Individual and generational value change in an adult population, a 12-year longitudinal panel study.

A long-standing conundrum is whether age differences in personality are due to generation, or internal change with age. Using a representative sample from The Netherlands (N = 1599; aged 16-84 at the start), the current research focuses on human values (an important aspect of personality), following the same individuals for 12 years. We distinguish four generations, Silent-generation, Baby-boomers, Generation-X and Millennials. We found clear differences across generations in human values, with Millennials, e.g., valuing hedonism more than all other generations. Furthermore, value change over time was mainly evident in Millennials. Some values (achievement and conformity) were stable within individuals and between generations. Change over time across most values occurred mainly in Millennials, but not for all values. Some values were stable in adults (e.g., hedonism, conformity) while other values still increased (e.g., security, self-direction) or decreased (e.g., power, stimulation) in importance. In adults older than Millennials change decreased and change was absent in the oldest generation. Hence, age differences in values seem both due to generation, as well as internal change, although the latter mainly in young adults. These value changes over time may have implications for developments in societal values in the long run.

Health and Culture: The Association between Healthcare Preferences for Non-Acute Conditions, Human Values and Social Norms.

Preference for professional vs. non-professional or informal healthcare for non-acute medical situations influences healthcare use and varies strongly across countries. Important individual and country-level drivers of these preferences may be human values (the fundamental values that individuals hold and guide their behavior) and country-level characteristics such as social tightness (societal pressure for "acceptable" behavior). The aim of this study was to examine the relation of these individual and country-level characteristics with healthcare preferences. We examined European Social Survey data from 23,312 individuals in 16 European countries, using a multi-level, random effect approach, including individual and country-level factors. Healthcare preferences were explained by both human values (i.e., Schwartz values) and societal tightness (i.e., tightness-looseness scores by Gelfand). Stronger conservation increased, whereas self-transcendence and openness to change decreased preference for professional healthcare. In socially tight countries, we found a higher preference for professional healthcare. Furthermore, we found interactions between social tightness and human values. These results suggest that professional healthcare preference is related to both people's values and societal tightness. This improved understanding is useful for both predicting and channeling healthcare seeking behavior across and within nations.

Competing for the same value segments? Insight into the volatile Dutch political landscape.

Values are central to public debates today. Human values convey broad goals that serve as guiding principles in a person's life and value priorities differ across people in society. Groups in society holding opposing values (e.g., universalism versus security) will make different choices when voting in an election. Whereas over time, values are relatively stable, the number and type of political parties as well as the political values they communicate and disseminate have been changing. Groups of people holding the same human values may therefore vote for another (new) party in a later election. We focus on analyzing the relationship between human values and voting in elections, introducing a new methodology to analyze how value profiles relate to political support over time. We investigate the Dutch multi-party political system over five waves of the European Social Survey, spanning 2002 until 2010. Whilst previous research has focused on individual values separately and focused on voters only, we (1) distinguish groups holding a similar set of opposing and compatible values (value profile) instead of focusing on single values in the the entire population; (2) incorporate a correction for differences in scale use in our model; (3) compare voting over time; (4) include non-voters, a growing group in Dutch society. We find evidence that specific value profiles are related to voting for a specific set of political parties. We also find that specific value profiles distinguish non-voters from voters and that voters for populist parties resemble non-voters.