Heterogeneity in Post-materialist Value Priorities. Evidence from a Latent Class Discrete Choice Approach

Protagonists of values theory such as Inglehart—among others—have argued that values should be conceived of as relative priorities rather than absolute preferences. As such they insist on using ranking techniques of measurement which generates choice data. In this study, we aim at validating the measurement of Inglehart's (post-)materialism by means of a latent class discrete choice model. We argue that from a statistical point of view this is the appropriate way of dealing with ranking data. Furthermore, the analyses revealed a heterogeneity in (post-)materialist value priorities that has previously been left unobserved. Consistent with Inglehart's research a post-materialist class is discerned irrespective of the number of latent classes that is selected. However, as far as materialism is concerned three different types of materialist concerns can be distinguished. The validity of the empirical typology is further demonstrated by linking it to key covariates and political attitudes.

[1]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  An International Comparison , 2000 .

[2]  S. Lipset,et al.  Party systems and voter alignments : cross-national perspectives : [Contributors: Robert R. Alford and others] , 1969 .

[3]  W. Lafferty.  Basic Needs and Political Values , 1976 .

[4]  E. Diener,et al.  Comparing Typological Structures Across Cultures By Multigroup Latent Class Analysis , 2003 .

[5]  G. Moors.  Family Theory: Role of Changing Values , 2001 .

[6]  A. Raftery.  Choosing Models for Cross-Classifications , 1986 .

[7]  Kazuo Yamaguchi,et al.  Multinomial Logit Latent‐Class Regression Models: An Analysis of the Predictors of Gender‐Role Attitudes among Japanese Women1 , 2000, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  Jeroen K. Vermunt,et al.  Log-Linear Models for Event Histories , 1997 .

[9]  Oddbjørn Knutsen.  The Impact of Old Politics and New Politics Value Orientations on Party Choice – A Comparative Study , 1995, Journal of Public Policy.

[10]  L. A. Goodman.  The Analysis of Systems of Qualitative Variables When Some of the Variables Are Unobservable. Part I-A Modified Latent Structure Approach , 1974, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  R. Inglehart,et al.  Value Change in Industrial Societies , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[12]  C. Davenport,et al.  Assessing the Validity of the Postmaterialism Index , 1999, American Political Science Review.

[13]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[14]  Jacques A. Hagenaars,et al.  Categorical Longitudinal Data: Log-Linear Panel, Trend, and Cohort Analysis , 1990 .

[15]  Stefan Saccbi.  The Dimensionality of Postmaterialism: An Application of Factor Analysis to Ranked Preference Data , 1998 .

[16]  Alan Marsh.  The “Silent Revolution,” Value Priorities, and the Quality of Life in Britain , 1975, American Political Science Review.

[17]  Michael A. Taylor,et al.  Postmaterialism and the Economic Condition , 1993 .

[18]  Ronald Inglehart,et al.  The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-Industrial Societies , 1971, American Political Science Review.

[19]  Disputed Cause, Disputed Effect: The Postmaterialist Thesis Re-Examined , 1998 .

[20]  M. Rokeach,et al.  The Nature Of Human Values , 1974 .

[21]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Concomitant Variable Latent Class Models for the External Analysis of Choice Data , 1992 .

[22]  C. Bean,et al.  POLARIZED PRIORITIES OR FLEXIBLE ALTERNATIVES? DIMENSIONALITY IN INGLEHART'S MATERIALISM—POSTMATERIALISM SCALE , 1994 .

[23]  D. Alwin,et al.  11 – Adult Values for Children: An Application of Factor Analysis to Ranked Preference Data , 1982 .

[24]  R. Inglehart.  Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies , 1997 .

[25]  A. Maslow.  Motivation and Personality , 1954 .

[26]  D. Hillam,et al.  The Silent Revolution , 2020, Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technology International.

[27]  Darren W. Davis,et al.  Postmaterialism in World Societies: Is It Really a Value Dimension? , 1999 .

[28]  U. Böckenholt.  Comparison and Choice: Analyzing Discrete Preference Data by Latent Class Scaling Models , 2001 .

[29]  N. D. Graaf.  Postmaterialism and the stratification process : an international comparison = Postmaterialisme en sociale stratificatie : een internationale vergelijking , 1988 .

[30]  G. Moors.  The Two Faces of (Post)Materialism: A Decomposition Approach , 2003 .

[31]  J. Hagenaars,et al.  Intragenerational stability of postmaterialism in Germany, the Netherlands and the United States , 1989 .

[32]  T. Parsons,et al.  Toward a General Theory of Action , 1952 .

[33]  M. Deutsch.  Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. , 1968 .

[34]  Jeroen K. Vermunt,et al.  Latent GOLD Choice User's Guide , 2003 .

[35]  J. Hagenaars,et al.  Applied Latent Class Analysis , 2003 .

[36]  Duane F. Alwin,et al.  The Factor Analysis of Ipsative Measures , 1980 .

[37]  Marcel A. Croon,et al.  Latent Class Models for the Analysis of Rankings , 1989 .

[38]  P. Zarembka.  Frontiers in econometrics , 1973 .

[39]  R. Inglehart.  Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society , 1991 .

[40]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  The Measurement of Values in Surveys: A Comparison of Ratings and Rankings , 1985 .