Page 26 - JCBP-2-2

Journal of Clinical and
Basic Psychosomatics Life values in representative general population

The representative sampling was conducted by dividing standard deviations or percentages. To test for differences
the inhabited areas of Germany into sample areas, ensuring between the age groups and the two cohorts (2018, 2022)
an overlap-free spatial definition. These areas were then simultaneously, MANOVA analysis was employed with age
chosen for inclusion. Within these areas, a random group and cohort as dependent variables. Post hoc tests
20
selection of households was performed. For individual were performed to assess group differences among age
selection, an administrative representative in the respective groups, with the application of Bonferroni correction.
area identified all individuals in the selected household
and selected a target individual for the interview. The 3. Results
selection of this target individual was performed by 3.1. Values before and after the pandemic episode
a predetermined random procedure according to the
internationally used Kish selection grid. Importantly, The means of achievement, benevolence, universalism,
19
the representative sampling procedure was independent tradition, and stability life values were slightly lower after
of the interviewer. Trained research personnel conducted the pandemic (Table 1). Conversely, hedonism and self-
the interviews, during which participants provided basic direction were rated higher after the pandemic compared
sociodemographic and work-related information. to before. Benevolence, universalism, and self-direction
obtained the highest scores, while achievement and power
Subsequently, participants completed a self-rating
questionnaire on basic life values, utilizing the Short Schwartz’s obtained comparably lower means, signaling a lower level
of importance (Table 1).
Value Survey (SSVS). This short-value scale is derived
from the longer version of Schwartz’s Value Survey, which 3.2. Life values in different age groups
1
consisted of 57 items representing ten distinct motivational
values. The SSVS provides insight into these ten broad values Overall, the ranking of mean scores of life values was
through four dimensions. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient similar across the age groups, with benevolence being
for the whole scale in the present investigation was 0.837, perceived as the most important, followed by universalism,
with subdimension coefficients for power and achievement self-direction, stability, tradition, conformity, hedonism,
of 0.844, 0.840 for benevolence and universalism, 0.747 for and stimulation. However, achievement and power were
tradition, conformity, and stability, and 0.737 for hedonism, rated as important, but at a lower level.
stimulation, and self-direction. The mean scores of each of Although the global ranking of life values was similar,
the ten value dimensions were used for detailed data analysis. different age groups reported partly varying importance
for specific values (Table 1). Specifically, power and
2.1. Participants
achievement were rated higher by the younger age
The participants’ characteristics were similar in both groups (20–50 years) as compared to the older groups
cohorts. The participants were about mid-aged (an average (70–80 years). The means of hedonism, stimulation, and
age of 48.03 years in the 2018 cohort [standard deviation self-direction were lower in older age groups (60–80 years).
{SD} = 17.56] and 49.26 years [SD = 17.7] in the 2022 However, there were hardly any differences in the degree
cohort). Approximately half of the participants (54.5% in of agreement between age groups and universalism,
2018; 50.1% in 2022) were women. In the 2018 cohort, the benevolence, conformity, stability, and tradition (except
minimum age was 14 years, and in 2022, it was 16 years. that very young individuals aged <24 valued tradition
Most participants (59.1% in 2018; 63.2% in 2022) were lower than individuals in their 70s or 80s).
working full-time or part-time; self-employed (6.2% in 2018;
4.3% in 2022); educated (school, studies) (5.5% in 2018; 4.3% 4. Discussion
in 2022); unemployed (5.4% in 2018; 4.0% in 2022); and 4.1. Values before and after the pandemic episode
received a pension due to age or disability (23.4% in 2018; The main finding of this representative study is that life
24.2% in 2022). Most of the participants (74.1% in 2018; values are only slightly different after a global health crisis,
68.0% in 2022) identified with a religious denomination: that is, the pandemic. The practical relevance of small
Catholic or Evangelic (70.2% in 2018; 63.7% in 2022);
Muslim (2.3% in 2018; 2.5% in 2022); and others (1.7% in differences and effect sizes should not be overinterpreted.
2018; 1.8% in 2022). One-fourth to one-third (25.9% in The data should be regarded with reference to associated
2018; 32.0% in 2022) had no religious denominations. context factors, such as value distribution in different age
groups and the development of values in the context of
2.2. Statistical analysis longer time periods, that is, decades. 18,21
Data analysis was performed using SPSS software. However, the observed pattern of differences fits the
Demographic information is reported as means and global value shift trends in Europe. Younger individuals

Volume 2 Issue 2 (2024) 3 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcbp.2192