International Journal of Psychology, 2013 DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12004 Relationship of Inglehart’s and Schwartz’s value dimensions revisited Henrik Dobewall 1 and Micha Strack 2 1 Department of Psychology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia 2 Georg-Elias-M¨ uller-Institute of Psychology, University of G ¨ ottingen, G ¨ ottingen, Germany T his study examines the relationship between Inglehart’s and Schwartz’s value dimensions — both at the individual and the country levels. By rotating one set of items towards the other, we show that these value dimensions have more in common than previously reported. The ranking of countries (N = 47) based on Schwartz’s Embeddedness—Autonomy and the Survival—Self-Expression dimensions reached a maximum of similarity, r = .82, after rotating Inglehart’s factor scores 27 degrees clockwise. The correlation between the other pair of dimensions (Schwartz’s Hierarchy- Mastery — Egalitarianism-Harmony and Inglehart’s Traditional — Secular-Rational values) was near zero before and after rotation. At the individual level (N = 46,444), positive correlations were found for Schwartz’s Conservation — Openness dimension with both of Inglehart’s dimensions (Survival—Self-Expression and Traditional—Secular-Rational values). The highest correlation with this Schwartz dimension was obtained at the Secular-Rational/Self-Expression diagonal, r = .24, after rotating the factor scores 45 degrees clockwise. We conclude that Schwartz’s and Inglehart’s originally proposed two-dimensional value structures share one dimension at the country level and some commonality at the individual level, whereas the respective other pair of dimensions seem to be more or less unrelated. Keywords: Rotation of orthogonal factors; Individual and country level of analysis; Cross-cultural studies; Values; Canonical analysis. Values have received the interest of researchers from a wide range of disciplines, but definitional inconsis- tency renders speaking of ‘‘the values concept’’ almost impossible. The label ‘‘values’’ has been given to diverse personal and social value systems, worldviews, as well as ideologies (Rohan, 2000). In this study, we focus on the relationship between two widely used theo- ries: Ronald Inglehart’s Traditional — Secular-Rational authority/Survival — Self-Expression dimensions (Ingle- hart & Baker, 2000) and Shalom Schwartz’s Values Circle (Schwartz, 1992; 1994) at the individual and coun- try levels of analysis. The fact that both Schwartz’s and Inglehart’s value theories can be represented in a two-dimensional space and have an empirical basis, the question as to whether there is convergence between them becomes an obvious one. First, we reproduce the orig- inally proposed dimensions with an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and correlate them. In a next step, we aim to maximize their correlations by rotating one set of dimensions towards the other. Correspondence should be addressed to Henrik Dobewall, Department of Psychology, University of Tartu, Tiigi 78, 50410 Tartu, Estonia. (E-mail: dobewall@ut.ee). Schwartz’s theory of basic human values Human values are beliefs about desirable, transsituational goals, varying in their relative importance and serv- ing as guiding principles in peoples’ lives. Schwartz’s (1992) value items form a quasi circular structure of which the underlying theoretical concept is presented in Figure 1. Within the structure there are compatibilities and conflicts. Those of the 10 value types which belong to dif- ferent areas of the circle are preferred or disliked together. For the purpose of this study, the proposed two main dimensions that organize the entire variety of value content are more important than the distinct value types. These dimensions have been successfully generalized across statistical procedures (see Dobewall & Strack, 2011 and Verkasalo, L¨ onnqvist, Lipsanen, & Helkama, 2009, for applications of EFA while Schwartz favours multidimensional scaling [MDS]). The Conservation — Openness (to Change) dimension reflects whether people oppose change and put emphasis on  2013 International Union of Psychological Science