How do people interpret the value concept? Development and evaluation of the value conceptualisation scale using a mixed method approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Selected examples of interview quotes and resulting survey items.

Participant quote	Item formulation
‘Well, loyalty is my first priority. That’s really what I try to live.’	My values give me clear guidelines of how to live my life
‘There are often problems, because you don’t know (pause) there are values that oppose each other. (…) They are contradictory.’	My values are often contradictory and not easy to implement
‘If you always have to discuss and defend your values (…) they become pretty aware to you in this domain.’	I am clearly aware of my values
‘What even are values? (…) I think I don’t really have something like that, at least I am not aware of it.’	I find it difficult to describe my values concretely

Based on focus groups (n = 38). Interview sequences were translated into English and adjusted to written language.

Table 2. Final survey items.

In the following, you see a variety of contrary attitudes towards values. Please locate your views between these opposing poles.
A	Which values are right, differs from person to person	1	2	3	4	5	6	There are values that are objectively right and apply to everyone
B	Values have little meaning in my everyday life	1	2	3	4	5	6	Values are very important in my everyday life
C	You have to guide people towards the right way	1	2	3	4	5	6	Nobody is allowed to dictate values to others
D	In my life, my values have changed greatly	1	2	3	4	5	6	In my life, the same values have always applied
E	My values give me clear guidelines of how to live my life	1	2	3	4	5	6	My values are often contradictory and not easy to implement
F	I am clearly aware of my values	1	2	3	4	5	6	I find it difficult to describe my values concretely

Item A conceptually corresponds to value normativity, item B to value relevance, item C to value validity, item D to value stability, item E to value consistency, and item F to value awareness.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

		Answer 1–3	Answer 4–6	M	SD	Var.	Skew.	Kurt.	N
A	Normativity	43%	57%	3.71	1.55	2.41	−0.20	−1.05	1519
B	Relevance	19%	81%	4.51	1.16	1.35	−0.67	0.12	1519
C	Validity	39%	61%	3.91	1.34	1.80	−0.13	−0.73	1519
D	Stability	56%	44%	3.30	1.38	1.91	0.11	−0.78	1519
E	Consistency	66%	34%	3.00	1.26	1.58	0.28	−0.55	1519
F	Awareness	74%	26%	2.68	1.31	1.73	0.52	−0.50	1519

Austrian Value Formation Study (ÖWBS) 2016 (n = 1519). The frequencies displayed represent the cumulative shares of people leaning either towards statement A (answers 1–3) or statement B (answers 4–6) on each bipolar item.

Table 4. Test-retest reliabilities, means, and percent of stable answers (1 year re-test interval).

	R	M Test	SD Test	M Retest	SD Retest	% within ±1
A Normativity	.42***	3.82	1.54	3.79	1.63	68.5
B Relevance	.43***	4.55	1.10	4.66	1.12	84.4
C Validity	.42***	3.90	1.32	4.09	1.29	73.5
D Stability	.42***	3.35	1.35	3.36	1.35	74.6
E Consistency	.42***	2.97	1.22	2.91	1.23	77.7
F Awareness	.47***	2.61	1.25	2.53	1.24	81.4

Austrian Value Formation Study (ÖWBS) 2016 and retest survey (n = 1850). Only people participating in both waves are included in this comparison. 20 outlier cases were excluded.