Perceived value threats are related to fear of health impairments

Figures & data

Figure 1. The circumplex model of values (Schwartz, 1992).

Table 1. Means and standard deviations (in round brackets) of all variables in study 1.

	Motor impairments	Cognitive impairments	Sensory impairments (blindness)	Language and communication impairments	Sensory impairments (deafness)	Disfiguring impairments	Impairments of reproductive function	Total
Fear	9.15 (1.46)	8.89 (1.70)	8.75 (1.76)	7.84 (2.48)	7.51 (2.39)	7.47 (2.35)	7.32 (2.63)	8.13 (2.26)
Perceived value threats
ST	−1.31 (1.43)	−1.84 (1.66)	−1.35 (1.62)	−1.54 (1.49)	−1.44 (1.37)	−0.91 (1.42)	−0.20 (1.02)	−1.23 (1.52)
OP	1.95 (1.57)	0.93 (1.47)	1.50 (1.59)	0.81 (1.10)	0.79 (1.06)	0.62 (1.09)	0.91 (1.21)	1.07 (1.38)
Own values
ST	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.61 (1.47)
OP	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.52 (1.63)

ST = self-transcendence vs self-enhancement values, OP = openness to change vs conservation values.

Table 2. Correlations between fear, own values, and perceived value threats in study 1.

			Own values		Perceived value threats
		Fear	ST	OP	ST	OP
Own values
ST	r	−.187	1
	p	.000
OP	r	−0.022	854	1
	p	.515	−.280
Perceived value threats
ST	r	−.117	0.004	0.026	1
	p	.001	0.918	.455
OP	r	.143	0.027	−0.045	−.397	1
	p	.000	0.434	.192	.000

ST = self-transcendence vs self-enhancement value dimension; OP = openness to change vs conservation value dimension.

Table 3. Regression models testing the effects of values on fear of health impairments in study 1.

	Fear of health impairments
	b	SE	β	CI	p
Own values
ST	−.38	.10	−.24	[−.37, −.12]	<.001
OP	−.14	.09	−.10	[−.23, .03]	.119
Perceived value threats
ST	−.04	.06	−.03	[−.10, .05]	.468
OP	.14	.06	.08	[.01, .16]	.021
Interaction effects
ST	−.04	.03	−.05	[−.13, .03]	.203
OP	.03	.03	.04	[−.05, .13]	.384

Model’s marginal R² = .06, correct R² = .45, ICC = 0.418, AIC = 3571.25, BIC = 3618.75, RMSE = 1.580. ST = self-transcendence vs self-enhancement values; OP = openness to change vs conservation values.

Table 4. Means and standard deviations of all variables in study 2.

	Motor impairments	Cognitive impairments	Sensory impairments	Language and communication impairments	Disfiguring impairments	Impairments of reproductive functions	Total
Fear	81.29 (27.39)	80.69 (23.58)	74.88 (31.57)	65.80 (30.20)	63.87 (29.16)	57.22 (34.02)	70.63 (30.74)
Perceived value threats
ST	−2.14 (1.70)	−1.64 (1.74)	−2.05 (1.87)	−1.93 (1.85)	−1.70 (1.72)	−.61 (1.24)	−1.68 (1.77)
OP	3.15 (1.91)	1.01 (1.80)	2.88 (1.92)	2.11 (1.89)	1.74 (1.53)	1.97 (1.63)	2.15 (1.92)
Own values
ST	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.01 (1.44)
OP	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.08 (1.47)

ST = self-transcendence vs self-enhancement values, OP = openness to change vs conservation values.

Table 5. Correlations between fear, perceived value threats, and own values in study 2.

			Own values		Perceived value threats
		Fear	ST	OP	ST	OP
Own values
ST	r	−0.021	1
	p	.581
OP	r	0.001	−.259	1
	p	.987	.000
Perceived value threats
ST	r	−.298	0.054	−.114	1
	p	.000	.148	.002
OP	r	.290	−0.037	.175	−.536	1
	p	.000	.326	.000	.000

ST = self-transcendence vs self-enhancement value dimension; OP = openness to change vs conservation value dimension.

Table 6. Regression models testing the effects of values on fear of health impairments in study 2.

	Fear of health impairments
	b	SE	β	CI	p
Own values
ST	0.11	1.63	−.01	[−.14, .15]	.947
OP	−0.63	1.57	−.03	[−.18, .12]	.687
Perceived value threats
ST	−2.56	.65	−.15	[−.22, −.07]	<.001
OP	2.30	.59	.14	[.07, .22]	<.001
Interaction effects
ST	0.26	.34	.03	[−.05, .12]	.443
OP	−0.18	.29	−.03	[−.11, .06]	.543

Model’s marginal R² = .07, correct R² = .64, ICC = 0.611, AIC = 6573.54, BIC = 6619.41, RMSE = 16.822. ST = self-transcendence vs self-enhancement values; OP = openness to change vs conservation values.

Table 7. Means and standard deviations of all variables in study 3.

	Motor impairments	Cognitive impairments	Sensory impairments	Language and communication impairments	Disfiguring impairments	Impairments of reproductive function	Total
Fear	82.96 (26.69)	85.28 (21.78)	79.33 (26.77)	76.26 (28.07)	65.94 (31.13)	65.59 (31.97)	75.89 (28.88)
Perceived value threats
ST	−2.12 (2.39)	−1.78 (2.35)	−2.11 (2.53)	−2.20 (2.47)	−1.64 (2.08)	−0.67 (1.47)	−1.75 (2.30)
OP	3.08 (3.13)	1.86 (2.50)	2.91 (2.91)	2.53 (2.76)	1.57 (2.10)	1.99 (2.08)	2.32 (2.66)
Own values
ST	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.66 (1.79)
OP	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.13 (1.78)

ST = self-transcendence vs self-enhancement value dimension; OP = openness to change vs conservation value dimension.

Table 8. Correlations between fear, threatened values and own values in study 3.

			Own values		Threatened values
		Fear	ST	OP	ST	OP
Own values
ST	r	.184	1
	p	.000
OP	r	−.221	−.563	1
	p	.000	.000
Threatened values
ST	r	−.280	−.107	0.020	1
	p	.000	.005	.599
OP	r	.216	.130	0.067	−.659	1
	p	.000	.001	.079	.000

ST = self-transcendence vs self-enhancement value dimension; OP = openness to change vs conservation value dimension.

Table 9. Regression models testing the effects of values on fear of health impairments in study 3.

	Fear of health impairments
	b	SE	β	CI	p
Own values
ST	1.15	1.37	.07	[−.08, .22]	.402
OP	−3.59	1.40	−.22	[−.37, −.07]	.010
Threatened values
ST	−1.53	.60	−.13	[−.22, −.04]	.011
OP	1.17	.51	.11	[.02, .20]	.021
Interaction effects
ST	0.14	0.24	.06	[−.02, .14]	.541
OP	0.12	0.21	.09	[.01, .16]	.567

Model’s marginal R² = .09, correct R² = .52, ICC = 0.477, AIC = 6353.95, BIC = 6399.41, RMSE = 18.26. ST = self-transcendence vs self-enhancement values; OP = openness to change vs conservation values.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/;GSKEC.