Do Human Values Reflect Job Decisions and Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior? A Contribution towards Validating the Austrian Value Questionnaire by Group Comparisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Austrian Value Questionnaire was developed on the basis of the Lexical Approach to account for specific facets of values in Austrian culture. It comprises 54 items, constituting five scales, Intellectualism, Harmony, Religiosity, Materialism, and Conservatism, and 13 subscales. To assess construct validity, hypotheses on human values were derived from the literature and tested in Austrian samples of Catholic priests and nuns (n=30, 8 women, M age=52.6 yr.), community servants (n=30, all men, M age=21.4 yr.), and students of psychology (n=33, 19 women, M age=23.8 yr.) and economics (n=33, 18 women, M age=23.8 yr.), prisoners (n=40, 9 women, M age=34.9 yr.), and drivers who had been fined for driving while intoxicated (n=35, 5 women, M age=34.6 yr.). Participants were volunteers. Previous and more recent findings from the USA, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland provided similar results for community servants, students of economics, prisoners, and intoxicated drivers, and thus, the hypotheses for these groups were largely confirmed. Most earlier findings for priests and nuns and students of psychology were not replicated, however. Taking into account that values may change over time and variously in different cultures, the results pose an argument for the construct validity of the newly developed questionnaire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".