Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T19:17:31.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Values and attitudes of young people in urban Turkey: A further test of Schwartz's theory of values and Kağıtçıbaşı's Model of Family Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

By
Hale Bolak Boratav
Edited by
Sevda Bekman  and
Ayhan Aksu-Koç
Foreword by
M. Brewster Smith
Sevda Bekman
Affiliation:
Bogaziçi University, Istanbul
Ayhan Aksu-Koç
Affiliation:
Bogaziçi University, Istanbul
Get access

Summary

My relationship to Çiğdem Kağıtçıbaşı dates back to the 1970s when I was an undergraduate at Boğaziçi University. It was her passion for a culturally sensitive psychology that inspired me to major in Psychology and to pursue a doctoral degree in the US. Having the privilege to be mentored by her as her teaching assistant and later her research assistant in the Value of Children project were invaluable experiences for which I am very grateful. Although her influence on my work is multilayered, her overarching concern with shifting the focus in mainstream psychology and her sense of social responsibility stand out as the most important ones. This current chapter is most closely influenced by her interest and work in the areas of family and values.

The concept of values has long been of key interest to scholars from different disciplines. Extending the work of previous theorists, Schwartz has presented a view of values as “the criteria people use to select and justify actions and to evaluate people (including the self) and events” (Schwartz 1992: 1). Through cross-cultural research in more than seventy countries, including Turkey, Schwartz (1992, 1994) has identified and uncovered ten motivationally distinct value constructs that are universally recognized: power (authority, wealth), achievement (success, ambition), hedonism (pleasure), stimulation (exciting life), self-direction (creativity, freedom), universalism (social justice, equality), benevolence (helpfulness), tradition (humility, devoutness), conformity (obedience), and security (social order).

Type
Chapter
Information
Perspectives on Human Development, Family, and Culture , pp. 263 - 283
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Artan, İ., Börü, D., İslamoğlu, G., Yurtkoru, S., Sipahi, B., Çalışkan, K., and Ergun, S. (eds.), Üniversite gençliği değerleri: Korkular ve umutlar [The Values of University Youth: Fears and Hopes] (Istanbul: TESEV, 2005).Google Scholar
Aygün, Z. K. and İmamoğlu, E. O., “Value domains of Turkish adults and university students,” Journal of Social Psychology, 142 (2002), 333–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayvalıoğlu, N., “A comparison of Turkish and American value systems,” İstanbul Üniversitesi Tecrübi Psikoloji, 17 (1989), 85–100.Google Scholar
Başaran, F., “University students' value preferences,” Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Araştırma Dergisi, 14 (1992), 13–25.Google Scholar
Çileli, M. and Tezer, E., “Life and value orientations of Turkish university students,” Adolescence, 33 (1998), 219–28.Google ScholarPubMed
Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., and Koenig, A. M., “Gender gaps in socio-political attitudes: A social psychological analysis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (2004), 796–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feather, N., “Value correlates of ambivalent attitudes toward gender relations,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (2004), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, S. S. and Rosenthal, D. A., “Age expectations of behavioral autonomy in Hong Kong, Australian and American youth: The influence of family variables and adolescents' values,” International Journal of Psychology, 26 (1991), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
İmamoğlu, E. O., “An interdependence model of human development,” in Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (ed.), Growth and Progress in Cross-cultural Psychology (Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1987), pp. 138–45.Google Scholar
İmamoğlu, E. O. and Aygün, Z. K., “1970'lerden 1990'lara değerler: Üniversite düzeyinde gözlenen zaman, kuşak ve cinsiyet farklılıkları [Value preferences from the 1970s to 1990s: Cohort, generation, and gender differences at a Turkish university],” Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 14 (1999), 1–22.Google Scholar
Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Psychological aspects of modernization in Turkey,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4 (1973), 157–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Family and socialization in cross-cultural perspective: A model of change,” in Berman, J. (ed.), Cross-cultural Perspectives: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), pp. 135–200.Google Scholar
Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis,” European Psychologist, 1 (1996), 180–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20 (2005), 1–20.Google Scholar
Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. and Ataca, B., “Value of children, family and self: A three-decade portrait from Turkey,” Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54 (2005), 317–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazgan, G., İstanbul gençliği: Gençlik değerleri [Istanbul Youth: The Values of Young People] (İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2007).Google Scholar
Vakfı, Konrad Adanauer, Türk gençliği 98: Suskun kitle büyüteç altında [Turkish Youth 98: Investigation of the Silent Population] (Ankara: Istanbul Mülkiyeliler Vakfı Sosyal Araştırmalar Merkezi, 1999).Google Scholar
Kuşdil, E. and Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Türk öğretmenlerin değer yönelimleri ve Schwartz değer kuramı [Value orientations of Turkish teachers and Schwartz's theory of values,” T ürk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15 (2000), 59–80.Google Scholar
Phalet, K. and Schönpflug, U., “Intergenerational transmission in Turkish immigrant families: Parental collectivism, achievement values and gender differences,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32 (2001), 489–504.Google Scholar
Prince-Gibson, E. and Schwartz, S. H., “Value priorities and gender,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 61 (1998), 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., “Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries,” in Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (New York: Academic Press, 1992), pp. 5–65.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., “Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values?,” Journal of Social Issues, 50 (1994), 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. and Bardi, A., “Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (2001), 268–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. and Boehnke, K., “Evaluating the structure of values with a confirmatory factor analysis,” Journal of Research in Personality, 38 (2004), 230–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. and Rubel, T., “Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multi-method studies,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (2005), 1010–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., and Harris, M., “Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (2001), 519–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., Deeds, O., and Chung, S. F., “Intergenerational patterns of values and autonomy expectations in cultures of relatedness and separateness,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30 (1999), 575–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunar, D. and Okman-Fişek, G., “Contemporary Turkish families,” in Gielen, U. and Roopnarine, J. (eds.), Families in Global Perspective (London: Allyn & Bacon, 2005), pp. 169–84.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×