Introduction

To understand individuals' behaviors, whether healthy or pathological, it is necessary to consider them as outcomes of cultural aspects—such as values, beliefs, and expectations—and the psychological processes they shape (Zubieta, Delfino & Fernández, 2007). The studies conducted by Rokeach (1973) advanced the clarification of the structure of value systems and the impact of these topics on psychosocial and transcultural research, as well as their influence in the field of social sciences. In his research, he demonstrated that values do not exist in isolation and that individual behavior is not a function of a single value but is related to basic biological and social needs. Rokeach's (1968) work laid the foundation for the development of Schwartz's (1992) Theory of Human Values, which defines them as desirable and transituational goals that serve as principles in life, motivating action and giving it emotional direction and intensity, and functioning as criteria to judge and justify actions. Understood as conscious goals, values are constructed through socialization and personal learning experience (Delfino & Zubieta, 2010).

In this regard, Páez (2007) argues that individuals learn during socialization the values that correspond to the main interests of a society. Schwartz (1992) asserts that it is possible to classify items found in specific value lists from various cultures into ten motivational types: Achievement, Power, Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-Direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Conformity, Tradition, and Security, which are arranged into two bipolar dimensions: Openness to Change versus Conservation and SelfPromotion versus Self-Transcendence (Schwartz, 1992, in Delfino & Zubieta, 2010). The value of "Achievement" relates to personal success through demonstrating competence according to social criteria, while "Power" is linked to social status over people and resources. "Hedonism" is defined by the pursuit of personal pleasure and gratification and the ability to enjoy life, while enthusiasm for novelty and challenges in life is part of the value of "Stimulation." "Self-Direction" relates to the development of independent thinking and action choice, creativity, and exploration. The motivational type of "Universalism" is expressed through appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the welfare of all people and nature, while "Benevolence" seeks to preserve and enhance the well-being of people with whom one is in contact. "Tradition" relates to respect, commitment, and acceptance of customs and ideas provided by traditional culture or religion, while "Conformity" refers to the preservation of social practices and traditions. Lastly, the value of "Security" seeks harmony, safety, and stability in society and its relationships (Schwartz, 2001 in Zubieta, 2008).

Furthermore, these 10 competing values are organized into two bipolar dimensions:

Openness to Change versus Conservation and Self-Promotion versus SelfTranscendence. Openness to change includes values that emphasize independent judgment and action and favor change, whereas conservation emphasizes values centered on submissive self-restraint, preservation of traditional practices, and protection of stability. On the other hand, self-promotion integrates values related to the pursuit of personal success and dominance over others, while the values associated with self-transcendence highlight accepting others as equals as well as concern for their welfare.

Fontaine, Poortinga, Delbeke, and Schwartz (2008) propose a complementary structure to the bidimensional one that groups values into those that regulate the expression of personal interests and characteristics—personal-centered: self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and power—versus those that regulate relations with others and their effects—social-centered: universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security. Simultaneously, they categorize values into those that express self-expansion without concern—growth values: self-direction, universalism, benevolence, stimulation, and hedonism—versus those values that express selfprotection with concern—protection values: security, power, achievement, conformity, and tradition. Fontaine et al. (2008) explain that this formulation is compatible with the original, as the four quadrants of the bidimensional representation correspond to the four higher-order values of self-promotion versus self-transcendence and openness to change versus conservation (Delfino & Zubieta, 2011).

Alongside values, there is another set of beliefs concerning intergroup relations—social dominance—and intragroup relations—authoritarianism. In reference to the above, the Social Dominance Theory was developed in the last decade of the past century (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle, 1994). It assumes that in all societies, conflict between groups emerges as an inevitable dimension of social life. To reduce conflict and ensure survival, societies create legitimizing myths that sustain inequality, emphasizing the superiority of one group over another, such as in ethnic prejudice, nationalism, sexism, meritocracy, and economic-political conservatism (Roccato, Gattino & Patris, 2000). The presence of high levels of social dominance among members of a group implies a tendency to prefer hierarchical relationships between groups and the superiority of one's own group, which constitutes one of the psychological factors that induces the acceptance of myths legitimizing inequality (Sidanius & Peña, 2003).

Unlike most other theories of prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination in social psychology, social dominance theory assumes that we need to understand the processes of production and maintenance of prejudices and discrimination at multiple levels of analysis, including cultural and political ideologies, institutional practices, individuals’ relationships with others both inside and outside their groups, individuals’ psychological predispositions, and the interaction between the psychologies of evolved men and women (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

An important element that the social dominance theory contributes is the notion of hierarchically reinforcing and attenuating institutions (Sidanius et al., 2004). Members of institutions that reinforce hierarchy tend to be anti-egalitarian, while members of institutions that mitigate hierarchies are relatively egalitarian in their views regarding expected relationships among social groups. In the work conducted by Dambrun et al. (2009) among psychology and law students, as well as in local studies (Zubieta, 2007), it was found that certain university programs emphasize aspects related to social dominance, such as power or the ideology of meritocracy, represented by the Protestant Work Ethic. Students in economics scored higher than psychology students. Furthermore, this relationship was reinforced when comparing students from religious universities to those from non-religious universities, where the former showed a greater tendency toward dominance (Zubieta et al. 2007).

At the intragroup level, authoritarianism focuses on submission to authority figures within membership groups. Altemeyer (1981), based on the theoretical and methodological foundations of the F scale developed by Adorno et al. (1950) to assess authoritarian personality, develops the concept of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). According to his findings, it comprises a combination of three basic attitudes: a) conventionalism or strong adherence to norms established by the hegemonic power; b) authoritarian aggression or the use of violence against minorities and different groups; and c) authoritarian submission or obedience to socially recognized dominant authority. In this context, an empirical study was developed to investigate the profile of values, levels of social dominance, and authoritarianism of a group of university students, as well as possible differences based on grouping variables such as gender, age, and religious practice, among others. Finally, the aim is to verify the existence of associations between values, social dominance, and right-wing authoritarianism.

Method

Study: Descriptive, group differences, and correlational study with a non-experimental, cross-sectional design.

Sample: A non-probabilistic, purposive sample consisting of 359 students. 76.3% are women (n=274) and 23.7% are men (n=85). The mean age is 29.42 years (SD = 10.67; Min. = 18; Max. = 70). Regarding marital status, 75.2% (n=270) are single, 20.1% (n=72) are married or cohabiting, and 3.6% (n=13) are separated or divorced. In terms of birthplace, 47.9% were born in City of Buenos Aires (CABA) (n=172), 32% (n=115) in the Greater Buenos Aires area (Conurbano), 17% (n=61) in the rest of the country, while only 3.1% (n=11) reported coming from another country. Regarding place of residence, 49.3% (n=177) reside in CABA, 42.1% (n=151) in the Conurbano, and 6.4% (n=23) in the rest of the country. Of the total students, 62.4% (n=224) are employed, while 37.6% (n=135) are unemployed. Regarding the work sector, 42.1% (n=151) work in the private sector, 14.2% (n=51) in the public sector, and 5.8% (n=21) in both. Regarding the highest educational level attained, 47.6% (n=171) have completed university studies, 33.1% (n=119) secondary level, 11.7% (n=42) postgraduate level, and 7.2% (n=26) tertiary studies. As for the type of university, 49% (n=176) attend public universities and 46% (n=165) attend private ones.

Procedure: A self-administered virtual questionnaire was applied individually, anonymously, and voluntarily, consisting of questions on sociodemographic and psychosocial data as well as various scales. The application was conducted online over a period of approximately 30 days. Data were collected specifically via the Internet and emails sent to acquaintances, who in turn contacted other acquaintances (snowball method), providing a link to access the material. Before starting the questionnaire, participants had to sign an informed consent form to maintain ethical standards and respect the confidentiality of personal data. Regarding the information obtained, a descriptive data analysis was performed in the first stage, followed by the corresponding statistical calculations for group differences and variable correlations.

Data analysis was conducted using the SPSS statistical package, version 24.

Instruments:

Short Value Scale (21 items) (Schwartz, Lehman, Burgess, Harris & Owens, 2001): Evaluates desirable means or ends in life that guide social behavior. Response options range from 0 (not like me at all) to 5 (very much like me), based on how much the participant identifies with each phrase. Values are grouped into 10 motivational types which, in turn, form two bipolar dimensions: Openness to Change (composed of

Stimulation, Hedonism, and Self-Direction) (Cronbach's α = .595) versus Conservation

(Conformity, Tradition, and Security) (Cronbach's α = .719); and Self-Promotion (Achievement and Power) (Cronbach's α = .714) versus Self-Transcendence

(Universalism and Benevolence) (Cronbach's α = .672).

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO - intergroup relations) (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999): Cultural values of hierarchical distance have been associated with group dominance beliefs relevant to social control. These beliefs, assessed by the SDO, claim that it is desirable and justifiable for one group to dominate others. It shows the degree to which people adhere to a reference framework based on inequality between groups through 16 items where participants respond to what extent they strongly disagree (1) or strongly agree (7) with phrases such as: "Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups," "Group equality should be our ideal." (Cronbach's α = .864).

Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA, Zakrisson, 2005): Composed of 15 items with a response continuum from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Seven items are non-authoritarian statements, while the remaining eight are authoritarian statements. (Cronbach's α = .731).

Results

Psychosocial profile in values, dominance, and authoritarianism

Based on the data shown in Table 1, the value that stands out most among the analyzed subjects is Benevolence, understood as the interest in enhancing the wellbeing of those with whom one is in contact; followed by Universalism, defined as understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and the protection of the well-being of all people and the environment.

Table 1. Mean scores in personal values and underlying motivations.

Thus, Self-Transcendence emerges as the most prominent dimension among the participants, yielding a profile oriented toward values of loyalty, helping others, and seeking equal opportunities. This is followed closely by Self-Direction, Hedonism, and Security. The first of these is sustained by the motivation for independent thought, freedom of action, creativity, and exploration; meanwhile, Hedonism is defined by pleasure and sensory gratification for oneself, and Security is linked to harmony and the stability of society, relationships, and the self.

Stimulation also appears as a prominent value associated with excitement, novelty, and challenges in life. These motivational goals, which comprise the Openness to Change dimension and were considered important by the participants, are likely related to the age of the students, as the majorities are young. Consistently, the dimensions of Conservation and Self-Promotion are those that carry comparatively less weight in describing the value structure of the sample. In this sense, values that emphasize the restriction of actions, acceptance of traditions, personal success, and social status over others are less appreciated.

Regarding beliefs concerning intergroup relations (Social Dominance) and intragroup relations (Authoritarianism), average scores were observed, though they were higher in relation to authoritarianism (See Table 2).

Table 2. Mean scores and standard deviations for social dominance and right-wing authoritarianism

Grouping Variables: Differential Positioning

Gender

No statistically significant differences were found in relation to gender and authoritarianism, but differences were observed in social dominance. Men showed higher levels, distinguishing themselves from women (women's mean: 2.40; SD: 1.23; men's mean: 2.90; SD: 1.33; t = -4.11; p = .000).

Work Sector

Working in the private or public sector, or being unemployed, does not promote differences in the values reported by the students.

University Management

To investigate whether there are differences in values based on the type of university management (public vs. private), a Student's t-test was performed, which revealed the following differences (see Table 3)

Table 3. Differences in values according to University setting

Motivational Type

As can be observed in Table 3, participants pursuing degrees in the private sector show a greater inclination to value Benevolence, Conformity, Tradition, Security, and Power; they appear more conservative, respectful of traditional practices, and promoters of self-transcendence and conservation, compared to those studying at public universities. Regarding dominance, students attending private faculties showed higher levels compared to public university students (public mean: 2.36; SD: 1.27; private mean: 3.00; SD: 1.24; t = -5.23; p = .000).

Religious Practice

With the objective of investigating whether there are differences regarding values in relation to the perceived level of religiosity, a one-way ANOVA test was performed, which revealed the following differences (see Table 4).

Motivational Type Not at all

As can be observed in Table 4 participants who consider religious practice to be "somewhat important," "quite important," or "very important" are strongly associated with values underlying the Conservation dimension—understood as those that reinforce the transcendence of one's own interests in favor of others—distinguishing themselves from those who consider religious faith "not at all important," who attribute less relevance to values emphasizing the protection of stability and traditional practices.

Consistently, individuals who consider religiosity "somewhat important," "quite important," and "very important" value Conformity more than those who grant no importance to the practice of any creed, as this value is strongly linked to respect, consideration for others, and the monitoring of social norms. Thus, Tradition— understood as respect, commitment, and acceptance of customs—emerges as a motivational goal more highly valued by those who consider religion "very important" or

"quite important," in contrast to those who attribute "some" or "no importance" to it.

Similarly, a close link can be found between the value of Security and the importance of religious practice, as a marked difference was established between participants who consider it "very important" versus those for whom professing a creed is "not at all important." In this sense, placing significant importance on religiosity is linked to harmony and social stability.

Furthermore, those who consider the exercise of religious practices "somewhat important," "quite important," and "very important" grant greater relevance to values associated with Benevolence—understood as forgiveness, honesty, and loyalty—unlike those for whom religious practice is "not at all important." A low correlation is observed between religiosity and other dimensions such as Self-Transcendence, Self-Promotion, and Openness to Change. Regarding Social Dominance, participants who perceive themselves as more religious showed significant differences, with higher mean scores (not at all important mean: 2.28; SD: 1.21; somewhat important mean: 2.57; SD: 1.34; quite important mean: 2.71; SD: 1.19; very important mean: 2.80; SD: 1.33; F=2.81; p=.020).

Social Class Perception

It was proposed to investigate whether differences exist regarding values in relation to perceived social class. For this purpose, a one-way ANOVA test was conducted, which revealed the following differences (see Table 5).

Regarding Values and their relationship with social class perception, as reported in Table 5, participants who identify as being part of the "middle" and "high" classes differ from those who self-position as belonging to the "low" class, emphasizing values that underlie the Conservation dimension, such as Tradition and Security.

In this sense, the acceptance of customs, the preservation of harmony, and the stability of society are highly valued, unlike those who perceive themselves as belonging to lower strata.

In relation to Benevolence, participants identifying as part of the "middle" and "high" classes prioritize values associated with enhancing the well-being of people with whom they have frequent personal contact. Regarding Power, differences are established between students who perceive themselves as belonging to the "high" and "low" classes; for the latter, social status over others is of little relevance. Finally, the link between Hedonism and social class perception reflects that respondents who see themselves as members of the "high" class are more inclined toward the pursuit of pleasure and sensory gratification for themselves, unlike those identified with the "low" class, for whom this value is not as relevant. No significant differences were perceived regarding dominance and authoritarianism.

Ideological Positioning

Regarding political positioning and its link to values, as shown in Table 6, participants identified with a "right-wing" and "center" ideology emphasize Conservation values more, distinguishing themselves from those who identify with a "left-wing" position. Respect for customs and social norms, as well as an inclination toward maintaining security and harmony in society, emerge as a highly prominent universe of values. Conversely, students more identified with a "left-wing" leaning turn toward a dimension that includes the importance of independent judgment and action, creativity, and exploration; meanwhile, those reporting a "right-wing" ideological positioning emphasize the importance of power, social status over others, and Self-Direction understood as a need for control and competence.

In relation to Social Dominance, differences were evident through a one-way ANOVA test. Left-wing participants showed the lowest levels (mean=2.13, SD=1.24), followed by those who perceive themselves as center (mean=2.78, SD=1.21), and finally those on the right (mean=3.32, SD=1.25), with statistically significant higher levels in the tendency to prefer hierarchical relationships between groups (F=38.101; p=.000).

Finally, with the objective of investigating whether associations exist between the underlying dimensions of values, social dominance, and right-wing authoritarianism, a Spearman's R correlation was performed. It revealed positive associations between dominance and authoritarianism with Self-Promotion and Conservation, and negative associations between social dominance and Self-Transcendence (see Table 7).

Discussion

The data reported in this study ratify a profile in which values oriented toward Benevolence, Universalism, Self-Direction, Hedonism, and Security predominate. These findings coincide with previous studies also conducted in the Argentine context (Zubieta, Mele & Casullo, 2006; Zubieta, Delfino & Fernández, 2007), which indicate that the motivational goals with the greatest weight are Self-Direction, Hedonism, Benevolence, and Universalism, while the least valued are Achievement, Conformity, Power, and Tradition. The relevance that students grant to the Self-Transcendence and Openness to Change dimensions is consistent with prior work (Zubieta, Fernández & Sosa, 2012; Zubieta, Delfino & Fernández, 2007), where values of independent judgment and action, a taste for challenges, novelty, and the acceptance of others as equals are emphasized, along with a concern for people’s well-being and harmony in social bonds—motivational goals that may be related to the students' age, as most are young. As expected, and in coincidence with other research carried out with university students (Zubieta, Filippi & Báez, 2007), the Conservation and Self-Promotion dimensions have comparatively less weight in describing the value profile of the sample participants, who grant less importance to traditional practices and actions linked to the pursuit of personal success and dominance over others.

Regarding the link between values, dominance, authoritarianism, and the type of university, students pursuing degrees in the private sector appear more Benevolent, Conformist, and respectful of Tradition, showing a greater tendency to prefer hierarchical relationships between groups and the superiority of one's own group than those in the public sector, while granting greater relevance to the promotion of security and the protection of stability and harmony in relations with others.

When investigating the relationship between values and religious practice, it is observed that students who grant high importance to religiosity consider values included in the Conservation dimension "very important." Consistent with the work of Saroglou, Delpierre, and Dernelle (2004), religiosity is associated with a strong importance attributed to the values of Conformity, Security, and Tradition, which are oriented toward the acceptance of social norms and the construction of respectful bonds with others, while showing a low relationship with Self-Direction, Hedonism, and Stimulation. Along these lines, the work of Schwartz and Huismans (1995) on human values and religion maintains that religious practice shares a set of values oriented toward maintaining social order and protecting individuals from uncertainty (Zubieta, Fernández & Sosa, 2012). It is also the most religious students who show the highest agreement with social dominance.

Regarding ideological positioning and its relationship with values, and in coincidence with local research composed of students from the Greater Buenos Aires area (Zubieta, Delfino & Fernández, 2007), a marked relationship is evidenced between participants who identify more with a "center" ideology and motivational goals included in the Conservation dimension, as opposed to those who positioned themselves in a "left-wing" ideology, who are positively associated with Openness to Change and SelfDirection. Similarly, participants who perceive themselves as having a right-wing ideology show greater conformity with the idea of superiority between groups. In terms of values and social class perception, students who self-perceive as being part of the "middle" and "high" classes consider Conservation and Benevolence values very important, unlike those who position themselves as part of the "low" class, who show less valuation for Power and Hedonism. Finally, no significant differences were reported in the value structure of students according to gender, nor regarding whether they work in the public or private sector or are unemployed. However, in social dominance, male participants showed greater agreement.

The results of this study, along with previous research findings, ratify the importance of studying psychosocial variables in university students. Furthermore, they evidence how RWA and SDO function as separate but complementary dimensions depending on the social context (Sibley & Duckitt, 2013). The findings suggest that, despite contexts of political polarization, the Argentine university environment continues to be a space for the reproduction of democratic and self-transcendence values, operating as a counterweight to authoritarian tendencies or the maintenance of traditional social hierarchies (Pratto et al., 2006).

Regarding methodological limitations, they refer on one hand to gender bias, as the majority of students are women, which could be related to the low levels of SDO and RWA reported. Another limitation of the study refers mainly to those inherent in nonprobabilistic purposive samples, which basically prevent the generalization of results. However, it is worth noting that the data from this work coincide in a high proportion with other research in the area that has satisfactorily validated the questionnaires and scales used. The cross-sectional nature of the study may overshadow the bidirectionality of the variables analyzed. Future longitudinal research would contribute to the enrichment of the present study.

Bibliographic References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.

Ahrens, C. R. & Innes, J. M. (1994). Attribution of right-wing authoritarianism as a function of self-perceived political opinion. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 383-385.

Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Dambrun, M., Kamiejski, R., Haddadi, N. & Duarte, S. (2009). Why does social dominance orientation decrease with university exposure to the social sciences? The impact of institutional socialization and the mediating role of "geneticism". European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 88-100.

Delfino, G. & Zubieta, M. (2010). Values and Politics. Analysis of the Axiological Profile of University Students in the City of Buenos Aires. Research Institute. Faculty of Psychology. University of Buenos Aires.

Fontaine, J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L. & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures. Distinguishing sampling fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(4), 345-465.

Páez, D. (2007). Beliefs, Values, and Well-being. (Technical Document). San Sebastián: University of the Basque Country.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271-320. DOI: 10.1080/10463280601055772.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Bertram, F. Malle. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.

Roccato, M., Gattino, S. & Patris, E. (2000). Personality, values, and political orientation. Psicología Política, 21, 73-97.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Belief, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Saraglou, V., Delpierre, V. & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s models. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 721-734.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.

Schwartz, S., M, G, Lehman, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M. & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519-542.

Sidanius, J., & Peña, Y. (2003). The Gendered Nature of Family Structure and Groupbased Anti-egalitarianism: A Cross-national Analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 243-251.

Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sibley, C. G. & Duckitt, J. (2013). The dual process model of ideology and prejudice: A longitudinal test during a global recession. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(4), 448–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.757544.

Zakrisson, I. (2005). Construction of a short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 863-872.

Zubieta, E., Delfino, G. I. & Fernández, O. D. (2007). Institutional Trust and the mediating role of beliefs and values. Revista de Psicología, 3(6), 101-120.

Zubieta, E. M. (2008). Human values and social behavior. In M. M. Casullo (Comp.), Practices in Positive Psychology. Buenos Aires: Lugar Editorial.

Zubieta, E. M., Mele, S. & Casullo, M. M. (2006). Value structure and religiosity in the Argentine urban adult population. Psicodiagnosticar, 16, 53-60.

Zubieta, E. M., Mele, S. & Casullo, M. M. (2006). Value structure and religiosity in the Argentine urban adult population. Psicodiagnosticar, 16, 53-60.

Zubieta, E. M., Delfino, G. I. & Fernández, O. D. (2007). Social dominance, values, and ideological positioning in young university students. Psicodebate, 8, 151-169.

Zubieta, E. M. & Delfino, G. I. (2010). Life satisfaction, psychological well-being, and social well-being in university students of Buenos Aires. Anuario de Investigaciones, 17, 277-283.

Zubieta, E., Fernández, O. & Sosa, F. (2012). Well-being, values, and associated variables. Boletín de Psicología, 106, 7-27.

Información adicional

redalyc-journal-id: 6723