The Quiet Ego: Motives for Self-Other Balance and Growth in Relation to Well-Being

According to Schwartz et al. (2012), and most recently, Ralston et al. (2011), the first-order value clusters can be further combined into two sets of second-order clusters. The first set are called “self-focused” and “other-focused” values. Self-focused values include power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction, and these values primarily regulate how an individual expresses personal interests and characteristics. Other-focused values include benevolence, universalism, tradition, conformity, and security, and these values primarily regulate how individuals relate socially to others. As with our other hypotheses regarding the QES representing a balanced approach to self- and other concern, we expected that QES would correlate positively with both self- and other-focused values. The second set of second-order values are called “growth” and “self-protective” values. Growth values (hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, and benevolence) reflect motivations related to eudaimonic growth (Bauer 2008). Given that quiet ego is theorized to reflect growth-mindedness, we expected that the QES should be related to growth values. Self-protective values include conformity, tradition, security, and power and help individuals cope with “uncertainty in the social and physical world” (Schwartz 2012, p. 14). Again, given that QES reflects both self- and other concern, we expected a modest relationship between QES and self-protective values. Achievement is believed to share elements of self-protection and growth and is not included in either second-order value cluster. Thus, we expected QES to be most positively related to self-focused values, and to a lesser extent, self-protection values (both values reflecting self-concern), with other-focused values (concern for others), and with growth.

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the 10 value items, with the values loading onto their respective latent factors: self-enhancement (SE), self-transcendence (ST), openness to change (OC), conservation (C). The four latent variables were allowed to correlate. Model fit was improved by adding correlated error terms. We incrementally added these error terms to the model and observed improvement in model fit and compared factor loadings and correlations among the latent factors. A final model that added 10 pairs of correlated error terms fit extremely well, X ²(11) = 15.81, p = 25, CFI = 1.0, NNFI = 1.0, SRMR = .02, RMSEA = .02, 90% CI [.00, .04]. The final factor loadings and between factor correlations were all significant (p < .001) and extremely similar to those found in the initial model. The factor loadings were as follows: Self-Enhancement (power = .40, achievement = .92), Self-Transcendence (benevolence = .66, universalism = .83), Openness to Change (self-direction = .91, stimulation = .76), and Conservation (security = .47, conformity = .40, tradition = .74). The first-order value clusters were also intercorrelated (range .44 to .73), similar to results investigating the factor structure of the SVS (Perrinjaquet et al. 2007; Schwartz and Boehnke 2004).

According to Schwartz et al. (2012), universally, the values are typically ranked in this order: benevolence, universalism, self-direction, security, conformity, hedonism, achievement, tradition, stimulation, and power. Overall, our study respondents reported the values of achievement and security as most important, followed by self-direction, universalism, and benevolence. The lowest ranked value was nearly always power. We calculated the relative rank of our sample’s values (across the five samples). The ranked order of values in our sample differed from universal preferences, most notably because achievement and security were typically ranked first and second in our sample (Spearman rank correlations ranged from .46 to .49).

Here we wish to give a sense of the relative strength of relations between QES and its predicted correlates. The correlation between QES and other-focused values was significantly stronger than the one between QES and self-focused values, z = 4.67, p < .001. The correlation between QES and other-focused values was significantly stronger than the one between QES and self-focused values, z = 4.67, p < .001.Correlation between GMI and growth values was significantly stronger than between GMI and self-protection values, z = 7.07, p < .001. Correlations between GMI and self-focused values and other-focused values were statistically equivalent, z = −1.70, p = .11. Compassionate goals were more strongly correlated with other-focused values compared to self-focused values, z = 8.36, p < .001); more strongly correlated with growth values compared to self-protection values, z = 5.71, p < .001. Self-image goals were more strongly correlated with self-protection values compared to growth values, z = 6.62, p < .001), and only modestly (but equally) associated with both self-focused values and other-focused values, z = .61, p = .54.

The indirect path from QES to well-being, via the ratio of compassionate to self-image goals was .08, SE = .01, z = 5.69, p < .001, 95% CI [.05, .11]. The indirect path from QES to well-being, via the GMI was .07, SE = .02, z = 3.71, p < .001, 95% CI [03, .10].