Values and Targets of Hope

Abstract

The current chapter is dedicated to evaluate the first element of the proposed hope concept, examining the role of human values in the general perception of hope and in the adoption of significant targets of hope across different cultures. The study employed the value model of Shalom Schwartz and elaborated conceptual connections to the phenomenon of hope. Based on data collected with the Hope Barometer in November 2018 (N = 5832) in German and French speaking Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic, this study analyzes the commonalities and possible cultural differences in the levels of perceived hope, in individual hope targets, and in the effects of particular human value orientations on hope. Our findings indicate that hope is not determined by the wealth of a nation (e.g., in terms of GDP) but by personal and collective characteristics, to a certain extent influenced by basic human values. The results disclose the almost universal significance of self-transcendence and openness to change, as well as the relevance of tradition and achievement in relation to a hopeful attitude and to central prosocial and altruistic targets of hope. Beyond common features across cultures, this study reveals subtle cultural differences worth to be further investigated in future studies.

3.1 Introduction

The hope concept presented in the previous chapter comprises three basic elements of hope: (1) A wish or desire that is regarded as a significant and meaningful good; (2) the belief that the realization of this wish is possible (although not necessarily probable); and (3) the trust in the availability of personal, social, transcendental, or other (e.g., political, economic) resources to overcome difficulties and obstacles. The first domain of the hope concept addresses the wishes and desires along with the fundamental values of people. These can be directed to a certain state of affairs, to an event, to particular circumstances, or to specific goals related to the individual. They can also be focused on the closer social environment, on a certain institution, on society or on the entire world (e.g., the hope for a sustainable economy). The central elements here are the targets of hope based on certain values that are of particular importance and significance to individuals.

From a social-constructionist point of view, Averill and his colleagues (Averill et al., 1990; Averill & Sundararajan, 2005) considered that the nature of hope would depend on the cultural context with its particular values and norms in which the hoping person is embedded. Personal hopes are characterized by their significance and value but not by the likelihood of their achievement. The authors identified different kinds of targets people might hope for in different cultures (e.g., material goods, hedonic experiences, social relationships, and altruistic motives) and the actions performed to achieve the outcome. According to these studies, people generally hope less for materialistic and hedonic goods but more for social relationships, altruistic ends, or for an ideal self and world. However, the authors also identified differences between cultures, specifically the United States and Korea, proposed that hope is related to a cultural value structure.

Our assumption in this chapter is that what people hope for is to a certain extent related to their values and interests and also, to what they consider as desirable for a good life for themselves, their closer environment, and for society at large. Further, these values are partly influenced by cultural values. Whereas in this chapter we will focus on personal hopes in people’s own life, Chap. 10 will be dedicated to hopes related to the broader environment and society. We commence with the definition, qualities, and types of basic human values and establish their conceptual connection to the phenomenon of hope. This is followed by the results of our empirical studies conducted in Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, and the Czech Republic with the aim of identifying possible universal patterns as well as cultural characteristics across countries. Our basic assumption is that the general level of hope might be influenced by the quality of basic values held by an individual and shaped by the cultural context.

3.2 Theoretical Background

3.2.1 Defining Values

Kluckhohn (1951) was one of the first authors who studied human values from a psychological perspective, conceptualizing value orientations in the context of a theory of action and performing comparative studies in several cultures. He defined values as general principles regarding what a person considers desirable and worthwhile for him−/herself and others. Values express what is important to us and guide our goals and behavior (e.g., security, autonomy, attachment, pleasure, success, etc.). Each person holds several values with varying degrees of importance. For example, a secure job can be important for one person, but unimportant for another, who wants to progress quickly in a professional career. In doing so, values drive our perception, preferences, judgements, motives and actions, and may have an effect on what people hope for and the way in which hopes tend to be fulfilled.

The original empirical studies performed by Rokeach (1973) have shaped the understanding of the nature and quality of values even more. Rokeach defined a value as an action-guiding conviction according to which a course of action (instrumental value) or a target state (terminal value) is personally or socially preferred to other courses of action or target states. Values are cross-situational higher goals that guide individuals and social groups and vary in importance. Based on his or her values, an individual chooses those attitudes, goals and behaviors that are personally and socially more desirable. Values serve as orientation in various fields of life. Rokeach assumed that people all over the world have only a few central values and that these are similar for most people but with different tones and emphases. The distinct qualities of values are a consequence of cultural influences, social institutions as well as the individual personality.

3.2.2 Basic Principles of Human Values and their Connection to Hope

Based on these classic precursors, Schwartz (1992, 1994) developed a psychological theory and a general model of universal human values. According to his theory, values emerge from three basic requirements of human beings and societies (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001):

• 1. Biological needs motivate people to work and satisfy their needs (e.g., self-direction values).

• 2. The necessity to coordinate interpersonal social interactions motivate people intrinsically to cooperation and support each other (e.g., pro-social values).

• 3. Social demands for group welfare and development motivate people to regulate their behavior to be socially acceptable (e.g., conformity values).

Schwartz (1994, p. 21) defined values as “desirable trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or other social entity”. Crucial in his definition is that values express a type of motivational goal. Understanding values as higher-level goals includes the idea that they represent the interests of an individual or group, they motivate action, they function as standards for judging desirable outcomes, and they are acquired through experience and socialization. In a broader sense, values are psychological constructs that help to understand other psychological phenomena (like anxiety and hope) based on an affective evaluation, justification, and selection of goals and actions.

Starting from the basic requirements of human social interaction and based on previous theories, Schwartz (2003, 2007, 2012) identified general principles underlying the concept of basic values. For the purpose of our study, we will draw attention to the similarities between basic values and hope:

• 1. Values are beliefs, which are infused with emotions. Values as well as hopes are primarily subjective feelings and not objective facts. Important values and hopes generate positive feelings such as excitement and enthusiasm (Fredrickson, 2013; Tennen et al., 2002).

• 2. Values refer to desirable goals and motives. The individual who values justice, fairness or kindness also hopes for the fulfilment of these values. People hope for a valuable and desirable outcome. This highlights the motivational character of values and hopes (Pettit, 2004).

• 3. Values transcend concrete situations. Someone for whom a certain value is especially important, hopes for it in different areas of life, e.g., within the family, at work, in society. In this sense, values and hopes can be described as abstract or general goals and wishes (Averill et al., 1990).

• 4. Values serve as standards or criteria. Values guide the selection of hope targets. We evaluate whether certain targets we might hope for are good or bad, desirable or undesirable and worth engaging in, in light of our esteemed values (Webb, 2013).

• 5. Values are hierarchically ordered by importance. Individuals and social groups develop a system of values and hopes structured according to their importance and priority (Averill & Sundararajan, 2005; Krafft & Walker, 2018b). Some values and hopes (e.g., material goods, family traditions, spirituality, etc.) can be more significant for one person and less essential for another. The hierarchical value system creates a structure of compatibility and antagonism between values (e.g., tradition vs. stimulation).

• 6. Relevant values guide action. Values and hopes typically foster a certain behavior (McGeer, 2008). People for whom achievement is important will work hard and engage themselves, whishing and hoping for success, often at expense of other values such as pleasure or social relationships.

• 7. One of the most relevant aspects that may distinguish values from hopes is that whereas hopes are consciously chosen wishes or desires, values are rarely conscious. In daily life, people generally are not aware about which values motivate their actions. Hopes, instead, are much more deliberately articulated (Pettit, 2004).

Based on these conceptual parallels between values and hopes and following Blöser and Stahl’s (2017) claim that hope is related to our practical identity, we argue that human values and hope are inextricably linked together, that values influence what people may hope for and that values are meaningful sources of hope. Values and hopes both refer to desirable goals that motivate action. On the one hand, values have an effect on the importance and desirability of certain targets of hope and the actions that will be performed in order to accomplish them. For example, people who prime the value of power will hope for an influential position at work or in politics and will do everything required to triumph over other people. Due to their motivational power, values will foster particular hopes and may lead individuals to adopt a specific behavior to promote these hopes and values.

3.2.3 Ten Basic Human Values

Schwartz (1992) asked people in 20 nations about the guiding principles in their lives. Based on his general theory and as result of his empirical work, Schwartz (1994) derived four higher order value categories and ten motivationally distinct, broad, and basic value dimensions. In recent years these dimensions were refined into 19 value sub-types (Schwartz & Cieciuch, 2016). For the purpose of our study, we have chosen to work with the original ten and the four higher order values as conceptualized in the refined theory presented in Schwartz et al. (2012) and Schwartz and Cieciuch (2016). Below we describe the ten values as defined by Schwartz and his colleagues and classify them into the four higher order value dimensions:

• 1. Self-transcendence: These values are not directed to fulfill one’s own particular interests but to transcend them considering the interests of others.

  • (a) Benevolence: This value is oriented to the closer social group to which one belongs. It follows the goal of being a trustworthy and reliable member of the social group (e.g., circle of friends) and emphasizes the concern and care for the welfare of the loved ones (e.g., family). Benevolence is derived from the need for social affiliation and attachment (a sense of belonging) and promotes cooperative and supportive relationships.

  • (b) Universalism: This value focuses on a positive relationship between oneself und the wider environment. It comprises the acceptance, tolerance, and respect of people different from oneself, it treasures equality, social justice, peace and living in harmony with all people regardless of their personal and cultural backgrounds. It also commits to the preservation of the natural environment and treasures a world of natural beauty.

• 2. Openness to change: These values are oriented to elevate one’s personal level of mastery and self-competence.

  • (a) Self-direction: The value of self-direction is derived from the need for control and mastery. It cherishes freedom, independence and autonomy to explore and develop one’s own ideas and abilities (e.g., creativity and imagination) and highlights self-determination in choosing and pursuing personal goals and actions.

  • (b) Stimulation: People with a strong interest in stimulation are continuously in search of new and exciting experiences, of adventures and challenges in life. The goal and motivation is to have a varied life full of novelty and change.

  • (c) Hedonism: The main characteristic of hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure and sensuous gratification through enjoyment and amusement. In some cases, hedonism can also be part of the higher value of self-enhancement.

• 3. Conservation: Values in the sphere of conservation emphasize the significance of social order, continuity, and coherence.

  • (a) Tradition: This value focuses on appreciating and preserving family, cultural and religious norms, habits, and practices. Traditions symbolize the identity of a social group and the respect for its history and beliefs.

  • (b) Security: This value can be directed to the personal and the societal sphere. At the personal level, security relates to one’s health and safety in the immediate environment. At the societal level, the attention lies on harmony, safety, and stability in the broader society.

  • (c) Conformity: This value is split into interpersonal conformity and compliance. On the one hand, conformity is about the desire not to hurt or harm other people. On the other hand, it spotlights the requirement to comply with rules, laws, and social expectations. Conformity endorses values such as obedience, self-discipline, loyalty, and politeness.

• 4. Self-enhancement: Values that foster self-enhancement are oriented to satisfy one’s own individual needs and interests.

  • (a) Achievement: Beneath this value lies the motive of performance and competence in achieving one’s personal goals and being successful according to some social standards. A central motivation and goal is that of receiving social recognition. It encourages being ambitious and working hard.

  • (b) Power: Striving for power has three components. The first domain is dominance and control over other people to compel them to act according to one’s own will. The second field is having control over material and social resources. The third element refers to the inclination of preserving and cultivating one’s prestige, social status, and public image (e.g., through wealth).

3.2.4 The Circular Structure of Human Values and its Effect on Hope

In addition to identifying the ten motivational value types and the four higher order value dimensions, Schwartz’ theory also explains the relationships among the individual value orientations (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). In his model, values are structured in a circular psychological, motivational, and behavioral system that drives attitudes, decisions and actions. The model uses two criteria to characterize and distinguish different value types, which are significant to understand possible connections between values and hope. The ten particular values that people in almost all cultures seem to adopt can be located in a circular continuum characterized by two bipolar dimensions: personal and social focus on the one hand, and growth promotion (anxiety-free and self-expansion) and anxiety-avoidance (self-protection) on the other. The first criterion distinguishes values oriented to protect oneself against threats, to prevent possible losses and to avoid or cope with anxiety from other values that are free from anxiety, that promote new opportunities and that help people to develop and to grow (Schwartz, 2012). The second criterion distinguishes values concerning personal interests from values with a social focus. Schwartz (1992) assumes that actions oriented toward one value dimension have consequences that either contradict or coincide with actions performed arising from other value type. For example, orientation to novelty and change (stimulation values) undermines the preservation of established customs and habits (tradition values). Figure 3.1 displays the original circular model illustrating the two bipolar dimensions, the ten basic value types and the four higher order values.

Fig. 3.1

Circular Motivational Continuum of 10 Human Values according to Schwartz (2007, 2012)

The four higher order values emerge from the combination of these two criteria (Schwartz, 2003): Self-transcendence has a social focus and is anxiety-free as well as growth oriented. These values characterize people who are caring, selfless, kind, and concerned with the well-being of other people and the environment. Opposite values are those of self-enhancement, which are centered on the individual, on anxiety-avoidance and self-protection, which lead people to pursue selfish interests. Openness to change, in turn, covers values directed to fulfil individual goals but with an anxiety-free and growth-oriented attitude. These are values that drive people to be open to new challenges that want to be autonomous, and not to shy away from uncertainty. Finally, conservation values are motivated by social goals, but the underlying mood is one of anxiety-avoidance and self-protection. Individuals with these values are more concerned with security, social stability and seek to conserve the status quo.

In several philosophical and psychological writings, hope has been characterized as the opposite of anxiety, fear and despair but also as being in a dialectical relation to them (Farran et al., 1995; Govier, 2011). Following this line of thought, it could be assumed that whereas anxiety-free values will be positively related to the general feeling of hope, anxiety-avoiding values will be less connected with hope. However, in certain situations, such as an illness, hope could also be motivated from, or at least related to, anxiety and the intention to defeat it. For example, Gravlee (2020) explained that, according to Plato, desperate hope, can have a positive value when fighting for a good cause. Furthermore, aligned with theories that underline the social character of hope (Erikson, 1963; Marcel, 1951; McGeer, 2008), it can be presumed that social values will have a closer connection to hope than values focused on the individual. Based on these considerations, we assume that the values of self-transcendent and openness to change will have a strong and self-enhancement values a weak connection to hope, and that values belonging to conservation will be somewhere in between.

3.2.5 Personal and Cultural Values

Schwartz (2012) argued that values characterize cultural groups and societies, that his theory describes basic human values, which people in most cultures embrace, and that there is a universal structure of human motivations. However, he clearly distinguished between personal and cultural values (Schwartz, 2014a). The culture of a society consists of certain cultural value orientations such as egalitarianism vs. hierarchy, autonomy vs. social embeddedness and mastery vs. harmony. The culture of each society is located somewhere in between these polarities and expresses ideals of what is good and desirable, in the present and in the future. Does a society value more performance or caring, power, or social justice, traditions, or innovation? These normative standards confront people with certain expectations about how to think and behave (Schwartz, 2006, 2013).

Conceptually and methodologically, it is important to note that Schwartz (2014b, p. 6) defined societal culture “as the latent, normative value system, external to the individual, which underlies and justifies the functioning of societal institutions”. This definition conceptualizes societal culture as a latent construct that cannot be observed directly but it can be inferred from prevalent social manifestations such as meaning, beliefs, symbols, and practices. Moreover, as a latent construct, societal culture is part of people’s context, shaped by its material environment (e.g., its geography, natural resources, and history) and therefore external to the individual. Consequently, the normative cultural value system is not per se located in the mind of the individual, but it influences it via the organization, the practices, and policies of societal institutions (e.g., the political, legal and education systems).

From a methodological point of view, cultural values cannot be simply observed aggregating individual value scores since these are also influenced by individual characteristics. Moreover, besides the dominant or overarching cultural values, a variety of ethnic, professional, religious etc. subcultures and value systems co-exist. In each group, the meaning ascribed to a certain value can differ significantly (Steinmetz et al., 2009). For example, whereas personal achievement can be a springboard to get more power and prestige for men, for women it could be much more related to autonomy and independence (Struch et al., 2002). For young people, success might be connected to pleasure, novelty and risk taking, while for older people it might be linked to security. People belonging to a social or cultural group can internalize and share a set of values that defines the social or cultural identity of the group (Schwartz et al., 2008).

However, in any society, we encounter certain prevailing normative values that are a central element of its culture, and which influences the thoughts, goals, and behaviors of the individual through social expectations and taken-for-granted beliefs (Schwartz, 2008). In methodological terms, Schwartz argued that individuals and cultural groups differ in their responses to the values questionnaire. For this reason, he recommended making a correction for individual differences by centering the individual responses. Using centered values, the differences in the observed mean scores between samples of participants from different cultures can reflect the differences in the latent cultural values. That is, the mean scores themselves are not the cultural values but they can indicate a certain tendency when comparing them to other cultures.

3.2.6 Human Values and the Phenomenon of Hope

The interactions between basic human values, the general perception of hope and the significance of individual hopes are presuppositions that still need to be examined in more detail. The first possible connection between human values and hope is the assumption that certain values foster the overall perception of hope or, simply speaking, can increase hopefulness. Sagiv and Schwartz (2000) have already argued that particular values can promote well-being. Joshanloo and Ghaedi (2009) found that a number of values were correlated particularly with life domains promoting eudaimonic well-being.

Slezackova and colleagues (Slezackova et al., 2018) explored the role of life values in subjective well-being among Czech and Maltese university students. They found that Czech and Maltese students did not differ significantly in life satisfaction and happiness levels. However, differences were revealed in the hierarchy of their life values and their relationship to subjective well-being. This study has pointed out that cultures might differ in the importance they assign to various life values, and that cognitive and affective components of subjective well-being might be predicted by unique variables in different national samples.

Following the values-as-moderator model of Oishi et al. (1999), which postulates that the level of well-being in a country is moderated by personal values influenced by cultural characteristics, we assume that the level of hope is connected with the personal values and the targets of hope people might have. If hope, in terms of a positive future orientation, is an element of well-being (Slezackova, 2017; Slezackova & Krafft, 2017), we could expect that values may be a significant source of hope.

However, as Schwartz (2011) suggested in relation to well-being, some values can have a positive effect in promoting hope and other values can undermine it. Accordingly, this means that certain targets of hope (e.g., pro-social hopes) will have a positive effect on people’s general level of hope and other types of hopes (e.g., the strive for power) may be detrimental to hope. Schwartz (2009) has already suggested that stimulation, self-direction, universalism, and benevolence are “growth” values. The more these values are attained, the more valuable and important they become. Alternately, other values such as power and security are “defensive” values. These values are only or especially important when they are lacking.

These reflections can lead to the general idea that to hope for certain things will probably affect the way we hope (Averill et al., 1990). People can hold different types of hopes such as material goods, personal achievements, hedonic pursuits, interpersonal relationships, and altruistic motives (Averill & Sundararajan, 2005), which might also have an effect on the quality of the general perception of hope. It might not be the same to hope for the achievement of a specific career goal, for a happy partnership or for more religious or spiritual experiences.

Moreover, people in different nations and cultures can coincide or differ with regard to what is most relevant to them. Hope might be related to the basic understanding of what is a good life (Krafft & Walker, 2018a). Triandis (1995), for example, distinguished between individualist and collectivist cultures based on the type of goals that people have. People in individualistic societies tend to hold and pursue more self-centered goals that reflect personal wishes, whereas people in more collectivist cultures tend to value goals related to the desires and wishes of the family and the closer social environment, including good social relationships, to be in harmony with their environment and to support others (Triandis, 1997). In the first case, the focus is on the accomplishment of one’s own wishes and desires, on personal success and on novel experiences. Goals have to be achieved by one’s own efforts. In the other case, people appreciate tolerance, respect, and the care for others (Eid & Diener, 2009; Park & Huebner, 2005).

3.3 The Present Study

3.3.1 Objectives

The general purpose of the current study is to explore the notion that human values are related to or influence both the general level of perceived hope as well as the formation and importance of certain individual targets of hope. Therefore, our first goal is to assess how far basic value orientations predict the level of hope in different cultures and if we could find common patterns and individual characteristics across countries. Based on previous research, we hypothesize that (1) anxiety-free values (self-transcendence and openness to change) will be positively connected to hope and that (2) anxiety-avoiding values (conservation and self-enhancement) will be only slightly, not at all or even negatively related to hope.

Before comparing mean scores of perceived hope and relate them to the ten value orientations, two prerequisites have to be tested. Firstly, we have to assess whether the items of our instrument to measure perceived hope have been interpreted similarly by the participants in each cultural sample. Secondly, we would like to assess if the ten basic values mirror the circular continuum and the two bipolar dimensions and whether some particularities emerge in the individual samples.

Our second goal is to explore the basic assumption that what people hope for can be influenced by their value orientations. While people in some cultures might be more inclined to cherish individual achievements, people in other cultures could give more importance to the quality of social relationships or to altruistic motives (Park & Huebner, 2005). Furthermore, we would like to assess which individual targets of hope have a stronger or weaker connection to the general perception of hopefulness. Our assumption here is that targets of hope oriented to foster eudaimonic well-being will be positively related to perceived hope and that material and hedonistic targets of hope will not or at least less strongly related.

3.3.2 Procedure and Participant Samples

The five samples of our study were part of the online survey of the Hope Barometer in November 2018. Participants were recruited through newspapers via online advertisement, social media, and e-mails. No incentives were offered. The inclusion criterion was a minimum age of 18. In total, 6134 people completed the questionnaire, from which 302 were excluded due to a high number of missing values, erroneous answers (e.g., always 0 or 1) and multivariate outliers.

We included five samples into the analyses with participants from German (N = 3049) and French speaking Switzerland (N = 1109), Spain (N = 528), Portugal (N = 808) and the Czech Republic (N = 338). Switzerland is the country with the highest GDP per capita (U$S 87,000.-) followed by the Czech Republic (U$S 42,000.-), Spain (U$S 38,000.-) and Portugal (U$S 34,000.-). In Appendix 3.1 we present the demographic structure of the five samples.

Gender distribution was quite balanced in the two Swiss samples (around 40% male and 60% female). In the other three samples, we have considerably more female than male participants. The age structure is close to that of the general population in the Swiss samples, where the national median is MED = 42.7, but below the average in Spain (MED = 43.9), Portugal (MED = 44.6), and the Czech Republic (MED = 43.3).

When looking at the structure of the education level we have to consider the diverse national education systems. Switzerland has a very popular and high quality dual vocational training system. This is the reason why almost three quarters of the participants in our samples hold a professional training diploma. In the Spanish and Portuguese samples, we find about two thirds of the participants with a tertiary or university degree. In the Czech Republic, around half of the sample has secondary education and more than 40% a university degree. In these three countries, the education level of our participants is presumably higher than the average of the population.

Regarding marital status, main activity and professional status, the structure across countries is visibly more homogeneous. Whereas in Switzerland the sample includes more people with a part-time job than in the other countries, the number of people in education or training is higher in Spain, Portugal, and the Czech Republic.

Overall, the German and French samples from Switzerland is more representative of the general population than the Spanish, Portuguese, and Czech samples, where most participants are female, younger and with a higher education level than the average of the general population. These biases must be taken into account when analyzing, comparing and interpreting the results of our study.

3.3.3 Measures

For the purpose of this study, we used instruments to measure (1) the general level hope, (2) the centrality of several targets of hope, and (3) the basic human values. The questionnaires were administered in the local language: German and French in Switzerland, Spanish in Spain, Portuguese in Portugal, and Czech in the Czech Republic.

Perceived Hope Scale

The Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) is a six-item one-dimensional self-rating instrument to measure the level of hope in a direct manner and free from any preconceptions regarding the nature and quality of hope (Krafft et al., 2017, 2021; Águeda Marujo et al., 2021; Slezackova et al., 2020). The PHS was developed with the specific purpose to assess the level of general hope in different cultures avoiding any bias regarding potential dimensions and elements of hope. It evaluates the perceived degree of hope in one’s life and specifically when facing difficult situations, the belief in the fulfillment of one’s hopes and the intensity of hope vis-à-vis the feeling of anxiety, independently from possible roots and sources. The six positively worded items can be rated on a 6-point Likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the current study the six items achieved a high internal consistency in all samples with Cronbach alpha values between α = 0.88 and α = 0.90.

Hope Targets

Personal hopes are things or domains in life that are of particular important to the individual and which are considered desirable, possible, or achievable, regardless of whether their probability of occurrence is assessed as high or low. The focus is therefore on the significance of the hoped-for things in people’s life, rather than on the subjectively assessed expectation of occurrence. In order to assess the centrality of several targets of hope as previously done by Staats (1989) and Erickson et al. (1975), we used a pool of 17 life domains in terms of people’s personal hopes for the coming year (Krafft & Walker, 2018a, 2018b). Participants could rate their hopes on a 4-point scale from “0 = not important” to “3 = very important”. The 17 areas of life cover six different categories:

• 1. Personal well-being (e.g., personal health, harmony)

• 2. Social relationships (e.g., happy marriage, family, partnership)

• 3. Success and material goods (e.g., more money)

• 4. Pleasure (e.g., more sex, romantic experiences)

• 5. Meaning, purpose and altruism (e.g., a meaningful task and being able to help other people)

• 6. Religious and spiritual experiences.

Portrait Values Questionnaire RR

The refined portrait values questionnaire (PVQ-RR) consists of 57 items assigned to 19 sub-dimensions (3 items each) of the ten values types (Schwartz et al., 2012, 2017). Every item is formulated as a short description of a person who has a high motivation regarding the value dimension addressed. The respondents are asked to indicate how much this person is like themselves on a scale ranging from 0 (“this person is not at all like me”) to 5 (“this person is completely like me”).

In our study, we performed all analyses using the original ten value dimensions and the four higher order value types. For our purposes and following a variant suggested by Schwartz, we calculated the overall value of the category “openness to change” using the two dimensions “self-direction” and “stimulation” and handled “hedonism” as an individual variable. The individual dimensions achieved a satisfactory to good internal consistency in all samples: Self-transcendence (α = 0.86 to 0.88) consisting of benevolence (α = 0.78 to 0.86) and universalism (α = 0.84 to 0.87); openness to change (α = 0.77 to 0.82) entailing self-direction (α = 0.78 to 0.80) and stimulation (α = 0.71 to 0.74); conservation (α = 0.80 to 0.87) comprising tradition (α = 0.76 to 0.86), security (α = 0.75 to 0.82) and conformity (α = 0.72 to 0.83); self-enhancement (α = 0.81 to 0.87) involving achievement (α = 0.67 to 0.78) and power (α = 0.79 to 0.86) and finally hedonism (α = 0.75 to 0.82).

3.3.4 Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS and AMOS version 27.0. Before commencing with the descriptive and correlational analyses, we need to demonstrate measurement invariance of the perceived hope scale across the five samples via multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA). The fit of the general model by means of maximum likelihood estimation was evaluated using the following indices: Comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) (study criterion ≥0.95 as ideal and ≥ 0.90 as the minimum acceptable level), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (study criterion ≤0.08) and the standardized root mean residual SRMR (study criterion ≤0.08) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The test for measurement invariance was performed in different steps, from configurational invariance (equal form), to metric invariance (equal loadings), to scalar invariance (equal intercepts), and finally to strict invariance (equal residuals). The recommended criteria to demonstrate invariance are changes in CFI and TLI between comparison and nested models of ≥ − 0.010, a change in RMSEA of ≤0.015 and a variation in SRMR of ≤0.030 (for loading invariance) and ≤ 0.010 (for intercept invariance) (Chen, 2007).

One central element of Schwartz’s value theory is the proposition that the single values are related to each other on a circular motivational continuum. The individual value dimensions are located on the circular continuum according to the proximity or the distance of certain motives and general life orientations they represent (e.g., anxiety avoiding vs. anxiety free and individual vs. social focus). Using multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) we can position the value types as points in a bi-dimensional space and evaluate if the empirical data represents the theoretical model. Following the instructions of Schwartz et al. (2012), we performed the SPSS PROXSCAL procedure for each sample independently, calculating ordinal proximity transformations between the variables in a two-dimensional space using Euclidian distances and standardizing the values with z-scores.

The main data analyses were then performed in three steps:

• Step 1—Descriptive statistics and mean value comparisons: We started calculating mean values and standard deviations for perceived hope and the variables representing the ten individual and the four higher order value dimensions. We then compared the scores of the single samples via univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). To perform mean value comparisons of the human values, Schwartz recommends making a correction for individual or cultural differences in the use of the response scale and to calculate centered value scores (Schwartz et al., 2017). For this purpose, a common mean value called MRAT was computed over all raw values. The MRAT is then subtracted from the individual raw score in order to obtain the relative importance of the individual value orientations.

• Step 2—Correlation and regression analyses: Computing partial bivariate Pearson correlations we analyzed the relationships between the value dimensions and perceived hope (after controlling for demographic variables) and compared selected results between samples via correlation comparisons (Steiger, 1980). By means of multiple regression analyses, we tested the effect of the higher order value dimensions (plus hedonism) for each sample, as well as the ten individual value orientations to predict perceived hope, beyond demographic characteristics of gender, age, marital status, education, main activity, and professional status. We compared the explained variance (R²) and the Beta coefficients to identify similarities and differences between samples.

• Step 3—Targets of hope—mean values and correlations with perceived hope and human values: The last step was dedicated to assessing the centrality of several targets of hope and their connections to the basic human value dimensions. Using ANOVA, we compared the mean values of the individual samples and correlated the hope targets with the general perception of hope and with the ten value types, again controlling by demographic variables. If fundamental human values are explained in terms of trans-situational motivational goals, as suggested by Schwartz et al. (2012), we expect that individual values will substantially be correlated with specific targets of hope.

3.3.5 Results

3.3.5.1 Measurement Invariance of the PHS

The goal of this first preliminary analysis was to test measurement invariance of the perceived hope scale across the five investigated samples. Table 3.1 presents the fit indices of the multi-group CFA to assess the goodness of fit of the general sample and of the five models to test different levels of group invariance. The one-factor model for the total sample revealed a good model fit (CFI and TLI > 0.95, RMSEA and SRMR < 0.08). Furthermore, every single sample was tested and an acceptable to good model fit was obtained (CFI and TLI ≥ 0.94, RMSEA and SRMR ≤ 0.08). The first step of configurational invariance across the groups (equal form) also provided a good fit to the data and can therefore be used as baseline model. All further models compared to the baseline model were under the threshold values recommended by the literature (CFI and TLI > 0.01, RMSEA and SRMR < 0.015). These results indicate that the PHS reveals strong measurement invariance across the investigated cultural samples and that we can compare the individual scores. This means that perceived hope has been conceptualized in a similar form across these cultures and that correlation analyses with other constructs are possible.

Table 3.1 Multi-group CFA and analysis of group invariance

3.3.5.2 Multidimensional Scaling of Basic Human Values

Regarding the basic human values, we firstly wanted to establish whether the ten categories displayed a similar pattern to Schwartz’s theoretical model. The diagrams in Fig. 3.2 map the results of the multidimensional scaling analyses. In all samples the variables exhibited a good approximation to the theorized model, in which the self-transcendence categories (benevolence and universalism) are opposed to the self-enhancement variables (achievement and power) and where openness values (self-direction, stimulation and hedonism) are in contrast to the self-enhancement types (achievement and power).

Fig. 3.2

Multivariate scaling of basic value dimensions by sample

Beyond these common patterns, the diagrams of the single samples exhibit some individual characteristics, worthwhile to be mentioned. In some samples (Spain, Portugal, and Czech Republic.), stimulation and hedonism were very close (distances between 0.072 and 0.177) and self-direction was in-between stimulation/hedonism and benevolence/universalism. In the Spanish group, self-direction was even adjacent to the social dimensions universalism (distance 0.254) and benevolence (0.595) and distant to the individual focused dimensions stimulation (0.895) and hedonism (0.770), which were nearer to achievement (0.452 and 0.618). This means that self-direction indicates reliance on one’s own ideas and actions, not always focusing on selfish interests, but also engaging oneself for the well-being of others. Moreover, in the Portuguese sample, tradition was more distant from security and conformity than it usually is, suggesting that tradition could have a particular quality in the Portuguese society.

These results imply that our data represents Schwartz’s model appropriately but that the ten basic values may be interpreted differently in various countries or cultures. Specifically, the values of self-direction and tradition seem to have additional attributes worth to be examined more in detail.

3.3.5.3 Comparing Levels of Perceived Hope and Basic Human Values Between Samples

The next step was to compare levels of perceived hope between the samples through ANOVA and post hoc analyses. The results in Table 3.2 exhibit moderate to high levels of perceived hope, with small but significant differences between samples. Portugal and the Czech Republic display the highest levels of hope, significantly higher than the other three samples (p < 0.01), followed by the German Swiss and the Spanish and finally the French Swiss with the significantly lowest mean value (p < 0.01) Only in German Switzerland, women (M = 3.46; SD = 0.95) exhibit significant higher levels of hope than men (M = 3.31; SD = 1.10). In all other samples, the PHS scores between men and women did not differ significantly. This is important to note since in the Spanish, Portuguese, and Czech samples the number of women considerably exceeded the number of men. Furthermore, the level of hope increased with age. In all countries, older people tended to be significantly more hopeful than younger. This is also relevant to be considered, since the age structure amongst the Spanish, Portuguese and Czech participants is significantly younger than in the Swiss groups. This means that the higher levels of hope in Portugal and the Czech Republic cannot be attributed to the different gender and age structures of the samples.

Table 3.2 Mean values, standard deviations and univariate analysis of variance by sample

Our main question was to establish to what extent differences in the general level of hope can partially be explained by the intensity of culturally colored basic human values. To compare the mean coefficients of the basic human values across cultures we used centered values as recommended by Schwartz et al. (2017). The coefficients in Table 3.2 show that across all samples the highest coefficients belonged to benevolence, universalism, self-direction, security, and hedonism and the lowest to the power dimension. In general terms, the dimension of self-transcendence was rated the highest, followed by openness to change, then by conservation and finally by self-enhancement. This pattern was similar in all samples.

Comparing the indicators of the four higher-order and the ten individual value types between samples, some noteworthy results emerged. Portugal demonstrated the second highest level of self-transcendence (after Spain), due to the pronounced level of universalism. Together with German speaking Switzerland, Portugal displayed a higher coefficient of conservation, especially due to the significantly higher level of conformity. At the same time, the Portuguese sample showed the second highest level of self-enhancement (after the Czech Republic.), due to the highest level of achievement. In comparison to the other samples, the Portuguese presented the lowest coefficient in openness to change, since both dimensions, self-direction, and stimulation, together with hedonism were the lowest.

The Czech Republic, the country with the second-highest level of hope, revealed a different pattern. First, this sample showed the highest level of self-enhancement, especially because of the highest coefficient in the power dimension. Although levels of security and conformity were the lowest of all samples, tradition was the highest (together with the German-Swiss). Furthermore, the Czechs had the second lowest scores of self-direction and hedonism after the Portuguese, but the highest level of stimulation.

The French Swiss, the group with the lowest level of perceived hope, exhibited the second lowest level of universalism and stimulation (together with Spain), the highest levels among all samples in security and hedonism and the second highest in self-direction (after the German Swiss).

People in German speaking Switzerland and in Spain displayed similar levels of perceived hope. Spain exhibited the highest scores in universalism and therefore also in self-transcendence, and it has the lowest scores in self-enhancement, in both dimensions of power and achievement (together with the French Swiss), as well as in tradition. The German Swiss presented the highest scores in benevolence, self-direction, and tradition (together with the Czechs) but the lowest in universalism. These figures bring about higher coefficients of openness to change and at the same time of conservation.

To summarize, Portugal and Spain had the highest levels of self-transcendence (especially of universalism), and both Swiss regions and the Czech Republic the lowest. The German Swiss had higher scores in openness to change and the Portuguese the lowest. Spain and the Czech, both displayed the lowest levels of conservation, however, due to different reasons: The Spanish were lower in tradition while the Czech were lower in conformity and security. Regarding self-enhancement, the Czech achieve the highest scores, especially regarding the search for power, and the Spanish the lowest.

3.3.5.4 Correlations and Regression Analyses with Perceived Hope

3.3.5.4.1 Partial bivariate Pearson Correlations

Before presenting the results of the hierarchical regression analyses in search of significant predictors of perceived hope, we examined the partial bivariate correlation coefficients reported in Table 3.3 (the correlation coefficients including all variables for the entire sample are presented in the Appendix 3.2). In general terms, the correlation coefficients of most dimensions of basic values with perceived hope were significant and positive, but the effect sizes were relatively small and quite similar across samples. Using the Fisher r-to-z transformations, we calculated z-values to assess the significance of the difference between two correlation coefficients from two independent samples (Eid et al., 2011).

Table 3.3 Partial bivariate Pearson correlation coefficients of human values with perceived hope by sample

The most striking results can be summarized as follows: Regarding the four higher order dimensions, the only significant difference is the positive correlation coefficient between self-enhancement and perceived hope in the Czech sample. This can be explained by a significant correlation coefficient of perceived hope with power and a higher correlation value with achievement. Striking is also the lower correlation score between stimulation and perceived hope in the Spanish sample. Other slightly higher correlation coefficients with perceived hope, although not achieving statistical significance, were related to the dimensions self-direction and security in the French Swiss sample. All other coefficients were similar across countries.

3.3.5.4.2 Hierarchical Regression Analyses

We performed two series of hierarchical regression analyses to predict the variance of perceived hope. In the first series, we entered the demographic variables in the first step and then added the four higher order value dimensions plus hedonism in the second step (Table 3.4). In the second series of analyses, we again started with the demographic variables and included the ten individual value dimensions in the second step (Table 3.5). Initially, the higher order values presented in Table 3.4 explained between 7.4% (Spain) and 13.5% (Czech Republic) of the variance in perceived hope. When applying the ten value dimensions, the predictive effect rose to between 9.3% (Spain) and 20% (Czech Republic) (see Table 3.5). This means that basic values have a significant impact on hope but that the magnitude of the effect varies across cultures.

Table 3.4 Hierarchical regression analyses with fundamental values predicting perceived hope by sample

Table 3.5 Hierarchical regression analyses with single value dimensions to predict perceived hope by sample

Considering the demographic variables, we found that these were stronger predictors of hope in Portugal. Specifically, age, marital status and professional status had significant effects on hope. Older people were much more hopeful than younger, married people and those living in a partnership more than singles, and the higher the professional position the higher the level of hope. In German Switzerland, the effects of the demographic variables were lower, but all variables had a significant effect. After the professional position, marital status and age, gender and education also significantly predicted hope. Women were slightly more hopeful than men and the higher the education the higher the level of hope. The French Swiss sample displayed a much lower effect of demographics on hope, similar to the results of the Czech sample, where only professional status had a positive impact.

Observing the results in Table 3.4, it is evident that self-transcendence, hedonism, and openness to change were significant predictors of hope in almost all samples, and that conservation and self-enhancement only had small effects on hope in one or two cases. The Swiss samples and Spain showed similar results. In French speaking Switzerland, self-transcendence clearly had the strongest effect on hope. However, people in Switzerland also presented the lowest mean values in self-transcendence (Table 3.2).

The results for Portugal and the Czech Republic, the two countries with the highest mean levels of hope, were remarkably different. In the Portuguese sample, conservation emerged as a positive and self-enhancement as a negative predictor of hope. A more detailed analysis in Table 3.5 reveals the relevance of tradition and the negative impact of power seeking. Furthermore, stimulation (belonging to openness) and universalism (as part of self-transcendence) appear to be significant. A different picture emerged for Czech sample. Here self-transcendence and self-enhancement had a significant impact on hope (Table 4). Whereas conformity had a negative effect, benevolence, universalism, tradition, and achievement stood out as having a positive impact on hope (Table 3.5).

The detailed results in Table 3.5 show that security, conformity, and power had no or sometimes even a negative impact on hope, which indicate that these values are oriented to self-protection and are anxiety-based, as suggested by Schwartz and Cieciuch (2016). Alternately, tradition, displayed a positive effect on hope in four samples and achievement also showed a positive impact in French Switzerland and the Czech Republic. Moreover, stimulation seemed to have a stronger impact on hope than self-direction (except in Spain), aligned with its growth orientation and anxiety-free quality proposed by Schwartz. Hedonism was positively related to hope in Switzerland and Spain but not in Portugal and the Czech Republic.

Overall, our results suggest that self-transcendent values of benevolence and universalism were almost always positively related to hope, reinforcing, and expanding their anxiety-free character. Openness to change was also related to hope in most cases, with exception of the Czech Republic. Stimulation and hedonism (the willingness to experience new challenges and to enjoy life) seemed to be more significant to hope than self-direction (freedom to think, act and unfold one’s ideas and abilities). Conservation and self-enhancement values were hardly and sometimes even negatively related to hope, as power orientation and conformity showed. However, the value of tradition (culture, family, and religion) and in some cases also achievement (personal success and competence) did not only seem to be anxiety-avoiding, but also hope enhancing, as results from the Czech Republic and in Portugal (for tradition) demonstrate.

3.3.5.5 Targets of Hope

In the conceptual section of this chapter, we explained that national circumstances, cultural conditions, and values have an impact on what people might hope for. One of the cultural factors that may influence the targets of hope is the degree of individualism/collectivism and long-term/short-term orientation. While individualistic cultures tend to emphasize individual achievement orientation (e.g., agency, autonomy, and personal independence), collectivistic cultures emphasize relationship orientation, i.e., interdependence, relational goals, social support, and relational harmony (Uchida & Ogihara, 2012). Long-term vs. short-term orientation associates the connection of the past with current and future actions. A higher degree of long-term orientation indicates that society views adaptation and pragmatic problem-solving as a necessity. On the other hand, in societies with a lower degree in this index (short-term) traditions are kept and honored, while steadfastness is valued (Hofstede, 2001). The comparison of these two cultural dimensions between Czech Republic, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland shows that Czech Republic and Switzerland score significantly higher in individualism and long-term orientation than Portugal and Spain. Portugal shows the lowest levels in both dimensions compared to the other three countries (Hofstede-Insights, 2022). However, the comparisons should be interpreted with caution, since data came from different and non-representative samples. In the final step of our study, we therefore compared and analyzed the targets of hope of the investigated samples and correlated these targets with perceived hope and the dimensions of basic values.

3.3.5.5.1 Comparison of Mean Values

Based on the mean scores of the 17 targets of hope and the ANOVA effects in Table 3.6, we firstly describe the main similarities and the more striking particularities of the specific countries.

Table 3.6 Targets of hope—mean values, standard deviations and univariate analysis of variance by sample

In all five samples, the main targets of hope were good health, a happy partnership, family or marriage and harmony in life (with only small differences between the countries). This was followed by personal independence, good and trusting relationships, and having a meaningful task in life. In all countries, these targets of hope, which represent dimensions of eudaimonic well-being, were considerably more important than materialistic and hedonic goals such as more sex and more money.

Significant differences appeared between the somewhat “younger” and “poorer” national samples (Spain, Portugal, and the Czech Republic) and Switzerland. Whereas in Switzerland it was much more cherished to be engaged in a meaningful task than being successful at the workplace or university, the younger sample in Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic considered having success in their activities as more important than having a meaningful task. Moreover, having a secure job was more important for people in Portugal and Spain, and of less value in Switzerland and the least in the Czech Republic. Another remarkable difference between the countries relates to the desire to help other people. In almost all age categories, Portuguese participants showed a significant higher wish to be able to help other people, followed by the Spanish and Czech and finally the Swiss samples.

3.3.5.5.2 Comparison of Correlation Coefficients Between Hope Targets and Perceived Hope

Earlier, in the conceptual section of this chapter, we proposed that the everyday perception of hope may be associated with the different targets people might hope for and that this could differ between cultures. In Table 3.7 we present the partial correlation coefficients between the 17 hope targets and the general perception of hope in the five national samples (after controlling for demographic variables). Our findings revealed that certain hopes and desires are closer linked to the general level of perceived hope in most samples and that some cultural differences exist. Across all samples, perceived hope correlated the strongest with the following targets of hope: to help other people, having good and trusting relationships with other people, being engaged in a meaningful task, a happy partnership, family, or marriage and more religious and spiritual experiences. On the other hand, hoping for more money and for a secure job were either not, only slightly or even negatively related to hope. In general terms, the hedonic and materialistic items (e.g., money, success, fun with friends, sex and romantic experiences, time to relax) seemed to be less associated with perceived hope than the social and eudaimonic items (e.g., helping other people, a meaningful task, good relationships to other people).

Table 3.7 Partial bivariate Pearson correlation coefficients of targets of hope with perceived hope by sample

Besides these general patterns, some minor but noteworthy differences between samples emerged. Portugal displayed the highest correlation coefficients for helping other people, having a meaningful task, religious experiences, and good relationships with other people, and the lowest for success. The Spanish sample exhibited a stronger correlation with success and a happy partnership, family and marriage and the weakest for helping other people. The German Swiss sample showed the lowest coefficients with success and a secure job and a negative correlation between perceived hope and hoping for more money. The Czech sample presented a slightly higher correlation coefficient with good health and the lowest with more free time, more fun with friends and a happy partnership or family. The French Swiss showed a stronger association between hope and harmony in life.

To summarize, the Portuguese seemed to relate hope with altruistic, social, and religious wishes and the Spanish with family and performance. For the German Swiss the materialistic and safety targets are the least associated with hope and the Czech participants linked hope to less hedonic experiences.

3.3.5.5.3 Comparison of Correlation Coefficients between Hope Targets and Basic Values

We found it interesting to examine the correlations between the targets of hope and the single value dimensions, after controlling for demographic variables. The question was: What do people holding certain human values focus their hopes on? The tables in Appendix 3.3 exhibit the correlation coefficients in the five samples and reflect common patterns and national particularities. Firstly, most of the coefficients were significant, but only a few achieved a moderate effect of r = 0.20 and higher, on which we will focus our attention.

Some noteworthy findings were common to all samples. Starting with the values of self-transcendence, people higher in benevolence and universalism wished to help other people, to be engaged in a meaningful task, to have good and trusting relationships with other people and enjoy a harmonious life. Moreover, benevolence and universalism were not related to the desire to possess or earn more money. On the other hand, to hope for more money was above all, significantly related to self-enhancement values of achievement and power. Another general finding was the positive relationship between the values of self-direction and stimulation with the desire of more personal independence and self-determination, which can be interpreted as the wish to escape or be liberated (at least in part) from daily external demands and pressures. Hedonism seemed to exhibit some universal patterns too, since it was related to the wish of having fun with friends, with romantic experiences, more free time, and time to relax, and with good relationships with other people in all samples. The values of conservation displayed varied results. All three values, tradition, security, and conformity were generally related to the desire of order in one’s life. People for whom security is especially important, also seem to hope for a secure job, for good health, for harmony in life, and for more safety in their personal environment. Tradition was frequently related to the wish for more religious and spiritual experiences, and conformity to some extent with the inclination to help other people. Finally, the achievement value clearly correlated with the desire to be successful at the workplace, university or in other activities. This effect was particularly strong in the Czech Republic.

In addition to these more or less universal features, some remarkable particularities can be highlighted. For example, whereas in Spain and Portugal hedonism (meaning the value of enjoying life and having a good time), had a moderate correlation with the desire for more money, in Switzerland this was much less the case. The wish for success at the workplace and other activities may be the consequence of or be nourished by different underlying values. In German speaking Switzerland and prominently in the Czech Republic, for example, the desire for success is related to the values of achievement and power. In French speaking Switzerland, Spain, and Portugal instead, the motives seem to be slightly different since success is more connected to achievement and security. Furthermore, in Portugal (and to a lesser extent also in Spain) hoping for success seemed to be related to self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism, which in Switzerland and the Czech Republic was barely the case.

The wish for a happy family, partnership or marriage was generally and almost exclusively linked to the value of benevolence. However, in French Switzerland and in the Czech Republic it was also a matter of security. On the other hand, whereas wishing to have more sex and romantic experiences was clearly related to the value of hedonism, in the Czech Republic, in particular, it was also about the search for stimulation, achievement and exerting power. Hoping for good and trustworthy relationships with other people, besides being connected to benevolence, universalism, and hedonism, was also a matter of security in Portugal and of conformity in French Switzerland. More personal independence and self-determination was not only about self-direction and stimulation, but in Spain, Portugal, and the Czech Republic it was also related to universalism and security.

These findings suggest that some universal features regarding what most people in different cultures hope exist, and that these targets of hope are related to some universal values, particularly the values of self-transcendence. Furthermore, our results indicate that personal hopes of all types are indeed related to different basic values, but that people from with diverse cultural backgrounds seem to develop personal hopes endorsed by similar as well as by specific motives.

In the next section, we connect the vast and differentiated empirical findings of our study and discuss them in the light of our research interest and the theoretical background presented at the beginning of the chapter.

3.3.6 General Findings and Discussion

3.3.6.1 Common Patterns across Cultures

The purpose of the current study was to explore the relation of human values with the general level of perceived hope as well as with individual targets of hope among samples from five countries. We first tested group invariance with five language versions of the Perceived Hope Scale (Krafft et al., 2017, 2021; Águeda Marujo et al., 2021; Slezackova et al., 2020) across the investigated samples and found that the general perception of hope was understood similarly in two Swiss regions, Spain, Portugal, and the Czech Republic. We then tested the location of the ten basic human values in a bi-dimensional space, achieving similar pictures to the circular continuum proposed by Schwartz (2012), but with some cultural particularities in the location of the single value types. Specifically, self-direction stood closer to universalism and benevolence in Spain, Portugal, and the Czech Republic, indicating a certain social orientation besides its individual focus. Tradition seemed to have a particular meaning for the Portuguese participants, which has to be investigated more in detail.

Before discussing cultural differences, we first would like to highlight results that seem to be common to all samples and represent possible universal characteristics. Despite huge differences in national GDP per capita, participants in all samples displayed similar moderate to high levels of perceived hope above the center of the scale. Regarding the human values, in all countries the highest scores were obtained for self-transcendence values. This underlines the importance of the family and of cooperative and supportive social relationships as well as an attitude of respect, tolerance, and harmony with the wider social and natural environment. The values of self-direction and hedonism, representing openness to change, personal mastery and pleasurable experiences, were the second most important values after self-transcendence. At the next level of importance were security and conformity values, which promote safe and harmonious social relations. Tradition and stimulation, instead, were something lower and ranked clearly after achievement values, which promote engagement and individual performance. At the end of the list, we found power values, which tend to promote hierarchical structures and could be detrimental for cooperative social relationships. In line with previous research findings (Schwartz, 2012; Fischer & Schwartz, 2011), our results suggest that there are some widely recognized universal value priorities, beyond individual and cultural influences.

These findings are supported by the importance people in different countries ascribed to certain targets of hope. In all samples, people hoped above all for good health, a happy family, marriage or partnership, a harmonious life, good and trusting relationships with other people, personal independence and being engaged in meaningful and fulfilling tasks. These targets of hope represent life domains that foster eudaimonic well-being (Ryff, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Seligman, 2004). Likewise, in all countries the hope for more money, more sex, and romantic experiences as well as for religious and spiritual experiences were located at the bottom of the list (see also Krafft & Walker, 2018b). Beyond these common patterns, our results indicate that in some countries people hoped for success at the workplace or at university and a secure job, reinforcing the positive role of achievement and the desire for security in people’s life.

In the next step, we assessed the role of value types as predictors of perceived hope. We expected that self-transcendence and openness to change, which have been conceptualized as anxiety-free and growth-oriented values, would have a positive impact on hope and that the values of conservation and self-enhancement, which are anxiety-based, would be less or not at all related with hope. Our results confirmed that values of self-transcendence and openness to change are indeed positively connected to hope and that security, conformity and power are barely related to hope. However, our findings also indicated that tradition and achievement can also count as significant predictors of hope, suggesting that these values are not only anxiety-based but could also be hope enhancing.

Again, these findings are reinforced and broadened by the correlation coefficients between perceived hope and selected targets of hope. Prosocial and religious (transcendence) targets of hope, such as the wish to help other people, to enjoy good social relationships, to perform a meaningful task, to have a happy family, marriage, or partnership and to face religious experiences, demonstrated the strongest correlations with hope, while materialistic and security-oriented hopes (e.g., more money and a secure job) displayed the weakest correlation. These results are in line with previous studies of Averill and his colleagues (Averill et al., 1990; Averill & Sundararajan, 2005).

Finally, we investigated which targets of hope might express which types of basic human value orientations. People high in benevolence and universalism hoped the most for altruistic and prosocial life domains such as helping other people, having a meaningful task, good social relationships, and harmony in life. A hedonistic orientation was expressed by maintaining hopes such as having fun with friends, enjoying romantic experiences, having more free time and time to relax as well as holding good social relationships. Security values were related to the desire for a secure job, good health and a harmonious life, more safety in the personal environment and order in one’s life. Tradition had a close connection to the wish for religious experiences, while conformity was related to the desire to help other people and achievement was expressed by the wish to be successful at work, at school, university etc. Moreover, the results of our study revealed that certain targets of hope were grounded in more than one value dimension, as proposed by Schwartz, (2012). For example, the desire to help other people was connected to benevolence, universalism, and conformity. The wish to maintain good social relationships was linked to benevolence, universalism, hedonism, and conformity. Those who longed for a harmonious life cherished values of self-transcendence and security.

To summarize, the level of perceived hope is not linked to the economic wealth of a country. People in poorer countries can display similar or even higher levels of hope than people in a rich country. Our findings highlight moreover the importance of the basic values of self-transcendence (caring for the wellbeing of others) and of openness to change (self-mastery, looking for new challenges and novel experiences) as favorable sources of hope. Furthermore, our study indicates that tradition, religious experiences, and achievement are not only anxiety-based but could also act as hope-related values. In general terms, the wish for domains that nurture eudaimonic well-being are positively related to hope, demonstrating that the more people wish for eudaimonic life targets, the more they hope. This is apparently not the case for materialistic targets of hope.

3.3.6.2 Individual Characteristics of Single Cultures

Beyond the common patterns found across all samples, our results revealed noteworthy distinctive characteristics in the specific samples. First, Portuguese and Czech participants showed the highest levels of hope and the French Swiss the lowest, signaling that the perception of hope is barely dependent on the wealth of a nation.

Portugal displayed high levels of universalism, conformity and achievement. Besides self-transcendence, openness to change and hedonism, the conservative value of tradition had a significant impact on hope, highlighting the importance of family, cultural and religious habits and norms as possible sources of hope. This may also reflect notably higher levels of collectivism and short-term orientation compared to the levels of these cultural dimensions in the other three countries (Hofstede-Insights, 2022). Due to their unsteady economic and social situation, Portuguese people also ascribed importance to success (in terms of achievement and security) and to a secure job but additionally to the possibility to help other people. Furthermore, to maintain good social relationships with other people is not only a matter of benevolence and universalism but also of security. The desire to be successful in life seemed motivated by achievement and security, but also by self-direction, stimulation and hedonism. However, for the Portuguese, the desire to help other people, to be engaged in a meaningful task and to enjoy religious and spiritual experiences were more strongly related to the general perception of hope than in other countries.

In the Spanish sample, people exhibited higher scores in universalism than the Swiss and the Czech and the lowest scores in self-enhancement (achievement and power) but also in tradition. Whereas universalism and stimulation do not predict hope at all, hedonism, tradition, benevolence and self-direction do. Similar to Portugal, Spanish participants wished for a secure job and success at the workplace/university, but with the difference, that they do not value helping other people that much, which also yielded the lowest correlation with hope compared to all other samples. This seems to be in contradiction with the higher scores of universalism and would need to be explored more in detail in future studies.

For the Czechs, the underlying patterns and dynamics are slightly different. In comparison to the other countries, participants of the Czech sample were higher in tradition, stimulation and power and lower in security, conformity and hedonism. Besides benevolence and universalism, people higher in tradition and in achievement exhibited higher levels of hope. On the contrary, conformity had a significant negative effect on hope. Moreover, the wish for more free time and more fun with friends (the hedonic orientation) had no effect on hope. Interestingly, the pleasure related to romantic experiences was also a matter of achievement and power. This means that for Czech people (at least in our sample), achievement and to some extent power, had a stronger significance and effect on hope than pleasure, leisure and social conformity, which can be also explained by higher levels of individualism, which emphasizes individual achievement orientation.

The Swiss population, the country with the highest GDP per capita in our study, exhibited a somewhat differentiated picture with aspects distinguishing the two major language regions. While the German Swiss were higher in benevolence, self-direction, and tradition but the lowest in universalism, the French Swiss, who are the participants in our study with the lowest level of perceived hope, were higher in security, hedonism and self-direction but lower in universalism, stimulation and achievement. However, in the French sample, stimulation and achievement significantly predicted hope and self-direction not at all. Interestingly, hedonism (enjoying life) had a stronger effect on hope for the German Swiss and achievement for the French. Especially in the German part of Switzerland, success, a secure job and more money were of minor importance to hope, whereas performing a meaningful task was much more relevant.

To summarize, the level of hope can be similar or even higher in some poorer countries than in a rich country. Moreover, within a rich country, two regions with different cultural backgrounds may show significant differences in the level of hopefulness. These differences can be the consequence of several reasons. Beyond the values of self-transcendence and openness to change, Portuguese participants obtain hope from traditional family and cultural habits and norms, from the wish to help other people but do also yearn for success and achievement. In Spain, people experience similar conditions than in Portugal, but exhibit lower levels of hope, probably because the prosocial and altruistic motives are less pronounced. Central values in the Czech sample, the country with the highest level of hope together with Portugal, are the seemingly contradictory values of benevolence, tradition and achievement, which are the most salient predictors of hope. In Switzerland, the German and the French population present some common patterns but also striking differences. A meaningful task has a higher value than a secure job or success and self-transcendence values have a similar effect on hope in both regions. Tradition is more important and relevant for hope in the German part and achievement for the French speaking population.

3.4 Limitations

The current study has a number of limitations that must be addressed. The design of the study is cross-sectional, thus we are not able to infer causalities between variables. If self-transcendent values foster hope or if the consequence of being hopeful is to care for the well-being of others, this should be investigated in future cross-sectional studies. Another limitation is the different sample sizes and the lacking of national representativeness of our samples. The Swiss samples reflected the demographic structure of the population much better than the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Czech groups. In the latter countries, the participants were younger and had a better education than the average of the population. Furthermore, most participants were recruited via online platforms. Population groups, especially older people and persons living in rural areas with little online skills or access, were underrepresented. However, the main finding obtained from our results are independent from demographic differences or represent at least the characteristics of a sub-group of the general population.

3.5 Conclusions

We started this chapter with the conceptualization of hope as a wish or desire for a valuable good whose realization is regarded as possible but not necessarily as probable and with the assumption that personal values and cultural characteristics could have an effect on the general levels of hope as well as on the significance of particular targets of hope. Our findings support the notion that certain human values can positively influence both the general level of perceived hope as well as the formation and meaning of certain individual targets of hope. Specifically, anxiety-free and growth-oriented values (self-transcendence and openness to change) revealed positive effects on hope and were significantly related to the most important hope targets. Moreover, values and hope targets with a social and transcendent focus such as tradition and spirituality usually exhibit a stronger connection to hope than values and hopes with an individual and materialistic focus, with exception of the positive effect of personal achievement. On the one hand, our study suggests that many presumably universal features of the general perception of hope, of the most relevant hope targets of the population and of their connection to basic human values exist. On the other hand, it discloses some significant and several subtle cultural particularities, worth to be investigated more in detail in future psychological empirical studies.

Appendices

Appendix 3.1: Demographic Structure of the Samples

	German Swiss	French Swiss	Spain	Portugal	Czech Rep.
	N/n	N/n	N/n	N/n	N/n
	%	%	%	%	%
Total	3049	1109	528	808	338
Age (M)	43.71	44.16	37.79	37.49	30.92
Age (SD)	15.92	14.15	14.78	15.53	11.90
Gender
Male	1255	472	134	153	117
	41.2%	42.6%	25.4%	18.9%	34.6%
Female	1794	637	394	655	221
	58.8%	57.4%	74.6%	81.1%	65.4%
Marital status
Still living with my parents	234	69	139	222	56
	7.7%	6.2%	26.3%	27.5%	16.6%
Single, unmarried	526	160	76	149	62
	17.3%	14.4%	14.4%	18.4%	18.3%
Living in a partnership with separate households	263	93	20	25	42
	8.6%	8.4%	3.8%	3.1%	12.4%
Living together in a partnership	592	226	69	99	75
	19.4%	20.4%	13.1%	12.3%	22.2%
Married	1111	395	186	236	86
	36.4%	35.6%	35.2%	29.2%	25.4%
Divorced/separated	267	143	34	68	13
	8.8%	12.9%	6.4%	8.4%	3.8%
Widowed	56	23	4	9	4
	1.8%	2.1%	0.8%	1.1%	1.2%
Education
Did not finish school	9	5	1	0	0
	0.3%	0.5%	0.2%	0.0%	0.0%
Primary school	105	71	12	1	9
	3.4%	6.4%	2.3%	0.1%	2.7%
Secondary school	255	68	87	227	157
	8.4%	6.1%	16.5%	28.1%	46.4%
Professional training/diploma	2050	687	68	6	28
	67.2%	61.9%	12.9%	0.7%	8.3%
Tertiary education/university	630	278	360	574	144
	20.7%	25.1%	68.2%	71.0%	42.6%
Main activity
In education or training	202	68	159	283	131
	6.6%	6.1%	30.1%	35.0%	38.8%
Household/raising children	123	56	18	6	15
	4.0%	5.0%	3.4%	0.7%	4.4%
Part-time job	617	230	46	70	19
	20.2%	20.7%	8.7%	8.7%	5.6%
Fulltime job	1580	562	269	404	162
	51.8%	50.7%	50.9%	50.0%	47.9%
Unemployed	109	62	17	17	5
	3.6%	5.6%	3.2%	2.1%	1.5%
Retired	418	131	19	28	6
	13.7%	11.8%	3.6%	3.5%	1.8%
Professional status
No position in an organization	407	208	95	173	71
	13.3%	18.8%	18.0%	21.4%	21.0%
In education/training	170	69	106	140	58
	5.6%	6.2%	20.1%	17.3%	17.2%
Employee	1248	519	181	313	146
	40.9%	46.8%	34.3%	38.7%	43.2%
Junior/middle management	729	143	65	79	31
	23.9%	12.9%	12.3%	9.8%	9.2%
Senior management/board of directors	147	70	42	29	7
	4.8%	6.3%	8.0%	3.6%	2.1%
Entrepreneur/business owner	348	100	39	74	25
	11.4%	9.0%	7.4%	9.2%	7.4%
Religion
Catholic	770	330	277	405	91
	25.3%	29.8%	52.5%	50.1%	26.9%
Protestant	822	203	4	21	9
	27.0%	18.3%	0.8%	2.6%	2.7%
Another Christian church	141	24	1	7	4
	4.6%	2.2%	0.2%	0.9%	1.2%
Muslim	43	13	2	2	1
	1.4%	1.2%	0.4%	0.2%	0.3%
Jewish	6	3	0	0	0
	0.2%	0.3%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Hindu	4	0	0	1	0
	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%	0.1%	0.0%
Buddhist	22	6	1	6	1
	0.7%	0.5%	0.2%	0.7%	0.3%
I am a spiritual person outside the traditional world religions.	204	130	55	160	109
	6.7%	11.7%	10.4%	19.8%	32.2%
Without religion or confession	989	382	164	174	103
	32.4%	34.4%	31.1%	21.5%	30.5%
Something different	48	18	24	32	20
	1.6%	1.6%	4.5%	4.0%	5.9%

Appendix 3.2: Partial Bivariate Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Total Sample (N = 5832)

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Perceived Hope	1.000
2. Self-transcendence	0.297**	1.000
3. Openness to change	0.268**	0.422**	1.000
4. Conservation	0.158**	0.403**	0.146**	1.000
5. Self-enhancement	0.082**	0.022	0.283**	0.287**	1.000
6. Benevolence	0.259**	0.751**	0.354**	0.455**	0.125**	1.000
7. Universalism	0.256**	0.931**	0.373**	0.291**	−0.040**	0.457**	1.000
8. Self-direction	0.203**	0.375**	0.885**	0.161**	0.193**	0.342**	0.316**	1.000
9. Stimulation	0.257**	0.332**	0.790**	0.073**	0.300**	0.242**	0.313**	0.415**	1.000
10. Hedonism	0.230**	0.331**	0.428**	0.169**	0.215**	0.336**	0.260**	0.278**	0.471**	1.000
11. Tradition	0.165**	0.187**	0.098**	0.741**	0.265**	0.293**	0.089**	0.077**	0.090**	0.097**	1.000
12. Security	0.122**	0.354**	0.220**	0.740**	0.327**	0.420**	0.244**	0.258**	0.092**	0.277**	0.426**	1.000
13. Conformity	0.107**	0.422**	0.059**	0.850**	0.162**	0.403**	0.345**	0.088**	0.001	0.099**	0.379**	0.512**	1.000
14. Achievement	0.156**	0.193**	0.380**	0.346**	0.793**	0.273**	0.109**	0.305**	0.342**	0.269**	0.259**	0.385**	0.240**	1.000
15. Power	0.030*	−0.070**	0.189**	0.212**	0.949**	0.030*	−0.110**	0.105**	0.231**	0.154**	0.226**	0.245**	0.097**	0.562**

1. Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level; *. Correlation is significant at 0.05 level;
2. Control variables: Country, gender, age, marital status, education, main activity and professional status

Appendix 3.3: Partial Bivariate Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Targets of Hope and Basic Value Dimensions

3.1.1 Appendix 3.3.1: German Switzerland

	Benevolence	Universalism	Self-direction	Stimulation	Hedonism	Tradition	Security	Conformity	Achievement	Power
Success at the workplace, at school etc.	0.089**	0.039*	0.063**	0.142**	0.112**	0.095**	0.141**	0.103**	0.387**	0.210**
Happy partnership, family, marriage	0.268**	0.143**	0.034	0.087**	0.194**	0.135**	0.174**	0.143**	0.120**	0.009
More free time	0.103**	0.090**	0.063**	0.106**	0.260**	0.045**	0.154**	0.077**	0.076**	0.032
More sex and romantic experiences	0.134**	0.082**	0.029	0.170**	0.254**	0.063**	0.107**	0.076**	0.150**	0.106**
More religious and spiritual experiences	0.093**	0.189**	0.029	0.079**	−0.038*	0.249**	0.051**	0.059**	0.011	0.004
More money	0.025	−0.062**	0.063**	0.096**	0.112**	0.129**	0.179**	0.066**	0.300**	0.343**
More fun with friends	0.250**	0.145**	0.106**	0.228**	0.424**	0.121**	0.141**	0.105**	0.139**	0.047**
More safety in your personal environment	0.200**	0.082**	0.051**	0.035*	0.154**	0.244**	0.404**	0.254**	0.171**	0.110**
Good health	0.182**	0.128**	0.096**	0.072**	0.178**	0.123**	0.311**	0.144**	0.112**	0.023
A secure job	0.153**	0.067**	0.016	0.002	0.082**	0.159**	0.308**	0.200**	0.195**	0.102**
Good and trusting relationships with other people	0.366**	0.296**	0.111**	0.153**	0.231**	0.138**	0.163**	0.188**	0.111**	−0.012
Being engaged in meaningful tasks	0.194**	0.258**	0.171**	0.166**	0.094**	0.131**	0.139**	0.151**	0.168**	0.030
Order in my life	0.223**	0.095**	0.089**	0.021	0.083**	0.264**	0.365**	0.287**	0.225**	0.117**
Personal independence and self-determination	0.125**	0.124**	0.353**	0.205**	0.137**	0.055**	0.166**	0.040*	0.147**	0.070**
More time to relax	0.135**	0.143**	0.103**	0.104**	0.238**	0.121**	0.229**	0.142**	0.107**	0.060**
Harmony in life	0.272**	0.214**	0.124**	0.089**	0.230**	0.155**	0.268**	0.226**	0.103**	−0.009
Helping other people	0.395**	0.490**	0.059**	0.160**	0.149**	0.173**	0.162**	0.277**	0.074**	−0.052**

1. Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level; *. Correlation is significant at 0.05 level
2. Control variables: Gender, age, marital status, education, main activity, and professional status

3.1.2 Appendix 3.3.2: French Switzerland

	Benevolence	Universalism	Self-direction	Stimulation	Hedonism	Tradition	Security	Conformity	Achievement	Power
Success at the workplace, at school etc.	0.082**	0.029	0.103**	0.097**	0.107**	0.075**	0.208**	0.074*	0.269**	0.186**
Happy partnership, family, marriage	0.369**	0.176**	0.155**	0.064*	0.224**	0.150**	0.249**	0.159**	0.126**	−0.007
More free time	0.106**	0.105**	0.090**	0.070*	0.282**	0.062*	0.112**	0.042	0.042	0.048
More sex and romantic experiences	0.059*	0.010	0.033	0.184**	0.262**	0.004	0.024	−0.047	0.128**	0.136**
More religious and spiritual experiences	0.130**	0.228**	0.045	0.090**	0.025	0.229**	0.087**	0.110**	0.084**	0.090**
More money	0.007	−0.039	0.017	0.045	0.093**	0.058*	0.155**	0.045	0.211**	0.329**
More fun with friends	0.302**	0.181**	0.133**	0.152**	0.303**	0.087**	0.144**	0.090**	0.100**	0.053
More safety in your personal environment	0.125**	0.058*	0.030	0.019	0.145**	0.216**	0.345**	0.172**	0.159**	0.112**
Good health	0.199**	0.116**	0.055	0.061*	0.146**	0.138**	0.346**	0.182**	0.140**	0.094**
A secure job	0.137**	0.098**	0.063*	0.014	0.124**	0.107**	0.319**	0.196**	0.170**	0.162**
Good and trusting relationships with other people	0.348**	0.310**	0.105**	0.106**	0.232**	0.098**	0.169**	0.254**	0.147**	0.002
Being engaged in meaningful tasks	0.254**	0.272**	0.178**	0.171**	0.156**	0.052	0.145**	0.162**	0.188**	0.057
Order in my life	0.175**	0.063*	0.021	−0.047	0.056	0.287**	0.338**	0.319**	0.191**	0.177**
Personal independence and self-determination	0.117**	0.152**	0.324**	0.239**	0.239**	0.039	0.131**	0.028	0.119**	0.050
More time to relax	0.094**	0.097**	0.093**	0.026	0.218**	0.108**	0.144**	0.103**	0.054	0.120**
Harmony in life	0.251**	0.212**	0.183**	0.053	0.251**	0.124**	0.248**	0.212**	0.135**	0.051
Helping other people	0.392**	0.508**	0.113**	0.154**	0.142**	0.139**	0.122**	0.251**	0.055	−0.059*

1. Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level; *. Correlation is significant at 0.05 level
2. Control variables: Gender, age, marital status, education, main activity, and professional status

3.1.3 Appendix 3.3.3: Spain

	Benevolence	Universalism	Self-direction	Stimulation	Hedonism	Tradition	Security	Conformity	Achievement	Power
Success at the workplace, at school etc.	0.215**	0.153**	0.182**	0.169**	0.156**	0.080	0.201**	0.124**	0.276**	0.059
Happy partnership, family, marriage	0.218**	0.099*	0.045	0.001	0.147**	0.061	0.103*	0.090*	0.021	−0.059
More free time	0.180**	0.195**	0.118**	0.136**	0.223**	0.055	0.125**	0.089*	0.012	0.082
More sex and romantic experiences	0.109*	0.074	0.086	0.196**	0.340**	0.044	0.072	0.014	0.056	0.126**
More religious and spiritual experiences	0.076	0.166**	0.133**	0.105*	0.055	0.301**	0.148**	0.081	0.138**	0.142**
More money	0.087*	0.015	0.076	0.262**	0.196**	0.107*	0.185**	0.030	0.260**	0.377**
More fun with friends	0.250**	0.184**	0.121**	0.218**	0.438**	0.077	0.097*	0.048	0.096*	0.086*
More safety in your personal environment	0.200**	0.064	0.020	0.038	0.169**	0.160**	0.310**	0.153**	0.095*	0.133**
Good health	0.154**	0.054	0.014	0.045	0.203**	0.114**	0.217**	0.160**	0.009	0.060
A secure job	0.187**	0.130**	0.067	0.077	0.093*	0.137**	0.294**	0.262**	0.100*	0.103*
Good and trusting relationships with other people	0.224**	0.266**	0.224**	0.189**	0.238**	0.069	0.172**	0.093*	0.067	0.004
Being engaged in meaningful tasks	0.230**	0.375**	0.229**	0.220**	0.138**	0.130**	0.236**	0.151**	0.148**	0.058
Order in my life	0.183**	0.138**	0.061	0.028	0.050	0.213**	0.341**	0.317**	0.094*	0.055
Personal independence and self-determination	0.262**	0.248**	0.335**	0.238**	0.183**	0.060	0.269**	0.127**	0.159**	0.063
More time to relax	0.114**	0.217**	0.112*	0.134**	0.256**	0.107*	0.252**	0.143**	0.100*	0.124**
Harmony in life	0.231**	0.189**	0.194**	0.099*	0.199**	0.206**	0.311**	0.200**	0.114**	0.057
Helping other people	0.353**	0.461**	0.216**	0.164**	0.180**	0.066	0.233**	0.175**	0.030	−0.069

1. Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level; *. Correlation is significant at 0.05 level
2. Control variables: Gender, age, marital status, education, main activity, and professional status

3.1.4 Appendix 3.3.4: Portugal

	Benevolence	Universalism	Self-direction	Stimulation	Hedonism	Tradition	Security	Conformity	Achievement	Power
Success at the workplace, at school etc.	0.176**	0.049	0.227**	0.197**	0.241**	0.049	0.247**	0.148**	0.371**	0.193**
Happy partnership, family, marriage	0.236**	0.115**	0.032	0.051	0.105**	0.106**	0.124**	0.073*	0.113**	0.000
More free time	0.136**	0.161**	0.072*	0.117**	0.258**	0.044	0.180**	0.119**	0.085*	−0.021
More sex and romantic experiences	0.156**	0.066	0.108**	0.229**	0.342**	0.051	0.181**	0.046	0.151**	0.136**
More religious and spiritual experiences	0.028	0.178**	−0.113**	0.034	−0.018	0.211**	−0.003	0.087*	−0.065	−0.079*
More money	0.059	−0.047	0.146**	0.144**	0.202**	0.055	0.187**	0.053	0.310**	0.334**
More fun with friends	0.245**	0.176**	0.131**	0.263**	0.473**	0.001	0.188**	0.143**	0.182**	0.026
More safety in your personal environment	0.176**	0.174**	0.159**	0.162**	0.215**	0.078*	0.335**	0.165**	0.178**	0.039
Good health	0.232**	0.150**	0.180**	0.111**	0.213**	0.039	0.319**	0.178**	0.165**	0.011
A secure job	0.158**	0.065	0.140**	0.048	0.138**	0.093**	0.323**	0.192**	0.199**	0.114**
Good and trusting relationships with other people	0.358**	0.318**	0.146**	0.133**	0.214**	−0.008	0.247**	0.124**	0.136**	−0.084*
Being engaged in meaningful tasks	0.269**	0.282**	0.204**	0.208**	0.178**	0.029	0.198**	0.078*	0.231**	−0.036
Order in my life	0.169**	0.142**	0.146**	0.122**	0.170**	0.090*	0.260**	0.189**	0.146**	0.087*
Personal independence and self-determination	0.170**	0.209**	0.293**	0.206**	0.210**	0.044	0.247**	0.110**	0.207**	0.092**
More time to relax	0.181**	0.213**	0.167**	0.160**	0.298**	0.038	0.256**	0.147**	0.153**	0.003
Harmony in life	0.268**	0.217**	0.150**	0.084*	0.170**	0.066	0.285**	0.180**	0.181**	0.041
Helping other people	0.316**	0.443**	0.097**	0.161**	0.131**	0.155**	0.161**	0.202**	0.093**	−0.142**

1. Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level; *. Correlation is significant at 0.05 level
2. Control variables: Gender, age, marital status, education, main activity, and professional status

3.1.5 Appendix 3.3.5: Czech Republic

	Benevolence	Universalism	Self-direction	Stimulation	Hedonism	Tradition	Security	Conformity	Achievement	Power
Success at the workplace, at school etc.	0.135*	0.071	0.096	0.174**	0.131*	0.076	0.153**	0.034	0.463**	0.321**
Happy partnership, family, marriage	0.231**	0.111*	0.107	0.042	0.091	0.182**	0.241**	0.178**	0.167**	0.083
More free time	0.081	0.093	0.103	0.212**	0.272**	0.026	0.110*	0.067	0.069	0.052
More sex and romantic experiences	0.145**	0.104	0.070	0.267**	0.335**	0.075	0.176**	0.069	0.257**	0.213**
More religious and spiritual experiences	0.007	0.286**	0.059	0.202**	−0.064	0.184**	0.037	0.023	0.065	0.004
More money	0.059	−0.084	0.010	0.076	0.157**	0.080	0.209**	0.121*	0.231**	0.406**
More fun with friends	0.146**	0.153**	0.069	0.226**	0.394**	0.079	0.091	0.138*	0.123*	0.097
More safety in your personal environment	0.243**	0.026	−0.012	0.017	0.214**	0.218**	0.391**	0.251**	0.096	0.184**
Good health	0.252**	0.178**	0.060	0.052	0.185**	0.090	0.394**	0.149**	0.224**	0.124*
A secure job	0.118*	0.021	−0.055	−0.005	0.139*	0.268**	0.239**	0.169**	0.097	0.207**
Good and trusting relationships with other people	0.283**	0.256**	0.108*	0.198**	0.213**	0.040	0.089	0.025	0.070	−0.003
Being engaged in meaningful tasks	0.151**	0.263**	0.220**	0.224**	0.068	0.106	0.111*	0.049	0.187**	0.124*
Order in my life	0.210**	0.121*	0.009	−0.018	−0.088	0.329**	0.279**	0.325**	0.178**	0.140*
Personal independence and self-determination	0.104	0.254**	0.330**	0.231**	0.135*	−0.010	0.194**	−0.045	0.173**	0.069
More time to relax	0.153**	0.139*	0.104	0.185**	0.207**	0.097	0.269**	0.131*	0.097	0.132*
Harmony in life	0.232**	0.226**	0.096	0.032	0.087	0.097	0.218**	0.170**	0.070	−0.044
Helping other people	0.289**	0.400**	0.090	0.165**	0.181**	0.179**	0.190**	0.182**	0.105	−0.006

1. Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level; *. Correlation is significant at 0.05 level
2. Control variables: Gender, age, marital status, education, main activity, and professional status