KLUCKHOHN AND STRODTBECK'S VALUES ORIENTATION THEORY
ABSTRACT
People's attitudes are based on the relatively few, stable values they hold. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's (1961) Values Orientation Theory proposes that all human societies must answer a limited number of universal problems, that the value-based solutions are limited in number and universally known, but that different cultures have different preferences among them. Suggested questions include humans' relations with time, nature and each other, as well as basic human motives and the nature of human nature. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck suggested alternate answers to all five, developed culture-specific measures of each, and described the value orientation profiles of five SW USA cultural groups. Their theory has since been tested in many other cultures, and used to help negotiating ethnic groups understand one another, and to examine the inter-generational value changes caused by migration. Other theories of universal values () have produced value concepts sufficiently similar to suggest that a truly universal set of human values does exist and that cross-cultural psychologists are close to discovering what they are.
INTRODUCTION
Cross-cultural psychology has two broad aims: to understand the differences between human beings who come from different cultural backgrounds, and to understand the similarities between all human beings. The similarities may be sought at all levels - from the physiological (our eyes are able to perceive colour) through the cognitive (we are also able to perceive perspective, or relative distance), to the personal (we can be both happy and sad, gentle or aggressive) to the social (we all relate to our parents and siblings), to the cultural (we all share cultural norms with others of the same cultural background).
These cultural norms can take a variety of forms. They may be quite concrete and specific, like the type of clothing we find acceptable on a given occasion, or extremely complex and abstract, as are our religious beliefs. An important type of norm is the concept we have of ourselves in relation to other objects and people. These may range from our belief about the nature of human nature (1992), to the opinions we hold (our political opinions, for instance) to the attitudes we have toward a variety of concepts which we hold. Attitudes have long been studied by psychologists - especially social psychologists. For the first half of the twentieth century, it was believed that if we could measure them accurately, they would enable us to predict human behaviour. And predicting behaviour is what all psychology is about.
However, as we became more psychometrically sophisticated, and able to measure attitudes accurately with instruments such as the Likert summated ratings scale, we learned that attitudes are much more complex than we had realised, and that they have to be measured very carefully, and a number of other factors such as context and strength taken into account before any accuracy of prediction could be claimed. Moreover we all have so many attitudes, they change so readily, and they vary so much over time and situation, that any one attitude can predict only a relatively small amount of behaviour. Social psychologists therefore started looking for more fundamental, slower changing concept which might give more reliable behavioural prediction. One such concept is the values which a person holds. Values are seen as being relatively few in number. Perhaps the best-known student of values is (1979), who suggests that there are at most 36 values held by human beings. Moreover they are considered to be widely, and perhaps universally held. Concepts such as honesty and courage, peace and wisdom, are recognised in all human cultures. On the other hand, (1980, 2001), in a huge world-wide study, has been able to find no more than five which are universally held.
Nevertheless the idea that there are basic human values, and that they are measurable, has been exciting psychologists to investigate them for many years, from in 1931 to the present day. It has been widely accepted that uncovering those values, and devising means of measuring them, would facilitate valuable insight into the similarities and differences between human beings from differing cultural backgrounds.
One theory of basic human values which has been very influential is that of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961). Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck set out to operationalise a theoretical approach to the values concept developed by Florence's husband, Clyde Kluckhohn (1949, 1952). He argued that humans share biological traits and characteristics which form the basis for the development of culture, and that people typically feel their own cultural beliefs and practices are normal and natural, and those of others are strange, or even inferior or abnormal. He defined a value as: "A conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from available modes, means and ends of action." (Kluckhohn, 1951).
Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck developed a theory which put these principles into action. They started with three basic assumptions:
-
"There is a limited number of common human problems for which all peoples must at all times find some solution".
-
"While there is variability in solutions of all the problems, it is neither limitless nor random but is definitely variable within a range of possible solutions".
-
"All alternatives of all solutions are present in all societies at all times but are differentially preferred".
They suggested that the solutions for these problems preferred by a given society reflects that society's values. Consequently, measurement of the preferred solutions would indicate the values espoused by that society. They suggested five basic types of problem to be solved by every society:
-
On what aspect of time should we primarily focus - past, present or future?
-
What is the relationship between Humanity and its natural environment - mastery, submission or harmony?
-
How should individuals relate with others - hierarchically (which they called "Lineal"), as equals ("Collateral"), or according to their individual merit?
-
What is the prime motivation for behaviour - to express one's self ("Being"), to grow ("Being-in-becoming"), or to achieve?
-
What is the nature of human nature - good, bad ("Evil") or a mixture?
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck also suggested a sixth value dimension of Space (Here, There, or Far Away) but did not explore it further. They then speled out the possible answers to each of the questions, arguing that the preferred answer in any society reflects the basic orientation of the society to that aspect of its environment. The orientations to each question are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Four basic questions and the value orientations reflected in their answers.
Question
Orientation
Description
Time
Past
We focus on the past (the time before now), and on preserving and maintaining traditional teachings and beliefs.
Present
We focus on the present (what is now), and on accommodating changes in beliefs and traditions.
Future
We focus on the future (the time to come), planning ahead, and seeking new ways to replace the old.
Humanity and Natural Environment
Mastery
We can and should exercise total control over the forces of, and in, nature and the super‑natural
Harmonious
We can and should exercise partial but not total control by living in a balance with the natural forces
Submissive
We cannot and should not exercise control over natural forces but, rather, are subject to the higher power of these forces.
Relating to other people
Hierarchical (“Lineal”)
Emphasis on hierarchical principles and deferring to higher authority or authorities within the group
As equals (“Collateral”)
Emphasis on consensus within the extended group of equals
Individualistic
Emphasis on the individual or individual families within the group who make decisions independently from others
Motive for behaving
Being
Our motivation is internal, emphasising activity valued by our self but not necessarily by others in the group
Being-in-becoming
Motivation is to develop and grow in abilities which are valued by us, although not necessarily by others
Achievement (“Doing”)
Our motivation is external to us, emphasising activity that is both valued by ourselves
and is approved by others in our group.
In proposing orientations to the Nature of Human nature question, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck suggested that there are two dimensions involved - good, bad or mixed, and that of mutability, or whether we are born the way we are and cannot change, or can learn to change (in either direction). Moreover they suggested that "mixed" may mean either both good and bad, or neutral. Taking all these considerations into account simultaneously gives us the possible orientations shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Orientations possible in answering the question on the Nature of Human Nature.
Question
Orientation
Description
Nature of Human Nature
evil/mutable
Born evil, but can learn to be good. However danger of regression always present.
evil/immutable
Born evil and incapable of being changed. Therefore requires salvation by an external force.
mixture/mutable
Has both good and bad traits, but can learn to be either better or worse.
mixture/immutable
Has both good and bad traits, and their profile cannot be changed
neutral/mutable
Born neither good nor bad, but can learn both good and bad traits
neutral/immutable
Born neither good nor bad, and this profile cannot be changed
good/mutable
Basically good, but subject to corruption
good/immutable
Basically good, and will always remain so.
Having set out their theory, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck then proposed a means of measuring the orientations it produced. They suggested intensive interviewing be used, with a series of probing questions exploring each of the value dimensions with the interviewee. However they also recognised that many people find it difficult to think in the abstract, so suggested that real-life situations be outlined which involved the particular value being investigated. This led to the moral dilemma approach used by Kohlberg in his studies of morality a decade later. Moreover Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck also stressed that the real-life situations used must be appropriate to the culture of the people being studied. This was an early attempt to provide a solution to the emic-etic dilemma outlined by (1969) some years later, and appears similar to the solution to the dilemma proposed by in the 1990s.
To test their theory out, Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck interviewed members of five different cultural groups in the South-West USA. These included itinerant Navaho, Mexican-Americans, Texan homesteaders, Mormon villagers, and Zuni pueblo dwellers. In doing so, however, they did not attempt to develop measures of the Nature of Human Nature orientations, finding them too complex. For the remaining four dimensions, however they were able to develop real-life situations relevant to all five cultural groups, and questions to probe the value orientations used by members of those cultures in dealing with the situations involved. They were then able to draw value profiles of each group, showing the ways in which they differed from each other, and the ways in which they were similar. All of this work was published in their 1961 book, and immediately made a strong impact on cross-cultural psychologists.
Since then other theorists have also developed theories of universal values - notably (1979), (1980, 2001) and (1992). However the theory developed by Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck remains widely used and has sparked a good deal of research - as any good theory should. A conference of users of the theory in 1998 ( 2000), for instance, attracted over 400 delegates.
Applications of the Theory
Nevertheless the question remains: what use is such a theory? The work of (1984, 1992) clearly demonstrates a very practical employment of a theory of universal human values. Russo has worked for a Native American tribe, the Lummi of Washington state, for more than two decades, using the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck theory to help them bring themselves to an ever higher standard of living. The Lummi have their own reserve territory on the Western coast near the Canadian border. There they pursue their traditional industry of deep sea fishing, as well as more recent trades such as liquor retailing. Their success in these and other enterprises depends on their being able to relate successfully to the predominantly white American majority population surrounding them. The majority population forms the bulk of potential customers for their products, and at the same time is the prime source of food, clothing and manufactured goods. Moreover its members control such vital necessities as access to power, water and timber. Members of the cultural majority must also be negotiated with concerning issues such as taxes and transport.
The Lummi have therefore realised that it is vitally important that they understand the cultural mores of the majority if they are to interact successful with them. Issues such as the assumed basic motives for behaviour, the importance or otherwise of tradition, relationships between older and younger generations, accepted modes of decision-making, etc have to be understood before harmonious and successful discussion can take place. Toward this end Russo has developed measures to assess the preferred value orientations of the majority, and of the Lummi themselves. Differences and similarities have been clearly demarcated, and each party to potential negotiations made aware of them.
Thus when Lummi leaders go to discuss trade, taxes, utilities or transport with local business people and officials, they are aware of the world views of those with whom they are discussing, and of the similarities and differences between themselves and their neighbours. Such foreknowledge has resulted in a successful and harmonious relationship between the two cultural groups for many years. This testifies to both the importance of understanding each others' values, and the efficacy of the Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck theory in doing so.
Another way in which the theory has been used is to examine changes in cultural mores over time. An example of this were the studies undertaken by(1977, 1980) and (1976) of changes in the disparity in values between young people and their parents as a result of migration. Using the Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck theory, they developed a fixed-alternative, 25-item questionnaire to assess respondents' value orientations in the five question areas. Having tested the questionnaire for reliability and face validity, they had it translated and back-translated into several appropriate languages. It was then tape-recorded in each of these languages, as read by a native speaker of each language. The tape recording was then used as the prime instrument in orally administering the questionnaire. Using this technique they administered it to young people, both male and female, aged between 16 and 18, and to their parents, both mother and father. Samples were taken from some of the cultures from which large numbers of people migrated from the South Pacific to New Zealand in the 1960s and 70s - Samoa, Fiji and the Cook Islands. Moreover samples within each of those countries were taken not just from the main towns, but from selected remote back-country villages as well. Comparison groups of both Maori and Pakeha (white) New Zealanders were also obtained. Data was analysed in terms of the inter-generational disparity in values demonstrated by each group.