Başlık: THE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' VALUE PREFERENCESYazar(lar):BAŞARAN, FatmaCilt: 14 Sayı: 0 Sayfa: 013-025 DOI: 10.1501/Felsbol_0000000101 Yayın Tarihi: 1992 PDF

Fatma BAŞARAN

Abstract

In this paper, university students' value preferences based on a

research t h a t was done because of " Y o u t h Y e a r " will be presented.

Values are one of t h e most i m p o r t a n t inner factors in determining and

shaping t h e attitudes and behaviors of an individaul. Because of this

reason, h u m a n being's way of arrangement of h u m a n values in order

of their importance to t h e m is very i m p o r t a n t . The aim of this rese­

arch is to study how university y o u t h arrange h u m a n values in t h e

order of their importance to t h e m . Research sumple consist of 679 stu­

dents selected by random sampling from different faculties in Ankara.

As a reseach instrument " T h e Rokeach Value S u r v e y " was used.

D a t a analyses were carried out for t h e t o t a l sample of Turkish Stu­

dents as well as for sex and t h e generational subgroups. T h e results are

presented with comparisons of the findings of similar studies conducted

in different cultures (U.S.A., Australia, Israel and Canada).

The University Syudents' Value Preferences

T h e theoretical framework a n d methodology of this paper is based

on t h e works of Rokeach (1973) who has spent a considerable time on

research in this field.

As widely acknowledged, it is rather difficult to u n d e r s t a n d a n d

evaluate t h e problems of an individual without taking into consideration

any sound information on his / her values, since values have an effect

u p o n his a t t i t u d e a n d behaviour. Thus, it is possible to predict t h e atti­

tude a n d behaviour of individuals, groups a n d cultures by obtaining

knowledge on their values. As Rokeach pointed out, t h e differences

between social classes, professions, religious and political beliefs can only

be explained by pondering on t h e differences of their values and value

systems. T h e gap between generations can be understood more clearly

by taking t h e value differences into consideration. T h e changes brought

about by m a t u r a t i o n , education, persuasion a n d t h e r a p y along with

cultural, institutional a n d technological changes can also be evaluated

with reference to t h e development and modifications in values and value

systems (Rokeach, 1973:26). Hence, a value is,

" a n eduring belief t h a t a specific mode of conduct or end-sta­

te of existence is personally or socially preferable to an oppo­

site or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence. A

value system in an eduring organization of beliefs concerning

preferable modes of conduct or end-states exists along a

c o n t i n u u m of relative i m p o r t a n c e " (Rokeach, 1973: 5).

A value-free approach should be employed in research on h u m a n

values, comprising t h e following five assumptions on h u m a n values:

1. The t o t a l n u m b e r of values t h a t a person prossesses is relatively

small,

2. Values are universal b u t individuals m a y possess t h e m to

diffi-rent degrees.

3. Values are organized into value systems.

4. T h e antecedents of values can be traced to personality, culture

society and its institutions,

5. The results of values manifest themselves vividly in all pheno­

m e n a considered w o r t h y of investigation by social scientists.

These assumptions account for t h e elevation of t h e concept of value,

among other concepts, h a s a central position in all t h e disciplines of social

sciences. Thus, value-based problems manifest themselves in all t h e

fields of s t u d y in social sciences (Rokeach, 1973: 3). Research of this

kind, even if n o t carried out with an empirical objective in t h e beginning,

come to convey in t h e end, empirical and useful knowledge, and as a result

provides necessary information to people of differens occupations such

as educators, managers, planners, reformers and therapists.

Objectives of the Study :

This study is an evaluation of some of t h e d a t a collected in a

field-research carried out with t h e following objectives in m i n d :

a) To obtain information about t h e values of t h e university y o u t h

which will assume aneffective role in t h e labor-force of T u r k e y in t h e near

f u t u r e , a n d h e n c e , t o discover t h e i r h i e r a r c h y o f values s t a t e d i n a n

order of preference,

b ) T o m a k e a cross-cultural s t u d y b y c o m p a r i n g t h e s e d a t a w i t h t h e

r e s u l t s of r e s e a r c h carried o u t in o t h e r c u l t u r e s .

c) To e x a m i n e t h e differences in v a l u e s of m a l e a n d female s t u d e n t s

w h o , as m e m b e r s of a society, h a v e b e e n allocated different sex roles,

d). To look i n t o t h e conflict b e t w e e n g e n e r a t i o n s in t e r m s of

diffe-rences in v a l u e s * .

Method

T h i s field r e s e a r c h i s b a s e d o n R o k e a c h ' s m o d e l . H o w e v e r , d u e t o

some difficulties, t h e s a m p l e is a m o d e s t one c o m p a r e d to t h a t of R o k e

-a c h , b e i n g l i m i t e d t o U n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s i n A n k -a r -a .

T h e s a m p l e consists of 679 s t u d e n t s of b o t h sexes, chosen by r a n d o m

s a m p l i n g from t h e Universities i n A n k a r a .

T h e t e c h n i q u e e m p l o y e d i s R o k e a c h ' s " v a l u e s u r v e y " , t r a n s l a t e d

i n t o T u r k i s h w i t h n e c e s s a r y controls a n d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s for a p p l i c a t i o n

were i d e n t i c a l . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t e c h n i c a l difficulties p r e v e n t e d t h e a p p

-lication of t h e g u m m e d " l a b e l v e r s i o n " of t h i s t e c h n i q u e .

As it is well k n o w n , t h e v a l u e scale in q u e s t i o n consists of t w o lists.

E a c h list h a s 1 8 values a l t o g e t h e r , placed i n a n a l p h a b e t i c a l order. T h e

first list is c o m p o s e d of " t e r m i n a l " v a l u e s , whereas t h e second includes

i n s t r u m e n t a l v a l u e s . W h a t i s r e q u i r e d from t h e subject i s t o e x a m i n e

carefully each list a n d t o place t h e s t a t e d v a l u e s i n each list i n a n order

of preference in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e v a l u e in his / her

life, b y assigning t h e n u m b e r 1 t o t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t , a n d t h e n u m b e r

1 8 t o t h e least i m p o r t a n t v a l u e .

This v a l u e scale was applied to 679 s t u d e n t s , in eight diffirent

col-leges i n A n k a r a . D a t a o b t a i n e d was processed a t t h e C o m p u t e r Centre

of M E T U .

* The mentioned research also takes into consideration the following points that have not

been included in this paper: a) whether students studying in different fields display meaningful

differences in their order of preferences, b) whether students undergoing a four-year instruction

period at different faculties (colleges) show qualitative and quantitative differences in their

or-der of preferences at the beginning and the end of their study period, c) whether there is any

re-lationship between their order of preferences and their oscial origin (village, town, city), father's

occupation, education of parents and the kind of secondary education (private, public or technical

school) received.

The median has been used for t h e measurement of central tendency

and t h e Median test (Siegel, 1956) for non-parametric statistical signifi­

cance.

Findings and Discussions

Value Bankings:

Table 1 shows t h e terminal value rankings for t h e t o t a l college

sample. At t h e t o p of t h e terminal value hierarchy, t h e five values,

given by university students are; freedom, a world at peace, equality,

self-respect and inner harmony. At t h e b o t t o m of t h e hierarchy are t h e

values of an exciting life, pleasure, salvation, a world of beauty a n d

national security.

Table 1. Terminal Value Medians, Means and Composite Rank

Orders For College Students

N=679

A comfortable life

An exciting life

A sense of accomplishment

A world at peace

A world of beauty

Equality

Family security

Freedom

Happiness

Inner harmony

Mature love

National security

Pleasure

Salvation

Self-respect

Social recognition

True friendship

Wisdom

Median

12.2(13)

15.6(18)

8.1 (10)

5.5 ( 2)

14.1(15)

5.9 ( 3)

7.2(6)

4.4 ( 1)

7.7 ( 9)

7.0 ( 5)

10.2(11)

12.7(14)

15.4(17)

14.5(16)

6.9 ( 4)

11.7(12)

7.4 (8)

7.2 ( 7)

Mean

11.4 (14)

14.4 (17)

8.2(10)

6.9(3)

13.4(16)

6.8 ( 2)

6.9(3)

5.7 ( 1)

7.9 ( 8)

7.5 ( 5)

10.2(11)

11.5(15)

14.5(18)

10.8(12)

7.4 ( 4)

11.1 (13)

7.7 ( 7)

7.9 ( 9)

Figures shown are median and mean rankings and, in

pa-rentheses, composite rank orders.

Table 2 shows t h e instrumental value rankings of the same sample

At t h e t o p of instrumental hierarchy are t h e values of being independent,

honest, broadminded, logical, responsible a n d at the bottom are of being

obedient, ambitious imaginative, clean a n d polite.

As the measure of central tendency of obtained data, means a n d

medians of t h e two lists are provided in t h e tables. In general, t h e two

measures are in agreement, almost always leading to indentical r a n k

orders. The only exception to this correspondance between t h e two

me-asures in t a b l e 2 is t h e v a l u e of salvation w h i c h r a n k s as 1 6 t h a c c o r d i n g

t o m e d i a n b u t 1 2 t h according t o t h e m e a n r a n k i n g .

Table 2. Instrumental value Medians, Means and Composite

Rank Orders for College Stuedents

N=679

Ambitious

Broadminded

Capable

Cheerful

Clean

Courageous

Forgiving

Helpful

Honest

Imaginative

Independent

Intellectual

Logical

Loving

Obedient

Polite

Responsible

Self-controlled

Median

14.4(17)

5.4 ( 3)

11.3(13)

11.1 (12)

12.4(15)

6.8 ( 6)

10.2(10)

10.9(11)

3.0 ( 2)

13.6(16)

2.9 ( 1)

8.4 ( 7)

6.3 ( 4)

9.7 ( 9)

17.3(18)

12.0(14)

6.6 ( 5)

8.4 ( 8)

Mean

12.8(17)

6.7 ( 3)

10.9(13)

10.6(11)

11.7(15)

7.6 ( 6)

9.8(10)

10.7(12)

4.3 ( 1)

12.6(16)

5.3 ( 2)

8.8 ( 7)

6.8 ( 4)

9.5 ( 9)

15.5(18)

11.4(14)

6.9 ( 5)

8.9 (8)

Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses,

composite rank orders.

Cross-Cultural Comparisons:

T h e R o k e a c h scale consists o f 1 8 t e r m i n a l a n d 1 8 i n s t r u m e n t a l

values. T h e m a i n reason t h a t t h i s scale i s preferred lies i n t h e fact

t h a t i t s t e c h n i q u e i s comprehensive a n d u n i v e r s a l a t t h e same t i m e .

Therefore, w h e n t h e s a m e scale i s applied t o similar samples i n different

countries, a c o m p a r i s o n becomes possible. Such an a t t e m p t is s h o w n

in T a b l e 3 a n d T a b l e 4.

T a b l e 3 consists of t e r m i n a l v a l u e a v e r a g e s a n d composite r a n k

or-ders for A m e r i c a n , A u s t r a l i a n , Israeli, C a n a d i a n a n d T u r k i s h samples

of College S t u d e n t s .

I n T a b l e 3 , t h e results o f t h e s t u d y i n T u r k e y were t a b u l a t e d only

for t h e m a l e s t u d e n t s since i n t h e studies r e p o r t e d i n four c o u n t r i e s , only

t h e college m e n were i n c l u d e d i n t h e analysis.

T h e inspection of T a b l e 3 shows t h a t t h e r e are differences in t h e

v a l u e preferences of u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s as well as similar cross-cultural

r a n k i n g s . F o r e x a m p l e while Israeli r a n k s a world of peace from t e r m i n a l

values a s t h e first a n d T u r k e y a s t h e 2

, U . S . A r a n k s t h e s a m e v a l u e

Table 3. Terminal value averaegs and composite rank orders for American, Australian,

Israeli, Canadian and Turkish samples of college men

N

A comfortable life '

An exciting life

A sense of accomplishment

A world at peace

A world of beauty

Equality

, Family security

Freedom

Happiness

Inner harmony

Mature love

National security

Pleasure

Salvation

Slef-respect

Social recognition

Frue friendship

Wisdom

U. States

169

10.3 (11)

10.8(12)

7.1( 5)

9.3(10)

14.4 (18)

12.3 (13)

8.1 (7)

4.7 (11

6.2 ( 2)

8.8 ( 9)

7.4( 6)

13.8(17)

13.1 (J5)

13.4(16)

7.0 ( 4)

12.9 (14)

8.7 ( 8)

6.8 ( 3)

Austral: a

279

12.6(13)

9.2(11)

6.3 ( 4)

8.2 ( 9)

13.0(15)

9.0(10)

9.5(12)

4.9 ( 3)

7.5( 7)

7.7 ( 8)

6.6 (5)

13.9(17)

12.7 (14)

15.9(18)

7.5(6)

13.7(16)

4.9 ( 2)

4.7 ( 1)

Israel

71

12.8(15)

8.7 ( 9)

7.5 ( 7)

4.7( 1)

14.5(17)

9.3(10)

9.7 ( 8)

6.5 ( 4)

6.0 (3)

10.9(13)

6.5 (5)

5.6 ( 2)

11.2(14)

15.9(18)

9.7(11)

13.5 (16)

10.1 (12)

7.3( 6)

Canada

125

11.6(13)

9.8(11)

9.2 ( 9)

10.0(12)

12.3 (15)

9.7 (10)

7.5 ( 7)

4.5( 1)

4.7 (2)

7.4 ( 6)

5.6 ( 3)

16.6(17)

12.3(14)

17.6(18)

6.9 ( 4)

13.9(16)

7.3 ( 5)

8.3 ( 8)

Turkey

419

12.0 (14)

15.7 (18)

8.0 ( 9)

5.6 ( 2)

14.3 (16)

5.8 ( 3)

6.8 ( 5)

4.5 ( 1)

8.1 (10)

7.4 (6)

10.4(11)

12.1 (15)

15.5(17)

10.6(12)

7.9 ( 8)

11.8 (13)

7.6 ( 7)

6.7 ( 4)

Figures shown are median ranking for U.S., Australian, Canadian and Turkish samples, mean

rankings for Israeli semple, and in paranteses, comosite remk orders

as t h e 10

, Australia t h e 9

, and Canada t h e 12

. This ranking

makes one think about t h e period of anarchy Turkey went through

a n d t h e long years of war Israel suffered. In t h e ranking of t h e value

of National Security Israel showed a similar evaluation as well, although

Turkey is located in an area of strategic importance, she didn't enter

any major wars after 1920's, Turkish sample ranked this value

as t h e 15th. T h e equality value was given more emphasis by

Turkish students which is quite interesting, undoubtedly this

involves ideas of modernization and democracy. Again t h e Turkish

students showed more interest (although slight) in salvation value

compared to those from other countries. With this issue one m a y

remember t h e impact of t h e recent period of anarchy; one m a y also

t a k e into consideration t h a t other socio-cultural factors m a y be

influen-t a l as well. The i m p o r influen-t a n influen-t poininfluen-t abouinfluen-t salvainfluen-tion is influen-t h a influen-t , unlike influen-t h e ran­

kings of other values, t h e value preferences of more t h a n 2 / 3 of t h e stu­

dents are condensed into opposite extremes. While 26.4 percent of

university students r a n k this value as 1st, 38.9 percent r a n k it as 18th.

This is considered as an i m p o r t a n t point to be analysed. Those who

r a n k it as 2nd are 2.9 percent and those who r a n k it as 17th are 4.13

per-cent of t h e s a m p l e . O n e m a y also observe t h a t t h e v a l u e s of Mature

love, Happiness a n d An Exciting Life a r e given lower r a n k s by T u r k i s h

S t u d e n t s c o m p a r e d w i t h o t h e r s t u d e n t s from different c o u n t r i e s . At

p r e s e n t , t h e a u t h o r s i n t u i t i o n i s t h a t for T u r k i s h s t u d e n t s t h e s e v a l u e s

are associated w i t h a l u x u r i o u s life style a n d looked u p o n w i t h some

c o n t e m p t . This p a t t e r n , which m a y h a v e m u l t i p l e e x p l a n a t i o n s , i s w o r t h

considering i n m o r e d e t a i l i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s .

W h e n all o f t h e five countries are t a k e n i n t o consideration from t h e

p o i n t of r a n k i n g v a l u e s like a comforatable life, a world of beauty,

free-dom, pleasure a n d social recognition, it is o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e r e a r e m o r e

similarities t h a n differences. T h i s fact m a y b e r e g a r d e d a s promising

for m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d t o l e r a n c e b e t w e e n c o u n t r i e s .

T a b l e 4 shows t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l v a l u e r a n k i n g s o f T u r k e y a n d t h e

o t h e r c o u n t r i e s .

Table 4. Instrumental value Averages and composite rank orders for American, Australian,

Is-raeli, Canadian and Turkish samples college men

N=

Ambitious

Broadminted

Capable

Cheerful

Clean

Courageous

Forgiving

Helpful

Honest

Imaginative

Independent

Intellectual

Logical

Loving

Obedient

Polite

Responsible

Self-controlled

U. States

169

6.4 ( 3)

6.7 ( 4)

7.5 ( 5)

12.0(15)

14.1 (17)

8.4 ( 8)

10.5(12)

11.9(14)

S.2( 1)

10.8 (13)

7.7(6)

8.5(9)

8.3 ( 7)

9.1(11)

15.0(18)

13.2(16)

5.9 ( 2)

8.6(10)

Australia

279

7.8 (6)

4.6 ( 2)

8.2 ( 8)

8 . 5 ( 9 )

13.9(17)

8.7(10)

9.3(11)

10.2(13)

4.0 ( 1)

11.5 (15)

7.9 ( 7)

10.6(14)

9.9(12)

7 . 5 ( 4 )

15.3(18)

12.1 (16)

5.2 ( 3)

7.7(5)

Israel

71

8.7 (7)

9.2 ( 9)

6.5 ( 4)

12.2(14)

12.6(15)

9.8(12)

14.3(18)

9.3(10)

5.1 ( 1)

13.1 (16)

9.9(13)

7.7(6)

5.9 ( 3)

9.1 ( 8)

13.6(17)

9.7(11)

5.2 ( 2)

7.6 ( 5)

Canada Turkey

125

9.4(11)

6.4 ( 4)

9.9(12)

8.8 ( 6)

. 15.4 (17)

9.1(8)

9.1(10)

9.1 ( 9)

3.0 ( 1)

10.6(15)

6.9 ( 5)

8.9 ( 7)

10.5(14)

6.4 ( 3)

16.6(18)

14.6(16)

5.6(2)

10.2(13)

419

13.9(17)

5.6 ( 3)

11.3(12)

11.5(13)

11.6(14)

6.6 ( 5)

9.9 ( 9)

10.6(11)

2.9( I)

13.4(16)

3.1(2)

8.7 ( 8)

6.5(4)

10.5(10)

17.1 (18)

11.7(15)

6.7(6)

8.3 ( 7)

Figures shown are median rankings for U.S., Australian, Canadian and Turkish samples, mean

rankings for Israeli sample, and in parantheses, composite rank orders.

It is observed t h a t T u r k i s h s t u d e n t s give a very low r a n k i n g to

t h e v a l u e o f b e i n g a m b i t i o u s c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r c o u n t r i e s . T h e source

o f s u c h a n e v a l u a t i o n m a y h a v e s t e m m e d from t h e fact t h a t t h i s v a l u e

is n o t considered as a desirable a t t i t u d e a n d b e h a v i o u r in t h e t r a d i t i o n a l

Turkish culture. Being ambitious has a negative aspect which might

have influenced t h e low ranking and it m a y be said t h a t it is based on

t h e beliefs of a fatalistic society. The fact t h a t t h e value of courageous

is given a m u c h higher r a n k m a y be explained by its being an approved

and desirable a t t i t u d e and behaviour among Turkish men. The value

of independent is given a very high rank by Turkish students compared

to students of other countries. This indicated t h a t it is a desirable and

suitable trait in t h e present period of modernisation of Turkey. T h e fact

t h a t t h e students place less emphasis upon responsible t h a n independent,

m a y indicate t h a t the young generation m a y be going through an inner

conflict of values. This conflict m a y be expected in Turkey which is in a

transitional stage (i.e. from a traditional society towards a modern one).

It is a very interesting result t h a t in all of the five countries t h e value of

honest is ranked as 1st and obedient as 18th. The value of Broadminded

is ranked among t h e t o p of the list which shows t h a t this value too, is

positive and desirable for a democratic society.

Values of Turkish Males and Females :

In t h e Turkish society there is plenty of research evidence a n d are

observations showing t h a t in t h e process of socialization males and fema­

les are brought up differently to play their expected gender roles. For this

reason, it is to be expected t h a t t h e male and female subjects would

dif-Table 5. Terminal value medians and composite rank orders for Turkish male and

female students

N

A comfortable life

An exciting life

A sense of accomplishment

A world at peace

A world of beauty

Equality

Family security

Freedom

Happiness

Inner harmony

Mature love

National sewurity

Pleasure

Salvation

Self-respect

Social recognition

True friendship

Wisdom

Male

419

12.0(14)

15.7(18)

7.96 ( 9)

5.6 ( 2)

14.3(16)

5.8 ( 3)

6.8 ( 5)

4.5 ( 1)

8.1 (10)

7.4 ( 6)

10.4(11)

12.1 (15)

15.5(17)

10.6(12)

7.9 ( 8)

11.8(13)

7.6 (7)

6.7 ( 4)

Female

259

12.4(13)

15.4(17)

8.3(10)

5.3 ( 2)

13.8(15)

6.2 ( 4)

7.9 ( 8)

4.1 ( 1)

7.0 ( 6)

6.3 ( 5).

9.6(11)

13.7(14)

15.2 ( 6)

17.1 (18)

5.8( 3)

11.6(12)

7.2 ( 7)

8.1 ( 9)

P

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.008

—

0.045

0.048

—

0.004

—

0.000

0.000

—

—

0.022

Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders.

fer i n t h e r a n k i n g o f h u m a n v a l u e s . T a b l e 5 shows t h a t t e r m i n a l v a l u e

r a n k i n g s of male a n d female s t u d e n t s .

I n T a b l e 5 , t h e r e a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant sex differences i n t h e

r a n k i n g s of, family security, happiness, inner harmony, national security,

salvation, self respect a n d wisdom v a l u e s .

In 7 o u t of 18 t e r m i n a l v a l u e s , sex differences w e r e found to

b e significant. Surprising, i n s o m e v a l u e r a n k i n g s where

i m p o r t a n t sex differences were e x p e c t e d , either t h e

differen-ces were n o t o b t a i n e d o r were n o t i n t h e e x p e c t e d direction.

F o r e x a m p l e ,

I t was a s s u m e d t h a t t h e m a l e s t u d e n t s , would place m o r e i m p o r t a n

-ce on v a l u e s like a comfortable life, an exciting life a n d self-respect a n d

girls on v a l u e s like salvation, w h i c h t h e y did n o t .

Table 6. Instrumental value medians and composite rank orders for Turkish male

and female students

N

Ambitious

Broadminded

Capable

Cheerful

Clean

Courageous

Forgiving

Helpful

Honest

Imaginative

Independent

Intellectual

Logical

Loving

Obedient

Polite

Responsible

Self-controlled

Male

419

13.9(17)

5.6 ( 3)

11.3(12)

11.5(13)

11.6(14)

6.6 ( 5)

9.9 ( 9)

10.6(11)

2.9 ( 1)

13.4(16)

3.1(2)

8.7 ( 8)

6.5 ( 4)

10.5(10)

17.1 (18)

11.7(15)

6.7(6)

8.3 ( 7)

Female

259

15.0(17)

5.1(3)

11.2 (12)

10.5(10-11)

13.3(15)

6.9(6)

10.5(10-11)

11.7(13)

3.2 ( 2)

13.95(16)

2.4( 1)

7.9 ( 7)

5.9(4)

8.1(8)

17.5(18)

12.7(14)

6.5 ( 5)

8.7 ( 9)

P

0.025

—

—

0.027

0.001

—

—

0.004

—

—

0.037

—

—

0.000

—

0.032

—

—

Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank

or-ders.

T a b l e 6 gives r a t i n g s r e l a t e d to i n s t r u m e n t a l v a l u e s . H e r e t o o , only

in 7 v a l u e s o u t of 18, significant sex differences a t e observed. T h e s e a r e

v a l u e s like ambitious, cheerful, clean helpful, independent, loving a n d

po-lite. T h e w a y t h e girls r a n k independent higher t h a n t h e boys a p p e a r s t o

be a d i s c r e p a n c y with t h e values of t r a d i t i o n a l female role.

In U.S.A. Rokeach (p. 57-58) found 12 significant sex differences

out of 18 terminal values. In Turkish sample, t h e n u m b e r of values which

give significant sex differences are comparatively fewer (7 out of 18).

This finding can he explained by t h e fact t h a t t h e Turkish sample con­

sists of College students while Rokeach used a national respesentative

sample.

In t h e Turkish sample, especially in female college students there

is definite change in t h e traditional gender roles. T h e majority of these

girls have accepted equal rights and common values with men. Undoub­

tedly as suggested by t h e result of other studies (Başaran 1985), gender

differences on t h e lines of traditional value systems appear very clearly

as t h e females with lower education are included in t h e sample.

Generational Differences in Values Rankings:

A l o t a l of 30 students were selected from D T C F students in order

to investigate t h e differences between generations in values. The same

value scale applied to these students and their parents. The median ran­

kings and composite r a n k orders of terminal value d a t a are given in

Table 7.

Table 7. Terminal value medians and composite rank orders for different generations

N

A comfortable life

An exciting life

A sense of accomplishment

A world at peace

A world of beauty

Equality

Family security

Freedom

Happiness

Inner harmony

Mature love

National security

Pleasure

Salvation

Self-respect

Social recognition

True friendship

Wisdom

Youngs

30

13.8(15)

15.0(17)

6.8(7)

9.5(10-11)

13.0(13)

7.8(8)

9.5(10-11)

6.5(6)

5.5(4)

5.0 (2)

5.3(3)

14.8(16)

13.2(14)

17.6(18)

4.5(1)

11.8(12)

6.2 (5)

8.2(9)

Mothers

30

8.5(9-10-11)

16.1 (18)

9.5(13)

4.3(3)

14.7(16)

9.1 (12)

1.8(1)

7.2(7)

5.5(5)

5.0(4)

10.5 (14)

8.5 (9-10-11)

15.0(17)

3.3(2)

8.2(8)

11.8(15)

6.5(6)

8.5(9-10-11)

Gathers

30

8.8 (13)

16.5 (18)

5.8 (8)

3.0(3)

13.3 (16)

5.5(6-7)

2.1(2)

8.1 (11)

6.3(9)

5.3(5)

11.5(15)

8.5(12)

15.6(17)

2.0(1)

5.5(6-7)

9.3 (14)

6.5(10)

5.0 (4)

P

0.017

—

—

0.001

—

—

0.000

—

—

—

0.002

0.000

—

0.000

0.033

—•

—

—

Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders.

T h e v a l u e r a n k i n g s of a comfortable life, a world at peace, family

security, mature love, national security, salvation a n d self-respect, showed

r e m a r k a b l e differences ( S t u d e n t s , t h e i r m o t h e r s a n d fathers.) Y o u n g p e

-ople place m o r e i m p o r t a n c e t h a n t h e i r p a r e n t s on freedom, mature love,

pleasure a n d self-respect values, while t h e p a r e n t s t h e m s e l v e s prefer s u c h

v a l u e s as a comfortable life, a world at peace, family security, national

security and salvation.

T a b l e 8 shows t h e r a n k i n g s of i n s t r u m e n t a l v a l u e s for t w o

genera-t i o n s :

Table 8. Instruemntal value medians and composite rank orders for different generations

N

Ambitious

Broadminded

Capable

Cheerful

Clean

Courageous

Forgiving

Helpful

Honest

Imaginative

Independent

Intellectual

Logical

Loving

Obedient

Polite

Responsible

Self-controlled

Youngs

30

15.9(17)

4.9(3)

11.5 (12-13)

8.5(9)

13.0(15)

8.2(8)

13.2(16)

11.5(12-1?)

5.0(4)

11.0(11)

2.5(1)

4.5(2)

6.9(6)

9.5(10)

17.8(18)

12.3(14)

6.8 (5)

7.9(7)

Mothers

30

16.8(18)

5.5(2-3-4)

9.2(13)

7.5(8)

5.5(2-3-4)

10.5 (15)

6.0(5-6)

6.9(7)

2.5(1)

14.0 (17)

5.5 (2-3-4)

9.5(14)

8.5 (9-10-11)

11.2(16)

8.8(12)

8.5(9-10-11)

6.0(5-6)

8.5(9-10-11)

Fathers

30

12.0(18)

5.5(6-7-8)

8. (11)

5.5(6-7-8)

8.5(12-13)

5.5(6-7-8)

4.8(4)

7.5(9-10)

3.0(1)

10.5(15)

4.5(3)

11.5(16-17)

4.3(2)

11.5(16-17)

10.0(14)

7.5(9-10)

5.0(5)

8.5(12-13)

P

—

—

—

—

0.017

—

0.000

0.000

0.031

—

0.016

—

—

—

0.000

—

—

—

Figures shown are median rankings and, in parantheses, composite rank orders.

As seen in T a b l e 8 in t h e r a n k i n g s of clean, forgiving, helpful, honest,

independent a n d obident v a l u e s , t h e r e are significantly different v a l u e

r a n k i n g s a m o n g t h e s e t h r e e g r o u p s . W h i l e t h e y o u n g subjects e m p h a s i z e

v a l u e s like independent intellectual, loving, selfcontrol, t h e p a r e n t s e m p

-hasize m o r e t h e v a l u e s like obedient, honest, helpful, forgiving, clean,

cheer-ful, a n d capable.

W e can easily a s s u m e t h a t i f t h e analysis a r e m a d e o n t w o g r o u p s ,

i n s t e a d of t h r e e , t h e n t h e clash of v a l u e s b e t w e e n generations becomes

m o r e d i s t i n c t a n d m e a n i n g f u l .

Table 9. Terminal value medians and composite rank orders for difference generations

N

A Comfortable life

An exciting life

A sense of accomplishment

A world at peace

A world of beauty

Equality

Family security

Freedom

Happiness

Inner harmony

Mature love

National security

Pleasure

Salvation

Self-respect

Social recognition

True friendship

Wisdom

Youngs

30

13.8(15)

15.0(17)

6.8 ( 7)

9.5(10-11)

13.0(13)

7.8 ( 8)

9.5(10, 11)

6.5 ( 6)

5.5(4)

5.0 ( 2)

5.3 ( 3)

14.8(16)

13.2(14)

17.6(18)

4.5 ( 1)

11.8(12)

6.2( 5)

8.2 ( 9)

Parents

60

8.8(13)

16.2(18)

7.5(9)

3.7 ( 3)

13.9(16)

8.5(11-12)

1.9( 1)

7.8(10)

6.2 ( 5)

5.1(4)

11.0(15)

8.5(11-12)

15.4(17)

3.0 ( 2)

7.0( 8)

9.8(14)

6.5 ( 7)

6.3 ( 6)

P

0.009

—

—

0.000

—

—

0.000

—

—

—

0.001

0.000

—

0.000

—

—

—

Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders.

Table 10. Instrumental value medians and composite rank orders for different genetations

N

Ambitious

Broadminded

Capable

Cheerful

Clean

Courageous

Forgiving

Helpful

Honest

Imaginative

Independent

Intellectual

Logical

Loving

Obedient

Polite

Responsible

Self-controlled

Youngs

30

15.9(17)

4.9 ( 3)

11.5(12-13)

8.5 ( 9)

13.0(15)

8.2(8)

13.2(16)

11.5(12-13)

5.0 ( 4)

11.0(11)

2.5 ( 1)

4.5(2)

6.9 ( 6)

9.5(10)

17.8(18)

12.3(14)

6.8 ( 5)

7.9 ( 7)

Parents

60

14.9(18)

5.5 ( 5)

8.8(13)

6.2 ( 6)

8.2(11)

6.3 ( 7)

5.2 ( 2)

7.0 ( 9)

2.7( 1)

13.5(17)

5.3(3-4)

10.5(15)

6.5 ( 8)

11.3(16)

9.1 (14)

8.0(10)

5.3(3-4)

8.5(12)

P

—

—

—

—

0.009

—

0.000

0.000

0.029

—

0.014

0.044

—

—

0.000

0.044

—

—

Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders.

Conclusions

1- Generally university students t e n d to r a n k such values as free­

dom, a world at peace, equality and self-respect among t h e t o p ranking

values. Exciting life, pleasure, salvation, a world of beauty and national

security are among t h e lowest ranking values.

2 - I n t h e hierarchical evaluation o f s t u d e n t s , t h e r e are c o m m o n

tendencies j u s t as t h e r e are differences a n d similarities according to

their cultural b a c k g r o u n d s .

3 - I t i s a n i m p o r t a n t a n d significant point t h a t i n this research

done in T u r k e y , m o r e t h a n t w o t h i r d s ( 2 / 3 ) of T u r k i s h university stu­

dents either r a n k e d salvation as t h e 1st or t h e 18th in their evaluations.

This m i g h t be t a k e n as an indication of t h e presence of t w o divergent

groups in T u r k e y , who t e n d to a d o p t opposite worldviews which are

manifested in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s a n d behaviour in a n u m b e r of social issues.

4- Significant sex-differences are observed in t h e h u m a n value

rankings, although, on t h e basis of t r a d i t i o n a l sex-roles, a greater n u m ­

ber of significant value r a n k i n g differences were expected. We still

m a i n t a i n t h a t this t r a d i t i o n a l p a t t e r n exists a m o n g t h e minimally edu­

c a t e d or u n e d u c a t e d people in T u r k e y .

5- T h e generational differences are clearly observed in t h e hierarc­

hical rank-ordering of values by t h e s t u d e n t s themselves a n d their pa­

r e n t s .

References

Çileli, Meral: Gençlik Değerleri Üzerine bir Araştırma A n a Yayıncılık,

1990.

Feather, N.T.: Values in education and Society New York. Basic Books,

1975.

Rokeach, M.: T h e N a t u r e of H u m a n Values, Mac Millan Co. New York,

1973, p. 31-34.

Rokeach, M. and Sandra, J.: Ball Rokeach. Stability and Change in

American Value Priorities, 1968-1981, American Psychologiet Vol.

44, N o : 5. 775-784. May 1989.

Sing LAV.: T h e Value Orientations of Chimese University S t u d e n t s

i n H o n g K o n g , I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f Peysychology 2 3 (1988),

583-596.