Traits and Values: Their Similarities and Differences
Lilach Sagiv
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel
Email: lilach.sagiv@mail.huji.ac.il
(phone): 972-2-5883115; (fax): 972-2-5881341
and
Sonia Roccas
The Open University of Israel
The Dorothy de Rothschild Campus,
108 Ravutski Street, Raanana 43107, Israel
E-mail:soniaro@oumail.openu.ac.il
Traits and values refer to stable individual differences, defined in terms of
broad response dispositions that predict perception, attitudes and behaviors. Both have
yielded theories that aim at comprehensive coverage of their basic domains of
content: The Five Factor Model (FFM, for traits, reviews in Judge, Klinger, Simon, &
Yang, 2008; McCrae & Costa, 2008) and the Schwartz Value Theory (Schwartz, 1992,
reviews in Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Rohan, 2000). The development of traits and
values is closely intertwined, and traits and values are likely to affect each other
(Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). The close relationships between traits and
values are apparent in the systematic pattern of correlations found between self
ascribed traits and values (e.g. Aluja & Garcia, 2004; De Raad & Van Oudenhoven,
2008; Dollinger, Leong, & Ulicni, 1996; Luk & Bond, 1993; Roccas et al., 2002).
Nonetheless, values and traits are different constructs and have distinctive
implications. Values are desirable, trans-situational goals, that vary in their importance
and that serve as guiding principles in people's lives (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz 1992).
Traits are enduring dispositions: They are “dimensions of individual differences in
tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings and actions” (McCrae &
Costa, 1990, p. 23). Thus, values refer to what people consider to be important whereas
traits describe what people are like (Roccas et al., 2002). We propose that the
differences between traits and values have important consequences for individuals and
organizations. We focus on two broad issues: (1) the structural representation of traits
and values in the self, and (2) their differential behavioral implications.
Studying the structure and content of self-discrepancies, we hypothesize and
found that values are closer than traits to one's ideal self. This finding is robust across
students and working adults, for accessible and measured values/traits, and when
studied directly and indirectly (Studies 1a-c). Drawing on these findings we
investigated the implications of this differential feature of values and traits to
individuals' reactions to feedback (Study 2). Students in an introductory y to
psychology course completed traits and value questionnaires and received bogus
feedback. The study followed a 2 (attribute type: values, traits) by 2 (feedback type,
higher, similar) experimental design. Students received feedback about either their
values or their traits. Half were told that "most of their traits/values were higher than
those of most students" whereas the others were told that most of their traits/values
were similar to those of most students. They then completed a self-esteem measure.
As hypothesized, providing participants with feedback that their value scores were
higher than those of others resulted in higher self esteem than providing feedback that
their values were similar to those of others, or that their traits scores were either
higher or similar to those of others.
We next move from self representation to overt behavior, studying the
differential impact of values and traits on first impressions. We focus on the
perception of physical attractiveness. Past research has documented a robust
stereotype on the personality attributes that are attached to physical attractiveness. In
a recent study we hypothesized and found that, consistent with the "what is beautiful
is good" stereotype, women who were perceived as physically attractive were also
perceived as having socially-desirable traits (e.g., openness, conscientiousness, etc.).
However, when tested directly, attractive women did not differ in their traits than less
attractive women. In contrast, attractive and less attractive women differed in the
personal values they endorsed: Emphasizing conservation values (as opposed to
openness values) and emphasizing self-enhancement values (as opposed to
universalism values) correlated positively with perceived attractiveness. Thus,
impression formation is differentially affected by traits and values (Caspi, Roccas, &
Sagiv, in press).