Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 977–997 | Cite as

A Unified Theory of Value-Based Reasoning and U.S. Public Opinion

  • Paul GorenEmail author
  • Harald Schoen
  • Jason Reifler
  • Thomas Scotto
  • William Chittick
Original Paper


Public opinion research shows that American citizens utilize domain-specific political values to guide opinion formation in the key issue areas that comprise the American political agenda. One set of political values operates on economic welfare opinions, a different set of values applies to cultural issue positions, a third set shapes foreign policy preferences, and so on in other policy domains. Drawing on Shalom Schwartz’s theory of basic human values, this paper argues that two socially focused values—self-transcendence and conservation—guide opinion formation across all major policy domains. By contrast, the personally focused values of self-enhancement and openness-to-change should play a more limited role in preference formation. These hypotheses are tested using data from a novel 2011 national survey and the 2012 General Social Survey. The statistical results affirm expectations. We show that self-transcendence and conservation values predict scores on symbolic ideology, economic conservatism, racial conservatism, cultural conservatism, civil liberties, and foreign policy opinions. Self-enhancement and openness-to-change values play a modest role in shaping preferences.


Basic human values U.S. public opinion Domain-specific issues 



Funding for the YouGov survey was provided by an International Studies Association venture grant “Integrating Research on Domestic and Foreign Policy Opinions” awarded to William Chittick and Jason Reifler. Additional funding for the survey was provided by a University of Southern California grant to Brian Rathbun. Reifler and Scotto’s time was supported by ESRC Grant ES/L011867/1.

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9344_MOESM1_ESM.docx (114 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 113 kb)


  1. Barker, D., & Tinnick, J. D. (2006). Competing visions of parental roles and ideological constraint. American Political Science Review, 100, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckers, T., Siegers, P., & Kuntz, A. (2012). Congruence and performance of value concepts in social research. Survey Research Methods, 6, 13–24.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, A. L. (2002). Self-interest, social security, and the distinctive participation patterns of senior citizens. American Political Science Review, 96, 565–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chittick, W. O., Billingsley, K. R., & Travis, R. (1995). A three-dimensional model of foreign policy beliefs. International Studies Quarterly, 39, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Datler, G., Jagodzinski, W., & Schmidt, P. (2013). Two theories on the test bench: Internal and external validity of the theories of Ronald Inglehart and Shalom Schwartz. Social Science Research, 42, 906–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davidov, E., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Explaining attitudes towards immigration policies in European countries: The role of human values. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38, 757–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 420–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 268–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, R., & Smith, P. (2004). Values and organizational justice: performance and seniority based allocations criteria in the UK and Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goren, P. (2001). Core principles and policy reasoning in mass publics. A test of two theories. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goren, P. (2013). On voter competence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A Structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1987). How are foreign policy attitudes structured? A hierarchical model. American Political Science Review, 81, 1099–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1990). Public images of the Soviet Union: The impact of foreign policy attitudes. Journal of Politics, 52, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacoby, W. G. (2006). Value choices and public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 706–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11, 129–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kuntz, A., Davidov, E., Schwartz, S. H., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Human values, legal regulation, and approval of homosexuality in Europe: A cross-country comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Layman, G. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Liberman, P. (2006). An eye for an eye: Public support for war against evildoers. International Organization, 60, 687–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maio, G., & Olson, J. M. (1995). Relations between values, attitudes, and behavioral intentions: The moderating role of attitude function. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 266–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCann, J. A. (1997). Electoral choices and core value change: The 1992 presidential campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 564–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McClosky, H., & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Piurko, Y., Schwartz, S. H., & Davidov, E. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations. Political Psychology, 32, 537–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rathbun, B. C., Kertzer, J. D., Reifler, J., Goren, P., & Scotto, T. J. (2016). Taking foreign policy personally: Personal values and foreign policy attitudes. International Studies Quarterly, 60, 124–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roccas, S. (2003). Identification and status revisited: The moderating role of self-enhancement and self-transcendence values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 726–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, V., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values, and voting: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 31, 421–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sears, D. O. & Funk, C. L. (1991). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 1–91).Google Scholar
  37. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spini, D. (2003). Measurement equivalence of 10 value types from the Schwartz value survey across 21 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Goren
    • 1
    Email author
  • Harald Schoen
    • 2
  • Jason Reifler
    • 3
  • Thomas Scotto
    • 4
  • William Chittick
    • 5
  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  3. 3.University of ExeterExeterUK
  4. 4.University of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  5. 5.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations