Agentic and Communal Values: Their Scope and Measurement

Abstract

Agency is the meta-concept associated with self-advancement in social hierarchies; communion is the partner concept associated with maintenance of positive relationships. Despite the wealth of data documenting the conceptual utility of agency and communion (A & C) as superordinate metaconcepts, no direct measures of global A & C value dimensions are currently available. The first part of this article presents structural analyses of data from 4 diverse data sets (3 archival and 1 new): Each included a broad inventory of values or life goals. All 4 data sets revealed higher order A & C dimensions that were either apparent or implicit. The second part details the development of the ACV, a 24-item questionnaire measuring global A and C values, and documents its psychometric properties. Four studies support their joint construct validity by positioning the value measures within a nomological network of interpersonal traits, self-favorability biases, ideology dimensions, gender, socio-sexuality, and religious attitudes. Potential applications of the new instrument are discussed.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by separate grants to the authors from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Notes

The complexity of differentiating values, motives, and life goals is acknowledged. Nonetheless, we argue that they should all bifurcate into the same A & C categories.

The current version included two items that Schwartz (2003) proposed as replacements for preliminary PVQ–21 items: one for the Security Type scale, and the other for the Power Type scale. We included both the preliminary and replacement items for these scales, bringing the total number of PVQ items administered here to 42.

This apparent discrepancy warrants comment. Many relationship values and goals appear to be ambiguous with respect to A & C: This ambiguity might explain the erratic history of relationship value markers like sense of belonging, mature love, and true friendship in the value taxonomy of Schwartz and colleagues (e.g., compare Schwartz, 1992, 2003; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004). The difference between the Richards (1966) and Roberts and Robins (2000) data might derive from a different focus of the items. The relationship goal “having children” implicates prosperity or social status motives to a greater extent than the relationship goal “being a good husband or wife.”

At the behavioral level, A & C might sometimes appear mutually exclusive because society often requires people to choose one over the other.

The second political axis is associated with openness to experience (Trapnell, 1994; see also Lee, Ashton, Ogunfowora, Bourdage, & Shin, 2010).

The few items evidencing substantial cross-loadings (competence, influence) share a conscientious flavor, along with its dutifulness connotation. This overlap might account for secondary associations with communion.

Use of multidimensional scaling, as preferred by Schwartz, has this effect: Compared to factor analysis, one less factor emerges (Davison, 1985).