摘要:本文是英语毕业论文,本研究将所得结果与 2011 年上海外国语大学做的上海地区价值观研究结果进行对比,此对比进一步验证了价值观具备动态变化的特点且易受到生活环境影响。最后,作者就今后中国价值观实证研究的方法和方向提出了新的建议。
Shaanxi by using the Schwartz Value Survey. Two years later, Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) was applied by Kulich and his associates to collect data in 1995-1997, and 2003. It was a part of the research project under the Shanghai Chinese Values Project (SCVP) and had great significance. Later in 2008, Schwartz Value Survey was used by Zhang Yangfan to study the value priorities of Chinese students. Meanwhile, she compared her research result with the data from the previous two similar studies in 2003 and 1995-1997.
.........
Chapter Three Theoretical Framework ........ 18
3.1 Content of the Values Theory .... 18
3.2 Values at the Individual Level .......... 18
3.3 Values at the Cultural Level ....... 22
3.4 Schwartz’s Measurements of Values ....... 25
Chapter Four Research Design and Methodology ..... 27
4.1 Research Questions ..... 27
4.2 Participants .... 27
4.3 Instruments .... 28
4.4 Procedure ....... 29
4.5 Data Analysis ........ 30
Chapter Five Research Results and Discussions ......... 32
5.1 Concerning Values Priorities ..... 32
5.1.1 Findings ...... 32
5.1.2 Discussions ........ 34
5.2 Concerning Value Structure ....... 36
5.2.1 Findings ...... 36
5.2.2 Discussions ........ 40
5.3 Concerning Descriptive Demographic
statistics .......... 42
Chapter Five Research Results and Discussions
5.1 Concerning Values Priorities
According to Schwartz, what affects behavior and attitudes is the tradeoff among relevant values, not the importance of any one value. For instance, two people rate hedonism values 3 (somewhat like me). Despite this same rating, hedonism obviously has higher priority for a person who rates all other values higher (4-a little like me; 5-not like me; 6-not like me at all) than for one who rates all other values lower (2-like me; 1-very much like me). Therefore, in order to measure value priorities accurately, the mean rating of each value item which represents the importance of each basic value to the respondents was calculated. From Table 5.1, it’s easy to find that the university students’ responses to the ten different value types were almost similar on the whole. The mean rating of each value type is relatively high: from 2.46 to 3.36. In other words, with respect to the value orientation of the university students, the distinction among the ten value types is quite small. Therefore, the contemporary university students show a diversified value type in some degree. However, if viewed from the rank order of the ten value type, it also can be found that the most importan
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。