DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2017-1-78-86

VALUES OF RUSSIANS IN THE CONTEXT
OF intergenerational relations^*

Fedotova Vera Alexandrovna
Senior Lecturer of the Department of Management

National Research University Higher School
of Economics (Perm Branch),
38, Studencheskaya str., Perm, 614070, Russia;
e-mail: vera_goldyreva@mail.ru
ORCID: 0000-0003-2189-9791

The problem of inter-generational distinctions in values is actual in modern Russia. Since the middle of the 80–90th years of the XX century the valuable gap between generations is observed. The aim of the work is to generalize the theoretical researches on a problem of existence/lack of inter-generational distinctions in values and to conduct the empirical research directed on identification of a valuable gap between generations. Culture is realized through values, which in turn are the basis of any culture. Values define a person’s relationship with society, nature and himself; they form the goals, group beliefs and actions. The concept of value is polysemantic. The formation of socio-cultural values occurs simultaneously with the formation of personality and determined by culture and society. Socio-cultural value orientation is the core of our life and is often manifested in what the person thinks and how he or she acts. The sample was 380 youth and adults. Results confirmed the hypothesis that there is a difference in individual values between different generation of Russians. Values «Independence of thought», «Stimulation», «Universalism», and «Universalism: tolerance» prevail among youth. Among adults the values expressing interests of group prevail: «Tradition», «Benevolence: care» and valuable orientation «Modesty».

Keywords: values, inter-generational distinctions, systems of measurement of values.

References

1. Sotsiologiya molodezhi. Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ / otv. red. Yu.A. Zubok, V.I. Chuprov [ Sociology of Youth. Encyclopedic Dictionary / ed. by Yu.A. Zubok, V.I. Chuprov]. Moscow, Academia Publ., 2008, 608 p. (In Russian).
2. Dansereau F. A multiple level of analysis perspective on the debate about individualism. American Psychologist. 1989, no. 44, pp. 959–960. DOI: 10.1037//0003-066x.44.6.959. (In English).
3. Hitlin S., Piliavin J.A. Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology. 2004, no. 30, pp. 359–393. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110640. (In English).
4. Rohan M.J. A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2000, no. 4, pp. 255–277. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0403_4. (In English).
5. Higgins E.T. Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review. 2006, no. 113, pp. 439–460. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.439. (In English).
6. Rokeach M. The nature of human values. N.Y.: Free Press, 1973, 520 p. (In English).
7. Lebedeva N.M. [Basic values of Russian culture at the turn of the XXI century]. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal [Psychological Journal]. 2000, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 73–87. (In Russian).
8. Lebedeva N.M. [Value-motivational structure of personality in Russian culture]. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal [Psychological Journal]. 2001, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 26–36. (In Russian).
9. Schwartz S.H., Bardi A. Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology. 2001, no. 2, pp. 268–290. DOI: 10.1177/0022022101032003002. (In English).
10. Schwartz S.H. Les valeurs de base de la personne: Théorie, mesures et applications [Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications]. Revue Française de Sociologie [French Journal of Sociology]. 2006, no. 47, pp. 249–288. DOI: 10.3917/rfs.474.0929. (In French).
11. Schwartz S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology. 1992, no. 25, pp. 1–65. DOI: 10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6. (In English).
12. Bardi A., Lee J.A., Towfigh N., Soutar G. The structure of intra-individual value change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009, vol. 97, pp. 913–929. DOI: 10.1037/a0016617. (In English).
13. Knoppen D., Saris W. Schwartz theory of human values: Balancing homogeneity of reflective items and theoretical coverage, RECSM Working Paper, 2009. №9, 40 p. Available at: https://www.upf.edu/
    documents/3966940/3986764/RECSM_wp009.pdf (accessed 13.02.2016). (In English).
14. Shvarts Sh., Butenko T.P., Sedova D.S. [A Refined Theory of Basic Personal Values: Validation in Russia]. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics]. 2012, no. 2, pp. 24–43. (In Russian).
15. Magun V.S., Rudnev M.G. [Basic values of two generations of Russians and the dynamics of their social determination]. Obschestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ [Social Sciences and Modernity]. 2010, no. 3, pp. 87–97. (In Russian).
16. Senin I.G. Oprosnik terminal’nykh tsennostey [Questionnaire of terminal values]. Yaroslavl, 1991, 103 p. (In Russian).
17. Karandashev V.N. Metodika Shvartsa dlya izucheniya tsennostey lichnosti [Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values]. Saint Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2004, 308 p. (In Russian)
18. Postnikova M.I. Psikhologiya otnosheniy mezhdu pokoleniyami: teoretiko-metodologicheskiy aspekt [Psychology of relations between generations: theoretical and methodological aspect]. Arkhangelsk, Pomorskii universitet Publ., 2010, 180 p. (In Russian).
19. Koroleva N.E. [Priorities of social-cultural values orientation of modern Russian people]. Kostromskoy gumanitarnyy vestnik [Kostroma humanitarian bulletin]. 2011, no. 1, pp. 36–39. (In Russian).
20. Elashmawi F., Harris P.R. Multicultural management. New skills for global success. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company, 1993, 208 p. (In English).
21. Goldyreva V.A. [The relationship of values and concepts of business ethics in different generations of Russians]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education]. 2013, no. 1, pp. 94–103. (In Russian).

The date of the manuscript receipt 04.03.2016

Please cite this article in English as:

Fedotova V.A. Values of Russians in the context of intergenerational relations // Perm University Herald. Series «Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology». 2017. Iss. 1. P.78–86. DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2017-1-78-86

---