In one previous posts on values ​​and personalityI explained why values ​​could be considered a type of personality trait. Personality traits usually defined as “consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, or actions that distinguish people from one another” (Johnson, 1997, p. 74). Values are often defined similarly, for example, “Values ​​are dispositions to experience affect-laden cognitions that pull people toward desired outcomes” (Longest, Hitlin, & Vaisey, 2013, p. 1500). (Cognition and affect are technical terms for thoughts and feelings respectively).

Thoughts or cognitions can refer to many different mental processes or contents. When it comes to values, we’re talking about beliefs about what is good, right, important, and worth striving for (and sometimes worth fighting for or even dying for). These beliefs are not neutral and disinterested; they are accompanied by strong feelings or affects, which motivate us to pursue what we value.

My previous post further explained why, although values ​​are part of personality, most research on values ​​has been done by social psychologists such as Milton Rokeach, Shalom Schwartz, and Jonathan Haidt rather than personality psychologists. This is because Gordon Allport’s early taxonomy of personality traits, from which Big Five personality model emerged, intentionally omitting value-laden trait terms. Interestingly, despite attempts to keep values ​​outside of personality, empirical research has shown that Schwartz and Haidt’s value measures are meaningfully related to the Big Five. I ended the last post with a promise to discuss further questions about personality and values, such as how moral values ​​differ from other values ​​and how values ​​can guide our choice of career. This post delivers on that promise.

Types of value

When people hear the word “values,” they often think of morality. But moral values ​​refer specifically to good behavior, behavior that we strive for and expect other people to strive for. We can also talk about aesthetic, political and other types of values. Natural beauty or art has aesthetic value because it creates a good state of mind (McCrae, 2024). Government policy has political value when it creates desirable outcomes such as freedom, security, justice and order.

Among the potentially confusing collection of different “types” of values, the common denominator is a belief that something is good and desirable. Moral virtues lead to good actions. The best art produces desirable states of mind. Effective government policy leads to good social functioning.

Good and bad adopt meaningful goals

I think it is important to understand that the concepts of “good” and “bad” inevitably require target organisms. In words of neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell (2023, p. 66), “Before there were living organisms, there were no good things and bad things. Things are not good or bad in themselves: they only have meaning and value with respect to some goal or purpose. For living beings, good things are those that increase endurance. And bad things are ones that reduce stamina.”

Persistence (staying alive and reproducing) may be the most basic valuable goal of living organisms, but there are many ways to persist, and therefore a variety of valuable goals that humans pursue. In a study of personality and goals, Roberts and Robins (2000) identified 10 clusters of important life goals: financial (to achieve career success and wealth), aesthetic (creating and experiencing art), social (helping others), relational (marrying and having children), political (leading and influencing), hedonistic (having fun), religious, personal growth (finding purpose in life), physical well-being and theoretical (become knowledgeable). Roberts and Robins discovered small but meaningful associations between investment in these valued goals and the Big Five personality traits.

Values ​​and Career Choice

Roberts and Robins (2000) used several sources to create their 10 organizing value clusters. One of these sources was Allport, Vernon and Lindzey’s (1970) Study of values. I would like to describe Study of values because of its relationship to occupational choice. We spend an enormous amount of our lives preparing for and engaging in work activities, and our success and satisfaction with our jobs has an outsized impact on our financial, physical, and psychological well-being. If we choose a job indiscriminately, just to make money, we risk feeling unsatisfied and unhappy. If we choose a profession that aligns with our core values, we are more likely to feel fulfilled. The word calling means “calling,” as in being called to a higher purpose.

Gordon Allport (ironically, the same Gordon Allport who tried to keep values ​​out of his taxonomy of personality traits) created his Study of values measure based on the six types of people described by Eduard Spranger (1928). Each of Spranger’s types is focused on a fundamental value. These six values ​​correlate empirically with measures of John Holland’s (1994) vocational personality types (Rounds & Armstrong, 2014; Stoll, et al, 2020). Additionally, each Holland type can be defined by one of Maslow’s basic needs (Johnson, 1994).

Source: John A. Johnson

Value dilemmas and priorities

Life is not as simple as the pursuit of great value. Spranger, Allport, Holland, and Maslow all indicated that their short lists of basic values, interests, and needs describe ideal, theoretical types that do not fully define real people. Actual people are motivated by multiple values ​​that may conflict with each other. For example, self-enhancement can interfere with promoting other people’s interests, and seeking reassurance can reduce personal freedom (Schwartz, 1992). When faced with moral dilemmas and other value conflicts, we must be aware of our value priorities, that is, which of our values ​​are most important. Complementing inventories such as Allport et al.’s (1970) Study of values and Holland’s (1994) Self-directed search can help us become more aware of our value priorities to maximize satisfaction with our life decisions.