, income, and other rewards” ( Gorman and Sandefur, 2011 ). Scientific research certainly shares these characteristics. In this respect, efforts to formalize responsible conduct of research training in the education of researchers often have assumed that this training should be part of the professional development of researchers ( IOM-NRC, 2002 ; NAS-NAE-IOM, 1992 ). However, the training of researchers (and research itself) has retained some “informal, intimate, and paternalistic” features. Attempts to formalize professional development training sometimes have generated resistance in favor of essentially an apprenticeship model with informal, ad hoc approaches to how graduate students and postdoctoral fellows learn how to become professional scientists.

One challenge facing the research enterprise is that informal, ad hoc approaches to scientific professionalism do not ensure that the core values and guiding norms of science are adequately inculcated and sustained. This has become increasingly clear as the changes in the research environment described in Chapter 3 have emerged and taken hold. Indeed, the apparent inadequacy of these older forms of training to the task of socializing and training individuals into responsible research practices is a recurring theme of this report.

Individual scientists work within a much broader system that profoundly influences the integrity of research results. This system, described briefly in Chapter 1 , is characterized by a massive, interconnected web of relationships among researchers, employing institutions, public and private funders, and journals and professional societies. This web comprises unidirectional and bidirectional obligations and responsibilities between the parts of the system. The system is driven by public and private investments and results in various outcomes or products, including research results, various uses of those results, and trained students. However, the system itself has a dynamic that shapes the actions of everyone involved and produces results that reflect the functioning of the system. Because of the large number of relationships between the many players in the web of responsibility, features of one set of relationships may affect other parts of the web. These interdependencies complicate the task of devising interventions and structures that support and encourage the responsible conduct of research.

THE CORE VALUES OF RESEARCH

The integrity of research is based on the foundational core values of science. The research system could not operate without these shared values that shape the behaviors of all who are involved with the system. Out of these values arise the web of responsibilities that make the system cohere and make scientific knowledge reliable. Many previous guides to responsible conduct in research have identified and described these values ( CCA, 2010 ; ESF-ALLEA, 2011 ; IAC-IAP, 2012 ; ICB, 2010 ; IOM-NRC, 2002 ). This report emphasizes six values that are most influential in shaping the norms that constitute research practices and relationships and the integrity of science:

Objectivity

Accountability, stewardship.

This chapter examines each of these six values in turn to consider how they shape, and are realized in, research practices.

The first of the six values discussed in this report—objectivity—describes the attitude of impartiality with which researchers should strive to approach their work. The next four values—honesty, openness, accountability, and fairness—describe relationships among those involved in the research enterprise. The final value—stewardship—involves the relationship between members of the research enterprise, the enterprise as a whole, and the broader society within which the enterprise is situated. Although we discuss stewardship last, it is an essential value that perpetuates the other values.

The hallmark of scientific thinking that differentiates it from other modes of human inquiry and expression such as literature and art is its dedication to rational and empirical inquiry. In this context, objectivity is central to the scientific worldview. Karl Popper (1999) viewed scientific objectivity as consisting of the freedom and responsibility of the researcher to (1) pose refutable hypotheses, (2) test the hypotheses with the relevant evidence, and (3) state the results clearly and unambiguously to any interested person. The goal is reproducibility, which is essential to advancing knowledge through experimental science. If these steps are followed diligently, Popper suggested, any reasonable second researcher should be able to follow the same steps to replicate the work.

Objectivity means that certain kinds of motivations should not influence a researcher’s action, even though others will. For example, if a researcher in an experimental field believes in a particular hypothesis or explanation of a phenomenon, he or she is expected to design experiments that will test the hypothesis. The experiment should be designed in a way that allows the possibility for the hypothesis to be disconfirmed. Scientific objectivity is intended to ensure that scientists’ personal beliefs and qualities—motivations, position, material interests, field of specialty, prominence, or other factors—do not introduce biases into their work.

As will be explored in later chapters, in practice it is not that simple. Human judgment and decisions are prone to a variety of cognitive biases and systematic errors in reasoning. Even the best scientific intentions are not always sufficient to ensure scientific objectivity. Scientific objectivity can be compromised acci-

dentally or without recognition by individuals. In addition, broader biases of the reigning scientific paradigm influence the theory and practice of science ( Kuhn, 1962 ). A primary purpose of scientific replication is to minimize the extent to which experimental findings are distorted by biases and errors. Researchers have a responsibility to design experiments in ways that any other person with different motivations, interests, and knowledge could trust the results. Modern problems related to reproducibility are explored later in the report.

In addition, objectivity does not imply or require that researchers can or should be completely neutral or disinterested in pursuing their work. The research enterprise does not function properly without the organized efforts of researchers to convince their scientific audiences. Sometimes researchers are proven correct when they persist in trying to prove theories in the face of evidence that appears to contradict them.

It is important to note, in addition, Popper’s suggestion that scientific objectivity consists of not only responsibility but freedom . The scientist must be free from pressures and influences that can bias research results. Objectivity can be compromised when institutional expectations, laboratory culture, the regulatory environment, or funding needs put pressure on the scientist to produce positive results or to produce them under time pressure. Scientists and researchers operate in social contexts, and the incentives and pressures of those contexts can have a profound effect on the exercise of scientific methodology and a researcher’s commitment to scientific objectivity.

Scientific objectivity also must coexist with other human motivations that challenge it. As an example of such a challenge, a researcher might become biased in desiring definitive results evaluating the validity of high-profile theories or hypotheses that their experiments were designed to support or refute. Both personal desire to obtain a definitive answer and institutional pressures to produce “significant” conclusions can provide strong motivation to find definitive results in experimental situations. Dedication to scientific objectivity in those settings represents the best guard against scientists finding what they desire instead of what exists. Institutional support of objectivity at every level—from mentors, to research supervisors, to administrators, and to funders—is crucial in counterbalancing the very human tendency to desire definitive outcomes of research.

A researcher’s freedom to advance knowledge is tied to his or her responsibility to be honest . Science as an enterprise producing reliable knowledge is based on the assumption of honesty. Science is predicated on agreed-upon systematic procedures for determining the empirical or theoretical basis of a proposition. Dishonest science violates that agreement and therefore violates a defining characteristic of science.

Honesty is the principal value that underlies all of the other relationship val-

ues. For example, without an honest foundation, realizing the values of openness, accountability, and fairness would be impossible.

Scientific institutions and stakeholders start with the assumption of honesty. Peer reviewers, granting agencies, journal editors, commercial research and development managers, policy makers, and other players in the scientific enterprise all start with an assumption of the trustworthiness of the reporting scientist and research team. Dishonesty undermines not only the results of the specific research but also the entire scientific enterprise itself, because it threatens the trustworthiness of the scientific endeavor.

Being honest is not always straightforward. It may not be easy to decide what to do with outlier data, for example, or when one suspects fraud in published research. A single outlier data point may be legitimately interpreted as a malfunctioning instrument or a contaminated sample. However, true scientific integrity requires the disclosure of the exclusion of a data point and the effect of that exclusion unless the contamination or malfunction is documented, not merely conjectured. There are accepted statistical methods and standards for dealing with outlier data, although questions are being raised about how often these are followed in certain fields ( Thiese et al., 2015 ).

Dishonesty can take many forms. It may refer to out-and-out fabrication or falsification of data or reporting of results or plagiarism. It includes such things as misrepresentation (e.g., avoiding blame, claiming that protocol requirements have been followed when they have not, or producing significant results by altering experiments that have been previously conducted), nonreporting of phenomena, cherry-picking of data, or overenhancing pictorial representations of data. Honest work includes accurate reporting of what was done, including the methods used to do that work. Thus, dishonesty can encompass lying by omission, as in leaving out data that change the overall conclusions or systematically publishing only trials that yield positive results. The “file drawer” effect was first discussed almost 40 years ago; Robert Rosenthal (1979) presented the extreme view that “journals are filled with the 5 percent of the studies that show Type I errors, while the file drawers are filled with the 95 percent of the studies that show non-significant results.” This hides the possibility of results being published from 1 significant trial in an experiment of 100 trials, as well as experiments that were conducted and then altered in order to produce the desired results. The file drawer effect is a result of publication bias and selective reporting, the probability that a study will be published depending on the significance of its results ( Scargle, 2000 ). As the incentives for researchers to publish in top journals increase, so too do these biases and the file drawer effect.

Another example of dishonesty by omission is failing to report all funding sources where that information is relevant to assessing potential biases that might influence the integrity of the work. Conversely, dishonesty can also include reporting of nonexistent funding sources, giving the impression that the research

was conducted with more support and so may have been more thorough than in actuality.

Beyond the individual researcher, those engaged in assessing research, whether those who are funding it or participating in any level of the peer review process, also have fundamental responsibilities of honesty. Most centrally, those assessing the quality of science must be honest in their assessments and aware of and honest in reporting their own conflicts of interest or any cognitive biases that may skew their judgment in self-serving ways. There is also a need to guard against unconscious bias, sometimes by refusing to assess work even when a potential reviewer is convinced that he or she can be objective. Efforts to protect honesty should be reinforced by the organizations and systems within which those assessors function. Universities, research organizations, journals, funding agencies, and professional societies must all work to hold each other to honest interactions without favoritism and with potentially biasing factors disclosed.

Openness is not the same as honesty, but it is predicated on honesty. In the scientific enterprise, openness refers to the value of being transparent and presenting all the information relevant to a decision or conclusion. This is essential so that others in the web of the research enterprise can understand why a decision or conclusion was reached. Openness also means making the data on which a result is based available to others so that they may reproduce and verify results or build on them. In some contexts, openness means listening to conflicting ideas or negative results without allowing preexisting biases or expectations to cloud one’s judgment. In this respect, openness reinforces objectivity and the achievement of reliable observations and results.

Openness is an ideal toward which to strive in the research enterprise. It almost always enhances the advance of knowledge and facilitates others in meeting their responsibilities, be it journal editors, reviewers, or those who use the research to build products or as an input to policy making. Researchers have to be especially conscientious about being open, since the incentive structure within science does not always explicitly reward openness and sometimes discourages it. An investigator may desire to keep data private to monopolize the conclusions that can be drawn from those data without fear of competition. Researchers may be tempted to withhold data that do not fit with their hypotheses or conclusions. In the worst cases, investigators may fail to disclose data, code, or other information underlying their published results to prevent the detection of fabrication or falsification.

Openness is an ideal that may not always be possible to achieve within the research enterprise. In research involving classified military applications, sensitive personal information, or trade secrets, researchers may have an obligation not to disseminate data and the results derived from those data. Disclosure of results

and underlying data may be delayed to allow time for filing a patent application. These sorts of restrictions are more common in certain research settings—such as commercial enterprises and government laboratories—than they are in academic research institutions performing primarily fundamental work. In the latter, openness in research is a long-held principle shared by the community, and it is a requirement in the United States to avoid privileged access that would undermine the institution’s nonprofit status and to maintain the fundamental research exclusion from national security-based restrictions.

As the nature of data changes, so do the demands of achieving openness. For example, modern science is often based on very large datasets and computational implementations that cannot be included in a written manuscript. However, publications describing such results could not exist without the data and code underlying the results. Therefore, as part of the publication process, the authors have an obligation to have the available data and commented code or pseudocode (a high-level description of a program’s operating principle) necessary and sufficient to re-create the results listed in the manuscript. Again, in some situations where a code implementation is patentable, a brief delay in releasing the code in order to secure intellectual property protection may be acceptable. When the resources needed to make data and code available are insufficient, authors should openly provide them upon request. Similar considerations apply to such varied forms of data as websites, videos, and still images with associated text or voiceovers.

Central to the functioning of the research enterprise is the fundamental value that members of the community are responsible for and stand behind their work, statements, actions, and roles in the conduct of their work. At its core, accountability implies an obligation to explain and/or justify one’s behavior. Accountability requires that individuals be willing and able to demonstrate the validity of their work or the reasons for their actions. Accountability goes hand in hand with the credit researchers receive for their contributions to science and how this credit builds their reputations as members of the research enterprise. Accountability also enables those in the web of relationships to rely on work presented by others as a foundation for additional advances.

Individual accountability builds the trustworthiness of the research enterprise as a whole. Each participant in the research system, including researchers, institutional administrators, sponsors, and scholarly publishers, has obligations to others in the web of science and in return should be able to expect consistent and honest actions by others in the system. Mutual accountability therefore builds trust, which is a consequence of the application of the values described in this report.

The purpose of scientific publishing is to advance the state of knowledge through examination by peers who can assess, test, replicate where appropriate, and build on the work being described. Investigators reporting on their work thus

must be accountable for the accuracy of their work. Through this accountability, they form a compact with the users of their work. Readers should be able to trust that the work was performed by the authors as described, with honest and accurate reporting of results. Accountability means that any deviations from the compact would be flagged and explained. Readers then could use these explanations in interpreting and evaluating the work.

Investigators are accountable to colleagues in their discipline or field of research, to the employer and institution at which the work is done, to the funders or other sponsors of the research, to the editors and institutions that disseminate their findings, and to the public, which supports research in the expectation that it will produce widespread benefits. Other participants in the research system have other forms of accountability. Journals are accountable to authors, reviewers, readers, the institutions they represent, and other journals (for the reuse of material, violation of copyright, or other issues of mutual concern). Institutions are accountable to their employees, to students, to the funders of both research and education, and to the communities in which they are located. Organizations that sponsor research are accountable to the researchers whose work they support and to their governing bodies or other sources of support, including the public. These networks of accountability support the web of relationships and responsibilities that define the research enterprise.

The accountability expected of individuals and organizations involved with research may be formally specified in policies or regulations. Accountability under institutional research misconduct policies, for example, could mean that researchers will face reprimand or other corrective actions if they fail to meet their responsibilities.

While responsibilities that are formally defined in policies or regulations are important to accountability in the research enterprise, responsibilities that may not be formally specified should also be included in the concept. For example, senior researchers who supervise others are accountable to their employers and the researchers whom they supervise to conduct themselves as professionals, as this is defined by formal organizational policies. On a less formal level, research supervisors are also accountable for being attentive to the educational and career development needs of students, postdoctoral fellows, and other junior researchers whom they oversee. The same principle holds for individuals working for research institutions, sponsoring organizations, and journals.

The scientific enterprise is filled with professional relationships. Many of them involve judging others’ work for purposes of funding, publication, or deciding who is hired or promoted. Being fair in these contexts means making professional judgments based on appropriate and announced criteria, including processes used to determine outcomes. Fairness in adhering to explicit criteria

and processes reinforces a system in which the core values can operate and trust among the parties can be maintained.

Fairness takes on another dimension in designing criteria and evaluation mechanisms. Research has demonstrated, for example, that grant proposals in which reviewers were blinded to applicant identity and institution receive systematically different funding decisions compared with the outcomes of unblinded reviews ( Ross et al., 2006 ). Truly blinded reviews may be difficult or impossible in a small field. Nevertheless, to the extent possible, the criteria and mechanisms involved in evaluation must be designed so as to ensure against unfair incentive structures or preexisting cultural biases. Fairness is also important in other review contexts, such as the process of peer reviewing articles and the production of book reviews for publication.

Fairness is a particularly important consideration in the list of authors for a publication and in the citations included in reports of research results. Investigators may be tempted to claim that senior or well-known authors played a larger role than they actually did so that their names may help carry the paper to publication and readership. But such a practice is unfair both to the people who actually did the work and to the honorary author, who may not want to be listed prominently or at all. Similarly, nonattribution of credit for contributions to the reported work or careless or negligent crediting of prior work violates the value of fairness. Best practices in authorship, which are based on the value of fairness, honesty, openness, and accountability, are discussed further in Chapter 9 .

Upholding fairness also requires researchers to acknowledge those whose work contributed to their advances. This is usually done through citing relevant work in reporting results. Also, since research is often a highly competitive activity, sometimes there is a race to make a discovery that results in clear winners and losers. Sometimes two groups of researchers make the same discovery nearly simultaneously. Being fair in these situations involves treating research competitors with generosity and magnanimity.

The importance of fairness is also evident in issues involving the duty of care toward human and animal research subjects. Researchers often depend on the use of human and animal subjects for their research, and they have an obligation to treat those subjects fairly—with respect in the case of human subjects and humanely in the case of laboratory animals. They also have obligations to other living things and to those aspects of the environment that affect humans and other living things. These responsibilities need to be balanced and informed by an appreciation for the potential benefits of research.

The research enterprise cannot continue to function unless the members of that system exhibit good stewardship both toward the other members of the system and toward the system itself. Good stewardship implies being aware of

and attending carefully to the dynamics of the relationships within the lab, at the institutional level, and at the broad level of the research enterprise itself. Although we have listed stewardship as the final value in the six we discuss in this report, it supports all the others. Here we take up stewardship within the research enterprise but pause to acknowledge the extension of this value to encompass the larger society.

One area where individual researchers exercise stewardship is by performing service for their institution, discipline, or the broader research enterprise that may not necessarily be recognized or rewarded. These service activities include reviewing, editing, serving on faculty committees, and performing various roles in scientific societies. Senior researchers may also serve as mentors to younger researchers whom they are not directly supervising or formally responsible for. At a broader level, researchers, institutions, sponsors, journals, and societies can contribute to the development and updating of policies and practices affecting research. As will be discussed in Chapter 9 , professional societies perform a valuable service by developing scientific integrity policies for their fields and keeping them updated. Individual journals, journal editors, and member organizations have contributed by developing standards and guidelines in areas such as authorship, data sharing, and the responsibilities of journals when they suspect that submitted work has been fabricated or plagiarized.

Stewardship also involves decisions about support and influences on science. Some aspects of the research system are influenced or determined by outside factors. Public demand, political considerations, concerns about national security, and even the prospects for our species’ survival can inform and influence decisions about the amount of public and private resources devoted to the research enterprise. Such forces also play important roles in determining the balance of resources invested in various fields of study (e.g., both among and within federal agencies), as well as the balance of effort devoted to fundamental versus applied work and the use of various funding mechanisms.

In some cases, good stewardship requires attending to situations in which the broader research enterprise may not be operating optimally. Chapter 6 discusses issues where problems have been identified and are being debated, such as workforce imbalances, the poor career prospects of academic researchers in some fields, and the incentive structures of modern research environments.

Stewardship is particularly evident in the commitment of the research enterprise to education, both of the next generation of researchers and of individuals who do not expect to become scientists. In particular, Chapter 10 discusses the need to educate all members of the research enterprise in the responsible conduct of research. Education is one way in which engaging in science provides benefits both to those within the research system and to the general public outside the system.

A DEFINITION OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Making judgments about definitions and terminology as they relate to research integrity and breaches of integrity is a significant component of this committee’s statement of task. Practicing integrity in research means planning, proposing, performing, reporting, and reviewing research in accordance with the values described above. These values should be upheld by research institutions, research sponsors, journals, and learned societies as well as by individual researchers and research groups. General norms and specific research practices that conform to these values have developed over time. Sometimes norms and practices need to be updated as technologies and the institutions that compose the research enterprise evolve. There are also disciplinary differences in some specific research practices, but norms and appropriate practices generally apply across science and engineering research fields. As described more fully in Chapter 9 , best practices in research are those actions undertaken by individuals and organizations that are based on the core values of science and enable good research. They should be embraced, practiced, and promoted.

The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support – or distort – practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge.

The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated.

Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

ValuesandBeliefs →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

Values in Crisis: Societal Value Change under Existential Insecurity

• Original Research
• Open access
• Published: 20 October 2023
• Volume 171 , pages 1–21, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Plamen Akaliyski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0157-0246 1 , 2 ,
• Naoko Taniguchi 3 ,
• Joonha Park 4 ,
• Stefan Gehrig 5 &
• Raül Tormos 6  

1955 Accesses

10 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 14 November 2023

This article has been updated

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on societies, with possible consequences for their fundamental values. Inglehart’s revised modernization theory links societal values to the underlying subjective sense of existential security in a given society (scarcity hypothesis), while also claiming that influences on values diminish once individuals reach adulthood (socialization hypothesis). An acute existential crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic offers a rare opportunity to test these assumptions. We analyze data from representative surveys conducted in Japan shortly before and after the onset of the pandemic. Remaining survey sample differences are statistically controlled via propensity score weighting and regression adjustment, while post-stratification weights allow conclusions about the Japanese population. In three sets of analyses, we reveal that the pandemic and the experienced psychological distress are negatively associated with emancipative and secular values, entailing a reversal to traditionalism, intolerance, and religiosity. First, we document a substantial decline in both emancipative and secular values in the first months of the pandemic compared to five months earlier. This decline remained stable a year later. Second, we find that value change was stronger in prefectures more severely affected by the pandemic. Third, individuals who experienced higher psychological distress emphasized the same values more strongly, as evident in two surveys from May 2020 and April 2021. In contrast to the socialization hypothesis, our study provides evidence that, under extraordinary environmental conditions, values can shift even within a negligibly short time period.

Similar content being viewed by others

Climate change effects on vulnerable populations in the Global South: a systematic review

Bethuel Sibongiseni Ngcamu

Eastern Europe is no exception: acceptance of inequality and left–right politics

Jesper Lindqvist

Racism in Australia: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jehonathan Ben, Amanuel Elias, … Yin Paradies

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic is arguably the most acute existential crisis humanity has faced since World War II. As of October 2023, the coronavirus has infected at least 8.6% of the global population and caused 6.9 million deaths (Worldometer, 2023 ). The pandemic’s economic impact was also devastating, estimated as dozens of billions of USD (Cutler & Summers, 2020 ; Levy & Filippini, 2021 ). The emotional terror the pandemic has caused, the suffering under repeated lockdowns, the loss of human capital due to school closures and the inability to travel and maintain close social relationships are other consequences societies had to and even continue to endure. Societal values—what we prioritize in life and desire as societal goals—are shaped by our natural and social environment (Schwartz, 2006 ). As existential security and standard of living have been rising globally (Pinker, 2018 ), so has societal culture changed to appreciate freedom, equality, and diversity (Welzel, 2013 ). This change is reportedly slow partly because rapid jumps in the quality of life are impossible on a societal level. However, the sudden and acute environmental change the pandemic brought offers a unique opportunity to study if values can also change in reverse and through what mechanisms they may do so.

Focusing on Japan as a case study, we examine these questions regarding two sets of values—emancipative and secular values—derived from Inglehart/Welzel’s revised modernization theory (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005 ). Emancipative values emphasize individual freedom and equality of opportunity, while secular values entail freedom from traditional sources of authority such as religion, nation, family, and group norms (Welzel, 2013 ). According to the revised modernization theory, these values reflect the level of existential security in a society, which makes them suitable for the current investigation. Despite their prominence in the political science and sociological literature, these social indicators have not yet been studied in the context of the pandemic.

By analyzing nationally representative data from three large surveys and investigating whether the pandemic affected societal values in Japan, we assess the validity of competing views about the stability and change of cultural values. The first survey was conducted shortly before the pandemic, the two following surveys during the pandemic, with a longitudinal follow-up of the same respondents. The investigation is guided by the following research question: Has the existential insecurity associated with the COVID-19 pandemic caused a shift to more traditional (less emancipative and less secular) values in Japan?

The stated question is important for the social sciences as well as policymakers due to the substantive role of these values in political processes and societal well-being. Emancipative values specifically have been featured as the key cultural component underpinning democratic development, as they manifest societal support for individual freedoms and equality, spurring demand for universal and impartial democratic institutions (Welzel, 2013 , 2020 ). Secular values are related to emancipative values as they enable the liberation of individuals from sacred institutions and thus coevolve with emancipation in other domains (Alexander et al., 2016 ). Cultures that value freedom, equality, and diversity allow more of their members to contribute to society and to realize their potential, thus enhancing psychological health, pro-social behavior, institutional quality, creativity, and economic performance (Akaliyski, 2023 ; Inglehart et al., 2008 ; Welzel, 2013 ). These values have been equated to an “assertive” civic political culture that has an equivalent impact on democratic development across the globe, including East Asia (Dalton & Welzel, 2015 ).

1.1 Previous Research and Gaps in the Literature

Findings from recent empirical studies on the pandemic’s impact on values are mixed, which may reflect methodological and/or true between-country differences. Two panel studies examine values and attitudes most similar to those we study. A 24-country study, including Japan, finds that the pandemic has resulted in a stronger emphasis on freedom, emancipation, post-materialism and lower support for patriarchy and law and order (Lampert et al., 2021 ). A Dutch study using European Values Survey data, which contains many survey items identical in wording to those we examine, also finds that some values such as gender equality, immigration permissiveness, and social trust continue to increase during the pandemic (Reeskens et al., 2021 ). Values they consider stable—so-called ‘easy’ issues—such as religiosity and national pride, however, remained unchanged, while traditional moral permissiveness, post-materialism, and support for strong leaders decreased.

Most other studies either document a conservative change in values during the pandemic or an individual-level relationship between psychological distress (e.g., fear of COVID-19, existential insecurity) and conservative values. For example, a steep increase in interest in religion throughout the globe has been reported (Bentzen, 2021 ). In the US, studies document a reversal to traditional gender roles and stereotypes (Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2021 ), including gendered parenting roles (Mize et al., 2021 ), and an association between pathogen threat and conservatism among Democrats (but not Republicans) (Samore et al., 2021 ), as well as between pathogen threat and conservative ideological self-placement and partisan preference (O’Shea et al., 2021 ) and right-wing authoritarian traits (Pazhoohi & Kingstone, 2021 ). A study from US, Germany, and Singapore reports increased traditional gender norms (Reichelt et al., 2020 ). Another study shows that experimentally activating Polish and American participants’ thoughts about the COVID-19 pandemic results in stronger social conservative values and support for conservative presidential candidates (Karwowski et al., 2020 ). We are aware of only one study from the US which finds no change, specifically on moral foundations comprising items related to harm, fairness, authority, in-group loyalty, and purity (Vartanova et al., 2021 ).

Surveys from Poland reveal an increase in authoritarianism, a desire for national cohesion, rejection of sexual dissenters (Golec de Zavala et al., 2021 ), and religiosity (Boguszewski et al., 2020 ). In Italy, Molteni et al. ( 2021 ) find a revival of religiosity in terms of prayer and attendance of religious services (via the internet, radio, or TV) among individuals whose family members were infected.

Individual values also reversed to stronger conservation (emphasizing order and stability), as well as weaker openness to change (self-direction and stimulation), according to a longitudinal study from Australia (Daniel et al., 2021 ) and a study of retrospective reports from France (Bonetto et al., 2021 ). In both countries, these value changes were associated with worrying about the pandemic and perceived threat, respectively.

Evidence from East Asia, however, remains scarce. A small study of Chinese students from Wuhan reports an increase in altruism, cooperation, and aversion to risk and a decrease in trust during the first several weeks of lockdown (Shachat et al., 2021 ). Another study shows an increase in collectivist expressions such as personal pronouns on a Chinese online social network following the onset of the pandemic (Han et al., 2021 ). A third study, from South Korea, reports a change towards stronger collectivism, but, somewhat paradoxically, not weaker individualism (Na et al., 2021 ).

Our literature review reveals several remaining gaps, which we intend to fill. First, most surveys were not longitudinal and did not attempt to solve the problem of comparability between the samples from before and during the pandemic, which casts concerns that the differences might be due to sampling bias, instead of actual change. In addition, most studies use convenience samples of, for example, students or self-selected volunteers, thus revealing little about the processes in the larger population. None of them tracks the longer term dynamics of change from the onset of the pandemic to its unfolding in later years. Daniel et al. ( 2021 ) show that, in their last survey in November–December 2020, previously documented value changes have begun to reverse, thus suggesting that other studies may also document only short-lived changes in volatile attitudes, instead of deeper and lasting value changes.

Moreover, almost all evidence comes from samples that are typically overrepresented in the literature, viz. WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) (Henrich et al., 2010 ). Numerous research indicates different psychological processes taking place in East Asia and the West (Akaliyski, 2023 ; Markus & Kitayama, 1991 ; Nisbett, 2004 ). The pandemic’s effects in the Japanese unique cultural environment to date remain unknown.

1.2 The COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan

To better understand the Japanese context, we provide some details on how the pandemic unfolded. Although Japan was among the first countries to register COVID-19 infections, the pandemic remained relatively well-contained in terms of the number of cases and mortality rate. In contrast to other countries where strict lockdowns were enforced, the Japanese government relied more heavily on voluntary cooperation by individuals to avoid unnecessary social contacts, practice good personal hygiene, and wear face masks (Li et al., 2022 ). At the time of the second survey used in the present analyses (mid-May 2020), there were only approximately 16,400 people tested positive and 744 reported deaths (Japan Broadcasting Corporation, 2021 ). Nevertheless, the economic and social costs were high: GDP dropped by approximately 5% in 2020 (IMF, 2020 ), social life was suddenly and severely disrupted, and daily necessities such as masks and toilet paper were in short supply, similar to other countries more severely affected by the pandemic. School closures forced parents to take care of children at home, putting pressure excessively on working mothers.

Crucially for the current study, the pandemic increased psychological distress, associated with pandemic-related factors such as medical issues, difficulties in daily life, unavailability of groceries, and adjustment to new modes of work (Nagasu et al., 2021 ). Severe psychological distress increased by 2 percentage points to reach 11.5% of the Japanese population between the end of February, when Japan registered the first infection cases, and early April, when it experienced the first serious wave of infections, enforced an entry ban and prepared to declare a state of emergency in several prefectures (Kikuchi et al., 2020 ). In September 2020, the national prevalence of severe psychological distress was 10% and was associated with a mix of pandemic-related and socio-demographic factors such as fear of COVID-19, younger age, lower income, providing caregiving to family members and experience of domestic violence (Yoshioka et al., 2021 ).

Noteworthy, not all parts of the country were affected with the same severity. At the time of our first survey, several prefectures (Japan's 47 administrative units) were in a state of emergency due to substantially higher infection rates (see supplementary Appendix E) and the risk of overburdening the medical facilities. These were large urban areas such as Greater Tokyo (Kanto region), Greater Osaka (Kansai region), as well as Hokkaido.

1.3 Theoretical Framework

Emancipative and secular values are derived from Inglehart’s revised modernization theory and Welzel and Inglehart’s human development theory (Inglehart, 2008 ; Welzel et al., 2003 ). These theoretical approaches stem from the classic modernization theory which depicts development as an isomorphic process: countries at the same stage of modernization share similar features in terms of institutions, economic structure, and societal culture. The classic modernization theory can be traced back to early sociologists such as Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim who were concerned with the way industrialization and modernization increase societal complexity and profoundly transform societies (Eisenstadt, 2000 ). Later works in this theoretical tradition include Talcott Parsons’ ( 1964 ) concept of “evolutionary universals in society”, and Bell’s postindustrial society theory (Bell, 1976 ).

Embedded within this broad intellectual tradition, Inglehart and Welzel’s revised modernization theory, which we draw upon, specifically focuses on the value changes taking place as societies develop socio-economically and increase their sense of existential security. The theory is revised in the sense that it analyzes contemporary societal changes but it also considers the importance of historical legacies. Their theory of value change is based on the understanding of human nature originating in European Enlightenment philosophy, according to which “Virtually everyone aspires to freedom and autonomy” (Inglehart, 2008 , p. 131).

However, these aspirations are supposedly restricted by the necessity to satisfy more pressing needs such as physical security and survival (Inglehart, 2008 ; see also psychological theory by Maslow, 1954 ). With socio-economic development, a larger share of the population satisfies these basic needs and both emancipative and secular values are expected to increase as individuals break free from traditional norms (Welzel, 2013 ). This pattern of cultural change is argued to occur across the globe, including in non-Western societies, such as Japan (Welzel, 2012 ). Instead of directly linking development to emancipative and secular values, Inglehart ( 2008 , p. 132) argues that such values reflect “the general sense of security prevailing in one’s society” , a proposition referred to as scarcity hypothesis . Economic prosperity is a major such source of existential security, but existential in security may come from various sources such violent conflict, environmental disaster, or indeed a deadly pandemic.

Although the revised modernization theory is primarily occupied with studying societal-level value change, some of their insights are also applied to the study of processes within societies. For example, the so-called Cultural Backlash theory (Norris & Inglehart, 2019 ) suggests that individuals feeling left behind from the process of globalization are inclined to revert to traditional values. The current study is primarily interested in how the pandemic has affected Japanese society’s values as a whole, but we also explore the mechanisms of this change by shifting attention to smaller units of analysis, i.e., prefectures and individuals. If the mechanism of value change is indeed through one’s subjective experience of existential (in)security, as the revised modernization theory claims, we would expect changes at each of these three levels of analysis—national, prefecture, and individual—as long as there is variation in the way these units of analysis experienced the pandemic.

This study also relates to prominent theoretical debates on cultural change. According to Inglehart ( 2008 ), values do not adjust immediately to changing circumstances; they reflect the conditions in the pre-adult years and hardly change afterwards ( socialization hypothesis ). This perspective is supported also by the so-called settled disposition model, which examines cultural change through the lenses of intergenerational replacement and limited adaptation of individuals in their post-formative years (Kiley & Vaisey, 2020 ; Vaisey & Kiley, 2021 ). However, Tormos ( 2019 ) challenges this model by finding substantial value changes within the lifetime of individuals in Western societies, thus lending credibility to the alternative active updating model . Most studies we discussed in our literature review also consider the possibility of active adaptation of values to a rapidly changing environment (e.g., Daniel et al, 2021 ; Molteni et. al, 2021 ), although others state that this depends on the type of values or attitudes, some of which more stable than others (Reeskens et al, 2021 ).

In sum, the literature largely agrees that values reflect the level of existential insecurity ( scarcity hypothesis ), but continues debating whether change occurs mainly between generations ( socialization hypothesis and settled disposition model ) or also within individuals’ adult life ( active updating model ).

1.4 Hypotheses

Based on the revised modernization theory’s scarcity hypothesis , which emphasizes existential security as a source of value change, and the active updating model , which allows this change to happen fast, we expect that the immediate experience of the pandemic has caused values to shift towards a lower emphasis on freedom, equality, and secularity. Moreover, we expect that the stronger the psychological distress (as a proxy for existential insecurity) caused by the pandemic, the more values will reverse to traditionalism, meaning weaker support for individual and sexual liberties and gender equality, and stronger religiosity, nationalism, and family values. Based on this proposition, we formulate three more specific hypotheses as follows.

Since the pandemic is global in nature and virtually the whole Japanese population was aware of the entailed threat, regardless of their personal circumstances, we expect that:

Hypothesis 1

The Japanese population has become more traditional in its values due to the onset of the pandemic.

As noted earlier, some Japanese regions were more seriously affected than others. Particularly, at the time of our first survey during the pandemic, a state of emergency was announced in eight prefectures where the situation was most critical and the number of infections varied widely between prefectures (supplementary Appendix E). Therefore, we expect that:

Hypothesis 2

Prefectures more severely affected by the pandemic experienced stronger change towards traditional values.

Furthermore, regardless of the area of residence, individuals experienced the pandemic differently. Even if equally affected in terms of objective measures such as losing a job or having to work from home, not everyone necessarily experienced it subjectively in the same way, and we expect values to change as a reaction to personally perceived distress. Therefore, our third hypothesis is the following:

Hypothesis 3

Values of individuals who experienced more psychological distress during the pandemic turned more traditional than individuals who experienced less distress.

2 Data and Methods

To test these hypotheses, we use datasets from three surveys: the World Values Survey (WVS) and the Values in Crisis (VIC), the latter of which conducted in two waves: at the beginning of the pandemic and a year later (Table 1 ). Fortunately, in terms of timing, the most recent wave (wave 7) of the WVS (henceforth WVS7) was carried out in September 2019, only a few months before the onset of the pandemic and approximately eight months before the first VIC survey.

WVS7 surveyed 1353 respondents over the age of 17 per mail, applying triple quotas based on census data from 2015 for gender, age, and area (Yamazaki, 2019 ). The VIC survey is part of a larger collaboration including more than a dozen countries globally (Welzel et al., 2020 ). The first wave of the Japanese VIC survey (VIC1) was conducted online on 15 and 16 May 2020 and included 3000 respondents. The data represent the population of Japan as of census data from 2015, in three strata: gender, age, and city size. The second wave (VIC2) was collected almost a year later and aimed to reach as many respondents from the first wave as possible, thus was carried out for a longer time period than the first wave: 5 to 19 April 2021. The retention rate was almost 60% ( N  = 1882) and a refreshment sample of 1118 was added to reach the same total number of respondents as VIC1 ( N  = 3000).

Even though both WVS7 and VIC surveys aimed to be nationally representative with respect to demographic characteristics, there are certain deviations from the actual population as per the census data (Table 1 ). Older, more educated, and female respondents are slightly overrepresented in the WVS7 (Yamazaki, 2019 ), while the VIC survey could not reach respondents at the age of 70 or older (see also supplementary Appendix C for sample differences between surveys).

2.2 Variables

Our dependent variables are emancipative and secular values and their comprising items. High emancipative values mean strong societal support for individual freedom and equality of opportunity; high secular values, in turn, denote strong support for freedom from traditional sources of authority such as religion, nation, family, and group norms (Welzel, 2013 ). In the original framework, the polar opposites to these values are labeled “patriarchal” and “sacred”, respectively. However, for convenience, we refer to both value polarities together as “traditional”, which is empirically justifiable by the observation that they generally covary across nations (see supplementary Appendix B).

These values are constructed using a formative, instead of latent-variable approach (Welzel, 2013 ), meaning that they comprise conceptually related items that may not correlate strongly with each other. Hence, we refer to them as indices—Emancipative Values Index (EVI) and Secular Values Index (SVI), respectively (see Fig.  1 )—and we run all analyses also separately for their components, in order to capture dynamics in more specific attitudinal measures. Their original versions comprise four sub-indices each measured by three items from the WVS (Welzel, 2013 ). The VIC surveys include a short version of these values comprising only two sub-indices, albeit those with the highest loadings on the composite index (Welzel, 2013 ). Item wording and response scales were identical with a few exceptions. Two VIC survey items, measuring EVI’s Equality sub-index, use different scales than the corresponding items in the WVS7, and are therefore excluded from comparisons between WVS7 and VIC surveys. Additionally, one item of SVI’s Agnosticism sub-index is also not comparable, because it asks respondents about attendance of religious services before the pandemic instead of current attendance. We measure EVI as the extent to which respondents support gender equality in education, labor market, and politics (the last two not available for the WVS7-VIC comparisons), and accept homosexuality, abortion, and divorce. For SVI, we have five items: disagreeing that one of the important goals in life is to make parents proud, not being proud with nationality, not approving greater respect for authority, not finding religion important in life, and defining oneself as an atheist or agnostic (versus a religious person). All items and indices were rescaled to vary between 0 and 100. EVI and SVI were coded as missing if a single component item was missing.

Composition of Emancipative and Secular Value indices. Note. In rectangles are observed items; in circles are composite indices and sub-indices. In rectangles with dashed borders are items included only in the analyses using exclusively VIC1 and VIC2 data sets (i.e., these items are not used when computing the respective index for the WVS7-VIC1 comparison). The crossed-out item was not used in any analysis as an outcome variable

The VIC surveys measure psychological distress by a scale consisting of five items: (1) Feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge; (2) Not being able to stop or control worrying; (3) Feeling down, depressed or hopeless; (4) Little interest or pleasure in doing things; and (5) Feeling lonely. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92 indicates high internal scale consistency. The psychological distress variable had a range from 1 to 4 ( Mean  = 1.67, SD  = 0.83 in the pooled VIC1/VIC2 sample).

Those two surveys also included shortened measures of the Big Five personality traits (10 items) (Rammstedt & John, 2007 ). Besides values and psychological measures, we use a set of socio-demographic variables from all three surveys to adjust our analysis for potential differences in these characteristics, which we describe in Sect.  2.3 .

Only observations having information on the full set of adjustment variables and on at least one of the indices (EVI or SVI) were retained for analysis ( N  = 1138 from WVS7, N  = 2920 from VIC1, N  = 2827 from VIC2).

2.3 Empirical Strategy

2.3.1 hypotheses 1 & 2.

The first two hypotheses were tested by comparing results from national surveys conducted before and during the pandemic. Importantly, causally attributing any observed differences in values between the surveys to the pandemic requires excluding other confounding factors. WVS7 and VIC respondents might differ in some characteristics that also predict EVI and SVI, which requires adjusting for such differences.

Although both surveys are designed to target nationally representative samples, there are differences in sample composition with respect to some demographic variables (see supplementary Appendix C). Nevertheless, the range of observed characteristics overlaps to a large extent. Therefore, it is possible to employ inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW; explained in more detail in supplementary Appendix A) to statistically control for these differences (Austin & Stuart, 2015 ). A particular strength of the data is that VIC1 asked about the frequency of religious service attendance  before the pandemic , a question also present in WVS7 (phrased to mean current attendance), such that, besides demographic and geographical factors, respondents could also be weighted with respect to a behavioral proxy for their “baseline” religiosity before the pandemic, making the samples more comparable in a dimension that is very likely linked to the outcomes of interest.

To construct weights for IPTW, we estimated propensity scores for all WVS7 and VIC1 respondents based on nine characteristics: age, number of children, household size (all continuous), gender, marital status, education, prefecture, town size, and prior religious services attendance. These scores represent the probability of being surveyed in WVS7 rather than VIC1, given each respondent’s socio-demographic characteristics (see supplementary Appendix A for details), and were estimated via logistic regression (estimated model shown in supplementary Appendix D). Propensity scores show a large region of common support between WVS7 and VIC1 (Fig.  2 a) and weighting strongly improves the balance between samples (Fig.  2 b and supplementary Appendix C). To adjust for remaining sample differences, the same covariates used for propensity score estimation were also included as predictors in the outcome regression models, adding also a squared term for age. The combination of IPTW with regression adjustment represents a “doubly-robust” approach to causal inference (e.g., Hernan & Robins, 2020 ).

a Overlap of propensity scores between WVS7 and VIC1 surveys. b Absolute standardized mean difference in individuals’ characteristics between the two surveys when using inverse probability of treatment weighting based on estimated propensity scores in combination with post-stratification weights (“Weighted”) versus raw sample data (“Unweighted”)

To also improve the generalizability of findings from our samples for the Japanese adult population as a whole, we further used post-stratification weights, which we then multiplied with the propensity weights to simultaneously account for aspects of confounding and survey design (Dong et al., 2020 ; Ridgeway et al., 2015 ). In particular, we post-stratified by gender, age, and prefecture based on recent Japanese census data from 2020 (for details, see supplementary Appendix A) and indeed achieved close alignment of sample frequencies and population frequencies (supplementary Appendix C).

For assessing Hypothesis 1 , we estimated the contrast between values before and after the pandemic’s onset (WVS7 to VIC1) as the coefficient of a dummy variable (1 if the observation belonged to the VIC1 survey, 0 if it belonged to WVS7) in linear regressions with heteroscedasticity-robust standard errors (HC1 type), weights and all adjustment variables. To analyze longer-term impacts, we also ran linear regressions comparing WVS7 and VIC2. As a robustness check, these were run once with the remaining longitudinal sample of respondents from VIC1 (i.e., those that took part in both VIC1 and VIC2), and once with the full sample from VIC2 (i.e., the remaining longitudinal sample + the refreshment sample).

For assessing Hypothesis 2 , we focus on the comparison of WVS7 with VIC1. The goal was to test whether the pandemic effect on values was stronger in prefectures that were more severely affected at the pandemic’s initial onset. The indicator of prefecture-level severity was the number of cumulative COVID-19 infections per 100,000 up to the day of the VIC1 survey in May 2020 in the respondent’s prefecture (Japan Broadcasting Corporation, 2021 ). Hence, this variable captures between-prefecture heterogeneity in exposure to health risk, but also in exposure to psychological, economic, and social impacts of the pandemic. It strongly correlates with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 deaths up to the VIC1 survey day ( r  = 0.90) and the declaration of a state of emergency in the prefecture ( r  = 0.62). Cumulative infections ranged between 0.0 and 36.1 ( Median  = 5.9, Mean  = 7.8, SD  = 7.4; see supplementary Appendix E for geographical differences).

To estimate the effect of crisis severity, linear regressions were fit with an interaction term between cumulative infections in the prefecture and a dummy indicating whether the respondent was from the VIC1 (vs. WVS7) survey, as well as all adjustment variables (now using region dummies instead of prefecture dummies to avoid perfect collinearity). A negative coefficient for this interaction term would indicate that a decrease in certain values was larger in prefectures with a higher cumulative incidence of infections. Standard errors were clustered at the prefecture level.

2.3.2 Hypothesis 3

The third set of analyses exploited individual differences in experience of psychological adversity during the crisis and therefore excludes WVS7 respondents. Accordingly, propensity weights play no role in this analysis and only post-stratification weights are used in the regressions. We tested whether variation in values was linked to variation in psychological distress, adjusting for the same variables as above and additionally for the shortened measures of all Big Five personality traits, household income (which had not been elicited in WVS7 in similar detail and completeness) and VIC survey wave (1 or 2). All respondents from VIC1 were included in the analysis as well as the refreshment sample from VIC2.

We preferred to conduct the analysis between instead of within individuals for two reasons. First, we identified that the 40% drop-outs in our second survey were not random with regard to our key explanatory variable, psychological distress. The drop-outs had higher distress in VIC1 than the retained sample (1.75 vs. 1.65 points, p  = 0.003, Welch’s t-test) and the replacement sample had higher distress in VIC2 than the retained sample (1.74 vs. 1.61 points, p  < 0.001). The fact that distressed respondents were more likely to be lost to follow-up may introduce bias in within-individual analysis, which needs to exclude those respondents. Second, we expect that value change occurred mostly in the early stage of the pandemic, i.e., around VIC1 survey, when, due to the initial shock, there was a significant increase in psychological distress (Kikuchi et al., 2020 ). Subsequently, between the VIC1 and VIC2 surveys, people likely became accustomed to the continuous threat. In contrast to many Western countries, the pandemic in Japan remained relatively well under control during the observed time frame, resulting in no further exacerbation of distress (Yoshioka et al., 2021 ). In line with these considerations, we find high intra-individual correlation of distress between survey waves ( r  = 0.53). An analysis that discards all variation except within-individual changes hence has limited power. For completeness, results from within-individual analysis (fixed-effect regression) are nevertheless presented in supplementary Appendix F.

All analyses were conducted in R 4.3.1 (R Core Team, 2023 ). Data and code are available for the reader to reproduce all findings at https://github.com/stefgehrig/japanvalues .

3.1 National-Level Change

Results in Fig.  3 indicate differences in values between shortly before (WVS7) and after the onset of the pandemic (VIC1). Emancipative and secular values have decreased significantly in the first few months of the pandemic. Most striking are the greater respect for authority and importance of religion, as well as the substantially lower support for gender equality and acceptance of homosexuality. Two items changed in an unexpected direction: acceptance of abortion and not being proud with the nation, both of which increased (we discuss possible reasons in Sect. 4 ). Given the correction for sample differences via weighting and regression adjustment, and since the two surveys were only eight months apart, with the long-term trend before the pandemic being in the emancipative/secular direction (see supplementary Appendix B), we conclude that the pandemic has overall negatively affected the values and attitudes of Japanese people, thus confirming Hypothesis 1 .

Box and density plots show the weighted distribution of a EVI and c SVI before (WVS7; 2019) vs. after the onset of the pandemic (VIC1; 2020). Forest plots show changes in b EVI and d SVI and all their component items as estimated in weighted linear regressions including adjustment variables. Note. All variables are coded in such a way that negative values reflect a decrease in EVI and SVI. Estimates are shown with 95% confidence intervals (columns on the right). Models are adjusted for age, gender, number of children, household size, marital status, education, prefecture, town size, and prior religious services attendance

Figure  4 shows longer-term differences in values compared to before the pandemic. Almost a year after VIC1, the point estimates of both EVI and SVI have remained largely unchanged between VIC1 and VIC2. Some increase is observed in not being proud with the nation and acceptance of abortion, which essentially continue the trends from the previous survey. Other moral permissiveness items, such as acceptance of homosexuality and divorce have also registered slight increases, implying a modest recovery back in the direction of pre-pandemic levels. Attitudes towards gender equality, importance of religion, and disrespect for authority, which were most strongly affected by the pandemic according to our first survey, have apparently not yet begun to recover a year later. These results indicate a lasting impact of the pandemic on values, at least for some aspects.

Value changes between WVS7 (2019) and the two VIC surveys (2020 and 2021) as estimated in weighted linear regressions including adjustment variables. Note. For VIC2, results are shown from an analysis based on the follow-up of respondents from VIC1 (solid line) and based on the complete VIC2 sample (dashed line). All variables are coded in such a way that negative values reflect a decrease in EVI and SVI. Estimates are shown with 95% confidence intervals. Models are adjusted for age, gender, number of children, household size, marital status, education, prefecture, town size, and prior religious services attendance

3.2 Prefecture-Level Variation in Change

Next, we present the effect of the severity of the pandemic on the change in values from before to during the pandemic (WVS7 to VIC1), with severity measured as the cumulative infection rate at the prefecture level (Fig.  5 ). The results broadly resemble those of the overall changes presented in the previous analysis, although there is higher uncertainty in the estimates and most confidence limits are not far from the zero line. As hypothesized, the pandemic’s severity appears to accelerate the decrease in both EVI and, to a slightly lesser extent, SVI, and most strongly so for the disrespect of authority item. Again, we see that national pride deteriorates with the pandemic’s severity, despite the tendency of other traditional values to become more pronounced. To ease interpretation of the interaction effects, we visualize model-based predictions in supplementary Appendix E.

Effect of the number of cumulative infections in the prefecture (per 100,000) on the change in values from before to during the pandemic as estimated in weighted linear regressions including adjustment variables. Note. Negative estimates indicate that the decrease in values from WVS7 (2019) to VIC1 (2020) is stronger in prefectures with higher infection rates. Estimates are shown with 95% confidence intervals (columns on the right). Models are adjusted for age, gender, number of children, household size, marital status, education, region, town size, and prior religious services attendance

3.3 Individual-Level Variation in Psychological Distress and Values

Next, we report the association between psychological distress and values among respondents from both surveys conducted during the pandemic (VIC1 and VIC2), adjusted for several socio-demographic variables and measures of personality. The effect of distress on items measuring EVI is rather uniform (Fig.  6 ): persons reporting more psychological distress tend to exhibit somewhat lower support for gender equality, however, with more marked effects on the choice sub-index items (acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, and divorce). Regarding SVI, a higher level of psychological distress is associated with higher importance of religion and more respect for authority, thus remarkably overlapping with the findings on the national- and prefecture-level change. Again, in accord with those findings, individuals who suffer from psychological distress are distinctly less proud with being Japanese. Likely due to the strong positive effect on not being proud with the nation, the overall effect on SVI is rather weak (indeed, if we exclude that item from the index, the overall effect of distress on SVI turns out to be strong, with a point estimate of -1.4 [95% CI: -2.1; -0.6] instead of -0.4 [95% CI: -1.1; 0.3]).

Association between psychological distress and a EVI and b SVI among VIC1 and VIC2 respondents as estimated in weighted linear regressions including adjustment variables. Note. Estimates are shown with 95% confidence intervals (columns on the right). Models are adjusted for age, gender, number of children, household size, marital status, education, prefecture, town size, prior religious services attendance, household income, and brief measures of the Big Five personality dimensions

4 Summary of Empirical Findings

To summarize, examining the variation at all levels of analysis––national, regional, and individual––we find that the experience of the pandemic is linked to a reversal to more traditional, intolerant, and religious values. In the national-level analysis (Hypothesis 1 ), comparing national pre-versus post-pandemic values, effects are strong for the emancipative and secular indices as well as most of their components. This average national pattern largely re-emerges when quantifying the moderating role of pandemic severity in the prefecture of the respondent, albeit with more uncertain estimates (Hypothesis 2 ). The individual-level analysis (Hypothesis 3 ) delivers substantial evidence that levels of psychological distress are also correlated with lower emancipative and secular values, conditional on an extensive set of potential confounders (i.e., variables that might be linked both to susceptibility to distress and personal values).

Notably, the pattern of change was not uniform across all the individual items. Among the most consistent and strong effects were the increase in religiosity and respect for authority suggesting that amid the pandemic individuals may seek security in traditional sources of authority such as religion and family. Considering the simultaneous decrease in national pride emerging in all three analyses, the nation may not provide the same source of security for Japanese people. Signals are most mixed for the item on acceptance of abortion. Such acceptance appears to increase in the national average with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and remains high a year later, but when examining variation in pandemic exposure between prefectures and individuals, the effect is in the opposite direction.

5 Discussion

Our study across different levels of analysis, utilizing three large surveys, suggests that the pandemic has caused a reversal toward more traditional societal values in Japan. This supports Inglehart’s revised modernization theory ( scarcity hypothesis ) in linking existential insecurity to conservative values, as well as theories that more specifically focus on the effects of pathogen prevalence on values (e.g., Fincher et al., 2008 ; Welzel, 2013 ). Our study takes advantage of the unprecedented occurrence of a global pandemic in modern times to document this mechanism of cultural change. This study also contributes to our understanding of cultural differences between modern societies, which ostensibly reflect the accumulation of learnt patterns of thought and behavior that is adaptive to the prevalent environmental conditions in a given society throughout its history.

We demonstrate that such adaptation to changing environment can occur even for a much shorter period than previously supposed and on issues that were considered rather stable such as religiosity and gender equality (Reeskens et al., 2021 ). Gradual cultural change that happens primarily between generations (Inglehart, 2008 ; Kiley & Vaisey, 2020 ) may only account for a part of the total change produced by socio-environmental changes, which is also driven by period effects (Tormos, 2019 ). Given a sudden and acute existential crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, humans might adapt to threat by swiftly shifting their value priorities. Our study, therefore, enriches the debate between settled disposition and active updating models of stability and change in culture (Kiley & Vaisey, 2020 ). While Kiley and Vaisey ( 2020 ) find stronger support for the stability of attitudes within individuals, their evidence is drawn from a relatively stable pre-pandemic time period. The reason we find ample evidence in favor of the alternative active updating model might be precisely because we tracked the change at a time of considerable environmental turmoil. In the presence of a glacial-speed environmental change, attitudinal adaptation might be equally difficult to detect in a short time period.

Our findings should not be surprising given the magnitude of the pandemic’s impact that has brought concerns about our very existence on a mass societal scale. We find that the societal adaptation in terms of values in Japan is considerably large. Our models estimate a decline of about 7 and 6 points on a 100-point scale for EVI and SVI, respectively, and even larger for specific issues such as respect for authority (16 points), importance of religion (15 points), and acceptance of homosexuality (12 points; Fig.  3 ). Such changes, in either direction, typically take a decade or longer to occur. Our empirical strategy, which re-weights VIC observations to align them with the Japanese population surveyed in the WVS, allows making reasonable comparisons between our estimated effect sizes and the longitudinal change documented over the five most recent WVS waves (see supplementary Appendix B). Such a comparison indicates that, a few weeks after the onset of the pandemic, emancipative values had been “set back” to the level of roughly a decade earlier, with no clear recovery in the following year. Of course, this interpretation is only warranted under the assumption that our methods largely eliminate alternative explanations (see Sect. 5). Noteworthy, though, even accounting for the estimated impact of the pandemic, Japan retains its fairly high relative global position in emancipative and secular values (see supplementary Appendix B).

Other studies from Western countries on the pandemic’s impact suggest a turn to conservatism, but at a negligible rate and not uniformly across all investigations (e.g., Vartanova et al., 2021 ), and some indicate even change in the opposite direction in all (Lampert et al., 2021 ) or at least some specific attitudes considered more volatile (Reeskens et al., 2021 ).

We offer potential methodological and substantive explanations for these discrepancies. First, it is important to consider the timing of the investigation. Lampert et al.’s study surveyed respondents for the first time between end of January and March 2020 when the pandemic was already causing serious concerns across the globe. Thus, the first survey may already reflect the initial impact of the pandemic rather than a “baseline” measurement. Second, the authors report that at least 1000 respondents were surveyed initially, while an average of 365 respondents completed the survey at the second time point (p. 45). There are no further details on how the authors addressed this issue, which casts a serious doubt that the differences between the two waves reflect actual population changes. In contrast, Reeskens et al.’s study achieves a retention rate of about 60% (comparable to ours) and also applies post-stratification weights to correct for the sociodemographic structure of the Dutch population. Their first wave of data, however, was collected at the end of 2017, thus their results likely reflect more than two years of pre-pandemic growth in these values (plausibly assuming that previous trends continued) rather than only the pandemic’s impact.

Furthermore, societies experience the pandemic with different intensities, not only in terms of prevalence of the disease, mortality, and economic impact, but also psychologically. East Asian populations top the global ranking in terms of being frightened of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite (or as a result) having substantially lower infection rates than countries from all other world regions, which exhibited more relaxed attitudes towards the risks of infection (Li et al., 2022 ). Thus, a culture’s susceptibility to experience threat and uncertainty may act as its own catalyst of cultural change. In that case, our findings likely reflect not only the pandemic’s impact, but also its interaction with Japanese culture’s extreme aversion to uncertainty (Hofstede et al., 2010 ). Although the existential threat’s impact on values may be universal across the globe, the magnitude may be amplified in Japan’s (or East Asia’s) unique cultural setting.

Noteworthy, along with the changes in the expected direction towards more traditional values, we also observed some effects on individual items that were in the opposite direction to that of the rest. Justifiability of abortion has increased on average, which in the highly secular Japanese context is more disassociated from religiosity, and may reflect an increased desire to control reproductive decisions in times of uncertainty (Aassve et al., 2020 ). National pride has decreased, in contrast to the marked and stable increase in respect for authority, and the slight and non-robust increase in desire to make parents proud, all of which together form the conceptually derived Defiance sub-index of SVI. The decreased national pride may be linked to people’s negative evaluation of the performance of the government in dealing with the pandemic (Taniguchi et al., 2022 ), which may not necessarily reflect its actual performance in comparison to other nations. The increased respect for authority and diminished national pride thus may occur simultaneously because people demand strong authority during periods of insecurity, such as a pandemic, while they may be unable to feel proud of their nation because the government has failed to meet that expectation. Moreover, positive feelings such as pride might generally be inhibited by psychological distress. These two examples suggest that, at least in the short term, items that supposedly fall under the same conceptual umbrella may be affected differentially by specific environmental changes.

6 Limitations and Further Research

Interpreting the statistical results causally requires assuming that our adjustment strategies are sufficient to control for confounding and therefore to rule out alternative explanations. This includes, for example, the assumption that the WVS7 and VIC1 samples do not differ in important unobserved predictors of emancipative and secular values. Put differently, we assume that the characteristics we control for (see, e.g., supplementary Appendix C) are sufficient to eliminate confounding between survey participation (WVS vs. VIC) and emancipative/secular values. Panel surveys that follow the same individuals are in general preferred because observed changes cannot be due to changes in sample composition. However, panel surveys are prone to other issues, like a typically high and non-random drop-out rate. Thus, while panel studies enable making stronger claims about causal effects occurring within individuals, generalizations regarding population-level effects require great caution. In contrast, our study used data sets from surveys that targeted representative samples of the entire Japanese population and used IPTW in combination with regression adjustment to control for remaining sample differences. Still, we cannot completely rule out remaining biases, especially response bias in online (VIC) as compared to mail surveys (WVS7), which may distort our comparisons. Nevertheless, previous studies show that paper-and-pencil and online modes of data collection provide comparable results when measuring social values (Lilleoja et al., 2016 ). Moreover, our findings are strikingly consistent across analyses at three levels of variation and go against the previous temporal trend in Japan (supplementary Appendix B). Noteworthy, the VIC sample is slightly younger, has fewer children, is less often married and attended religious services less frequently before the pandemic than the WVS7 sample (supplementary Appendix C). These characteristics, for which we adjust, indicate that, if anything, the VIC sample is biased in the direction of a more liberal and less traditionally-minded subset of the Japanese population. For example, age is negatively correlated with EVI ( r  = -0.33) and SVI ( r  = -0.28) among Japanese WVS7 respondents. Therefore, we expect remaining biases due to sample differences to work against rather than in favor of our hypotheses.

Besides sample composition and survey mode, confounding due to other events that occurred between WVS7 and VIC1 could also be a concern. However, it is reasonable to assume that, given the exceptional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all domains of life, the typically slow pace of “natural” value change in an upward direction (supplementary Appendix B), and the small time window between the two surveys (eight months), no other events occurred in Japan that could have affected national values in a similarly impactful way. This is especially the case for the combined indices, in contrast to individual items, which could more easily be affected, for example, by a recent and salient media discourse on a particular topic.

We are curious to know how durable these value changes are. For example, the global religious resurgence in the first months of the pandemic documented by Bentzen ( 2021 ) leveled off relatively quickly, but her measure of religiosity remained above pre-pandemic levels until at least December 2020. For Japan, the VIC2 survey, conducted 11 months after VIC1, indicates that the initial decline in emancipative and secular values remains mostly stable, but we are unable to predict whether the previous trend might be permanently altered or values will return to their baseline level when the effects of the pandemic dissipate. It is similarly uncertain if more significantly affected individuals would remain traumatized and take longer to recover than the general population. Therefore, even if the overall trend in values in the Japanese society reaches and surpasses the pre-pandemic levels, this may be due to the changes experienced by the majority of the population, despite individuals who experienced stronger psychological distress continuing to hold more traditional values. The upcoming WVS wave 8, expected around 2024–2026, would allow to provide evidence-based answers to these questions.

Change history

14 november 2023.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03258-8

Aassve, A., Cavalli, N., Mencarini, L., Plach, S., & Bacci, M. L. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and human fertility. Science, 369 (6502), 370–371. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc9520

Article   Google Scholar  

Akaliyski, P. (2023). Distinct conceptions of freedom in east asia and the protestant west underpin unique pathways of societal development. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 54 (2), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221143320

Alexander, A. C., Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2016). Emancipating sexuality: Breakthroughs into a bulwark of tradition. Social Indicators Research, 129 (2), 909–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1137-9

Austin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2015). Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine, 34 (28), 3661–3679. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6607

Bell, D. (1976). The coming of post-industrial society. A venture in social forecasting. Basic Books Inc

Bentzen, J. S. (2021). In crisis, we pray: religiosity and the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 192 , 541–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.10.014

Boguszewski, R., Makowska, M., Bożewicz, M., & Podkowińska, M. (2020). The covid-19 pandemic’s impact on religiosity in Poland. Religions, 11 (12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120646

Bonetto, E., Dezecache, G., Nugier, A., Inigo, M., Mathias, J. D., Huet, S., Pellerin, N., Corman, M., Bertrand, P., Raufaste, E., Streith, M., Guimond, S., de la Sablonnière, R., & Dambrun, M. (2021). Basic human values during the COVID-19 outbreak, perceived threat and their relationships with compliance with movement restrictions and social distancing. PLoS ONE, 16 (6), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253430

Cutler, D. M., & Summers, L. H. (2020). The COVID-19 Pandemic and the $16 Trillion Virus. JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association, 324 (15), 1495–1496. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.19759

Dalton, R. J., & Welzel, C. (2015). The civic culture transformed: From allegiant to assertive citizens. The Civic Culture Transformed from Allegiant to Assertive Citizens . https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600002

Daniel, E., Bardi, A., Fischer, R., Benish-Weisman, M., & Lee, J. A. (2021). Changes in personal values in pandemic times. Social Psychological and Personality Science . https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211024026

Dong, N., Stuart, E. A., Lenis, D., & Quynh Nguyen, T. (2020). Using propensity score analysis of survey data to estimate population average treatment effects: a case study comparing different methods. Evaluation Review, 44 (1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X20938497

Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple modernities . Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Fincher, C. L., Thornhill, R., Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 275 (1640), 1279–1285. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0094

Golec de Zavala, A., Bierwiaczonek, K., Baran, T., Keenan, O., & Hase, A. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic, authoritarianism, and rejection of sexual dissenters in Poland. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 8 (2), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000446

Han, N., Ren, X., Wu, P., Liu, X., & Zhu, T. (2021). Increase of collectivistic expression in China during the COVID-19 outbreak: an empirical study on online social networks. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.632204

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466 (7302), 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a

Hernan, M. A., & Robins, J. (2020). Causal Inference: What If . CRC Press.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Inglehart, R. F. (2008). Changing Values among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006. West European Politics, 31 (1–2), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380701834747

Inglehart, R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Welzel, C. (2008). Development, freedom, and rising happiness: a global perspective (1981–2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 (4), 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00078.x

Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

International Monetary Fund. (2020). World Economic Outlook Database . https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2020/October/weo-report?c=158,&s=NGDP_RPCH,NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,PCPIPCH,&sy=2018&ey=2025&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1

Japan Broadcasting Corporation. (2021). Infection status by prefecture (compiled by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare) . https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/special/coronavirus/data-widget/

Karwowski, M., Kowal, M., Groyecka, A., Białek, M., Lebuda, I., Sorokowska, A., & Sorokowski, P. (2020). When in danger turn right does Covid-19 threat promote social conservatism and right-wing presidential candidates? Human Ethology, 35 (1), 37–48.

Kikuchi, H., Machida, M., Nakamura, I., Saito, R., Odagiri, Y., Kojima, T., Watanabe, H., Fukui, K., & Inoue, S. (2020). Changes in psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan: A longitudinal study. Journal of Epidemiology, 30 (11), 522–528. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20200271

Kiley, K., & Vaisey, S. (2020). Measuring stability and change in personal culture using panel data. American Sociological Review, 85 (3), 477–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122420921538

Lampert, M., Inglehart, R., Metaal, S., Schoemaker, H., & Papadongonas, P. (2021). Covid pandemic ignites fear, but boosts progressive ideals and calls for inclusive economic growth . https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSPublicationsDocuments.jsp?PUB=186&PUB=186

Levy, E., & Filippini, Y. F. (2021). Social and economic impact of COVID-19 . www.brookings.edu/global

Li, J., Akaliyski, P., Heisig, J. P., Löbl, S., & Minkov, M. (2022). Flexible societies excelled in saving lives in the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.924385

Lilleoja, L., Dobewall, H., Aavik, T., Strack, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2016). Measurement equivalence of Schwartz’s refined value structure across countries and modes of data collection: New evidence from Estonia, Finland, and Ethiopia. Personality and Individual Differences, 102 , 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.009

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98 (2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality . Harper & Brothers.

Mize, T. D., Kaufman, G., & Petts, R. J. (2021). Visualizing Shifts in Gendered Parenting Attitudes during COVID-19. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 7 (1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211013128

Molteni, F., Ladini, R., Biolcati, F., Chiesi, A. M., Dotti Sani, G. M., Guglielmi, S., Maraffi, M., Pedrazzani, A., Segatti, P., & Vezzoni, C. (2021). Searching for comfort in religion: Insecurity and religious behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. European Societies, 23 (S1), S704–S720. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1836383

Na, J., Kim, N., Suk, H. W., Choi, E., Choi, J. A., Kim, J. H., Kim, S., & Choi, I. (2021). Individualism-collectivism during the COVID-19 pandemic: A field study testing the pathogen stress hypothesis of individualism-collectivism in Korea. Personality and Individual Differences, 183 (December), 111127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111127

Nagasu, M., Muto, K., & Yamamoto, I. (2021). Impacts of anxiety and socioeconomic factors on mental health in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population in Japan: A web-based survey. PLoS ONE . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247705

Nisbett, R. E. (2004). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently… and why . Free Press.

Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash trump, brexit, and the rise of authoritarian populism . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

O’Shea, B. A., Vitriol, J. A., Federico, C. M., Appleby, J., & Williams, A. L. (2021). Exposure and aversion to human transmissible diseases predict conservative ideological and partisan preferences. Political Psychology . 43 (1), 65–88.

Parsons, T. (1964). Evolutionary Universals in Society. American Sociological Review, 29 (3), 339–357.

Pazhoohi, F., & Kingstone, A. (2021). Associations of political orientation, xenophobia, right-wing authoritarianism, and concern of COVID-19: Cognitive responses to an actual pathogen threat. Personality and Individual Differences, 182 (2020), 111081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111081

Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress . Viking.

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing , Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41 (1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

Reeskens, T., Muis, Q., Sieben, I., Vandecasteele, L., Luijkx, R., & Halman, L. (2021). Stability or change of public opinion and values during the coronavirus crisis? Exploring Dutch longitudinal panel data. European Societies, 23 (S1), S153–S171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1821075

Reichelt, M., Makovi, K., & Sargsyan, A. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on gender inequality in the labor market and gender-role attitudes. European Societies . https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1823010

Ridgeway, G., Kovalchik, S. A., Griffin, B. A., & Kabeto, M. U. (2015). Propensity score analysis with survey weighted data. Journal of Causal Inference, 3 (2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1515/jci-2014-0039

Rosenfeld, D. L., & Tomiyama, A. J. (2021). Can a pandemic make people more socially conservative? Political ideology, gender roles, and the case of COVID-19. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51 (4), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12745

Samore, T., Fessler, D. M., Sparks, A. M., & Holbrook, C. (2021). Of pathogens and party lines: Social conservatism positively associates with COVID-19 precautions among US Democrats but not Republicans. PLoS ONE, 16 (6), e0253326.

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5 (2–3), 137–182. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913306778667357

Shachat, J., Walker, M. J., & Wei, L. (2021). How the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic impacted pro-social behaviour and individual preferences: Experimental evidence from China. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 190 , 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.08.001

Taniguchi, N., Akaliyski, P., & Park, J. (2022). People’s anxiety and evaluation of political actors under the COVID19 pandemic: Results from the first wave of the international comparative survey “Values in Crisis.” Japanese Journal of Electoral Studies, 37 (2), 22–36.

Tormos, R. (2019). The Rhythm of Modernization: How Values Change over Time . Brill.

Vaisey, S., & Kiley, K. (2021). A model-based method for detecting persistent cultural change using panel data. Sociological Science, 8 , 83–95.

Vartanova, I., Eriksson, K., Kirgil, Z. M., & Strimling, P. (2021). The advent of the COVID-19 epidemic did not affect americans’ endorsement of moral foundations. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647858

Welzel, C., Boehnke, K., Delhey, J., Deutsch, F., Eichhorn, J., & Kühnen, U. (2020). Values in Crisis–a Crisis of Values? Moral Values under the Imprint of the Corona Pandemic . https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSNewsShow.jsp?ID=416&ID=416

Welzel, C. (2012). The Myth of Asian Exceptionalism: Response to Bomhoff and Gu. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43 (7), 1039–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112455458

Welzel, C. (2013). Freedom rising: Human empowerment and the quest for emancipation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Welzel, C. (2020). A cultural theory of regimes. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 (3), 231–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0790-4

Welzel, C., Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H.-D. (2003). The theory of human development: A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 42 , 341–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00086

Worldometer. (2023). COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC . https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Yamazaki, S. (2019). Survey Methodology Report . https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp

Yoshioka, T., Okubo, R., Tabuchi, T., Odani, S., Shinozaki, T., & Tsugawa, Y. (2021). Factors associated with serious psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan: A nationwide cross-sectional internet-based study. British Medical Journal Open, 11 (7), 51115. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051115

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Juan Diez Medrano, Kenneth McElwain, and Boris Sokolov for helpful feedback.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology and Social Policy, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, SAR, China

Plamen Akaliyski

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan

Naoko Taniguchi

Graduate School of Management, NUCB Business School, Nagoya, Japan

Joonha Park

Berlin, Germany

Stefan Gehrig

Centre d’Estudis d’Opinió - Generalitat de Catalunya, Catalonia, Spain

Raül Tormos

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Plamen Akaliyski .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: In the original publication of the article, the affiliation of coauthor, Naoko Taniguchi was incorrectly published as “Department of Sociology and Social Policy, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, SAR, China”. The correct affiliation of Naoko Taniguchi is “Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan”.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 761 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Akaliyski, P., Taniguchi, N., Park, J. et al. Values in Crisis: Societal Value Change under Existential Insecurity. Soc Indic Res 171 , 1–21 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03226-2

Download citation

Accepted : 18 September 2023

Published : 20 October 2023

Issue Date : January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03226-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

8 in 10 americans say religion is losing influence in public life, few see biden or trump as especially religious.

Pew Research Center conducted this survey to explore Americans’ attitudes about religion’s role in public life, including politics in a presidential election year.

For this report, we surveyed 12,693 respondents from Feb. 13 to 25, 2024. Most of the respondents (10,642) are members of the American Trends Panel, an online survey panel recruited through national random sampling of residential addresses, which gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection.

The remaining respondents (2,051) are members of three other panels, the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, the NORC Amerispeak panel and the SSRS opinion panel. All three are national survey panels recruited through random sampling (not “opt-in” polls). We used these additional panels to ensure that the survey would have enough Jewish and Muslim respondents to be able to report on their views.

The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education, religious affiliation and other categories.

For more, refer to the ATP’s Methodology and the Methodology for this report. Read the questions used in this report .

A new Pew Research Center survey finds that 80% of U.S. adults say religion’s role in American life is shrinking – a percentage that’s as high as it’s ever been in our surveys.

Most Americans who say religion’s influence is shrinking are not happy about it. Overall, 49% of U.S. adults say both that religion is losing influence and that this is a bad thing. An additional 8% of U.S. adults think religion’s influence is growing and that this is a good thing.

Together, a combined 57% of U.S adults – a clear majority – express a positive view of religion’s influence on American life.

The survey also finds that about half of U.S. adults say it’s “very” or “somewhat” important to them to have a president who has strong religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are different from their own. But relatively few Americans view either of the leading presidential candidates as very religious: 13% of Americans say they think President Joe Biden is very religious, and just 4% say this about former President Donald Trump.

Overall, there are widespread signs of unease with religion’s trajectory in American life. This dissatisfaction is not just among religious Americans. Rather, many religious and nonreligious Americans say they feel that their religious beliefs put them at odds with mainstream culture, with the people around them and with the other side of the political spectrum. For example:

• 48% of U.S. adults say there’s “a great deal” of or “some” conflict between their religious beliefs and mainstream American culture, up from 42% in 2020.
• 29% say they think of themselves as religious minorities, up from 24% in 2020.
• 41% say it’s best to avoid discussing religion at all if someone disagrees with you, up from 33% in 2019.
• 72% of religiously unaffiliated adults – those who identify, religiously, as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – say conservative Christians have gone too far in trying to control religion in the government and public schools; 63% of Christians say the same about secular liberals.

These are among the key findings of a new Pew Research Center survey, conducted Feb. 13-25, 2024, among a nationally representative sample of 12,693 U.S. adults.

This report examines:

• Religion’s role in public life
• U.S. presidential candidates and their religious engagement
• Christianity’s place in politics, and “Christian nationalism”

The survey also finds wide partisan gaps on questions about the proper role for religion in society, with Republicans more likely than Democrats to favor religious influence in governance and public life. For instance:

• 42% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say that when the Bible and the will of the people conflict, the Bible should have more influence on U.S. laws than the will of the people. Just 16% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say this.
• 21% of Republicans and GOP leaners say the federal government should declare Christianity the official religion of the United States, compared with 7% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Moral and religious qualities in a president

Almost all Americans (94%) say it is “very” or “somewhat” important to have a president who personally lives a moral and ethical life. And a majority (64%) say it’s important to have a president who stands up for people with their religious beliefs.

About half of U.S. adults (48%) say it is important for the president to hold strong religious beliefs. Fewer (37%) say it’s important for the president to have the same religious beliefs as their own.

Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to value religious qualities in a president, and Christians are more likely than the religiously unaffiliated to do so. For example:

• Republicans and GOP leaners are twice as likely as Democrats and Democratic leaners to say it is important to have a president who has the same religious beliefs they do (51% vs. 25%).
• 70% of White evangelical Protestants say it is important to have a president who shares their religious beliefs. Just 11% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say this.

Views of Biden, Trump and their religious engagement

Relatively few Americans think of Biden or Trump as “very” religious. Indeed, even most Republicans don’t think Trump is very religious, and even most Democrats don’t think Biden is very religious.

• 6% of Republicans and GOP leaners say Trump is very religious, while 44% say he is “somewhat” religious. Nearly half (48%) say he is “not too” or “not at all” religious.
• 23% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say Biden is very religious, while 55% say he is somewhat religious. And 21% say he is not too or not at all religious.

Though they don’t think Trump is very religious himself, most Republicans and people in religious groups that tend to favor the Republican Party do think he stands up at least to some extent for people with their religious beliefs. Two-thirds of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP (67%) say Trump stands up for people with their religious beliefs “a great deal,” “quite a bit” or “some.” About the same share of White evangelical Protestants (69%) say this about Trump.

Similarly, 60% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, as well as 73% of Jewish Americans and 60% of Black Protestants, say Biden stands up for people with their religious beliefs a great deal, quite a bit or some.

Overall, views of both Trump and Biden are generally unfavorable.

• White evangelical Protestants – a largely Republican group – stand out as having particularly favorable views of Trump (67%) and unfavorable views of Biden (86%).
• Black Protestants and Jewish Americans – largely Democratic groups – stand out for having favorable views of Biden and unfavorable views of Trump.

Views on trying to control religious values in the government and schools

Americans are almost equally split on whether conservative Christians have gone too far in trying to push their religious values in the government and public schools, as well as on whether secular liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religious values out of these institutions.

Most religiously unaffiliated Americans (72%) and Democrats (72%) say conservative Christians have gone too far. And most Christians (63%) and Republicans (76%) say secular liberals have gone too far.

Christianity’s place in politics, and Christian nationalism

In recent years, “Christian nationalism” has received a great deal of attention as an ideology that some critics have said could threaten American democracy .

Despite growing news coverage of Christian nationalism – including reports of political leaders who seem to endorse the concept – the new survey shows that there has been no change in the share of Americans who have heard of Christian nationalism over the past year and a half. Similarly, the new survey finds no change in how favorably U.S. adults view Christian nationalism.

Overall, 45% say they have heard or read about Christian nationalism, including 25% who also have an unfavorable view of it and 5% who have a favorable view of it. Meanwhile, 54% of Americans say they haven’t heard of Christian nationalism at all.

One element often associated with Christian nationalism is the idea that church and state should not be separated, despite the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The survey finds that about half of Americans (49%) say the Bible should have “a great deal” of or “some” influence on U.S. laws, while another half (51%) say it should have “not much” or “no influence.” And 28% of U.S. adults say the Bible should have more influence than the will of the people if the two conflict. These numbers have remained virtually unchanged over the past four years.

In the new survey, 16% of U.S. adults say the government should stop enforcing the separation of church and state. This is little changed since 2021.

In response to a separate question, 13% of U.S. adults say the federal government should declare Christianity the official religion of the U.S., and 44% say the government should not declare the country a Christian nation but should promote Christian moral values. Meanwhile, 39% say the government should not elevate Christianity in either way. 1

Overall, 3% of U.S. adults say the Bible should have more influence on U.S. laws than the will of the people; and that the government should stop enforcing separation of church and state; and that Christianity should be declared the country’s official religion. And 13% of U.S. adults endorse two of these three statements. Roughly one-fifth of the public (22%) expresses one of these three views that are often associated with Christian nationalism. The majority (62%) expresses none.

Guide to this report

The remainder of this report describes these findings in additional detail.  Chapter 1  focuses on the public’s perceptions of religion’s role in public life. Chapter 2  examines views of presidential candidates and their religious engagement. And  Chapter 3  focuses on Christian nationalism and views of the U.S. as a Christian nation.

• The share saying that the government should declare Christianity the official national religion (13%) is almost identical to the share who said the government should declare the U.S. a Christian nation in a March 2021 survey that asked a similar question (15%). ↩

Sign up for our Religion newsletter

Sent weekly on Wednesday

Report Materials

Table of contents, 5 facts about religion and americans’ views of donald trump, u.s. christians more likely than ‘nones’ to say situation at the border is a crisis, from businesses and banks to colleges and churches: americans’ views of u.s. institutions, most u.s. parents pass along their religion and politics to their children, growing share of americans see the supreme court as ‘friendly’ toward religion, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Creating a Corporate Social Responsibility Program with Real Impact

• Emilio Marti,
• David Risi,
• Eva Schlindwein,
• Andromachi Athanasopoulou

Lessons from multinational companies that adapted their CSR practices based on local feedback and knowledge.

Exploring the critical role of experimentation in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), research on four multinational companies reveals a stark difference in CSR effectiveness. Successful companies integrate an experimental approach, constantly adapting their CSR practices based on local feedback and knowledge. This strategy fosters genuine community engagement and responsive initiatives, as seen in a mining company’s impactful HIV/AIDS program. Conversely, companies that rely on standardized, inflexible CSR methods often fail to achieve their goals, demonstrated by a failed partnership due to local corruption in another mining company. The study recommends encouraging broad employee participation in CSR and fostering a culture that values CSR’s long-term business benefits. It also suggests that sustainable investors and ESG rating agencies should focus on assessing companies’ experimental approaches to CSR, going beyond current practices to examine the involvement of diverse employees in both developing and adapting CSR initiatives. Overall, embracing a dynamic, data-driven approach to CSR is essential for meaningful social and environmental impact.

By now, almost all large companies are engaged in corporate social responsibility (CSR): they have CSR policies, employ CSR staff, engage in activities that aim to have a positive impact on the environment and society, and write CSR reports. However, the evolution of CSR has brought forth new challenges. A stark contrast to two decades ago, when the primary concern was the sheer neglect of CSR, the current issue lies in the ineffective execution of these practices. Why do some companies implement CSR in ways that create a positive impact on the environment and society, while others fail to do so? Our research reveals that experimentation is critical for impactful CSR, which has implications for both companies that implement CSR and companies that externally monitor these CSR activities, such as sustainable investors and ESG rating agencies.

• EM Emilio Marti is an assistant professor at the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
• DR David Risi is a professor at the Bern University of Applied Sciences and a habilitated lecturer at the University of St. Gallen. His research focuses on how companies organize CSR and sustainability.
• ES Eva Schlindwein is a professor at the Bern University of Applied Sciences and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on how organizations navigate tensions between business and society.
• AA Andromachi Athanasopoulou is an associate professor at Queen Mary University of London and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on how individuals manage their leadership careers and make ethically charged decisions.

Partner Center

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER Q&A
• 07 June 2023

What it means to practise values-based research

• Spoorthy Raman 0

Spoorthy Raman is a freelance science and environment journalist in St. John’s, Canada.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Environmental scientist Max Liboiron runs a feminist, anti-colonial research group. Credit: Alex Stead

Max Liboiron ’s academic career criss-crossed science a few times before finding an interdisciplinary home in geography. Growing up in the rural hamlet of Lac la Biche in northeastern Alberta, Canada, where university education wasn’t common, Liboiron dreamt of being a scientist. But in 1998, when they began undergraduate science studies, they became disillusioned with their university’s push towards industrial applications of science and so gravitated towards fine arts instead. After earning a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in visual arts, they returned to science and obtained a PhD in science and technology studies from New York University in 2012.

Liboiron, who is Red River Métis — an Indigenous group of Canada — joined Memorial University of Newfoundland in St John’s, Canada, in 2014 as an environmental scientist and currently heads the Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research . With their collaborator Liz Pijogge, northern contaminants researcher for the Nunatsiavut government, a regional Inuit administration, Liboiron runs the most comprehensive plastic-pollution monitoring programme in the Arctic. The lab has also developed a feminist, anti-colonial approach to science, one that has accountability, humility and good land relations at its core. Liboiron tells Nature how this approach shapes the lab’s work and why collective, respectful and thoughtful collaborations are a step towards better science.

What does it mean to run a feminist, anti-colonial science lab?

Everything we do — who we hire, who we collaborate with and how we take out the trash — we do with three values in mind. First, humility, or recognizing that you are part of other relations. Second, accountability, or being beholden to those relationships. And finally, collectivity, the idea that no individual is more important than the collective. Together, these values are skewed towards good land relations: the acknowledgement that we’re always on Indigenous land, and that land exerts its authority and needs, and we must listen to it. Feminism and anti-colonialism are useful labels to make what we do here comprehensible.

You stress ‘anti-colonizing’ science and not ‘decolonizing’. How are the two terms different?

In Canada and the United States, ‘decolonization’ can often mean giving land back to Indigenous peoples and respecting Indigenous sovereignty. But I can’t return land in a lab. In academia, everything and the kitchen sink is counted as decolonization, such as inclusion of under-represented groups, or modifying syllabuses to reflect multiple world views. Decolonization is a very promiscuous term. I’ve stopped using it because it’s been so heavily co-opted and become meaningless.

I’ll instead say anti-colonization, which means, we are not assuming entitlement to Indigenous land and life for resource use or research access. For example, asking permission before working on Indigenous land is minding your manners in a way that doesn’t reproduce colonization. The use of the term anti-colonization is just being more specific about what we’re doing.

Community peer review is an integral part of your research. What does it mean, and how does it influence your science?

It starts with the fact that all our research questions come from the community. There’s no just-for-curiosity’s-sake science here. Because we do a lot of monitoring for contaminants, we get questions about plastic ingestion in eider ducks, Arctic char, salmon and cod — all important food sources for the communities we work with.

Decolonizing science toolkit

I also do participatory statistics: I go to these communities with the findings, and we co-analyse. The communities don’t talk about statistical models, but they’ll give me more variables and categories to work with in my models, on the basis of their traditional knowledge and observations, and it’s my job to interpret that. The community peer review is like a form of validation and they ground-truth my analysis. It takes us longer to do it this way, but our science is way better in terms of choosing species and geographical areas, and seasons in which to work, all of which are important to the community.

Another anti-colonization aspect of your research is the ‘rematriation’ of samples. Why is that important?

Rematriation means returning things that science has taken, whether that’s samples, artefacts, photographs, documents or genetic material. Science has a long history of taking things from the land and people. But those belong to the community.

We work with animal guts in our lab. When you gut an animal in the wild, you always leave the guts behind for other animals to eat, and that way the nutrients circulate. It’s how you’re supposed to deal with the land, either as a scientist invested in nutrient cycles, or as an Indigenous partner or person. Because we study food webs, we return the animal guts and make sure they go back into the original cycles and relationships, instead of labelling them as a ‘biohazard’ and incinerating them, as is usually done in lab work.

Fish-gut samples collected by Max Liboiron’s research group await return to the ocean in the Nunatsiavut region of northeastern Canada. Credit: Liz Pijogge

Are there other ways in which your research is shaped by the lab’s core values?

We recognize Indigenous sovereignty, and we don’t go anywhere we are not invited to collect samples or do our science, even if that science will be amazing and useful. When we’re working with a partner community, we are beholden to their values, protocols, cultural needs and traditional knowledge. We don’t use environmentally hazardous chemicals such as potassium hydroxide in our lab work, because we return samples back to the land.

We hire local people, even if they do not have previous science experience, and train them. Our lab is full of Black, Indigenous and people of colour (BIPOC) researchers, transgender persons, women and local people, all of whom have valuable knowledge that is often pushed out of science. We also practise citational justice, a process that ensures gender parity and increased citations of authors of colour and of non-academics. We find ways to cite oral histories, plus community members and knowledge holders who don’t publish journal articles, by looking for citation formats that allow us to do so.

In our lab, people’s mental health is taken care of, and we talk about feeling a sense of belonging and family. Our number-one rule is: if you’re sick, heartbroken or exhausted, you go home. It’s okay to fail in our lab and make mistakes. People also have permission to leave academia when it’s hurting them.

How should other researchers use the anti-colonizing lens in their science and work with communities?

Our bumper sticker for that would be, ‘Don’t be a jerk!’

The first step is to do your homework: understand the community, what it needs and whether your skills and research would be useful to it. Meet people on their terms. Take them seriously when they have other forms of knowledge. And hire people and pay them what they are worth. Don’t lead with individualism and think you own everything, when the data come from Indigenous land. Have a reputation for giving data back and doing it in a timely manner.

Second, identify where colonialism is absolutely happening in your discipline and then try to address it. It’s really hard to see the ground when you’re already standing on it.

Finally, a lot of people go into science because they care about land or have a love for nature. By working the way our group does, we end up beholden to land relations more than to things such as efficiency. This is a specific framework for doing good in the world. It’s not the only one, but it’s concrete and it’s working.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01878-1

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Related Articles

Overcoming low vision to prove my abilities under pressure

Career Q&A 28 MAR 24

How a spreadsheet helped me to land my dream job

Career Column 28 MAR 24

Maple-scented cacti and pom-pom cats: how pranking at work can lift lab spirits

Career Feature 27 MAR 24

How do otters protect salt marshes from erosion? Shellfishly

News 31 JAN 24

People go the extra mile for food

News & Views 21 NOV 23

Melting glaciers will reveal vast new ecosystems in need of protection

News 16 AUG 23

Sam Bankman-Fried sentencing: crypto-funded researchers grapple with FTX collapse

News 28 MAR 24

The ‘Anthropocene’ is here to stay — and it’s better not as a geological epoch

Correspondence 26 MAR 24

Tenure-track Assistant Professor in Ecological and Evolutionary Modeling

Tenure-track Assistant Professor in Ecosystem Ecology linked to IceLab’s Center for modeling adaptive mechanisms in living systems under stress

Umeå, Sweden

Umeå University

Faculty Positions in Westlake University

Founded in 2018, Westlake University is a new type of non-profit research-oriented university in Hangzhou, China, supported by public a...

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

Postdoctoral Fellowships-Metabolic control of cell growth and senescence

Postdoctoral positions in the team Cell growth control by nutrients at Inst. Necker, Université Paris Cité, Inserm, Paris, France.

Paris, Ile-de-France (FR)

Inserm DR IDF Paris Centre Nord

Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine on Open Recruitment of Medical Talents and Postdocs

Director of Clinical Department, Professor, Researcher, Post-doctor

The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Warmly Welcomes Talents Abroad

“Qiushi” Distinguished Scholar, Zhejiang University, including Professor and Physician

No. 3, Qingchun East Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang (CN)

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital Affiliated with Zhejiang University School of Medicine

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Open access
• Published: 28 March 2024

Assessment of the E-value in the presence of bias amplification: a simulation study

• Eric Barrette 1 ,
• Lucas Higuera 1 &
• Kael Wherry 1  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  24 , Article number:  79 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

41 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The E-value, a measure that has received recent attention in the comparative effectiveness literature, reports the minimum strength of association between an unmeasured confounder and the treatment and outcome that would explain away the estimated treatment effect. This study contributes to the literature on the applications and interpretations of E-values by examining how the E-value is impacted by data with varying levels of association of unobserved covariates with the treatment and outcome measure when covariate adjustment is applied. We calculate the E-value after using regression and propensity score methods (PSMs) to adjust for differences in observed covariates. Propensity score methods are a common observational research method used to balance observed covariates between treatment groups. In practice, researchers may assume propensity score methods that balance treatment groups across observed characteristics will extend to balance of unobserved characteristics. However, that assumption is not testable and has been shown to not hold in realistic data settings. We assess the E-value when covariate adjustment affects the imbalance in unobserved covariates.

Our study uses Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the impact of unobserved confounders on the treatment effect estimates and to evaluate the performance of the E-Value sensitivity test with the application of regression and propensity score methods under varying levels of unobserved confounding. Specifically, we compare observed and unobserved confounder balance, odds ratios of treatment vs. control, and E-Value sensitivity test statistics from generalized linear model (GLM) regression models, inverse-probability weighted models, and propensity score matching models, over correlations of increasing strength between observed and unobserved confounders.

We confirm previous findings that propensity score methods – matching or weighting – may increase the imbalance in unobserved confounders. The magnitude of the effect depends on the strength of correlation between the confounder, treatment, and outcomes. We find that E-values calculated after applying propensity score methods tend to be larger when unobserved confounders result in more biased treatment effect estimates.

Conclusions

The E-Value may misrepresent the size of the unobserved effect needed to change the magnitude of the association between treatment and outcome when propensity score methods are used. Thus, caution is warranted when interpreting the E-Value in the context of propensity score methods.

Peer Review reports

Observational data or “real-world data” (RWD) are data including administrative healthcare claims, electronic health records (EHR), non-randomized registries, and patient data collected via mobile applications or wearable devices that offer many advantages for research [ 1 ]. However, observational data also present challenges for researchers. Most notably, treatments or interventions are rarely randomly assigned outside of clinical trial settings, and patient populations often include everyone treated in the usual course of care without the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria of a clinical trial. Many times, the observable covariates between people who select the intervention and people who do not select the intervention are unbalanced.

Common analytic methods for achieving unbiased treatment effect estimates, such as propensity score matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting (using propensity scores), and regression-based approaches can adjust for differences in observed covariates. Propensity score methods (PSMs) such as matching and weighting have the benefit of producing balance in observable covariates between treated and untreated groups, analogous to a randomized study [ 2 ]. In practice, researchers may assume PSM-induced balance between treatment groups across observed characteristics will extend to balance of unobserved characteristics. However, this assumption is not testable and has been shown to not always be true. [ 3 ]. Achieving unbiased estimates with PSMs or regression-based methods is predicated on the assumption of “strong ignorability” or ‘unconfoundedness”, that is, that given observed covariates, treatment assignment is independent of the potential outcomes [ 4 ]. Unfortunately, with any of these methods it is impossible to directly test if unobserved covariates are related to the treatment and the outcome, not to mention balanced. Moreover, prior research has shown that using PSMs to balance observed covariates can result in more biased treatment effect estimates, compared to non-PSMs, by increasing the imbalance in unobserved covariates.

Numerous approaches, i.e., “sensitivity analyses”, have been proposed to assess the potential impact of unmeasured confounders [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. One technique growing in popularity is the E-value, defined as “the minimum strength of association, on the risk ratio scale, that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment and outcome, conditional on the measured covariates, to fully explain away a specific treatment” [ 9 ]. Unlike many sensitivity tests, the E-value does not require assumptions about the number of unmeasured confounders or their functional form. The E-value is also appealing due to the direct calculation from a risk ratio or an approximation of a risk ratio from other common treatment effect estimates (e.g., odds ratios or hazard ratios). However, if the treatment effect estimate is biased, the effect on the E-value and its subsequent interpretation is not obvious. Our study contributes to the growing literature on the applications and interpretations of E-values, and by extension the sensitivity analysis literature. Specifically, this study sought to answer the question of how the performance of the E-value is impacted in simulated data with varying levels of association between unobserved covariates and treatment and outcome.

Conceptual background

Our simulation study is tangentially related to the bias amplification literature. That literature considers the effect of conditioning on variables that are associated with treatment but not the outcome (except through treatment) – also known as instrumental variables – or variables that are much more strongly associated with treatment than the outcome – sometimes referred to as “near instruments”. Theoretical results and simulation studies have shown that controlling for an instrumental variable causes bias in treatment effect estimates [ 10 , 11 ]. Potential bias amplification is an important consideration when designing an observational analysis because it has been shown through simulation studies to occur in a variety of realistic models [ 3 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Our study diverges from the bias amplification literature by considering data with an unobserved covariate associated with treatment only. If this type of covariate was observed, it would be an instrumental variable but in our simulated data, it is not available to the researcher.

Our choice of this data structure is two-fold. First, previous research has used this structure in simulations and found that imbalance in the portion of the variation of the unobserved covariates that affect treatment choice that is independent of the observed covariates is necessary for propensity score-based methods to achieve balance in observed covariates. However, achieving balance also leads to greater imbalance in unobserved covariates and subsequently results in more biased treatment effect estimates [ 16 ]. Second, we contend, as did the researchers who used it previously, that this data structure is not uncommon. Consider a hypothetical population of patients with diabetes. The treatment is use of an insulin pump versus multiple daily injections of insulin. The outcome of interest could be a discrete measure of whether blood glucose time in target range was achieved or not. Characteristics associated with both treatment and outcome like age would be observed. Other demographic or socioeconomic characteristics may also be associated with both treatment and outcome but not observed. Finally, there is some other unobserved factor related only to the probability of using an insulin pump, such as physicians’ preference.

Our simulation seeks to assess how the E-value magnitude varies relative to a treatment effect estimate that has varying degrees of bias. It has been shown that the E-value has a nearly linearly monotonic relationship to a treatment effect estimate. Thus, for a given treatment effect estimate value the E-value is always the same, no matter the research setting, data, or analysis method used [ 17 ]. Moreover, the derivation of the E-value assumes that unmeasured covariates are equally related to the treatment and outcome [ 9 ]. This is an assumption that has been contested by other researchers as being unlikely in many settings [ 18 ]. Using simulated, but realistic, data we are able to vary the strengths of associations in unobserved covariates between treatment and outcome. To provide practical results for practitioners we include commonly used treatment effect estimation methods: regression and PSMs to control for observed covariates.

We test the relationship between the E-value (and potential conclusions drawn from the E-value) and propensity score methods under varying scenarios of unobserved confounding. Using Monte Carlo methods we simulate a simple dataset including observed and unobserved covariates with varying levels of correlation between treatment and outcome based on the model in Brooks and Ohsfeldt [ 3 ]. This published model shows the tradeoffs between balance and bias in PSMs, and offers an appropriate framework to test how E-values handle unobserved confounders in a realistic approximation of observational research. First, we report the estimated odds ratio of the effect of treatment on the outcome relative to a control across various correlation scenarios and propensity-score methods (inverse-probability weighted models and propensity score matching, based on the same propensity score). Next, we compare observed and unobserved covariate balance across the simulated scenarios. Finally, to assess potential conclusions about study robustness to unobserved covariates, we evaluate the calculated E-values across correlation and PSM scenarios.

As in Brooks and Ohsfeldt [ 3 ], a patient’s net utility gain from treatment ( \(Tx\) ) depends on the value of being cured ( \(V\) ), the relative cost of treatment ( \(S\) ), an observed confounder ( \({X}_{m}\) ), and a set of unobserved confounders ( \({X}_{u1},{X}_{u3},{X}_{u4}\) ).

Parameter \(\alpha\) weights how confounders affect treatment decision, and \({\beta }_{T}\) denotes how treatment affects the likelihood of being cured; this is our parameter of interest. The distributions and correlations of \(Xs\) are described below. A patient is treated ( \(T=1)\) if \(Tx>0\) , and it is not ( \(T=0)\) otherwise.

The probability of a patient being cured depends on treatment \(T\) , the observed confounder \({X}_{m}\) , and a set of unobserved confounders \({X}_{u1},{X}_{u2}\) .

A patient is cured ( \(C=1\) ) based on a Bernoulli distribution with probability \({\text{Pr}}(C)\) .

Data and simulations

All data are simulated in this study. We used the same distributions in Brooks and Ohsfeldt to make our results comparable to theirs. There is one observed confounder \({X}_{m}\) drawn from a uniform [0,1] distribution, while unobserved confounders \({X}_{u1},{X}_{u3},{X}_{u4}\) are linear combinations of \({X}_{m}\) and \(\mu\) , a random variable distributed uniform [0,1], weighted by a correlation \(\rho \ge 0\) .

The remaining unobserved confounder \({X}_{u2}\) is a linear combination between unobserved confounder \({X}_{u3}\) and \(\mu\) .

Note that the unobserved confounder \({X}_{u1}\) affects both the treatment decision and the probability of cure, and it is the main source of bias in the model. However, the correlation between \({X}_{u2}\) and \({X}_{u3}\) introduces an indirect path between treatment decision and the probability of cure. We use these confounders to generate \(T\) and \(C\) according to Eqs. ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), respectively. We generate 1,000 random datasets with 10,000 observations each for values of \(\rho =\left\{\mathrm{0,0.1,0.2},\dots ,0.9\right\}\) .

For each dataset we estimate \({\beta }_{T}\) and its associated risk ratio from a series of generalized linear regressions with \(C\) as outcome, binomial family and logit link, and 1) no additional confounders, 2) \({X}_{m}\) , or observed confounders only, and 3) \({X}_{m},{X}_{u1},{X}_{u2}\) , or observed and unobserved relevant confounders. For the propensity score methods, we estimate 1) an inverse probability weighted generalized linear regression, weighted by the inverse of a probability of treatment predicted from a probit model with \({X}_{m}\) as control, and 2) a 1:1 greedy propensity score matched model with a caliper of 0.001; as a sensitivity analysis, we estimate 1:1 propensity score matching models with less restrictive calipers of 0.1 and 0.01. These methods reflect current practices in observational research, where an association –with and without a causal interpretation- of a treatment with an outcome is estimated using only observed confounders. We also calculate the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) for \({X}_{m},{X}_{u1},{X}_{u2}\) without any adjustments and with the propensity score methods. Lastly, we use the estimated risk ratios (RR) to calculate the E-Value as in VanderWeele and Ding [ 9 ]:

Figure  1 shows the SMD of observables ( \({X}_{m}\) ) and unobservables ( \({X}_{u1}\) and \({X}_{u2}\) ) of the results of the Monte Carlo simulations by method (unadjusted, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), and PSM) and correlation \(\rho\) . For the observed confounder \({X}_{m}\) , at all correlation levels both IPTW and PSM successfully improve balance with respect to the unadjusted results; however, at higher correlations the balance of IPTW worsens.

Balance of observable X_m and unobservables X_u1, X_u2 before and after adjustment. Note: Median, interquantile range box, and outliers of the standardized mean differences after 1,000 simulations. SMD standardized mean difference. IPTW Inverse probability treatment weighting. PSM Propensity score matching

Compared to the unadjusted results, the SMD of \({X}_{u1}\) is higher with IPTW and PSM when the correlation is low. For higher correlations, the SMDs from IPTW and PSM are lower than the unadjusted, but only the SMD with PSM decreases as correlation increases. The SMDs of \({X}_{u2}\) follow a similar pattern, where the SMDs from IPTW and PSM are higher with respect to the unadjusted results at lower correlations, but these SMDs decrease when correlation increases. Except for the observed confounder \({X}_{m}\) , neither IPTW nor PSM achieve SMDs to the informal level of 0.1 to consider the imbalance corrected.

Figure  2 shows the proportion of observations in common support from IPTW and PSM, defined as observations with an overlapping estimated probability of treatment. At lower correlations, few observations are outside the common support, but at higher correlations observations in common support reduce rapidly. Median observations in the common support are lower in PSM than in IPTW at all correlations greater than 0.

Proportion of observations in common support. Note: Median interquantile range box, and outliers of the proportion of observations in common support after 1,000 simulations results. OR Odds ratio. IPTW Inverse probability treatment weighting. PSM Propensity score matching

The results of the regression specifications applying IPTW or PSM are reported in Table  1 .

In Fig.  3 , we plot the estimated coefficients and associated risk ratios of each estimate against the full information regression. The full information regressions correctly estimate \({\beta }_{T}\) at 0.2, with an associated risk ratio of 1.07. The results from the regression without confounders (upper left side of Fig.  3 ) show an upwardly biased \(\widehat{{\beta }_{T}}\) , and this bias increases with a higher correlation. IPTW results show a similar pattern, with an overall biased \(\widehat{{\beta }_{T}}\) , and a higher bias with a higher correlation. But there is more variability in the \(\widehat{{\beta }_{T}}\) estimate with IPTW compared to the regression specification without confounders. Conversely, the regression with \({X}_{m}\) as control (upper right side of Fig.  3 ) shows a biased \(\widehat{{\beta }_{T}}\) at lower correlation levels, but this bias decreases as the correlation increases. Results from PSM specifications also show a decrease in bias at higher levels of correlation, and a substantially higher variability at higher correlations.

Coefficient estimates and Risk Ratios. Note: Median (marker) and x-axis percentiles 5 and 95 (shaded area) of 1,000 simulations results. RR Risk ratio. IPTW Inverse probability treatment weighting. PSM Propensity score matching

In Fig.  4 we plot median E-values and bias in the estimation of \({\beta }_{T}\) (defined as the difference between \({\beta }_{T}\) and \({\widehat{\beta }}_{T}\) ) by level of correlation for each estimation method, compared to the full information regression. There is a positive association between E-values and bias: larger E-values are paired to larger differences between the estimated risk ratio and the true risk ratio. As in the previous results, higher correlations between the observable and unobservable confounders increase the E-values in the regressions without controls and in IPTW specifications and decrease the E-values in the regressions with controls and in PSM. The variability in E-values is the highest in the PSM specifications at higher levels of correlation.

Bias and E-Value. Note: Median (marker) and x-axis percentiles 5 and 95 of 1,000 simulations results. Bias defined as β_T-β ̂_T. IPTW Inverse probability treatment weighting. PSM Propensity score matching

Controlling for covariates is essential to estimating treatment effects and PSMs are among the most common methodologies available to do so in observational research. Unfortunately, in almost all research studies there will be factors that are unobservable to the researcher. This limitation has motivated the development of numerous tools and best practices for designing, conducting, and assessing an observational analysis including multiple sensitivity analysis methods that can be applied to provide a measure of study robustness, including sub-cohort analyses, falsification tests, alternate specifications [ 8 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. However, the fact remains that balancing covariates in observational analyses does not guarantee balance in unobserved confounders which must be considered when applying sensitivity tests.

Our study examines the performance of a sensitivity analysis to estimate whether unobserved confounders would change the conclusion regarding the treatment effect estimate in the presence of amplification bias. We contribute to a body of literature that examines how methods to control for confounding may actually introduce bias [ 3 , 22 , 23 ]. We first confirm our data generating model results in increased imbalances in unobserved confounders after balancing observed covariates. We find that the treatment effect estimates relative to the true effect vary by specifics of the propensity score method (i.e., matching vs weighting and size of the matching caliper). We also document the effect of increasing strength of correlated unobservables on reducing the size of the final analytic sample. In practice, this has implications for the generalizability of the treatment effect estimate. We then extend our analysis to evaluate the impact of correlation among unobservables on the E-value calculation.

The appropriate application and interpretation of the E-value remains a point of contention in the literature. Besides the simple calculation and minimal assumptions, the E-value is intended to have a straightforward interpretation; a larger E-value indicates a treatment effect estimate is more robust to unmeasured confounding and a smaller E-value indicates more sensitivity to unmeasured confounding. In their review of the use of the E-value, Blum et al. (2020) highlight how E-value results are presented in publications with phrases such as “These results demonstrate that substantial unmeasured confounding would be needed to reduce the observed associations to null" [ 24 ]. However, there are no threshold values or formal guidance around appropriate conclusions that can be drawn based on the E-value. Critics of the E-value have suggested users should provide guidance to readers on the interpretation of the E-value in addition to a pre-specified value for an ‘explain away’ threshold [ 24 ]. It may be reasonable to place greater or lesser emphasis on the E-value depending on what is already known about unmeasured confounders and a research topic; however, no formal recommendations exist.

Although the purpose of the E-value is not to test for bias, our simulation study demonstrates that its interpretation can be affected by the presence and magnitude of amplification bias. Confirmation that a biased treatment effect estimate is not sensitive to unobserved confounding is not necessarily informative. It may confirm the existence of a causal effect but in many instances the magnitude of the effect also matters. We find that as the estimated treatment effect becomes more biased away from the true treatment effect, the E-value also increases. Thus, in this setting, the E-value incorrectly suggests that it is less likely that an unobserved confounder would change the conclusion of the analysis when in fact the treatment effect is biased toward finding an effect.

Our findings provide empirical support that an entire observational study protocol—both the main analyses and sensitivity analyses – must be informed by expertise on what is already known about potential unmeasured confounders in the context of a specific research question. Researchers who are aware of potential unobserved factors and possibly even a rough approximation of their magnitudes will be better able to determine the appropriate application of the E-value. This recommendation builds on a small but growing literature regarding E-values best practices. Blum and colleagues’ recommendations from their systematic literature review of E-values: users should provide guidance to readers on the interpretation of the E-value in addition to a pre-specified value for the ‘explain away’ threshold [ 24 ]. The recommendation is also consistent with VanderWeele and Mathur [ 25 ] who suggest that authors discuss potential unmeasured confounders and compare the E-value with covariate–outcome associations with prior literature. Our results demonstrate why this type of qualitative and quantitative bias assessment is needed.

Our paper has several limitations. First, our simulations used a single data generating process and only varied one aspect of the covariate correlation structure. It is impossible to know how much of an impact PSMs will have on the balance of unobserved covariates in any other data. In particular, our results do not generalize to data without variation of the unobserved covariates that affect treatment choice that is independent of the observed covariates. However, we expect that PSMs will always result in greater imbalance in unobserved covariates associated with only the treatment in settings where there is independent variation. Thus, the treatment effect estimate bias will be greater with PSMs relative to a regression approach in those instances but not for all data. In practice, researchers may consider multiple treatment effect estimation methods.

A second limitation is that our analysis of propensity score methods was limited to only two approaches. There have been numerous advances in PSMs and balancing methodologies more generally that may have different effects on the balance in unobservables [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. The variation in effects and the inability to calculate exactly what the magnitude of the impact is for a study should also give researchers pause in applying a single measure to assess the robustness of their results.

Bias in treatment effect estimates due to imbalance in unobserved confounders may result in the E-value suggesting a spurious confidence in results under various covariate adjustment methodologies.

Availability of data and materials

Datasets available from corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Electronic health record

Generalized linear model

Inverse probability of treatment weighting

Propensity score methods

Randomized controlled trial

Real-world data

Real-world evidence

Standardized mean difference

Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, Gray GW, Gross T, Hunter NL, et al. Real-World Evidence — What Is It and What Can It Tell Us? N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2293–7.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. 2010;25(1):1.

Brooks JM, Ohsfeldt RL. Squeezing the Balloon: Propensity Scores and Unmeasured Covariate Balance. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(4):1487–507.

Angrist JD, Pischke J-S. Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion: Princeton university press; 2009.

Rosenbaum PR. Sensitivity analyses informed by tests for bias in observational studies. Biometrics. 2023;79(1):475–87.

Arah OA. Bias analysis for uncontrolled confounding in the health sciences. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:23–38.

Delaney JA, Seeger JD. Sensitivity analysis. Developing a protocol for observational comparative effectiveness research: a user's guide: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.

Zhang X, Stamey JD, Mathur MB. Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounders for credible and reliable real-world evidence. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29(10):1219–27.

VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268–74.

Ding P, VanderWeele T, Robins JM. Instrumental variables as bias amplifiers with general outcome and confounding. Biometrika. 2017;104(2):291–302.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wooldridge JM. Should instrumental variables be used as matching variables? Res Econ. 2016;70(2):232–7.

Article   Google Scholar  

Myers JA, Rassen JA, Gagne JJ, Huybrechts KF, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, et al. Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(11):1213–22.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Walker AM. Matching on provider is risky. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(8 Suppl):S65–8.

Ali MS, Groenwold RH, Pestman WR, Belitser SV, Roes KC, Hoes AW, et al. Propensity score balance measures in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(8):802–11.

Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability and confounding revisited. Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations. 2009;6:1–9.

King G, Nielsen R. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. Polit Anal. 2019;27(4):435–54.

Localio AR, Stack CB, Griswold ME. Sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding: E-values for observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):285–6.

Ioannidis JP, Tan YJ, Blum MR. Limitations and misinterpretations of E-values for sensitivity analyses of observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(2):108–11.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan AW, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hróbjartsson A, Kirkham J, Jüni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, Ramsay CR, Regidor D, Rothstein HR, Sandhu L, Santaguida PL, Schünemann HJ, Shea B, Shrier I, Tugwell P, Turner L, Valentine JC, Waddington H, Waters E, Wells GA, Whiting PF, Higgins JP. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, Johnson ML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report-Part I. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1044–52.

Dreyer NA, Velentgas P, Westrich K, Dubois R. The GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness: a tale of hope and caution. J Manag Care Pharm. 2014;20(3):301–8.

Google Scholar  

Bhattacharya J, Vogt WB. Do instrumental variables belong in propensity scores? : National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge. USA: Mass; 2007.

Book   Google Scholar  

Daw JR, Hatfield LA. Matching and Regression to the Mean in Difference-in-Differences Analysis. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(6):4138–56.

Blum MR, Tan YJ, Ioannidis JPA. Use of E-values for addressing confounding in observational studies—an empirical assessment of the literature. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(5):1482–94.

VanderWeele TJ, Mathur MB. Commentary: Developing best-practice guidelines for the reporting of E-values. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(5):1495–7.

Hirano K, Imbens GW, Ridder G. Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score. Econometrica. 2003;71(4):1161–89.

Bang H, Robins JM. Doubly Robust Estimation in Missing Data and Causal Inference Models. Biometrics. 2005;61(4):962–73.

Hainmueller J. Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies. Polit Anal. 2012;20(1):25–46.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the following for comments: Tim Hanson and Patrick Zimmerman, Bryan Dowd, Melissa Garrido, John M Brooks.

The authors are employees of Medtronic, plc.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Medtronic, Plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Eric Barrette, Lucas Higuera & Kael Wherry

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LH and EB contributed to the development and analysis of the data. LH prepared the tables and figures. LH, EB, and KW contributed to the conception and design of the work, interpretation of the data, and the drafting and editing of the manuscript. LH, EB, and KW have approved the submitted version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for the contributions of this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kael Wherry .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to particpate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Prior presentations : 14th Annual FDA/AdvaMed Medical Device Statistical Issues Conference May 2022, International Conference on Health Policy Statistics January 2023.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Barrette, E., Higuera, L. & Wherry, K. Assessment of the E-value in the presence of bias amplification: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 24 , 79 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02196-4

Download citation

Received : 13 October 2023

Accepted : 03 March 2024

Published : 28 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02196-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Propensity score matching
• Residual confounding

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Scand J Prim Health Care
• v.38(4); 2020

Our core values will endure

Johann a. sigurdsson.

a Chair of the Nordic Federation of General Practice, GP, Professor emeritus, Development Centre for Primary Health Care, Iceland; Department of Public Health and Nursing; General Practice Research Unit, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Anders Beich

b Chair of the Danish College of General Practice, GP, Copenhagen, Denmark

Anna Stavdal

c WONCA World, GP, President Elect, The Norwegian College of General Practice, Oslo, Norway

In order to define what our discipline stands for, and what we are fighting for on its behalf, the Nordic Colleges of General Practice has formulated a statement of the Core Values and Principles of Nordic General Practice/Family Medicine, published in this issue.

Why now? Societal trends and new challenges

Family Medicine was established as a specialty in its own right in some vanguard Western countries during the 1960s and 70s. Equal access to care, continuity of care, comprehensive care, and solidarity, reflected the political ethos of the times [ 1 ]. Its ideology was in large part encapsulated in this quote from Ian McWhinney:

When taken together, the principles of Family Medicine represent a worldview – a system of values and approaches to problems – that is identifiably different from that of other disciplines [ 2 ]

During the following decades, societal trends have impacted both the context and the standards of care, that is, workload, tasks and organization within healthcare in general, and in General Practice in particular. Some of these trends have been described in this journal [ 3–10 ].

Many of the trends and challenges are apparently interlinked: changes regarding economic constraints and incentives, specialisation and fragmentation of care, ever-increasing mobility among patients and professionals, digitalisation, as well as a tendency toward over-medicalisation within many specialties – all developed within a context of greater commercialisation and a steepening social gradient. Furthermore, opportunistic ‘digital doctoring’ companies have emerged, alongside a growing interest among health authorities, investors, and researchers in monitoring consultations and analysing ‘Big Data’. Problems related to ‘too much medical overactivity’, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment are on the rise [ 10 , 11 ].

The importance of core values

Carefully chosen core values serve as guiding principles. These become particularly important when the stakes are high and alternative courses of action exist. Identifying essential values and then acting in accordance with them lays the groundwork for transparency, and for trust to develop [ 12–14 ]. Which of the core values and principles formulated during the 70s are still valid and applicable, given the wide range of challenges that have emerged? It is important to note here that WONCA Europe did formulate a definition of general practice in 2002 [ 15 ], highlighting essential ideological concepts and core professional competencies for GPs. However, the WONCA definition did not explicitly emphasise the relationship between viable working principles and moral values, as we do here.

The Nordic core values and principles

In 2017, the Nordic Federation of General Practice (NFGP), the collaborative union of the five Nordic Colleges of General Practice, decided first to re-think and revise their vision and mission statements, and then to formulate their core values and guiding principles.

Discussions of that sort had a long history among several of the Nordic countries. The experiences, conversations, and debates of the late nineties resulted in the Norwegian College of General Practice (NSAM, later NFA), chaired by one of the authors here (AS), taking the lead to draw up ‘Sju teser’ (‘Seven principles of good medical practice for General Practitioners’) These ‘Sju teser’ were published in Norwegian in 2001, formatted and distributed in the form of an eye-catching poster [ 16 , 17 ] ( Figure 1 ).

Poster versions of the Norwegian ‘Sju teser’ (2001) and the Danish ‘Pejlemaerker’ (2016) statements.

Fifteen years later, the Danish College of General Practice (DSAM), led by another of the authors (AB), decided to analyse data from an extensive vision process, involving hundreds of Danish GPs, in which they had shared their views on the core values, principles and purposes of General Practice. In 2016, based on this input and strongly inspired by the ‘Sju teser’ of 2001, DSAM formulated their own, updated, version of the professional principles and values, called ‘Pejlemaerker for faget almen medicin’ (‘Guideposts for the Profession of General Practice Medicine’) [ 18 ] ( Figure 1 ). The history of these projects can be read here: https://www.nfgp.org/files/34/status_report_working_group_on_core_values_and_principles.pdf .

In the above-mentioned 2017 revision process, it proved unrealistic to simply merge and then translate the Norwegian and Danish versions into an English version that satisfied everyone. We needed first to scrutinize and debate the unexpectedly divergent associations and cultural implications that the Danish, Norwegian, and English words and concepts carried. And again, hundreds of Nordic GPs were involved, participating in workshops and digital exchanges. The diversity of opinions and suggestions that emerged was enriching and greatly appreciated. The English rendering of the Nordic GPs shared understanding of the Nordic statement was agreed to at last, as it appears in this issue. We find it particularly noteworthy that, despite two decades of applying and debating these perspectives, their actual contents – our values and principles – have hardly changed.

Research supporting the core values

A substantial body of literature and research supports the relevance and validity of core values and principles of General Practice [ 5 , 9 , 10 , 19 ]. Nonetheless, more work is needed. For example, it has been pointed out that many of the research studies regarding values have soft endpoints regarding moral intent, which are difficult to define and, consequently, difficult to validate. Most of the studies so far have focused on concepts such as ‘generalist/comprehensive care’ and the doctor-patient relationship [ 20 ].

Through ground-breaking research using morbidity and mortality as hard endpoints, Barbara Starfield and her co-workers were able to document better outcomes in regions/countries with a higher number of primary care physicians, compared to those with a lower number [ 21 , 22 ].

Relationship-based care is one of the cornerstones of general practice [ 5 , 8 , 9 ]. Yet, due to societal trends in many countries, the organization of contemporary healthcare systems threatens the doctor-patient relationship mode of care. It becomes even more important to stress such results as those of a systematic review study recently published by Pereira Gray and co-workers, showing that increased continuity of care by doctors was associated with lowered mortality rates [ 23 ].

Values and standards

To put core values into perspective, we need to clarify the distinction between values and standards. Values have a fundamental, moral intention and help us move toward achieving our vision, particularly in times of tension and dispute. Standards, on the other hand, are more pragmatic. They may vary and change to some extent, even among countries where general practice is considered to have a stronghold. For example, in our Nordic model, unlike those of many other regions, GPs not only take care of patients but also play a crucial role in the management of social and welfare services. Meanwhile, both the recently published values statement from Scotland, ‘The Edinburg Consensus Statement’ [ 14 , 24 ], and the ‘Position paper. Core Values of General Practice/Family Medicine’ from the Dutch College of General Practice [ 25 ], show remarkable similarities to our Core Values and Principles of Nordic General Practice/Family Medicine. This would seem to indicate that, despite differences in training routines and organisation, our shared core values are what constitute the fundamental and defining basis of our profession. Thus, while standards may vary, our core values and principles should be able to endure and unite us.

Ideally, standards of care will be informed by the best evidence available at any given time. However, both organisational principles and clinical priorities are repeatedly challenged by stakeholders outside of our discipline, as outlined above. In such situations, a common set of Core Values and Principles can both motivate and mobilize us, as advocates for our discipline.

We hope the Nordic Statement of Core Values and Principles can become a beneficial resource, not only for the primary care community but for politicians and stakeholders throughout the entire healthcare system, for researchers and teachers in pre- and postgraduate education, for everyone involved in professional development – and finally, for our patients, the citizens of the Nordic countries.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Biden Signs Executive Order to Expand Research on Women’s Health

The president said that improving women’s health was crucial to ensuring a healthy, stable economy.

Biden Signs Executive Order to Boost Women’s Health Research

The executive order is aimed at addressing the underrepresentation of women in health research..

We’ve launched the first ever White House initiative on women’s health research to pioneer the next generation of scientific research and discovery in women’s health. Think of all the breakthroughs we’ve made in medicine across the board, but women have not been the focus. And today — [applause] today, we’re jumpstarting that investment by dedicating $200 million in the National Institutes of Health to tackle some of the most pressing health problems facing women today. With the executive order I’m about to sign, I’m directing the most comprehensive set of executive actions ever taken to improve women’s health — ever taken. And I’m going to ensure that women’s health is integrated and prioritized across the entire federal government. It’s not just in women’s health, not just at N.I.H., the National Science Foundation or the Defense Department, the Environmental Protection Agency. I mean, across the board. This is really serious.

By Zolan Kanno-Youngs

Reporting from Washington

President Biden on Monday signed an executive order to expand the federal government’s research into women’s health, including midlife conditions like menopause, arthritis and heart disease, as well as issues specifically affecting women in the military.

In what the White House described as the “most comprehensive” action by a president on women’s health research, Mr. Biden directed federal agencies to ensure that they are using federal funds to research health conditions and diseases that disproportionately affect women.

Standing alongside the first lady, Jill Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris, Mr. Biden said improving women’s health was crucial to guaranteeing a healthy, stable economy.

“There’s not a damn thing a man can do a woman can’t do,” Mr. Biden said. “To state the obvious, if you want to have the strongest economy in the world, you can’t leave half of the country behind.”

Carolyn M. Mazure, a psychologist and a professor at the Yale School of Medicine, who is the chairwoman of the White House initiative on Women’s Health Research, told reporters on Sunday night that health conditions like heart disease, Alzheimer’s, menopause and fibroids would be a focus of the expanded research effort.

“I’m not even a betting woman,” said Maria Shriver, the former first lady of California, who also attended the event, “but I’ll bet today that this is the first time a president of the United States has ever signed an executive order that mentions the words ‘menopause’ and ‘women’s midlife health’ in it.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and the Alabama Supreme Court ruled last month that frozen embryos should be considered children , threatening in vitro fertilization, the Biden campaign has increasingly accused Republicans of undermining women’s health. During his State of the Union address this month, Mr. Biden said such decisions would motivate women to vote in the November election, while also saying his White House would commit to investing in women’s health in the year ahead.

“You can’t lead America with old ideas and take us backwards,” Mr. Biden said, adding, “To lead the land of possibilities, you need a vision for the future laying out what we can and should do and what we’re going to do.”

Mr. Biden’s executive order will require agencies to report annually their investments in women’s health research and to study ways that artificial intelligence can be used to advance such research. The National Institutes of Health will increase by 50 percent investments in small businesses focused on women’s health. The Defense Department also plans to invest $10 million to learn more about cancers and mental health issues affecting women in active military service.

The White House has called on Congress to pass a plan to invest $12 billion to create a new fund for women’s health research at the National Institutes of Health. In the meantime, the executive order signed on Monday directed the N.I.H. to spend $200 million on women’s health research. Dr. Biden traveled to Cambridge, Mass., last month to announce the first step of the women’s health initiative: $100 million to support women’s health researchers and start-up companies.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs is a White House correspondent, covering President Biden and his administration. More about Zolan Kanno-Youngs

Despite climate change, coastal property values are on the rise. Researchers point to two reasons.

A new economic model from North Carolina researchers suggests that tax incentives for high income property owners and federal subsidies for beach nourishment projects continue to increase coastal property prices, despite growing climate risks from sea level rise.

"Wealthier and wealthier people continue to move into these [coastal] communities. And that continues to bid up housing prices in the coastal zone, despite the escalating risks that we see," said Martin Smith , a professor in environmental economics at Duke University who co-developed the model. "Part of this process is also the tax incentives. And on top of all of that, we're subsidizing the management of beaches and the defense of our shorelines... [which] is propping up those real estate values as well."

The model, published earlier this month, was developed by Smith and Dylan McNamara , professor of physics and physical oceanography at University of North Carolina Wilmington.

Both authors say federal subsidies can slow a market’s adjustment to long-term climate risks by obscuring the costs to counter such risks. These subsidies include funding for measures that help mitigate property damage from storms and flooding, such as beach nourishment projects, which involves pumping sand onto beaches to counter sand erosion.

Smith describes the situation as a paradox.

"We do things that defend the shoreline that are justified in the short run, or even in the medium run. But in doing so, we, paradoxically, increase the value of the coastal zone," Smith said. "And when we increase the value of the coastal zone, we attract more investment and more high income and wealthy residents. And that puts higher value in the way of climate change. So we're kind of stuck in this cycle, where we just keep defending the shoreline, which props up property values and then defending it more."

Smith emphasized that this cycle is important to understand because it's only a matter of time before coastal communities are completely inundated because of sea level rise caused by climate change.

"The real question for us is: how do we want the transition to that future to look? Do we want things to sort of click along where we have all this value, and all of a sudden things just drop off a cliff? Or do we want to be a little bit more deliberate about the transition to that future moving forward?," Smith said.

The study suggests facilitated managed retreat as an option, where government programs would help residents transition away from the coast. Another option is investing in coastal housing that's more transitory, rather than current housing that tend to be stuck in place.