Competing values in public opinion: A conjoint analysis

Michal Shamir, Jacob Shamir

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Scopus citations

Abstract

Values have been conceptualized as inherently comparative and competitive. As such they require the setting of priorities and value trade-offs, and we suggest that conjoint analysis provides an appropriate operationalization of values so conceptualized. Compared to the commonly used rating and ranking methods, conjoint analysis is less obtrusive and its task design simulates real-life considerations more closely. We suggest that it provides value importance scores that are more realistic, less abstract, less declarative, and less tainted by social desirability. Moreover, conjoint measurement offers a fuller description of value systems, including value balancing and weighting, combinations, and interactions among values. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of conjoint analysis in the measurement of values, and apply it to competing values in current Israeli politics. This analysis yields new findings on the value structure of Israeli Jews. We find that two values override in Israeli Jews' considerations: the most basic notion of Zionism-Israel as a Jewish state with a Jewish majority-and peace. Democracy is found to have no significance on its own, but in interaction with the other values that count, it is cherished. Greater Israel has only marginal significance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)107-133
Number of pages27
JournalPolitical Behavior
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1995
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Competing values in public opinion: A conjoint analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this